Draft
POL00230790
POL00230790
Dear Karen,
Because it is now clear that Panorama does not intend to provide the Post Office with a fair and
reasonable right of reply and continues to expect us to respond to unsubstantiated allegations, with
no evidence being provided to support them, I feel we have no alternative but to decline any
interview.
I attach a statement that, as you will see, wholly rejects the unsubstantiated allegations being made.
This statement, in the circumstances, can hardly be expected to be exhaustive. The matter is highly
complex and has been, as you know, subject to years of investigation and interrogation but we have
been prevented from putting forward further facts and evidence to the programme because of the
lack of provision of evidence and specific detail provided to us. For the avoidance of doubt, although
this statement is for broadcast, this letter and its contents are not intended for broadcast.
There are numerous points that I have no confidence that the programme is taking into account
because it is clear from the line of questioning, and in other correspondence we have had with the
programme, that very flawed assumptions are being made.
In your letter on Friday you explained the context you feel could make it reasonable to include a
contributor’s allegations that Paula Vennells is ‘implicated in perpetuating miscarriages of justice
and should resign’ and that the Post Office ‘is a bullying organisation’. There is nothing that has been
put forward that supports such serious and damaging allegations whilst there is, in fact, a great deal
of information that demonstrates the contrary. I include points about this and other matters of
concern below. Many of these points are also made in our statement:
1.
Paula Vennells initiated the inquiry and the mediation scheme, demonstrating her
determination to get to the bottom of allegations. As she told the BIS Select Committee in
February 2015: “The decision to set up the mediation scheme was mine, with the Board of
the Post Office, because Second Sight, as they mentioned, produced a report in the summer
of 2012 [sic]. We were genuinely concerned about the issues they raised and the fact that
these people had challenges. We are a business that genuinely cares about the people who
work for us. If there had been any miscarriages of justice it would have been really
important to me and the Post Office that we surface those. As the investigations have gone
through, so far we have no evidence of that. As you will know we are bound by the
Disclosure Act to make known anything that we come across that might contribute to that.
The difference is that we simply wanted to know, to give those people the opportunity to be
heard, because they told us they hadn’t been.”
The Post Office has demonstrated that it continues to more than meet the commitments it
gave to the people who put forward complaints.
The review was not and never has been a criminal case review, but rather an investigation
into whether Horizon operated as it should in a small number of cases, a minority of which
involved a prosecution. Second Sight are accountants, not experts in criminal law or
procedure, and were provided with all the relevant documentation to perform their role, as
was agreed by the mediation scheme’s working group (of which they were a member) in
2014.
POL00230790
POL00230790
4. External specialist criminal lawyers have continued to review material to ensure Post Office
complies with its continuing duty after a prosecution to disclose any information that
subsequently comes to light which might undermine its prosecution case or support the case
of the defendant.
5. There have been no appeals against convictions. The mediation scheme was not a bar to
legal actions or to start a claim. It has not affected postmasters’ legal rights, including the
right to appeal.
6. tis not unreasonable to request that those making allegations should substantiate them or
to request that they, at the very least, provide enough detail to allow us to provide a
meaningful response. The Post Office has always been willing to discuss these matters —
including the details of the individual cases, in confidence, with the relevant individual MPs
and with, of course, their constituent’s consent. This has not been widely taken up. We have
continued to make very full and public responses to allegations made, providing as much
detail as we possibly can without breaching the confidentiality of the people involved.
7. Regarding the three individual cases I must repeat that an ‘examination’ of these cannot be
fair, balanced or accurate without comprehensive legal files and material that are not
available to Panorama or its contributors. I cannot underline the point about availability of
material enough. There is nothing that you put to the Post Office that is more than bald
assertion and extremely flawed inferences from partial information, including conclusions
apparently made from a few individual statements taken out of context.
8. There is overwhelming evidence that that the losses complained of were caused by user
actions, including deliberate dishonest conduct. When investigating losses in a branch, Post
Office will try to establish what has happened in that branch, but this task will be frustrated
if the fact that money is missing has been hidden by deliberately falsifying the branch
accounts. Falsifying accounts can also contribute to branch losses. Where accounts have
been falsified it is not possible to identify the transactions that may have caused
discrepancies and losses, preventing the correction of the practices and procedures that
generated those losses. Where a there is a loss and evidence of false accounting, the fact of
the loss together with the false entries is often sufficient evidence on which to base a charge
of theft. The charge of false accounting is however a separate and distinct offence to theft.
9. The Horizon system (both pre-2010 and now) has always been subject to independent
scrutiny. Ernst & Young produce an annual ISAE3402 service auditor report over the Horizon
processing environment; each year Bureau Veritas perform 1SO27001 certification — this is
the industry standard security accreditation; Information Risk Management (IRM) accredit
Horizon to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards on an annual basis. In addition
Fujitsu undertake regular industry standard testing on the system and the Post Office audit
team perform risk based reviews.
I remain more than willing to discuss these, or other matters, with you and to answer questions that
do not breach individual confidentiality.