POL00162967 - POL comments on the Chairman’s Report
POL00162967
POL00162967
Private & Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
POL’s Comments on the Chairman’s Report
- Para 5(2):
= Should the sentence read: “If there are any gaps in the work done, is there further
action that can reasonably now be taken?
> Para 15:
= Applicants to the Scheme did include some who were employed in Crown Branches
eg
= Should the final sentence read: “These branches have never fallen within the scope
of the complaints or this Review”
- Para 27:
= Should the final sentence read: “When the stack data is successfully written the
screen is updated, printing the relevant receipt when means the session is
completed....”
- Para 36:
= It is the ISAE3402 audit rather than the ISA3402 audit
= Final sentence: Jonathan and Christopher were only provided with the ISAE3402
audits from 2012 (rather than 2010) as they were not in existence before this date
- Para 40:
= Should the final sentence read: “There are two different telephone helplines which
can be called”
- Para 58:
= Should the first sentence read: “From late 2011 to May 2012 James Arbuthnot MP
pursued the allegations made by the JFSA and individual SPMRs with the Minister
and POL”
= Should the final sentence read: The remit of their inquiry was to “consider and to
advise on whether there are any systemicati¢ issues and/or concerns with the
‘Horizon’ system, including training and support processes, giving evidence and
reasons for the conclusions reached”
- Para 60:
=" Should the end of first sentence read: “and the audit and investigation process into
discrepancies shown be by the system (paragraphs 1.4-1.8)”
- Para 61:
= Should the first sentence read: “The Interim Report stated that Second Sight had
carried out so-called Spot Reviews”
= Should the second sentence read: “ These were considerations of particular issues in
certain ofthe cases referred to them”
- Para 68:
= Should the final sentence read: “ 43 37 applications were from SPMRs who had been
convicted of a criminal offence”
- Para 69:
= Should the fourth sentence read: “Each case was subject of a detailed investigation
by the Post Office Investigations Department which produced a Post Office
Investigation Report (POIR) for each case on the basis of the evidence which could
be examined, given the passage of time”
POL00162967
POL00162967
Private & Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
- Para 70:
= Should the first sentence read: “The Scheme applicant was provided with the POIR
and the—CRR given the opportunity to comment on a draft CRR before it was
finalised and also shared”?
= Should the final sentence read “POL met the costa of the mediation, and provided
up to £1,250 (ex-VAT) + expenses to applicants for professional advice in relation to
the mediation’?
- Para 71:
= POL challenged this statistic at Para 86 of the Supplementary Evidence it provided to
the BIS Select Committee.
- Para 83, point 10:
= Should the first sentence read: “Some of the people appointed to an SPMR role may
have been unsuited to that role (paragraph 21.25)”?
- Para 83, point 14:
= Should the first sentence read: “In some circumstances Horizon can be
systemicallyaticaly flawed from a user’s perspective and Post Office has not
necessarily provided an appropriate level of support”?
- Para 86:
= Should the second sentence read: “It featured a number of SPMRs (who have been
the subject of criminal convictions, including some who had pleaded guilty to
criminal chaagres, James Arbuthnot MP, Professor Charles McLachlan (who had
appeared as an expert witness in defence of Seema Misra when she was convicted
by a jury of theft, having earlier pleaded guilty to and false accounting), Professor
Mark Button (who appeared as a ‘criminal justice expert’) and a former Fujitsu
employee names Richard Roll”?
- Para 90:
= Should the second sentence read: “43 of the Scheme applicants’ cases involved
criminal convictions, 37 of them of the SPMR directly”?
= Should the final sentence read: “Both offences are directed at different conduct and
an SPMR may be guilty of false accounting without being guilty of theft, in large part
because the false accounting offence is committed even where the SPMR falsely
declares he / she has more cash than he / she actually does, even where the gain
this suggestsed gain is only intended to be a temporary accounting gain in the hope
that the money will turn up (R v Eden (1971) 55 Cr App R 193)”?
- Para 95:
= Should the first sentence read: “We emphasize that none of the Second Sight
reports identify systemicati¢ flaws in the Horizon system likely to have caused the
losses incurred at the Scheme branches”?
- Para 96:
= Should the first sentence read: “So far as it concerns disclosure...”?
- Para 100:
= Should the final sentence read: “We have also read the full trial transcript in Rv
Seema Misra in which a jury convicted the defendant of beth theft aad (after she
had earlier pleaded guilty to false accounting).”?
- Para 102:
POL00162967
POL00162967
Private & Confidential: Subject to Legal Privilege
= Should the second sentence read: “In this case a certain documents in the
prosecution file indicated that initial POL investigators could not find evidence of
theft (although there was clear evidence of false accounting), but theft was
nonetheless charged”
- Para 118 -
= Please note attachment 2, which includes new information recently provided by
Fujitsu
- Para 119:
= Not all of the ‘bugs’ could have affected the entire estate. The ‘bug’ referred to at
para 118, point 5 — could only affect those with “outreach” branches, so c.500.
- Para 125:
= Given the point made above (in relation to Para 119) should the second sentence
read: “Some of those bugs have been generic in the sense that they have the
potential to affect any branch”.
- Para 140:
= The reference to the ISA3402 report in the opening sentence should read:
“ISAE3402”
=" Should the fourth sentence read: “the Briefing goes on to state that administrators
had the ability to delete data from the Audit Store during the seven year period ,
which was a matter... contrary to POL’s understandting...”
- Para 143:
= The Balancing Transaction mechanism is detailed in section 14 of our reply to the P2
Report
- Para 148:
= Should the final sentence read: “We agree, but based on our view on the work of
Deloitte rather than the ambiguously reported suggestions of Mr Roll, which neither
we nor POL have ever seen the detail of”
- Para 150:
= Should the final sentence read: “We have seen allegations that NBSC call-handlers
advised SPMRs that discrepancies would ‘sort themselves out’ and we are aware
that SPMRs have alleged that NBSC advised them to submit false accounts”
- Para 154:
"Has something been omitted from the second sentence: “That performance
monitoring, including the handling of any complaints about an individual call-
handler’s advice.”?
- Para 166:
= Should the third sentence read: “For the purposes of our review, we excluded from
our sample any of the 37 cases in which there applicant had been convictedien”