POL00316995
POL00316995
From: Patrick Bourke[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=PATRICK BOURKBE7DB8D6-53EC-4534-922B-
495877001727E11]
Sent:
To: “j; Angela Van-Den-Boger:
Ce:
Subject: RE: BBC Panorama interview
Mark
Many thanks. What an absurd way to deal with a 'story'. I am currently very much in the same place as you on this. ATV
kangaroo court is not appealing to say the least.
And there is nothing new in this.
We'll get all the papers. Happy to talk at any point over weekend.
Best wishes
Patrick
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 12/06/2015 17:44
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd
Cc: Melanie Corfield; Patrick Bourke
Subject: Fwd: BBC Panorama interview
Hi Angela
I send you this just for info. You will see what we are dealing with here and I increasingly feel that we should not
put you up to face what would clearly be an attempt to put unsupported allegations to you in a way intended to
embarrass you and us, regardless of facts.
I will reflect at weekend but my sense is we should now refocus our efforts on the network and the good people
in it whose businesses will be tarnished by this. So we may get you to an interview but with Brunswick so we can
blitz the network through all channels before the programme to reassure and give people opportunity to ask
questions.
I'm copying Patrick and Mel. This is my initial thinking and clearly we need to consider further.
Patrick/Mel: please can I have details of all the cases they refer to?
Thanks and sorry to land this email now.
Forget it now and have great weekends all.
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Mobile:
Begin forwarded message:
POL00316995
POL00316995
From: Conor Spackman <
Date: 12 June 2015 16:56:44 BST.
To: "mark.r.davie:
GRO
>, "melanie.corfieldi
Dear Mark,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for the time you and your colleagues spent with Matthew Bardo and
Tim Robinson on Tuesday. It was very helpful to be able to discuss this subject in detail with the relevant
people.
Since we last wrote to the Post Office, our research has continued and I am now able to give you more
information about the points that are likely to be raised in the programme.
Our evidence suggests that the Post Office may have unfairly used theft charges to put pressure on sub-
postmasters to plead guilty to false accounting and/or repay apparent losses identified by the Horizon
computer system. The evidence also suggests that the Post Office failed to consider or investigate the
possibility that Horizon could be the cause of some of the losses. As you know, it has been suggested
that these failings may have led to miscarriages of justice in some cases.
Having read reports written by Second Sight and Post Office responses to them, we wish to address the
following question areas in an interview. They are broken down below under the subject matter to
which they relate:
Jo Hamilton
- the decision to charge Jo Hamilton with theft
- why Ms Hamilton’s office was £2000 down on the Horizon system and why this doubled to
£4000 when she followed the instructions from the help desk
- her claim that she sought help and the Post Office failed to provide it
- her explanation that she subsequently felt trapped and did not know what to do other than sign
off inaccurate accounts
Noel Thomas
-Mr Thomas’s claim that that he told the helpline about his problems with the system and about
the missing money
- the suggestion that it is no longer possible to know the results of important tests carried out on
Mr Thomas’ system because those records have now been lost or destroyed
- the suggestion that Mr Thomas was poorly treated after 42 years of loyal service
- that the Post Office now believes that the cause of the shortfall in Mr Thomas’ branch is likely to
have been mistakes by him or his staff
Seema Misra
- Ms Misra’s claim that she and her staff were not provided with adequate help despite making
more than 900 calls to the helpline
-—-the suggestion that the Post Office failed to disclose crucial information during Ms Misra’s trial
including technical information about Horizon to the defence’s expert witness
-—that the Post Office and Fujitsu had identified bugs in Horizon prior to Ms Misra’s trial that were
not disclosed to the defence
POL00316995
POL00316995
- the suggestion that this information could have helped Seema and other sub-postmasters stay
out of prison
Post Office investigations and prosecutions
- the suggestion that the Post Office has a financial interest in prosecuting sub-postmasters
because it helps with the recovery of missing money
-—-particularly in that context, the suggestion that miscarriages of justice are more likely because
the Post Office exercises both the power of investigation and prosecution
-—-the suggestion that the Post Office has unfairly pursued theft charges to pressure people into
paying up
- the claim by numerous sub-postmasters that they were told by Post Office investigators they
were the only ones having problems with the Horizon system
Horizon system
- the suggestion that the complexity of the Horizon system adds to the likelihood of errors
- the suggestion that the lack of an automatic paper record from the Horizon system adds to the
likelihood of errors
- the suggestion that Post Office prosecutions relied on the belief that the computer system was
robust, when in fact computer errors may call this into question
- the suggestion that bugs in Horizon were more widespread than Second Sight have found
- the suggestion that there were around 30 people working in “third line support” at Fujitsu and
that they fixed dozens of system errors
- the suggestion that errors were fixed by a team who could access transaction data, add
transactions or make changes to transactions that would affect the balance in branch, without
the sub-postmasters knowledge
Second Sight investigation and select committee in parliament
- Second Sight’s claim that their work has been hampered by an increasing lack of co-operation
- Second Sight’s understanding that this is the result of legal advice
- Second Sight’s claim that the Post Office has failed to provide full access to legal and
prosecution files
- The apparent failure of the Post Office to provide Second Sight with emails relating to the
eyewitness account of an incident in Bracknell in 2008
- Second Sight’s evidence that remote access to branch data is possible in spite of Post Office
denials
Please could you let us know the time that you have scheduled on Wednesday 17 June for the
interview? I would be grateful if we could arrive about an hour before the interview begins in order to
set up. It usually takes about half an hour to pack the kit away again after we have finished filming.
Thanks for your help.
Conor
http://www.bbe.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not
POL00316995
POL00316995
the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the
sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.