Private and Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
ANNEX A - POL’s proposals for addressing the Report’s recommendations, as agreed with Jonathan Swift QC
POL00103111
POLO00103111
Number
Recommendation
Status
Proposal
1
Legal advice be sought from Counsel as to
whether the decision to charge a SPMR with theft
and false accounting could undermine the safety
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
charge.
been a sufficient evidential basis to bring the theft
Partially undertaken — analogous advice was obtained
from Brian Altman QC in February/ March 2015.
POL will instruct Brian Altman QC to provide
legal advice on the specific questions posed, for
the sake of certainty.
If such a conviction could be undermined in those
circumstances, that Counsel review the
prosecution file in such cases to establish
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.
No previous work, of a similar nature, has been
undertaken
This is dependent upon the content of the
advice provided by Brian Altman QC to
recommendation 1.
POL consider instructing a suitably qualified party
to carry out an analysis of the relevant
transaction logs for branches within the Scheme
to confirm, insofar as possible, whether any bugs
in the Horizon system are revealed by the dataset
which caused discrepancies in the accounting
position of any of those branches.
Partially undertaken — Post Office considered selected
transaction logs as part of the Complaint Review process.
POL will instruct Deloitte to determine whether
such an analysis/review is feasible, and if it is, to
provide an indication of the cost, time and
process that would be incurred.
POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out
a full review of the use of Balancing Transactions
throughout the lifetime of the Horizon system,
Partially undertaken — the feasibility of such a review was
considered with Fujitsu in mid-2015.
POL will instruct Deloitte to determine whether
such an analysis/review is feasible, and if it is, to
provide an indication of the cost, time and
POL00103111
POL00103111
Private and Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
Number Recommendation Status Proposal
insofar as possible, to independently confirm
from Horizon system records the number and
circumstance of their use.
process that would be incurred.
POL will instruct Deloitte to undertake this
review, throughout the lifetime of the Horizon
POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out
a full review of the controls over the use and
Partially undertaken — considered by audits undertaken,
principally the ISAE3402 Audit, which is carried out by
capability of authorised Fujitsu personnel to E&y. system, insofar as is possible.
create, amend or delete baskets within a sealed
audit store throughout the lifetime of the Horizon
system, insofar as possible.
POL seek specialist legal advice from external Completed: POL will provide Jonathan Swift with the advice
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.
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
referenced in the ‘status’ column. If this advice
does not satisfy Jonathan that the
recommendation is discharged, POL will instruct
Brian Altman QC to provide advice on the
specific questions posed.
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
No previous work, of a similar nature, has been
undertaken.
POL will attempt, for the time period covering
complaints made:
1._ Identify the particularised complaints
Private and Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
POL00103111
POLO00103111
Number
Recommendation
Status
Proposal
available, for evidence as to the likelihood that
the complaint may be well founded.
made by Scheme Applicants, in respect
of ‘misleading advice’ being provided
2. Cross reference these complaints to the
call handler(s) who took the call(s)
3. Review these call handlers personnel
files, where they still exist, for evidence
as to the likelihood that the
complaint(s) may be well founded
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 either EY or Deloitte
to review any unmatched balances on POL’ s
Suspense Account