Private and Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
UPDATE RE PROGRESS AGAINST JONATHAN SWIFT RECOMMENDATIONS
POL00103193
POL00103193
16 MAY 2016
No. Recommendation Status Completion Date
1 Legal advice be sought from Counsel as to whether the Brian Altman QC has advised that, in certain The review could take a further 6 to 10
decision to charge a SPMR with theft and false accounting I circumstances, the facts envisaged in this scenario could I weeks to complete, assuming (based on the
could undermine the safety of any conviction for false undermine the false accounting conviction. As a result, two sample files) each case contains 1500
accounting where a) the conviction was on the basis of a the second of these two interlinked questions must also documents and are completed at the rate of
guilty plea, following which and/or in return for which the I be addressed. 2 to 3 per week.
theft charge was dropped, and b) there had not been a
sufficient evidential basis to bring the theft charge. Having received Jonathan Swift’s feedback on the scope We are exploring whether this process can
of the exercise, Brian Altman QC is reviewing two sample I be expedited through engaging a team of
2 If such a conviction could be undermined in those files initially to determine how the review of 19 Scheme junior reviewers under Brian Altman’s
circumstances, that Counsel review the prosecution file in cases can be undertaken in the quickest and most cost supervision.
such cases to establish whether, applying the facts and law I efficient manner. This approach is consistent with:
applicable at the relevant time, there was a sufficient
evidential basis to conclude that a conviction for theft was - the 2013 review of disclosure in past
a realistic prospect such that the charge was properly prosecutions, which Jonathan Swift considered to
brought. be “reasonable and appropriate”;
- the approach to disclosing information to the
CCRC, which Jonathan Swift noted was “the
appropriate course of action”; and
- Jonathan’s recommendation that the review
could be done under Brian Altman’s supervision.
3 POL consider instructing a suitably qualified party to carry Deloitte have now completed the discovery and scoping Base minimum investigations will be
out an analysis of the relevant transaction logs for
stage of their work, and have begun the substantive
completed end May/early June.
Private and Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
POL00103193
POL00103193
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.
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, insofar as possible, to
independently confirm from Horizon system records the
number and circumstance of their use.
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.
testing of the system they see as being the base minimum
necessary to meet the lines of enquiry suggested by
Jonathan Swift. They are confident that taking the work
forward to this level can be completed by end May/early
June.
Further testing is possible, and some may even be
capable of delivery within the same timeframe. However,
given that POL now faces the Freeths litigation (which
was clearly not a relevant fact at the time of your
Review), we will be seeking advice from Jonathan Swift as
to whether it is reasonable to take this exercise beyond
the minimum.
POL seek specialist legal advice from external Counsel as to
whether the Deloitte reports, or the information within
The Deloitte Report has already been disclosed to the
CCRC.
June (subject to outcome of Deloitte work;
availability of Brian Altman; and volume of
them concerning Balancing Transactions and Fujitsu’s material)
ability to delete and amend data in the audit store, should I In relation to defendants, Brian Altman QC has advised
be disclosed to defendants of criminal prosecutions that, until such time as Deloitte have determined whether
brought by POL. This advice should also address whether or not there is any evidence of actual problems with
disclosure should be made, if it has not been, to the CCRC. I Balancing Transactions or Sealed Audits (the subject of
recommendations 4 and 5), he is unable to advise on
whether further disclosure is required. Simply put, there
may be nothing which falls to be disclosed and disclosure
of any more general nature could lead to unjustifiable,
new claims being made.
This Recommendation therefore cannot be discharged
until Deloitte completes its work or it is done otherwise
(e.g. through the Freeths litigation).
POL cross reference specific complaints about misleading This line of enquiry is now complete and we will be May
advice from NBSC call-handlers with the possible
employees who provided that advice and consider their
sending Bond Dickinson’s independent investigation
report to Jonathan Swift QC to ask whether it discharges
Private and Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
POL00103193
POL00103193
personnel files, where available, for evidence as to the
likelihood that the complaint may be well founded.
his recommendation, although we are confident that it
does.
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 branches.
Deloitte has now completed the scoping stage in relation
to this recommendation, the results of which we are still
in the process of clarifying, with their help. Deloitte
continue to work with POL to try to agree a scope of work
to satisfy the recommendation which is within “the art of
the possible”.
However, Deloitte consider that whatever substantive
testing is taken forward should be capable of being
completed in the end May/early June timeframe.
End May/Early June