POL00317228
POL00317228
From: Mark R Davies[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MARK R DAVIESA80D7269-659B-4 1 D0-9C80-
68D9DE4FA7C5D38]
Sent: Wed 17/06/2015 12:01:17 PM (UTC)
To: "}; Susan Barty{”
Patrick Bourke.
Subject: FW: BBC Panorama interview
To see. Matt from Panorama clearly didn’t mean to send this to me. Quite helpful.
From: Matthew Bardo /
Sent: 17 June 2015 12:05
To: Mark R Davies
Subject: FW: BBC Panorama interview
Our reply to Mark in the thread below and the email from Mark that prompted us to get in touch. I’m mindful that
there were more emails to send your way than I’d realised. The central point for discussion is how much information
it is appropriate to give in advance of an interview in this case.
From: Mark R Davies I
Sent: 16 June 2015 10:34
To: Matthew Bardo; Conor Spackman
Cc: Melanie Corfield
Subject: RE: BBC Panorama interview
Dear Conor and Matt
Many thanks for your email of late Friday afternoon and for the further detail it provides in terms of the ground you
appear to wish to cover in your programme, and for Matt’s follow up. My apologies for getting back to you slightly
later than I had planned.
As you know, I remain puzzled and concerned that the BBC did not see fit to raise the majority of these issues and the
very serious allegations within them with us when we met your colleagues at our offices last Tuesday.
In your email, you say that you have evidence for the propositions you advance but, to date, no-one engaged in the
making of the programme (nor, indeed, of other BBC programmes featuring this issue) has actually provided that
evidence to us. Accordingly, and once again, I would ask that you provide us with any evidence you have to support
the allegations you make, the list of contributors, what they are saying and what they have been asked to comment
‘on, so that we might be in a position to respond to it appropriately as we are entitled to do.
The general thrust of what you say is not new. Claims of a similar nature have been levelled at us before but no one
has ever been able to provide us with any actual evidence to support them. For the avoidance of doubt, the Post
Office has been guided in all that it has done in relation to the cases you cite, and indeed all complaints made of a
similar nature, by the individual circumstances which each presents and the actual evidence of what, in fact, took
place. You will understand that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Post Office, or indeed any other
organisation, to be guided in its actions by anything which does not carry this essential quality of substantiation,
particularly when the allegations being raised with us are so serious.
What you have so far presented us with is, in essence, a repetition of various assertions and allegations made to us in
the course of this process, each of which has been thoroughly re-investigated by both ourselves and Second Sight and
repeatedly addressed over a period now stretching back some 3 years. As you are aware, the Criminal Cases Review
POL00317228
POL00317228
Commission (CCRC) is also examining a number of cases (they having been referred to them) and the Post Office is co-
operating fully with the Commission in that process. In the circumstances, the Post Office believes that where there
has been any critical finding such an investigation by the CCRC is the appropriate route to determine many of the
issues raised.
As we made clear in the lengthy session we had with your colleagues last Tuesday, we are not prepared to engage ina
public debate about individual cases. We gave each applicant to the scheme an assurance that we would afford them
absolute confidentiality in the handling of their complaint. This was also the agreement reached with the Justice for
Subpostmasters Alliance, Second Sight and others involved in the establishment of the scheme, and was appropriate
given that the cases often raise matters of a highly sensitive personal nature for Applicants; and we have responded
to each of the points raised in full: we have done so directly with each individual with a case in the scheme and with
Second Sight.
It follows that I will not be addressing each and every point raised in your email. However, I am happy to respond
more thematically as follows:
Prosecutions
e The Post Office does not prosecute subpostmasters for making mistakes — on the contrary, it has on occasion
done so when there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and where it is in the public
interest to take that prosecution forward
© Post Office complies with the Prosecutors’ Code of Practice which sets out this requirement
* Decisions as to how to plead to a charge are taken by those individuals and their independent legal advisers
only, informed by their own independent legal advisers
e — Itis a matter of public record that none of the individuals whose cases you have chosen to highlight with us
has appealed their conviction — an option which remains open to them
e The Post Office as prosecutor has a continuing duty to disclose any information which may assist the defence
even if it undermines the prosecution case; the Post Office has complied and continues to comply with that
duty
Horizon
e® Over the last 3 years, and across all the complaints we have received and comprehensively re-investigated,
there is no evidence to show that Horizon was responsible for the losses incurred in the relevant branches
¢ Post Office cannot edit, amend or otherwise alter branch data remotely; it can add a transaction to a branch
account - this is, naturally, subject to rigorous authorisation protocols and carries a unique identifier code
rendering it immediately distinguishable from any other transaction
¢ Post Office volunteered this information to Second Sight in 2013 and again made it clear in its response to
Second Sight’s final report in April of this year
e This process has only been used in this way on one single occasion since the introduction of Horizon OnLine,
during pilot testing work and this was done with the full knowledge and indeed co-operation with the
relevant subpostmaster
Second Sight
e We have provided Second Sight (which has acknowledged it is not expert in matters of criminal law or
POL00317228
POL00317228
procedure) with a very significant amount of information over the course of the last 3 years including all non-
legally privileged materials relating to prosecutions. It is a basic tenet of our justice system that discussions
between a client and his or her lawyer are privileged from disclosure, even to a Court, and this applies equally
to the advice a defendant receives, e.g. as to how to plead guilty to a charge and with what consequence
e¢ Anumber of applications to the CCRC have been made by individuals with cases in the scheme (note these
should not be confused with appeals) and the CCRC will review all the relevant material including all legally
privileged material
¢ This provides an absolute assurance to those individuals that all aspects of their prosecution and conviction
will be looked at by an independent body
As I hope to have made clear, whatever theories have been advanced in relation to the Horizon system, no one has
shown it to be responsible for any of the losses incurred in the relevant branches. Even Second Sight acknowledged
that human actions are the most common explanation. I would again stress the importance we attach to seeing the
evidence which supports any allegations that you are proposing to make and I look forward to receiving your reply in
this regard. I also look forward to receiving the list of contributors, what they are saying and what they have been
asked to comment on.
We will of course continue to engage with you on any subject or question. I am concerned, however, at the direction
the programme appears to be taking [outlined very clearly in Conor’s email]. Given the BBC’s previous coverage of
this issue and the apparent direction of the Panorama programme [which does not appear to be taking the issue
forward] I wanted to inform you that I will be making representations more widely within the BBC.
In relation to the timing of an interview, any interview would need to take place next week because of diary pressures
and the rescheduling of your broadcast to 29 June. In the meantime, I am sending Matt Bardo and Tim Robinson the
information which we did not have immediately to hand when they came to see us last week.
Best wishes
Mark
From: Matthew Bard
Sent: 12 June 2015 20:06
To: Mark R Davies; Conor Spackman
Cc: Melanie Corfield
Subject: RE: BBC Panorama interview
Hi Mark
Thanks for coming back to us so swiftly.
On the issue of theft charges being used to pressure sub-postmasters to plead guilty, you will be aware that this
allegation is repeatedly raised in Second Sight’s reports and our evidence is drawn from their written investigative
findings.
We made clear ahead of the briefing that its purpose was for the Post Office to brief us and not for us to brief the Post
Office about our research. The contents of the briefing were very helpful and will help us to represent fairly and
accurately the Post Office’s position on the things we discussed.
On the subject of the date of the interview, we are very keen to record it next week as that will give us sufficient time
to consider the points raised and to ensure that they are reflected fairly throughout the programme. Would it help if
we were to move the interview to Thursday or Friday of next week instead?
POL00317228
POL00317228
All the best
Matt
From: Mark RDaviesf = SCGROs—s—“‘“‘S*~*‘S
Sent: 12 June 2015 17:2
To: Conor Spackman
Cc: Matthew Bardo; Melanie Corfield
Subject: Re: BBC Panorama interview
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
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
On 12 Jun 2015, at 16:56, Conor Spackmai wrote:
POL00317228
POL00317228
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
POL00317228
POL00317228
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
ittp://www.bbe.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.
POL00317228
POL00317228
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 OB ID IIIS IIS IIS IIIS III III III II III III III III
JES ID IIHS IIIS IIS IOI IIIS II III III IIS III II III
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.