POL00023296
POL00023296
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
Privilege — a reminder
Legal privilege = vital to success
Do not discuss any legal advice or anything to do with SPMR
settlements with:
+ Anyone outside Post Office
+ JFSA
+ Second Sight
+ Subpostmasters
+ BIS/ MPs
* Your teams unless absolutely necessary
Never use legai advice or information about SPMR settlements for any
purpose other than in relation to the Scheme.
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
Cetetat aha tatatetatatatetniate
PSS te
aia stetstetetaa sentria taa crtcteteitate
_ Objectives
Scheme policy
_ Settlement process
1
z
3
QO
o
QO
fs
oO
a
Cc
2
o
Q)
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
Objectives of the Scheme
+ Listen to SPMRs concems
+ Explain Post Office's position
+ Offer solutions where possible
+ Compensate if loss has been unfairly suffered
+ Identify any convictions that have grounds for review
* Demonstrate that Post Office is being transparent
* Ensure that Post Office's decisions are defer
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
Topics for today
Begin to establish principles of settlement including:
* When will a remedy be offered?
« What types of remedy will be available?
+ How much compensation may be paid?
Deliverable: Settlement Policy
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
Settlement policy — why?
1. Many different types of case ~ need for consistency
2. Ensure compliance with criminal appeal process
3. Control size of scheme / scope of settlement
4. Assist Post Office in preparing for difficult cases / decisions
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
Aggregate settlement scope
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
Recommended settlement process
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
RAMA ARS Re
Coit
eatahatatevotetatatotanoraterrtore
reolotetotetstsatetatasnterstetetetetsieatet
o
&
a
AAC!
Settlement p
_ Settlement options
oLeee seam,
HW princh jes
Settlement thresholds
ce rrpencal i
1
z
3
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
1. Settlement options
Explanation of issue v v v v
Apology v v v x
Compensation v v vo x
Costs v v v x
Commitment to change vo v v *
Branch improvements v x x x
Support criminal appeal x x v x
Support reversal of x v v x
bankruptcy
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
2. Compensation principles
Depends on SPMR's remuneration Loss probably capped at 3 month's
level remuneration as POL always has a right
to terminate on 3 months' notice (save if
POL has acted in bad faith)
Depends on value of individual Difficult to claim because POL could
business always terminate on 3 months’ notice and
so loss of branch and subsequent loss of
wider retail business was always at risk.
ifficult to value in cash terms. These types of loss are generally
irrecoverable at law for most claims.
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
2. Compensation principles
epends on nature of legal support Typically only reasonable and
ut SPMRs can exceed more than _ proportionate legal costs are recoverable.
the POL contribution level for legal
support.
_ Depends on nature of legal support Typically only reasonable and
rovided to SPMR. proportionate legal costs are recoverable.
lepends on nature of sentence- Wrongful convictions are usually
isually comprises a combination of compensated by the state rather than the
ss of earnings and reputation prosecutor.
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
2. Compensation principles
+ Limitation - claims over 6 years old are generally irrecoverable at law.
Should settlements be offered on old claims?
+ Causation —At law, SPMRs need to show that their complaints have
actually caused, or at least materially contributed to, the losses claimed.
This is more difficult for claims relating to, say, a lack of training and
support. Should Post Office insist on evidence of causation?
+ Remoteness - Peculiar or excessive losses that are unforeseeable to
POL may not recoverable at law. Should POL compensate these types
of losses?
+ Mitigation - At law, SPMRs are obliged to take reasonable steps to
reduce their losses (for example, minimising decline in retail business).
Should POL be looking for evidence of mitigation before offering a
settlement?
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
3. Settlement thresholds
Very clear proof of a technical © POL should be slow to concede that
defect in Horizon. Horizon has any technical faults. To
do so, could open the floodgates to a
large number of claims. It will be
almost impossible to reverse this
position if conceded.
Clear proof that a specific branch Hardware failures should be
had defective equipment localised to a particular branch so
less risk of a flood of claims by
making a concession.
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
3. Settlement thresholds
SPMR identifies a specific
problem transaction that did not
have a clear or established
operating practice.
SPMR shows that they have
sought support and that the
support did not (1) solve the
issue and/or (2) POL failed to
follow its established practices.
General complaints about POL's
standard training are not
sufficient. SPMR needs to
identify special circumstances
that made training inadequate.
Issue should be confined to a
specific problem so to allow that
problem to be discretely defined and
remedied without undermining all
transaction processes.
Issue is confined to the specific
circumstances of an SPMR so less
risk of negative consequences when
offering a remedy.
POL should be slow to concede that
its general training is defective as
defective training could impact on a
large number of branches. To do so,
could open the floodgates to a large
number of claim.
Confidential and legally privileged
POL00023296
POL00023296
3. Settlement thresholds
General complaints about a lack Issue should be confined to a
of visibility of historic specific problem so to allow that
transactions are not sufficient. problem to be discretely defined and
SPMR needs to show a problem remedied without undermining all
with the audit trail of a specific transaction processes.
product / transaction.
Clear evidence that POL failed to Offering any remedy may undermine
look into specific issues (not a conviction and so any remedy in
general complaints) raised by this situation needs to be considered
the SPMR or failed to followits with great care.
normal investigation processes.
Confidential and legally privileged