POL00242986
POL00242986
Message
From: Rodric Williams {_ }
Sent: 13/01/2011
To: PearceA ; frazer.stuartG..
Subject: Post Office Limited - Strictly Provate & Confidential
Attachments: image001.png; Horizon Core Audit Process - v1 0.ppt;__DOC_32032281(1)_18 Dec 2015 CCRC Tracker.xlsx;
HorizonOnlineDataintegrity_POL.DOC; ARCGENREPOO04.HorizonDatalntegrity.doc; RMG Prosecution Policy.pdf; 1.
Existing Prosecution Policy.docx
Amanda, Frazer,
I set out below (with apologies for the delay) the action points we noted following our recent meeting in Birmingham.
Actions
1. Post Office to provide a copy of its case tracker to the CCRC and check that the data-room structure mirrors the
tracker structure.
Please find attached to this email a copy of the “case tracker”. We have run through the tracker with Millnet to confirm
that the documents mentioned in the tracker appear in the CCRC’s data room, under the same headings as used in the
tracker.
Please let me know if you need anything else to help with the site navigation.
2. POL to provide keyword search results on the Cartwright King and Post Office Security electronic documents
The electronic documents collected by Cartwright King are being allocated to their specific cases, where they can be
reviewed under the “Electronic — CK” sub-folder. We will write to you to let you know when they are available for your
review as we have done previously.
With respect to the electronic documents collected by Post Office Security (of which there are c. 187,000), as agreed
Post Office has tested the numbers of potentially responsive documents for the "theft cases” being considered by the
CCRC (which we understood from our meeting to be Adedayo, Banks, Hamilton, Patel, Thomas, Ward and Wilson) using
the surname and a range of time periods before the date of conviction. This produced the following results:
Searches across CK DMS data and PO Security Team folders x 2 (total of 187, 328 documents)
“Adedayo” and date range of 31 March 2003 to 31 March 2006 2 2
1
2 “Banks” and date range of 20 June 1999 to 20 June 2002 fe) 0
3 “Hamilton” and date range of 4 February 2005 to 4 February 2008 241 243
4 “Patel” and date range of 3 June 2008 to 3 June 2011 2565 3352
5 “Thomas” and date range of 30 June 2003 to 30 June 2006 583 624
6 “Ward” and date range of 23 March 2006 to 23 March 2009 4,308 5,159
7 “Wilson” and date range of 15 June 2006 to 15 June 2009 1039 1758
8 “Adedayo” and date range of 31 March 2004 to 31 March 2006 2 2
9 “Banks” and date range of 20 June 2000 to 20 June 2002 fe) 0
POL-BSFF-0081049
POL00242986
POL00242986
10 “Hamilton” and date range of 4 February 2006 to 4 February 2008 164 164
4 “Patel” and date range of 3 June 2009 to 3 June 2011 2,092 2682
12 “Thomas” and date range of 30 June 2004 to 30 June 2006 520 561
13 “Ward” and date range of 23 March 2007 to 23 March 2009 2,983 3,692
14 “Wilson” and date range of 15 June 2007 to 15 June 2009 877 1597
15 “Adedayo” and date range of 30 September 2004 to 31 March 2006 2 2
16 “Banks” and date range of 20 December 2000 to 20 June 2002 fe) (0)
17 “Hamilton” and date range of 4 August 2006 to 4 February 2008 143 143
18 “Patel” and date range of 3 December 2009 to 3 June 2011 734 1312
19 “Thomas” and date range of 30 December 2004 to 30 June 2006 449 490
20 “Ward” and date range of 23 September 2007 to 23 March 2009 1,669 2,322
21 “Wilson” and date range of 15 December 2007 to 15 June 2009 743 1468
[* “Families” are those documents which are connected to documents having a keyword e.g. an email may contain a
keyword; the attachments to the email (which do not contain a keyword) will be “family” documents.]
You will see that although the results range widely, this exercise would appear to cull the approx. 187,000 documents
down to a more realistic and manageable body of material, with the larger responses seemingly relating to those cases
with a more common name (and insofar as “Ward” is concerned, may also be due to “ward” appearing frequently as
part of other words, e.g. Edward / forward etc).
The responsive documents identified by the searches can be put into a separate sub-folder under the individual
applicant’s main folder, titled with the description of the search undertaken, e.g. the 1,758 documents identified by
search no.7 above could be put in a sub-folder labelled “‘Wilson’ 15.06.06 to 15.06.09 and Family” under “JULIAN
WILSON — M039”.
Each document in the sub-file can then be individually reviewed, or if the reviewer feels they are still likely to contain
large numbers of irrelevant documents (e.g. in those files with more common surnames), key word searches can then be
run within the sub-folder by entering the search term/s or date/s. Please let me know if you would like Millnet to take
you through how this can be done. If this process is undertaken, it is good practice in civil litigation matters to keep a log
of any key word searches conducted, recording the name of the reviewer, date of search, search terms used (e.g.
applicant’s first name or branch name, or any other word/s identified through the review of materials) and number of
responsive “hits”.
Please let me know if you would like Millnet to set up sub-folders as suggested above, and if so, by reference to what
time period. Please also let me know if you would like to discuss further how the CCRC would like to approach these
materials generally.
3. Post Office Civil Litigation Files
As discussed at our meeting, we are migrating onto the Millnet platform those parts of the civil litigation files that are
obviously prosecution papers (some 23 files), and will preserve the remaining civil litigation files in case the CCRC needs
them at a later date (9 files).
Once we have completed this exercise, we will notify you of the file name under which they are available for review, and
also provide you with an updated case tracker at the same time.
4. Post Office to provide a copy of prosecution policies
POL-BSFF-0081049_0001
POL00242986
POL00242986
l attach Post Office’s prosecution policy from 1 April 2012, which was substantially based on the Royal Mail policy in
place prior to the companies’ formal separation from each other on 1 April 2012 (also attached).
5. Signposts to material which explains how Post Office assures itself and third parties of the integrity of the Horizon
system
Please find attached a copy of the “Horizon Core Audit Process” presentation prepared by Fujitsu for Post Office Limited
on 30 January 2014. This document sets out at a high level how Horizon was designed to ensure that accurate and
auditable records are kept of all postmaster transactions. I also attach the two more technical Fujitsu documents
referred to in that presentation (“Horizon Data Integrity” dated 2 October 2009 and “Horizon Online Data Integrity for
Post Office Ltd” dated 28 March 2012).
Further, the following three types of standard report consider Horizon from an audit /accreditation perspective:
i. ISAE3402 reports
= This report, in use since 2012, is prepared by Ernst & Young detailing the process through which
Fujitsu implements any new functionality or ‘fixes’ and provides the specifics of its testing
regime procedure.
= It is prepared in accordance with ISAE 3402, the audit standard for reporting on controls at
organisations which provide services likely to be relevant to the service user’s financial
reporting.
ii. Bureau Veritas IS027001 reports
= {SO 27001 is the international standard related to information security management systems,
designed to assess an organisation’s risks and controls concerning information confidentially,
integrity and availability, with the fundamental aim of protecting information from getting lost
or falling into the wrong hands.
= These reports, which date back to 2003, contain information not related to Post Office. As such,
Fujitsu is likely to ask that only redacted versions are shared.
iii. Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards reports
= The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is a proprietary
information security standard for organizations that handle branded credit cards from the
major card schemes including Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, and JCB. These
reports were first used in 2010.
Please note that Fujitsu supplies the reports it has (ISAE3402 and ISO27001) on the basis that they are kept confidential,
used for Post Office’s internal purposes only, and are not disclosed to any third party without Fujitsu’s consent. We will
therefore require Section 17 Notices from the CCRC for the disclosure of this material before we release these to you.
This material was also reviewed in the spring of 2014 by Deloitte LLP, which Post Office commissioned to consider
(among other things) whether the external assurance provided about Horizon’s processing environment covers key risks
relating to the integrity of that environment. In connection with this, Deloitte produced for Post Office a draft report
dated 23 May 2014 and a “Board Update” dated 4 June 2014. As with Fujitsu, Deloitte provided these documents to
Post Office under strict condition that they not be disclosed to any other party without Deloitte’s prior written
consent. Assuming you wish to review this material, we will therefore also require Section 17 Notices for its disclosure
before it can be released to you.
6. Sections 17 and 25 Criminal Appeals Act 1995
Could you please also provide Section 17 Notices to cover the material provided with this email, which are disclosed to
the CCRC in reliance upon Section 25 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 such that the Commission is not to disclose the
material without Post Office’s prior written consent.
POL-BSFF-0081049_0002
POL00242986
POL00242986
Post Office is keeping under consideration the CCRC’s helpful suggestion that Post Office supply material to the CCRC
under “blanket” Section 25 protection. We will revert to you on this as we come to release material from the Cartwright
King and Post Office Security electronic documents.
7. Zubeir Patel
We are enquiring as to whether Zubeir Patel, whose company Potent Solutions Ltd provides temporary postmaster
services to Post Office, would be willing to assist the CCRC’s investigation into the MacDonald application. I can provide
you with an update on this following a business-as-usual meeting scheduled with Mr Patel for early this month.
8. Post Office to check whether the NBSC call logs have a code or reference for an SPMR raising an end of TP
discrepancy
lam still making some enquiries to try to get a definitive position on this, but my initial internal enquiries have not
identified any code or reference which specifically relates to a Postmaster raising an end of Trading Period discrepancy.
In case it assists, the approach taken as part of the Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme was to manually review the
available call logs by looking at the total number, then breaking them down by call type, then activity, sub activity, brief
and full description (the rest of the boxes on the logs were also reviewed). This approach was designed to cover all call
logs recorded and sought to avoid any logs being missed that may have been incorrectly recorded under the wrong
type/activity.
9. Generally
Thank you for your patience while we have prepared this response. Please let us know if you need anything further.
Kind regards, Rodric
4 Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ
POL-BSFF-0081049_0003