POL00317296
POL00317296
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 7:44:05 PM (UTC)
To:
Ce: Conor Spackmai
Corfield"
Subject: Re: BBC Panorama interview
Hi Matt
I'll come back to you on all these points and all the others tomorrow. Thanks for the further information. I don't
know why you couldn't have told us this last week: we could have dealt with the points then.
You're right of course about not setting out questions in advance of an interview - of course not. But I'm not
talking about questions. I'm talking about allegations: very serious ones, some of which you shared last week,
others you chose not to, for whatever reason, until now.
Best wishes
Mark
Sent from my iPad
On 17 Jun 2015, at 19:41, Matthew Bardo
Hi Mark
Thank you for getting back to me.
lam afraid I do not agree that there is nothing new in the story that we are covering. In the past few
months there have been a number of significant developments. Among them are the release of Second
Sight’s final report that includes criticism of the Post Office by its own investigators, the acceptance of
twenty cases for consideration by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the information obtained
as a result of our investigation. I think we are scrutinising new evidence that raises important questions
about the way the Post Office has behaved.
The purpose of the briefing that you kindly arranged was for you to brief us on the background to our
key lines of enquiry. It was made clear beforehand that we would not be briefing you about our
research. The briefing has informed the allegations that we emailed to you on Friday and it will help us
to report your position fairly and accurately on the areas that will be covered by the programme. It is
now the purpose of the interview for us to put our questions and allegations to the Post Office in order
to obtain a filmed response for broadcast.
As a former BBC journalist, you may remember that we do not tell people in advance what questions will
be asked in an interview. This helps maintain our editorial independence. We normally provide
interviewees with question areas and sufficient information to enable them to understand any
allegations that might be put to them. In this case, I believe we have done that.
We do not normally share the evidence that supports our allegations. However, I accept that in this case
there are a lot of detailed and complex points. We want the interviewee to have a full and fair
POL00317296
POL00317296
opportunity to answer questions that relate to decision-making at the highest level of the organisation.
Therefore, we are willing to share the following key pieces of evidence so that you are in a better
position to respond:
We have read extracts of minutes of a joint Fujitsu/Post Office meeting at which a bug was discussed.
We obtained these extracts from the Second Sight final report and we understand that this meeting
took place in autumn 2010. The minutes of the meeting state that this bug could impact “ongoing legal
cases where branches are disputing the integrity of Horizon Data.”
We have interviewed a former employee at Fujitsu, who worked in “third line support” for the Horizon
system. He says it was possible to remotely access data held on branch terminals and to amend that
data. He also alleges that system errors were more widespread than has previously been reported.
We have also obtained extracts from Jo Hamilton’s prosecution files. One extract includes comments
made on 16th November 2007 by the Principal Lawyer of the Criminal Law Division of Royal Mail
working on Jo Hamilton’s case. The lawyer wrote that when it comes to asset recovery, “the theft
charge makes life so much easier”. Another extract is from the Post Office investigator’s report into Ms
Hamilton’s case. On 17 May 2006 the Post Office Investigator reported “I was unable to find any
evidence of theft or that the cash figures had been deliberately inflated”.
We can also tell you that in the programme we currently expect to include interviews with Jo Hamilton,
Seema Misra, Noel Thomas, James Arbuthnot, a computer expert, a forensic accountant and a former
Fujitsu employee.
lam keen to confirm a date on which we can film the interview. You have mentioned that diary
pressures mean that next week is now the earliest that this could be done. If we could make it early in
the week, that will help us to consider the points raised and ensure that they are reflected fairly
throughout the programme. We have to finish the edit by next Friday in order to have the programme
ready for broadcast.
Please do also send over the information that you said you would provide to Tim and me when we
attended the briefing.
Thanks for your help.
Matt
From: Mark R Davies
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.
POL00317296
POL00317296
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 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 in a 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
e Post Office complies with the Prosecutors’ Code of Practice which sets out this requirement
e 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
POL00317296
POL00317296
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
e 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
e 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 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
e 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
POL00317296
POL00317296
Mark
From: Matthew Bardo {
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?
All the best
Matt
From: Mark R Davies !
Sent: 12 June 2015 17:25
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
POL00317296
POL00317296
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 Spackman{ Ss GRO.
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
POL00317296
POL00317296
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
- 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 the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
Tf 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.
POL00317296
POL00317296
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.
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.
POL00317296
POL00317296
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury
Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.