4.
POL00210056
POL00210056
BRIEFING NOTE
WORKING GROUP CALL
2 OCTOBER 2014
New Questionnaire Responses (Angela)
Last cases now scheduled by POL
Priority cases
© Nothing for POL
Bankruptcy cases
could be raised here — see below
Post Office Investigation Progress (Angela)
* Nothing to note — this is carried over from last week’s new CQRs
Cases with Second Sight to review PO investigation reports — Chris
e Need to get on the record at the Working Group, Second Sight’s commitment to produce five
cases a week from now until 31 October and three a week thereafter.
Cases that Second Sight have reported on — Chris (Andy)
¢ Tony may ask whether Post Office is willing to agree to mediate any of the cases where a
final report is ready. We have reviewed them and all need face to face discussion (see table
at annex A).
+ as a courtesy Chris has informed the Chair that Post Office has declined
Tony has received a letter from Emma Porter and Bill Cleghorn at Aver
objecting to Post Office’s decision (albeit quoting the wrong applicant’s name).
Points to make:
o As the Working Group acknowledged at the last face-to-face meeting, it is for the
parties to decide whether they wish to mediate after the Working Group has made a
recommendation and completed its role.
© Post Office has carefully considered whether it is appropriate to enter into
mediation in this case, and based on the full factual matrix on which the case rests,
concluded that it is not.
©. Post Office is taking each decision on the circumstances of each individual case and
will continue to do so.
[FOR DISCUSSION AT PRE-MEET — Subject to Tony’s response, should POL write to Aver to
correct the errors in their letter?]
To Note — We are still awaiting Tony’s:
POL00210056
POL00210056
© agreement to the letters informing applicants of the Working Group’s decision not to
mediate cas 3
¢ his decision on!”
¢ clearance of the minutes of the last Working Group.
Any other queries raised by Applicants / Advisors - Andy
GRO — RHODES — Applicant has written objecting to the Working Group decision to exclude
him from the Scheme. He has raised the following issues:
© despite not being the subpostmaster, the applicant’s wife (now deceased) was solely
responsible for the running of the Post Office;
o she had a strong track record prior to the installation of Horizon;
o her subsequent arrest, investigation and court proceedings led to a deterioration in
her health and contributed to her death;
© The proceedings against his wife collapsed.
Howe and Co have also written on Mr Rhodes’s behalf making the following points:
©. That the Working Group is wrong and that the original Scheme documentation sets
out clearly that the Scheme is open to counter clerks.
The Scheme documentation clearly states within the eligibility section that "The Scheme
applies to both current and former Subpostmasters as well as counter clerks employed by
Post Office."
Post Office should maintain the position that Mr Rhodes is not eligible but we will still
investigate his case through business as usual processes.
“OWEN - now received letter from applicant’s MP questioning the Working Group’s
decision to exclude the applicant from the Scheme. This is another case where the applicant
was not the subpostmaster but rather employed by them. The MP is also questioning:
© that Howe and Co were funded to support the case if it was ineligible; and
o. what liability fell to the subpostmaster.
Post Office should maintain the position that the applicant is not eligible but we will still
investigate his case through business as usual processes. Suggest secretariat drafts a letter
to the MP along those lines.
extension requests — no strong view from Post Office
AOB - CHRIS
JFSA circular — Alan Bates has circulated the text at Annex B to his members. He did not
provide the Working Group with opportunity to comment and the text does not do what was
agreed.
Points to make:
© Atthe last face-to-face meeting it was agreed that JFSA would agree the wording of
their proposed circular with members of the Working Group in advance. They failed
to do so.
POL00210056
POL00210056
©. Private Eye article — Further concerns about confidentiality as it appears that Private
Eye has obtained details of the internal Workings of the Working Group. This is very
concerning .....
© FOI - We have received an FO! request asking for the release of the SS Part Two report and
associated costs. Post Office is considering its response.
[FOR DISCUSSION AT PRE-MEET
Currently believe there are strong grounds to withhold the information on the grounds of
commercial prejudice and possible legal professional prejudice.
On a related note, we could invite the Working Group to agree that (given the publicity) all
applicants should be sent the SS Part Two Report and Post Office response now rather than with
each CRR. 19 applicants have received it already. This may influence the approach to the Fol
request although applicants are under a duty to maintain confidentiality.]
ANNEX A
POL00210056
POL00210056
Case Number
Criminal?
PO position re mediation
No - civil judgement given and
not shown to be incorrect
Unsuitable
GRO
Yes (false accounting) Unsuitable
Yes (false accounting) Unsuitable
Yes (false accounting) Unsuitable
Yes (theft and false accounting) I Unsuitable
Yes (caution for false Unsuitable
accounting)
POL00210056
POL00210056
ANNEX B
JFSA circular
The Second Sight Briefing Report — Part Two.
As some of you may have noticed, BBC NE seem to have had sight of the latest version of the Second
Sight Briefing Report - Part Two. The Report, part of the pack for the Mediator, is intended to be
read in conjunction with the other documents that have been produced, namely the Second Sight -
Initial Interim Report dated 8" July 2013, and the Part One Report dated 25" July 2014. By reading
all three reports the Mediator is then able to build a comprehensive picture of the aims of the
Horizon system, the work of Post Office and that of a Subpostmaster, as a background to any
Mediation.
It was meant to be a confidential document, and while no one can yet apportion blame to any
individual for the ‘leak’, it is highly unlikely to be a Professional Advisor, as it would be a breach of
their professional code of conduct. So that only leaves those in the group with cases that are far
enough forward to have received a part two report, and it isn’t that many.
The ‘leaking’ of the report was unfortunate at this time, but what is done is done. It was also a bit
wasted on a regional programme, and although a few of the national media did pick it up, one of the
results of the story running was the need to spend the next few days trying to appease a lot of our
national media contacts, who could have done so much more. The timing of the ‘leak’ was also
unfortunate in other ways, as the story just got buried under the Scottish issue, and in point of fact, a
number of you did suggest that Post Office had ‘leaked’ the story, just so that it did get buried (I did
raise this with Post Office and they denied it). Furthermore from the feedback I have received from
others, it also caused a lot of problems for a few of the group who were chased by the media for
comment, when they were not in a position to give any because of their place in the Scheme.
I can appreciate the frustration with the length of time all of this is taking, and I also appreciate how
much pressure and how reasonable or convincing the media can be, but the ‘leaking’ of the report
really hasn’t helped much, and the timing has been a real lost opportunity for the future.
If you find the media are chasing or hounding you, please let me know, as there may well be other
media events planned which you are not aware of, and you need to take care not to do anything
which might jeopardize your case.