POL00025050
POL00025050
Message
From: Jane Macleod [{~
Sent: 27/11/2016 22:04:43
To: Parsons, Andrew [/o=Exchange-Org/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF 23SPDI ipients/cn=ad9ed344815 ; Rodric Williams
GRO I; Mark Underwood ; Patrick Bourke
Rob Houghton
cc: Prime, Amy [/o=Exchange-Org/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=ab7222dda3a9453eaed5751238a59562-Amy Prime]; Lukas, Elisa
[/o=Exchange-Org/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=f3b6e101da614ce09447519b332f50d1-Elisa Lukas]
Subject: RE: Letter to Freeths - legally privileged [BD-4A.FID26896945]
Thanks Andy
Ihave no substantive comments, however please note the following:
e Have we had any indication to date from Freeths as to how governance of their claims is managed? In para 15.6
{and others in that section) you discuss security for costs — all of which are fine. However I would like to
understand how we can tactically use governance questions as part of the ‘separation’ assessment. There
already seem to be a series of ‘groupings’ that we argue should be treated differently (postmasters/Crown
employees/ assistants, criminal v non-criminal, individuals v corporates, etc etc) and I wonder whether we
should somehow infer that we want to know that the cost conflicts between these different groups gave been
addressed?
e in 10.6 we make the point that there are a number of criminal cases that have not been referred to the CCRC;
can we also emphasise the point that none of the criminal cases have been appealed (so that any ‘stay’ should
be for the longer of {i} a CCRC decision to refer the matter or (ii) an appeal? — {I think that works .....)
© 9.2.4 there is a statement “If any Claimants are saying that Fujitsu staff have misused their access rights so as to
create false shortfalls in their branch accounts,” - should this be ‘any’ access rights (given the discussion in the
next section}?
e 9.3.1 ~can we say that this witness statement was provided to Second Sight {if it was?)
e The issues raised in 9.3.5 read as if they are different to the issues discussed in 9.17 ~ 9.19. Are they? If not we
should not separate them out. I note that Deloitte have not been able to say categorically that PO staff cannot
change the system, but it does seem odd if we allow the possibility that PO could change the operating details
of an outsourced service. Can we therefore address this and the administrator access point together? The
language in 9.3.5 (and to a lesser extent 9.4-9.11) is difficult and reads in a slightly alarmist way.
e is it possible to say in 9.3 in relation to the line of questioning points (and the following is not suggested drafting
):
o Ineach of these cases, we were responding to specific ~ often narrowly constructed questions. In each
case we sought to answer the specific question that was put to us [, and did so based on enquiries in PO
and FJ}
© Inlight of the ongoing challenges [and the wording of the allegations within the Freeths’
correspondence] we have therefore considered the question more widely. As is entirely normal in all
[IT] systems, there are a limited number of system administrators within Fi who technically have access
to Horizon databases in a way which theoretically could allow a change to branch accounts. There are a
significant range of controls in place to limit access to the databases and the stored data and ...(using
wording from 9.18) .... to make it very difficult (and in many cases impossible) to add, amend or delete
data without leaving an audit trail in the system. These controls will of course be subject to further
investigation and evidence in the course of these proceedings should your clients choose to pursue
these allegations on a properly particularised basis.
POL-0021529
POL00025050
POL00025050
o [then go on to set out the arguments in 9.4-9.11]
e inthis context is it possible to tone down the ‘regrets language’ eg in 9.3.5, 9.5, and 9.6 to something along the
lines of ‘with the benefit of hindsight it is now possible to construe those statements as deficient in that they
did not address the question of administrator access. In each case PO was seeking to address the question that
had been raised. PO did not intend to make any misleading statements nor was it wilfully or deliberately
reckless in doing so. The Post Office personnel responsible for those statements believed the statements when
they were made in the context in which they were made. What was said reflected what they understood the
position to be after making relevant enquiries. [Unfortunately,th i t-pickup-on-thet ofPupitsy
dministrat + OFF; Id have-tiked}
Otherwise, I have no specific comments. Thanks to the BD team for getting this out over the w/e.
Jane
& Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number:
From: Parsons, Andrew [,_
Sent: 27 November 2016 09:38
To: Jane MacLeod
Underwood?
Rodric William:
} Patrick Bourke
35 Mark
; Rob Houghton
Cc: Prime, Amy£. L
Subject: Letter to Freeths - legally privileged [BD-4A.FID26896945]
5
All
Please find attached a draft Letter to Freeths in response to their last substantive letter (copy also attached). This
incorporates comments from Tony and Rod.
The majority of this letter addresses legal and procedural points. The key substantive area is section 9 on Remote
Access (in particular, Rob, I'd be really grateful if you could review this section).
Following feedback from Deloitte, we cannot definitively say that PO (as distinct from FJ) never had the ability to change
Horizon data because Deloitte and the current staff at FJ just don't have enough knowledge of Old Horizon to confirm
this. This was a point made in an early draft but it has now been removed.
We have (I hope) now found a formulation of words that avoids having to overtly throw FJ to the wolves and avoids any
risk of waiving privilege in any documents, but still gives us a fair story to tell. We have also toned down the admissions
of making incorrect statements, though they are still there. I hope this might make it easier to get this letter cleared
through GE and FJ.
We have a call scheduled for 5pm tomorrow with Tony which we can use to run through any comments. Comments by
email before then are also welcomed.
The final version of the letter will be thoroughly proof read before sending so please ignore any typos.
Kind regards
Andy
POL-0021529
POL00025050
POL00025050
Andrew Parsons
Partner
or darnage
SRR A EO RR RI RRR A A ARR RR OR RR RR AO FR OR A A ROR RR fA
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 A 2124 RR Rf A 21 R28 2 10K 28 2 FFA 2 RF BK 0K 08 RB 10K 08 28 of aa a
POL-0021529