POL00140211
POL00140211
Note
PANORAMA MEETING — TUESDAY 9 JUNE
Mark Davies My role is Communications and Corporate Affairs Director of Post Office and have
been here for nearly three years.
Angela Van I'm the head of Support Services, I have been in the business for 30 years. I
Den Bogerd started working in branch and I have been very close to the branches and
postmasters for the whole of my career. .
Patrick Bourke I am effectively the Head of Case Management, dealing with the throughput of
cases through the Scheme - operation and policy level is really where I come in
but working alongside colleagues throughout the business because this is a whole
business effort...
Matt Bardo And how do...Angela how does your role....... are you sort of heading up the
mediation scheme and I saw you at the Select Committee... so you're sort of the
responsible figure for those things is that right?
Angela Van So I have been leading the investigations; for the applications that come into the
Den Bogerd Scheme, 150 of them, I mobilised a team of 20 people in Post Office and it was
my team that investigated every one of those cases and then we work closely with
Second Sight to share information and the findings of those cases as well. So in
terms of my business as usual role I've been close to that and then I have led on
the investigation because that was the natural thing for me to do...
Mark Davies It is probably worth reprising ....it is probably worth just going through a quick
history of the issue. If you go back to 2012, Post Office started a process of
separating from Royal Mail as a business and it was around that time that we were
approached by James Arbuthnot and others around these cases and this sense
that some postmasters have felt that their treatment hasn't been appropriate and
that was also, as you know, what JFSA would say primarily. We decided at that
point - July... summer 2012.. to investigate, to bring in independent forensic
accountants to examine those cases. Second Sight came in and spent about a
year, I think it was, preparing their initial report and that came out summer 2013,
as you know, and broadly speaking said that- and this is very broadly speaking -
but said that there were no systemic issues with Horizon and, as you know, the
initial complaint was that Horizon must be somehow responsible for some of the
issues that people felt that they’d had. That report came out - no systemic issues,
raised some questions about some training and support issues which Angela then
set about leading the Branch Support Programme that we put in place to look at
some of the specifics. And that is going on and continues doesn't it
Angela.....how we can improve some of those issues that were raised. But we also
at that point -summer 2013 - felt that it would be appropriate to, I suppose,
provide a kind of forum for all of those people who had complaints to be able to
take them forward in some kind of formal way. And so we that's why we set up the
mediation scheme and we invited, through the channels that we have as a
business.... so obviously we have, as you know, 11,500 branches and so we
reach out to those branches through internal communication channels which is a
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
fairly kind of...... the business is complex and is the biggest retail network in the
country so it is inevitably kind of challenging sometimes to get to everybody......
but we have a very complex and sophisticated communications framework that
can do that. So we, along with JFSA, advertised and asked people to come
forward and bring forward cases where they felt that they have been treated
unfairly or where they had questions, I suppose, around their running of their
branches and cases in the past. And we offered to pay for those people to have
independent advice as well. And as you know around 150 cases initially came
forward and one of the really important things that is important to draw out is that
of those 150 they're not all cases which were criminal cases - the vast majority
didn’t in fact .......as broadly speaking that
[Matt Bardo interrupts to ask number of criminal cases — Mark says broadly
speaking thinks about 4/5 did not have but need to get figures....]
Matt Bardo
So about 1/5" of those people did have...
Patrick Bourke
We can get you the actual figures...
Matt Bardo
It will be helpful...
Patrick Bourke
We need to give you the precise figures...
As Mark said, after Second Sight had done their first interim report - it looked at
47 cases as part of that - and so some of these cases were channelled through
JFSA ..... and, as Mark said, there are two broad conclusions - there is no
systemic flaw within the Horizon system but we came in for some criticism
because they felt that some support was not being provided.... Post Offices wasn't
up to par ....so really out of concern to achieve two things we set up a scheme
and decided to carry on with the investigations and those two things were to do the
right thing by those people who had got a complaint and to provide them with an
avenue for crafting their complaint and articulating it in an effective way so we
could really get to the bottom of what they were complaining about because it is
quite hard to really engage with something that is kind of: ‘ I don’t think I did this
and I think someone else was at play’.... we need to refine that to bring a degree
of granularity so that we can actually start addressing and investigate. So that was
the first concern - to make sure the applicants were well served and supported.
And, as Mark says, we provided quite substantial funds to access professional
advisers, generally lawyers, some people went for accountants, there was a mix
and some people decided to just do it on their own. The second reason we did it
is because when faced with a series of complaints of this nature you understand
as a business that Horizon which.... okay I want to demystify it a bit..... it is simply
a tooled system which is connected up to a central repository of information; it’s a
shop till, it is just a little bit more modern than the one you get at a newsagent,
but this is the thing on which the entire retail network runs....and faced with
complaints about, question marks about integrity, the natural reaction was any
responsible business would know that something which had that significance, that
bit of architecture, had such significance to the performance of this business was
actually working right. So we thought we could just take it as read it works alright,
thanks Second Sight, we'll deal with it, but no we went the extra mile and said
‘look lets set up a scheme, lets really get everybody to articulate properly and
once they do that lets do a proper job..."
Matt Bardo
I think there is a couple of things that we can quickly pick up on...the numbers... I
know we don't have numbers specifically at the moment but roughly about a fifth
say were convicted...
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
Patrick Bourke
I think it was slightly higher than that but we can get the precise numbers out... I
don't know, a couple of dozen or whatever it is...
Matt Bardo
Have any of those people been admitted to the mediation scheme now or I
should say to mediation...?
Patrick Bourke
Okay I think we are just jumping ahead a little bit if you don’t mind. Can I just go
through my little potted history. I'm sorry to be a bore but I know that you have
wanted to come here really wanting to hear our side of the story as well as answer
your questions so if you could just literally give me five minutes just to do my bit
and then we can get into that and I will have an answer for you...
Matt Bardo
Go ahead...
Patrick Bourke
So we set the scheme up and we did that in close conjunction with James
Arbuthnot and Second Sight and kind of decided what the rules ought to be
between us. And we all signed up to those rules and the process, broadly
speaking, was to advertise the scheme for a 12 week period through the internal
channels we've got and also through JFSA's channels, both on their website but
also through their contacts. That produced 150 applications.... for whatever
reason 14 of them didn't progress beyond that because we were able to resolve
them early and people pulled out and so on, so we really had 136 cases. Now we
then appointed Sir Anthony Hooper to chair a working group which was going to
manage the throughput of cases effectively, he is an ex Court of Appeal Judge
and so the process was, effectively, subpostmaster articulates their case with the
support of their professional advisers which we pay for, they then submit them to
the Post Office. That immediately triggers an investigation by the Post Office and
the investigations were led by Angela's team and, as she has said already, she
had a 20 strong team, who were all dedicated investigators, throughout this
process. Now bearing in mind that a lot of these cases date back to quite a long
time ago that process was difficult, we encountered some difficulties in tracking
down information and we, in common with all other businesses around the
country, have data retention policies ...... but even where we came across
something that should have been missing but we actually found we produced all of
that. so that was all part of the process. Those investigations were incredibly
thorough - I would say wouldn't I - but I think, in fact I know, they were judged to
be — in fact they were judged to be - incredibly thorough and comprehensive by
Second Sight, the people we appointed to do the independent review. ....which we
committed we would provide applicants to assure them that somebody else was
taking a good look at this, who didn't have a vested interest in supporting the Post
Office. So once an investigation is complete what then happens is the results
were passed on to Second Sight for them to perform their analysis. Now often the
documentation that was sent was hugely voluminous and a typical report might be
somewhere in the region of, I don't know, 15 pages long - that’s the core report -
but very often it was supplemented by up to 80 pieces of individual evidence so
we are talking call logs to the helpline...
Angela Van
Den Bogerd
Transcripts of interviews...
Patrick Bourke
Transcript of interviews so on and so forth. So I mean really.... you know, a big
job of work and for them to then analyse. They do a first analysis and the product
of that is what we call a draft case review report and now that draft is both
communicated to the Post Office and to the applicant, we have an opportunity and
they have an opportunity to comment..to correct inaccuracies as we see it. It then
goes back to Second Sight and, taking on board those comments or not,
depending on the importance that are attached them, then they produce a final
CRR and that CRR went to the working group and the working group's task was to
really come up with a recommendation as to whether or not, broadly speaking, the
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
case could be said to be deemed suitable for mediation. Now this was taking a
very long time, as you can imagine. I mean, actually, its quite an effort to want to
do the right thing.... we created an architecture that was quite sort of heavy really
for what we were dealing with. And it became clear to us that... particularly after
we completed our final investigation in February of this year... so we had done all
the investigations so we were pretty clear what had happened in every single case
....in fact chrystal clear what had happened...we thought, based on the experience
of some mediations to date, we thought we'd take a position which effectively
accelerated the process for people, in fairness to the fact that they had been going
through this for 2% years.And that decision - and it's a watershed moment I
suppose - was that for all cases that haven’t previously been the subject of a
court ruling so, broadly speaking, another way of saying... where somebody
hadn't been convicted of a crime in relation to the losses that occurred at the
branch, we would mediate those cases. Those people where that did happen.... so
all of these facts resulted in them being prosecuted and convicted, our
presumption would be that we would be unlikely to mediate. Now that is only a
presumption and we have got in place, even today, a system whereby we look at
each of those individual cases on an individual basis - that's the commitment we
gave on 10 March of this year and it is a commitment that we are fulfilling day in,
day out. We have a weekly meeting in my team where the relevant lawyers and
other people... investigators.. get together and really go through and say: ‘Is there
anything about this case which would displace that presumption?’ So we have
checks of balances all the way through and we are as keen as anybody, more
keen than most people, to make sure that the decisions we arrive at are ones we
consider to be appropriate and right, having gone through all circumstances. So,
once a case has gone through that process, a decision has to be made by both
parties - mediation as you know is a consensual process it doesn’t displace any
court proceedings at all and doesn't affect people's legal rights at all but it is by its
very nature a consensual process and the implication of that is you can't compel
either side to actually sit down and do the mediation, so we can't insist that
anyone mediations with us and they can't insist we mediate with them. So the
decision ultimately rests with the parties but we have decided that for those cases
which haven't been a subject of court proceedings leading to a conviction we
would mediate and we felt that was a fair and speedy way round the problem. It
was also a part answer to the criticism which we had from people like James
Arbuthnot that things were taking a long time and we should just be getting on with
the process of mediation. So, you know, we felt it was the right thing to do in all
circumstances. Those cases which are referred to mediation then go to an
organisation called Centre for the Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) the pre-
eminent provider of mediation type services, ADR services broadly, in the country
and internationally as well - and again this provides another guarantee of
independence to the process, which we think is really, really important....that we
got a third party overseeing the fairness of the mediation proceedings proper.
These are people who are accredited, trained, who have to submit to both national
and international codes of conduct, including some very harsh applications of
confidentiality because they are trying to create an environment where it is
possible to try and resolve the disputes without having a ‘bun fight’ and do it
amicably, particularly in cases where we have got serving subpostmasters, the
mutual interest is finding an accommodation which we can both live with because
we have a business relationship to preserve... and this is not a process that we
are undertaking with anything other than a genuine desire to try and resolve the
differences that exist between us. So, just to bring you right up to speed, CEDR
now have something between 50/60 cases which they have dates from the Post
Office side for,multiple dates and/or alternative dates which we are making
ourselves available for mediation, and now are in the process of approaching
applicants and our professional advisers to see where we can dovetail and meet
up and have mediations. The availability of applicants is not always an easy
thing, you know, you are trying to get availability of mediator, Post Office, our
advisers, the applicant and their advisers but we think we are seeing a pick up
rate and we expect to be, frankly, pretty busy between now and the end of the
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
year because the preparation times are significant, the mediation time is
significant. Another thing to say on the mediation is that we provide a further
tranche of money to applicants so they can be supported by professional advisors,
and of course all travel costs for both professional advisers and family members
who they want to bring for moral and general support. So that brings you right up
to date. Now I don't want to pre-empt where we are going to get to in the
discussion that will follow this but just some observations about the process we
have undergone: I think we have made really huge efforts to provide everyone
with a grievance every opportunity, including as I said direct funding, to bring their
complaints to us in the most effective way and be treated with a highest standards
of fairness in all our dealings. We have been thinking about this internally and I
think, just looking at comparators in other companies, we really have come up
short in terms of finding another organisation that perhaps would have placed
such a premium on doing the right thing, even if doing the right thing doesn't
necessarily engender favour in some media coverage and so forth, but you can't
please all of the people all of the time. But I think we are very comfortable that we
have done the right thing throughout. Everything that we do is guided by the
evidence that our investigations have produced, and this is a point I just want to
stress, every case is looked at on the basis of the evidence it produces and those
investigations, as I have said,have been acknowledged by third parties as being of
top drawer standard and where the evidence has gone against us ie we have been
found to have come up short — and there have been some of those cases- we
have owned up and acted accordingly. Our only expectation is that other people
do the same thing because, actually, ultimately only the evidence of what
happened in an individual cases can determine its rightful outcome. As I
mentioned before, CEDR place a great premium on confidentiality, but even
before that we agreed as the working group that we would do this work in
circumstances of real confidentiality. Everybody signed up to that as there is a
very good reason for that. We are talking about sensitive personal data, very
sensitive personal data in some cases and it seems to us to be completely unfair
for this data to emerge in the public domain when essentially what we are talking
about is, dare I say it, what if they haven't been grouped together are actually
routine contractual disputes between franchisees, businesses and Post Office. But
I mean, you know, without going into the detail of cases, for instance there will be
cases of family breakdown, there have been cases of people with substance
abuse problems and so on and so forth and in those circumstances of course we
are never going to talk about those things and, frankly, we have been really
insistent that we would not divulge confidential information of that nature, even in
the face of people who decided that in their case they wanted at least want some
of it out there — questionmark whether they really want the whole thing out
there...
There is a point that we will come on to and I just want to say this in crystal clear
terms, and we will come back to it, but we do not and I say do not, and I'll say
again do not, prosecute people for making mistakes. We just don’t. Never have,
never will. People do make mistakes and we accept that and we have processes
in place to enable them to address that in conjunction with us. Okay, so just for
the avoidance of doubt we do not prosecute people for making mistakes, but I am
sure it will be recorded and written down. Thank you. Where we do prosecute
people is where there is good evidence that a crime has been committed and it's
in the public interest to do so, so before we even engage in a thought process of
prosecution we have to have good evidence that something has gone wrong of a
non-mistake type nature that has involved a criminal intent and those prosecutions
are taken forward in accordance with the code of crown prosecutors. A great play
has been made about whether or not our powers are right or wrong. We are not
any different to any other private organisation in the country...... so I think the
BBC may conduct its own prosecutions for TV licencing... you know we are not in
a million miles territory apart on that..... so that nothing is peculiar about that and
we do, as I say, apply exactly the same standard as the CPS does. So we do take
those prosecutions - they are very few and far between - and where it results in a
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
conviction we think that is the right thing to do because of the incidents in question
but also because, frankly, if you could do it with impunity it would be a very leaky
business indeed and we have got to remember this is public money we are
handling. It's not Post Office money, most of the time, it's my money, its Mark's
money, it's your money and your elderly neighbour's money that’s going missing...
or its government money... so I think on the convictions front the final point I
would make is that, again without going into detail of individual cases, it is really
important to understand that in none of the cases that involved a conviction was
an appeal made contemporaneously. So not one of the applicants who was
convicted by court either following a guilty plea or following a full jury trial ever,
ever appealed that conviction. Now you will be aware that some referrals have
been made to the CCRC - that is not to be confused with an appeal, that's a
request for an investigation by the CCRC - so I will just leave you with the thought
nobody appealed their conviction at the time they were prosecuted or convicted.
So there we go. One or two things to stress: one is that in no case that we have
come across have we found any evidence whatever that the Horizon system is
responsible for the losses that occurred in branch, you know we just haven't come
across that. So whatever hypotheticals can be introduced to this debate we are
very keen to focus on 136 cases we got into the scheme and what happened as a
matter of fact rather than what might have happened as a matter of conjecture in
these cases — that’s an important distinction. The final thing is to say ....as we had
been asked the other day has this been a difficult time for the Post Office, well,
self evidently this has been a difficult time for the Post Office and I think the
reason it's been so difficult is twofold. One, we don't fee,I for whatever reason, we
really don’t expose our side of the story, partly that’s our own obsession with
maintaining the confidentiality that we promised people so we have had things
thrown at us but out of a determination to do the right thing at all times, even in
the face of considerable pressure, we maintained an honourable position as we
see it. But I think the other reason why it's been challenging for us is that because
it doesn’t, for all of us who work for the Post Office but perhaps particularly for
Angela who has been here for 30 years.... these things are just not reflective of
the organisation that we work for and this is not the experience — or what has been
alleged is not the experience - of the many, many, many thousands of people
who work for the Post Office day in day out; the 78,000 thousand people, 11,500
branches, 6,000,000 transactions and the £90b monies that goes through our
systems day in day out...
Angela VaB:
I think that is an important point actually because, as I said, I have been here for
30 years and I talk to people who have been here for as long as I have and longer
and how we are being portrayed is not how we recognise the Post Office that
we've loved and worked for for the best part of our lives actually. So I think that is
why we want to try and balance the story and put the facts out there but, as
Patrick said, we will not cross the confidentiality line because we have made that
promise to people and on that basis people came forward and therefore we accept
that we constrain ourselves to a certain extent but what is important to us is that
we do what we said we would do and therefore not breach that confidentiality...
Patrick
And I think really with that - and thanks for indulging me on just giving you the
potted history but, you know, to be blunt we so rarely get the opportunity to say it
but I was keen that we should try and persuade you to listen to a little bit of where
we are coming from before we get into the meat and drink of the meeting but it’s
over to you really...
Matt Bardo
I mean one very broad thing that comes out of that is that you mentioned the it is
not the experience of most people at the Post Office... it's not how most people
think of the Post Office actually..... so I suppose why do you think... you obviously
feel wronged. Why do you think it gathered such momentum then if this is all
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
totally misplaced...?
Mark Davies
Well I think you say you think we feel wronged. I mean I'd turn that round
actually. I think I would say I think what we think is that we have probably gone
beyond what any other organisation would do in the face of having some of our
people come to us and put issues to us and I think there is a really important point
in there about the kind of organisation that we are. As Patrick says, you know, we
have 11,500 branches, 78,000 thousand people using Horizon every single day,
we are a fundamental part of the framework of the nation and we know that and
understand that and care very much about that reputation. So I think,to your point,
do we feel wronged... well I think what we feel is that we have done the right thing
to the nth degree actually. I don’t believe another organisation in the country -
well there may be - but! struggle to think of an organisation that would have
gone to the lengths that we have gone through on this issue on what is, let's face
it, a very small number of people. Half a million people have used Horizon in the
last decade or so, or slightly more, and we are talking here about 150 cases
actually down to 130ish, of which is a proportion are criminal cases. That's a.... I
don’t need to tell you that’s a tiny proportion of the overall number of users of
Horizon. I mean I think, clearly for good reason,MPs and others have brought the
issue to us and, for good reason, they have raised it and for honourable reasons
they have raised it but I think, equally, we've responded in the right way. I hope
that answers your question...
Patrick Bourke
I think also partly, you know let's not beat around the bush, I mean for the people
concerned or for the majority of the people concerned what's happened is a very
difficult proposition... you know they have got money missing.... now in a sense
we just have to park for a second how the money went missing.... but just
recognise the situation they are in. And on an individual level of course this is very
distressing. Our job is really to make sure that we understand why that might have
happened and see what we can do to help- if indeed we can help. For those ones
who have committed a crime that’s rather more difficult, not just because of the
nature of the crime.... false accounting is quite prevalent in the sort of
demographics and is a slice of what we are looking at... it makes it very, very
difficult because, by definition, you can't rely on any part of them. But I think there
is a human element to this which is obviously quite difficult for the individual
concerned. I think that ....as MPs rightly bring constituents concerns to the table
wees and I think one of the reasons - to answer your question specifically - why do
we think it's got to where it's got, I mean I think there is something about, you
know, having sort of established something dedicated to address it, we have got a
collection, which in a sense has given it perhaps a more... I don’t know...
prominence than the individual complaints themselves would. So most of these
complaints - and I am not trying to make them less....each complaint is incredibly
important - but we do deal with his sort of thing on a ‘business as usual’ basis but
because we took the step of bringing it together, giving it a name and so on and
so forth, I guess there must be something in the optics of that that are more
appealing from a media outlet point of view...
Angela Van den
Bogerd
I think that is the thing. What we need to remember, what we sometimes lose
sight of, is what actually happened in that situation. So, money went missing and
in a large majority of those cases they covered up the fact that money went
missing. And that is a very serious situation, and that is a criminal offence so I
think in terms of the question - did we feel wronged - I think from my perspective
it's about did we act disproportionately or not in that situation. So we have a Post
Office brand, that's very important to us as an organisation and it's very important
to the whole of the country actually — most people have a view on the Post Office
whether you use it or not and we have to protect that. Where we see instances...
where we've got people covering up losses in branches that isn't, obviously, the
image we want to portray and we have to respond to that. So that's...1 don't feel
wronged in that regard, what I do feel is that we are losing sight of that fact and
that's what triggered the situation in those cases. I think it's really important to
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
come back to that. We didn't just go and seek people out. We became aware,
because we get there.... and sometimes they have covered this up not just for a
day, a week, in some cases it's months/years in some cases... and we will
eventually get to that situation because we can see that something is not quite
right. I think that's the bit for me — that we lose sight of that.
Mark Davies
I think to build on what Patrick said a few minutes ago... I think we've kind of
made life harder for ourselves because we actually genuinely care about the point
about confidentiality; you know, that was part of the agreement that we entered
into with people that came forward — we're not going to break it, as Patrick said,
and we're absolutely clear about that. Now of course if we're not going to break it
that makes it difficult for us in media terms because clearly, although other cases
are going to be put to us and we are going to be in a position where we say ‘well
I'm afraid we're not going to break the confidentiality that we agreed to’ and that
clearly then places us in a defensive position. So it's not about feeling wronged
but it is a sense of it hasn't...because of that we haven't made it easy to get our
point across and haven't always necessarily felt that it's been, that we've been
able to get our point across and it hasn't necessarily felt there has been a
receptive audience to hear some of the things...
Patrick Bourke
And just on a reputational point, sorry... our corporate clients, if we can put them
that way, you know we're talking government agencies, we're talking all the big
national, indeed international banks in some cases, they have to have confidence
in the system and I can assure you that these people don't muck around. So if
there were any concerns in terms of the operation of the system the first people to
jump up and down on us would be them actually. If they didn't feel this was a
robust system on which they could rely to access their customer base to sell
products to, to do transactions with, they would walk with their feet and actually we
are seeing quite the opposite — I think Santander came on board not two weeks
ago. Anyway...
Matt Bardo
Well there's a huge range of things to ask about and let's start with...1 mean the
computer system itself seems like a sensible place to start. The summary you
just gave about interim report, the Second Sight one - no system wide problems,
there were a couple of bugs picked up there. Subsequently the other Second
Sight reports appear to have found or had concerns, they appeared to have had
concerns that related to the possibility of that this system is, can go wrong and
losses can be created. Is this something that you just...what I'm getting at here...1
came in at Second Sight but just on a really simple level there must be software
update patches, things that go out because it's a piece of software and that just
must happen. It would be really helpful to understand exactly what you mean by it
works — it's perfect. It's somewhere between perfect...do you know what I mean?
Patrick Bourt
So you are quite right, in that first investigation a couple of issues were picked up.
I question the words ‘picked up’ because we actually volunteered the information
to Second Sight so this was not the product of the investigation. This was
something that we just volunteered to them and we've never,ever made the claim
that Horizon is a perfect system — it's not, no system is perfect. As you just rightly
pointed out anybody who uses a home computer knows that, forgive me (for the
tape) but, I mean, shit happens sometimes and it's difficult to explain exactly what
is going on but as you say there's got to be security patches, updates and so on
and so forth so that's always possible but we have never said that the Horizon
system is perfect. What the Horizon system is, as I go back to really the ABC's
because it took me a long time to understand what the Horizon system was,
because it sounded like some mystical creature that's out there. ..it's a shop till so
it can only be as good as the figures that you put in to it. So take an example, if I
sell somebody a book of stamps for £2.20 and inadvertently forget to key in the all
vital decimal point the Horizon system is going to say I took in £220 in when in
fact I only took in £2.20. Now that actually encapsulates the vast proportion of
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
what we are seeing in these cases. It's those sorts of errors. So you know, the
computer can only be as good as the people operating it and nobody is infallible.
As I said before we don't prosecute people for making mistakes so there's that.
We're not saying the system is perfect, we are saying it's subject to security
updates, it's audited by any number of organisations on an annual basis. It meets
or exceeds all industry standards in terms of its performance. Now when
discrepancies arise there are a couple of systems whereby those discrepancies
are addressed; one is where we pick it up through something called a transaction
correction and we basically flag to the branch that it appears to us that the
information held centrally and the information held weekly doesn't match up but it
is the subpostmaster who then receives that transaction correction and decides
whether or not to accept that transaction correction on the basis of comparing it
with his or her records or not to accept it. In which case there is a process for
saying, for discussing what we do about it - there's a settled centrally facility so
we effectively put in the money pending further discussions and investigations as
to what happened.
Angela Van den
Bogerd
I think the crux here is that the system is designed to cope with things that go
wrong. So for instance, one of the very familiar claims will be "I had a power cut
and I lost money as a result of that". The system doesn't lose money so if the
power goes off when you're midway through a transaction it actually just freezes.
It holds that until the power comes back on and then there's what we call a
recovery screen that asks the person using the computer "did you give money to
the customer/did you take money" so it reassesses where, the point at which it lost
power, and then it builds it back up so nothing is lost. The way a mistake could
happen in that situation is if the person using the computer tells the computer the
wrong thing. So if it says “did you give the customer £100?” and it says “yes I did”
and they didn't actually, it generates a discrepancy. So the system is designed to
cope with that includes loss of communication, so if the telephone line goes down,
if the power goes, if the screen freezes it copes with all that. It is designed to
cope with that and it has recovery stages built in to allow us to get back to our
position and that in terms of a number of cases with a common theme of "I had a
power cut" or "I'm in an area with a very poor telecoms reception and therefore my
discrepancies must be related to that". In the investigations we have taken that at
face value and said okay, when did these occur and we have actually gone in to
the level of detail which says it happened on, you know, February 27" at 2 o'clock
on this terminal and we have investigated that fully and then come back out of it
and said actually we can see what happened on the system and actually there was
no loss of power, sorry you might have lost power but you weren't midway through
a transaction and therefore nothing has changed. So we have gone in to that
really granular level of detail to be able to explain. Because that was important to
me to be able to explain to people what has gone wrong in their branch because
part of, I think, of the dilemma for people is that...they might have a loss but they
cannot explain why they have had a loss and that's trying to get them....so what
we have done in the investigation is investigated every potential contributor to that
loss and come back to actually it's not your coms line, it's not the power cut, it's
categorically not the Horizon system — what else could it be?
Tim Robinson
When it's the fault...the subpostmaster made an error there so the system shuts
down, they pressed the wrong button they erroneously given out £100 and not
noticed until later, the Post Office has accepted that the training support could
have been better in some circumstances. In any of those circumstances does the
Post Office accept that they are partially responsible for the fact the
subpostmaster made that error? Errors at the counterseem to be the big thing in
most of these cases. To what extent is the Post Office responsible?
Angela Van den
Bogerd
So we have delivered our training to the postmasters and they have been deemed
competent to be able to operate that branch at the time. The computer screen
itself tells the person using it what to do and what I found in the investigations is
that people have become complacent and they are not actually reading the
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
screen. So for instance, if somebody comes in to pay £100 in to their bank
account for instance, and as Patrick said they key in the wrong amount, they key
in £1,000, that computer will say ‘take £1,000 from your customer’ but they have
only taken £100 because they have ignored the screen so they are on autopilot.
They end up with a £900 loss, okay. In those situations, no we do not accept
responsibility for that because all the features that are in place to be able to
transact that very well so we cannot be held responsible, we can't legislate for
somebody not following that because they have become complacent or lazy or
whatever the reason could be. So when I have looked at the part we have talked
about - the Branch Support Programme - and the part that I have looked at whilst
I have been investigating cases I have looked at how could we make things better
or easier for people in branches? I've looked at how we could do that and I have
this ongoing conversation with some people that I can't make that anymore
simple, I can't simplify that anymore and actually it says in there — it's even colour
coded; green to give; red to take. All these features are built in. I can't go any
further other than when there's a human being involved we have to rely on, that
human being has to take some responsibility as that is what they are there to do.
So I've reviewed the whole of the raining package and I have beefed it up in some
areas. Some people have said that “well when I was trained I didn't quite have
enough training on how to look for discrepancies in branch even though a helpline
would provide support”, and I have looked at that and worked with the training
team to make that more user friendly, better for them to understand and to
reinforce that with them. Coming back to your point, I can't take responsibility for
people in those situations when they have got all the tools at their disposal to do
that job properly.
Patrick Bourke
And, you know, when they have been appropriately trained to do so. I did say at
the outset there are some, and Second Sight pointed this out in their interim
report, as I mentioned at the outset, this is what gave birth to the scheme. You
know we take our responsibilities.....so in those cases, there aren't many but there
are a few, where we have kind of erred on the side of quite heavy self-criticism in
actually coming to those conclusions and have been quite harsh on ourselves
which you could also say gave the postmaster the benefit of the doubt. Those
have been the two corroborates of one another. You know, we have said “look
okay hands up we could have probably done a little bit more for you here” or “we
did see when we went through the records of the calls to the helpline that you
requested additional training on XYZ and it appears you only got it on X and not
YZ.” So those are the sorts of cases in which we put our hands up and said we
could have done better and that's what we do and where that has happened we
have accepted, as you put it, responsibility... a partial responsibility, for the loss.
Coming back to the point that Angela was making the subpostmaster has to be
responsible for what happens under their direct control. The Post Office is not in
that branch okay so we can't have a shadow somebody from the Post Office in
those branches basically saying.....in the same way that MacDonald's HQ can't
know for certain that a gherkin has gone to a Big Mac in Colchester in exactly the
right way. That's why franchise agreements exist. So you've got the model,
you've got the systems, you've got the training but ultimately what's in your branch
of MacDonald's or what's in your branch of the Post Office has to be a matter for
you and that's an appropriate and very common system of risk apportionment in a
franchise agreement.
Matt Bardo So the position is that the training has been reviewed and improved because there
was some concern because it might not have been quite perfect?
Angela No. It's twofold. What I've looked to do in reviewing the training is bring it up to
today's standard in as much as make it online; so I've introduced an online
training facility. That allows postmasters and their staff to be able to learn at their
convenience, at their own pace and in their own environment. So I've done that
which is, I think, a major step forward. That doesn't undermine the fact that the
training was fully adequate at the time. What I've done is looked at some of the
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
areas where people perhaps felt less comfortable. I'm talking about (again to put
this in to context this is about 150 people out of a very large population of people
who come through that training process) and what I've tried to do is take on board
that feedback to say okay so in your situation...so you two might have come on
the same training and you might be perfectly confident in the training and you
might be slightly...sorry to pick that way round..
Tim Robinson
I actually was late because I cocked up the tube so you should
probably....[laughing]
Angela Van den
Bogerd
So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and I'm playing your down your skillset
so apologies for that. So you could receive exactly the same training and it could
work for you and it might not quite work for you for whatever reason. What I have
tried to do is take the feedback and say okay, so in that situation how can I make
this absolutely simple to give you not an idiots guide because that would be the
wrong word, but an aide memoir that says in this situation this is what you do and
literally you follow these steps. So when youwalk away from training - it's a
combined training you do a classroom/class on site -and when you walk away
you've got your handouts because I accept - and I have been to the training
myself, it's the same training I went through 30 years ago - you've got a lot in
your head and you've gone to run your business and so “yes I remember they told
me at that point “and “yes I've got something” so that is what I have tried to do
and to make sure I have covered, as far as I can, every eventuality in that
situation. What we mustn't forget is that we have always got the helpline to fall
back on so that support has always been there. It was there before Horizon was
introduced when we worked manual systems — it was there — not in a central
function but in regions. When we went with the Horizon system in 1999 we set up
a central helpline and that has always been there and that operates outside their
normal opening hours as well so it's quite extensive. So that support has always
been there. What we have always said is the training you get that at the front; we
come and train you on site; we do a few follow-up visits just to make sure it's
embedded and you're comfortable but if all else fails you've got the helpline to fall
back on.
Patrick Bourke
So actually the tube worked fine today so you can't blame the tube for being late.
So an anologous situation.
Tim Robinson
Matt Bardo
True. True. [Laughing] Sorry there was a closure and a guide dog got stuck in a
door — and they could have handled it better actually [Laughing]
I do want to get in to sort of the nitty gritty of some of this as well but I suppose
one of the things that is quite striking listening to what you're saying is that there is
almost nothing there in that summary; training, helplines, the system itself, those
are all things which to some extent seem to be contested in the Second Sight
report who you employed to investigate on your behalf. How am I to make sense
of that? Why has that occurred, what is that about?
The Second Sight present evidence that these things are problems in those
reports but you just don't think that's a problem at all. It might be only a
meaningful conversation to have if we go down in to the detail of it but I suppose I
thought it was worth just asking that question first.
Angela Van den
Bogerd
I think the difference between what Second Sight have done and what we've done
is that we have evidenced what we said. So if an applicant said the helpline told
me to do this, we've looked for evidence of that and we have gone through....so
the helpline call logs are one of the information sources that has never been
destroyed so we have been able to go back to 1999 which covers the lifespan of
the cases we have been dealing with and we've gone through, and I'm talking
about thousands of logs, and what they do on the helpline, it's not actually
recorded so if you ring in you get a reference number so it identifies you, you are
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
asked what the problem is and then there is a record of what the problem was and
what we actually did to resolve it and what the answer was, so that is all recorded
and what we have been able to do is go back and piece the picture together built
on the facts. So in terms of, if an applicant has claimed something then I look for
the evidence to support that. I don’t go “oh we would never say that” you know - I
look for the actual evidence and I think in some of Second Sight's report they
have claimed something but not evidenced it and then when I have responded in
my responses to them and actually the responses to Part 2 I have made points
that say “you said this but could you please give me the evidence to support that?”
I think that is the difference between what Second Sight have done and what we
have done. I would never say something in the report, I would never claim a
finding if I could not evidence it. Everything I have done has been built on facts
and evidence so I have taken on jigsaw pieces of these cases, I have evidenced
them and then I have put them together to give me a picture of actually what's
happened in that situation.
Matt Bardo
So there were reports by saying there were a few cases, many cases etc and give
you a broad idea of how many times things are recorded and it would appear that
there is evidence but that the evidence is not in the report and I would assume
that I mean you've mentioned confidentiality and not being able to talk about
things, I assume they couldn't say "Johnny subpostmaster" and this person and
this person also said this for the same reasons, so the fact that the evidence isn’t
in there, I assume there must be some reason they are saying these things and
they haven't just kind of.....there must be some evidence there otherwise they
wouldn't.....
Angela Van den
Bogard
Second Sight have gone on record and said that Post Office have done a very
thorough investigation and we have been very mindful of that and I personally
have been involved in the investigation of every single one of these cases and so
have been heavily involved in making sure that we have left no stone unturned,
and I have had those conversations with Second Sight and said this is what we've
found therefore, you know, bring the evidence to us because I would like to see it
please if you have got it I would like to see it, in them producing their analysis of
that then you would expect them to produce the evidence to support what they've
claimed
Matt Bardo
So it's more about them not producing evidence behind the scenes as opposed to
it not being in the report, so you haven't seen the evidence privately...
Patrick Bourke
So there are two types of reports. One addresses things as a whole..... and one is
the case reports and we have had the benefit of both those from Second Sight.
Obviously in the individual reports we go through... you know, it's very much ‘Mr
X said Y’ and, as Angela says, we go through and check whether that in fact
happened or not and insofar as we can and we can on the call logs because we
have retained them for longer, I don’t know quite why but we do, so we have been
able to say, for instance, well the applicant says that sometime in July 2013 this
happened and we've been able to say well actually the applicant wasn’t employed
by the Post Office or wasn’t in business with the Post Office until at least a year
later and, you know, that sort of thing is actually pretty common. Similarly ‘1
reported a fault on this’ well actually the call log showed a complete absence of
telephone calls to the helpline or to anybody in the Post Office for that month and
one month either side. So I mean you can understand people don't remember
precisely the dates but we have to work on the basis of evidence. Now I think
where we have been very, very keen is that we need to move beyond assertions
and as we all know you know just because somebody says something even if they
say it believing it to be 100% true that is not evidence - we need to actually go a
little bit further and I suppose the point of difference between us is that I think in
some circumstances at least an assertion has been made and taken rather more
on face value than we would necessarily do and have done and investigated it so I
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
think that accounts for something of a difference.
Angela Van den
Bogerd
But to answer your question Tim if Second Sight had the evidence they would
have produced it.
Matt
So you would’ve seen it and it would appear that you've seen it.
Patrick Bourke
I think if we hadn't we would have to ask why the devil not. [All speaking
together].
Angela Van den
Bogerd
So there have been some cases where Second Sight have claimed something
and I have gone back and said ‘can I see the evidence?’ and they have said ‘yes I
have got that’ and they have given it, so every time they have said something
without evidence I have gone back and said ‘can I see?’ and if they have got it
they give it ... I have challenged them and said ‘well if you haven't got evidence
then how can you.
Tim Robinson
So basically the areas where you said in your report in response to their report
there is no evidence to support this assertion, it's not that there is no evidence,
they don’t have the evidence, they haven't put in their report..... there IS no
evidence.
Patrick Bourke
Yes that’s correct.
Matt Bardo
Um false accounting this is another... quite a specific thing that will be helpful to
have a chat about. So you were just describing a lot of responses that I have read
that are published online there is no excuse for false accounting. Could you take
us through what a subpostmaster sort of sees on their terminal and then does in
order to commit false accounting and what they could have done otherwise, that
seems to be where the ...
Angela Van den
Bogerd
Okay so if I can start. Every day a branch is required to declare the cash,
physically count the cash on hand and declare into the system how much they
had, broken down by their denominations and that allows us to manage their cash
in and out of the branches properly. The system at that point would generate what
is expected so if they do that accurately they might see a discrepancy, say £100
discrepancy, and the better the subpostmaster the more they would look into that
on the day to get to that situation. The full balance only actually happens once a
month that they are required to do, again the better the subpostmasters balance
on a daily and weekly... they will do their cash records on a daily basis but they
do full weekly balances just to make sure they are on top of how their branch is
operating. When we come to the monthly position, which is called the branch of
trading statement, they are required by us to physically count all their cash
accurately and declare it but also to check their stock on hand. When they put
those numbers and they verify those two things into the system the system will tell
them whether they've got a discrepancy or not so it will say ‘you've told me you've
got this much cash and that much stock’ and we know what transactions have
gone through because you have put those through on a daily basis - this is your
discrepancy. At that point, the postmaster then would usually go through the whole
cash to check it again and the stock. At that stage they are then required to make
good that discrepancy or settle it centrally and let us know if there is a problem.
So there are three options, so if it’s a £100 short, contractually they are required to
make good and so they actually put physically £100 into the till, declare that on
the system, so then it balances and they are able to go forward. Say it’s a large
amount and they don’t know what it's for and they are waiting for an error notice,
they would settle it centrally which means they settle it to their account so they
have an account of discrepancies and then they would then ring us to say I have
got a problem. They then ring the helpline and say I've got a problem and I need
your help with this. Or they would settle this centrally - they knew what it was but
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
they didn’t have the funds to pay that today so therefore they would have
conversations with us about sorry I can't pay it now can I pay it over a period of a
few months out of their remuneration...
Tim Robinson
Can I say at this point - how does that manifest itself on the screen? Is there is
button that says settle this centrally and then you have to make a phone call
afterwards and say I dispute or I don’t?
Angela Van den
Bogerd
Yes
Matt Bardo
Put into the computer and a figure is declared and then the computer says you
have a discrepancy here because if you've only got that sum in the branch that
doesn’t make sense based on the transactions reported on the machine...
great... and then you do all the things that you describe which I completely
understand and there used to be .... if I have understood correctly there are three
options, so it was a sort of dispute function, settle centrally and settle to cash. But
I understood there were some change at some stage between which so that now
you just described the two options settle centrally and dispute with a phone call
was there previously another option a third option on the terminal that enables.
Angela Van den
Bogerd
So there was, before we introduced the settle centrally, there was what we called
a suspense account that was on the system but they were always required to get
authority to put into that. What we found was that they were not doing that and
when we looked at the system as a whole there was a very large amount of
money being held in the suspense account so what we did is... we took the
opportunity to formalise that through the settle centrally so that we've got better
line of sight to the discrepancies that are being declared on the network and those
ones that are being made good or not. The other choice that isn’t one of the valid
choices is I tell the system that I have made the money good but I don’t put the
money in, okay, so I've now just falsely declared my cash, I have made a false
declaration on my account, I have now just falsified my account which is a
criminal offence.
Matt Bardo
So effectively it's not that you go back to your cash figure and change it it's that
you Say settle to cash and then don't put the cash in, is that the....
Angela Van den
Bogerd
The machine says have you physically put the money in the till and they say yes
and then...
Tim Robinson
Of course Post Office doesn't know because they can't come round and physically
count what's in your safe so they have no idea what's going on...
Angela Van den
Bogerd
So when we do an audit that’s when we uncover that very same day.
Matt Bardo
Technically, in that when that happens obviously you press the button on the
system to say that you have declared that amount of cash and settled to cash
there is also then a printout a branch trading report which is signed so how does
that work and at which point do you make the official declaration? Have you made
the official declaration when you push the button or when you sign the thing...
what happens to the bit of paper that you have signed?
Angela Van
den Bogerd
So you've made the declaration, when you press the button you then reinforce
that when you sign because it says I certify this is a true reflection.....
Matt Bardo
So at the moment you press that button and if your accounts are incorrect...
Patrick Bourke
Then you are required to certify the accuracy as being true.
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
Angela Van den
Bogerd
That trading statement stays in the branch, it's a physical copy that stays in the
branch and it stays there. So in some cases then that might happen and
somebody might genuinely make a mistake, so they balance and they say... and
forget to put the money - in one off that’s a mistake but when they come to do the
next balance they would realise, because that would then show the shortage
again, okay, because they haven't put the money in. At that point they kind of say
yes I remember what I've done. So in those situations - we wouldn't typically be
aware of that anyway because it would be a one off. What we have seen in the
cases we talk about false accounting is that it is systematic false certifying of an
account - they do that on a regular basis and in a number of cases the amount
creeps up. So they might start off with £100, £200 etc and then it gets to be a
significant amount of money over a period of time.
Patrick Bourke
Just on that point there are one or two cases and again I am not talking about the
individual cases but generically I can say that that acceleration, whether or not
you've conducted the interview, is explained by the fact of you have kind of
broken the seal, so you've done it once and then it becomes just a little bit easier
to do the next time, perhaps to cross subsidise your other business or whatever
you do it for in the first place and people have said ‘I was really really foolish you
know I just got into it it was almost too easy’ and I think in one case someone in
fact wrote to us after they had been prosecuted and convicted and said they
wanted to share their experience with other sub postmasters to warn them against
the temptation that this presented so ....
Matt Bardo
How is your decision informed then when you decide somewhere along that
process..... because as you say if they do it once then it's probably a mistake and
even though it’s technically a criminal offence because the moment they press
that button it’s a criminal offence, you are not going to prosecute them because
you think maybe they forgot to put the money in. Is there is a Post Office policy to
say that if you've done this by X amount over X amount of months it’s a crime or if
it's a crime we will prosecute or is this something that you will discuss on
individual cases? So after there has been an audit and you've found out there is a
big discrepancy that has been covered up is there a period at which you decide we
prosecute people who have done it for X amount of times and who makes the
decision?
Patrick Bourke
Well we don’t have a policy that says ‘three strikes and you are out’ type of policy
so, if that is what you mean, then the answer to that is no. We look at every case
on its individual merit and because there are a number of factors that can be at
play and it’s right that every case is addressed in regard to its specific
circumstances - we are not going to extrapolate a policy out of for the experience
of one person. The point at which we bring a prosecution is where basically,
typically, going back to the prosecutors’ code to do so satisfies two tests. One
there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and the
second is it's in the public interests to do so. Now you might get special
circumstances around a case where it wouldn't be in the public interest to so do for
a variety of reasons - elderly infirm vulnerable person etc - so it's difficult to say
we've got a policy but its right and proper that we should prosecute because, as I
have said before, this money is entrusted to us regardless of that money we are
holding it on trust and you've also got to think to yourself if we didn’t what is that
message sending out to the network as a whole with 78,000 people working
throughout branches for us day in day out and if you can just do this with impunity
we wouldn't have a viable business for very long.
Matt Bardo
Is it in the training, the implications of making that mistake, sorry of committing
that crime.... but I suppose what I am getting out is there a bit of a grey area I
suppose if you didn’t know and you were operating a system that’s where the grey
area between mistakes and..
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
Angela Van den
Bogerd
There is no grey area in this regard. When we interview potential postmasters that
is part of our interview process, so we actually go through the key areas of the
contract and I personally have interviewed postmasters over the years and I would
have the contract with certain markers on so I would actually read through - under
no circumstances would you make use of Post Office money as this is what could
result. So that is made clear through a number of stages throughout that
recruitment process to become a postmaster so there isn’t any grey area in that
respect.
Patrick Bourke
We're bound to say, aren't we, there are no circumstances which excuse the
committing of a criminal offence — there just aren't, particularly in a retail
environment. That just would not work for us but we do look very, very much at
the individual circumstances surrounding...
Tim Robinson
This concept of kind of muddling through is not an excuse because I think false
accounting there has to be an element of dishonesty there so there has to be
dishonest intent but even if you think somebody is ven if they are incompetent
then they have made a mistake and do not know where this is and are desperately
hoping for a transaction correction to come in and fix all of their problems then
blindly put in false accounts until that happens, that is sufficiently dishonest in
your view that it’s a criminal offence?
Patrick Bourke
It's patently not a sensible thing to do.... I mean that....
Tim Robinson
But that's not a difference as to whether it's a criminal offence.... it's not sensible.
Patrick Bourke
No its not but in the eyes of the law it’s crystal clear.... when you certify your
accounts as being true and accurate.....
Angela Van den
Bogerd
What you are missing here Tim is muddling through ....if I am struggling with
something I know it's wrong and I am going to ask for some help and ring the
helpline and ask for some help. I think that's the difference.
Tim Robinson
So if somebody made lots of calls to the helpline asking for help on that particular
issue then that would be evidenced that they were in that particular pickle and that
would not necessarily...
Patrick Bourke
Combined with the fact that they are not signing off their accounts systematically
as being correct. So you have got two choices, you know it's pretty binary stuff - I
made a mistake and I made a serious mistake and I put my hand up to ask for
help and I would just say ‘can I have help because I cannot understand what is
going on, clearly it's something that I have done or not done or something has
gone wrong’ but the other choice that you can make which is to say ‘well I am just
going to falsify the accounts because it suits me or because I am too embarrassed
or whatever it is that I can't do my maths.
Matt Bardo
Which comes to the helpline. This is another contested kind of territory because
lots of subpostmasters seem to have an experience that they ring the helpline,
feel they don’t get the help they need and don’t know what to do - that would be
their narrative. I mean you have the call logs and is it your position that in every
single case for the purposes of a mediation scheme that you have looked at the
call logs and for those who are convicted there is no suggestion that those phone
calls were anything but helpful, they were exactly what was required under those
circumstances to assist the subpostmaster to make the right decision. Because,
there seems to be quite genuine confusion for postmasters having made those
phone calls about what to do next. What do you think?
Angela Van den
Bogerd
There are three stages to support from helpline so there is what we call a tier one..
so if you rang in as a postmaster to request help you would explain what you were
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
requesting help for. Now that is a transactional helpline as well so if they have an
issue with the customer they would also ring in for that. In each of the cases that
are in the scheme we have looked at the logs and gone through every single call
that they have made and there are some cases where they say I have made lots
of calls to the helpline and asked for help and with regards to every single one we
find that there might be one or two questions that they have asked relating to
accounting as opposed to ‘can I send this letter to America with this in it’ and when
we have looked at those particular call logs and looked at the answer then those
appropriate answers have been given. If the tier one were unable to help that
branch at that time they would escalate it to the tier two which is a bit more
specialist, ask more probing questions to try and get to the crux of the matter and
at that point if we still feel that the postmaster is not quite understanding or is still
not right or we have not resolved that issue we then send out a field person to visit
to talk about ‘what is the issue, let me have a look, let me help you, let me talk it
through’ and when they find the problem explain what to do. It's not just ‘the
helpline, I don’t understand, end of the story’ there is another two levels of support
there. If in some cases that the branch they have come off the call and , yes, they
are told what to do and they have done it and they are still not comfortable we
have seen in some cases they have then rung back and said that didn’t quite work
for me, can you talk me through it again. I think the important thing here is the
helpline operator is reliant on you to give the right information, so if you ring us
and say ‘I have lost £1,000, I have reversed this transaction twice’ we take that as
read as we don’t know any different and we tell you how to get back to the starting
position. Therefore what we found in some cases is that you have asked a certain
question, you are going to get the answer to that but if the question you have
asked in the first place was incorrect then there might be a little bit of a mismatch
there but that usually comes back round as it hasn’t worked. In terms of the
criminal cases then we again have gone into that level of detail... in every single
case we have been able, in the responses we have given to the applicants, we
have been able to explain their queries on the issues in that report.
Tim Robinson
Okay so the examples that I have seen ... I know you can't go into specific cases
but where people have made just dozens and dozens of phone calls to the
helpline is your sort of explanation that they were giving the helpline the wrong
information so it was their fault. They were looking for help but they gave the
wrong information and then they received
Angela Van den
Bogerd
Depends on when you say dozens of reports. So on the information you have
seen have you seen on those dozens of calls have they all been about the same
thing?
Tim Robinson
Sometimes yes.
Angela Van den
Bogerd
Okay give me an example.
Tim Robinson
Well it’s difficult to give examples without.......
Angela Van den
Bogerd
There are only so many examples that can be a call into helpline.
Tim Robinson
Yes.. say for example somebody phoned up because they had problems with
balancing and they made 90 phones calls over a period of however long... I
suppose that would be the sort of thing you are talking about.
Angela Van den
Bogerd
But that hasn't happened. There is no case that has 90 calls about balancing.
Tim Robinson
Beg your pardon I made up a reasonably large number there .....
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
Angela Van den
Bogerd
It depends on what the issue is on the balancing. They might ring up and say I
have got a loss here and the helpline will talk them through - have you checked
your cash, can you go back and check your cash and have you checked the stock
and can you go back and check the stock. If it's an amount of £1,000... print off
your transaction logs which actually lists every transaction you have done over
that period and look for amounts that might be £500, £1,000 or £2,000 as it tends
to be some kind of.... or look for £100 deposit where you have keyed in £1,000 so
we pinpoint them to certain areas. That might resolve it .We wouldn't know if that
has been resolved because we would have said ‘go away and check those things
and if you still have a problem come back to us’ so unless they come back to us
then in those situations that would have rectified the problem. If it was an ongoing
situation where it was the same branch ringing in then that would usually flag to us
we have a problem here and we would then proactively intervene and say is ita
common theme, can we help you with something.
Matt Bardo
And I suppose what I am asking really is have you also interrogated then the
helpline itself? I mean is the advice always top notch, is it always exactly as it
should be as far as you know? The sort of.. the way that people describe it is that
it's like calling any helpline, which would make sense... that somebody seems to
have only a set number of answers and it's difficult to make sense of the situation
as a result. That's an experience we have all had, it's rather like computers don't
go wrong when we all know they do. Helplines work perfectly and we all know they
don't so is the helpline another perfect system or what the position on the
helpline...
Patrick Bourke: I didn’t say it was perfect.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
The helpline is made up of people and there is what we call a knowledge base
which is a source of information that they access to be able to give the right
answer to the question, so we are not reliant on what people have in their heads.
We do have a source of information and what the call log will tell us is that they
have actually sourced the knowledge base to draw on that information. The
important thing is that there will only be so many responses that that tier one can
give to that situation. If they are not able to deal with that call appropriately they
will then refer it to tier two and then out to the field team, as I described earlier.
There is also a complaints system so if a caller isn’t happy with what they get
they can log a complaint and say I am not happy with that. They can ask to talk
to the floor manager at any time. So there are these steps in place and from my
experience of investigating the cases where I have seen they have made a call,
the call has been closed because at that point it is deemed that they got the right
information to do whatever they had called up to do. If we don’t get any
subsequent calls then we are happy because otherwise you would call back. If
you weren't happy with the result that you got or didn’t fix the problem you would
ting back. And in a number of those cases where some of the challenges are ‘I
have made numerous calls’ we have gone into the detail and you might have
made numerous calls, they might not be about the same thing, it might be about
balancing but it doesn’t mean it is the same thing about balancing and we have
actually closed the call satisfactoraly and we have recorded that and, if we have
not, we have escalated it and seen that through..... as I say in some cases or in
some of the cases that came into the scheme they have gone through the full
escalation process and we have gone to offer further training to help them. We
have done that in a couple of cases, in a couple of cases we have done that a
couple of times actually. It might not be for the same training need but for a
different training need.
Matt Bardo
I am mindful of the time and there is something else I would like to understand
that is another complicated area that will involve a bit of discussion so there is, if I
just say remote access you will immediately know what I am going to ask about.
This is another contested territory as far as I can tell in that in the Second Sight
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
report they have various examples of meetings between Post Office and Fujitsu
where it would appear that references in minutes to meetings have articulated the
ability to promote the access branch terminals. The Post Office have refuted that
and Second Sight I forget exactly what all the examples are now but there is a bit
of to and fro in the report outlining your responses and their evidence. This is
another one of these ones where my sort of common sense understanding of
computers, at the BBC for example if I had a problem with my computer I can ring
a helpline, they can remotely access my terminals. It's all part of having a fully
functioning kind of system. So what exactly is possible and what exactly isn’t
possible as far as you're concerned when it comes to accessing transactions on a
branch terminal?
Tim Robinson
Now and previously.
Matt Bardo
Yeah, throughout.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Now or previously?
Tim Robinson
Yes, you know, with the time period being long and I appreciate things would
have changed and completely different versions of Horizon etc etc.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Yes there are only two versions though. The second version came in in 2010 so
there is quite a ten year span before that. But the scenario you just described
cannot happen and it doesn’t happen. So in the branches, like when they ring up
for the helpline to help them, we can't see their screens and get remote access. I
think the important thing about what you described as the same as internal laptops
and things is that you give permission for somebody to access your screen and
also you click to say yes I am happy for you to look at my screen. The way we
amend transactions in a branch is that we send transactions to the branch, to the
licenced computer, that sit there until somebody logs onto the system and then
they then have to accept that into their system.
Tim Robinson
Transaction correction or transaction acknowledgement?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Yes. There are two things. Transaction acknowledgement is to say we think you
have sold £1,000 worth of lottery scratch card sales do you agree? Yes I agree -
it pulls the information in. The transaction correction is that you keyed in £1,000
deposit when you actually only took £100. There is a £900 transaction correction -
do you agree? Yes - and it rights the system. The subpostmasters themselves
within their trading period can alter their own transactions by what we call a
transaction reversal but it can only be done from the terminal and everything that
is done in branch is logged against the user ID so there is a complete audit trail. I
think that is the important thing. I think the question is really can anybody access
the branch data without an audit trail?
Tim Robinson
Yes, without the subpostmaster's knowledge.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Yes and the answer to that is no.
Matt Bardo
Sorry when you say an audit trail you mean an audit trail that is completely
transparent to the subpostmaster?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Yes.
Patrick Bourke
Right. Okay. And the other thing just to say is these register as an additional
transaction. They do not amend, alter or edit existing transactions so the integrity
4A_30895917_1
POL00140211
POL00140211
of the data that is on the system is maintained so, you know, you have 25
transactions, you get a transaction correction. It does not change any of those
transactions it just basically says here's another one and by the way I am flagging
myself as being quite distinguishable from everything else that you have done in
your normal course of business.
Matt Bardo
So I suppose one of the other things that's true is about, my BBC computer
analogy, is you know some of that help is outsourced, so there is another
organisation in this case, Fujitsu are there other organisations involved?
Is it the case then that your understanding of what remote access is possible or
isn’t possible is based on what Fujitsu are telling you or is it much more thorough
than that or? I am surprised this is such an issue. If it's as simple as that why is it
such an issue? What is going on? Is there confusion? Are Fujitsu adopting a
different form of language? How has this come about?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
I think the confusion comes from that people forget. In some of the cases we
have had claims for there has been access at 11 o'clock at night and when we
have done the investigation we have found that the wife's husband had actually
gone back into the post office to do some work at 11 o'clock at night and it
registers on the system. Another confusion is that if they forget to log themselves
off over a period of time the system will automatically log you off. It is a built in
security feature so that in some cases they have closed up the business at six
o'clock at night and they have then seen an entry that says at 7 o'clock at night
they logged out when they haven't physically been in there to log out. It is an
automatic default system. It's like when your computer hibernates. It shuts down.
That's what the system does to, you know, protect the security of that. So I think
there is some confusion and again in each of the cases where these claims have
been made we have been able to explain what's happened and actually show from
the Horizon logs and the information that... so in branch they have access to
logs...through the investigation we have pulled the data from Fujitsu archives and
we have produced that evidence as part of the investigation and it clearly details
everything that has gone on in that branch over that period of time and it covers
every key stroke on the system, it covers everything so it is quite clear. I am a bit
bemused actually where we get to. We've explained everything and we are able
to clearly articulate that but people are then saying ‘no it must be, it must be’. I
struggle with that because I have explained why it is not the system and I think
that is the disconnect sometimes.
Tim Robinson
It seems like the disconnect then might be between it wasn’t what happened in the
136 cases but there appears, they seem to have listed some ways in which it was
possible or in which it was discussed at various meetings... there was the Helen
Rose report saying that the transaction reversals that can happen and appear to
have been carried out by the subpostmasters that actually weren't and happened
without their knowledge.
Matt Bardo
I see what you mean. Isn't the reason for any of the 136 cases but it nonetheless
is a thing that can happen?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
So in the Helen Rose report, the key thing there is that the user ID that was
detailed, say the subpostmaster to make it easy.....the subpostmaster did initiate
that reversal. What happened was when it was reproduced it was produced
against the subpostmaster's ID. So the subpostmaster goes ‘I didn’t do that’.
When I looked at the case, this goes back to.... remember I said earlier about the
power cut and the recovery screen... he answered the question on the recovery
screen against his user ID and because of the way in which he had answered the
question, in this case he didn’t complete the transaction, it then pulled through and
4A_30895917_1
20
POL00140211
POL00140211
reversed the transaction. It was all associated with his user ID - he just wasn’t
aware that that was happening. So that is the Helen Rose report and in that
situation a learning for us is that we make that more clearly identifiable in terms of
what happened on the print out. So it doesn’t change anything and it's not that it's
not transparent, it's just that it wasn’t as obvious as it could have been around
what happened in that situation. There was no loss, there was no discrepancy
other than the subpostmaster just couldn't recognise that situation. But we could
explain that and.....
Matt Bardo
I know there was a recommendation at the time that that changed so that if that
happens in future it will be more recognisable.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
That is still in process because it takes a while to get changes into the system.
What is recognised is that example now so it is more... people are more aware
that that is the situation and therefore it doesn’t ring any alarm bells because
people know.
Matt Bardo
There must be people in Fujitsu who work on a sort of coding level I suppose. Do
they not have more access? Are there not ways in which I mean this is all
networked, all of this stuff so it just strikes me, has Fujitsu provided some kind of
full brief for I don’t know for legal trials or anything that clearly describes the
capability from their perspective? It just all seems strange to me that it is
exactly... I can see that it would always be best practice for everything to be
transparent on the terminal but there is a difference between that and it simply not
being possible at all. Do you see what I mean?
Tim Robinson:
It does seem that there would be logical reasons why you would want to be able to
have remote access in a very controlled way with certain protocols. It seems like
quite a handy thing to have.
Patrick Bourke
Well I mean we started out this conversation, saying clearly the system has to be
maintained. I mean as it is audited every year and there are security patches that
have to be applied.... We have also talked about the situation that was reported
to Second Sight - volunteered rather than picked up. In 2013 when we were doing
the pilot and there was a bug, for want of a better expression, in the system, that's
what the piloting is supposed to do. It is one step on from a segregated testing
environment which isn’t linked up to anything and in that case, in conjunction with
the subpostmaster we used a balancing transaction, which I suppose is a form of
remote access, but through protocols and so on and so forth and as I say with the
collaboration of the subpostmaster who, and once it was fixed, he basically signed
off and said you have corrected the flaw that we have been able to find as part of
this pilot and my branch accounts are fine. So I suppose you can call that remote
access.
Tim Robinson
But not without the knowledge of.....
Patrick Bourke
But not without the knowledge and it has been used once. Once and once only in
the entire time Horizon has been effective. It happened as part of the pilot. That
is what a pilot is supposed to surface and it was done you know...,
Tim Robinson
Is that with receipts and payments mismatched?
Patrick Bourke
Exactly.
Angela Van Den
The important thing is that it was done with the knowledge but actually it leaves a
4A_30895917_1
24
POL00140211
POL00140211
Bogerd
footprint and that is the important thing so, you know, can the system be accessed
remotely and without anybody's knowledge in terms of it doesn’t leave a footprint
then no, it leaves a footprint and that is the important thing that Patrick just
described, that he said it has been used once but lots of protocols around it and it
is not just one person doing this, there is a team of people doing it so it is not just
one that has got access and can remotely access. It is not a case of going into
somebody's bank account and removing money because we don't hold bank
account information there, this is about transactional information that has been
transacted and corrected in that situation.
Matt Bardo
So, it is not now and never has been possible for anybody from the Post Office or
Fujitsu to interfere with transactions, transaction data on a branch terminal without
the clear knowledge of the subpostmaster and it is just as simple as that.
Patrick
Bourke
We can't alter what has been recorded by the system. As I explained to you, any
change that is made is by way of an additional transaction which carries with it a
unique identifier, clearly identifying it as being non, that is not the subpostmaster's
code, and you know when you go to Next they all swipe their cards so it attaches
to them their personal accountability and that’s what I was saying about the tools
you just have to. So it is 100% true to say we can't change, alter, modify existing
transaction data so the integrity is 100% preserved. The only thing we can do
whether that is through an error notice, a transactional correction or in the one
case it has happened the balancing transaction is inject a new - I think that is the
term they use sorry those computer buffs - add, as I would say, an additional
transaction which basically has bells and whistles around it that says I am out of
the ordinary and I should be treated accordingly.
Matt Bardo
And that is true now and has been since the creation of the system? Okay
Patrick Bourke
Yes.
Matt Bardo
Okay. And then I suppose one other thing while we are talking about Fujitsu is
that I would like to understand in the, I know you can't talk about specific cases but
this is a public trial there was an expert witness and some exchange of the views
between the expert witness Gareth Jenkins from Fujitsu and an expert witness for
the defence, Charles McLaughlin, and one of the things that came out of that was
that they were trying to get information, he was trying to get more information
about the system and that system appeared to incur costs for the provision of that
data and it wasn’t provided in the end. Is it the case that in order to access the
kind of information that an independent expert like Charles McLaughlin would
need in order to make full sense of everything that was going on and costs the
Post Office money under the service level agreement. Is that right?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
We do have a service level agreement yes. We get a number of archive pulls
from the system as part of that and if we exceed that then it is a cost. I think the
important thing here is for all the cases in the scheme we have actually pulled
those archives and I refer to the, we call it ARQ information, and we provide that —
which beefs up the supporting evidence and that is about every key stroke, it
leaves the footprint of what happened over that period of time and that would have
been done in the court case. If we are, and I am talking generically here, if we are
bringing a case against someone in terms of prosecution every piece of
information, all the evidence that we will draw on to bring that case will be
presented and will be presented to the defence team as well. So that information,
I don’t know the ins and outs of the case anyway, but that information would have
been provided by us and if it cost us, it cost us. That is the part of the cost of, you
know, there are legal costs involved and there are other costs involved in bringing
the case. So that information will not have been not used if that was the case.
4A_30895917_1
22
POL00140211
POL00140211
Matt Bardo
And so for everybody on the mediation scheme that ARQ data has been pulled
which means there is.... so what kind of a picture do you have then of everything
going on in the system for all of the cases in the mediation scheme? Complete?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Complete.
Matt Bardo
Every single key stroke.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Absolutely. The important bit here is the timespan. So that information is kept for
seven years. Now some of these cases go beyond seven years and clearly we
can't do that. What we have been able to rely on then is any other information we
had available, and I mentioned the call logs, they have been quite extensive and
gone back, so we have been able to piece the picture but, from memory, where
we have had key issues in cases that, you know, ‘this is where it happened’, we
have been able to pull the information and have a look at it and explain what has
actually happened in that and it is down to every key stroke, every log on of the
system, every failed log on the system. It goes into that level. Everything that
happens is registered, logged and we've got that. That has been provided as part
of the supporting evidence with each of those cases.
Matt Bardo
Okay. I am going to move on again. The prosecutions, I am keen to make sense
of something to do with that. We have talked about false accounting a bit there.
One of the things, I think it was in the response possibly from the Adjournment
debate, where it was outlined what the thinking is for prosecutions for theft and it is
a description that goes something along the lines of, I think you will recognise the
picture anyway.
Tim Robinson
Post Office bringing charges of theft as a tactical advice to drive false
accounting...
Matt Bardo
Yeah so it is in defence of that point, the point being that where false accounting is
taking place the fact of a loss is sufficient to bring a charge of theft. I was curious
about that because, on a really simple level, evidence of theft to me is evidence
that somebody's taken something.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Yes. Agreed.
Matt Bardo
So the question is what is sufficient evidence I suppose for that act having taken
place?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Okay. I understand.
Matt Bardo
And that's what this is about yeah.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
In bringing a case, a prosecution case, we would only bring a prosecution case of
theft if we had sufficient evidence to prove theft. We wouldn't claim to charge
somebody for theft and then hope to get a false accounting which I think this is
where this is going. That's not the case.
Matt Bardo
Actually, I was trying to just to keep the two separate, I know there is this
allegation knocking around and it would be helpful to talk about that but just
independently of that, the grounds on which a theft charge is brought, it is
sufficient for false accounting and a loss. Is it as simple as that or are there
additional?
Angela Van Den
No.
4A_30895917_1
23
POL00140211
POL00140211
Bogerd
Patrick Bourke
They are distinct offences.
Matt Bardo
They are indeed.
Patrick Bourke
Yes I know but...
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Just to give an example.....
Tim Robinson
Can I read you the rest of the quote? There is in response to BIS. This is your
second response. And it said it is possible to bring a charge for theft where
someone with access to money takes steps to hide a loss and can offer no
credible explanation for where the money was gone. This important point was not
explained to the committee etc etc.
Patrick Bourke
Okay. So on that point specifically, false accounting (and I have checked this with
our lawyers actually) is prima facie good evidence of a theft having taken place -
it is a legitimate ground for a prosecution for theft, so the concealment of an
absence of money is sufficient grounds to bring a charge of theft.
Matt Bardo
So why do you not always just charge for theft then because sometimes a
prosecution is just for false accounting. What would go into that? Is this one for
the lawyers is it?
Patrick Bourke
I suspect it is one for the lawyers.
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
Yeah and it would depend on the circumstances of the case but in terms of
bringing a prosecution we would always make sure that we have the two tests
which is evidence and in the public interest, always do that, but if you want more
detail then we'd need to give this to the legal team because whilst I have
investigated cases I am not investigating what leads to a prosecution. I am
looking at the facts of the case.
Patrick Bourke
I suppose there are all sorts of factors that might go into that. Just because it is
prima facie good evidence that a theft might have been committed we have to
look at all the circumstances surrounding it. So if it is something that clearly
demonstrates that that actually didn’t take place, there was no point in prosecuting
for theft. There are issues around the public interest. You know, there are issues
for consideration for us that we are not a malicious organisation so we are not sort
of desperately out to get the highest penalty and the highest charge in every small
case so I think we will need to check with the lawyers but I think part of the answer
to your question has to be that that is one component and one component alone.
And so it is not as simple as saying if it is prima facie good evidence of a charge
of theft then it would make sense to always bring a charge of theft. One doesn’t
follow the other.
Tim Robinson
I don’t know if you will be able to answer this question but I understand that when
Royal Mail and the Post Office went their separate ways there was a slight change
in the way that prosecution works because, as regularly the point was made that
you prosecute in the same way that I can or the BBC or the RSPCA or NHS
Protect but am I right in understanding that before that, historically, the Royal Mail
Group when it was a bigger entity had a slightly different set of powers?
Angela Van Den
Bogerd
No. The same as what we've got now.
4A_30895917_1
24
POL00140211
POL00140211
222 So there was no change in 2012 on all that?
Angela Van Den I No.
Bogerd
Patrick Bourke Not to the best of my knowledge there wasn't.
Angela Van Den I No.
Bogerd
Patrick Bourke I used to work in Post Office Legal many many years ago and the Post Office and
its considerable parts were all serviced by a central legal team. The legal team
has been decentralised as the business has separated into its parts but as far as I
am aware, and I am going back sometime around 2003...but everybody shared
the same approach.
Matt Bardo There is also, forgive me but I think it will be something you have said several
times, that somewhere you say that all prosecutions have been reviewed, and this
is probably with regard to the mediation scheme, and there is no reason to be
concerned about any of them. They are all sound and in any case you know under
disclosure rules relating ........
Angela Van Den I Yes.
Bogerd
Matt Bardo Who would be responsible for doing that sort of a review? Would that be handled
by legal, internally presumably? Take me through that.
Patrick Bourke I The review was undertaken by an external firm of solicitors. Now you will say that
well it's your lawyers but lawyers have very very serious professional and ethical
rules governing what they can and can't do and I would strongly argue that was a
more than sufficient measure to review those cases but all of these cases are
looked at on a continuous basis. Even now as they are progressing through the
scheme.... I made it very clear at the outset that although the presumption is that
we are unlikely to mediate criminal cases we look at them on an individual case by
case basis so our continuing obligation of disclosure has operated throughout and
will continue to do so after the conclusion of this particular scheme. But in none of
the cases, not one of the cases that we have been working on, have we come
across during the course of our investigations any information that would call into
question the safety of these convictions.
Matt Bardo I am sorry... that was a separate... that wasn't part of the mediation scheme...that
was a separate thing that you engaged on with a firm of solicitors to review the
existing prosecutions.
Patrick Bourke I Yes...but...
Matt Bardo Roughly when did that happen...?
Patrick Bourke I think it was 2012, we can check that...
Matt Bardo Thank you very much...
Patrick Bourke I 2012
Matt Bardo Just one last question...that external firm of solicitors.. is that a solicitors that didn’t
play a role in the prosecutions in the first place or is that the same firm of
solicitors...
4A_30895917_1 25
POL00140211
POL00140211
Patrick Bourke I honestly couldn’t answer that ...they may have a hand in some of the
prosecutions but not necessarily all of them but to be honest it's not an answer
worth getting into...as I just don’t know...
Matt Bardo No that’s fine [laughing]
Fine...um, so let me have a quick look actually and see what the best thing is with
regards...it's here...
[Break]
Matt Bardo I've just got about four things to run through is that okay?
One of the questions, one of the other things that was sort of a prominent thing for
anyone watching the Select Committee coverage is you got lan Henderson from
Second Sight in some disagreement about provision of information that emails
relating to the Bracknell incident and the prosecution files in particular, could you
just run me through that from your point of view really clearly...[laughing]...
because it would appear from the Committee that your independent investigators
were requesting information in order to complete their independent investigation
and you were refusing to give it to them...
Patrick Bourke Ok well, I'll start with the prosecution files if I may...I mean the working group
actually agreed what we would be providing Second Sight and what we agreed to
provide Second Sight is all the information that was available at the trial. Now the
only thing that we haven't provided is legally privileged information as between
Post Office clients and as legal advisers, now that is a well-accepted fact of legal
proceedings in all circumstances so not even a court gets to see your legally
privileged information, in the same way that we haven't seen the legal advice that
applicants were provided with when they chose to plead guilty or not guilty or what
have you, and that's right and proper. I have no interest in seeing it as I am not
entitled to it so we have given them everything that we said we would give them on
the prosecution files, the only thing that is absent from that is the legally privileged
information to which neither they nor the court nor anybody else is entitled to see.
But - and this is an important but - for those cases which have made their
referrals to the CCRC for an investigation, the CCRC will see that privileged
information and so, if you like, that provides the gold standard in terms of ,you
know, the backstop, third party verification - somebody will have access to
everything that we had so, you know, that’s the explanation on the prosecution
files...
Matt Bardo Okay...
Patrick Bourke On the Bracknell incident, we have provided a huge amount of information to
Second Sight about this, and that culminated in us actually giving them a witness
statement, effectively an affidavit, from the chap they say that the individual
concerned went to meet - a chap by the name of Martin Rolf - and he gave a
witness statement which attested to the fact that Bracknell is not connected to the
Horizon network, it is a test environment and so therefore the claims that he made
of what he saw are just impossible - in the genuine sense of the word - to have
taken place because there is no functionality, there's no plugs going into the
system. And we then went a step further and provided them for the relevant
periods, so sometime before and sometime after the meeting took place, we
provided them with the email data that we could recover for that period, which I
have to say was dull as ditchwater because I looked at it and, you know, I think we
have more than discharged our obligations to Second Sight and certainly to the
commitment that we gave to the working group and that we were all agreed on,
Second Sight included, on what we provide on the prosecution files...
4A_30895917_1 26
POL00140211
POL00140211
Mark Davies That’s a very important point about the working group, everyone on the working
group agreeing to that...with the oversight of an independent chair
Patrick Bourke I'm very comfortable that they had all relevant information to substantiate the
allegation that was made, had they been able to do so.
Matt Bardo Just to be really clear, sorry, the Martin Rolf statement you just mentioned that was
presumably saying that it was test data only in the boiler room or whatever it was in
the basement...or was that in the whole...
Patrick Bourke I have never been to the place...! don’t know...
Mark Davies .... this is what we said at the beginning about sense of being wronged that a sense
has been created.... and you refer to the Bracknell incident and boiler rooms and
all this sort of stuff, there is a kind of sense that there is somehow some kind of
bunker, boiler room, black-ops operation run by the Post Office with Fujitsu in
order to do something and, you know, due respect, we are a very serious
organisation, Fujitsu is a serious organisation, we don’t do that... and then you
have to ask yourself why [laughing] would we do that...what would be the reason
for having that, you know, that kind of scenario...
Matt Bardo I don’t know... I also can't really understand what the reason would be for having
Horizon terminals testing data in a boiler room either so...
And that’s confirmed [laughing]...so I'm a bit confused by the whole incident
[laughing]
Patrick Bourke I don’t know whether it is tested in the boiler room or not I mean
perhaps. ..[Laughing]
Patrick Bourke You know in Old Street we had meeting rooms in what used to be toilets. I mean
you know [laughing] it's at the more exotic end of the claims that have been
made...
Matt Bardo But it is your understanding that the test data only.... because to be fair initially as I
understand it... I mean the Post Office appear to have slightly walked into the
conspiracy narrative on this one because initially as I understand it it was denied -
the boiler room incident - and subsequently it was Martin Rolf confirmed that there
were these Horizon terminals
Patrick Bourke I I think there are some confusion because we couldn’t track down the fact of this
chap visiting, that was the initial thing and then when the applicant concerned went
through his archives and found an email from I think from Martin Rolf saying
“looking forward to seeing you at X" you know... but I mean this was an
unremarkable visit, it was not a visit by Her Majesty which we would have had in
our diaries and which we would have commemorative plates for...
Angela Van Slightly out of context... visits would happen in this area...it is not unknown and
Den Bogerd therefore, you know, it is not unreasonable that we wouldn't remember, especially
as it was only raised several years after the incident. So it's not as if it had been on
the radar before then - you know this chap only raised this incident several years
after it had happened and therefore we would have no recollection of it, we would
have...had it been raised closer to the incident we would have been closer to the
information and been able to produce the information much more complete...
4A_30895917_1 27
POL00140211
POL00140211
Patrick Bourke I dare say in five years' time when the four of us have gone somewhere else and
somebody else asks did Matt Bardo and Tim Robinson come into the company we
would struggle to find any evidence of that so you know...
Matt Bardo: We signed two visitors books [laughing]...sorry...[laughing]
Matt Bardo The settle centrally and change to that .... I just wanted to really quickly come back
to that... there used to be a different type of dispute function then that allowed
people to put money into a suspense account...is that right? And there is a
protocol associated with that...
Angela Van Well it's the same process, just done a different way...
Den Bogerd
Matt Bardo Okay so there really isn't a change at all then...
Angela Van No...
Den Bogerd
Matt Bardo Is there any change in liability in terms of how the process works and ours vs
them... is it all the same...
Angela Van The liaibility is the same. Nothing has changed other than we have just automated
Den Bogerd it to have a better line of sight to the numbers in the network
Matt Bardo Yes okay.
One final thing the issues log, is issues logged the right word, it won't be... sort of
problems logged that Fujitsu keeps for the entire system, the entire Horizon
system, the existence of which does mean that ..... systems have them it’s a
standard software thing I gather to have a list of known issues, known problems
with a given piece of software and there's a confirmation in the, again it's this Misra
trial because it's one of the times that somebody independent is trying to scrutinise
the system and there's confirmation that such document exists and it isn’t
disclosed...are you aware of that document and has somebody looked at it from
the Post Office...
Angela Van I am not aware of that...
Den Bogerd
Patrick Bourke Not aware of anything...
Angela Van I am not aware...
Den Bogerd
Patrick Bourke I am afraid I am not and I can imagine that something called an issues log relates
to the performance of the system...but certainly... again we can....
Angela Van I mean again we can find out how that was raised...
Den Bogerd
4A_30895917_1 28
POL00140211
POL00140211
Matt Bardo That’s one more thing to the list...
There is something that was mentioned that I think of your response to this
committee, clearly you can see this was very confidential and for that reason you
can't be saying well we have had this agreement with that person and this
agreement with this person but there was kind of this idea that after 15 cases
progressed the working group would be fed that information...but of course the
working group disbanded... has that still happened is there some kind of high
level data about... what's gone on there, is that going to happen, because it would
just be helpful in informing, you know, what sort of results have come from the
cases that have been...
Patrick Bourke I Okay what it doesn’t say is results because those are confidential but if you look at
our 187 page report which we did after we'd done this watershed moment to peed
up the process while maintaining its absolute integrity, in that one of the
appendices is a letter that we asked CEDR to send to the Post Office which
contains basically the same information but because the original document
engaged confidentiality of more than just the Post Office, we couldn't just use that
document so we asked them to effectively you know cut and paste into a
document addressed sent to us and I am very happy to give you a copy of that...
Tim Robinson I have that document...
Patrick Bourke So what it doesn’t say is you know XYZ settled for x amount...
Tim Robinson Of course, yeah...
Mel Corfield It is right at the very end so I will send it to you separately because there are a lot
of annexes...
Patrick Bourke I Yeah...and yeah we are obviously continuing to work with CEDR and there will be
other points, of which I mean... it is really important for us to, as part of the reason
for doing it, is really feedback to make sure that were hitting the right buttons in
terms of tone, approach, are we being sufficiently helpful, are the statements we
are preparing ahead of mediation so that we are giving full transparency as the sort
of thing we are going to be bring to the table, you know, is it working...... and
broadly speaking I think the comments they make are quite favourable. I think you
know there are some concerns about some people having approached this from
the other side as being very much a compensation system which it was never set
us as because the question of compensation can only arise where there is
evidence of a problem that caused you a loss and in a lot of these cases that
hasn't transpired but it is quite........ there is another illustration we have been
having... I think people in their minds kind of formed the view that because we are
doing this mediation scheme we have somehow admitted that we did stuff wrong
or we accept liability and then all they have to do is turn up and get paid out which
is very far from where we are...
Matt Bardo I should just check something from right at the beginning...is it right that there are
currently no convicted postmasters who have gone forward for full mediation to
complete...is that right? Is that correct?...
Patrick Bourke As of today's date that’s correct...
Matt Bardo And are there lots still to process?...
4A_30895917_1 29
POL00140211
POL00140211
Patrick Bourke I Well I think I said to you that there are between 50/60 they are trying to schedule I
can't give you a definitive figure because as I said we are doing it on a case by
case basis so anything I tell you is subject to a variation which I can't predict. It
could be plus or minus five or it could be plus or minus 15 - broadly speaking, we
would anticipate between now and as early as we can do it undertaking something
in the order of 75 mediations
[Tim Robinson: and that would be done by the end of the year probably. ..?]
How long is a piece of string...? If we can get the applicants to settle on a date but
I mean on our side we have offered multiple dates and CEDR are doing their best
..-S0 we have also engaged with one of the firms who have a significant number of
cases in the scheme to see what more we could do to support them because I
mean I think they have something like 56 cases on their books and we've worked
together a bit and they've streamlined their systems so we know that basically
there it depends on fewer people being available within the firm so it's
concentrated into one or two lawyers taking forward the mediation so that should
help us enormously as well.... because we recognise this is taking a long time and
people just want to move on and, you know, if they do we do and the sooner we
can see it done the better but I'd struggle to put a timeline on it but it will certainly I
think take us up to the end of the year...
Matt Bardo Sorry, forgive me, I know I said it before but this is the very, very last thing
[laughing], the private prosecution thing, there was a.... I think it was James
Arbuthnot... at the adjournment debate.. referred almost in passing to the idea
that some at the Post Office don’t want to continue to operate in that way, is there
any, without knowing that quote, you don’t need to know that quote for this
question, is it the plan to continue with the prosecution private prosecution as you
currently do there's no sort of ...nothing pending that you imagine might lead to
operating in a different way in the future or anything?...
Patrick Bourke I am certainly not aware of it... so I imagine that our General Counsel and the
Board will generally keep these sorts of things under review periodically but I know
of no current plan to make fundamental changes in the way that you suggest... so
for instance saying that we would just invite the CPS to do all the prosecutions for
us rather than doing them ourselves. And as you know there is some advantage
doing prosecutions on your own account because you kind of really understand
what goes on and these are pretty complex issues so I think there would have to
be a very good reason to part from current arrangements and it’s the best of my
knowledge there is no plan in place for that but I'm sure that periodically, our
prosecutions policy, how we do things, in that part of the business is reviewed in
the same way that the way we sell stamps...
Matt Bardo Yes
Great, thank you very much...in terms of where we go from here...
We'll go away listen back, think [laughing] hard, and cross refer on some other
stuff we have got and then we'll send over some more information ahead of an
interview... and if there are more things to clarify we will be in touch...[ Mark
questions the 29"... yes I think it is the 29", I think we are now.... to be honest you
used to work at the BBC, you can imagine... it's not going to be 22"! we believe it
will be the 29"...
Mel Corfield Okay I just wanted to check you gave us, although we are not obviously talking
about individual cases, you gave us a list of cases and I just wanted to check is the
list still cases that you are looking at, are there others or...
Matt Bardo I suppose that's the lines of the enquiry of emails to help narrow it down...
Mel Corfield Precisely...I just thought that was some time ago...has that shifted?
4A_30895917_1 30
POL00140211
POL00140211
Matt Bardo
I don’t imagine all of those cases will be in a half hour programme.. they won't all
be in a half hour programme but in terms of exactly which ones that’s partly
informed by this, going back completing it through but we will tell you which cases
it will be...
Patrick Bourke
I think, just more generally, you know, obviously if there are specific allegations
that you bring forward to the Post Office, putting at our door... think I am right in
saying to do that with a bit of time so that we have a chance to digest and respond
appropriately.
Matt Bardo
The way....... I mean we'll be talking about all this.... but the way it works for an
interview, because the interview is not only scripted exercise whereby we give all
our questions and you write them and answer them and we sit down, so we give
you all the information that you need in order to respond and then...continue on
that basis .it's a standard way of doing it, but yes you're right there's more to
come...[laughing]...
Mark Davies
Absolutely and I think from our perspective this has been very useful but we stand
ready to help in any way that we can over the course over the next few weeks to
either build on what we have said today or as you have come forward on other
things you want to ask about we would absolutely do that...
Patrick Bourke:
Yes and I think we do stand ready to answer any questions whether it is something
that’s occurred to you or something that you're passing on from what someone else
has said, I mean we believe in answering every question put to us under the terms.
of the scheme but no doubt there will be more you would like to bring...so say we
would obviously want to operate in a ‘no surprises’ environment to any extent that
we can but actually it's not just out of that concern it's also to make sure that you
are getting what you need.
Matt
Bardo
Brilliant...Cool...thank you very much
Everyone
Thanks everyone
4A_30895917_1
34