POL00317411
POL00317411
From: Patrick Bourke[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP.
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=PATRICK BOURKBE7DB8D6-53EC-4534-922B-
495877001727E11]
Sent: Fri 19/06/2015 10:10:38 AM (UTC)
To: Melanie Corfield!
Subject: RE: Panorama - update
Thanks. Is there anything you can do to stop him ? We really need a) to draft a proper statement with lawyers and those
of us actually on the day to day and b) with the benefit of knowing what has happened in the meeting with Ceri Thomas.
On which note, I am unhappy about him doing it alone. Slightly tired of this now.
From: Melanie Corfield
Sent: 19/06/2015 11:04
To: Patrick Bourke
Subject: RE: Panorama - update
No it's not you! Don't worry, I've just quickly tweaked a few things and gone back to make that very point. We have to
be clear about a statement that the programme MUST use in full (I am sure Susan will support) - and although his points
are ok, this needs work. The statement should be clearly separated out.
Need to stop him going on about every po in the land etc and focus on miscarriages of justice story. Also will need a par
at end to CLOSE IT DOWN.
I will await all the other comments - then hopefully we can get on and write a better statement that is actually, er, a
statement.
Mel
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 19 June 2015 09:41
To: Melanie Corfield
Subject: FW: Panorama - update
He’s come over a bit Churchillian, no ?
Not sure this is how I would want to make a statement to Panorama to carry in lieu of an interview — at all — but
perhaps it’s just me ?
Pp
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 19 June 2015 10:26
To: Patrick Bourke; Melanie Corfield; Rodric Williams; Jane MacLeod; Susan Barty; Tom Reid; Mark Underwood1; Kim
Fletcher; Craig Breheny; Jane Hill
Cc: Alana Renner
Subject: Panorama - update
All
Tam seeing the editor of Panorama on Monday at 11. This might be best as a 121 but I will discuss with you
all and would welcome thoughts. Either way I will prepare a speaking note and circulate. I am copying Alana
as she will need to stand in for me at ET.
I do not have high expectations for the Panorama meeting but it is important and might give us an opportunity
POL00317411
POL00317411
to make key points.
Following that meeting, I suggest we contact Panorama to confirm that we will not be taking part in the
programme.
With apologies for another note to clear, I suggest text along lines of below, which could also form the basis
of our public statement.
I would welcome views.
T'd like to catch up with whoever is around on this at 2pm today in FD If possible.
Mark
Thanks for your emails and questions over recent weeks.
It has become clear from your emails and questions, mainly submitted after the two hour meeting we held to
allow you to ask questions, that the focus of your programme is to be on individual cases.
As you know we are bound by a confidentiality agreement in relation to individuals who submitted
applications to the mediation scheme. We don’t intend to break that agreement.
Given that you will no doubt wish to ask questions about individual cases, as is your right, and that we won’t
be able to answer, because of our obligations to individuals, your programme will be unable — sadly for all
concerned — to reflect a balanced picture.
As you are also aware some individuals have asked the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission to
examine their cases. That is their right. It is also further reason to avoid making public comment on individual
cases.
We therefore feel unable to take part in your programme. We are very sorry about this, as there is so much
more to this issue than meets the eye.
We are particularly sorry because of the risk of the programme, without our input, unfairly impacting the
thousands of postmasters and branch colleagues who successfully use the robust Horizon system every day on
behalf of our customers.
We will do everything we can to support all those who work under the Post Office name in every corner of
the land.
For the record, you may use any element of this note for your programme as a statement. I hope you will do
so fully in order to reflect as clearly as possible the Post Office’s resolute position on this matter. The
following points are critical:
We don't prosecute people very often. But in a billion pound business, sometimes it is necessary.
We don't prosecute on a whim. The courts would throw the case out if we did.
We don't prosecute people for making mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes.
We only prosecute when there is clear evidence of criminal intent, such as knowingly covering up of branch
losses.
We think prosecuting in those cases is reasonable: and we think customers would agree (it’s their money after
all).
Getting into a muddle with other people’s money and then covering that up to the tune of several thousand
pounds cannot be excusable in any business.
Where there is criminal behaviour we will act and that is what we have done in the past.
But in the face of serious allegations about our computer system and processes, the Post Office has done the
right thing.
We launched an inquiry, set up an independently verified mediation scheme and thoroughly re-investigated
every case put to it.
Throughout all that, no actual evidence has emerged to support the allegations we expect to be made in the
POL00317411
POL00317411
Panorama programme.
Customers can therefore be assured that, after almost three years of investigation, there is no reason to suggest
that our computer system does not work as it should. Indeed it is robust and effective in dealing with six
million transactions a day.
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Post Office Ltd