POL00023941
POL00023941
Message
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 08/04/2019 22:
To: Andrew Parson:
cc: 4
{ Angela Van-Den-Bogerd Zoe Brauer
Subject: Postmaster Litigation - Options
Andy
AS discussed, Al and I had a meeting with Norton Rose on Friday to test our thinking on litigations outcomes. Those
outcomes include:
limiting our liability for compensation to those who actually have legitimate cases
public recognition that Horizon works and can be relied upon
ensuring that we have 'fit for purpose’ contracts and ways of working
maintaining the stability of the agent population, and
bringing the litigation to a close in a way that limits ‘follow on' cases, enables the business to continue to
operate on broadly the current basis, and on a cost effective basis.
The following points came out of Friday's discussion, and I suspect will come up in the briefing on Thursday
regarding appeal strategy:
on the assumption that the Horizon litigation continues under Justice Fraser, is there anything 'symbolic' that we
can say to him, that illustrates that we have heard the criticism of past practices and are listening?
if a new judge is (eventually) appointed:
o howdo we ensure that we do not get him offside too?
odo we have any options to change witnesses?
o how do we steer the evidence to demonstrate that the current version of Horizon has addressed the
issues associated with legacy Horizon?
o how do we distinguish between ‘systems issues' (with a view to demonstrating that Horizon is robust)
from the way in which Post Office has historically responded to/used its output, where we may more
readily accept criticism of past approaches?
in relation to the Appeal of the Common Issues judgment:
o what points can we concede?
co what are the 'must have' points on appeal - this will need to be discussed carefully. Given the
timeframe before an appeal is heard, we will need to adapt our current operating practices,
documentation etc. Therefore we need to be clear that the purpose of the appeal is to protect legacy
contractual provisions. Tom Cooper has already challenged whether provisions that make the agent
liable for losses are morally defensible, and we need to consider these carefully and be able to explain
the underlying rationale. Namely, that liability flows from the agency relationship given agents are
custodians of public monies. Over-turning/abandoning the agency relationship would leave in doubt the
basis on which agents hold cash and our right to have it repaid. Further there are now significant
challenges in amending the contract in any material way that would be perceived to be favourable to
Post Office.
in relation to future trials:
© redactions and claims for privilege need to be carefully reviewed
o choices of witness need to be carefully considered
there was also a discussion as to whether we should abandon our previous practice of not commenting
on individual cases. this is finely balanced - we have intimated criticism of witnesses in both the
Common Issues and Horizon trials and been criticised for doing so; however the public perception
POL-0020420
POL00023941
POL00023941
remains that there is no justification for our stance. Personally, I think it would be more damaging to
discuss these cases publicly, however we should consider what can legitimately be brought into
evidence.
I suspect a number of these points will come up in the discussion on Thursday, so I wanted you to be
aware. We can discuss tomorrow if that would be helpful.
Jane
Jane MacLeod
Group Director of Legal, Risk & Governance
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 94Q
GRO
Mobile number
2A I 222 RRR FA IE RRR I 2A RR RI IEDR oR FIBA RR BG RR RR CEES
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you
have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
2A 4 RR fA RR A ARR A R28 Af 828 2 A RR BR
“Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy. Information about how we do this can be found
on our website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy”
POL-0020420