POL00190429
POL00190429
Meeting with Second Sight and Paula Vennells, Susan Crichton and Alwen Lyons July 3%
¢ Thank you for coming in, we had a meeting with James this morning and thought we should
have a face to face to explain where we got to
At the beginning of the meeting
« James reported that you had told him last week that you had ‘nailed’ something and that
your interim report would show real concerns in the whole process
e He thought that there was a risk that people had been prosecuted and were still being
prosecuted based on the system, process and software which was not operation correctly
leading to miscarriages of justice
¢ He said he wanted to work with us and that the report could be a ‘triumph’ for the post
Office.
Body of the meeting
* Need to very clear about the definition of Horizon. We accepted that SS were also looking at
the wider system, but that we need to be clear, cannot misrepresent what Horizon — the
computer system means.
* Discussed the anomalies which PO had brought to the attention of SS during the review. The
64 and 14 cases. He accepted that these are things found in all computer programmes and
suggested that we use an example of other systems to make that live. He accepted that the
most important thing was how they had been managed
¢ Anomalies will lead subpostmasters to doubt the system, so we need to be clear that this is
normal in a system of this size.
e James said he thinks SS will come up with a report which says Horizon is a good system.
But the combination of Horizon/ATMs/Camelot/audit/investigation/ support functions
means Horizon gets the blame for something it shouldn’t be bear.
¢ Weall agreed Horizon should not be unfairly blamed
¢ James was very concerned about an email which suggested that Product & Branch Accounts
could be remotely journelled without the sub postmaster’s knowledge. We need to be clear
about what is happening here
* The review must be evidence based and in no way subjective or contain loose language, so
definitions need to be clear and where improvement in support is needed, the work done to
date, but also work to improve further.
© POand Fujitsu will see the report on Friday and test for accuracy. As Salmon ruling for
natural justice. Where those named have a right to check the facts before the report is made
public.
* Ifthe report is passed as factually correct then it will be available for the meeting on Monday
POL00190429
POL00190429
e The report most be based on evidence and facts
* PO will have two representatives at the meeting as observers they will not contribute (an
external lawyer and an employee)
¢ Need to very precise in the meeting with language and stick to the agreed report
¢ =POwill want to work with JFSA to help clear the cases and then set up a user group going
forward, get feedback on the system and drive improvements.
© Weare expecting the report latest Friday am.
OUSTANDING ISSUES
¢ Agreed definition and how the report will split the computer from the processes
e¢ Email regarding POLSAP