POL00219827
POL00219827
CONFIDENTIAL — NOT POLICY
Issue
1. Adiscussion about the relative merits of a number of options for breaking through the
impasse.
Recommendation
2. That participants to the meeting consider and discuss this paper before coming to a view on
the best course of action to take, taking all equities into account. The conclusions drawn in the
‘meeting will inform a recommendation to the Post Office Board for final decision.
Background Summary
3. Dissatisfaction with the Scheme has been laid bare: 3 unfavourable nationa!-BBC broadcasts Commented [MU1]: Nay be useful to evidence a change / ups
have been made about it, relevant MPs have withdrawn their support for it and secured a \, Ree So sc ane aaenecaoman
Westminster Hall Debate to make this plain, JFSA continue to refuse to take any meaningful part, \
° “This wl eve evidence that, though thei previous decsion may
appeals have been made for BIS to intervene, the BiS@ Select Committee of the House-has launched
\, I have been correct at that moment in time-the increased pressures
an Inquiry and the Criminal Cases Review Commission has begun to demand the production of \ I we face now—mean achange must happen
documents. A firm of specialist lawyers has been engaged by JFSA, raising the spectre of a new risk I Erte [eal rer aalate
of a group action against Post Office.
4. There is a strong case to suggest that the Scheme no longer serves as an expedient and fair
way to explore and, where possible, resolve a small number of individuals’ complaints but, instead,
acts as a lightning rod for a campaign by factions against Post Office as an organisation. C
how our staff may have acted in a specific case have given way to accusations calling into question
our values and integrity as an Institution.
isms of
Options
5. Following much deliberation over the last few months over a range of options, 4 emerge as
candidates for this discussion:
© Seek to maintain the status quo ~ in circumstances where JFSA do not participate in any
meaningful way, Second Sight’s impartiality is questionable, and all those involved consider
that the Scheme is not fit for purpose; this option appears to have little to recommend it.
This approach risks providing further space and time for our detractors to build upon and
continue to prosecute the campaign we now face, as well as incurring the maximum
financial and probably reputational cost ahead of inevitable litigation.
‘* Mediate all cases or all cases apart from criminal cases — bring an end to the Working
Group by agreeing to mediate all cases in the Scheme regardless of evidence or merit. It may
be possible to subject criminal cases to some form of external review for verification of our
questionable, We have primary evidence of bas and alot of
secondary evidence,
Commented [IWS), Tis nods ewyat pootng bah sat I
process (an internal one has already has already been done with positive results), _—{ Commented [TW4] Not sure this statement stands up tothe
© Payout or pay-to-litigate — call an end to the Scheme either by trying to offer a sufficiently lay petson’stest. What does it eally mean?
attractive (very substantial) amount for Applicants to waive all and any claims they may have __—{ Commented [TW5]: Quantiy? 104s? 100%? j
against Post Office or undertake to pay a sum to each Applicant for professional fees in
bringing a claim against us, trusting our fate to the Courts.
POL-BSFF-0057890
POL00219827
POL00219827
‘© End the Scheme, mediate cases with merit, defend remaining claims as business-as-usual —
bring an end to the Working Group while inviting retaining Second Sight to enter into ona
new contract (ending all others) to complete their review of all cases (anticipated in May
2015) and specifically precluding the production of a Part II report. If Second Sight decline,
end their engagementlas soon as possible and engage an alternative, reputable firm. _—( Commented [TW]: Quantify f possible ]
6. Anappendix providing a working assessment of each of these options is attached, as is a
summary matrix showing their comparative profiles measured against Reputational, Commercial and
Legal risks.
Colleagues are invited to offer their views on the relative merits of these options.
22/01/15
POL-BSFF-0057890_0001