POL00162554
POL00162554
From:
Sent: Sat 01/08/2015 6:56:53 PM (UTC).
To: Mark R Davies}
Subject: Re: Sparrow
Thanks Mark. We absolutely need to work together on this. I'd like to update Al first thing on Monday morning
on our thinking, as he is in the place of preparing some ‘least worst options’ in the back pocket that can be
offered for Thursday. I have also said to him that I would email Paula tomorrow with the background re L N-R
meeting this week. I understand where he's coming from on the options point, and we should think about that
(although I haven't been able to come up with anything that makes any real sense), but I am absolutely in the
place that says we should stand firm.
As part of the verbal briefing to L N-R I want to given her background on the cases that will be discussed on
Panorama, as well as on the cases that Kevan Jones and Andrew Bridgend are concerned about.
As to Panorama itself, I have been thinking about this for a while. I doubt we'll get consent from the relevant
parties, but I have thought about writing to each of them saying words to the effect of ' we understand you have
spoken to Panorama about your cases, so in that situation we consider that we are at liberty to comment on your
case’. The issue here is the CCRC position, so I suspect that we would not want this to be an 'on the record’
briefing. Nevertheless that may be enough to make Panorama think twice about how they position those cases.
Happy to discuss tomorrow (Sunday) if that would help, or we can talk on Monday morning.
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
The Post Office.
Sent from my iPad
On 1 Aug 2015, at 13:28, Mark R Davies:
Jane
I hope you are well. I'm back in the saddle after my trip and the team has been updating me
regularly.
I'd like to attend the meeting with BNR as well. I think Mark's note sums up the position very
well and now we are in control - as we still are - we should fight hard to stay there. I have been
round and round on this so many times in the last three years and Mark is spot on below: the only
thing which will satisfy the campaign is £s and we should not go there.
What isn't mentioned here is the work Jane Hill and I are doing via back channels into
government. We should discuss on Monday. But it is crucial in my view we do not give way and
continue to deal with this commercially. Otherwise it will never end.
See you on Monday.
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Post Office Ltd
Begin forwarded message:
From: Melanie Corfield
Date: 1 August 2015
To: Mark R Davie
Subject: FW: Sparrow
fyi, So you get more up to speed re what is going on and our counter attack
Mel
POL00162554
POL00162554
From: Mark Underwood‘
Sent: 01 August 2015 10:27
To: Melanie Corfield
Subject: FW: Sparrow
To see — so that you are up to speed on Shex
Mark Underwood
From: Mark Underwood!
Sent: 01 August 2015 11:26
To: Jane MacLeod
Cc: Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams
Subject: RE: Sparrow
Thanks Jane,
Great note. We really have (pre and indeed since my time at PO) kicked the tyres in terms
of the options available to Sparrow and as such you are absolutely correct that there is not
a great deal more, if anything, that we can in fact offer. Even if we did, none would be able
to deliver the outcomes necessary to stop the ‘noise’ namely - £’s and criminal convictions
being overturned. I think the meeting next week is a really good opportunity to try and
instil confidence into BNR.
If her concern is about the process followed- then we have evidence that every stage of the
Scheme has been commented on positively, often by our detractors:
e we have the JA quotes about its design and funding, the fact the scheme was jointly
designed & transparent to all at every stage (incl repeated offers to MPs to meet).
We have also delivered the 3 commitments made, including the business user forum
POL00162554
POL00162554
we have SS quotes about the investigations & Secretariat; and the cause for losses
being human rather than software errors
we changed to a presumption to mediate amid complaints that we were rejecting
90% (again JA) and that the process was slow;
the CEDR letter proves we enter the mediations in good faith.
The above in mind, the below extract from the Misra trial (M012) that Rod noted
yesterday really is, strangely, applicable to where we find ourselves with BNR
“Prof McLaughlan felt that before he ventured an opinion about the adequacy of
Mrs Misra's training and her understanding he would want to see an independent
evaluation of the training procedures and a record of how well Mrs M performed in
training. The prosecution case is that you may think he is being unnecessarily
purist about this and perhaps going beyond what as a matter of common sense is
necessary. You will judge that. You will remember that I asked Prof M at one point
how far things had to go and you will remember his answer. What I had in mind,
for example, if you had an assessment of Mrs M's performance in her training
would the snough or woul: have to have an. ment of the validit
the assessment process and how competent the assessors were? Where does it
end? You will judge that”
If the concern is about merit, then in terms of:
Criminal cases we have:
the approach by Shoosmiths but no actual action (I believe)
the press release from Edwin Coe LLP — but no approach
no class action from H&C
¢ Coomber Rich Solicitors in 2013 “We are now beginning the process of considering
whether there can be any appeals against conviction which would obviously be on a
case by case basis”
the linklaters advice
the Blackstone Chambers advice about the likelihood that the Scheme is open to
Judicial Review (Low)
No Appeals
CK’s review of all (400?) prosecutions back to 2010 — none merit concern that they
may be unsafe
The outcome of the CCRC review, when it comes
Non Criminal cases we have:
I saw that in your note you felt the emphasis was on non-criminal cases, in which
case the only concern they can possibly have, as we have offered to mediate all, is the
outcome of those mediations or rather the lack of ex gratia payments being made in
cases where there is no evidence to suggest they are deserved
As the CEDR letter proves we are entering mediations in good faith, if there were
POL00162554
POL00162554
merit, we would and indeed have made ex gratia payments — even where the case was
time barred
¢ Some of these payments have been significant i.e. M086 ex gratia rising to SOK plus
£140K ‘NT payment’ + 5k additional funding for her advisor. Interestingly this
Applicant also parted company with, I believe, H&C in favour of One legal Services
as she felt she was being used.
Ultimately, it is clear our stakeholders want £’s and convictions overturned. If our
investigations had uncovered new evidence, then there would be just cause to do so, but
ultimately I think we need to remember that the Scheme’s purpose was to assess whether
or not Horizon had been the cause of losses in branches. It has not. Despite the pressure
being applied to encourage scope and purpose creep, ultimately this is just noise and noise
that we knew would happen. 10 March was the first time we put ourselves on the front
foot. September 4" is another opportunity to do so. If we show confidence internally, it will
I believe, instil confidence externally.
I know you already know this, the reason for the above was part therapy and part to
remind me of bits to include in the presentation.
In your note you also requested we dig out a past options paper. I think the attached is the
most recent version which ultimately led to the decision made on March 10. It includes all
the options we touched upon yesterday.
I hope this helps
Mark
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 31 July 2015 18:14
To: Rodric Williams; Mark Underwood Patrick Bourke
Subject: FW: Sparrow ee
See below
<image001.png>
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 94Q
Mobile number:
POL00162554
POL00162554
From: Jane MacLeod
Sent: 31 July 2015 1:
To: Alisdair Cameron ¢_
Subject: Sparrow
Al,
I spoke to Laura at lunchtime. I asked Laura what she thought the issues were from LN-
Ra€™s perspective. The messages from LN-R are clearly mixed and Laura wasna€™t really
clear whether the concerns were as to merit or process. The three points I took away are:
Re 4€~no one is opining on the merits of the casea€™
Re —LN-R wants something to happen
Re —_LN-R wants options.
The latter two are clearly consistent with the message that you received.
We need to be very careful around options given that it is not clear what the real concern
is, although the emphasis seems to be on the non-criminal cases. I have said to Laura that
we will:
Re ask CEDR if they would be prepared to speak to either LN-R or BIS regarding
their observations of the mediation process (which they conduct). In particular
why mediations are 4€”failinga€™ (we have 8/20 mediations which failed to reach
a resolution). CEDR has issued us a letter today setting out their observations of
the process and have confirmed that they would be prepared to meet LN-R/BIS.
Their letter confirms that one of the issues is that applicants expect the scheme to
be about compensation and are therefore dissatisfied when that is not the
outcome.
Re reach out to the MPs that we have spoken to and see if they would be prepared
to have a discussion with LNR about their observations. Patrick has initiated this
and we are waiting to hear back.
There was an options paper developed last year and I have asked for this to be located and
reviewed. The difficulty is that a review as to 4€~meritsa€™ effectively replicates the
judicial process. Notwithstanding mediation, the applicants all have the ability (either
individually or through a class action) to start proceedings against PO. There are 3 law
firms who have, over the last 3-4 years, been instructed to act for multiple applicants;
however to date, nothing has emerged from that process. We have already funded each
applicant in so far as we have (a) paid Second Sightsa€™ costs to review each
applicantsa€™ file, and (b) made a contribution towards the applicantsa€™ professional
advisera€™s costs of preparing for mediation. Further, there have been no applications to
appeal convictions in relation to criminal cases.
The timetable for next week is still not clear. I have said to Laura that it is likely to be Paula
and myself who will attend (assuming a meeting on Thursday), and that we will bring a
briefing pack which we will talk to (a draft will be available on Monday a€“ I am reviewing
it further over the w/e). Laura is meeting Jane Hill here at FD on Monday afternoon, so I
have said I will meet with her after that meeting so that we can review where we have got
to. Laura & Richard are briefing LN-R on Tuesday on another matter, and Laura is
concerned that Sparrow will come up.
I am struggling to identify what further action PO can take in relation to options, that does
POL00162554
POL00162554
not include a material risk of either further substantial costs, or continued adverse
publicity, for what I suspect will be limited benefit to applicants or that will give rise to a
different outcome. Clearly the Minister is entitled to call for some kind of public enquiry
at government cost but again, she would need to be certain that this will produce a
different outcome from that already available to applicants.
la€™m ha
home no ¢
ss this over the weekend (on my mobile
1) or first thing on Monday.
Kind regards,
Jane
<image001.png>
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
Ground Floor
20 Finsbury Street
LONDON
EC2Y 9AQ
Mobile number:
<January Options - v7- clean.docx>