POL00216273
POL00216273
Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance
Sir Anthony Hooper
Chairman
Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme
148 Old Street
LONDON
EC1V 9HQ 10" November 2014
Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme
Dear Sir Anthony
Iam writing to you to convey JFSA’s concerns over the current position and direction of the
Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme.
JFSA is now of the opinion that the Scheme has strayed so far from the original purpose for
which it was intended, that the few Applicants who have actually reached a mediation meeting
through CEDR have expressed such disappointment with the Scheme, that at least one
Applicant has withdrawn.
JFSA requests it noted that:-
1.
As has been stated on many occasions, it is JFSA’s view that it is not the role of the
Working Group to approve which cases go to mediation for the following reasons which
are contained within the main document that each of the Applicants to the Scheme
received. Within it they were promised:-
e "Post Office now wishes to offer a Scheme to Subpostmasters so that individual
Subpostmasters have an opportunity to raise their concerns directly with Post Office.
e "The purpose of mediation is to give each side the opportunity to explain their position.”
e "The Scheme is being supervised by a Working Group comprising of representatives
from Post Office, Second Sight and the JFSA. The Working Group's role is to ensure the
Scheme is run in a fair and efficient manner. It will also be involved in making decisions
on how particular cases* should be managed through the Scheme. To ensure its
impartiality, the Working Group is seeking to appoint an Independent Chairperson.”
POL-BSFF-0054336
POL00216273
POL00216273
* The"*particular cases” are identified in the main document as those that “/f the
information provided by the Subpostmaster is insufficiently detailed or not clear,
or information is not provided promptly, it may mean that a case is not
investigated or mediated.” Or, “If there is insufficient information for Second
Sight to investigate a case, the case may not be investigated or may not proceed
to mediation.”— It is these cases, and only these cases, that JFSA is prepared to
discuss at the Working Group.
"As a result of this investigation, Second Sight will produce a Case Review summarising
its findings and a recommendation on whether the case is suitable for mediation.”
"The Case Review should bring clarity to many cases.”
"What is Second Sight’s role? - Second Sight was appointed by the Rt. Hon James
Arbuthnot MP and Post Office to independently review and report on the Horizon
system and any associated issues. As a part of the Mediation Scheme, Second Sight will
work with you to investigate your case. It will then liaise with Post Office to obtain
further information before giving an assessment of your case.”
“Will my case definitely be referred to mediation? - If your case is suitable and
you provide accurate, detailed information to Second Sight, then this is likely in most
circumstances.”
That in light of a decision JFSA understands was taken at the October Working Group
meeting in London, after JFSA had left, and which JFSA was informed of during the
telephone meeting on 30" October 2014, with regard to a number of cases now being
held back until a revised Part Two report has been prepared by Second Sight. Due to
the concern that the content of the revised report may affect all cases, JFSA is of the
opinion that no further cases should be released in draft form until that revised report
has been produced and those cases measured against it.
That, dependent upon the content of the yet to be revised Part Two report, it should be
recognized that it may be necessary to re-examine earlier cases where Second Sight
has already arrived at a decision as to whether or not a case was suitable for mediation.
A letter dated 14" October 2014 from Chris Aujard, Post Office’s General Council, to
Kay Linnell, one of JFSA’s advisors, in which Post Office states that it has a statutory
Page 2 of 4
jfsa.org.uk
POL-BSFF-0054336_0001
POL00216273
POL00216273
duty in criminal cases to assess any material which might undermine a prosecution or
assist a defendant, and asked Kay Linnell to check her records to see whether or not
she held such information.
Having made such request of this JFSA advisor, JFSA is presuming that Post Office has
itself undertaken its statutory duty and made similar requests to all its employees and
its subsidiaries/contractors who have been involved in any way with a case leading to a
prosecution of any Scheme Applicant.
In light of this request, JFSA is also presuming that Post Office has provided the
independent investigations firm, Second Sight, with all documents held by Post Office
and its subsidiaries/contractors relating to the cases Second Sight are investigating, and
when prosecution files are requested by Second Sight, these too have been provided in
order to verify all documentation was in order (An example being M030, where such
information would bring clarification to point 6 of the exercise undertaken by SAH.).
That, the current approach of concentrating purely on where the money went, should
not be the sole deciding factor used by Second Sight in considering whether a case is
suitable for mediation. The agreement given to Applicants stated that:-
"First, your case must relate to a financial loss or unfair treatment that you believe you
have suffered as a result of the Horizon system or any associated issues.”
"The Scheme is open to any Subpostmaster who believes they have suffered a loss or
been treated unfairly as a result of the Horizon system or any associated issues.”
"Second Sight will seek to determine whether there was a problem with Horizon (or any
associated issue) that had an impact on you. If so, Second Sight will also try to
determine the scale and scope of that impact on your case.”
Effectively, all the systemic failures/thematic issues that affect a case should be used in
weighing the suitability of a case for mediation. The issue of where the money went has
seemingly become the sole deciding issue as to whether or not a case is suitable for
mediation, to the exclusion of the systemic failures/thematic issues.
Yet in many cases it is the systemic failures/thematic issues which have led to a
monetary issue and whilst, either due to the passage of time or the lack of
documentation, it is not always possible to establish what has happened to the money,
it is far easier to prove how the systemic failures/thematic issues of a case played such
an important role.
Page 3 of 4
jfsa.org.uk
POL-BSFF-0054336_0002
POL00216273
POL00216273
Then what is going to happen about all the cases where there was only unfair
treatment due to associated issues with Horizon but there was no monetary issue?
Somehow the whole spirit of the Scheme that JFSA agreed to at the outset and planning stage
has totally disappeared. The further the Scheme progresses, the more entrenched and
defensive Post Office has become, and the original concept of actually seeking the truth has
long since been abandoned, replaced by denial and a culture of blaming the Applicant time
after time. The underlying fact that it was the failure of Post Office to correct the
shortcomings of their Horizon system and its associated issues is ignored by Post Office again
and again.
It is unfortunate that it has become necessary to voice these points, but continuing without
raising these issues would be disingenuous to all those victims of Post Office who believed
Post Office were sincere about addressing their cases.
The question now has to be asked, is there any point in continuing with the Scheme which is
just being turned into a sham by the actions of Post Office?
Alan Bates
Chairman
JFSA
Page 4 of 4
jfsa.org.uk
POL-BSFF-0054336_0003