POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
E
6 November 2006 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PLi 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Our ref:
$3D3/JL1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT/113969
Dear Sirs
Post Office Limited v Mr L Castleton
We refer to our letter dated 3 November.
We have now received a sealed copy of the Order dated 23 October 2006. We enclose this for your
records.
Kindly acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Enclosure:
Order
Bond Pearce LLP, Limited Liability Partnership, Registered in England and Wales number OC311430,
Registered office: 3 Temple Quay Temple Back East Bristol BS1 6Dz, VAT number GB143 0282 07.
AGC of members of Bond Pearce i open for inspection at the regatered office, Regulate bythe Caw Society, www.bondpearce.com
1031
6 November 2006
Stephen Hall
Grant Thornton UK LLP
11-13 Penhill Road
Cardiff
CFii 9UP
Dear Stephen
Goldcrest Furniture Limited (In Liquidation)
Thank you for your e-mail of 30 October.
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL 3AE
stephen.dillev...
Direct: I
Our ref:
$)D3/IL1/361208.1
Your ref:
Lenclose a cheque for £7,474.44 which is actually made out to Goldcrest Furniture Limited (In
Administration). As it is not made payable to Bond Pearce, I have not paid it in nor deducted payment of
our invoice dated 25 October.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
Enclosure
Cheque £7,474.44
Bond Pearce LLP, a Limited Liablity Partnership, Registered in England and Wales number OC311.430
Registered office: 3 Temple Quay Temple Back East Bristol BS1 6DZ. VAT number GB143 0282
Ait of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office, Regulated by the Law Society
1A_1232118_1
www.bondpearce.com
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
os
6 November 2006 Bond Pearce LLP
Ballard House
West Hoe Road
Plymouth PL1 3AE
Rowe Cohen
Solicitars
Our ref:
$3D3/IL1/348035.134
Your ref:
MDT/113969
Dear Sirs
Post Office Limited v Mr L Castleton
We refer to our letter dated 3 November.
We have now received a sealed copy of the Order dated 23 October 2006. We enclose this for your
records.
Kindly acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully
Bond Pearce LLP
Enclosure:
Order
Bond Pearce 11, a Limited Labllty Partnership, Registered in England and Wales number OC311430.
Registered office: 3 Temple Quay Temple Back East Bristol 8S1 6Dz. VAT number GB143 0262
Ast of members of Bond Pearce Is open for inspection at the registered office. Regulated by the Law Society. www.bondpearce.com
1A_1232103_1
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
y HER MAJESTY’S ROYAL COURTS OF
Bes COURTS SERVICE JUSTICE GROUP
SS Queen’s Bench Judges Listing
# Room WG08
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Bond Pearce
Text Phone!
(Helpline for thi
www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk
Our ref: TLQ/06/0500
Your ref: SID3/KAK2/348035.134
06 November 2006
Dear Sir or Madam:
Post Office Ltd v Castleton
The Queen’s Bench Judges Listing Office acknowledges receipt of your letter dated
31° October 2006.
If both parties consent to a pre trial review, please inform this office that dates agreed
and we will proceed to list the matter.
If the other party opposes a pre trial review, you will have to issue an application
notice. If that is the case, please send the notice and fee of £100 to this office and we
will list the matter.
Yours faithfully,
Mr J Tipp
QB Listing Office
Q)
INVESTOR IN PEOPLE
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page I of 5
St hen Dilley
From: Pinder Brian
Sent: 06 November 2006 17:46
To: Stephen Dilley
Ce: Tom Beezer; me graham.c.wardi_
Sewell Peter (FELO1)
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
Importance: High
Stephen
Please see attached response (from Gareth Jenkins) interleaved, in answer to your questions.
Kind Regds Brian
1. Every time that a new customer is served there is a new “session.” Each customer's
transactions are recorded in a “stack.” For each session:
(a) the number of transactions is recorded;
[G13]. The number of transactions is not explicitly recorded. However there is a separate
record for each transaction so the number of transactions can be inferred. NB each MOP
used is also a transaction and so these transactions are also recorded.
(b) the total cost is shown;
[GIJ] Again the total cost is not explicitly recorded. The running total is maintained visually on
the screen, but if multiple payment methods are used, there is no explicit recording of the
total cost in the Audit Trail.
(c) the method of payment is recorded;
[GI] Method of Payment products are just recorded as additional transactions. There is
nothing special about them. Specifically there is nothing to say that they are MOPs (other
than realising that the products related to the transactions are normally used for MOP).
(d) settlement occurs by pressing a button to clear the stack; and
[G13] This is a two stage process:
e A button is pressed to start settlement
« MOP transactions are then recorded until the session is complete (ie value of MOP
transactions equal the value of business transactions). This is frequently achieved with a
shortcut “Fast Cash” MOP which indicates that the exact cash has been tendered.
(e) when the button is pressed to clear the stack, the transaction is complete and
records the information on to the database.
[GIJ] This recording of the transactions occurs when all MOP transactions have been added to
the stack and the net stack value is zero.
2. If machine freezes before the button is pressed to clear the stack, the information is
not recorded because the transaction has not been completed.
[GiJ] Correct. However in some circumstances (ie for specific types of transaction) there may be an
07/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 2 of 5
indication of the transaction having taken place in the Audit Trail and recovery of the terminal (even a few
days 3r) may cause the transaction to complete and to be recorded at recovery time. Also, Transactions
relatiy to Failed Mails Labels are recorded immediately rather than waiting for the stack to be settled.
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 06 November 2006 10:38
To: Pinder Brian
ost Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
Importance: High
Dear Brian,
We're preparing a supplemental witness statement for Greg Booth to cover off the event at
Newby P.O.
Please can you confirm whether the text below is accurate:
1. Every time that a new customer is served there is a new “session.” Each customer's
transactions are recorded in a “stack.” For each session:
(a) the number of transactions is recorded;
(b) the total cost is shown;
(c) the method of payment is recorded;
(d) settlement occurs by pressing a button to clear the stack; and
(e) when the button is pressed to clear the stack, the transaction is complete and records
the information on to the database.
2. If machine freezes before the button is pressed to clear the stack, the information is not
recorded because the transaction has not been completed.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible today.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
www.bondpearce.com
From: Pinder Brian
Sent: 02 November 2006 1
To: Stephen Dilley
Cc: Tom Beezer; mandy.talbot
Richard Morgan; graham.c.war¢
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
07/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 3 of 5
Stephen
You __jht wish to note that:
Shou the system be restarted (for any reason — including following a “freeze”), there will be evidence of this
in the Audit trail (which we have in fact been examining in this case). Normally the only system restarts
are as part of the overnight “clear desk” function that occurs between 03:30 and 04:00 each day. Any other
restarts can be considered unusual and could be searched for.
Regds Brian
From: Pinder Brian
Sent: 01 November 2006 15:05
To: ‘Stephen Dilley’
Cc: Tom Beezer;
martyn.mitchell!
Subject: RE: Po: - Lee Castleton
Richard Morgan; graham.c.ward
Stephen
On initial investigation I am advised as follows;
‘The gateway was rebooted at about 13:25 on Wed 25th October, possibly because the system froze when printing the
receipt for a postage label. The label itself had been successfully printed at 13:17 (value £1.27).
So the postage label would have been on the stack, but the session was never settled. Any transactions on the stack in
these circumstances are lost (there is a recovery mechanism for banking and AP transactions, but not for other types of
transactions).
The documentation provided to the PM should tell them what to do when the system fails in the middle of a session, or
NBSC should advise.
If the PM took the money for the label although the stack hadn't / couldn't be settled, then he will have a gain.
This is not strictly speaking a transaction being lost, it has always been a fundamental part of the design that the
transaction is not written to the system for accounting purposes until the session is settled, at which point you have a set
of transactions including settlement which net to zero..
Thope this is helpful
Kind Regds Brian
From: Stephen Dilley I
Sent: 31 October 2006 16:04
To: Pinder Brian
Cc: Tom Beezer;
martyn.mitchell
Subject: Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
Importance: High
mandy.talbo! Richard Morgan; graham.c.ward
Dear Brian,
One of the witnesses in the Castleton case is Greg Booth who was the temporary sub-
postmaster at Marine Drive branch from 21 April to 28 May 2004. Greg is currently the
manager of the Newbury Post office branch, 401 Scalby Road, Scarborough, YO12 6TQ.
Greg spoke to me last week and reported that his computer froze on Wed 25 or Thurs 26
October 2006 (I will clarify which day) whilst he was serving a customer and part way through a
transaction. The transaction had not been settled. It related to a postage label. When he
logged back in again, the computer had lost the transaction of £1.27. The computer did
07/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 4 of 5
not prompt him to try to recover it. Greg is away this week, but I will be contacting him upon
his “urn to obtain a supplemental witness statement about this point. Prior to then, Greg's
eviacnce was that he had never know the system to lose a transaction. In this particular case,
Greg was £1.27 up because he had taken money from a customer. However, I anticipate the
reverse would have happened if he had been paying money out.
Although this is for a small amount, the principle on the face of it seems concerning because it
suggests that the Horizon system can, (albeit rarely), lose transactions. Castleton's solicitors
will try to exploit any weakness and we must be prepared for a possible attack on this point.
Our Counsel has requested that Fujitsu review the Newbury Post Office's Horizon data for those
days period to see if you can tell whether the system froze and lost the transaction and what
the explanation may be.
We have to serve Witness Statements very shortly. I will have to prepare a supplemental
Witness Statement for Greg Booth dealing with this and may possibly need to take a further
Witness Statement from somebody at Fujitsu, depending on your explanation. Accordingly, I
would be grateful if you could look into this and come back to me as a matter of urgency.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged
and protected by law. The intended recipient only is authorised to access this e-mail and any
attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender as soon as possible and
delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this
communication is prohibited.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before
transmission. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Bond
Pearce LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses.
Bond Pearce LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number
0C311430.
Registered Office: 3 Temple Quay, Temple Back East, Bristol, BS1 6DZ.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Any reference to a Partner in relation to
Bond Pearce LLP means a Member of Bond Pearce LLP. Bond Pearce LLP is regulated by the Law
Society.
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged
and protected by law. The intended recipient only is authorised to access this e-mail and any
attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender as soon as possible and
delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this
communication is prohibited.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before
transmission. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Bond
Pearce LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses.
07/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 5 of 5
” Bond Pearce LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number
OC 1430.
Registered Office: 3 Temple Quay, Temple Back East, Bristol, BS1 6DZ.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Any reference to a Partner in relation to
Bond Pearce LLP means a Member of Bond Pearce LLP. Bond Pearce LLP is regulated by the Law
Society.
07/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 1 of 3
Subject: RE: POST OFFICE
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your email.
I am seeking immediate instructions on 2. and will revert to you very shortly.
In response to para 4. i.e whether the spmr was making mistakes in counting giros, the short
answer is no. This is dealt with in 5 of our witness statements that I sent to Geoff a few weeks
ago. (Also see my email of 3 November to you). See Paul Williamson (giro), Ken Crawley
(pension), Michael Johnson (lottery), Gillian Hoyland (cheques) and Wendy Smith (APS). There
were 15 error notices in 2003 to 2004, so he wasn't making significant errors.
If at any stage you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
To: Stephen Di
Cc: Geoff.Porter.
Importance: High
Stephen - I have looked through the papers sent. I haven't had a chance to read the statements etc.
Would you please note the following:
1. As I explained to you on the telephone - I am already in Court on 4 December. In addition, given
the short time frame we have - it would be better if Geoff Porter takes on this case as the expert.
Geoff has many years experience and is authorised by BDO to appear in Court and to act as the
expert. We operate a licensing system at BDO in respect of expert witness work and Geoff is
authorised. Geoff has also examined much of the documents.
2. Ihave costed the job and I believe this will cost between £25,000 to £30,000 excluding VAT and
disbursements. This includes reviewing the other sides report and meeting with the expert. This does
not include any Court attendance. If our costs are less than this (and they might be) - I will invoice
the lower cost. If it transpires that our costs are likely to exceed this I will advise you immediately
we realise this.
3. Geoff is on annual leave until this Thursday, but I can see that we very well might need to
investigate a number of matters not yet considered. Our computer expert has spotted a possible cause
of an error from the system documentation. Apparently the sub-postmaster is sent the cash for
pensions etc in a wallet that has a barcode and the cash figure gets into the branch accounting system
06/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
te. coyp Wien A (e . ickn’
op SNOUT vASSOM WEY ogc AC ¢ Page 2 of 3
Ue cal ee 9 en Cory ai we ws 5 rece SS
SP we
by scanning the barcode. We do not know if Castleton counted the cash or just accepted the barcode.
Its 1s possible for there to be errors in the cash that is sent to a branch. It might be worth getting
an independent report of what cash was sent from the regional cash office to Castleton each week.
4. When we looked at this originally I had thought about whether Castleton could have been making
mistakes in remittances out of the branch (e.g. does he make a mistake in counting cashed giros sent
to head office. The Post Office were rather vague about this, there is a comment by the auditor or
line manager to the effect that I asked Chesterfield and they said there were no significant
differences. It would be useful to have a contact in the Post Office who is able to check that there are
no errors (or to quantify any that were noticed).
Apart from this we seem to have all that we need. However, as we progress the report it is often the
case that other issues come to light. We will probably we asking for other documents as we carry out
our investigations. This cannot be avoided at this stage.
Can you please advise me whether the above is acceptable and I will then organise our standard
letter of engagement.
Regards
Mike Mason
Director
BDO Stoy Hayward
Arcadia House
Maritime Walk
Ocean Village
SOUTHAMPTON
$014 3TL
Times 2006
PTOP 50. "Employer of the Year" - Accountancy Age Awards 2004 and 2005
I ‘aus I “Large Firm of the Year" - Accountancy Age Awards 2005
rte "One of the 100 Best Companies to Work For in the UK" - Sunday
IMPORTANT NOTICE.
This communication and any attachments are confidential and may be protected from disclosure. We
endorse no information, opinion or advice contained in this communication that is not the subject of
a contract between the recipient and us. If you have received it in error please notify us immediately
06/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 3 of 3
and note that any storage, use or disclosure is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Wk we check the communications we send for virus infection, we accept no responsibility for any
loss or damage caused to your systems by this communication.
Those communicating with us by electronic mail will be deemed to have accepted the risks
associated with interception, amendment, loss and late or incomplete delivery. They will also be
deemed to have consented to our intercepting and monitoring such communications.
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP is a limited liability partnership authorised and regulated by the Financial
Services Authority to conduct Investment Business. For a more detailed description of our electronic
communication policies, access the relevant page on our web site.
http://www.bdo.co.uk/electroniccommunications
BDO Stoy Hayward Investment Management Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial
Services Authority. For a more detailed description of our electronic communication policies, access
the relevant page on our web site.
http://www.bdo. /electroniccommunication
06/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HQ05X02706
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
POST OFFICE LIMITED
Claimant
-and-
LEE CASTLETON
Defendant
BUNDLES INDEX
Bundle No. Contents
1 Claim Form, Amended Particulars of Claim, Amended Defence,
Further Information of Defence, Amended Reply, Orders, allocation
questionnaires, Claimant’s List of Documents, Defendant’s List of
Documents.
2 Core Bundle containing the terms of Mr Castleton’s contract and his
signed acceptance of the same,
3 Witness Statements
4 Experts’ Statements
5 Horizon Manual
6 Primary documents (non-accounting) in chronological order
7 Accounting documents in chronological order by week
Tres prles coffe.
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 1 of 3
St hen Dilley
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 06 November 2006 10:38
To: ‘Pinder Brian’
Ce: Tom Beezer; mandy.talhy
martyn.mitchelk_ GRO i
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
Importance: High
Dear Brian,
We're preparing a supplemental witness statement for Greg Booth to cover off the event at
Newby P.O.
Please can you confirm whether the text below is accurate:
1. Every time that a new customer is served there is a new “session.” Each customer's
transactions are recorded in a “stack.” For each session:
(a) the number of transactions is recorded;
(b) the total cost is shown;
(c) the method of payment is recorded;
(d) settlement occurs by pressing a button to clear the stack; and
(e) when the button is pressed to clear the stack, the transaction is complete and records
the information on to the database.
2. If machine freezes before the button is pressed to clear the stack, the information is not
recorded because the transaction has not been completed.
1 look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible today.
Kind regards.
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
Sent: 02 November 2006 14:37
To: Stephen Dilley
Cc: Tom Beezer; mandy.talbot
martyn.mitchell__._
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
‘ichard Morgan; graham.c.ward?
06/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 2 of 3
Ste, 1
You might wish to note that:
Should the system be restarted (for any reason — including following a “freeze”), there will be evidence of this
in the Audit trail (which we have in fact been examining in this case). Normally the only system restarts
are as part of the overnight “clear desk” function that occurs between 03:30 and 04:00 each day. Any other
restarts can be considered unusual and could be searched for.
Regds Brian
From: Pinder Brian
Sent: 01 November 2006 15:05
To: ‘Stephen Dilley’
Cc: Tom Beezer;,
martyn.mitchell
Subject: RE: Post
Richard Morgan; graham.c.war¢
v- Lee Castleton
Stephen
On initial investigation I am advised as follows;
The gateway was rebooted at about 13:25 on Wed 25th October, possibly because the system froze when printing the
receipt for a postage label. The label itself had been successfully printed at 13:17 (value £1.27).
So the postage label would have been on the stack, but the session was never settled. Any transactions on the stack in
these circumstances are lost (there is a recovery mechanism for banking and AP transactions, but not for other types of
transactions).
The documentation provided to the PM should tell them what to do when the system fails in the middle of a session, or
NBSC should advise.
If the PM took the money for the label although the stack hadn't / couldn't be settled, then he will have a gain.
This is not strictly speaking a transaction being lost, it has always been a fundamental part of the design that the
transaction is not written to the system for accounting purposes until the session is settled, at which point you have a set
of transactions including settlement which net to zero...
Thope this is helpful
Kind Regds Brian
From: Stephen Dilley
Sent: 31 October 2006 16:04
To: Pinder Brian
Cc: Tom Beezer;
martyn.mitchelll_
Subject: Post Office Limited -v- Lee Castleton
Importance: High
Dear Brian,
One of the witnesses in the Castleton case is Greg Booth who was the temporary sub-
postmaster at Marine Drive branch from 21 April to 28 May 2004. Greg is currently the
06/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Page 3 of 3
manager of the Newbury Post office branch, 401 Scalby Road, Scarborough, YO12 6TQ.
Greg spoke to me last week and reported that his computer froze on Wed 25 or Thurs 26
October 2006 (I will clarify which day) whilst he was serving a customer and part way through a
transaction. The transaction had not been settled. It related to a postage label. When he
logged back in again, the computer had lost the transaction of £1.27. The computer did
not prompt him to try to recover it. Greg is away this week, but I will be contacting him upon
his return to obtain a supplemental witness statement about this point. Prior to then, Greg's
evidence was that he had never know the system to lose a transaction. In this particular case,
Greg was £1.27 up because he had taken money from a customer. However, I anticipate the
reverse would have happened if he had been paying money out.
Although this is for a small amount, the principle on the face of it seems concerning because it
suggests that the Horizon system can, (albeit rarely), lose transactions. Castleton's solicitors
will try to exploit any weakness and we must be prepared for a possible attack on this point.
Our Counsel has requested that Fujitsu review the Newbury Post Office's Horizon data for those
days period to see if you can tell whether the system froze and lost the transaction and what
the explanation may be.
We have to serve Witness Statements very shortly. I will have to prepare a supplemental
Witness Statement for Greg Booth dealing with this and may possibly need to take a further
Witness Statement from somebody at Fujitsu, depending on your explanation. Accordingly, I
would be grateful if you could look into this and come back to me as a matter of urgency.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Dilley
Solicitor
for and on behalf of Bond Pearce LLP
The information in this e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged
and protected by law. The intended recipient only is authorised to access this e-mail and any
attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender as soon as possible and
delete any copies. Unauthorised use, dissemination, distribution, publication or copying of this
communication is prohibited.
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by us with virus detection software before
transmission. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Bond
Pearce LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses.
Bond Pearce LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in England and Wales number
0C311430.
Registered Office: 3 Temple Quay, Temple Back East, Bristol, BS1 6DZ.
A list of Members is available from our registered office. Any reference to a Partner in relation to
Bond Pearce LLP means a Member of Bond Pearce LLP. Bond Pearce LLP is regulated by the Law
Society.
06/11/2006
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
poe
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Richard Morgan
Name: Stephen Dilley Location: N/A Date: 6 November 2006
Start time: Units:
I had a telephone conversation with Richard Morgan in relation to Greg Booth’s Witness
Statement. Basically he wanted to go over the order in which the transaction happened and
wanted to amend paragraph 5 and also tweak paragraphs 6 and 7 and then ask what Greg
did next. Making the changes to the Statement.
Thereafter discussing the ... explanation with Richard ie. namely that on Sundays Mr
Castleton used two user ID‘s - this is mentioned in the Witness Statement either of Andrew
Rise or Anne Chambers and that this had the result of doubling up cash declarations. Also
explaining to Richard that I have the ... reports from Horizon listed for January but not
February or March and I needed to get those too.
Richard is out of the office this afternoon from 3:30 p.m.
Time Engaged: 12 Minutes
4A_1232611_1
POL00081826_022
POL00081826_022
Telephone attendance
Client: Royal Mail Group PLC Sub Postmaster Litigation
Matter: Mr Lee Castleton Matter no: 348035.134
Attending: Vicky Harrison
Name: Stephen Dilley Location: N/A Date: 6 November 2006
Start time: Units:
I had a telephone conversation with Vicky Harrison.
She confirmed that the days in January where the figures don’t match are mornings and
evenings when Mr Castleton was using separate ID numbers. For example, on 8 January, he
did two cash declarations and that is why the figure is so high.
She also said there were certain figures in the spreadsheet she had sent to me in bold. They
are days when he didn’t make a proper declaration.
She also confirmed that Mr Castleton doesn’t have to print every declaration. He can merely
make it into the computer.
Finally, she will get her colleague, Steve, to do the same spreadsheet that she sent me for
January, for February and March 2004.
Thereafter asking her about the database and she said that the Post Office had to pay
Horizon for over a certain number of requests, they had to pay Fujitsu for access. Therefore
she didn’t think someone in the Post Office could have access to all of this. I hypostasised
that maybe they could, but they would just have to pay for it. In any event I can tell Mr
Castleton’s solicitors that Fujitsu have a database.
Time Engaged: 12 Minutes
4A_1232625_1