POL00113135
POL00113135
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE AND MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF POST OFFICE LTD GENERAL COUNSEL OR CARTWRIGHT KING
POST OFFICE LTD
NOTE TO POL
SECURING DATA FOR FUTURE PROSECUTIONS
Background
1. In February 2014 I was instructed to draft a Memorandum of Understanding
between POL and any third party supplier of its IT system, (presently Fujitsu
Services Ltd. (“the supplier”)), along with an explanation of why it was essential
to POL that the integrity of the Horizon audit data was not compromised as part of
any storage replacement programme. I was instructed that the draft Memorandum
of Understanding should:
a. Ensure that the supplier retained all Horizon data; and
b. Set out the duties and obligations Post Office Ltd has as a prosecutor;
c. Identify the nature and scope of the data that Post Office Ltd
necessarily relies upon for the prosecution of its cases;
d. Seek the supplier’s understanding and agreement to revealing any and
all material or information that might undermine the integrity of the
system; and to the requirement for the disclosure of such material or
information in the course of criminal proceedings, as may be required.
2. 1am now asked to consider whether in fact these matters are adequately provided
for within the contractual relationship between POL and Fujitsu.
1027
THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE AND MUST NOT BE DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF POST OFFICE LTD GENERAL COUNSEL OR CARTWRIGHT KING
3. Iam informed that the Fujitsu commercial and legal team had considered the
terms of the proposed MoU against the existing contractual arrangements between
POL and Fujitsu, together with a new no-cost CT and the Transitional Support
Services agreement.
Opinion
4. In terms of the protection of, and provision to, POL of data required for future
prosecutions, I am satisfied that the Fujitsu commercial and legal team’s view is
the correct one. In particular I am content that clauses 25.3, 25.8 and 25.9 of the
contract deals appropriately with the concerns raised in this context.
My one area of uncertainty however resides in the interpretation of the term
“Records” as it appears in the clause. I am concerned that the term should include
all information, in whatever form, which relates to or is associated with any aspect
of the Horizon Online system or its operation, functioning, communication or
connectivity, and which may: indicate the presence (past or present) of a defect,
‘bug’ fault or virus; or tend to suggest that any data produced may be inaccurate,
false or otherwise unreliable; or that any balance produced by the system may be
inaccurate, false or otherwise unreliable; or which might indicate a failure, error,
inadequacy or insufficiency in the presentation of data.
6. Subject to that qualification, I am satisfied that the terms of the contract, CT and
TSS adequately deal with the concerns raised by POL in February and to which
the draft MoU was addressed.
Si
Si
imon Clarke 2nd July 2014
enior counsel
POL00113135
POL00113135
1028