POL00063370
POL00063370
Message
From: Dave Posnett
on behalf of — Dave Posnett
Sent: 13/02/2015 0!
To: Helen Dickii
cc:
Subject:
Attachments: supplementary written evidence draft 2 - clean - incl avdb v5.docx; Horizon Training.doc
Rob,
I’ve trawled through this and made some comments (yellow & blue highlights) ... not many though as a lot
of it is technical or not within my knowledge to further comment upon. Witness statement associated to
reflect Horizon training.
As an aside (and my personal view) ... I really do think there are cases where Horizon is clearly irrelevant
.. SPMR admits theft, says what he did with the money, etc ... no grounds to even cite Horizon. George
Thompson mentioned the Rudkin case at the select committee hearing ... there are others and I think
(without mentioning names/details, etc) we could be more on the front foot if these were flagged to MPs,
second sight, etc.
Happy to discuss further.
Regards,
* Dave Posnett
Security & Investigation Team Manager South
Accredited Financial Investigator
From: Helen Dickinson
Sent: 13 February 2015 07:55
To: Dave Posnett
Cc: Rob King
Subject: FW: supplementary evidence doc
Morning Dave,
lam in court this morning so will do my best to read this but these things shouldn’t be rushed.
Would you please do the same and feed back to Rob before 12 today.
Cheers
* Helen Dickinson
Security Operation Team Leader North
POL-0059849
POL00063370
POL00063370
FFICIAL please use
From: Rob King
Sent: 12 February 2015 23:25
To: Helen Dickinson
Subject: Fw: supplementary evidence doc
Hello Helen,
Could you assist me with this request please at discuss in the morning.
Much appreciated in advance
Cheers
Rob
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 10:32 PM
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Kevin Lenihan; Dave Hulbert; Rob King
lelanie Corfield; ick Bourke; Jane Hill; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parso!
— —— “>; Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies
Hi Angela many thanks.
Kevin, Dave & Rob. in the attached is a couple small areas with requests for you to approve / amend. If at all possible, if
you could provide your responses by noon tomorrow that would be fantastic. Apologies if any of it is going over old
ground — I am slightly blind to it all now. Rest assured, I am fully aware I am quickly becoming the most hated man in
Post Office for the my repeated requests for information which are coupled with shameless turnaround time asks.
Others — v5 attached, if you have not already begun work on this — please work off this version.
Thanks
Mark
From: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Sent: 12 February 2015 20:30
To: Mark Underwood1
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke; Jane Hill; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parson:
Mark R Davies
Subject: RE: supplementary evidence doc
Tom Wechsler;
Mark,
Copy with tracked changes attached.
Thanks,
Angela
Angela Van Den Bogerd
Head of Partnerships
POL-0059849
POL00063370
POL00063370
1% Floor, Ty Brwydran,
Atlantic Close, Llansamiet
Swansea SA7 9FI
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 12 February 2015 17:17
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke; Jane Hill; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parsons
Mark R Davies ‘
Subject: FW: supplementary evidence doc
Tom Wechsler;
Now copying Angela. Aaaargh!
Mark
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 12 February 2015 17:13
To: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke; ‘Jane Hill'; Belinda Crowe; 'andrew.parsons'
Mark R Davies; Jane Hill
Subject: RE: supplementary evidence doc
Tom Wechsler;
Angela ~ as requested please find attached a copy of the latest version. This should incorporate the changes you gave
Patrick — but if not, do let me know / track change.
All - as per below, if you have not already begun work on this — please work from this version
Thanks
Mark
From: Mark Underwood1
Sent: 12 February 2015 16:00 .
To: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke; Jane Hill; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parson:
Mark R Davies; Jane Hill
Subject: RE: supplementary evidence doc
Hi Guys,
If you had not already begun — please work from (in track changes} the attached version
Thanks
mark
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: 12 February 2015 15:53
POL-0059849
POL00063370
POL00063370
To: Patrick Bourke; Jane Hill; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parsons
Hill
Cc: Mark Underwood1
Subject: RE: supplementary evidence doc
Tom Wechsler; Mark R Davies; Jane
Thank you Patrick - I think this looks very comprehensive. Just one point - are we adequately directly addressing Howe
and Co's evidence that we do not "audit" offices (extract pasted & highlighted below). This evidence has been
highlighted by Nick Wallis as you know.
Apologies if I have missed anything - am on mobile device at moment so difficult to read thoroughly. Mel
Howe and Co extract Instead we are supposed to rely of POL’s assertions that discrepancies existed and that the asserted
shortage equals the actual discrepancy. In many cases we have seen that the asserted total shortage (being the difference
between the branch and Horizon) moved many times (in post-audit correspondence) before POL finally settled on a figure.
This rings alarm bells. When POL’s ‘auditors’ arrive at a branch to undertake an audit, it is a simple matter to pull reports
off the terminals showing the current balances. It is then a simple matter to count up the stock and cash at the branch
and compare them with the balances on the Horizon reports. The fact that, in many cases, the supposed difference
between the two moved around several times post-audit before POL settled on a final discrepancy is extremely concerning
indeed. The only time this should happen is when subsequent transaction corrections are raised. However, we have cases
where no such corrections have been notified but the asserted discrepancy has changed several times. If, however, proper
audits were undertaken (and proper reconciliations provided) these uncertainties would disappear. All parties would at
least have known without doubt if the Horizon balances were correct and the precise discrepancy between those balances
and the branch balances. This would have greatly assisted subsequent analysis and attempts to identify how and why
discrepancies arose in the first place. However, the advisers effectively have to simply rely on POL’s assertions in these
matters.
It should also be noted that when POL claims to have ‘audited’ branch accounts, it has in fact done no such thing. An audit
must include vouching transactions to underlying documentation. This is the only way to determine whether or not
transactions have been correctly processed or not, which in turn proves whether or not the balances on an accounting
system are correct. This is extremely important given that discrepancies between Horizon and the branch formed the
whole basis of the suspension and subsequent prosecution of sub postmasters. Instead of performing a real audit, POL’s
‘auditors’ simply assume that the balances on Horizon are correct, compare them with those in the branch and prosecute
the sub postmasters if the balances in the branch are less than those on Horizon. Hence, in reality no vouching of
transactions whatsoever is undertaken by POL’s ‘auditors’. Using the term ‘audit’ to describe POL’s intervention in the
branches gives its actions a veneer of professionalism and depth of analysis which is in fact entirely absent. The lack of
proper audits undermines the cases against the sub-postmasters and has hampered the process of compiling and
submitting CQs.
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 12 February 2015 14:05
To: Jane Hill; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parsons
GRO __I Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Mark R Davies; Jane
Hill
Cc: Mark Underwood1
Subject: RE: supplementary evidence doc
And I managed to leave Mark Underwood off...
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 12 February 2015 14:06 _
To: ‘Jane Hill’; Belinda Crowe; andrew.parsons)
Jane Hill renner
Subject: RE: supplementary evidence doc
& Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Mark R Davies;
POL-0059849
POL00063370
POL00063370
Here is a further version in both tracked changes and clean which should now form the master copy on which colleagues
are asked to comment. Mark Underwood has kindly agreed to assure version control so please ensure that he is kept
copied into all and any amendments.
Patrick
From: Jane Hill
Sent: 11 February 2015 20:59
To: Belinda Crowe; andrew.parson:
Bourke; Jane Hill
Subject: supplementary evidence doc
Tom Wechsler; Melanie Corfield; Mark R Davies; Patrick
Please find attached a first draft of the supplementary evidence document (from my personal email as webmail not co-
operating). It's still a bit rough and ready, and the language needs more work, but it gives an idea of the shape of the
document.
There will be a covering letter which summarises the areas covered.
Please could you get comments to me by lunchtime tomorrow (Thursday)?
Apologies for the short turnaround time.
Jane
POL-0059849