POL00287839
POL00287839
womblebonddickinson.com WOMBLE
Si BOND
DICKINSON
28 October 2019 Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Oceana House
39-49 Commercial Road
Southampton
$015 1GA
Freeths LLP
Floor 3
100 Wellington Street
Leeds
LS1 4LT
By email only APRIAPSI364065.1516
Your ref
Email: james.hartley,_
Dear Sirs
Post Office Group Litigation
Horizon Issues Trial: KELs disclosure
We refer to your second letter of 11 October 2019.
We have been discussing the disclosure of KELs in great detail with Fujitsu and we are grateful for your
patience while we have been doing this. In this letter, we have endeavoured to provide answers to your
questions that are as clear as possible. Obviously, our answers involve a number of intricate technical
points relating to how Fujitsu operates and how the KEL database holds information which are beyond
our (and our client's) expertise. Please do let us know if you require clarification on any points or further
information.
To answer some of your questions we need to provide information that is covered by privilege. For the
sake of clarity, privilege is waived only over the information expressly given below. We appreciate your
confirmation previously that in providing this information there will not be any wider or collateral waiver of
privilege.
We respond below to the five questions raised in your letter.
1. Previous versions of KELs and Post Office's EDQ
In response to questions 1a and 1b, the statement on KELs in the EDQ which you quote was included by
WBBD in a draft version of the EDQ following a conference call on 30 November 2017 between WBD and
Fujitsu, the purpose of which was to discuss what documents Fujitsu held in relation to Horizon which
might be relevant to the proceedings. Chris Jay (in-house lawyer), Matthew Lenton (Document Manager
for the Post Office account) and Pete Newsome (Account Manager) attended the call on behalf of
Fujitsu. We believe that one of the Fujitsu attendees stated that previous entries or versions of KELs
were no longer available (that was a piece of information which only Fujitsu could have provided).
On 6 December 2017, a draft of the Fujitsu section of the EDQ still containing the relevant statement was
sent to the three Fujitsu employees who had attended the conference call of 30 November 2017, and
they were asked to confirm its accuracy. In response, Matthew Lenton of Fujitsu made a number of
comments on the draft later that day, but he did not comment on, query or amend the relevant statement.
On this basis, the EDQ was finalised in the terms of the version that was served.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number OC317661. VAT registration
number is GB123393627. Registered office: 4 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We
use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
fs authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, which consists of independent and autonomous
law firms providing services in the US, the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a separate legal entity and is
not responsible for the acts or omissions of, nor can bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International)
Limited does not practise law. Please see www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal notices for further details.
AC_158468589_3
POL00287839
POL00287839
At point 1c of your letter, you seek information about Post Office's discussions with Fujitsu which
informed paragraph 50 of the Generic Defence. Post Office's position in this regard was addressed in
our client's written submissions about the KEL filed after the trial at the request of the Court. Post Office
does not propose to add to those submissions. We do not believe that this topic needs to be re-opened
for you to understand the position regarding the disclosure of back versions of KELs.
2. KEL extraction scripts
We enclose copies of the three scripts used to extract: (i) the KELs which were disclosed in May 2018
pursuant to the Court's Order (being KELs generated up to March 2018), (ii) the KELs disclosed in
January 2019 pursuant to your request (being the KELs generated from March to December 2018), and
(iii) the deleted KELs that were also disclosed in January 2019. The underlying KEL application is used
by Fujitsu to manage the IT systems of other clients as well as Post Office. Fujitsu's scripts were run
only against the database partition in the KEL used for Post Office.
May 2018 Disclosure
The script used was titled "List_ALL_KELs.java" and produced a list of the current versions of both
Legacy Horizon and Horizon Online KELs. This can be seen by the SQL command used:
select * from [dbo].[kel_active] where status in (‘Authorised’, Deactivated) union all select
* from kel_active_HNGX where status in (‘Authorised, ‘Deactivated )";
The latest version of each KEL was extracted by retrieving the "Authorised" and "Deactivated" KELs from
the two kel_active tables (one for Legacy Horizon and one for Horizon Online).
Further KELs — January 2019
The script used was titled "List_Recent_KELs.java". It was very similar to the script used in May 2018,
except that it took as a third parameter the start date (sDate) for the KEL's creation so to exclude the
KELs already disclosed (ie. those up to March 2018). Therefore, the SQL query changed to:
select * from kel_active_HNGX where status in (‘Authorised’, Deactivated’) and
original_date >= ""+sDate+"”
This involved using the KEL table only for Horizon Online since there were no new Legacy Horizon KELs
produced after March 2018.
Deleted KELs — January 2019
The script used to list the deleted KELs was titled "List_Deleted_KELs.java" and was built on the same
principles to the script used in May 2018.
SELECT [kel_ref] ,[KEL_Reference] , [title] ,[summary] ,[username] , [fullname] ,[email]
,loriginal_date] ,[revision_date] ,[original_author] ,[revision_author] , [release] ,[kel_type]
,[systemproduct] ,[branchcode] ,[servername] ,[symptoms] , [problem]
,convert(varchar(max),[solution]) as [solution] ,convert(varchar(max),[solution2]) as
[solution2] ,convert(varchar(max),[solution3]) as [solution3] ,[keywords] ,[approved]
[evidence] , [status] , [visibility] ,[powerhelp] as [call_ref] ,[peak] ,[version] ,[class]
,lexternal_kel] ,[RefType1] ,[RefValue1] ,[RefType2] ,[RefValue2] FROM [dbo].[kel_delete]
union SELECT [kel_ref] ,[KEL_Reference] , [title] ,[summary] ,[username] , [fullname]
,lemail] ,[original_date] ,[revision_date] ,[original_author] ,[revision_author] ,[release]
,[kel_type] ,[systemproduct] ,[branchcode] ,[servername] ,[symptoms] ,[problem]
,convert(varchar(max),[solution]) as [solution] ,convert(varchar(max),[solution2]) as
[solution2] ,convert(varchar(max),[solution3]) as [solution3] ,[keywords] ,[approved]
,levidence] ,[status] , [visibility] ,[call_ref] ,[peak] ,[version] ,[class] ,[external_kel]
[RefTypet] ,[RefValue1] ,[RefType2] ,[RefValue2] FROM [dbo].[kel_delete_HNGX]
The SQL for this script was longer because the two deleted tables (one for Legacy Horizon and one for
Horizon Online) had slightly different schemas (structures).
AC_168468589_3 2
POL00287839
POL00287839
Although you have not asked us to do so, for the sake of clarity and completeness, we also enclose a
copy of the script used by Fujitsu for the most recent extraction of KELs.
3. KEL version numbering
The first authorised version of a KEL is version 1. When a KEL is updated, the new draft version is put in
a separate table and an authorisation request is sent to SSC who review the changes and either
authorise or reject the new version of the KEL. If it is authorised, the new version is inserted into the
active table (where it becomes the active version of the KEL), the previous version is marked as
deprecated and the draft version is deleted.
The functionality of the application is such that (subject to the points made below) a KEL cannot be
updated without generating a new version. That new version is generated automatically by the software.
However, an individual with privileged access rights to the database could update a KEL directly via
SQL. Only a few members of SSC staff have that privileged access and, in practice, it is not used in
order to update individual KELs. So far as Fujitsu are aware, such access has only been used in order to
carry out database-wide “find and replace" changes to multiple KELs without creating new versions,
including by:
1. changing between "ATOS" and "Helpdesk" when that service changed;
2. changing specific server names when those names changed as part of a datacentre software
and hardware refresh which resulted in some of Fujitsu's platforms being rebuilt; and
3. changing KELs which contained a product's old name in the [systemproduct] field to reflect the
product's new name.
Due to the passage of time, it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all instances of access being
used to make changes in this manner.
In response to question 3a (in relation to KEL spar58311), version 3 is dated 12 August 2019 (not 12
September 2019, as stated in your letter) and version 5 is dated 13 September 2019. That KEL was
updated more than once on two occasions; versions 1, 2 and 3 are all dated 12 August 2019 and
versions 6 and 7 are both dated 3 October 2019.
In relation to the four specific KELs referred to by their trial bundle references in your letter (being
JSimpkins4251P, GMaxwell574P, AChambers3558R and PCarroll2243R), versioning of KELs was not
introduced until around 2006 (although KELs were updated prior to that date). Fujitsu are not able to
confirm the precise date on which versioning was introduced, however, the first instance Fujitsu can find
of a KEL having a version number higher than 1 was on 8 June 2006.
Prior to the introduction of versioning, KELs had no version numbers on them but were updated; each
time a KEL was updated it overwrote the contents of the KEL. This means that it is not possible to
ascertain the previous contents of KELs prior to the introduction of versioning.
It is Fujitsu's belief that, when versioning was introduced, existing KELs were marked as version 1 and
this is why the four KELs referred to in your letter are shown as having been updated despite being
marked as version 1; they were created and updated prior to the introduction of versioning and were then
automatically marked as version 1 when versioning was introduced. When a KEL was updated after the
introduction of versioning, it would become version 2 and so on. However, due to the passage of time,
Fujitsu are not able to confirm precisely how versioning was introduced in practice. For example, it is
possible that whilst many existing KELs were automatically marked as version 1, a number of existing
KELs were not marked as version 1 until later.
More generally, we understand from Fujitsu that a KEL may indicate that it has been updated but still be
labelled as version 1 due to there being a gap between the date on which the KEL is created and the
date on which it is authorised (which is when it is inserted into the active table and becomes the active
KEL for everyday use). In this situation, the date of creation will be the date the KEL is first proposed but
the date of the update will be the date on which it is authorised. This gap can be caused by a number of
reasons. For example, a short gap may simply reflect the ordinary workflow of SSC; a longer gap may
be because the original KEL was rejected and re-submitted (in which case the creation date would still
AC_158468589_3 3
POL00287839
POL00287839
be the date when it was originally proposed) or because the authorising member of SSC required further
information before authorising the KEL.
In our letter of 24 October 2019 we noted that it is apparent that not every back version of every KEL was
included within the recent disclosure tranche. Fujitsu have informed us that, over the past 20 years, back
versions of some KELs have been removed from the KEL database in line with the business processes
that it has applied for managing the amount of data it stores. We are continuing to liaise with Fujitsu to
gain a better understanding of this.
4. Scale of additional KEL documents
See our letter of 24 October 2019 that addresses these questions. Further to that letter, we now enclose
an index of the c.14,000 KELs recently provided by Fujitsu.
5. Post Office's written closing submissions
Post Office does not propose to withdraw any part of its written closing submissions. However, it of
course accepts that it is important that the Court be updated of this development and, as you know, we
have already informed the Court of it. We will also send the Court a copy of this letter and your letter
dated 11 October to which this letter responds.
Finally, in relation to costs, if the back versions of KELs had been disclosed before the trial your clients
would have incurred the cost of reviewing them (if it had chosen to do so). Submissions about who
should bear such costs (or any part of them) can and should be addressed in the ordinary way at the
costs hearing after the Horizon Issues Judgment is handed down.
We look forward to hearing your views on any further steps that should be taken and on what the Court
should be invited to do, As indicated in our letter dated 3 October 2019, we hope that the parties will be
able to agree a sensible way forward.
Yours faithfully
Werks ft Calo Qi) wv?
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
‘AC_158468589_3 4