POL00132939
POL00132939
From: Mark Underwood1[
Sent: Wed 11/02/2015 3:
To: Z Chris
Parsons,
Rodric
ngela Van-Den-Bogerd{.
Ce: Melanie Corfiel j; MarkR
Davies” i)
Subject: RE: Note of telecon with lan Henderson 20 Jan
Hi Belinda,
In terms of the questions without an answer posed by SS in relation to Part 2. They are as follows:
e 5.5, 7.3, 7.4, 7.7, 11.8, 13.7 — Rod Ismay has now provided answers, and Andy P is in the process of making
sure these align with the info provided in the recent suspense account paper. Once finalised they will be
included in our answers V3 and issued to SS (likely next week)
e 15.1-15.3d. These are now covered off by the recent Suspense Account paper
® — 6,3 (Bracknell emails). This will be dealt with separately to Part 2.
e 12.5-12.7 (assertions of underhand behaviour in respect of Branch Closures). Agreed by the WG as being too
Wide. Onus is on SS to re-supply more specific questions.
e 11.4— question not understood. Again, onus is on SS to provide a more articulate question
e =©13.2, 13.3 & 13.6. PO does not hold this info.
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 11 February 2015 07:07
To: Chris Aujard; Parsons, Andrew; Rodric Williams; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Mark R Davies; Belinda Crowe; Mark Underwood1
Subject: Re: Note of telecon with Ian Henderson 20 Jan
Further to this, I think we have four outstanding issues to address with Second Sight re the provision of information:
1. The provision of emails relating to Bracknell
2. The provision of prosecution documents
3. Further information re what started off as being suspense accounts etc.
4. The few outstanding questions/information requests from the Part Two questions
This where we are and should plan to be going forward:
1. Emails - I have requested from Dave King as much email data as he can get from the people on the list lan sent
through to me after my conversation with him on 20 Jan. I have some email data for Martin Rolfe and Dave is looking
to what he can get re the other people on the list (Mark Underwood keeping track)
I have also obtained the disk we gave to lan with what data we managed to obtain last time. Dave is trying to access
that data to see exactly what was provided.
When I have both of the above (which should hopefully be within the next few days) I will email lan to set out what he
has asked for, what we previously provided. I should ask him to, as we discussed on 20 Jan, let me know what his
search criteria are and also exactly what questions he is looking to answer from the emails so that we can consider
how best to answer those questions and provide relevant information. I think that if Second Sight are, as we believe,
looking for evidence to support the erroneous assertion that a team in Bracknell were able to manipulate branch data
POL00132939
POL00132939
without the knowledge of the spmr then the best way of dealing within this may be a statement from Post Office
refuting the allegation. The provision of email data is not going to be determinative and Second Sight are likely to
return for more data which will be inconclusive. I therefore think we should set out the question we consider they are
trying to answer and do a paper/witness statement. In that we need to set out the history of what we have provided,
the conversations we have had with them and how we have explained why we cannot provide more, if we cannot.
2. Prosecution docs - continue as now.
3. Suspense accounts - I am not involved in tat but presume continue as now
4. Other questions - how many do we have outstanding?
Shall we catch up later about handling?
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Postline
gg
On 9 Feb 2015, at 18:18, Belinda Crowe
To see
This was a note I made of my call with lan Henderson on 20 Jan. I apologise it is rather scrappy but it
was simply meant to be a note.
This is why I was rather surprised at what he said in his evidence at the Select Committee in which he
made no reference to:
- our conversation
- the WG decision about the prosecution docs (especially as he did not raise this with POL when he came
in to discuss the suspense accounts).
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
POL00132939
POL00132939
<Discussion with Ian Henderson 20 Jan 2015.docx>
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: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.