Mr Segun Jide
Ms Laura Smith
Burges 4
Salmon
Solicitor to the Inquiry
Post Office Hori
5th Floor,
izon IT Inquiry
Aldwych House,
71-91 Aldwych,
London,
WC2B 4HN
By email: Solicitoré
Direct Line?
tom. whitake
Our ref: CJ01/65113.1 1 September 2023
Dear Mr Jide (and Ms Smith),
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Post Office Disclosure: Structural Update as Incoming RLR
I write further to
our letter of 31 August.
Purpose
1 This letter:
(a) Summarises the current position on disclosure (ncluding my understanding from
observation to date of POL’s approach to disclosur@ and our proposed approach
following BSFfs RLR designation from 1 September. As part of this approach we
propose structured engagement on these issues withthe Inquiry to ensure that it
continues to be fully sighted.
(b) Gives an overview of the structural review refered to by Diane Wills at paragraphs 18
and 108 of her second witness statement.
(c) Explains the relevance of that review to POL’s support for the work of the Inquiry.
Current Position and Proposed Approach
2 Thank you to Sir Wyn for the letters of 30 August2023 confirming my RLR designation. During
the three-month period since our appointment in May 2023, the BSFf team has been working
intensively to mobilise and then get up to speed wth, in particular, the complex issues involved
in relation to disclosure. This is in order to forma view on the position as a whole, including
the fast-moving issues that have necessitated the September hearing. I thought that it would
therefor
3 We are
e be helpful, given the matters below, to summarise the position on disclosure overall.
mindful of the seriousness of the issues and events being reviewed by the Inquiry and
the acute human and other impacts that those have had upon the Postmasters and others
affected. Both in terms of our approach and our ingructions from POL, that awareness informs
and underpins all aspects of our work for POL durirg the rest of the Inquiry and to the inputs
WORK\49747676\1
fei
Burges Salmon LLP is a limited lability partnership registered in England and Wales (LLP number 0C307212, SRA ID 401114), and is authored and
regulated by the Solictors
I Sirgel Square, London. EC4A SBE.
RO 0.
mn rison Stel. Edioburah. EHS 8EX
Fax GRO, j
Faxd
i
POL00126339
POL00126339
I fieldfisher
INVESTORS IN PEOPLE
Regulation Authority. Iti also regulated by the Law Society of Scotland: ts registered offeo is al One Glass Whar, Bristol, We invest in people Platinum
BS2OZX. Alistof the mambers may be inspected at is registered offce, Further information about Burges Salmon entives, nckiding details of thei
regulators, is set out on the Burges Salmon website at www Burgos salmon com
Page 2
1 September 2023
that the Inquiry will understandably demand of POL. That of course applies to the points set
out below.
Neither I nor other members of the BSFf team had any prior involvement with any work for the
Post Office nor the matters that gave rise to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. As a team we
therefore recognise that we do not yet fully understandeverything that has gone before nor all
of the complexities. We will however continue to work intensively to get across those issues
and to engage frankly and constructively with the Inquiry ad with those representing the
Postmaster Core Participants (“CP’s”) and other CPs.
The issues being considered at the September hearinghave, necessarily, involved significant
amounts of detailed explanation in witness statements, déclosure statements and
correspondence. The purpose of this letter is to seek to stand back from that detail and to
provide a frank overview of the position based on our curent understanding and our
assessment since our appointment. The work to build thatunderstanding is ongoing; we are
seeking to take a structured and systematic approach to it.
As various of the witnesses for the September hearing have confirmed from their own
perspective, my understanding and direct observation is alsothat POL’s instruction and wish
is to provide all relevant evidence that the Inquiry wishes to see, so that the full factual position
can be examined and become known. That is the attitude and instruction from the POL team
with whom we are working, the great majority of whomhave also come fresh to the issues that
are being examined by the Inquiry.
I have been instructed by POL (and it would in any eent be my intended approach
professionally) to flag to the Inquiry if ever there wee to be an attempt to withhold evidence
that should be disclosed in relation to the Terms of Reéerence and the events leading up to
the Inquiry being set up. I sense however that that is unlikely to arise; the issues faced are
really those of scale, complexity and practicability.
Proposed Engagement
8
My aim and request is that there can be continued (famal and minuted as necessary)
engagement with the Inquiry’s senior team on these critcal issues so that the Inquiry is
updated on the work POL is undertaking. We hope such @ approach will best support the
Chair to continue to plan for the vital remaining stages of the Inquiry. Whilst we will provide
updates in correspondence, with issues of this complexity weconsider that the ability to have
a discussion on points of concern may be beneficial for the Inquiry and for POL in assisting it.
That is of course a matter for the Inquiry to consider but I reiterate that I, and colleagues, are
happy in that context to meet with you and your colleagues regularly and as you would find
helpful. I will also, as and if necessary, attend as RLRany future disclosure hearings to provide
formal updates.
Disclosure Position - Overview
10
As Diane Wills and Gregg Rowan note in their witness statements for the 5 September hearing,
the position is of significant complexity. I have been in pofessional practice for over thirty years
dealing with (and since 1997 leading) in roles for cligits in complex and large-scale public
inquiries, inquests and disputes projects. Many have involved multiple parties, involved facts
and very large hard copy and electronic data sets/structurad disclosure exercises. I have not
however encountered (or even come close to) a situation irvolving issues of the scale and
complexity of that involving POL’s disclosure position.
WORK\49747676\v.1
POL00126339
POL00126339
Page 3
1 September 2023
1 My understanding from what we have seen since May 2023is that this is down to a
combination of factors including (but not exclusively):
(a)
(b)
(c)
POL’s own long and complicated organisational histoy and internal structures over
decades (and longer) including a demerger during the ast 20+ years during which the
Horizon problems and events have occurred.
Multiple sites and the absence until recently of any data universe’ map of hard copy
and electronic repositories (locations and systems) of potentally relevant documents
leading to emerging sources from both ‘known unknowns’ bit also ‘unknown
unknowns’.
Multiple document systems (current and historic) and interactions between different
systems.
A complicated mix of hard copy, digital and e-media sources from various different
eras and without any central record. Some sources are locd, others central, or are a
hybrid of both.
The evolution (through the collation and adding ¢ different source repositories from
different providers and at different times with different methodologies) of the Relativity
database operated by KPMG for POL. This is also complicated by system constraints
on all disclosure databases including Relativity. Functiondity and usability declines
materially once databases get above a certain size. I am nd a technical e-disclosure
expert but my understanding is that the 60million documets currently held are
approximately 30 Terabytes of data in total and that a Relativity review workspace
database starts to have serious functionality problems at a around 10Tb.
The scale of data involved (as others have confirmed, row over 60 million documents
with more inevitably to be found as the data mapping continues and specific requests
for Phases 5-7 are formulated and targeted).
As a result of different inputs from different sources and providers, variability in data
quality and therefore also functionalities (for exampleemail threading or use of CAL —
computer assisted learning - or TAR — Technology Assisted Review) that would
ordinarily be available and are commonly used in Relativty disclosure projects being
either not available or only partially available.
The need to respond swiftly to incoming evidence requests as the Inquiry evolved,
potentially led to a focus on responding to individual requests, whilst balancing the
factors brought into play in all large disclosure exercises 6 scope vs time vs avoidance
of irrelevant material etc.
Practical difficulties in the use of search terms on issues which — necessarily — are not
always easily defined — for example processes, bugs/errors/deécts and other terms
1 A review workspace is the database that a legal team has to use for coding and so has to involve allof the necessary
functionality. The exact size at which problems ocair depends on the complexity of the coding. The Hoizon issues involve highly
complex coding due to the interaction between diffeent issues under the ToR. For completeness a processing workspace (that
used primarily by the e-disclosure provider for processing of data) can be larger as it does not invove that same level of
necessary functionality.
WORK\49747676\v.1
POL00126339
POL00126339
Page 4
1 September 2023
used in a wide variety of contexts — some highly relevantto the Inquiry and others not
so.
We are also mindful that the requests for information and documents relating to Phases 5 and
6 under Section 21 or Rule 9 will involve (given the wer scope of those Phases) necessarily
wider scope than many of the requests in earlier phases.
In the light of these factors, and the opportunity afforded to us to assess the position during
the course of a transitional hand-over period, the strudural review to which Diane Wills refers
in her statement, is being taken forward by revisiting the EDRM® (Electronic: Discovery
Reference Model) stages. The Inquiry will be aware EDRW is the generally recognised global
methodology for complex disclosure exercises. It involves lookingseparately at each of the
key stages of identification; preservation; collection; processing; review; analysis and
production. In practice that involves a system review of all sources of data and systems
(electronic and hard copy), how they are being capturedand processed. It will also involve
looking at the viability (or not) and time involved (if viable) of restructuring the Relativity
databases. That structural review is underway.
We are conscious that there has, for example been very intensive work ongoing on hard copy
data repositories and that the Inquiry has received updats from HSF on this on 22 August
and on 31 August. The same confirmatory exercise is being caried out in relation to digital
repositories and also the interactions between differentsystems.
This is to check, to the best level achievable, all of the relevant elements that make up POL’s
disclosure in the light of the factors summarised at paragaph 11 above: sources of data; types
of data; those that have been successfully captured and those that remain to be captured for
potential relevance to the remaining Phases of the Inquiry, how it is currently held and
accessed in Relativity and whether this can be improved. Each of the implementation
processes and actions (all of the stages in the chain of what is being done by whom) will be
looked at to seek to reduce risks and make any achievable improvements.
This is being done mindful of the reality that the focus of attention and review to date
evidentially has been on Phases 2-4. We do not have anythng like the same level of
knowledge and detail on those phases and related work asdo HSF and therefore defer to
them on that issue. However, from our understanding ard involvement since our instruction
our sense is that detailed and thorough searches and dda collation have occurred in relation
to those Phases. The focus in the review is therefore on Phases 5-7.
The relevance of the review to POL’s support for the work of the Inquiry
17
The work on the review will of course continue in paallel with our work in responding to the
the live requests from the Inquiry and we do not anticipate it impacting negatively on that.
However, the issues set out at paragraph 11 above add anadditional layer of complexity to
that work.
In terms of timing we anticipate that the review itself will take a number of weeks. If structural
changes to the Relativity database are viable and bring material benefits, the scale of data and
? For Phases 5 and 6, some difficult issues of without prejudice and other privilege (not solely withinPOL’s power to waive) will
also arise, in particular, in relation to the operaion of the ICRMS. We will write very shortly to the Inquiry on that issue to explore
how it should properly and most effectively be addessed.
* A visual is exhibited to Diane Wills’ statement
* Itis going to be applied here to both hard copy aid electronic POL data sources.
WORK\49747676\v.1
POL00126339
POL00126339
Page 5
1 September 2023
resulting processing time is likely to take 12-15 weeks. Hovever, that structural work (if
actioned) would be done in parallel with continuing eview work in the existing system’ and
should not affect that continuing work.
19 The review work is required to be able to enablePOL to comply with current requests of the
Inquiry in relation to Phase 5 and future such requests. In particular, POL wishes to establish
that all ascertainable data sources have been identified and collected to the full level
reasonably achievable so that the review pool contains thesource data potentially relevant to
the specific request/requirement. The review work on theexisting pool will continue whilst that
is done in parallel.
20 The aim of the work will also be - as with any comple disclosure exercise — to inform the
necessary interactions and balancing between different facbrs including resource, efficiency,
and depth of review achievable relative to different tmescales. Those factors obviously involve
unavoidable choices in any review exercise — for example ondepth achievable vs time
available. The aim will remain that the support fromPOL to the Inquiry can be effective and
efficient. However, the reality is that it will not be possible to mitigate all of the factors set out
at paragraph 11 above. Many are historic matters inherert in a disclosure exercise of this
nature.
21 The scale of POL's task in identifying and providing disclosure to the Inquiry in a way that
meets the Inquiry's timetable has been and remains significant, for the reasons set out above.
I explained at the outset of this letter that I wanted to set out a frank overview of the current
position. All disclosure processes rely upon both technical and human inputs. They also
require careful judgements to be made as they progress. Due to a combination of all of those
factors, no disclosure process as large and complex as the ore being conducted can be
configured to produce every document that could potentidly be relevant within in an
organisation's custody and control. This is of course unfortunately the reality of large-scale
searches where parameters have to be set; even when these ae widely drawn to target and
locate that which both the requesting and producing paty are determined to find, the technical,
system and human factors produce constraints.
22 Even with the changes that are likely to be put in pace as a result of the structural review, that
will remain the case and I think it is important to be direct and up front with the Inquiry about
that.
By way of reassurance however, I confirm that POL and its egal advisors are devoting, and will
continue to devote, very substantial resource and effort b ensure that it provides, as far as is
reasonably achievable to do so, all relevant documents inresponse to the Inquiry's requests.
5 We understand that there may need to be a very shatt period of ‘downtime’ limited to 48 hours or so br migration at the end
of the structural work only.
WORK\49747676\v.1
POL00126339
POL00126339
POL00126339
POL00126339
Page 6
1 September 2023
I hope that the overview in this letter is helpful. I and BSFf colleagues would welcome the opportunity
to engage with the Inquiry on the issues raised in any way which would assist. We hope that it will be
possible to meet (formally and on a minuted basis) with the Inquiry team to discuss these important
issues.
Yours sincerely
: GRO
Chris Jackson
Partner
BURGES SALMON LLP
WORK\49747676\v.1