POL00257886
POL00257886
CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
POST OFFICE GROUP LITIGATION WOMBLE
Steering Group Meeting: 12 October 2018 BOND
DICKINSON
Update: Supplemental Evidence for the Horizon Trial
1. BACKGROUND
14 The Horizon Issues Trial will take place in March 2019. As part of the trial, the Court will
determine 15 issues relating to the Horizon system. Due to the technical nature of the issues in
dispute, the vast majority of these issues will be the subject of expert opinion evidence.
However, some of these issues require factual evidence either because they are purely factual or
in order to set a foundation for the expert's opinions.
1.2 Post Office submitted witness evidence in relation to those factual points in the form of witness
statements from Torstein Godeseth (Fujitsu), William Membery (Fujitsu), Dawn Phillips (Post
Office) and David Johnson (Post Office).
1.3 The Claimants also submitted their witness evidence on 28 September 2018. The Claimants
have served 3 statements from witnesses who have previously criticised Horizon: Richard Roll
(ex Fujitsu employee who appeared on Panorama), Charles McLachlan (defence expert in the
Misra prosecution) and lan Henderson (Second Sight). Their evidence largely repeats
allegations that they have raised before.
1.4 The Claimants have also served 6 statements from postmasters (not the Lead Claimants) who
allege to have suffered problems with Horizon. These allegations range from specific problem
transactions to general allegations of defects in the system. These allegations are largely new
and need to be investigated. We were given no prior notice of these allegations.
15 The nature of this evidence gives rise to further questions about admissibility. Factual witnesses
should not be giving opinions on the merits of Horizon (as per McLachlan and Henderson).
MacLachlan's evidence strays dangerously close to re-opening issues determined in the Misra
trial and could potentially be an abuse of process. The 6 individual postmasters have given
evidence of their personal experiences despite the Judge indicating that he did not want to hear
this type of evidence. Consideration is being given to whether Post Office should raise a
complaint with the Court about this evidence being relied on at trial and Post Office have written
to the Claimant's solicitors to raise these problems and demand an explanation as to why this
inadmissible evidence has been included.
2. POST OFFICE'S RESPONSIVE EVIDENCE
24 Post Office's reply evidence (to the Claimants’ witness evidence) is due to be served on 28
October 2018. Regardless of any complaint under point 1.5 above, we need to investigate
rapidly the allegations made and prepare responsive evidence. This will require assistance from
Post Office internal teams (primarily SSRT) and Fujitsu
2.2 Kathryn Alexander has a team who are providing comments on the statements and are reviewing
the call logs to NBSC and transaction data. They are also preparing a Quick Shortfall Analysis for
each Claimant. Fujitsu are reviewing the statements to provide comments in relation to the
allegations made about the Horizon system in the statements.
23 The legal team are also reviewing the statements to produce a Request for Further Information
that will be sent to the Claimants’ solicitors requesting further information regarding a number of
points in the witness statements that are vague and/or do not provide enough information.
‘AC_152248869_1 1
POL-BSFF-0095949
3.4
3.2
3.3
POL00257886
POL00257886
FUTURE ACTIONS
The Claimants’ expert is due to submit his report on 16 October 2018. Post Office's expert, Dr
Worden, is due to submit his expert report on 30 November 2018.
Once the legal team have reviewed the Claimants’ expert's report it will be clearer what reliance
he has placed on the Claimant's witness evidence and by which point Post Office should have
received a response to their letter to the Claimants’ solicitors. With this information, the legal
team can then consider whether Post Office should make an application to the Court to strike out
parts of the Claimants’ evidence that are not admissible. The legal team will provide the Steering
Group with a decision paper seeking a formal decision on this in due course.
In the meantime, Post Office should continue to prepare supplemental witness evidence in
response to all the allegations made in the Claimants’ witness statements on the assumption that
the Claimants’ evidence is not struck out. We do not believe it will be possible to prepare Post
Office's reply evidence by the 28 October, due to the Claimants raising wholly new issues without
any prior warning. It is therefore very likely that Post Office will need to seek an extension of time
and at this stage we do not know whether the Claimants will or will not agree to this. Again this
matter will be brought back to the Steering Group for a decision at an appropriate time.
‘AC_152248869_1 2
POL-BSFF-0095949_0001