POL00138141
POL00138141
From: Alwen Lyonsf.
Sent: Mon 10/02/2014 7:48:33 AM (UTC)
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerdf. "000 GRO)
Subject: Fwd: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
Attachment: image002.png
Attachment: image001.png
FYI
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons
Begin forwarded message:
From: Susannah Hooper <? "Gro
Date: 10 February 2014 07
To: Alice Perkins <
ae
"susannah.store
Subject: Re: 201
Thanks for copying me on these papers and given I am not on the ARC, I am just passing my
thoughts for information. But my read of the paper was similar to Alice's. It doesn't seem we had
sufficient reasons to discard option C and I think it would be interesting to explore further. It
seems hard to imagine in 2014 POL is so different from other organisations to necessitate this
approach.
As an aside, I also find the statistics for Pol surprising and I can't help wondering if any other
organisation, to the extent we could get comparable data, would have anything like this level of
situations that need investigation. Either way, I would have thought any next steps must be
accompanied by more focus on training and better support. But sure that's ongoing anyway.
Best wishes
Susannah
On 8 Feb 2014, at 12:03, "Alice Perkins" <; wrote:
POL00138141
POL00138141
Alasdair,
It is not yet clear whether it will be possible for me to participate in this teleconference. I
will if I can.
My reaction to this paper which is helpful and clear in many respects (and the BIP and its
impact to date is very good indeed), is that it does not spell out clearly enough for me, why
we think it is right in principle for us to maintain a different policy from other organisations
(the Brian Altman point) ie option C is dismissed too summarily.
I do of course, understand that we couldn't just throw our cases at the CPS and walk away
at a moment's notice. And I appreciate that we might find the CPS route less satisfactory in
cases where we were convinced we should be prosecuting. But if it is the case that the
banks and other financial institutions are content to live with this, why are we different?
And what would our public justification for being different be? In considering this, I would
like to understand better how much money would potentially be at risk if we were to go for
option C? And what are the relative costs of giving the work to external lawyers rather than
doing it in-house under option B?
I accept that option C could not be adopted immediately even if we did think it right. And I
absolutely agree we should have a financial cut off of between £20k and £30k and take
other factors into consideration before proceeding whoever is conducting the
prosecutions.
If you'd like a word, do let me know.
All the best
Alice
From: Larissa Wilson [mailt
Sent: Friday, February.
>: Alasdair Marnoch
Vennells <!_
Alwen Lyons
Ce: Chris Auj
Co. ; Susannah
Store ba
susannah_hooper! <i
Subject: 2014 02 11 ARC teleconference
All
Please find attached the agenda and paper for the ARC teleconference 5pm — 6pm 11
February. The teleconference will focus specifically on Post Office as a prosecuting
authority. An update on Project Sparrow will come to the February Board.
In line with the decision at the last Board meeting, these papers have been circulated to
the whole Board. Papers are also available on BoardPad.
Room 501 has been booked for the meeting if you wish to attend in person and
teleconference details are
Dial in from mobil
UK Freephone
Chairperson passcode:
Participant passcode l
Kind regards
Larissa
POL00138141
POL00138141
Larissa Wilson I Company Secretarial Assistant
<image001.png>
1 Floor, Banner Street Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
‘SiiageOO2 pia>
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.
Click here to report this email as spam.
This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com