POL00103106
POL00103106
Private & Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
Number Recommendation Status Proposal
Legal advice be sought from Counsel as to Partially undertaken — analogous advice was obtained POL will instruct Brian Altman QC to provide
whether the decision to charge a SPMR with theft I from Brian Altman QC in February/ March 2015. legal advice on the specific questions posed, for
and false accounting could undermine the safety the sake of certainty.
of any conviction for false accounting where a)
the conviction was on the basis of a guilty plea,
following which and/or in return for which the
theft charge was dropped, and b) there had not
been a sufficient evidential basis to bring the theft
charge.
If such a conviction could be undermined in those I No previous work, of a similar nature, has been This is dependent upon the content of the
circumstances, that Counsel review the undertaken advice provided by Brian Altman QC to
prosecution file in such cases to establish recommendation 1.
whether, applying the facts and law applicable at
the relevant time, there was a sufficient
evidential basis to conclude that a conviction for
theft was a realistic prospect such that the charge
was properly brought.
POL consider instructing a suitably qualified party I Partially undertaken — Post Office considered selected POL will instruct an independent expert to
to carry out an analysis of the relevant transaction logs as part of the Complaint Review process. I determine whether such an analysis/review is
transaction logs for branches within the Scheme feasible, and if it is, to provide an indication of
to confirm, insofar as possible, whether any bugs the cost, time and process that would be
in the Horizon system are revealed by the dataset incurred.
which caused discrepancies in the accounting
position of any of those branches. Question: Does Jonathan consider Deloitte to
be suitably independent?
POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out I Partially undertaken — the feasibility of such a review was I POL will instruct an independent expert to
a full review of the use of Balancing Transactions I considered with Fujitsu in mid-2015. determine whether such an analysis/review is
throughout the lifetime of the Horizon system, feasible, and if it is, to provide an indication of
insofar as possible, to independently confirm the cost, time and process that would be
from Horizon system records the number and incurred.
circumstance of their use.
Question: Does Jonathan consider Deloitte to
Private & Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
POL00103106
POL00103106
be suitably independent?
POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out
a full review of the controls over the use and
capability of authorised Fujitsu personnel to
create, amend or delete baskets within a sealed
audit store throughout the lifetime of the Horizon
system, insofar as possible.
Partially undertaken — considered by audits undertaken,
principally the ISAE3402 Audit, which is carried out by
E&Y.
POL will instruct a suitably qualified party to
undertake this review, throughout the lifetime
of the Horizon system, insofar as is possible.
Question: Does Jonathan consider Deloitte to
be suitably independent?
POL seek specialist legal advice from external
Counsel as to whether the Deloitte reports, or the
information within them concerning Balancing
Transactions and Fujitsu’s ability to delete and
amend data in the audit store, should be
disclosed to defendants of criminal prosecutions
brought by POL. This advice should also address
whether disclosure should be made, if it has not
been, to the CCRC.
Completed:
1. Advice was obtained from Cartwright King and Brian
Altman QC in mid-2015. Cartwright King identified
the Balancing Transaction information as the only
issue in the Deloitte reports which might require
disclosure in Post Office criminal
prosecutions. Brian Altman then advised that there
was no current need for Post Office to give further
general disclosure to prosecuted postmasters about
Balancing Transactions, general complaints about
“remote access” being insufficient to trigger Post
Office’s disclosure duties
2. The CCRC was notified of the Deloitte reports on 13
January 2016
POL will nevertheless instruct Brian Altman QC
to provide legal advice on the specific questions
posed, for the sake of certainty.
POL cross reference specific complaints about
misleading advice from NBSC call-handlers with
the possible employees who provided that advice
and consider their personnel files, where
available, for evidence as to the likelihood that
the complaint may be well founded.
No previous work, of a similar nature, has been
undertaken.
POL will attempt, for the time period covering
complaints made, to:
1. Obtain a list of all NBSC call handlers
2. Identify any call handlers with
complaints made against them in
respect of ‘providing misleading advice’
3. Cross reference any such identified call
Private & Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
POL00103106
POL00103106
handlers against complaints made by
Scheme Applicants
POL commission forensic accountants to review
the unmatched balances on POL’s general
suspense account to explain the relationship (or
lack thereof) with branch discrepancies and the
extent to which those balances can be attributed
to and repaid to specific balances.
It is understood that E&Y audit POL’s Suspense Account
as part of its annual auditing of POL.
POL will, in the first instance, make contact with
E&Y to understand what, if any, analysis it
performs on the POL Suspense Account during
its annual auditing of POL. Assuming E&Y do
not already hold answers to the questions
posed, POL will commission forensic
accountants to review any unmatched balances
on POL’ s Suspense Account
Questions:
- If E&Y do perform a suitable analysis of
POL’s Suspense Account, does Jonathan
consider them independent, given they are
POL’s auditors?
- If E&Y do not perform a suitable analysis fo
POL’s Suspense Account, does Jonathan
consider Deloitte to be suitably
independent?