POL00103132
POL00103132
DRAFT LETTER TO BNR — PROJECT SPARROW
Further to our meeting on 26 January, in which I provided you with an update on the work I am
undertaking with the assistance of Jonathan Swift QC and others at 11 Kings Bench Walk, I wish to
update you on the progress of my review of the Post Office’s handling of the Horizon-related
complaints. In particular, I thought it would be helpful to share with you my approach to the review, the
scope of work undertaken so far, and my initial findings, as well as to outline my plans for bringing it to a
conclusion.
Scope of the Review
I took, as my starting point, the following scope:
“To review the Post Office’s handling of the complaints made by sub-postmasters regarding the alleged
flaws in its Horizon electronic point of sale and branch accounting system, and determine whether the
processes designed and implemented by Post Office Limited to understand, investigate and resolve
those complaints were reasonable and appropriate”.
In my judgment, my review should address the historical position and also the important question as to
what more, if anything, could or should now be done, so as to enable all concerned to move forward
with confidence. As a result, the work was undertaken with two questions firmly in mind:
a) What has already been done in the 2010-2015 period?
b) If there are any gaps in the work done, is there any further action which can now reasonably be
taken?
I then determined that the particular focus should be on those matters at the heart of the complaints
raised against the Post Office, namely:
i) criminal prosecutions;
ii) the Horizon system (i.e. the software);
iii) the support provided to sub-postmasters through training and helplines; and
iv) the investigations in the circumstances of specific cases where a complaint had been raised.
The remainder of this letter summarises the headline findings from my review in these areas and the
recommendations made against each.
In taking this work forward, my advisors requested and were given unrestricted access to
documentation. Numerous meetings were held between them and a range of Post Office staff, as well
as with Lord Arbuthnot, representatives of Second Sight (the forensic accountants who have worked on
this issue) and Fujitsu (who provide the system). For the avoidance of doubt, I did ask Alan Bates, the
Chairman of the Justice for Subpostmasters’ Alliance, to take part but regrettably he declined.
POL00103132
POL00103132
Principal Findings and Recommendations
i) Criminal Prosecutions
In terms of the safety or otherwise of any specific conviction, this is a matter properly reserved to the
Criminal Cases Review Commission which is the independent body established to consider complaints of
miscarriages of justice and which is currently considering some 23 applications from former
subpostmasters. The Post Office is co-operating fully with the CCRC’s work and I have, of course,
directed that it should continue to do so.
However nothing in the materials we reviewed suggested that there is any evidence that the Horizon
system was responsible for those losses which resulted in convictions. In addition, we have seen
evidence that Post Office’s policy and practice in respect of disclosure of information were effective in
ensuring that those facing prosecutions were not deprived of information or evidence which would have
been helpful to them in their defence.
My review team identified a discrete legal issue, which has been the subject of significant publicity in the
BBC Panorama programme and elsewhere, arising out of the accusation (and it is only an accusation)
that the Post Office may not have had enough evidence justifiably to bring concurrent charges of theft
and false accounting against individuals. In this respect, I have determined to seek further specialist
advice from a leading criminal barrister to ascertain whether this practice would, in and of itself,
undermine a conviction on either one of those charges. Depending on the result of that advice, further
work to review specific prosecutions files may become necessary.
ii) Horizon
My review team notes that, in a system of the age, size and complexity of Horizon, it is unremarkable
that occasional bugs, errors or glitches should be uncovered and addressed periodically. A limited
number of instances of specific errors with the potential to affect branch accounts were brought to the
attention of Second Sight during the course of their work, as were details of the Post Office’s handling of
these. In the context of this review exercise, the team has concluded that there is no basis on which to
recommend further action in relation to these known, specific, errors.
However, while my review team found that the Post Office’s investigations in relation to the possible
existence of unknown errors were thorough, they did consider whether it would be possible to perform
additional testing to rule out that possibility more comprehensively. Work is now underway to assess if
such testing is possible, and if so, to scope the work that would need to be done. Further work is also
underway to address suggestions that branch accounts might have been remotely altered without
complainants’ knowledge. In particular the security controls governing access to the digitally sealed
electronic audit store of branch accounts over the life of the Horizon system, will be reviewed.
iii) Training and Support
A consistent theme of the complaints against the Post Office is the allegation that subpostmasters were
provided with insufficient training to operate the system effectively and/or did not receive an
appropriate level of support while in post. Here, my team notes that their ability to reach a definitive
POL00103132
POL00103132
conclusion in relation to these matters is hampered by a number of factors, including the lack of
specificity in the allegations made and the relative paucity of available training records.
I have concluded that these issues have already been addressed as comprehensively as is reasonably
possible by both the Post Office and by Second Sight through their investigations of all complainants’
cases. However, I am taking forward one further line of enquiry in relation to the very limited number of
cases where allegations were made of misleading advice being provided by the Post Office’s helplines.
iv) Investigation of Cases
My team has concluded that the Post Office’s investigations of the complaints made were detailed and
thorough, leaving very limited gaps which might now reasonably be filled by further work. There is, only
one further accounting exercise recommended by the review team, which consists in an examination of
the extent of any relationship between unmatched balances in the Post Office’s general suspense
account and branch discrepancies, and independent experts have been instructed to undertake this
examination.
Taking forward the Recommendations and Timings
Following discussions with my review team, I have commissioned independent persons to take the
necessary work forward, and am satisfied that they meet the standards of expertise and independence
appropriate to the tasks.
I do, of course, share your ambition to reach a conclusion to this exercise as soon as is possible while
having regard to the need for it to be done to a high standard. However, you will understand that,
particularly in relation to the further testing of the Horizon system, this work may take some time. I am
hopeful that I will be in a position to report back on the outcome of this further work during May
As I have noted above, and as you are aware, a number of complainants have made applications to the
Criminal Cases Review Commission for the circumstances of their convictions to be investigated. That
work is ongoing and the Post Office continues to co-operate fully in the process. In addition, you will
also be aware that the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance is reported to have received funding to
investigate civil proceedings against the Post Office although, at the time of writing, no claim has been
issued.
I am hopeful that the focus and scope of my review to date, together with the further work which I have
now commissioned, will allow me to confirm that the processes designed and implemented by Post
Office Limited to understand, investigate and resolve those complaints were reasonable and
appropriate, and that there are no further enquiries which should now be undertaken.
I would be happy to discuss this report with you should that be of assistance.
Yours etc
[ENDS]