POL00031456
POL00031456
Message
From: Melanie Corfield (...
Sent: 01/02/2015 14:34:16
To: Mark Underwood1 [. Parsons, Andrew {10 OND PEARCE/OU=First
Administrative Group/cn=Recipients/cn=ap6]; Rodric Williams
Subject: Re: Remote access [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Yep. At one time our line was simply there is no remote access but for most people I think that sounded
unlikely given you have to have for support etc. It has a different meaning for different people
I completely agree re showing contempt about the allegations on this subject! It's a prime example
actually of our rigor in investigating allegations that are in the realms of fantasy (not suggesting she
says it quite like that....)
Anyway, I think I understand the entire IT system now and can now decipher FJ emails, which is going
Me
Mel Corfield
Communications Team
corne Original Message -----
From: Mark Underwood1
sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 02:22,_PM
To: Melanie Corfield; ‘andrew. parsonsI_
williams
Subject: RE: Remote access [BD-4A.FID20472253]
; Rodric
It comes back to Andy's point about the question being wrong
"access" can mean view - and of course we can view accounts remotely - in the same way everyone views
their banking transactions remotely / from their home / at work etc
the question is can transactions be edited remotely - to which the answer is no.
once a transaction is in, it cannot be removed or edited in anyway - all that can happen is for
additional transactions be put in to correct mistakes - all of which are visible to the SPMR
If PV and MD are still confused - I would just send them the below extract from the paper as I think it
makes it quite clear what can and cannot be done.
alternatively, we treat any questions about RA with the contempt they deserve - why on earth would Po
have a secret bunker in Bracknell accessing SPMR's accounts??
Issue
This question often phrased by Applicants and Second Sight is:
“can Post Office remotely access Horizon?
Phrasing the question in this way does not address the issue that is of concern to Second Sight and
Applicants. It refers generically to "Horizon" but more particularly is about the transaction data
recorded by Horizon. Also, the word “access” means the ability to read transaction data without editing
jit - Post office / Fujitsu has always been able to access transaction data however it is the alleged
capacity of Post Office / Fujitsu to edit transaction data that appears to be of concern. Finally, it
has always been known that Post Office can post additional, correcting transactions to a branch's
accounts but only in ways that are visible to Subpostmasters (i.e. Transaction Corrections and
Transaction Acknowledgements) - it is the potential for any hidden method of editing data that is of
concern.
Thus, this paper addresses the question:
Can Post office or Fujitsu edit transaction data without the knowledge of a Subpostmaster?”
In summary, Post Office confirms that neither it nor Fujitsu can edit transaction data without the
knowledge of a Subpostmaster
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: O1 February 2015 13:56
To: Mark Underwood1; ‘andrew. parso!
Subject: Re: Remote access [BD-4A. Corea
Rodric Williams
Thanks. That is all fine. The key points remain and that nothing happens without postmasters knowing
including this rare process
Our current lines in the briefing are all correct - I will give Mark D additional on this for Paula as
they are both confused and thought we could say there is no remote access at all. But she should swerve
anything on this swiftly back to the fact of there is no evidence anyway of any tampering - Horizon is
and was working as it should.
Have a good Sunday!
Mel
Mel corfield
POL-0028358
POL00031456
POL00031456
Communicatians.Zeam.
Mobile! RO
----- original Message -----
From: Mark Underwoodl
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 12:40 PM
To: Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: Remote access [B0-4A_F1D20472253]
Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams
Hi all, How about the below?
“The use of this process is strictly controlled by Post office. When the Balancing Transaction Process
is used, it leaves clear and identifiable audit trail and is done so with full knowledge and consent of
the Subpostmaster of the affected branch.”
In terms of the paper on remote access. Though the attached is a final draft, Patrick was happy with it
but stated it may just require a bit a very minor tweaking. This has not yet been done, but if the above
line does not suffice, I can ask James Davidson from FJ to answer the remaining questions (bottom of P2)
in respect of the BTP and then we should good to go?
Let me know
Mark
-----original Message--
From: Parsons, Andrew }
Sent: 01 February 2015 TIis3
To: Melanie Corfield; Rodric williams
Cc: Mark Underwood1
Subject: RE: Remote access [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Mel
Sorry - we've never got any clarity of this point. The reality is that use of the manual balancing
process is so rare that there is no protocol for its use.
FSC / Rod Ismay would say that it would only be invoked after discussion with the SPMR and after trying
all other methods of resolution. There would therefore have been an ongoing dialogue with the PMR
tailored to the particular circumstances before any transaction was injected into their accounts
Mark (cc'd) I presume we haven't had anything further on this from FI?
I think the best we could say would be something like... "The use of the balancing transaction process is
so rare that it would only be used following a full discussion with the Subpostmaster involved."
Kind regards
Andy
Andrew Parsons
Managing Associate
Direct:
Mobile:
Fax:
GRO
Follow Bond Dickinson:
www. bonddickinson. com
-----original Message--~
From: Melanie Corfield !~
Sent: 31 January 2015 19:20
To: Rodric williams; Parsons, Andrew
Subject: Re: Remote access
I just need something that says exceptional circumstances of, for example, xxxx. Postmaster would know
strict protocols and guess what it has only ever been used once in a pilot etc. :)). Couple of lines
really.
Thanks
Mel Corfield
Communj.cations.-eam.
Mobi Te GRO
POL-0028358
POL00031456
POL00031456
From: Rodric williams
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 01:05.
To: Melanie Corfield; "andrew. parsons}
Subject: Re: Remote access
Andy - do you have an answer for Mel?
Steal Original Message -----
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 12:16 PM
To: Rodric williams
Subject: Remote access
Hello
Have you got your paper on this handy?
One more Q on it:
What would be the circumstances for PO adding a transaction (we did so once since 2010 using
functionality)? I know v rare, strict authority but would we need to ever do this?
Let me know when you can. Not urgent today
Mel
Mel corfield
Communications..Tean.
Mobile Gl
¥
es
peRE
ee
creas
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.
sobs initiaited arate
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
SESH Ion SISSIES III ISIGIC IIIS III Ie ese AAA
<br />
<br />
<font color="#99CC00" size="2"><b> Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this
email?</b></font> <p> </p><hr /> <p> <font color="#666666" size="1"> The information in this e-mail and
any attachments_is. confidential. and may be legally privileged and protected by Taw.
mark.underwood}. ly is authorised to access this.
please notify andrew.parsong GRO
and delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution,
communication or attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful.<br /> Any files attached to this e-mail
will have been checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Bond Dickinson LLP
accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry
out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.<br /> Content of this email which does not
relate to the official business of Bond Dickinson LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it.<br /> This
email is sent for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered
in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office is St Ann’s Wharf, 112 Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 3DX, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term
partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. our
VAT registration number is GB123393627.<br /> Bond Dickinson LLP is authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority.
</font>
</p>
. If you are
s soon as possible
es 7
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
sete
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET
LONDON ECIV SHQ.
POL-0028358