POL00152173
POL00152173
From:
Sent: Mon 15/06/2015 11:09:20 AM (UTC)
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd! GRO j
Ce:
Corfield
Subject: Re: BBC Panorama interview
Attachment: image003.png
Hi
We discussed today and all agree we shouldn't do the interview on the terms they have offered. But - for tactical
reasons - we want to keep this to ourselves for now.
What I would like is some of your time whenever it suits you to record an interview we could use for internal
audiences. We would then issue that on same day as the programme.
Does that sound ok to you?
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 15 Jun 2015, at 12:05, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd + GRO iwrote:
Mark,
Have we landed on a position yet? Just trying to juggle my diary commitments and plan
my workflow.
Thanks,
Angela
Confidential Information:
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 12 June 2015 17:53
POL00152173
POL00152173
To: Mark R Davies; Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Melanie Corfield
Subject: RE: BBC Panorama interview
Mark
Many thanks. What an absurd way to deal with a 'story'. I am currently very much in the same place as
you on this. A TV kangaroo court is not appealing to say the least.
And there is nothing new in this.
We'll get all the papers. Happy to talk at any point over weekend.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 12/06/2015 17:44
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke
Subject: Fwd: BBC Panorama interview
Hi Angela
I send you this just for info. You will see what we are dealing with here and I increasingly feel that we
should not put you up to face what would clearly be an attempt to put unsupported allegations to you in
a way intended to embarrass you and us, regardless of facts.
I will reflect at weekend but my sense is we should now refocus our efforts on the network and the good
people in it whose businesses will be tarnished by this. So we may get you to an interview but with
Brunswick so we can blitz the network through all channels before the programme to reassure and give
people opportunity to ask questions.
I'm copying Patrick and Mel. This is my initial thinking and clearly we need to consider further.
Patrick/Mel: please can I have details of all the cases they refer to?
Thanks and sorry to land this email now.
Forget it now and have great weekends all.
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Begin forwarded message:
To: "mark.r.daviest SRO. i
Cc: Matthew Bardo j "melanie.corfield:
Dear Mark,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for the time you and your colleagues spent with Matthew
Bardo and Tim Robinson on Tuesday. It was very helpful to be able to discuss this subject in
detail with the relevant people.
Since we last wrote to the Post Office, our research has continued and I am now able to
give you more information about the points that are likely to be raised in the programme.
Our evidence suggests that the Post Office may have unfairly used theft charges to put
pressure on sub-postmasters to plead guilty to false accounting and/or repay apparent
losses identified by the Horizon computer system. The evidence also suggests that the Post
Office failed to consider or investigate the possibility that Horizon could be the cause of
some of the losses. As you know, it has been suggested that these failings may have led to
miscarriages of justice in some cases.
Having read reports written by Second Sight and Post Office responses to them, we wish to
address the following question areas in an interview. They are broken down below under
the subject matter to which they relate:
Jo Hamilton
- the decision to charge Jo Hamilton with theft
- why Ms Hamilton’s office was £2000 down on the Horizon system and why this
doubled to £4000 when she followed the instructions from the help desk
- her claim that she sought help and the Post Office failed to provide it
- her explanation that she subsequently felt trapped and did not know what to do
other than sign off inaccurate accounts
Noel Thomas
-—-Mr Thomas’s claim that that he told the helpline about his problems with the
system and about the missing money
- the suggestion that it is no longer possible to know the results of important tests
carried out on Mr Thomas’ system because those records have now been lost or
destroyed
- the suggestion that Mr Thomas was poorly treated after 42 years of loyal service
- that the Post Office now believes that the cause of the shortfall in Mr Thomas’
branch is likely to have been mistakes by him or his staff
Seema Misra
POL00152173
POL00152173
POL00152173
POL00152173
- _ Ms Misra’s claim that she and her staff were not provided with adequate help
despite making more than 900 calls to the helpline
-~—\the suggestion that the Post Office failed to disclose crucial information during Ms
Misra’s trial including technical information about Horizon to the defence’s expert
witness
-—that the Post Office and Fujitsu had identified bugs in Horizon prior to Ms Misra’s
trial that were not disclosed to the defence
- the suggestion that this information could have helped Seema and other sub-
postmasters stay out of prison
Post Office investigations and prosecutions
- the suggestion that the Post Office has a financial interest in prosecuting sub-
postmasters because it helps with the recovery of missing money
-—-particularly in that context, the suggestion that miscarriages of justice are more
likely because the Post Office exercises both the power of investigation and
prosecution
-—the suggestion that the Post Office has unfairly pursued theft charges to pressure
people into paying up
- the claim by numerous sub-postmasters that they were told by Post Office
investigators they were the only ones having problems with the Horizon system
Horizon system
- the suggestion that the complexity of the Horizon system adds to the likelihood of
errors
- the suggestion that the lack of an automatic paper record from the Horizon system
adds to the likelihood of errors
- the suggestion that Post Office prosecutions relied on the belief that the computer
system was robust, when in fact computer errors may call this into question
- the suggestion that bugs in Horizon were more widespread than Second Sight
have found
- the suggestion that there were around 30 people working in “third line support” at
Fujitsu and that they fixed dozens of system errors
- the suggestion that errors were fixed by a team who could access transaction data,
add transactions or make changes to transactions that would affect the balance in
branch, without the sub-postmasters knowledge
Second Sight investigation and select committee in parliament
- Second Sight’s claim that their work has been hampered by an increasing lack of
co-operation
- Second Sight’s understanding that this is the result of legal advice
- Second Sight’s claim that the Post Office has failed to provide full access to legal
and prosecution files
- The apparent failure of the Post Office to provide Second Sight with emails
relating to the eyewitness account of an incident in Bracknell in 2008
- Second Sight’s evidence that remote access to branch data is possible in spite of
Post Office denials
Please could you let us know the time that you have scheduled on Wednesday 17 June for
the interview? I would be grateful if we could arrive about an hour before the interview
begins in order to set up. It usually takes about half an hour to pack the kit away again
after we have finished filming.
Thanks for your help.
Conor
http://www.bbe.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views
which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
Tf you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and
notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
POL00152173
POL00152173