POL00089010
POL00089010
In strictest confidence and legally privileged: created for the purpose of legal advice
PANORAMA ~ BRIEFING FOR ANGELA VAN DEN BOGERD RE INTERNAL FILM
Background: Film for use through internal channels throughout the business to deliver
key messages and facts about allegations likely to made in BBC Panorama programme.
It will be alongside and supplemented by the full internal communications plan currently
in development. You will have seen from Mark’s plan that the film is intended for use as
part of a CEO email to the business on June 29 (when Panorama is currently due to
broadcast).
Although an internal film, it will of course be ‘in public domain’ so available to external
audiences.
The end product will be 3-5 minutes of ‘hard-hitting’ Q and A session between you and
Kim Fletcher from Brunswick. Whilst we will focus on some key rebuttals regarding
content of Panorama, this messaging should address likely concerns or questions from
network perspective so that people feel confident re Post Office position, reassured
regarding the system and, importantly, that they are being kept well informed so can
respond to customers/ staff as appropriate. We will include some ‘signposting’ to other
communication materials, briefings and statements, available. As discussed earlier in
the week, we will appreciate your guidance about the messaging for the network on this
subject.
Panorama: You have seen the latest email from them, sent on Friday, with more details
about their content:
~ Theme appears to be allegation of potential miscarriages of justice through i
inappropriate conduct by Post Office, especially regarding alleged ‘pressure’ on I
postmasters to plead guilty to false accounting.
- Focussing on three criminal cases (Jo Hamilton, Noel Thomas, Seema Misra),
aspects of which they are likely to use to attempt to ‘illustrate’ wider allegations
and which will, of course, supply significant ‘human interest’. The key aspect of
this will likely be allegations to try to create perception that people were
prosecuted for ‘getting in a muddle’ and for the recovery of money.
- They are likely to refer heavily to Second Sight’s reports throughout (as
‘evidence’)
- They are likely to have contributors who will continue to ‘cast doubts’ about
Horizon through ‘technical opinions’/ supposed ‘revelations’ about aspects of
the system etc. Highly likely to include at least one ‘stunt’ in the programme and
POL00089010
POL00089010
could well be on the subject of alleged ‘remote access’ but indications are there
will also be selectively ‘leaked’ material that will be used out of context.
- They are likely to include allegations that Post Office has not run the mediation
scheme fairly and has hampered it to avoid risking payment of compensation
Main concerns from internal audiences (for discussion with you) I
- Damage to brand (and investments re postmasters)
- Confidence in Horizon system (perhaps particularly for new postmasters)
- Effect on customers and questioning from customers
- Concern that Post Office is not doing enough to ‘fight back’ against media/ to
end the issue
General Key points
@ This is about people who believe we treated them unfairly and who blame
Horizon for losses at their branches. The numbers are very small, but every
complaint is important to us and to them.
e Asmall proportion involve criminal convictions and allegations that these were
wrong.
e We have never spoken about these cases publicly and we never will. We
assured these people that we would not do so, that they could come forward
in confidence.
e The fact that a few people involved have continued to speak to the media does
not and will not change that commitment. It does, however, mean that the
stories are ‘one-sided’ and that material used is selective.
e The complaints put forward can only be resolved through mediation or face to
face meetings or, in some cases, through the legal process because that is
where all the available evidence and information for the particular case is
looked at.
e Weare continuing to do what we believe to be right and fair in every case -
which is also right and fair for everyone who works for the Post Office. We
continue to be put under pressure in the media to, essentially, ignore the
evidence we have that supports our conclusions about these cases and we
cannot, of course, do this.
POL00089010
POL00089010
Key messages
THIS IS ABOUT MISSING MONEY, WHICH WE HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT
e Trust in the Post Office is vital for our branches to be successful
e We have a duty to protect the money in our branches. If cash goes missing and
this is covered up we must investigate and act on this
e We don’t prosecute people for making mistakes — we never have and we never
will. Prosecutions are very rare and only ever in the light of all the available
evidence and circumstances
WE DO NOT CONTROL THE LEGAL PROCESS
e If we do prosecute, this is done with numerous checks and balances — ultimately
scrutinised by defence lawyers and the courts themselves
e We do not bring charges or prosecute without evidence and we do not pressure
anybody regarding their plea to a charge. The decision to plead guilty or not guilty
is always one for the defendant only, having taken advice from their own lawyers.
© Criminal cases are kept under continual review — that is our absolute duty. In none of
our own investigations, nor through that of the independent accountants, has any
evidence emerged to suggest that a conviction is unsafe. Such matters cannot be
assessed in the media, on partial — and often inaccurate — information and nor should it
be in any circumstances.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE COMPUTER SYSTEM
¢ We have never said Horizon is perfect or infallible. It’s a computer system so of
course things can go wrong. But this is about facts, not theories and there is not
a single example of Horizon causing losses in any of the cases we’ve examined
exhaustively during the past few years.
e I’ve gone through these cases, every single one and I have looked at all the facts.
That means all the facts, not just Horizon records.
What we have found — and what the independent accountants reviewing the
cases found — is that the majority of losses were down to human error. And
some were, regrettably, down to dishonesty. We cannot get away from that.
WE DID NOT GET EVERYTHING RIGHT
Horizon has worked as it should but there were people who came forward who
we have found, when we looked into their cases, we could have given more
support to and we have of course acknowledged that and discussed it with those
people
I’m pleased that we are managing to reach agreement with some of those
people through mediation
We set up the investigations and the mediation scheme to do just this — to
resolve cases, get to the bottom of each complaint and to try achieve a rightful
outcome, but this can only be based on the evidence that shows us what actually
happened
We've learned a lot and I’ve continued to work with postmasters to make the
support we give people as good as it can be
Addressing main allegations we believe will be made by Panorama
Post Office prosecutions
Post Office has a financial interest in prosecuting postmasters because it helps with
the recovery of missing money
This is about serious criminal offences — not money recovery
It is our duty to take action if cash is missing from a branch and sometimes that includes
prosecution, whether money has been repaid or not
We've got no special powers — we have the same rights as any other organisation to
bring a prosecution
There are numerous checks and balances throughout — and we don’t control the legal
and courts process
POL00089010
POL00089010
POL00089010
POL00089010
Unfairly pursued theft charges to pressure people into paying up
That is not true. We do not bring charges without evidence
We conduct these serious matters with numerous checks and balances throughout
Complainants were told by investigators they were the only ones having problems
with the Horizon system
We had 150 cases come forward — about events from different periods over more than
a decade
Every case is different in facts and circumstances
There’s no evidence in any case that Horizon caused the issues that are being claimed or
that suggests convictions might be unsafe
Horizon System
The complexity of the Horizon system adds to likelihood of errors
Thousands of people are running well-managed branches
We have continued to improve training and support and to make it as straightforward
as we can
I’ve investigated these cases in detail and the claims being made in some of the media
simply do not reflect an accurate picture or a picture of the Post Office that I and the
many, many postmasters that I work with can recognise
Bugs were more widespread than Second Sight have found; prosecutions relied on
belief that Horizon was robust but there were computer errors
This all comes down to what we have actually found — again, it’s about facts and not
theories
The system is robust — 150 cases from nearly 500,000 Horizon users since its
introduction demonstrates that. There is, in fact, no real disagreement about this
between us and anyone else
POL00089010
POL00089010
There are of course sometimes problems and errors, as there are in any system — we
have always said this
What there is not is any evidence whatsoever, after three years of exhaustive
investigations, that flaws in Horizon caused the problems being claimed
Details about Horizon have been discussed in detail in cases in the courts — there is no
evidence in any case that it has not worked as it should to record branch transactions
correctly
Second Sight investigation and Select Committee
Second Sight claim that their work has been hampered by increasing lack of co-
operation — and that is the result of legal advice
We've spent 3 years on this, providing Second Sight with thousands of pages of
documents and, in fact, going to extraordinary lengths to provide answers to questions
I can’t imagine any other company going to the lengths we have
The fact is that we now know, after investigations that could not have been more
rigorous, what actually happened in these cases — most losses were caused by human
errors and Second Sight agree with this
Second Sight’s claim that the Post Office failed to provide full access to legal and
prosecution files
We did what we said we would do and what was agreed with Second Sight we would do
— so we do not understand the claim
We have provided all the documents that would have been provided to the defence
The only thing we haven’t provided is legally privileged information, in the same way
that defendants do not have to provide their privileged information to us — privileged
documents, usually legal advice, are not even seen by the courts
This was agreed by the scheme’s working group — chaired by a former Court of Appeal
judge. Second Sight was part of that working group
The Criminal Cases Review Commission, an independent body, is now reviewing some of
the criminal cases and they are entitled to see everything, including privileged
information — we are of course co-operating in that review as you would expect
Failure of Post Office to provide Second Sight with Bracknell emails
POL00089010
POL00089010
Actually I’m really frustrated by this.
This all goes back to an allegation we've given a huge amount of information about -
that a Horizon test environment in a basement in Bracknell could have been used to
change branch accounts.
The test environment could not and was not used in this way. There was no covert
operational team changing branch accounts or any other sort of malicious tampering.
The test equipment was not even connected to the live system. We have provided a
witness statement about that and more for this investigation.
We've also provided emails for the key time concerned. The investigations have gone
on for three years — we are not prepared to continue forever producing more and more
information about theories that are, actually, not possible when we already have
substantial facts and evidence about what actually took place in a particular case.
Second Sight’s evidence that remote access to branch data is possible in spite of Post
Office denials
This is about facts, not theories. There’s been a lot of inaccurate things said in the
media about ‘remote access’ but there’s not a single example in these cases of Horizon
causing losses, whether through remote tampering or anything else
The most important points sometimes get lost in the technical explanations: once a
transaction is recorded by the branch it cannot be changed remotely; everything that
happens leaves a ‘footprint’ so there is an audit trail that shows every keystroke, every
transaction, everything that has happened. We've looked at all of that.
Of course we have transaction corrections and acknowledgements and the other tools
needed to make sure that branches can stay in balance — but these must be accepted
by the branch and they do not make changes to the original transactions themselves,
they are recorded separately
The system is independently audited, monitored and managed and meets or exceeds
industry accreditations
The cases —Jo Hamilton, Noel Thomas, Seema Misra
We will never speak in public about the cases — we gave a commitment of
confidentiality and we will not break it
But I must underline that we do not prosecute people for making mistakes —
prosecutions are rare and there are numerous checks and balances including sufficient
evidence and public interest
But we have investigated all of the cases thoroughly and there is no evidence, none at
all, in any of the cases, that Horizon caused the issues that have been claimed
In criminal cases there have been no appeals against convictions
Some people have referred their cases to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, an
independent body, for review — we are of course co-operating with that review
POL00089010
POL00089010