POL00179491
POL00179491
From: Susan Crichton[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FY DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=SUSAN+20CRICHTONC5FA6431-DC28-49AB-8FOF-
BE4237A4AD4F @C72A47.ingest.local]
Sent: Wed 14/03/2012 11:57:08 AM (UTC)
To: Alwen Lyons{
Subject: RE: Investigations MOU
Oh no its all Lesley needs at the moment
Susan Crichton
Legal and Compliance Director
Post Office Limited
148 Old Street
London
EC1V 9HQ
Telephonei "GRO
From: Alwen Lyons
Sent: 14 March 2012 11:55
To: Susan Crichton
Subject: FW: Investigations MOU
Mike would have stamped on this very quickly.
Alwen Lyons
Company Secretary
Post Office Ltd
148
From: Tony Marsh
Sent: 14 March 2012 11:32
To: Nigel O'Donoghue; Anna Malley; John M Scott; Paul M Brown; Eamon Price; Phil Gerrish; Dave Pardoe; Lesley J
Sewell; Harry Clarke; Alwen Lyons
Cc: Darragh Canavan
Subject: RE: Investigations MOU
Colleagues
The conference call will take place. The main issue has been unflagged changes made by POL in returned
documents and the fact that whilst Phil Gerrish, RM Security Director of Investigations, has been fully empowered to
negotiate for RMG at all times no empowered POL negotiator has ever been involved, hence constant revisions and
changes driven by POL.
POL00179491
POL00179491
John will understand, but other non-security experts may not, that what RMG insists is that no detected and ongoing
criminal behaviour is disrupted by unilateral action by one organisation, whether the employing organisation or the
losing organisation. This would run counter to all principles of effective crime prevention and law enforcement and
would be considered to be in unacceptable bad faith if done in the case of a POL employee predominantly predating
RMG products.
It is inaccurate and disingenuous for John to state “RMG Security focus primarily on investigations & prosecution with
a view for compensation via the Courts and then supported by crime prevention post apprehension. They seek to allow
further theft/crime to continue in order to be able to identify and apprehend the offender for such prosecution.” as he
does in his associated email of 6" March to Mike Young. If this was the basis of John’s briefings to Mike Young then
some of Mr Young’s more inexplicable beliefs and positions may now be better understood. RM Security naturally
pursues a strategy of prevention, deterrence, disruption and detection, with prosecution and asset recovery a key
element of the deterrence approach. RM Security would never seek to prolong offending behaviour, as this would
exacerbate losses to the organisation and its customers, impact negatively on customer satisfaction and public
perception and might result in an offender facing increased penalties, which would in itself be an affront to natural
justice. Any suggestion to the contrary is unprofessional and does John little credit.
Provided all parties on the conference call are fully empowered to negotiate and conclude matters there and then all
will be well.
Regards
Tony
Group Security Director
Royal Mail Group
RM Security
6a Eccleston Street
LONDON
crime against the Royal Mail Group please phone the Security Help Desk on postline
From: Nigel O'Donoghue
Sent: 13 March 2012 19:25
To: Anna Malley; John M Scott; Paul M Brown; Eamon Price; Tony Marsh; Phil Gerrish; Dave Pardoe; Lesley J Sewell;
Harry Clarke; Alwen Lyons
Cc: Darragh Canavan
Subject: Re: Investigations MOU
Thanks Anna
Agreed
From: Anna Malley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 08:21 PM
To: Nigel O'Donoghue; John M Scott; Paul M Brown; Eamon Price; Tony Marsh; Phil Gerrish; Dave Pardoe; Lesley J
Sewell; Harry Clarke; Alwen Lyons
Cc: Darragh Canavan
Subject: Re: Investigations MOU
Folks - I share Nigel's concern that this looks like we are getting stuck. As this isan MDA rather than an MSA
obligation, it would hardly seem fair to burden the MSA separation directors with getting involved. So my counter
POL00179491
POL00179491
suggestion is that the call proceeds with myself and Paul M Brown. Thanks
Anna Malley
Consumer Channel Director
From: Nigel O'Donoghue
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 08:09 PM
To: John M Scott; Paul M Brown; Eamon Price; Tony Marsh; Phil Gerrish; Dave Pardoe; Anna Malley; Lesley J Sewell;
Harry Clarke; Alwen Lyons
Cc: Darragh Canavan
Subject: Re: Investigations MOU
Thanks John,
Would you mind if a suggest a conference call between security parties, Harry and I in the first instance.
The escalation process needs to start there.
Nigel
From: John M Scott
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 08:03 PM
To: Paul M Brown; Nigel O'Donoghue; Eamon Price; Tony Marsh; Phil Gerrish; Dave Pardoe; John M Scott; Anna
Malley; Lesley J Sewell; Harry Clarke; Alwen Lyons
Subject: FW: Investigations MOU
Dear All.
We have just been advised that RMG Security are not satisfied with the wording previously sent on the 6 March and
wish to make amendments over the next two days.
The position of Post Office Security I believe is clearly detailed below in regards to supporting RMG Security in
investigations/prosecution/recovery as appropriate to RMG products, but must retain the right to prevent further crime
being committed in the examples described (offenders committing offences against other products, crime against
RMG products also impact POL products/contracts, or signification risk to brand/reputation). If preventative action is
taken, Post Office Security would still support RMG in the investigation/prosecution/recovery of offences committed up
to that point.
Additionally it is for the organisation that employs the individuals committing any such offences to conduct the lead
investigation/interview and the prosecution. This plays both ways, i.e. can also included RMG personnel (i.e. Postman)
who commit offences against POL (theft of cash etc) and dealt with by RMG Security.
From a Post Office Security perspective, these conditions need to be agreed to and clearly detailed in the
Investigations MOU.
In light of concern of timescale and to put some focus on the issue, I suggest that unless there is formal agreement by
both Post Office Security and RMG Security by the close of play this week, disappointingly then the matter would need
to be formally escalated.
Dave Pardoe and I will be available for the remainder of the week.
I suggest a conference call that involves Tony Marsh (RMG), Phil Gerrish (RMG), Dave Pardoe (POL) and myself is
organised.
Dave Pardoe — can you please arrange.
POL00179491
POL00179491
Regards.
John.
From: John M Scott
Sent: 13 March 2012 13:41
To: Paul M Brown
Cc: Anna Malley; Nigel O'Donoghue; Eamon Price; Tony Marsh; Phil Gerrish; Dave Pardoe; John M Scott
Subject: FW: Investigations MOU
Dear All.
The position on the Investigations MOU detailed to Mike Young is below.
The latest position is that Phil Gerrish, RMG Security was emailed on the 6 March with a view to agree the latest
amendment with a view to sign off. POL Security is still waiting on a response. I will forward that email following this.
Cheers.
John.
From: John M Scott
Sent: 06 March 2012 10:15
To: Mike Young
Cc: Dave Pardoe; John M Scott
Subject: RE: Investigations MOU
Mike.
We believe we are close to an agreement.
There have been a number of debating points, but are now down to the last two:
No: 1
RMG Security focus primarily on investigations & prosecution with a view for compensation via the Courts and then
supported by crime prevention post apprehension. They seek to allow further theft/crime to continue in order to be able
to identify and apprehend the offender for such prosecution. Post Office Security will support this approach in most
circumstances, but cannot agree on every occasion which has been discussed.
For example:
* Where other criminal offences are being committed against other Post Office Ltd products or services by the
same offender and cannot allow this continue whilst the theft of RML products is investigated.
* Post Office products or services are being impacted from the theft/crime to RML products i.e. enchased
cheques at the branch or documentation for other products are being stolen from the RML Special Delivery
items.
* Where to allow the continue theft of RML products would impact or damage the Post Office brand or
reputation to an unacceptable level.
The position with the agreement is that Post Office Security would be allowed to take preventive action if other Post
Office products are impacted, if appropriate. An investigation actually may be the best course of action, Post Office
Security need the flexibility to decide and not always be committed to investigations. In regards to where RML
products are solely involved, then an operational plan between the two Security Teams will be agreed as soon as
possible and anyhow within seven days on how to conduct the approach, including investigations.
POL00179491
POL00179491
No: 2
RMG Security wish to take the prosecution lead for offences committed against RMG products including Post Office
employees and/or agents. Post Office Security position is that the lead/parent organisation of the employee/agent
apprehended should take the lead for prosecution (in line with their HR and Prosecution Policy and will be the
organisation most likely to have the evidential material in which to support a prosecution).
These has been referred back to RMG for agreement.
All the other areas have been dealt with.
Email sent again today back to RMG Security — await response.
Cheers.
John.
From: Mike Young
Sent: 06 March 2012 07:39
To: John M Scott
Subject: Fwd: Investigations MOU
John
What's the issue here?
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul M Brow:
Date: 6 March 20
To: Mike Young
Subject: Fw: Investigations MOU
Mike,
Are you aware of the issues here? I would assume that we want to avoid any escalation.
Can you get involved to try and speed this up at all?
Thanks
Paul
From: Anna Malley
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 09:42 PM
To: Paul M Brown
Cc: Nigel O'Donoghue
Subject: Investigations MOU
Hi Paul. Our security team have shared their concern that the talks on the Investigations MOU required
POL00179491
POL00179491
by the MDA appear to be going nowhere. To give you a flavour of the debate, one of the issues as I
understand it is that we need to have the ability to obtain the most robust evidence possible to ensure
that we have the option to prosecute where we think theft has occurred; however I’m advised that your
security team want to draft the MOU in such a way that will compromise our ability to get this evidence.
This is untenable for us, and I can’t imagine that POL would really want to seek to intervene in a situation
in a way that would frustrate a potential prosecution! We are running out of time to resolve this; this is
the first milestone to come up under the MDA, and I would really hope that we can avoid having to
escalate.
It was clear from the negotiations that there is some ongoing friction between the respective security
teams; it would be very helpful if you could try to get involved and establish whether there is a genuine
issue here that can’t be resolved other than through escalation, or whether this is a storm in a teacup.
Thanks
Anna