POL00027692
POL00027692
To: Paula Vennell
From: Alwen Lyons:
Sent: Mon 10/02/2014 7:02:38 AM (UTC)
Subject: Fwd: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
image002.png
image001.png.
FYI we have already invited Angela
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paula Vennell: [
Date: 9 February 201
Susannah Storey
—_— GRO
Subject: Re: 2014 02 I
‘teleconference
Hi Alasdair, I have already asked Chris to pick up these questions and Neil's; we will come well briefed,
including detail on how the BIP has engendered the change. (Chris/Alwen, if we haven't already done so, it
might be worth having Angela VdB on stand-by.)
I thought it would be worth sharing my thoughts on why we are different; in my mind it relates to the
operational nature of PO rather than product or services, where there is more commonality:
The difference 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 (few) 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 and
in some cases not very successful adjacent businesses, which itself causes problems. We are more complex
and operate without the ability to monitor our agents easily, (though the BIP is improving this); and most of
the comparator businesses he referred to will have line management structures, which make conformance
easier.
This is an important area for the business and so I am particularly grateful to our NEDs for your attention.
We will do what we can to facilitate a good debate.
Paula
Sent from my iPad
On 9 Feb 2014, at 22:30, "Alasdair Marnoch"
wrote:
POL00027692
POL00027692
Thanks Alice.
I agree this is a tricky issue and we will explore all the options in our call. As you say it's
difficult to understand why we should be different to others although the timing of a shift from
our current policy will be key.
Tid also like to understand more about the BIP and what is driving the reduction in cases recently
(more relaxed approach on prosecutions and/or BIP impact).
I hope you manage to join the debate but if not we will make sure your comments are taken into
account.
Best
Alasdair
susannah, storey .
Subject: Re: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:03:40 +0000
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
Cis dismissed too summarily.
Ido 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 wouid 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?
laccept 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
Tim Franklin
Virginia Holmes
; Susannah Storey
POL00027692
POL00027692
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 the meeting if you wish to attend in person and teleconference
details are:
Dial in from mobil
UK Freephone:!
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
larissa.wilso1
<image002.png>
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
POL00027692
POL00027692
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