POL00022213
POL00022213
[POST OFFICE LETTERHEAD]
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Ron Warrington & lan Harrington
Second Sight Support Services Limited
7 Cannon Grove
Yarm
Teesside
TS15 9XE
[] August 2014
Dear Sirs
Second Sight’s Part Two Mediation Briefing Report (‘the Report”)
Further to our conversation on Monday you asked that Post Office put its preliminary comments
on the Report in writing. As you emphasised on the call, it is vital to have an audit trail of what
comments are made and how consideration of those comments is reflected in the Report.
I would stress again that it is disappointing that you are unwilling to sit down and go through the
Report in detail at this stage. Post Office is concerned to make brisk progress on the completion
of this Report. However, the overriding aim as far as Post Office is concerned is for the Report
to assist Applicants and a mediator. Post Office takes this very seriously.
The process by which this is achieved, is in our view, secondary to achieving the delivery of a
high quality Report which supports the objectives of the Scheme and, importantly, the Applicants
as parties to the Scheme, and achieves this in a way that ensures value for money to taxpayers.
This was the basis on which we agreed to your suggestion for a more thematic Report which
can be referred to in shorter more focussed Case Reports.
To that end, as we discussed, the Report must be thorough, accurate, well evidenced and as
complete as it can be at this time. As drafted, Post Office is concerned that it does not achieve
that. Whilst we understand that the Report may be added to over time, given the substantial
time and money already invested in the investigation so far, Post Office would have expected
your investigations and analysis of the issues and evidence to have been further advanced than
this Report suggests.
Although you have requested only minor factual comments, as we discussed on Monday, Post
Office considers that the factual errors are inextricably linked to the more substantive issues I
raised. Post Office does expect the answers it has given to the questions asked by Second
Sight are duly considered, and for that this consideration is reflected in Second Sight’s analysis
and findings (even, or, perhaps especially) if Second Sight disagrees, so that the parties are
able to consider this well in advance of mediation.
A18563934/0.0a/08 Aug 2014
POL00022213
POL00022213
Post Office sets out below our high level comments with more detailed comments on sections of
the Report provided in the Appendix to this letter. To be absolutely clear, the comments that
follow are in no way aimed at fettering Second Sight’s independence. The aim of these
comments is to support the production of a high quality Report which in turn will assist
Applicants and contribute to the success of the Scheme.
Many of these comments are similar to ones we have made previously on a number of
occasions in various discussions and exchanges about documents Second Sight has produced
during the period of your engagement. As I explained, there is a value for money issue as it
takes substantial time and resource to continue to comment on matters that have already been
addressed.
Enquiries On-going
As it stands, as I pointed out when we spoke, the Report references a number of issues where
‘enquiries are on-going’ and it is hard to see how that assists an Applicant who has raised one of
the ‘thematic issues’ and expects to find further useful information in the Part Two Report. In
fact, it could be that an Applicant may decline mediation, or resolution, until those “enquiries”
have been completed. At the very least, I would expect Second Sight to be able to describe the
actual problem that sits beneath the broad ‘thematic issue’; cite the number of instances this
problem has been cited by Applicants; reference the number of cases which Second Sight have
investigated; and provide an analysis of the evidence Second Sight has considered. That would
give the applicant, and Post Office, a clear understanding of the current position.
Evidence, analysis and context
The Report lacks facts or examples or statistics to substantiate the speculative conclusions it
does draw. The Report also fails to describe the overarching methodology used by Second
Sight to examine the issues presented. Post Office considers that these are fundamental
requirements for a Report purporting to provide sound investigative analysis and conclusions. It
also appears to present allegations from Applicants as established facts that have been
accepted by Second Sight.
Scope
The scope of Second Sight's original investigation, and the matters which are within the scope
of the Scheme are matters “concerning Horizon and any associated issues”. This is made clear
on the Application Form and in Second Sight’s letter of engagement. Matters such as
Subpostmaster contracts and criminal, or indeed any other legal, matters are not reasonably
related (or related at all) to issues concerning Horizon and any associated issues.
For the purpose of Second Sight’s investigations, the Subpostmaster Contract is relevant only to
the extent that it is necessary to consider the benchmark against, and legal framework within
which the actions of Post Office and Applicants must be assessed. But it is not a legitimate, or
indeed useful part of Second Sight’s investigations for it to be attempting to test that benchmark
or questioning or suggesting alterations to that framework.
A18563934/0.0a/08 Aug 2014 Page 2 of 3
POL00022213
POL00022213
Failure by Second Sight to draw conclusions or make assessments against this benchmark, or,
to put it another way, for Second Sight to, in effect, seek to retrospectively impose obligations on
Post Office (or indeed Applicants) which it did not and does not have, will inevitably result in
conclusions which have no foundation and, importantly, may impede a successful resolution of
the complaint.
Furthermore, and importantly, Second Sight are forensic accountants and were specifically
engaged on that basis. As we discussed, you are not qualified as either criminal or commercial
lawyers and therefore not qualified to comment on such matters. This is especially important in
a document on which Applicants may rely in either mediation or legal hearings. It is, therefore,
inappropriate for Second Sight to refer to such matters in the Report.
Conclusion
I attach an Appendix containing more detailed comments and look forward to receiving a full
response to the points raised before a draft of your Report is circulated to the Working Group or
at least at the same time.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
[Chris Aujard
General Counsel]
A18563934/0.0a/08 Aug 2014 Page 3 of 3