POL00214744
POL00214744
From: Mark R Davies{.
Sent:
To:
Subject: Fwd: Post Office interview
To see!
id Corporate Affairs Director
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ingrid Kelly + }
Date: 12 December
To: Mark R Davies
Ce: Jane Fren Nick Wallis + _
Corfield I GRO +, Ruth X Barke
Subject: Re: Post Office interview
No Mark that's my mistake in the voicemail. as per my text - it is weds! Apologies all. Ingrid
On 12 Dec 2014, at 18:32, "Mark R Davies"
Dear Jane,
Thank you for your time today. Just to follow up my previous email, I can confirm
that the Post Office would welcome the opportunity to respond in your film and in
the studio to the very serious and detailed allegations being made in the email we
received from Nick Wallis (copied below for ease of reference).
T understand from Ingrid Kelly that you are now planning to air this item on Monday
evening. This comes as a surprise as you indicated Tuesday or Wednesday when we
spoke earlier.
Either way, given the very serious nature of the allegations being made, and the
requirement to give us reasonable time to respond, we do not believe we can meet
your deadline of noon on Monday for an interview to be conducted.
We are inclined to offer an interview but our spokesperson, who is leading the
investigations process on the matters you reference, is involved in mediation scheme
work on Monday and Tuesday. I am sure you will recognise that this work,
which involves scheme applicants, is very important.
She could be available later in the week and as she is best placed to speak for the
business on the complex range of issues you have raised, I believe it is reasonable to
ask you to hold off on broadcasting your item until such time as we are able to
respond properly.
Moreover, our spokesperson is able to respond to the specific issues you raise in a
way no other colleaguein our business can given her role and first hand knowledge of
the specifics Nick has referred to. I would also stress again, however, that Post
Office cannot comment on individual cases.
The Ofcom guidelines on matters like this make clear that we should be given
reasonable time to consider and make our response to requests such as this. What
constitutes a reasonable time must surely take the urgency of a situation into account.
There is no urgency here, especially in the light of your broadcast last week and the
ongoing nature of the mediation scheme, not to mention the point I raised on the
phone about potential compromise of cases going through the scheme. Given that the
programme is broadcast every evening it seems reasonable to me to ask for the
timescales to be extended so that we can respond properly.
I look forward to hearing from you. I am also copying this to Ingrid Kelly who kindly
left me a voicemail this afternoon confirming that we could indeed have a slot in the
studio to answer questions on your film. I also copy Nick Wallis, and Mel Corfield
and Ruth Barker from the Post Office press office.
Tam happy to discuss this over the weekend.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
To: Melanie Corfield
Subject: Interview request
Dear Melanie,
1) Thank you for your help with The One Show item transmitted on Tuesday
9thDecember. We are now preparing a second film which is due to go out on The
One Show on BBC1 at around the same time next week. We would be most grateful
if the Post Office would be prepared to offer an interview expressing its point of view
in the continuing dispute with some Subpostmasters over Horizon and associated
issues. This would need to be recorded by noon on Monday but we would be able to
meet you at your location of choice and we can do it over the weekend if that is the
only option.
2) The film we are broadcasting once again refers to concerns over Horizon. This
time it features the story of Steve Phillips from Nelson in South Wales who is having
POL00214744
POL00214744
POL00214744
POL00214744
problems with the system, as well as interviews from a group of former
subpostmasters including Noel Thomas, Jo Hamilton, Julian Wilson, who say they
felt under pressure to sign off incorrect accounts even though they did not
understand how sums could be missing.
Mr Phillips says he and other Subpostmasters live in fear of being told to pay back
losses neither you or they can explain, and he adds that he and other Subpostmasters
do not trust Horizon. This latter point of trust in Horizon by Subpostmasters is one
which has come up many times with other former Subpostmasters we have spoken
to.
3) In our film former Postmasters say it is difficult to investigate the causes of
shortfalls for which they are held liable, because of the way Horizon and associated
POL processes and policy function. They say in order to open for business the day
after the close of a trading period they had to agree to pay back alleged shortfalls
(either by settling to cash or settling centrally, which implies payment later). They say
this put them in a very difficult position.
4) We ask one former Subpostmaster why she pleaded guilty to false accounting in
court when she believed herself to be innocent. She tell us she felt she couldn’t
defend herself because she didn’t have proper records, that the Post Office had taken
some potentially useful items and paperwork away during their investigation and she
felt she would be prosecuted for theft as well as false accounting if she had not
pleaded guilty to the latter.
5) We understand from the Subpostmaster contract and from speaking to former
Subpostmasters who have been through the process that Subpostmasters are not
allowed a legal representative when they are interviewed under caution by Post
Office investigators. Instead they are allowed one companion who must be a Post
Office employee, who is not allowed to speak. Does this still happen? If so, why does
the Post Office think it is fair? Also, we are aware that Post Office conducts PACE
interviews at which Subpostmasters are allowed legal representation. Could you
explain in what circumstances you think it appropriate to interview someone under
caution but with legal representation, and why this is not available to Subpostmasters
in the interviews which usually precede them?
6) We would also like to put to you some opinion about the Post Office’s approach
to investigating and prosecuting subpostmasters. We are in possession of expert
opinion from a professor in criminal justice which implies the Post Office’s dual
function as investigator and prosecutor, and its 300 year cultural history of using it
against its agents is unique. That’s not to say he thinks you are the only organisation
with prosecuting powers, but that you have a unique culture of prosecuting your
agents. He implies this approach lacks the checks and balances of a typical
prosecution by the CPS. In his opinion this creates a situation where miscarriages of
justice are more likely to occur.
The Post Office has assured us in a Freedom of Information Act request that it uses
the Crown Code for Prosecutors. Can you please explain how this code was applied
in the following cases: Jackie McDonald, Damian Owen and Tom Brown. In these
cases the Post Office pursued its own prosecution despite no prosecution having
been brought by the CPS after police investigations. If you are unable to unable to
comment on individual cases, please comment on cases like this in general.
7) There is also a point raised by Geoffrey Sturgess, a business contract expert. He
believes Subpostmasters should be told about the history of known problems with
Horizon (such as the Calender Square issue and others raised in Second Sight’s
Interim Report) which have led to shortfalls in Subpostmaster accounts and the
history of other allegations against Horizon before they are allowed to sign the
Subpostmaster contract.
8) We will also include opinion from Sandip Patel QC who specialises in areas
including business fraud and cyber crime. He will say he believes that innocent people
might have been wrongly convicted. He will also say there may be grounds for
arguing that the Horizon system (incorporating the business processes around it) is
not as reliable as the Post Office believed it to be. He goes on to say that if the PO
had failed to carry out a proper inquiry in circumstances when they should have, then
some of the convictions of some of the Postmasters in the mediation scheme might be
unsafe.
9) With more than a hundred MPs now saying they have no confidence in the
mediation scheme we would like to ask the Post Office what it thinks is the correct
way to move forward and find an equitable resolution to the concerns of
subPostmasters up and down the country.
10) In summary, we have found a number of experts in their field who have concerns
about the Horizon system, the PO’s investigations and prosecutions function and the
fairness of the Subpostmaster contract. It suggests there is the possibility that the
way the Post Office goes about its business or did go about its business needs some
proper explanation. One MP described the nature of the relationship between the
Post Office and SPMRs as “feudal”, yet you call them your “life blood”.
The content of the proposed programme is not set in stone. This is an opportuninty
for the Post Office to respond to the widespread criticism it is currently facing. I am
seeking a senior member of staff from the Post Office who can explain everything
from the Post Office’s perspective so that we can get to the bottom of what has
happened to these people. If you will not appear on camera then we ask that you
provide a substantive response to the issues raised above by noon this
coming Monday 15 Dec.
Thank you
POL00214744
POL00214744
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are
not the named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of
this communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email
and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are
solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148
OLD STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ.