POL00027687
POL00027687
To: Alice Perkins[aliceperkinst_
Ce: Laris Wilson[larissa.wil:
timfranklin4 i
Vennells[pa —
Chris Aujard{christopher.aujard,
susannah.storey,”
From: Susannah Hooper[susannah_hooper
Sent: Mon 10 2 2014 7:29:52 AM (UTC)
Subject: Re: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
image001.png
image002.png
arnochicc.
Alwen Lyons{._
irginia.holmes..
Thanks for copying me on these papers and given I am not on the ARC, I am just passing my thoughts for information. But
my read of the paper was similar to Alice's. It doesn't seem we had sufficient reasons to discard option C and I think it
would be interesting to explore further. It seems hard to imagine in 2014 POL is so different from other organisations to
necessitate this approach.
As an aside, I also find the statistics for Pol surprising and I can't help wondering if any other organisation, to the extent we
could get comparable data, would have anything like this level of situations that need investigation. Either way, I would
have thought any next steps must be accompanied by more focus on training and better support. But sure that's ongoing
anyway.
Best wishes
Susannah
On 8 Feb 2014, at 12:03, "Alice Perkins" <aliceperkins¢
Alasdair,
It is not yet clear whether it will be possible for me to participate in this teleconference. I will if I can.
My reaction to this paper which is helpful and clear in many respects (and the BIP and its impact to date is very good
indeed}, is that it does not spell out clearly enough for me, why we think it is right in principle for us to maintain a
different policy from other organisations (the Brian Altman point) ie option C is dismissed too summarily.
{do of course, understand that we couldn't just throw our cases at the CPS and walk away at a moment's notice. And
l appreciate that we might find the CPS route less satisfactory in cases where we were convinced we should be
prosecuting. But if it is the case that the banks and other financial institutions are content to live with this, why are
we different? And what would our public justification for being different be? In considering this, I would like to
understand better how much money would potentially be at risk if we were to go for option C? And what are the
relative costs of giving the work to external lawyers rather than doing it in-house under option B?
{accept that option C could not be adopted immediately even if we did think it right. And I absolutely agree we
should have a financial cut off of between £20k and £30k and take other factors into consideration before proceeding
whoever is conducting the prosecutions.
if you'd like a word, do let me know.
All the best
Alice
From: Larissa Wilson [mailto:larissa.wilsonI GRO j
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 12:14 PM GMT Standard Time
To: Neil McCai (neif
<timfranklin
(timfranklin1¢
<alasdairmarnoc!
; Chris M Day
Cc: Chris Aujard <christopher.aujardt irginia. 3. GRO )
<virginia.holmes.t2. storeyi.
<susannah.storey, susannah_hooperi
Subject: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
<susannah _ hoopet GRO.
All
Please find attached the agenda and paper for the ARC teleconference 5pm — 6pm 11 February. The teleconference
will focus specifically on Post Office as a prosecuting authority. An update on Project Sparrow will come to the
POL00027687
POL00027687
February Board.
In line with the decision at the last Board meeting, these papers have been circulated to the whole Board. Papers are
also available on BoardPad.
Room 501 has been booked for the meeting if you wish to attend in person and teleconference details are:
Dial in from mobi 5
UK Freephonei.
Chairperson passcode
Participant passcode:
Kind regards
Larissa
Larissa Wilson I Company Secretarial Assistant
<image001.png>
1* Floor, Banner Street Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
<image002.pnig
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: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.
Click here to report this email as spam.
This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com