POL00316997
POL00316997
From:
Sent: Fri 12/06/2015 5:28:48 PM (UTC)
To: Rodric Williams:
Subject: RE: BBC Panorama interview
Thanks Rodric. No problem - of course!
Although you will have received my out of office, I am checking emails pretty regularly.
Best wishes
Susan
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 12/06/2015 18:08
To: BARTY, Susan; Reid, Tom
Subject: FW: BBC Panorama interview
And the response.
Susan - I now see you are on Mark's copy list, but better to get it twice than not at all!
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 12/06/2015 17:26
To: Susan Barty; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Mark Underwood?}
Subject: Fwd: BBC Panorama interview
All
To see. Felt it important to respond quickly.
Mark
Corporate Affairs Director
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark R Davies!
Date: 12 June 2015 17:24:50 BST.
To: Conor Spackman
Melanie Corfield
ni
Subject: Re: BBC Panorama interview
POL00316997
POL00316997
Dear Conor
Many thanks for this.
We will of course come back to you in more detail next week but for the time being I make the
following points:
- you make below some extremely serious allegations about the Post Office. I am gravely
concerned that you make these three days after we sat with your team for two hours. I am at a
loss to understand why these very specific and serious allegations could not have been raised at
the briefing.
- you informed us earlier in the week that your programme schedule has changed and you plan to
broadcast on June 29. Given that, diary pressures and the scale and seriousness of the allegations
you are making, we will look to arrange the proposed interview in the week of the 22nd. This
remains in line with your proposed schedule had your programme been due to broadcast on June
22.
- you quote evidence to suggest the Post Office may have unfairly used theft charges to put
pressure on SubPostmasters. Please as a matter of urgency provide some evidence for that very
serious allegation.
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communicati
Mobil
Corporate Affairs Director
On 12 Jun 2015, at 16:56, Conor Spackman:_
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
- 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
POL00316997
POL00316997
POL00316997
POL00316997
- 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. bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views
which are not 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.
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.
POL00316997
POL00316997
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street,
London EC2Y 9AQ.
ERR CCR 9 ACR FCC RR ICR FRR A CR oF SR CC oR FC RR CCR ACCOR GR CCAS
CMS has 59 offices around the world, located in Aberdeen, Algiers, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Barcelona, Beijing,
Belgrade, Berlin, Bratislava, Bristol, Brussels, Bucharest, Budapest, Casablanca, Cologne, Dubai, Duesseldorf,
Edinburgh, Frankfurt, Geneva, Glasgow, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kyiv, Leipzig, Lisbon, Ljubljana, London,
Luxembourg, Lyon, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Moscow, Munich, Muscat, Paris, Podgorica, Prague, Rio de
Janeiro, Rome, Sarajevo, Seville, Shanghai, Sofia, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, Tirana, Utrecht, Vienna, Warsaw,
Zagreb and Zurich.
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a member of CMS Legal Services EEIG (CMS EEIG), a European Economic
Interest Grouping that coordinates an organisation of independent law firms. CMS EEIG provides no client
services. Such services are solely provided by CMS EEIG’s member firms in their respective jurisdictions. CMS
EEIG and each of its member firms are separate and legally distinct entities, and no such entity has any
authority to bind any other. CMS EEIG and each member firm are liable only for their own acts or omissions
and not those of each other. The brand name "CMS" and the term "firm" are used to refer to some or all of the
member firms or their offices. Further information can be found at www.cmslegal.com
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registration
number OC310335. It is a body corporate which uses the word "partner" to refer to a member, or an employee
or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority of England and Wales with SRA number 423370 and by the Law Society of Scotland with
registered number 47313. A list of members and their professional qualifications is open to inspection at the
registered office, Mitre House, 160 Aldersgate Street, London EC1A 4DD. Members are either solicitors or
registered foreign lawyers. VAT registration number: 974 899 925. Further information about the firm can be
found at www.cms-cmck.com
The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly
prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments)
from your system. Notice: the firm does not accept service by e-mail of court proceedings, other processes or
formal notices of any kind without specific prior written agreement.
ACC 28 2 2A 2K 2 FRR 0K RR 0 8 2 0 RR CR CCK oR SR