POL00025417
POL00025417
Message
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 22/07/2016 06:
To: Mark Underwood,
cc: p6]; Thomas P Moran
Rob Houghton [f
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd Patrick
Bourke [/ Nick Sambridge
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Thanks Mark this is helpful (ish!)
To all on this email chain, please do not forward this email to anyone else as it is critical that we maintain privilege
around it.
Given the statements that Mark has collated, can we please reference the advice from Fujitsu that we have relied on in
making these statements (for example did we show FJ the drafts of these before making them etc?), as clearly there is a
gap between these and what we now understand may be the case.
Andy, once this is available would you please consider whether this affects the legal risk and approach? Mark D (and
others) - we need to consider the positioning around the current wording in light of these statements.
Thanks all.
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
T 7
Sent from my iPad
On 21 Jul 2016, at 22:42, Mark Underwoodi,
wrote:
All,
I have been through the Scheme Chronology and reviewed for statements made by Post Office re
Remote Access. Please find attached what I feel are the key statements made publically.
Mark
From: Parsons, Andrew [.
Sent: 21 July 2016 20:00
To: Thomas P Moran; Mark Underwood
Cc: Mark R Davies; Jane MacLeod; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-
Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Nick Sambridge
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
Tom
I think we have agreed wording on the Post Office side. Tony has already signed off. [i've sent the
wording to both FJ and Deloitte and asked for comments by cob tomorrow.
Kind regards
Andy
POL-0021896
POL00025417
POL00025417
Andrew Parsons
Partner
<imag
Direct
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003.jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Thomas P Moran [7
Sent: 21 July 2016 19:42
To: Mark Underwoos
Cc: Mark R Davies; Parsons, Andrew; Jane MacLeod; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton; Rodric Williams;
Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Nick Sambridge
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
Sorry I couldn't dial in - I think Tom will have given my apologies.
Mark/Andy. Please can you set out the timeline for approving this text (eg Deloitte, FJ) if this is
necessary.
Completely agree that making sure we are not contradicting previous statements is vital.
Tom
On Jul 21, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Mark Underwood; > wrote:
Mark, I will take a look at what we have said previously
Mark
Get Outlook for iOS
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:21 PM +0100, "Mark R Davies"
p> wrote:
1am stuck with a live issue at present. My uneasiness on this issue is why we can't give a
firmer position on the super user point before we reply?
I suspect I know the answer but the current wording leaves us vulnerable and we would
need to look at what we have said publicly (select committee, panorama etc...) before
we commit the position.
Mark
POL-0021896
POL00025417
POL00025417
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:02, Parsons, Andrew
wrote:
All
In case it helps, please find attached an amended version including
Rob's comments earlier
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Direct: I GRO
Mobile:
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003.,jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 15:02
To: 'Mark R Davies’; 'Angela Van-Den-Bogerd'
Cc: 'Thomas P Moran’; 'Rodric Williams’; ‘Patrick Bourke’; 'Rob
Houghton’; ‘Tom Wechsler’; 'Nick Sambridge’; ‘Jane MacLeod’; 'Mark
Underwood:-}
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege
[BD-4A.FID26859284]
Mark
In response to your question in the other email thread about seeing
everything we have said about "remote access", we don't have a central
tog of everything POL has said on remote access. However, the
language used in the email referenced below (attached again) is
reflective of the language used by POL towards the end of the Scheme.
We have also previously compiled POL’s comments on this topic that
were made in individual case reports (see attached), which gives a
flavour of the responses given. This should however be treated with
caution as these responses span a two year period and POL's
understanding of the situation changed over time.
One of the tasks we could do (albeit this will need to be after the LOR
has been sent) is to compile a complete chronology of what POL was
told and what POL has said on this topic. One to discuss on our call
later.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
POL-0021896
POL00025417
POL00025417
Partner
Follow Bond Dickinso
<image002,jpg><image003.jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:49
To: ‘Mark R Davies'; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Rob Houghton;
Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark Underwood)
Subject: RE: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege
[BD-4A.FID26859284]
Quote from SS' Report:
“This ability to directly amend branch records is something that Post
Office has consistently denied was possible. This recently discovered
evidence appears to confirm, that in 2010 at least, it was possible for
Fujitsu / Post Office to directly amend branch data without the
knowledge of the relevant Subpostmaster.
14.16. In commenting on a draft of this report Post of Office told us that
the references to “amend” and “correct” in the documents mentioned
above, are not strictly correct as neither Post Office nor Fujitsu have the
ability to directly change or delete existing records. All that can be done
is that additional records can be added by Post Office / Fujitsu without
the consent (and possibly the knowledge) of the relevant
Subpostmaster. This will, however, have the effect of altering balances
at the branch, as both debit and credit entries can be made.
14.17. Post Office also told us:
“All of the above processes for correcting / updating a branch's accounts
have similar features. All of them involve inputting a new transaction
into the branch's records (not editing or removing any previous
transactions) and all are shown transparently in the branch transaction
records available to Subpostmasters (as well as in the master ARQ data).
The language used in the documents produced by Post Office / Fujitsu
and to which you refer is unfortunate colloquial shorthand used by those
working on the Horizon system. I can see how it could be read to suggest
that Post Office was "altering" branch data but the above explains why
this is not the case.”
14.18. This is not something that we have been able to test or validate.
14.19. Clearly, the fact that such an ability exists, is not necessarily
evidence that such ‘amendments’ were actually made. This is not
something that we have been able to investigate.
POL-0021896
POL00025417
POL00025417
This section of the Report was based on the attached email sent to
Second Sight.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Direct: GRO!
Mobile: I n?
Follow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003.jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Mark R Davie:
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Parsons, Andrew; Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke;
Rob Houghton; Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark
Subject: Re: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation privilege
[BD-4A.FID26859284]
Exactly - it's hard to assess this without seeing what we've previously
said
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
07436034032
On 21 Jul 2016, at 14:33, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd <__.... GRO...
f wrote:
Thanks Andy
Would you please circulate the extract “The use of
balancing transactions was explained to Second Sight
and is referenced in its Part Two Report at paragraph
14.16.” so that we can see what was referenced at the
time.
Thanks
Angela
<image004.png> Angela Van Den Bogerd
Director of Support Services
1% Floor, Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close, Llansamlet
Swansea SA7 9FJ
POL-0021896
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorised review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient please contact me by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Parsons, Andrew
Sent: 21 July 2016 14:05
To: Thomas P Moran; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-
Bogerd; Patrick Bourke; Mark R Davies; Rob Houghton;
Tom Wechsler; Nick Sambridge; Jane MacLeod; Mark
Underwood:
Subject: Remote Access wording - subject to litigation
privilege [BD-4A.FID26859284]
All
Please find attached the proposed wording on the
remote access issue — for discussion on our call at 6pm
today.
Three points to bear in mind when reviewing:
1. In light of comments yesterday, we've provided a
slightly longer explanation so to hopefully
present this issue in a better light.
2. Tony agrees with the current wording but has
reiterated the importance of dealing with this
point candidly, even if that does cause some
short-term pain.
3. We do not yet have a 100% clear picture on
some of the technical and operation issues on
this topic. We therefore need to be careful not
to overstate our case. This draft wording will
also need to be run past Deloitte / FJ.
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Direct: {
Mobile: I
Fottow Bond Dickinson:
<image002,jpg><image003,jpg>
www.bonddickinson.com
POL00025417
POL00025417
POL-0021896
POL00025417
POL00025417
ond?
the Solicitors Regulation
RH RR CO RRR A RR A A RR RO RR a aE
SERCH ICR I I ICI ACC
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.
SIS GISIOI OI SI SI SI SIGICICICIOI ICI GIGI ISICICIC I I I IGE A ACEC ACCS I aR aR aR CICA RSI aR oR ARC CAC AE
AEICICICIO I ROR AICI CIEE
<_DOC_33442637(1)_ Remote Access Rider v3.DOCX>
<160721 Statements Remote Access.docx>
POL-0021896