POL00041377
POL00041377
Message
From: Parsons, Andrew [Andrew.Parsons@
Sent: 28/11/2016 16:55:18
To: Rodric Williams [rodric.williams@.
Subject: RE: Postmaster Litigation - Remote Acce: xtract from draft Letter to Freeths - LEGALLY PRIVILEGED - DO NOT
FORWARD [BD-4A.FID26896945]
I quite like Paula's phrasing ~ lets speak to Tony and see what he says.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinsen LLP
44 345 415 0000
iow Bond Dickinson:
www-bonddickinson.com
From: Rodric Williams [mailto:rodric.williams@_
Sent: 28 November 2016 16:41
To: Parsons, Andrew
Subject: RE: Postmaster Litigation - Remote Access: extract from draft Letter to Freeths - LEGALLY PRIVILEGED - DO
NOT FORWARD
{like the look of Paula’s statement, but if Tony is adamant that there must be some contrition, how about:
At each stage, Post Office ascertained the position so to respond transparently to the question it believed it was being
asked. With the benefit of hindsight, some of Post Office's statements may have been incorrect in light of what has
since been identified in relation to Fujitsu's administrator access (see below). It is regrettable that Post Office did not
anticipate the potential for Fujitsu administrator [[malfeasance]] in its previous statements, for which it is sorry, Post
Office refutes any suggestion that it ever made false statements deliberately or did so to mislead or deceive. The Post
Office personnel responsible for those statements made them in good faith: what was said reflected what they
understood the position to be after they had made relevant enquiries at the time.
From: Parsons, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Parsons@~
Sent: 28 November 2016 16:34
To: Rodric Williams
Subject: RE: Postmaster Litigation - Remote Access: extract from draft Letter to Freeths - LEGALLY PRIVILEGED - DO NOT
FORWARD
Thanks for the heads up
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Bond Dickinson LLP
POL-0037859
POL00041377
POL00041377
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Rodric Williams [mailto:rodric.williams@
Sent: 28 November 2016 16:29
To: Parsons, Andrew
Subject: FW: Postmaster Litigation - Remote Access: extract from draft Letter to Freeths - LEGALLY PRIVILEGED - DO
NOT FORWARD
DO NOT FORWARD - NOT FOR WIDER CIRCULATION
Andy ~ please see below for the business view...
From: Thomas P Moran
Sent: 28 November 2016 16:03
To: Paula Vennells; Rodric Williams; Jane MacLeod
Cc: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Alisdair Cameron; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton; Mark R Davies
Subject: RE: Postmaster Litigation - Remote Access: extract from draft Letter to Freeths - LEGALLY PRIVILEGED - DO NOT
FORWARD
Paula
As another non-lawyers, both Rob H and I have edited along these lines and agree we should make things as straight
forward as possible, and also not be apologetic given we have answered in goad faith throughout.
Jane — as you now have consistent feedback from Al, Paula, me as SteerCo chair and Rob can we take the approach
below as the default in our call at 5? if there is a critical legal reason why you/BD/our QC thinks we have to keep the
original text or something similar we'll need to understand what that is and weigh it up against the reputational/comms
impact on the network and wider business.
As discussed, key thing remaining for me is for this to have the Comms review and the reactive comms management
approach in place prior to sending.
Thanks
Tom
From: Paula Vennells
Sent: 28 November 2016 15:41
To: Rodric Williams; Jane MacLeod
Cc: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Alisdair Cameron; Thomas P Moran; Tom Wechsler; Rob Houghton; Mark R Davies
Subject: Re: Postmaster Litigation - Remote Access: extract from draft Letter to Freeths - LEGALLY PRIVILEGED - DO NOT
FORWARD
My preference:
POL-0037859
POL00041377
POL00041377
1. At each stage, Post Office ascertained the position so to respond transparently to the question it
believed it was being asked. With the benefit of hindsight, some of Post Office's statements may
have been incorrect in light of what has since been identified in relation to Fujitsu's administrator
access (see below). Post Office refutes any suggestion that it ever made false statements
deliberately or did so to mislead or deceive. The Post Office personnel responsible for those
statements made them in good faith: what was said reflected what they understood the position to
be after they had made relevant enquiries at the time."
But as Al says, I'm not a lawyer either. I prefer this as it is both simple and the truth. Any reason why it needs to
be different?
Thanks,
Paula
Paula Vennells
Chief Executive
Post Office Ltd
Paula.vennells@;
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Nov 2016, at 15:04, Alisdair Cameron <alisdair.cameron@_. wrote:
Thanks Jane. Strong letter. I paused and sucked my teeth on this para
1. At each stage, Post Office did its honest best to ascertain the position so to respond to the question it
believed it was being asked. With the benefit of hindsight, some of Post Office's statements may have
been incorrect in light of what has now been identified in relation to Fujitsu's administrator access (see
below). However, Post Office refutes any suggestion that it ever made false statements deliberately or
did so to mislead or deceive. The Post Office personnel responsible for those statements believed the
statements when they were made. What was said reflected what they understood the position to be after
making relevant enquiries.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am sure it is true, it just reads defensively and as a
conspiracy theorist’s wet dream? Happy to leave it with your best judgement but rather
than making value statements about honesty, may have been incorrect, I did wonder if
we would be better off simply saying...”We now understand the question more fully and
would answer questions X and Y as follows: “Fujitsu can do X but there are rigorous
controls of Y etc.”
Only a thought and no need to change it if you disagree, I am not a lawyer!
Thanks Al
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 28 November 2016 13:50
To: Paula Vennells <paula.vennells@~
Alisdair Cameron
POL-0037859
POL00041377
POL00041377
“>; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd <i
Tom Wechsler
>; Rob Houghton <_ eB; Mark R Davies
Subject: Postmaster Litigation - Remote Access: extract from draft Letter to Freeths - LEGALLY
PRIVILEGED - DO NOT FORWARD.
Paula, Al
Attached is the current draft of the proposed wording regarding remote access that is to be included in a
much longer, and largely procedural letter to be sent to Freeths later tomorrow. We have a further call
with our QC at Spm this evening to review this wording again with the team and Mark Davies is included
on that. For reference the key statement made in the letter to Freeths in July, was as follows:
“Administrator access to databases. Database and server access and edit permission is provided,
within strict controls (including logging user access), to a small, controlled number of specialist Fujitsu
(not Post Office) administrators. As far as we are currently aware, privileged administrator access has
not been used to alter branch transaction data. We are seeking further assurance from Fujitsu on this
point.”
Freeths have picked this up and therefore the new wording is designed to address their challenges.
Please let me have any comments asap
Jane
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
Ground Floor
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >> 2. ey Street
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number:
<< File: _DOC_34439974(1)_RA comments on Response to Letter of Reply_ 27 November....docx >>
2A Ff CFR 2 Rf AIA 2 2 1 0 RR fF A 0 0 IA 0 0 GK 0 RR SG
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
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
2A I IC FR RR FAIR RRR I EOF RR RI DOERR oR FGF OR oR BGR RR I CEES
case consider the ¢
POL-0037859
POL00041377
POL00041377
allachments is confidential and ans
Ef you are not rodrie.williams@
fing oF
The information in this eomail and 3
vail acid any attael
Aay files attacked to this snissie
‘hrnay be caused by
befixe opening
cent of this email whisk docs not rel
smber OC31 7661, Our registered office is 4 Mote
of the LLP, or an employee or cons
mil is sent by Houd Dickinson LLP whiel:
a Riverside, London, AU,
who ig of oqhivatent standing. Ont
Bond Dickinsou LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
POL-0037859