POL00126086
POL00126086
Message
From: TrentM!
on behalf of — TrentM! . NS
Sent: 07/02/2018 16:18:07
To: ‘Rodric Williams
Subject: FW: Post Office
Sorry Rodric, I meant to say Friday 2"? March below, as the date which would suit us.
(The blame for this confusion lies entirely with Anona!)
Thanks
Miles
Miles Trent
Case Review Manager
iminal Cases Review Commission
From: TrentM
Sent: 07 February 2018 15:44
To: 'Rodric Williams’
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited - Update
Dear Rodric,
Many thanks for your email and attachments, they are very helpful. I will wait to hear separately regarding my email of 5
February.
The KEL
Thank you for that indication. We would be interested in visiting Fujitsu on 1st March. It would be myself and my colleague
Anona Bisping in attendance. We don't plan for Grant Thornton to attend with us, but we would be grateful if the non-
disclosure agreement could be drafted in such a way that it enables us to share information with Grant Thornton, if the
need arises.
I have had a look at the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement which was used previously, and I don’t think we would
object to that kind of arrangement. Obviously ‘the purpose’ set out at ‘recital A’ would need to be adapted to fit our task,
i.e. “to assist the CCRC's review of the criminal convictions of the SPMRs who have applied to it”. I imagine the parties
listed at ‘recital A’ in a Confidentiality Agreement for us would need to be: the CCRC, POL, Grant Thornton UK LLP, and
the Court of Appeal [that is, of course, no indication of whether or not these cases will ultimately go to the Court of
Appeal]. Am I right in thinking that Fujitsu would object to the disclosure of any information from / about the KEL to the
applicants to the CCRC (i.e. the former SPMRs) or to their lawyers? We wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that,
but we would need to be clear on the point by the time we issue our written decisions to the applicants at the end of our
review.
In short, though, yes, we are happy for Fujitsu's lawyers to progress that aspect of our visit. I will wait to hear further.
Hutchings and O'Connell.
Thanks for the update. In answer to your question, no, we will not need any other written response to our S17 notices on
those cases.
Kind regards,
Miles
POL00126086
POL00126086
Miles Trent
Case Review Manager
Criminal Ca: view Commission
Tel GRO
From: Rodric Williams [mailt
Sent: 07 February 2018 11:14
To: TrentM
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited - Update
Dear Miles,
I set out below our response to the various live issues referenced in your 5 December 2017 email, which we discussed
on 12 January 2018. Thank you for your patience while we have prepared this reply. I also acknowledge receipt of your
5 February 2018 email, which I will respond to separately.
1. GT QUESTIONS
i. [Arising from paragraph 1.6 of GT’s questions document] If we were to provide details of a specific transaction
correction would POL be able to provide contemporaneous supporting evidence that was provided to the
SPMR at the time the transaction correction was issued? (we recognise that in Ms Misra’s case the transaction
corrections would be approximately 12 years ago — could you confirm how long such supporting evidence is
retained?)
We would not expect the supporting evidence for a TC to be held for more than 6 years, so it is unlikely that the
contemporaneous evidence would still be available for TCs issued to Ms Misra, for example. However, if you
were to provide details of a specific TC, I would be happy to ask my colleagues in the Finance Service Centre to
check their records in case any such evidence is still held.
ii. POL’s written reply to GT’s questions referred a number of times to event codes, but there are no event codes
on the copy of the Misra branch Event Log that we have (see attached extract). Is any other data available in
connection with the Misra Event Log? —i.e. might a version exist which does display the event codes?
There is no version of the Misra event log which includes event codes, as event codes did not appear in the data
when she was a postmaster.
There have been different versions of the event log spreadsheet through the years and, depending on the date,
the event codes may not be included (see the response to GT's question at paragraph 1.2.2 in the GT questions
document). Event codes started appearing in the spreadsheet from the introduction of Horizon Online in
2010. However, in the pre-2010 event logs, such as the extract you included from Ms Misra's branch, similar
information may be provided, albeit in a different format. To take paragraph 1.2.1 of the GT questions
document as an example, event code 27 denotes "user logged off from system due to inactivity". In the extract
of the 2006 event log you sent us, a log-out due to inactivity can be seen in the "Type" column (see line 1 of the
extract).
I can seek further input from Fujitsu on this point if you have any further specific questions about the structure
of the event log pre- and post- 2010.
2. KEL
We have spoken to Fujitsu regarding supervised access to the KEL and they can host you and Grant Thornton on 26 or 28
February, or 1 or 2 March 2018. Please can you let me know which (if any) of these dates work best.
POL00126086
POL00126086
Fujitsu will require any attendees to enter into a non-disclosure agreement, and I attach the (redacted) form used ona
similar visit arranged for the Claimants' expert in the Group Action. Please let me know if you are happy with the form
of this agreement. If so, I can forward a clean version to Fujitsu's legal team to progress this aspect of your visit.
3. MISRA
We have produced the attached typed versions of AMO8 and AMOS. I hope these are helpful.
4. LATER APPLICATIONS — HUTCHINGS AND O'CONNELL
Thank you for your confirmation in relation to electronic searches.
We have located green investigation files in relation to both Ms O'Connell and Ms Hutchings as well as electronic
documents on both cases. All of these documents have been uploaded onto the data room for your review.
Ms Hutchings was a mediation scheme applicant so we have uploaded the relevant documents to the data room and will
release these for your review. Ms O'Connell was not an applicant to the mediation scheme so there are no equivalent
documents for her case.
I attach an updated copy of the document tracker covering these new cases.
I have received a letter dated 2 February 2018 and an email dated 6 February 2018 from Miss Pickering at the CCRC
concerning the s.17 notices for the Ms O’Connell and Ms Hutchings prosecutions respectively. Can you please let me
know whether, in light of the above, you require us to respond formally to that specific correspondence?
5. REPORT BY JONATHAN SWIFT QC
Further to your follow-up requests and the related s.17 notice, please find attached:
1. Advice provided by Brian Altman QC to Post Office on 26 July 2016;
2. Brian Altman QC's advice dated 31 October 2013 As this was provided as a draft, I also attach the final version
dated 19 December 2013;
3. Post Office’s letter to Jonathan Swift QC dated 18 December 2015; and
4. the Prosecution Policy for England and Wales submitted to Post Office’s Board for consideration on 22 January
2016.
I look forward to hearing from you on the Fujitsu visit, and will now look to respond to your 5 February 2018
email. Please let me know if you require anything further in the meantime.
With thanks and kind regards, Rodric
From: TrentM [mailtoi
Sent: 05 December 2017 13:25
To: Rodric Williams:
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited - Update
Dear Rodric,
POL00126086
POL00126086
Sorry for the delay getting back to you on the below. I had planned to reply much sooner, but it has been a hectic period
at this end. I have now had a chance to discuss the various points with my CCRC colleagues, and we can respond as
follows:
1. Grant Thornton questions
We note that the reports are no longer available. As matters stand we do not wish to attempt to recreate the reports using
codes from the transaction data, thank you.
In discussion with Grant Thornton, however, two other questions have emerged which I don't think you and I have
discussed before -
i. [Arising from paragraph 1.6 of GT's questions document — copy re-attached for your reference] If we
were to provide details of a specific transaction correction would POL be able to provide
contemporaneous supporting evidence that was provided to the SPMR at the time the transaction
correction was issued? (we recognise that in Ms Misra's case the transaction corrections would be
approximately 12 years ago — could you confirm how long such supporting evidence is retained?)
ii. POL's written reply to GT's questions referred a number of times to event codes, but there are no
event codes on the copy of the Misra branch Event Log that we have (see attached extract). Is any
other data available in connection with the Misra Event Log? — i.e. might a version exist which does
display the event codes?
2. KEL
Thanks for looking into this. We understand what you say, and that it appears that it will be difficult to search for / identify
issues in the KEL which might have related to Ms Misra's branch. However, in the interests of completeness, we would
like to take you up on your offer of having supervised access to the KEL at Fujitsu's premises (with an appropriate non-
disclosure agreement in place). This is because a number of the written submissions which we have received in these
cases have made reference to the KEL, and we believe that a visit to view the KEL will help us to better understand the
nature of the database and, in broad terms, how it works. A better informed understanding of the KEL will inevitably help
the CCRC when pulling together our reasoning / making decisions in these cases. Would it possible to arrange a visit for
some time in January?
3. Misra — docs AM08 and AMO9
Thank you for the better quality versions of these, which I have forwarded to Grant Thornton. Obviously, if typed versions
become available that would be even better, many thanks.
4. Other live points
Transaction logs — Noted, many thanks for this information.
Later applications — Thanks for the confirmation. On a connected issue, we have recently begun work on two new
applications: Hutchings (our ref 00660/2017) and O'Connell (our ref 00761/2017). I understand that section 17 notices
have recently been sent out to you on those cases. As confirmed before, we don't need POL to carry out an extensive
trawl for electronic files/drives on these newer applications, although we will need the investigations and prosecution files
to be preserved. In addition, the CRM on those two cases has asked whether the core prosecution files and any mediation
materials could be added to the data room for those two cases. Would that cause particular difficulties? I'm happy to
discuss this further.
5. Report by Jonathan Swift QC
Many thanks for this, and for your explanation of the relevant chronology. At present we would like to make follow-up
requests for materials arising out of paragraphs 108 and 111 of Mr Swift QC’s report, namely:
i. Any advice(s) received from counsel (whether from Brian Altman QC or another) about “whether the
bringing of a charge without sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction could be
said, under the criminal law, to cast doubt upon the safety of the conviction of a defendant who has
pleaded guilty”
ii. Paragraph 111 states “...We have seen the detailed legal advice provided by Brian Altman QC, dated 31
October 2013, on this topic and asked POL for a formal letter explaining how it was responding to the
recommendations made by Mr Altman QC. POL provided us that letter on 18 December 2015, along with a
detailed Prosecution Policy for England and Wales which is to be submitted to the Board for approval on 22
POL00126086
POL00126086
January 2016.” We have previously been provided with Mr Altman QC’s advice dated 15 October 2013
(attached). Is that the same advice, or is there a second document? If so we would be grateful to obtain a
copy. We would also like to obtain copies of the other documents referred to at paragraph 111.
I will arrange for S17 notices to go out to you this week in connection with the Swift QC advice and the other documents
arising. We also note that S25 CAA 1995 is invoked in relation to all of these documents.
Thanks for your continued help on these cases. Please let me know if it would help to discuss any part of this email.
Kind regards,
Miles
Miles Trent
Case Review Manager
Criminal Cases Review Commission
From: Rodric Williams [mailtof GRO !
Sent: 15 November 2017 17:02
To: TrentM
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited - Update
Dear Miles
I provide an update on the various points below.
As Grant Thornton questions
For 1.3.2 and 1.8, the reports are no longer available and do not appear in the prosecution files against Misra. It may be
possible to recreate these reports using the codes from the transaction data. If you want us to try to do this, please let
me know and we will have a more detailed look into this with Fujitsu to see what it involves and whether it can be done.
For 1.9 regarding the bank totals receipts, these were not in the prosecution files, and the branch was only required to
retain them for 2 years. Bank of Ireland would have had these originally, but given the length of time that has passed we
consider it unlikely that they would still have them. These figures are not available on Horizon data as this is not part of
the accounting process for balancing the ATM on Horizon. Essentially, the primary figures for the ATM balance on
Horizon are: starting cash (which is via a Rem in or transfer in), daily dispensed figures, retracts/ transaction failures, and
cash on hand.
2. KEL
We have asked Fujitsu whether it is possible to address your follow up request, but there are a number of issues which
make this complex and potentially not possible. The KEL is not a document but a live database, and it cannot be
downloaded or printed, and so could only be inspected at Fujitsu's premises rather than provided separately. The KEL is
also not recorded on a branch-by-branch basis and therefore any information about Misra (if any exists) is not readily
accessible/ identifiable, if it is accessible/identifiable at all.
As mentioned above, the KEL is a live and evolving database, so even if there are any potentially relevant entries, they
may no longer be held. The date range you have mentioned is also very wide and old (more than 12 years ago) and we
are informed this data has been archived and has therefore lost its context and may not be complete. Fujitsu has also
told us that since the data is not recorded by branch, there is no easy way of analysing the data either by branch or by
type, and this is made more challenging where data has been archived, as it would have been with the date range you
have mentioned.
POL00126086
POL00126086
Fujitsu is nonetheless happy to let you have supervised access to the KEL at its premises provided an appropriate Non-
Disclosure Agreement is in place. Please let me know if you would like to do this and we will make arrangements with
Fujitsu.
2. Misra
On the back of your request we went back to the substantial original files and specifically searched for AMO8 and
AMOS. These files were located in the data room as having already been uploaded, and we hold the originals. We attach
further scans which are slightly better than those originally supplied, although the originals are clearer still. To enable
you to have legible copies, we are copy typing them and are happy to make the originals available for inspection at
Womble Bond Dickinson's offices in Bristol.
4. Other live points
Transaction logs - The JSNs are not shown in the Session IDs or Transaction IDs. The session ID is not based on JSN, so
any gaps in session ID does not imply any gap in JSNs. Typically where Fujitsu submit data in support of a prosecution, it
is in the form of an Excel spreadsheet which often has a sheet labelled "Summary" and then one or more sheets
containing transaction data. Fujitsu informs us that the completeness of the sequence of JSNs for each ARQ is confirmed
on the Summary sheet in the spreadsheet.
The data that Fujitsu provide in the ARQ spreadsheets to support a prosecution shows what has been done at the
terminals in a branch for a given period and any other data from the audit log would be supplementary.
The JSNs are not intended for use by the branch and the data is therefore not available to the branch.
Broughton/McDonald — thank you for confirming.
8 later applications — we have asked POL Security/RMG and Cartwright King to retain any further files that may be
identified.
5. Additional point re 04/03/2016 letter from Post Office Limited Chairman, Tim Parker
The review undertaken by Jonathan Swift QC and Christopher Knight was undertaken directly for Post Office’s (then in-
coming) Chairman, who on taking office wanted an independent assessment of what Post Office had done to date in
response to the postmaster/Horizon challenges so that he could determine whether any further action should be taken.
I attach a copy of the report, which as you will see made 8 recommendations.
Work was commissioned on all 8 of the Review’s recommendation. While some of that work was relatively
straightforward (for example Bond Dickinson LLP produced a report on recommendation 7), a significant portion of it
has been complex and time consuming. The Review work also commenced before the Group Litigation began, such that
work on it effectively stopped for the purposes of the Review, but is being undertaken in connection with the Group
Litigation (for example Deloitte’s work on the audit store and suspense accounts, which is ongoing).
If there are any materials arising out of the Swift Report that you would like to see, please let me know. I would also be
grateful if you could please send me as.17 request in respect of those materials, and also for the attached
Review. Please treat this email as formal notice under s.25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 that the Review, and any
documents arising out of it which you may now request, should not be disclosed without our prior consent.
I hope this has been helpful. As ever, I am happy to discuss this further as you may require.
Kind regards, Rodric
POLO0126086
POL00126086
” Rodric Williams
Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand
20 Finsbury Street
Lo
2017 Winner of the Global Postal Award for Customer
Experience
From: TrentM [mailto;
Sent: 29 September 2017 1!
To: Rodric Williams:
Subject: RE: Post Office Limited - Update
Dear Rodric,
Further to our telephone conversation on Tuesday, I write with a further update on some of the points below.
1. Grant Thornton questions
I have supplied Grant Thornton with POL's written reply. I haven't heard any detailed feedback as yet, but they
have expressed an interest in the point that you and I discussed briefly on Tuesday, namely, are the
reports/documents which are referred to in the written reply (e.g. paragraphs 1.3.2, 1.8 and 1.9) still available for
Ms Misra's indictment period and post office branch (June 2005-January 2008 at West Byfleet). Or, if the original
reports are not, could they be reconstructed from source data now? I raise this point for information at the
moment, as I intend to discuss it further with Grant Thornton in the coming weeks.
2. KEL
Thanks for the information on this. I'm afraid we have a follow up query — is it possible to search for KELs dating
from the time of Ms Misra’s indictment period? If so, we would be grateful if we could be provided with / given
access to all KELs raised or updated in the period June 2005-January 2008. In making this request we remain
mindful of paragraph 50(4) of the Post Office's Defence and Counterclaim to the Group Action. However, we
believe that this KEL data - if still in existence — is information which we will need to review before we can resolve
the applications to the CCRC.
3. Misra
Many thanks for the information on opening hours, and for AM10. We will wait to hear further regarding AM08 and
AMO9, thanks.
4. Other live points
e We will wait to hear further regarding transaction logs, thanks.
e Regarding the Broughton/McDonald document, we have now discussed at this end. In view of the
significant technical difficulties you are facing, we have decided to attempt to address the relevant issues
in that case using other documents at our disposal. As matters stand, therefore, efforts to retrieve this
document can be suspended. We will let you know if we need to revisit the issue later in our review.
e Regarding electronic documents in the more recent 8 applications to the CCRC, we have now discussed
at this end. All that we require for the time being is confirmation that the investigation and prosecution
files for those cases (be they in hard copy or electronic) are preserved and will not be destroyed. Does
that save POL some of the electronic trawl / extraction exercise you refer to? If I have misunderstood this
point in any way, I'm happy to discuss on the phone.
5. Additional point re 04/03/2016 letter from Post Office Limited Chairman, Tim Parker.
In the course of our enquiries we have used S17 CAA 1995 to secure material from UKGI (formally Dept for BIS).
Among the materials was the attached letter from Tim Parker to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, dated 4 March 2016. Mr
Parker refers to an internal review undertaken with the assistance of Jonathan Swift QC and Christopher Knight
or counsel. I don't recall having read about this review before (unless I am missing something?), and would be
grateful for further information on this, including any report(s) ultimately produced. Could we discuss when you
have a moment? Point of interest to our review might include:
e Reference to taking advice from counsel on the over-charging argument (Theft / False accounting) —
bottom of page 2.
e Reference to potential for analysis of transaction logs - second paragraph on page 3.
e The instruction of independent experts to examine “unmatched balances in Post Office's general
suspense account” etc — bottom of page 3.
POLO0126086
POL00126086
Many thanks for your help.
Kind regards,
Miles
Miles Trent
Case Review Manager
Criminal. Cases Review Commission
Tell GRO
Sent: 24 September 2017 23:27
To: TrentM
Subject: Post Office Limited - Update
Dear Miles,
Further to our recent communications, including our telephone conversation on 22 September 2017, I provide in this email
a general update on the status of various live matters concerning your investigation. I hope it is useful and please do let
me know if there is anything you want to follow up.
1. Grant Thornton questions
Please find attached our response to Grant Thornton's questions, which we hope is of some assistance. Please treat our
response as confidential, and ensure that it is not disclosed without our prior consent to anyone other than the Grant
Thornton team assisting the CCRC's investigations. To the extent Grant Thornton have follow-up questions, we are of
course happy to help with those.
2. KEL
We have now received answers from Fujitsu to your questions on the KEL. Your questions are in black and Fujistu's
responses are in red below.
e Paragraph 50(4) of the defence refers to the KEL as a “document” in the singular, am I right in thinking it
exists as a single document rather than multiple different logs? The KEL is a single database which
changes with new KELs being added, changed, and removed on a regular basis.
e In terms of scale, in your email of 13/11/2016 you referred to “thousands of entries” and “voluminous
entries” in the KEL, is it possible to say how many pages the document runs to? Fujitsu has confirmed
that the KEL currently runs to 3973 KELs.
e In your email of 13/11/2016 you stated: “We have asked Fujitsu for some random examples of these
entries, and will provide these to you in due course”. I don’t think we have received any examples to date.
I would be grateful if we could see some sample pages, as this would give us a clearer idea of the kind of
information the KEL contains, and whether further analysis of the document is likely to be of any
relevance to our review. Examples copied at the bottom of this email.
3. MISRA
My records suggest there were two outstanding points on Misra: (1) can POL confirm the opening hours for the indictment
period (2005-2008)?; and (2) are there any further Branch Trading Statements for Misra other than December 2007-
January 2008?
On point 1, please see the attached "Office Transfer" document dated 15 June 2005 which shows that the opening hours.
were stated as being 9am-5.30pm Monday to Friday and 9am-1pm on Saturday.
On point 2, we have located on the data room the attached list of exhibits and statements. This list refers to branch trading
statements covering the following periods: (1) November 2006-December 2006 (Exhibit AMO8); (2) May 2007-June 2007
POLO0126086
POL00126086
(Exhibit AMO9); and (3) November 2007-December 2007 (AM10). I see from past correspondence that you already have
access to the BTS covering December 2007 to January 2008.
We have located AM08, AMO9 and AM10 on the data room (please see attached) but unfortunately only one of the three
documents — AM10 — is legible. We are making enquiries to track down better quality versions of AM08 and AMO9 and will
let you know as soon as we have any news on this.
4. OTHER LIVE POINTS
e Your queries on transaction logs are currently with Fujitsu and we will update you as soon as we have a
response.
e Broughton /McDonald document — technical issues are still preventing us from accessing the relevant EFC. We
appreciate this issue has been live for some time. Please be assured we are still trying to gain access to the
document, but the difficulties we are experiencing are an unfortunate consequence of trying to retrieve historic
documentation.
e Asearch has been carried out for hard copy documents relating to Rubbina Shaheen and I can now confirm that
Post Office does not hold any hard copy files for this case. Electronic materials for this case are already available
‘on the data room.
e You will see from the attached tracker that we have completed our document collation process (subject to your
thoughts on the point below) but we will, of course keep the position under review. To the extent we become
aware of further documents on any of the cases, we will make those documents available to you on the data
room.
e With respect to electronic documents generally, you may recall that the original extraction of electronic documents
was done in and around June/July 2015. Since that extraction was carried out, 8 further applications have been
made to the CCRC: Hedges, Holmes, Trousdale, Shaheen, Joshi, Owen, Parekh and Warren. The original
extraction included a large volume of electronic documents relating to these 8 further cases, which information
has already been made available to you on the data room. Given this, and our understanding that your current
focus is on the earlier cases, we had not proposed to undertake a further exercise of seeking to identify (and if
relevant extracting) any additional electronic files/drives for these newer cases. Please however let us know if you
would like us to take a different approach.
I trust this has been helpful. We remain available to discuss any aspect of this with you further as you may require.
Kind regards, Rodric
POL00126086
POL00126086
PM is getting a system error when trying to produce a despatch report
[A despatch repert has not been produced and ait off daily so the number of records that are meant to appear in it have grown tothe paint that the counter is unable to process them.
“The i ule to prt prvi each rout a a ytemararreatad to temas terete seming he pte preview ton
Srey ee rte ee coe 0 co nt cca
SISSEES nity actor
Problem
1 et repr ado an ccd dt ty 0 hang aera re nnd ona ep we eng by he
‘i remogeleg ont outer sons thee ve beaver the ree att maud seen Oe cose Bonny Set watt rcen than gen thts avang OACIMareier wari ogg the tre
Solution
305 I snc I ssc I
‘he pclamiscata by the fic na eliowng the ort He cad byt podiing it of ematch rapa on aap ba The eon sytem area per ged eon
ssc
‘Crane thea by S28. Then coe the cider a "er ors that it fered tke MOSC a sais nv ng monty meeting.
Cotas Eventing Farm (CET sho rere ms rng a ha il ony on ab rae by mil fe.
Evidence
Peaoteacmteriog
+ More details
rat yes homation
[ti patng # atemerer shan tg to podice» deentch rept
Sma 1 depth reg ast tn pred wo ny ote mob of acrd that we mart to aspen eve own tothe port tha he covet abl te pans ham
Costdatd 1 steve Pron 20207016
‘alae
Sram
‘Aldaonl burch Ward: Snaton sup not wang Henig C9! 0293
Seen ‘Aamo
ve ros
ours: ise
lhe verse of ie
erson 1 (Cnomcated) by argon cxon2013 I Vi Garo
erson 18 (Cuomcae) by Sudo Sun c204201,
erlon 13 (Ono aed) by Steve Sear on 29692013 Vw Ours
PM states that AEI transaction keeps registering as a zero value which is unexpected
[As partof the transaction the PM is asked if transaction is zero value and if they select Yes 2 zero value is registered.
‘symptoms
(carrying ot am AI mean ry 4S rsh bt they hve sated that heaps bang rpateed at # sro ve aration. Thay are outed to berepatered at £220 tramactin,
Problem
‘gt ot na erm ng an te rr aroun nd x vent on toa Yon No es at ie arate ered bigs vo ha sprouted dower th ree ated on
tarde as hte at te en the Waaaction ha Bw noe conrmtat tha wore ota Waren match he Brea Fem nou They sresad Core rate an wang rw to cerect toe STE
‘Solution
han ad # th aration sro vain the rt corect ct Ya or Ho.
+.More details
yee:
‘ie Futaes that Aft varaactn 2 nro waa whch a wmwomcted
Sommer {As pot dl thetraranciontha Pe and f Waren nwo ake ord thay st Yes ae van agar.
Raid by Ove Seddon on 25/1008
astapdated: mia
aoe
Sem
ate
vt
ws.
POL00126086
POL00126086
IOException URL- Error in postcodeanywhere service
‘Tomo of Gccumence : E/OmUYY fees
Eos notce
‘Norton besten UR rein perc odearynare sre] ART 209 ne rg pstdnanynre serve OG ection Ont etl ete
‘Mettont tose Ure pecete te cotiot SSS mvt te cota acetate wltetld ettc atone
Sete monte tr ante Me msrated wan bh cure type om S08 kr npanccaeryere neve) At =z.
‘Netenes frepion bre eves) ogentaactownecestins manwrea & couentree’ tee pers termennte PEL cated wth anion type BX. atop ache serces parr. COMPurer seinen Sauce)
‘AcAtons ne carer ton mace mat be trniad by Us chong weg mete> 900 tr posuere tewce}act Meena Severe"
Problem
‘Th ae tae when OS ra te came to pntcadnanynre save Th rss cold te oatcederyuere owner swe bee thn eral tera! une fre reatretens: bay Sar Oot mae
Solution
‘oc Acton:
Fi Sean aren wher the tee ethan hig uns he srvce a corfrra aw ad the wer re crtruing thas
For Alera 1 and 2:
ETRE LTE afte rere encsaton proce of ving.
ne TESA Fr Alar tt 34 and 3
CSaETSTS.E ree mnch nl bine as hghed on see art 3 nd ge topthr rere. # cl ar faundgrr oa at ae a with SSC anf nara eeaiton pcan of vating
haar Hert aoraceI - 000 5
fomation
Catala Dy tgs falaperm on 7 112006
Srmmrredets —— Cactandanrntatsarrions)
vy Nes
\erson 4 (Deecate by Aled Share on 2062016 [Vas Ore
‘Vemion 3 (Cuomeated) by Mark rg on 207/20:5 en Oar
‘Vemion 2 (Cupmested) by Rarana Raven 27/09/2013, en Oa
* Rodric Williams
Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand
20 Finsbury Street
2017 Winner of the Global Postal Award for Customer: rodric, williams
Experience
SCRA ACR AC CACC CC CA A A CA CA ACR AR A A A CA A A A A A A A A A A A
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you
have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
2K RR A OR 2 RR A OR ARR ORR ORR OR ORR oR oR ao
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
The Criminal Cases Review Commission
5 St Philip's Place
Birmingham
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is
confidential and is intended for the use of the person(s) or entity named above.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
return it immediately to the sender by replying to it and then delete the
message from your computer.
We may monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via our network for the
purposes of ensuring compliance with policies and procedures.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments
are free from any virus we advise that in keeping with good computing practice
the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
The Criminal Cases Review Commission
5 St Philip's Place
Birmingham
JER SEO ODIO IO ODI IIIB IIA IODA IOI AIDA IO IIIA II AIO S OI III IIIT IIE
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is
confidential and is intended for the use of the person(s) or entity named above.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
return it immediately to the sender by replying to it and then delete the
message from your computer.
We may monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via our network for the
purposes of ensuring compliance with policies and procedures.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments
are free from any virus we advise that in keeping with good computing practice
the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
POL00126086
POL00126086
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
The Criminal Cases Review Commission
5 St Philip's Place
Birmingham
B3 2PW
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is
confidential and is intended for the use of the person(s) or entity named above.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please
return it immediately to the sender by replying to it and then delete the
message from your computer.
We may monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via our network for the
purposes of ensuring compliance with policies and procedures.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments
are free from any virus we advise that in keeping with good computing practice
the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
POL00126086
POL00126086