POL00314908
POL00314908
From: Mark R Davies[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP.
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MARK R DAVIESA80D7269-659B-41D0-9C80-
68D9DE4FA7C5D38]
Sent: Mon 20/04/2015 7:54:16 AM (UTC)
To: Rodric William:
Cc:
GRO. J
Subject: Re: Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Copying Ruth and Mel to challenge these.
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 20 Apr 2015, at 08:34, Rodric Williams
On the BBC website at 800 am (heading “Post Office 'failings' over cash shortfall investigations” — well
done Comms), the bits that concern me are:
- The opening line: “The Post Office failed to find out why large cash shortfalls occurred at sub-
post offices before starting civil and criminal proceedings against sub-postmasters, according to
a report by forensic accountants”. We have to satisfy both stages of the Code for Crown
Prosecutors to start a prosecution: the Evidential Stage requires us to be “satisfied there is
sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”; and the Public Interest Stage
which requires us “to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest”
(where the Evidential Stage is met, “a prosecution will usually take place” unless the public
interest factors against prosecution which outweigh those in favour).
As for civil proceedings, the Court’s protocols require parties to exchange information before
proceedings are started, and if proceedings are started, we must set out a concise statement
of the facts on which we rely and verify that with a “statement of truth” (ie “swear” to the
court that you believe those facts are true).
- “People who run local sub-post offices have it written into their contract that, if the cash left at
the branch does not match computer records, they must make up the difference themselves.
The position is PMs make up the difference only if they are responsible for the shortfall.
- “Anumber of MPs raised concerns that dozens of sub-postmasters had been faced with
unexpected demands to pay large shortfalls - and been sacked, sued or prosecuted for theft
when they could not pay.” Shortfall are always raised with the PM so shidn’t be “unexpected”,
and a PM could well have their contract terminated or be prosecuted, even if they do repay, if
the conduct at the branch warrants.
POL00314908
POL00314908
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 20 April 2015 08:00
To: Rodric Williams
Cc: Patrick Bourke; Jane MacLeod
Subject: Re: Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Tn which case why don't we just publish everything on our site.....[playing devil advocate here]. It
is getting traction in sense it is second news headline on BBC, but all being well we will work it
down agenda as day goes on. Hopeless piece just now with Arburthnot on Today prog and the
PA coverage is v balanced.
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Apr 2015, at 07:54, Rodric Williams I GRO > wrote:
If he's tweeting - it's difficult to shut down, and trying to do so can make more of a story
than the original tweet.
Is it getting any traction? Piece on the 730 news was short and sweet.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 20/04/2015 07:13
To: Mark R Davies; Jane MacLeod
Ce: Rodric Williams
Subject: RE: Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Reproduction of extract re 'miscarriages of justice’ section.
Still baffles me that no-one seems capable of getting the fact that we don't prosecute
people for making mistakes but only where they then go on to commit fraud.
Anyone who works a till in a shop knows you're responsible for it adding up at the end of
the shift.
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 20/04/2015 07:04
To: Jane MacLeod
Ce: Patrick Bourke; Rodric Williams
Subject: Re: Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
He knows as he was the recipient of email last Thurs making that clear.
Mark
POL00314908
POL00314908
Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
I GRO I:
On 20 Apr 2015, at 07:00, Jane MacLeod 4
The issue will be whether he knew of the existence of confidentiality
restrictions when he received it. Based on your original email below, he
should have known but equally has anything been said to date that
breaches those restrictions?
Rod - your thoughts?
Jane MacLeod
General Counsel
The Post Office
_ Mark R Davies
} wrote:
Legal advice please.
Mark
Mark Davies
.-.Conmunications and Corporate Affairs Director
GRO I
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nick Wallis,
Date: 20 April 2015 06:31:28 BST
Comp! aint Review and
Mediation Scheme
It wasn’t made available to me on those terms
N
0n.20 Apr 20 :30, Mark R Davies
GRO > wrote:
You will note then the terms on which it is
made available.
Mark
POL00314908
POL00314908
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs
Director
“On 20 Apr 2015, at 06:30, Nick Wallis
i’ve got both, thanks.
T’ve just sent you a tweet.
N
On 20 Apr 2015, at 06:29, Mark R
T assume from this that you don't
want to see the report or our
response.
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate
Affairs Director
On 19 Apr 201
Wallis <
wrote: ”
Thanks Mark. N
Sent from my mobile phone
wesennee Original
message --------
From: Mark R Davies
' GRO
Date: 19/04/2015
17:57 (GMT+00:00)
Subject: Fwd:
Complaint Review
and Mediation
Scheme
Hi Nick
As below. Also sent
on Thursday to Jane
French and Jason
Horton at BBC South,
the Today programme
and PM, as outlets
which have previously
covered this issue.
Also to Computer
Weekly and to your
BBC address as
below.
I am copying to
Andrew Verity who
has called us this
afternoon about a
"leak", which is
puzzling.
T would note also that
the BBC has not at
any point covered our
own report on this
issue, published in
March.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and
Corporate Affairs
Director
Begin forwarded
message:
POL00314908
POL00314908
POL00314908
POL00314908
‘Date: 16
April
2015
17:36:08
BST
To: Nick
Wallis
and
Mediatio
n
Scheme
Dear
Nick,
I hope
you are
well.
Given
your
interest in
the issue,
I
am writin
g to let
you know
that the
report
that
independ
ent
forensic
accounta
nts,
Second
Sight,
have been
finalising
in the
Post
Office
Complain
t Review
and
Mediatio
n Scheme
will be
sent
shortly,
along
with the
Post
Office’s
response,
to the
applicants
in that
scheme
and their
advisors.
These are
confidenti
al
document
s
concernin
g the
individual
complaint
s being
reviewed
through
the
scheme.
However,
we
recognise
your
previous
interest in
this
matter
and we
will
provide
the
document
son
request
on the
basis that.
whilst
they can
POL00314908
POL00314908
of course
be used
for
backgrou
nd,
confidenti
ality is
preserved
and the
document
s are not
reproduc
ed, and
that the
privacy of
individual
sis
respected
T hope
this
helpful. If
you wish
to discuss
please
contact
me or
Mel,
copied.
best
wishes
Mark
POL00314908
POL00314908
This email and any
attachments are
confidential and
intended for the
addressee only. If you
are not the named
recipient, you must not
use, disclose,
reproduce, copy or
distribute the contents
of this communication.
If you have received
this in error, please
contact the sender by
reply email and then
delete this email from
your system. Any views
or opinions expressed
within this email are
solely those of the
sender, unless
otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE
LIMITED is registered in
England and Wales no
2154540. Registered
Office: Finsbury Dials,
20 Finsbury Street,
London EC2Y 9AQ.
JES ID IOI HOSS IHOI HII
peeeeeetententd
POL00314908
POL00314908
Je RISES U ISO IS IIS IO IOI IIIA III IIE
This email and any attachments are
confidential and intended for the
addressee only. If you are not the
named recipient, you must not use,
disclose, reproduce, copy or
distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received
this in error, please contact the
sender by reply email and then delete
this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within
this email are solely those of the
sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered
in England and Wales no 2154540.
Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20
Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
JE IRIS OI IORI ISO III II IOI SII III II III III IIIA
This email and any attachments are confidential
and intended for the addressee only. If you are not
the named recipient, you must not use, disclose,
reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and then
POL00314908
POL00314908
delete this email from your system. Any views or
opinions expressed within this email are solely
those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically
stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England
and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office:
Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y
9AQ.
JOH RID I OIE IID IO IIS RIO IIONI III II IO II ISI III III II