POL00027688
POL00027688
To: Chris Aujard}
From: Paula VennellsI
Sent: Sun 09/02/2014 9:42:05 PM (UTC)
Subject: Re: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
image001.png_
image002.png_
Chris, hi! I hope you have had a great weekend.
Alice has sent a good set of challenges. You will I'm sure be able to answer most and in fact, I think the cost question is a
case of adding up what you have in already. It would be helpful to see all the financial aspects on a separate schedule: from
our conversation last week, I had in mind there are some staff savings too, which are not yet factored in for either option?
And how is the £5m made up?
The difference from my experience and perhaps not immediately obvious to our leading Counsel, is scale. None of the
businesses Brian Altman compared us to has a network the size of ours (most will be much less than 10% of our size) and
although some may operate agencies, none will have the unique relationship that we do with Spmrs, nor the cash handling
through individuals who are not employees, nor the spread of very different adjacent businesses. We are more complex and
operate without the ability to monitor our agents easily, eg. with a field team, which the comparator businesses will have.
Hence why I come down on (b), the deterrent (with a raised bar as I think it should be), is important.
If you need support in answering, let me know; otherwise, it would be good to do so before the call.
Paula
Sent from my iPad
On 8 Feb 2014, at 12:03, "Alice Perkins" 4
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.
I do of course, understand that we couldn't just throw our cases at the CPS and walk away at a moment's notice. And
I 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?
l 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
susannah_hooper:
Subject: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
POL00027688
POL00027688
All
Please find attached the agenda and paper for the ARC teleconference Spm — 6pm 11 February. The teleconference
will focus specifically on Post Office as a prosecuting authority. An update on Project Sparrow will come to the
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 th
Dial in from mobile
UK Freephonei.
-eting if you wish to attend in person and teleconference details are:
Participant passcod:
Kind regards
iL il Company Secretarial Assistant
<image001.png>
1° Floor, Banner Street Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
‘<imagedez.pag>
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