POL00150242
POL00150242
From: Mark R Davies[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MARK R DAVIESA80D7269-659B-4 1 D0-9C80-
68D9DE4FA7C5D38]
Sent: Mon 15/12/2014 2
To:
Cc:
Tom
Subject: Re: Post Office interview
Thanks Tom.
In short the BBC are effectively accusing us of:
- breaching PACE
- wilfully allowing miscarriages of justice
Surely this falls into defamation territory? It smacks of the worst kind of journalism: get a taking head to say
something with no evidence, we reject it, they broadcast both sides and yet the damage to us as a party is
significant.
Grateful for urgent advice.
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Dec 2014, at 14:31, "Reid, Tom" I wrote:
Dear Mark
We had no further amendments, so we have sent the letter out. I attach a copy for your
records. We will also consider the point on the allegation of failure to follow legal
procedures and come back to you.
Kind regards
Tom
Tom Reid
Associate
<image001.jpa>
POL00150242
POL00150242
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP I Mitre House, 160 Aldersgate Street I London EC1A 4DD I United Kingdom
Sent: 15 December 20.
To: Reid, Tom
Cc: BARTY, Susan; Helmer, Stuart; Rodric Williams; Melanie Corfield; Ruth X Barker
Subject: RE: Post Office interview
Hi Tom
Thanks for this.
I have made a few changes in the attached. If you and copied colleagues are content, I am and would
like it to go asap.
On the wider defamation point: my concern is that the BBC suggests in its programme, without
evidence, that we do not follow legal procedures correctly. This strikes me as a very serious allegation,
which would have the potential to lower our reputation with third parties, unfairly. I am not, however,
up to date with media law developments.
Perhaps it is an issue for a separate communication to the BBC as a warning shot?
M
Mark Davies I Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
<image002.png>
1% Floor, Banner Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
{ Postini 3
<image003 .jpg>
From: Reid, Tom
Sent: 15 Decem
To: Mark R Davies
Cc: BARTY, Susan; Helmer, Stuart; Rodric Williams
Subject: FW: Post Office interview
Dear Mark
Susan is away from the office today so she has asked me to send this out. However we
have been in close touch with her by phone and email this morning and had her input on
this letter.
With regard to the implications of the BBC making these allegations, the recent change in
law has made it much more challenging for a business to succeed in a defamation action.
In particular, it can be difficult to show the serious financial harm that is required. This
letter therefore does not refer expressly to defamation, and instead emphasises concepts
from the BBC editorial guidelines such as the right to reply and a fair and appropriate
deadline for a response. However, do let us know if you would like us to consider this
further.
Kind regards
Tom
Tom Reid
Associate
<image001.jpa>
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP I Mitre House, 160 Aldersgate Street I London EC1A 4DD I United Kingdom
www.cms-cmeck.com
www.law-now.com
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 15 Decembe!
To: Susan.BARTY, i
Cc: Rodric Williams; Melanie Corfield; Ruth X Barker; Chris Aujard
Subject: Fwd: Post Office interview
HI Susan
I'm sending you below the long email chain I have had with the BBC over the weekend. As
discussed we would now like to send a legal letter citing Ofcom guidelines. I think we are in a
very reasonable position.
Given the questions posed by the BBC (which are at the end of this letter) I would very much
welcome your view also as to the implications of the BBC making these allegations - my own
media law view is that they are stepping into dangerous territory if some of these allegations are
made.
Mark
d Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark R Davies
Date: 15 December 2014 1
To: Ingrid Kell
Ce: Nick Wallis [
Melanie Corfield
Jane French 7
, Ruth X Barker
Subje ost Office interview
Hi Ingrid
Iam aware of the complexities of making a programme. I remain perplexed,
however, as to why you require a further 2.5 days after today to do so and are not
prepared to incorporate a Post Office interview in that time.
POL00150242
POL00150242
Our spokesperson, as I have said, is involved in Mediation Scheme work all day
today and tomorrow. I am not prepared to jeopardise that work to accommodate
your unreasonable schedule.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPad
On 15 Dec 2014, at 09:34, "Ingrid Kelly"
Dear Mark,
lam sure you are aware that making a programme involves far more than
merely filming. As I have said it is not practically possible for the team to
accommodate an interview after today.
As you maintain your designated interviewee cannot possibly accommodate
an interview at any point today — despite our offer to be available either
before or after their normal working day (though the former is clearly now
redundant) then we too are in a difficult position.
If this person is the only person within the Post Office who is appropriate for
interview, then I’d be grateful if you could ask them to consider being
interviewed at the end of their working day today.
Failing that, then as I’ve said, we will fairly reflect the post office’s position
within the film whether or not you are on the sofa.
Regards
Ingrid
From: Mark R Davies I _
Sent: 15 December 20
To: Ingrid Kelly
Cc: Nick Wallis; Jane French; Melanie Corfield; Ruth X Barker
Subject: Re: Post Office interview
Dear Ingrid
You have singularly failed to set out why you need two full days to
prepare your film and why the interview you requested must happen
today. This is not reasonable.
POL00150242
POL00150242
We stand ready to take part yet you refuse to budge from a self imposed
deadline and are unable to explain why you require more than 48 hours
to prepare a film, having presumably shot most of it, including several
interviews designed to traduce the Post Office's position. I note from his
Twitter feed that Nick was filming for 10 hours on Thursday.
While we would like to appear in your film we reserve the right to
ensure that, given the range of issues you are raising, we make the most
suitable person available. She is not available today due to work on the
Scheme. I am therefore stuck - do I place the Scheme and the interests
of applicants ahead of your request? The answer here is obvious.
We will send you a statement and a very full document setting out the
answers to the questions posed by Mr Wallis. I would request that given
your refusal to accommodate a full and proper Post Office interview the
statement is used in full.
We did indeed suggest that we have a slot on your sofa. I didn't imagine
for a moment this would mean a scenario where our points would not be
reflected through interview in your film. It provides no real opportunity
for the Post Office to respond to the serious and unfounded allegations
you plan to make.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Mobile
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Dec 2014, at 22:38, "Ingrid Kelly"
wrote:
As i have said unfortunately the team cannot accommodate
a filmed interview beyond monday. Far from asking you to
prioritise us over the scheme, we've said we can
accommodate the interview as early or late tomorrow as
necessary to suit your allotted person so as not to interfere
with their working day. If neither you nor any other
spokesperson can be available then, as ever, we can accept a
written response. Appearing live in the studio on the sofa
after the film was your suggestion which we were happy to
accommodate. Should you no longer wish to do that then
while it is disappointing, it is your decision. The offer
remains open.
Regards
POL00150242
POL00150242
POL00150242
POL00150242
Ingrid
On 14 Dec 2014, at 2
9, "Mark R Davies"
Hi Ingrid
Thanks for this. I am struggling to understand
why it "needs" to be on Monday, particularly
as, for the reasons set out in my earlier emails,
we are unable to provide a suitable
spokesperson on Monday due to competing
business priorities related to the Scheme and
applicants. It would be ironic indeed if we were
to relegate these responsibilities.
As I've also said, and as Nick has
acknowledged, your sofa slot will not provide a
suitable forum for the Post Office to respond to
the very serious and unfounded allegations you
plan to make in what will now inevitably be a
film which does not present a full and rounded
picture. It would be extremely unfair to suggest
as you do now that a minute or two in the
studio will provide suitable opportunity for the
Post Office's position to be fairly reflected.
Given the circumstances therefore we could not
appear in the studio.
Task you again to please reconsider your
refusal to accept a Post Office spokesperson
for your film on a more reasonable deadline.
Many thanks
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs
Director
Dear Mark,
As I've said if you or a colleague
wish to be interviewed for the film
then it needs to be on Monday.
You may feel late Tuesday is
reasonable but as i've made plain
from the outset, beyond Monday is
not possible for us. As i've also
said any monday interview can be
as early or as late as you wish.
Should neither you nor your
colleague be available for a filmed
interview tomorrow then we are
content with a statement for the
film as we had last week. As things
stand, you yourself will be on the
sofa on wednesday and able to
reflect the Post Office's position.
Regards
Ingrid
On 14 Dec 2014, at 10:28, "Mark
R Davies"
wrote:
Hi Ingrid
It isn't about your
schedule
disappointing us at all,
it is about our
reasonable offer,
repeated again here,
to provide an
interview for your
programme and your
reluctance to
accommodate us in a
reasonable timescale.
It is a little baffling
that you are not
prepared to allow us
reasonable time to
respond with an
interview. While I
appreciate the
demands of filming,
editing and clearing at
your end, we are able
to offer an interview
for your programme a
full 24 hours before
POL00150242
POL00150242
you broadcast. That
seems eminently
reasonable to me and
Tam sure it is
logistically achievable.
Without Post Office
input by interview into
the film and the
opportunity to
respond to the
detailed points and
allegations made it
will clearly be
impossible, as Nick
has accepted, to
respond fully in the
studio in a two or
three minute slot. I do
not think in those
circumstances we
could appear in the
studio: the film will be
very skewed without
our voice in it.
Given the work my
colleague must
undertake on behalf of
the Scheme and
applicants this week, I
will have to check
with her, but I think it
might be possible to
conduct an interview
in the late afternoon
on Tuesday.
I think she will be out
of London but I am
sure this can be
overcome. Do let me
know what time
would be suitable and
I will confirm a
location.
Best wishes
POL00150242
POL00150242
POL00150242
POL00150242
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and
Corporate Affairs
Director
Mobile:: GRO}
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Dec 2014, at
I'm sorry
if our
schedule
disappoin
ts and
inconveni
ences you
or the
post
office but
we won't
be
postponin
g. You
have the
allegation
s and our
schedule.
You can
respond
within the
film by a
statement
if no one
appropria
te is
available
for
interview
on
monday -
and of
course
you
yourself
will be
respondin
g on the
sofa after
the item
airs.
Regards
Ingrid
On 13
Dec
2014, at
17:07,
"Mark R
Hi Ingrid
That is very disappointing. To stress we would like to
offer a spokesperson for your programme's pre-
recorded film and are able to but not in the timetable
you suggest.
Our position is very reasonable. I assume the
programme will return after Christmas. What is the
urgent reason for being unable to give us the time we
need?
You plan to make a series of complex and very serious
allegations about Post Office Ltd, all of which can be
answered in detail. I do not understand why your
timescales are such that you cannot accommodate an
interview for a film 24 hours before broadcast. You are
asking for 48 hours for your own internal processes.
Nick has himself suggested that a sofa slot would not
really give us the opportunity to answer the very
complex range of allegations he is making. We agree
and clearly would be unable to take part in the studio if
our position is not reflected in the pre-recorded film.
It cannot be fair to feature a series of other interviews
in the film, all of which were presumably filmed last
week in good time for your deadlines, without giving
Post Office, which is very firm in its position, the
opportunity to respond. There are two sides to every
story, as you know.
POL00150242
POL00150242
T would like to ask you to reconsider your position
please.
Best wishes
Mark
id Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Dec 2014, at 12:24, "Ingrid Kelly"
wrote:
I'm afraid not. The programme is off air for a
fortnight and will run on weds. If you really can't
do an pre recorded interview on monday then as
you'll be on the sofa on weds, you'll be able to
respond then.
Regards
"Mark R Davies"
} wrote:
Hi Ingrid
Many thanks for this.
In that case please can I formally request
that the item is held until it is possible for
the Post Office to respond on film? There
is no urgency or need to broadcast this
item on Wednesday, especially as the
Mediation Scheme is continuing. Due to
pressing and competing business priorities
related to the mediation scheme and
involving applicants to it, we cannot
provide suitable representation until late
Tuesday afternoon at the earliest.
I appreciate your own legal and other
processes - you will appreciate our own.
Tam formally offering you this interview
with a senior manager who leads on the
issues you are discussing and think it is
reasonable for the Post Office to have the
opportunity to put forward its position in
a reasonable timescale.
POL00150242
POL00150242
We also stand ready to put a spokesperson
up live in the studio.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs
Director
Mobile: I
Sent from my iPhone
O 13 Dec 2014, at 09:48, "Ingrid Kelly"
i _} wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'm afraid the practicalities mean a
filmed interview wd need to be done
on monday to be incorporated into
the piece. The lawyers and editorial
advisory teams all need to take their
time checking the Item so it's a
rather cumbersome process. The
interview can be as early or as late
as suits but it does need to be
monday i'm afraid.
best
ingrid
On 13 Dec 2014, at 09:29, "Mark R
Many thanks for your email.
As you will appreciate you
have raised a broad range of
issues which range across
legal, IT and network
support. We are very keen to
be able to respond to all these
issues in detail, particularly as
POL00150242
POL00150242
there are some really
fundamental points raised in
your questions.
To that end we are working
to ensure that we can provide
you with the best possible
response. As mentioned in my
previous email, as well as
input from the suppliers of
our IT system and a legal
view on the serious points
you raise, we need (and I
think this is reasonable) to
provide you with a
spokesperson who can speak
across this range of issues.
We are dealing however on
Monday and Tuesday with
mediation scheme matters
which relate to applicants. So
we can absolutely be available
later on Tuesday or on
Wednesday morning.
I do appreciate the challenges
you have around filming and
editing of course but I am
sure you will appreciate the
challenges from our side as
well.
I suggest we speak first thing
Monday morning and
hopefully you will be able to
come back to me on the
timescale above and I will be
able to update you too on
where we are - please be
assured we will do everything
we can to ensure we give you
the opportunity to interview
the Post Office on these
important matters.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and
POL00150242
POL00150242
Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Dec 2014, at 20:43,
k Wallis"
Hi Mark
Thanks for your email. I
am delighted you are
inclined to offer studio
live and pre-recorded
filmed interviews.
As Ingrid (cc'd) has
confirmed the planned
transmission date for
both would be Wed 17
Dec, to coincide with the
planned Westminster Hall
adjournment debate on
the Post Office called by
James Arbuthnot MP.
As Jane (cc'd) explained
to you on the phone and
as I am sure you
understand, we need to
set a time for the pre-
recorded interview well in
advance of the planned
transmission date as the
interview will have to be
edited and go through all
the usual processes
before being delivered to
the One Show for
broadcast. It is in no
one's interest to rush
this.
As Ingrid may have
mentioned (and I defer
to her on exactly how
things may be happening
on Wednesday), any
studio guest you
nominate will most likely
be allotted around three
minutes interview time,
but with Victoria Wood,
Michael Ball, a children's
choir already booked on
Wednesday and the
unpredictability of a live
POL00150242
POL00150242
studio environment, the
interview might get
curtailed, or the
discussion itself might
veer off topic, despite
everyone's best efforts.
Could I therefore urge
you to fix up a date and
time as soon as possible
to film a pre-recorded
interview where we can
ask you, and give you
the opportunity to
answer, a series of
questions on the subjects
raised below in a calm
and controlled
environment.
The interview will, of
course, be edited, but we
will be scrupulous in our
duty of fairness towards
the interviewee and the
answers they give.
Furthermore, whether
either, both or no
proposed interviews end
up being broadcast, we
will be taking all
reasonable steps to
ensure the Post Office's
perspective on the
serious matters below is
properly represented.
T hope all that makes
sense. Just to ensure you
are clear on the internal
division of labour
surrounding the two
proposed interview
opportunities, Ingrid will
deal with you re the
arrangements re the
possible live interview on
the One Show sofa,
whilst Jane and I can
work with you to arrange
a pre-recorded interview
at a location of your
convenience.
T hope to hear from you
soon re a proposed pre-
recorded interview
location/date/time and
interviewee. I am happy
POL00150242
POL00150242
to liaise with you over
the weekend to book it in
in good time.
Yours,
Nick
POL00150242
POL00150242
Sent: 12 December 2014
18:47
To: Ingrid Kelly
Cc: Jane French; Nick
Wallis; Melanie Corfield;
Ruth X Barker
Subject: Re: Post Office
interview
Ah - thanks Ingrid.
That does give us more
time. Many thanks for
clarifying.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and
Corporate Affairs
Director
Mobile:
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Dec 2014, at
No Mark that's
my mistake in the
voicemail. as per
my text - it is
weds! Apologies
all. Ingrid
On 12 Dec 2014,
at 18:32, "Mark
R Davies"
Dear Jane,
Thank you
for your
time today.
Just to
follow up
my
previous
email, I
can
confirm
that the
Post Office
would
welcome
the
Opportunit
y to
respond in
your film
and in the
studio to
the very
serious and
detailed
allegations
being
made in
the email
we
received
from Nick
Wallis
(copied
below for
ease of
reference).
I
understand
from
Ingrid
Kelly that
you are
now
planning to
air this
item on_
Monday
evening.
This
comes as a
surprise as
POL00150242
POL00150242
you
indicated
Tuesday or
Wednesda
y when we
spoke
earlier.
Either
way, given
the very
serious
nature of
the
allegations
being
made, and
the
requiremen
t to give us
reasonable
time to
respond,
we do not
believe we
can meet
your
deadline
of noon on
Monday
for an
interview
to be
conducted.
We are
inclined to
offer an
interview
but our
spokespers
on, who is
leading the
investigati
ons
process on
the matters
you
reference,
is involved
in
mediation
POL00150242
POL00150242
scheme
work on
Monday
and
Tuesday.
Tam sure
you will
recognise
that this
work,
which invo
Ives
scheme
applicants,
is very
important.
She could
be
available
later in the
week and
as she is
best placed
to speak
for the
business
on the
complex
range of
issues you
have
raised, I
believe it is
reasonable
to ask you
to hold off
on
broadcasti
ng your
item until
such time
as we are
able to
respond
properly.
Moreover,
our
spokespers
on is able
to respond
POL00150242
POL00150242
to the
specific
issues you
raise in a
way no
other
colleaguein
our
business
can given
her role
and first
hand
knowledge
of the
specifics N
ick has
referred
to. I would
also stress
again,
however,
that Post
Office
cannot
comment
on
individual
cases.
The
Ofcom
guidelines
on matters
like this
make clear
that we
should be
given
reasonable
time to
consider
and make
our
response
to requests
such as
this. What
constitutes
a
reasonable
time must
POL00150242
POL00150242
surely take
the
urgency of
a situation
into
account.
There is no
urgency
here,
especially
in the light
of your
broadcast
last week
and the
ongoing
nature of
the
mediation
scheme,
not to
mention
the point I
raised on
the phone
about
potential
compromis
e of cases
going
through
the
scheme.
Given that
the
programm
eis
broadcast
every
evening it
seems
reasonable
to me to
ask for the
timescales
to be
extended
so that we
can
respond
properly.
POL00150242
POL00150242
T look
forward to
hearing
from you. I
am also
copying
this to
Ingrid
Kelly who
kindly left
mea
voicemail
this
afternoon
confirming
that we
could
indeed
have a slot
in the
studio to
answer
questions
on your
film. I also
copy Nick
Wallis, and
Mel
Corfield
and Ruth
Barker
from the
Post Office
press
office.
Tam happy
to discuss
this over
the
weekend.
Best
wishes
Mark
Mark
Davies
Communic
ations and
Corporate
POL00150242
POL00150242
Affairs
Director
From:
Nick
Wallis
Sent:
December
2014
11:53
To:
Melanie
Corfield
Subject:
Interview
request
Dear
Melanie,
1) Thank
you for
your help
with The
One Show
item
transmitted
on
Tuesday
9thDecem
ber. We
are now
preparing a
second
film which
is due to
go out on
The One
Show on
BBC] at
around the
same time
next week.
We would
be most
POL00150242
POL00150242
grateful if
the Post
Office
would be
prepared
to offer an
interview
expressing
its point of
view in the
continuing
dispute
with some
Subpostma
sters over
Horizon
and
associated
issues.
This would
need to be
recorded
by noon on
Monday b
ut we
would be
able to
meet you
at your
location of
choice and
we can do
it over the
weekend if
that is the
only
option.
2) The film
we are
broadcasti
ng once
again
refers to
concerns
over
Horizon.
This time
it features
the story
of Steve
Phillips
POL00150242
POL00150242
from
Nelson in
South
Wales who
is having
problems
with the
system, as
well as
interviews
from a
group of
former
subpostma
sters
including
Noel
Thomas,
Jo
Hamilton,
Julian
Wilson,
who say
they felt
under
pressure to
sign off
incorrect
accounts
even
though
they did
not
understand
how sums
could be
missing.
Mr Phillips
says he
and other
Subpostma
sters live in
fear of
being told
to pay
back losses
neither you
or they can
explain,
and he
adds that
POL00150242
POL00150242
he and
other
Subpostma
sters do
not trust
Horizon.
This latter
point of
trust in
Horizon by
Subpostma
sters is one
which has
come up
many times
with other
former
Subpostma
sters we
have
spoken to.
3) In our
film former
Postmaster
S say it is
difficult to
investigate
the causes
of
shortfalls
for which
they are
held liable,
because of
the way
Horizon
and
associated
POL
processes
and policy
function.
They say
in order to
open for
business
the day
after the
close of a
trading
period they
POL00150242
POL00150242
had to
agree to
pay back
alleged
shortfalls
(either by
settling to
cash or
settling
centrally,
which
implies
payment
later).
They say
this put
them in a
very
difficult
position.
4) We ask
one former
Subpostma
ster why
she
pleaded
guilty to
false
accounting
in court
when she
believed
herself to
be
innocent.
She tell us
she felt she
couldn’t
defend
herself
because
she didn’t
have
proper
records,
that the
Post Office
had taken
some
potentially
useful
POL00150242
POL00150242
items and
paperwork
away
during
their
investigati
on and she
felt she
would be
prosecuted
for theft as
well as
false
accounting
if she had
not
pleaded
guilty to
the latter.
5) We
understand
from the
Subpostma
ster
contract
and from
speaking
to former
Subpostma
sters who
have been
through
the process
that
Subpostma
sters are
not
allowed a
legal
representat
ive when
they are
interviewe
d under
caution by
Post Office
investigato
rs. Instead
they are
allowed
one
POL00150242
POL00150242
companion
who must
be a Post
Office
employee,
who is not
allowed to
speak.
Does this
still
happen? If
so, why
does the
Post Office
think it is
fair? Also,
we are
aware that
Post Office
conducts
PACE
interviews
at which
Subpostma
sters are
allowed
legal
representat
ion. Could
you
explain in
what
circumstan
ces you
think it
appropriat
eto
interview
someone
under
caution but
with legal
representat
ion, and
why this is
not
available
to
Subpostma
sters in the
interviews
which
POL00150242
POL00150242
usually
precede
them?
6) We
would also
like to put
to you
some
opinion
about the
Post
Office’s
approach
to
investigati
ng and
prosecutin
g
subpostma
sters. We
are in
possession
of expert
opinion
from a
professor
in criminal
justice
which
implies the
Post
Office’s
dual
function as
investigato
rand
prosecutor
, and its
300 year
cultural
history of
using it
against its
agents is
unique.
That’s not
to say he
thinks you
are the
only
organisatio
POL00150242
POL00150242
n with
prosecutin
g powers,
but that
you have a
unique
culture of
prosecutin
g your
agents. He
implies this
approach
lacks the
checks and
balances of
a typical
prosecutio
n by the
CPS. In his
opinion
this creates
a situation
where
miscarriag
es of
justice are
more likely
to occur.
The Post
Office has
assured us
ina
Freedom
of
Informatio
n Act
request
that it uses
the Crown
Code for
Prosecutor
s. Can you
please
explain
how this
code was
applied in
the
following
cases:
Jackie
POL00150242
POL00150242
McDonald,
Damian
Owen and
Tom
Brown. In
these cases
the Post
Office
pursued its
own
prosecutio
n despite
no
prosecutio
n having
been
brought by
the CPS
after police
investigati
ons. If you
are unable
to unable
to
comment
on
individual
cases,
please
comment
on cases
like this in
general.
7) There is
also a
point
raised by
Geoffrey
Sturgess, a
business
contract
expert. He
believes
Subpostma
sters
should be
told about
the history
of known
problems
with
POL00150242
POL00150242
Horizon
(such as
the
Calender
Square
issue and
others
raised in
Second
Sight’s
Interim
Report)
which have
led to
shortfalls
in
Subpostma
ster
accounts
and the
history of
other
allegations
against
Horizon
before they
are
allowed to
sign the
Subpostma
ster
contract.
8) We will
also
include
opinion
from
Sandip
Patel QC
who
specialises
in areas
including
business
fraud and
cyber
crime. He
will say he
believes
that
innocent
POL00150242
POL00150242
people
might have
been
wrongly
convicted.
He will
also say
there may
be grounds
for arguing
that the
Horizon
system
(incorporat
ing the
business
processes
around it)
is not as
reliable as
the Post
Office
believed it
to be. He
goes on to
say that if
the PO had
failed to
carry out a
proper
inquiry in
circumstan
ces when
they
should
have, then
some of
the
conviction
s of some
of the
Postmaster
s in the
mediation
scheme
might be
unsafe.
9) With
more than
a hundred
MPs now
POL00150242
POL00150242
saying they
have no
confidence
in the
mediation
scheme we
would like
to ask the
Post Office
what it
thinks is
the correct
way to
move
forward
and find an
equitable
resolution
to the
concerns
of
subPostma
sters up
and down
the
country.
10) In
summary,
we have
found a
number of
experts in
their field
who have
concerns
about the
Horizon
system, the
PO’s
investigati
ons and
prosecutio
ns function
and the
fairness of
the
Subpostma
ster
contract. It
suggests
there is the
POL00150242
POL00150242
possibility
that the
way the
Post Office
goes about
its business
or did go
about its
business
needs
some
proper
explanatio
n. One MP
described
the nature
of the
relationshi
p between
the Post
Office and
SPMRs as
“feudal”,
yet you
call them
your “life
blood”.
The
content of
the
proposed
programm
e is not set
in stone.
This is an
opportunin
ty for the
Post Office
to respond
to the
widesprea
d criticism
it is
currently
facing. I
am seeking
a senior
member of
staff from
the Post
Office who
POL00150242
POL00150242
can explain
everything
from the
Post
Office’s
perspectiv
eso that
we can get
to the
bottom of
what has
happened
to these
people. If
you will
not appear
on camera
then we
ask that
you
provide a
substantive
response
to the
issues
raised
above by
noon this
coming M
onday 15
Dec
Thank you
POL00150242
POL00150242
poeeeeneenrened
poeeeeetentensd
This email
and any
attachment
sare
confidential
and
intended for
the
addressee
only. If you
are not the
named
recipient,
you must
not use,
disclose,
reproduce,
copy or
distribute
the
contents of
this
communica
tion. If you
have
received
this in error,
please
contact the
sender by
reply email
and then
delete this
email from
your
system.
Any views
or opinions
expressed
within this
email are
solely those
of the
sender,
unless
otherwise
specifically
stated.
POST
OFFICE
LIMITED is
registered
in England
and Wales
no
2154540.
Registered
Office: 148
OLD
STREET,
LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.
poeeeeenenrened
poeeeeetententd
POL00150242
POL00150242
This email and any
attachments are
confidential and intended
for the addressee only. If
you are not the named
recipient, you must not
use, disclose, reproduce,
copy or distribute the
contents of this
communication. If you
have received this in
error, please contact the
sender by reply email
and then delete this
email from your system.
Any views or opinions
expressed within this
email are solely those of
the sender, unless
otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED
is registered in England
and Wales no 2154540.
Registered Office: 148
OLD STREET, LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.
JER ID IOSD IS IOSD IIO I
Soeeeentented
POL00150242
POL00150242
This email and any attachments
are confidential and intended for
the addressee only. If you are
not the named recipient, you
must not use, disclose,
reproduce, copy or distribute the
contents of this communication.
If you have received this in
error, please contact the sender
by reply email and then delete
this email from your system.
Any views or opinions
expressed within this email are
solely those of the sender,
unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is
registered in England and
Wales no 2154540. Registered
Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
This email and any attachments are
confidential and intended for the addressee
only. If you are not the named recipient, you
must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or
distribute the contents of this communication.
If you have received this in error, please
contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within this email
are solely those of the sender, unless
otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in
England and Wales no 2154540. Registered
Office: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON EC1V
9HQ.
POL00150242
POL00150242
This email and any attachments are confidential and
intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or
distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply
email and then delete this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within this email are solely
those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and
Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JER IB IS IO DIS EI III ISIS IIS IIS II ISI SBI III III III III
poereeeneneened
This email and any
attachments are
confidential and
intended for the
addressee only. If you
are not the named
recipient, you must not
use, disclose,
reproduce, copy or
distribute the contents
of this communication.
If you have received
this in error, please
contact the sender by
reply email and then
delete this email from
your system. Any views
or opinions expressed
within this email are
solely those of the
sender, unless
otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE
LIMITED is registered in
England and Wales no
2154540. Registered
Office: 148 OLD
STREET, LONDON
EC1V 9HQ.
Seer een ten teesettenterestcard
POL00150242
POL00150242
This email and any attachments are confidential
and intended for the addressee only. If you are not
the named recipient, you must not use, disclose,
reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or
opinions expressed within this email are solely
those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England
and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148
OLD STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
JE OR IOC RII ISO IO IIS ISIS IIS III II III
cereetertand
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the
addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must not use,
disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If
you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and
then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed
within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540.
Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of
the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POL00150242
POL00150242
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD
STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
CMS has 59 offices around the world, located in Aberdeen, Algiers, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Barcelona, Beijing, Belgrade, Berlin,
Bratislava, Bristol, Brussels, Bucharest, Budapest, Casablanca, Cologne, Dubai, Duesseldorf, Edinburgh, Frankfurt, Geneva, Glasgow,
Hamburg, Istanbul, Kyiv, Leipzig, Lisbon, Ljubljana, London, Luxembourg, Lyon, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Moscow, Munich, Muscat,
Paris, Podgorica, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sarajevo, Seville, Shanghai, Sofia, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, Tirana, Utrecht, Vienna,
Warsaw, Zagreb and Zurich.
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a member of CMS Legal Services EEIG (CMS EEIG), a European Economic Interest Grouping that
coordinates an organisation of independent law firms. CMS EEIG provides no client services. Such services are solely provided by CMS
EEIG's member firms in their respective jurisdictions. CMS EEIG and each of its member firms are separate and legally distinct entities,
and no such entity has any authority to bind any other. CMS EEIG and each member firm are liable only for their own acts or omissions
and not those of each other. The brand name "CMS" and the term "firm" are used to refer to some or all of the member firms or their
offices. Further information can be found at www.cmslegal.com
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registration number OC310335. It is a
body corporate which uses the word "partner" to refer to a member, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and
qualifications. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales with SRA number 423370 and
by the Law Society of Scotland with registered number 47313. A list of members and their professional qualifications is open to
inspection at the registered office, Mitre House, 160 Aldersgate Street, London EC1A 4DD. Members are either solicitors or registered
foreign lawyers. VAT registration number: 974 899 925. Further information about the firm can be found at www.cms-cmck.com
The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender
immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Notice: the firm does not accept service by e-mail of court
proceedings, other processes or formal notices of any kind without specific prior written agreement.
Je HORII O IOI IO IIIS IIS SII IIIS III IIS IIIS II ISI OIE
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of
the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD
STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
<ScanToEmail.pdf>