POL00149925
POL00149925
Mon 08/12/2014 9:56:42 AM (UTC)
Subject: RE: email to BBC
WTF?
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 08 December 2014 09:52
To: Tom Wechsler
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Belinda Crowe; Patrick Bourke; Chris Aujard; Rodric Williams
Subject: Re: email to BBC
Great advice all. I will take a look at the letter now. It might be best directed to just the One Show in the first
instance.
Letwin has cancelled as you presumably no know.
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPad
On 8 Dec 2014, at 09:51, "Tom Wechsler"!
My opinion, is that we should say something given we don’t know precisely how partial and reliant on
assertion their piece will be. But Paula’s letter to JA effectively invited media attention so whilst I think
the tone is right, I agree with Mel that we should probably shorten it. Waiting a little is probably right
too.
Tom
Tom Wechsler
“1
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: 08 December 2014 09:36
To: Belinda Crowe; Mark R Davies; Patrick Bourke; Chris Aujard; Rodric Williams
Cc: Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: email to BBC
A few minor tweaks below.
The editor of the One Show is Sandy Smith (formerly of Watchdog and Panorama)
sandy.smitht
POL00149925
POL00149925
I've just seen Patrick’s email. Whilst I agree that nothing we do is likely to change the outcome (ie they
will still run damaging story and as Patrick points out, they are giving us an opportunity to give our side)
it could be useful to have our concerns on record now with BBC editors. I think the tone of the email is
right (and it is good to give wider exposure to Nick Wallis’ email which is about as far from unbiased as it
is possible to be!) However it is probably too repetitive regarding “no systemic flaws etc” and might be
better if it was shortened. After all, the key point is that Nick W’s email clearly shows no intention to be
unbiased and that is all we can actually address at this point (since we have been invited to take part and
have separately asked Nick W for disclosure about everything he has).
We should in my view wait for a while today to see what Nick’s fuller response to the email sent on
Friday is. He must already be speaking with BBC lawyers.
Hope this is helpful.
Mel
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 08 December 2014 08:04
To: Mark R Davies; Patrick Bourke; Melanie Corfield; Chris Aujard; Rodric Williams
Cc: Belinda Crowe; Tom Wechsler
Subject: RE: email to BBC
Thanks Mark
I think that we need to avoid saying too much about the Scheme and resolutions at this stage — this
could well get leaked and we do not want to give others a hook to start speaking publicly about
resolution of cases. Also we have not yet agreed with the Board/ExCo that we will publish a report and
Alice was a bit more circumspect about it.
Suggest as amended below:
Dear James
I hope you are well. You may remember me from my days as Jack Straw's special adviser. I am
now communications director at the Post Office. I hope you will be able to explore the issue
below for me, or urgently point me in the right direction so that the serious concerns of the
business can be addressed.
In short, I am gravely concerned that the BBC could shortly embark on news coverage regarding
the Post Office and its business which is unfairly damaging to its reputation, and which causes
unnecessary distress to customers and colleagues. While I know that the BBC is rigorous, and
tightly so, in its adherence to its editorial guidelines, I am concerned that on this occasion there is
the potential for coverage which is unfair, potentially defamatory and which places the business in
an intolerable position.
In short, a campaign was set up some years which suggested that a very small number of
postmasters had been unfairly treated by the business. The suggestion is that our computer system
caused losses in their accounts for which they were held liable. Some were successfully
prosecuted.
The Post Office takes its responsibilities very seriously and that includes its approach to
prosecutions and the management of branches. There is no evidence, now or in the past of any
POL00149925
POL00149925
systemic issue with or computer system, which successfully deals with millions of transactions
every day.
That said, given the concerns of this small number of subpostmasters, raised with us by the Justice
for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) and MPs representing postmasters in their constituencies, we
decided in 2012 to set up a review by forensic accountants of our computer system. That review
found no systemic faults with the system
However, we set up a Complaints and Mediation Scheme to give postmasters a route through
which to raise concerns. This Scheme is overseen by a working group, with an independent chair
(a former High Court judge) and Terms of Reference agreed by all parties (including the JFSA).
The scheme involves a thorough investigation by the Post Office of each and every case, further
independent review by forensic accountants and consideration as to whether a case should go to
mediation by the working group.
We are close to completing all investigations of the 150 or so cases brought forward. Some have
already been resolved.
What is clear is that some two and a half years on since we began this thorough review, there
remains no evidence at all of any systemic issue with our computer system. This is of course a
critically important point.
Once all cases have been through the process we will be able to report publicly on the process and
its content (but not individual cases), and we would at that time welcome the opportunity to
discuss the approach in more detail.
My concern is that the BBC One Show is planning to report on the issue this week. We have been
asked to give an interview. We are unable to do so given the confidentiality around the Scheme,
agreed with all parties, and which is in the interests of all those who have brought cases forward.
Regardless of the commitment to confidentiality agreed as part of the Scheme you will understand
that we cannot discuss personal cases publicly and disclose information about individuals even to
put right claims that they make.
I attach below the email from the BBC journalist making this request. He refers to a specific case
in the Scheme. We are therefore unable of course to comment and would suggest that it would be
unfair if the BBC were to report on it before the due process I set out above is complete — to do
so could undermine the process.
The journalist, Mr Wallis, makes a number of points about the case of a named former
subpostmaster, but as this case is a matter of public record, it is difficult to understand what new
angle is being suggested.
Mr Wallis suggests that a barrister will be interviewed and make accusations about our computer
system. These will be without foundation and this is extremely worrying in relation to the
potential for inaccurate and potentially defamatory comments to be made about a system which
works every day on behalf of millions of Post Office customers. The phrase "he is unlikely to be
complimentary" does not strike me as that of someone going into the issue with an open mind.
Mr Wallis claims to have significant evidence which could challenge the decisions of the courts. If
this is the case he and the BBC are under an obligation to make the Post Office aware of any such
information. We have written separately to Mr Wallis requesting that he do so.
POL00149925
POL00149925
Allegations of miscarriages of justice are of course extremely serious and it is clear that there are
well established avenues for such claims to be made.
Mr Wallis suggests that it "speaks volumes" that the Post Office has not been interviewed about
these matters. With respect to the BBC we are accountable to our people and our customers, and
I hardly think an independent review and a Mediation Scheme is evidence of a lack of
accountability. Moreover I think the phrase "this speaks volumes" suggests that this item cannot
therefore carry with it the editorial balance which is surely necessary in a case such as this.
I understand that the One Show plans to air this item this week, possibly as early as Tuesday. We
are not aware, still, however as to any 'new evidence’ which the BBC plans to air. This is gravely
concerning given the seriousness of the matters at stake.
I would like to stress that at the appropriate time, the Post Office will be happy to speak publicly
about the Scheme and the allegations which have been made. However, with the process ongoing,
this is not the time at all. We are being placed in an intolerable position when our approach is
reasonable, fair and beyond that which most companies in a similar position would do.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I have copied the email from
your journalist, Mr Wallis, below.
Best wishes
Mark Davies
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 07 December 2014 22:52
To: Belinda Crowe; Patrick Bourke; Melanie Corfield; Chris Aujard; Rodric Williams
Subject: email to BBC
All
This is the email I would like to send to James Harding, the BBC's director of news and current
affairs.
Please let me have your thoughts asap as I would like to send by lunchtime MOnday (including a
view please from legal).
Thanks
Mark
CONFIDENTIAL AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE
POL00149925
POL00149925
Dear James
I hope you are well. You may remember me from my days as Jack Straw's special adviser. I am
now communications director at the Post Office. I hope you will be able to explore the issue
below for me, or urgently point me in the right direction so that the serious concerns of the
business can be addressed.
In short, I am gravely concerned that the BBC could shortly embark on news coverage regarding
the Post Office and its business which is unfairly damaging to its reputation, and which causes
unnecessary distress to customers and colleagues. While I know that the BBC is rigorous, and
rightly so, in its adherence to its editorial guidelines, I am concerned that on this occasion there is
the potential for coverage which is unfair, potentially defamatory and which places the business in
an intolerable position.
In short, a campaign was set up some years which suggested that a very small number of
postmasters had been unfairly treated by the business. The suggestion is that our computer system
caused losses in their accounts for which they were held liable. Some were successfully
prosecuted.
The Post Office takes its responsibilities very seriously and that includes in the management of
branches. There is no evidence, now or in the past of any systemic issue with or computer system,
which successfully deals with millions of transactions every day.
That said, given the concerns of this small number of subpostmasters, raised with us by the Justice
for Subpostmasters Alliance (JFSA) and MPs representing postmasters in their constituencies, we
decided in 2012 to set up a review by forensic accountants of our computer system.
We have also set up a Complaints and Mediation Scheme to give postmasters a route through
which to raise concerns. This Scheme is overseen by a working group, with an independent chair
(a former High Court judge) and Terms of Reference agreed by all parties (including the JFSA).
The scheme involves a thorough investigation by the Post Office of any case, further independent
review by forensic accountants and consideration as to whether a case should go to mediation by
the working group.
We are close to completing all investigations of the 100 or so cases brought forward. Some have
gone to mediation: others have not. Some have been settled in mediation; others have not.
What is clear is that some two and a half years on since we began to review this year, there
remains no evidence at all of any systemic issue with our computer system. This is of course a
critically important point.
It is our intention once all cases have been through the process to issue a public report on the
process and its content, and we would at that time welcome the opportunity to discuss the
approach we have taken.
My concern is that the BBC One Show is planning to report on the issue this week. We have been
asked to give an interview. We are unable to do so given the confidentiality around the Scheme,
agreed with all parties, and which is in the interests of all those who have brought cases forward.
I atttach below the email from the BBC journalist making this request. He refers to a specific
POL00149925
POL00149925
case. This case is one of those being considered in the Scheme. We are therefore unable of course
to comment and would suggest that it would be unfair if the BBC were to report on it before the
due process I set out above is complete.
The journalist, Mr Wallis, makes a number of points about the case of a named former
subpostmaster, but as this case is a matter of public record, it is difficult to understand what new
angle is being suggested.
Mr Wallis suggests that a barrister will be interviewed and make accusations about our computer
system. These will be without foundation and this is extremely worrying in relation to the
potential for inaccurate and potentially defamatory comments to be made about a system which
works every day on behalf of millions of Post Office customers. The phrase "he is unlikely to be
complimentary" does not strike me as that of someone going into the issue with an open mind.
Mr Wallis claims to have significant evidence which could challenge the decisions of the courts. If
this is the case he and the BBC are under an obligation to make the Post Office aware of any such
information. We have written separately to Mr Wallis requesting that he do so.
Allegations of miscarriages of justice are of course extremely serious and it is clear that there are
well established avenues for such claims to be made.
Mr Wallis suggests that it "speaks volumes" that the Post Office has not been interviewed about
these matters. With respect to the BBC we are accountable to our people and our customers, and
I hardly think an independent review and a Mediation Scheme is evidence of a lack of
accountability. Moreover I think the phrase "this speaks volumes" suggests that this item cannot
therefore carry with it the editorial balance which is surely necessary in a case such as this.
I understand that the One Show plans to air this item this week, possibly as early as Tuesday. We
are not aware, still, however as to the 'new' evidence which the BBC plans to air. This is gravely
concerning given the seriousness of the matters at stake.
I would like to stress that at the appropriate time, the Post Office will be happy to speak publicly
about the Scheme and the allegations which have been made. However, with the process ongoing,
this is not the time at all. We are being placed in an intolerable position when our approach is
reasonable, fair and beyond that which many companies in a similar position would do.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I have copied the email from
your journalist, Mr Wallis, below.
Best wishes
Mark Davies
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
The email from Mr Wallis is as follows:
Yesterday I had a conversation with your colleague Gabrielle O'Gara (apologies if I have got the
spelling wrong) requesting an interview with Paula Vennells or a senior nominee within the Post
POL00149925
POL00149925
Office. In the course of our conversation I explained there appears to have been a significant
development in the attitude of various MPs towards the Complaint Review and Mediation
scheme. I am not exactly clear on what that development is, but I understand it will be known
soon.
We are preparing a piece for the One Show which will go out next week. The story is likely to be
picked up before then by BBC network news.
In the One Show piece we will interview a former Subpostmaster - Susan Knight in St Keverne -
who was accused of theft by the Post Office. She was subsequently completely exonerated, yet
she has lost her job, her business, her place in the community, is now living below the bread line
and is having to sell her house. Whilst we were there she received a notification that her water
supply was in danger of being cut off. Yet she is an innocent woman.
In order to ensure Ms Knight's position on the mediation scheme is not in jeopardy, we have not
discussed the mediation scheme at all - we simply wanted to hear about her experience of running
the village Post Office and her treatment at the hands of the Post Office and the legal system.
In our One Show piece we will also interview a barrister who is an expert in computer systems.
He will say the idea that computer systems are faultless is a nonsense, and that relying solely on
their output for criminal investigations (as the Post Office has done in a number of cases) can
result in miscarriages of justice. He has been taking a close interest in Horizon and will state his
professional opinion on Horizon during our piece. He is unlikely to be complimentary.
We have been in contact with a number of former SPMRs who all claim their innocence, yet most
or all have been sacked/forced to resign by the Post Office. Many have been prosecuted, some
have criminal convictions, some have been sent to prison. In the cases we are looking into, the
common thread is a complete absence of any evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, let alone proof
of criminal activity. Some have compelling evidence they are innocent of any crime or negligence.
Some also have clear evidence of inexplicable errors made by Horizon.
The BBC, through various outlets, has made repeated requests for interview by the Post Office
over the integrity of the Horizon system. These interview requests go back as far as the Taro Naw
programme in 2009, my own broadcast on BBC1's Inside Out South in 2011, Matt Prodger's
interview requests for BBC News in 2012 and 2013, the request by Taro Naw in 2013 and my
request to you earlier this year.
To the best of my knowledge the Post Office has never allowed itself to be properly held to
account in a formal recorded interview over the integrity of the Horizon system and/or the way it
goes about prosecuting its Subpostmasters. This, in itself, speaks volumes.
I would like to reiterate my interview request with some urgency. We would have to have it
recorded by Monday evening. We can get a camera crew anywhere reasonable in the UK at
reasonable notice, and of course we can make one available at the weekend.
I called Ms O'Gara on your office phone number ) at around 2.30pm yesterday
afternoon and have not yet received a response. I think it is immensely important to get the Post
Office's perspective on the integrity of the Horizon system, its treatment of Subpostmasters
having problems using the Horizon system (including and with specific reference to Susan Knight)
and any latest developments in the relationship between the Post Office and MPs over the
mediation scheme. If you wish to discuss the exact terms of reference of the interview before it
takes place, I would be willing to listen to what you have to say.
POL00149925
POL00149925
Please email me or call me on if you require any further information or wish to
discuss where and when the interview with Ms Vennells will take place.
Thank you
Sent from my iPad