POL00318987
POL00318987
From: Mark Underwood1[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MARK UNDERWO0222A42EC-51A8-4DFA-A353-
DCEA512679657B4]
Sent: Thur 06/08/2015 9:57:21 AM (UTC)
To: Mark R Davie:
Ce: Melanie Corfield?
Subject: RE: POIRs
Fantastic — thanks.
Mark Underwood
i iew and Mediation Scheme
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 06 August 2015 10:57
To: Mark Underwood1
Cc: Melanie Corfield
Subject: Re: POIRs
Letter I think.
It was ok. She was relatively calm and Jane and Paula did a v good job. SS have been emailing her and
Bridgen. She is unconvinced by our rebuttal to the SS report.
No terrible outcomes and general agreement that holding the line is the right approach.
M
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Post Office Ltd
On 6 Aug 2015, at 10:53, Mark Underwood1 7
Are you out from the meeting Mark - it go ok?
lam in a meeting from 11 but will take a look at the below are that. Is this for a letter of telephone call?
Mark Underwood
i iew and Mediation Scheme
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 06 August 2015 10:52
To: Melanie Corfield
Cc: Mark Underwood1
Subject: Re: POIRs
I'm happy if legal are?
POL00318987
POL00318987
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Post Office Ltd
On 6 Aug 2015, at 08:26, Melanie Corfield
Like you Mark, I am cooling off completely on doing much more editorially but:
- On the Hamilton case we should (a) knock down the docs they have completely. By
more explicitly 'standing by’ our documents , Karen might feel slightly more uneasy and
curb the misconduct laims (b) address the POR issue.
We must do this because Karen thinks it is a killer fact. I've played around with some lines -
T have no idea if they are correct in criminal law! Let me know if they even make sense.
Mel
Operational errors can be innocent mistakes or they can be dishonest. As we have said
before, in cases where an audit discloses a loss in circumstances where there is
evidence of false accounting, the fact of the loss together with the false entries
will often be regarded as sufficient evidence on which to base a charge of
theft.
But the Code for Crown Prosecutors’ test for ‘sufficient evidence for a reasonable
prospect of conviction’ could, naturally, require more evidence than that for bringing
a charge. It can involve many months of investigation and obtaining further evidence
before it is met. Further evidence can be entirely unrelated to Horizon and use
of the system. This would not form part of the mediation scheme review or
documentation - it was not a criminal cases review.
- Panorama is intending to include extracts from documents in the programme. None
of the documents you have raised with us, support any allegation of insufficiency of
evidence for the charge or prosecution that was brought, financial motive on the part
of the Post Office in doing so, or indeed any of the other allegations being made.
- The two privileged legal documents Panorama has extracted from are part of
the comprehensive privileged material from a legal file which contains all the
available prosecution documents, including those for the prosecution’s
preparation for going to trial on the charge and unused evidence for trial.