POL00204776
POL00204776
Message
From: Jessica Barker [/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JESSICA.
BARKE2F1246A4-76F4-4975-AFF3-89E387E01434D2E]
Sent: 21/05/2014 08:57:29
To: Belinda Crowe [/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Belinda Crowe79b93f11-569f-4526-a078-f5b4958a8917220); Angela Van-
Den-Bogerd [/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP.
(FYDIBOHF 23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Angela.Van den boge1cSfcfe7-2672-42d9-b324-4ea8d2814853]; Rodric
Williams [/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CI
Williamse9c114f4-b03f-4595-b082-ce89be5c79d47b]; ‘Parsons, Andrew
cc: Chris Aujard [/ IMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Christopher Aa0452485-80b7-40d2-ade7-6f6feae19cc3f88]; David Oliver1
[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=David
Oliver177 16bf08-0c00-4beb-82cc-31fOff7 1becf395]
Subject: FW: M022
Attachments: draft WG minute 20052014 (3).docx
Dear all
Before our meeting at 11:00 to review M127, I am sending for your reference:
= The initial response to M022, which Chris sent to Second Sight on 09 May (below)
e The draft minutes from yesterday’s Working Group (attached)
Many thanks and best wishes
Jess
From: Amanda A Brown On Behalf Of Chris Aujard
Sent: 09 May 2014 15:23
To: Ian Henderson; riwG
Subject: M022
Dear Ron and lan,
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme ("the Scheme")
M022
Thank you for circulating the revised draft of your report on case M022. As you will recall we agreed at the last Working Group meeting
that all members of the Working Group would have 24 hours to reflect on matters of style and presentation (rather than
substance). This we have done and our comments, which we hope you will find helpful, are set out below.
By way of background it might be helpful for you to understand the way we have approached this exercise. In the main, this was by
reference to your terms of reference which were to provide an expert analysis of any points in dispute between Post Office and each
Subpostmaster and, where possible, to provide a logically reasoned and evidenced opinion on those points. The aim of your work was
to narrow and inform the grounds of disagreement so that the parties may constructively discuss their differences in front of a
mediator at a mediation session, with a view to reaching settlement. In addition we have had regard to the directions given to us by
the Chair of the Working Group.
Our high level comments are as follows:
We do not feel that the conclusions reached in your revised draft report logically flow from the analysis as set out in the text
of the report. This is important because, unless the logical reasoning is set out in full, it will be more difficult for the mediator
to support the parties in their efforts to reach an agreed outcome. It also appears that in a number of cases that you have
POL-BSFF-0042839
POL00204776
POL00204776
made reference to facts beyond those which were disclosed in the Post Office investigative report and it is unclear whether
these are facts which you have assumed on balance to be true or whether they are ones backed up by evidence.
e It would have been useful, somewhere in the report, to set out, and assess, both parties’ views, so that each party could
understand the other’s position better and so that the mediator could consider Second Sight’s findings in that full
context. The absence of this text makes the job of the mediator more difficult as they will have to cover this ground in the
mediation meeting itself.
e Asarelated point we had understood that you would set out more clearly and separately the points of common ground,
points of dispute and Second Sight's conclusions. However, it seems to us, that in places these three sections have become
muddled and, on balance, we believe this may cause confusion for the reader (and potentially the mediator).
As an overarching comment I should add that our expectation was, and remains, that Second Sight's reports would in look and feel be
more akin to the “dispassionate” reports produced by expert witnesses in a Court proceeding, where the expert’s primary role is to
assist the Court in its understanding of a disputed issue of fact. Viewed through this lens a number of conclusions as they are set out
in the report seem to us to give the appearance of not being fully supported. That said we are very supportive of this case going
through to mediation and fully appreciate that your full work load means that it may not be possible to refine this report any
further. However for future reports we would like to see your reports presented with a sharper analytical focus, on (as the Chair has
previously mentioned) whether Post Office was responsible or not in any way for the SPMRs “loss”.
As agreed at the Working Group, we will, as requested be preparing a response to M022 dealing with points of substance rather than
style.
Please do feel free to phone if any of these points are unclear.
Yours sincerely
Chris
Chris Aujard I General counsel
5 Floor, Bunhill Wing, 148 Old Street, London, EC1V 9HQ
POL-BSFF-0042839_0001