POL00401681
POL00401681
ra ETI CA Registered Office:
ww 31 High Street, Stokesley, North Yorkshire, 189 5LQ, UK
Knowledge I Skills I Advocacy
Review of Project May (Phase 1)
1st day of March 2024
Reference: ETICA/POL/1/24
‘Company Registration
ETICA (Global) Lid is @ registered company in England and Wales No. 13737960
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 2 poor
Table of Contents
Credentials of Report Author wd
Background
Qualifications...
Membership of professional bodies
1. Background to ETICA (Global) Ltd
1.2. What does ETICA (Global) provide?......
2. Background to Project May
2.1. Instructions provided to ETICA (Global) ...
2.2. Additional information provided to ETICA (Global) ...
2.3. I Documentation received
3. Report Findings.
3.1. Investigative approach (conduct)
3.2. The project's ethos (conduct)...
3.3. Unconscious bias (conduct)
3.4. Evidential basis (conclusion)
3.5. Objectivity (conclusion)....
3.6. Unconscious bias (conclusion) .....
3.7. Reasonableness of scope of enquiry (conclusion)...
4. Conclusions .....
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 3
Credentials of Report Author
Professor Gavin E. Oxburgh PhD, MSc, BSc (Hons), PgCLTHE, CPsychol, CSci, FBPsS, FHEA
Registered Forensic Psychologist
Background
Professor Oxburgh is a Registered Forensic Psychologist with the UK's Health and
Care Professions Council (HCPC) and an Expert Witness with the British Psychological
Society. He is a Professor of Police Science at Northumbria University, UK and he is
also a Visiting Professor at the Norwegian Police University College, Oslo, and the
Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Kings College London. He is an
Executive Board member of the International Chiefs of Police (IACP), International
Managers of Police Academy and College Trainers (IMPACT) Section. His academic
research career has been dedicated to improving police and law enforcement
interview methods, assessing risk of unreliable confessions, and contributes to the
broad area of legal and forensic psychology including: communication, human
rights; the investigative interviewing of victims, witnesses and suspected offenders;
the social and cognitive processes associated with achieving co-operation (incl. the
effects of vulnerability, culture, empathy, and rapport-building); miscarriages of
justice; false and recovered memories, and; historical allegations of child sexual
abuse. He has analysed in excess of 4-500 police interviews/operations, including
victims, witnesses, suspected offenders and undercover operations, a consequence
of which has been to establish the ways in which the reliability of evidence is
obtained. He was the founding Director of the International Investigative
Interviewing Research Group, an international network of interviewing professionals
devoted to improving interview standards; a group he Chaired until July 2019. In
2021, he founded ETICA (Global), a social enterprise (not-for-profit) organisation,
developed to deliver capacity-building through training, professional advisory
services, knowledge exchange, and innovation for ethical investigative practice
across the globe; Professor Oxburgh is the Executive Director.
He has published his research widely in International academic journals in the area
of forensic and legal psychology, policing, and communication and has co-edited
three highly successful books on: Communication in Forensic and Legal Contexts;
Current Developments and Practices of Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation
Across the World, and; Interviewing and Interrogation: A Review of Research and
Practice Since World War I (open access). He has worked in close collaboration with
various agencies worldwide including (but not limited to): Fair Trials; The International
Criminal Court (ICC); The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the South African Police
Service; The European Investment Bank; the UK Ministry of Defence (Royal Air Force),
and; various UK police forces. From 2016 to May 2021, he was an invited expert who
sat on a United Nations-led international Steering Committee that developed and
drafted The Mendez Principles on effective interviewing for investigations and
information gathering. This was a four-year project carried out in conjunction with
the Anti-Torture Initiative, the Association for the Prevention of Torture, and the
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. More recently, he has provided general
interview training to the Great Britain-China Centre, the Institute of Defense of the
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 4
Right to Defense (IDDD), the Eastern African Police Chiefs Co-operation
Organisation, and the Chilean Fundacion Amparo Y Justicia.
Professor Oxburgh has attracted in excess of £4.8m in research grants to date from
(but not limited to) the ESRC/EPSRC, The British Academy, The Forces in Mind Trust,
The Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, the College of Policing, and the N8 Policing
Research Partnership. He regularly reviews research grants, empirical research
papers and books for various research councils, major publishers and internationally
renowned journals. He is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling and sits on many others. In 2017, he was awarded
Associate Investigator status of the Academic Centre of Excellence in Cyber
Security Research (ACE-CSR) which is EPSRC and GCHQ managed. Prior to entering
academia, Professor Oxburgh was the Child Protection Training Lead for NHS
Lothian, Edinburgh, following a 22-year career in His Majesty's Royal Air Force Police
as a senior detective, specialising in child/family protection and sexual offences,
working across Europe and the UK. His full Curriculum Vitae is attached at Appendix
1.
Qualifications
Educated in the United Kingdom, Professor Oxburgh has the following professional
and academic qualifications/titles:
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK;
Master of Science (MSc) in Forensic Psychology, University of Portsmouth, UK;
Bachelor of Science (BSc Hons) in Psychology, The Open University, UK;
Post-graduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
(PgCLTHE), Teesside University, UK;
Fellow of The British Psychological Society (FBPsS), UK;
Fellow of The Higher Education Academy (FHEA), UK;
Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol) of The British Psychological Society, UK;
Chartered Scientist (CSci) of the UK Science Council.
Membership of professional bodies
Professor Oxburgh is a member of the following professional bodies:
e The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) - Registered Practitioner
Forensic Psychologist (Registration number: PYL28742);
e The British Psychological Society (Membership number: 040355);
The International Investigative Interviewing Research Group (ilIRG) - Chair
(Apr 07 - Jul 19) and Founding Director;
The UK Higher Education Academy (HEA);
The International Association of Chiefs of Police;
The American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS);
The European Association of Psychology and Law (EAPL).
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 5
1. Background to ETICA (Global) Ltd
ETICA (Global) (Ethical Training in Interviewing, Communication and Advocacy) was
established in 2021 to deliver capacity-building through training, professional
advisory services, knowledge exchange, and innovation for ethical investigative
practice across the globe.
Through the provision of high-quality, evidence-based training and professional
advisory services, ETICA (Global) aims to eradicate poor and coercive practices
through promoting skilled investigative practice consistent with international human
rights and ethical conduct while meeting the needs of investigative, military,
security, and legal practitioners, irrespective of global location.
The ETICA (Global) team has extensive expertise in policing, psychology, criminal
justice, and human rights law with members involved in conducting consultancy,
expert witness testimony, and training programmes across many international
jurisdictions including North America, Latin America, China, South-East Asia, Europe,
and Africa. In addition to our highly qualified panel of international experts, the work
of ETICA is also supported by a prestigious Scientific and Professional Advisory Board
of international leaders in research and practice.
1.2. What does ETICA (Global) provide?
ETICA (Global) operates with the parameters of The Mendez Principles on Effective
Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering. The Mendez Principles!
are, in essence, an acknowledgement that the successful outcome of an
investigation (and subsequent interview/s) are inter-connected with the full
enjoyment of human rights by a person at each stage of contact with state
authorities - regardless of whether such encounters are labelled as ‘conversations’,
‘interrogations’, ‘interviews’, or ‘questioning’. The Mendez Principles present an
alternative to the risks of coerced statements and brutality of torture (and alll its
manifestations), and a recognition that these tactics lead to false confessions, unfair
trials, and undermine the overall delivery of justice. With a focus on ethical practice,
ETICA (Global) delivers capacity building through evidence-based training
programmes, professional advisory services and advocacy support to policing, law
enforcement, the judiciary, military, security, intelligence, and legal professionals , in
three expert domains:
1.2.1. Interview Practice (for suspects, victims, witnesses and ‘other persons of
interest') covering topics such as questioning approach, rapport and
empathy, memory, deception, false or coerced confessions, reluctance, and
vulnerability (including gender-based violence and abuse of children); to
include ethical and evidence-based interviewing techniques and
consideration of the psychological impact of degrading treatment on
information elicitation.
" Mendez, J. et al. (2021). Principles on Effective interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering. Retrieved February 2023 from
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 6
1.2.2. Organisational Change covering topics such as Identifying the skills, resources,
and regulatory environment necessary for successful change, overcoming
resistance to change, including building a culture of learning and innovation
that is effective, efficient, and adaptable.
1.2.3. Legal Oversight and Safeguarding covering legal and procedural safeguards
necessary for effective non-coercive interviewing, including the recording
and transcription of interviews, recording of confessions, and receiving and
managing complaints during active cases; to include responsibility of custody
managers (e.g., access to legal and medical support, records, complaints,
and oversight) and generation of checklists for relevant legal and procedural
safeguards.
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 7
2. Background to Project May
a. Project May is a ‘fact-find’ undertaken by Post Office Ltd (POL) Assurance and
Complex Investigations Unit (ACI). It was instituted after the response to a
freedom of information request from a member of the public made POL aware
of a historic document retained by POL's former investigations’ function (‘the
Document’). The Document contained archaic and offensive terminology to
describe ethnicities in relation to identification code numbers applied to ethnic
groupings.
b. In summary, Project May's aim was (as Phase 1): (i) to determine how ‘the
Document’ came into being and why the descriptors in question were retained
therein; (ii) to understand ‘the Document's' use during the independent
lifetime of POL (i.e., since 2012), and; (iii) as a broader consideration, and as a
distinct Phase 2, to understand whether the identification codes set out in ‘the
Document’ (and/or the terminology used therein) had a material effect on
POL's investigators’ or prosecutors’ case disposal decision-making.
c. To provide assurance as to the proper undertaking of Project May, POL
engaged Outer Temple Chambers to review the project's activities and
evidence, provide legal advice where necessary, and provide input and
commentary on its work products. From this, ETICA (Global) were requested to
assist (see below).
2.1. Instructions provided to ETICA (Global)
ETICA (Global) was requested to undertake two parallel lines of assessment,
considering:
a. The conduct of the Project May fact-find, and;
b. The conclusions reached by the Project May fact-find.
In more detail, we were asked to comment on the following aspects of the project:
2.1.1. Conduct of the ‘fact find’
a. Investigative approach:
i. The questions set for the project to examine (see paragraph xx
of the project Report);
ii. I The sequencing of the enquiries undertaken;
iii. I The use of digital forensics;
iv. The interaction between the project and the Horizon Inquiry.
b. The project's ethos:
i. Whether Project May's conduct was appropriate to the issues —
in particular, the fact that the subject matter raised issues of
potential discrimination;
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 8 poor
ji. IThe degree to which the conduct of the project reflected an
appropriate investigative mindset and kept an adequately
open mind as to potential outcomes;
ii. I The degree to which the fact-find has been fair to witnesses and
providers of information.
c. Unconscious bias:
i. The consideration by the project of unconscious bias as a risk
factor;
ii. I Any mitigating steps taken to deal with a possibility of
unconscious bias;
iii. I Whether unconscious bias was demonstrated.
2.1.2. Conclusions of the ‘fact find’
a. Evidential basis:
i. The degree to which conclusions were adequately based on
(and arise from) the evidence;
ii. IThe degree to which conclusions reached adequately reflect
the balance of probabilities.
b. Objectivity:
i. The degree to which the findings reached, and the way in
which material gathered was interpreted in those findings,
demonstrates objectivity.
c. Unconscious bias:
i. The degree to which the conclusions reached appear to be
free from unconscious bias, and/or take the risk of such bias into
account.
d. Reasonableness of scope of enquiry (taking into account that this was
not a criminal investigation, or an inquiry undertaken as part of legal
proceedings):
i. The degree to which the investigation has properly balanced
speed of delivery with comprehensiveness of findings;
ii. I Whether decisions as to lines of enquiry to be followed were
reasonable.
2.2. Additional information provided to ETICA (Global)
While ETICA’s product is not intended to play any part in civil legal proceedings, POL
nonetheless agreed that ETICA and those individuals undertaking the work should do
so, as far as is practical, on the basis of the stipulations of CPR Part 35, and in
particular of Practice Direction 35 which accompanies it. Namely:
a. ETICA's report should be the independent product of the ETICA staff
preparing it;
b. Its contents should reflect the objective and unbiased opinions of those staff
on matters within their expertise, not seeking to advocate for or satisfy the
desires (expressed or perceived) of POL for any specific opinion;
c. The staff concerned should consider all material available to them,
irrespective of the direction in which it leads their opinion ;
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 9 poor
d. The report should detail the writers’ qualifications, any literature relied on,
make clear which facts included in the report are within the writers’ own
knowledge, and indicate the basis for the opinions reached.
2.3. Documentation received
ETICA (Global) received the following documentation from POL via secure Qualtrics
links on different dates during February 2024:
a. 20240203 Project May report FINAL A_Redacted.pdf
b. 20240208 Project May report FINALA.pdf
c. 1xlarge zip file containing the following documents/folders /emails:
iii.
iv.
Vv.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix.
xxii.
xxiii.
xxiv.
XXV.
xXxvi.
Document entitled: 23'¢ May 2011
Document entitled: 2016 confidential email exchange re
disclosure.pdf
Document entitled: 2016 Helen Dickinson email (unreadable)
Document entitled: Andrew Wise- fact find project May.docx
Document entitled: Andy Bannister RM- Search for Appendix
6.docx
Document entitled: Andy Morley-NPA.docx
Document entitled: Andy Morley.docx
Document entitled: Appendix 6 - Identification Codes.doc
Document entitled: Case Process Stuff.msg and contained the
following:
a. Identification Codes.doc
b. Triggers and Timescales June 2011 (3).doc
c. Intel process (2).doc
d. Security Operations Team Asset Recoveries v2.doc
Document entitled: CCRC_108172704.pdf
Folder entitled: Compliance (from 2011 email)
Zip File entitled: Compliance (from 2011 email).zip
Folder entitled: Compliance 2012-2013
Zip File entitled: Compliance 2012-2013 A.zip
Zip File entitled: Compliance 2012-2013.zip
Document entitled: copy email Keith Gilchrist.docx
Document entitled: Dave Pardoe email.docx
Document entitled: David posnett Letter A.docx
Document entitled: Discussion with Jason Collins.docx
Document entitled: Email series re compliance.pdf
Document entitled: Emails Forwarded by Andrew Wise.docx
Document entitled: ETHNIC GROUP CODES - Copy.doc
Document entitled: ETHNIC GROUP CODES.doc
Document entitled: Fact find with Jason Collins.docx
Document entitled: Fact Finding - Chris Knight.docx
Document entitled: FW Case Compliance.msg — email with
attached zip file entitled Compliance 2012-2013.zip which
contained the following documents:
a. Appendix I - Form.xis
b. Appendix 2 - File Construction & Appendices A B C.doc
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 1000 pees
xxvii.
xxvii.
xxix.
XXX.
Xxxi.
xxxii.
xxxiil.
xxxiVv.
XXXV.
XXxvi.
XXxXvii.
XxxVili.
XXXIX.
xl.
xii.
xiii,
xiii.
xliv.
xlv.
xlvi.
xlvii.
xviii.
xlix.
I.
li.
li.
lili,
liv.
Iv.
Ivi.
Iii.
Appendix 3 - Offender Reports & Discipline Reports.doc
Appendix 4 - Offender Reports Layout.doc
Appendix 5 - Discipline Reports Layout.doc
Appendix 6 - Identification Codes.doc
Appendix 7 - Tape Summaries.doc
Appendix 8 - Notebooks.doc
Appendix 9 - All In One Case Toolkit v1.xis
Document entitled: FW Casework Compliance.msg
(unreadable)
Document entitled: FW_ Case Compliance.msg (unreadable)
Document entitled: Historic Emails.msg which contained the
following:
a. Email 1 - Casework Compliance
b. Email 2- Case Compliance
c. Email 3- Case Process Stuff
d. Email 4 - SharePoint Extraction
Document entitled: KCCRC-108172704.pdf
Zip folder entitled: KPMG email and ID Codes.zip
Document entitled: LETB-0001709341-2004 postal order.doc
Document entitled: May 3A.bmp
Document entitled: May 3B.bmp
Document entitled: May 4A.bmp
Document entitled: May 4B.bmp
Document entitled: May 5A.bmp
Document entitled: May 5B 1.bmp
Document entitled: May 6A.bmp
Document entitled: May 6B.bomp
Document entitled: May 8A.bmp
Document entitled: May 8B.bomp
Document entitled: MG11 MORLEY Andrew.pdf
Document entitled: Microsoft Teams-image (1).png
Document entitled: Microsoft Teams-image.png
Document entitled: Modern Day Codes used in Excel
Documents Relating at offences at Post Offices.docx
Document entitled: Museum- appendix 6.JPG
Document entitled: NPA 01 11-12.doc
Document entitled: npoaolform.pdf
Document entitled: Offensive document- assistance
request.docx
Document entitled: Op May emails.docx
Document entitled: P6 DOWNLOAD EMAILS.docx
Document entitled: Pé EMAIL DOWNLOAD SUMMARY 2.docx
Document entitled: P6 EMAIL DOWNLOAD SUMMARY.docx
Document entitled: Project MAY mair.xlsx
Document entitled: R9R44 Question 5 HSF-
LONDON_11.FID3465445- Claire Nicholson.msg and contained
the following:
a. HSF EMAIL.docx
Document entitled: RE SharePoint Extraction WBDUK-
Active.FID27 103746.msg and contained the following:
~sQ>9a0
Review of Project May (Phase 1) a]
Ivii.
lix.
xi.
Ixii.
Ixii,
Ixiv.
Ixv.
Ixvi.
Ixvii.
xviii.
Ixix.
Ixx.
POL00401681
POL00401681
File Construction & Appendices A B C.doc
Appendix C PEACE Investigative Interviewing.zip
Triggers and Timescales June 2011 (3)(1).doc
Suspect Offender Report Preamble Template Blank.doc
Offender Report Preamble (Discipline Manager) (v2.2 Jan
05).doc
Document entitled: RE Steve Bradshaw-fact find.msg
Document entitled: REDACTED WORD DOCUMENT PROJECT
MAY.docx
Folder entitled: Relevant emails
Document entitled: RMG Reporting procedure to the police -
Project May.pdf
Document entitled: Screenshot of Guardian link - Project
MAY.docx
Document entitled: Sharron Logan Case Compliance.msg and
contained the following:
Appendix 1 - Compliance Form(1).xis
Appendix 2 - File Construction & Appendices A B C(1).doc
Appendix 3 - Offender Reports & Discipline Reports(1).doc
Appendix 4 — Offender Reports Layout(1).doc
Appendix 5 - Discipline Reports Layout(1).doc
Appendix 6 - Identification Codes(1).doc
Appendix 7 - Tape Summaries(1).doc
Appendix 8 - Notebooks(1).doc
Appendix 9 - All In One Case Toolkit v1(1).xIs
Document entitled: Synopsis of email attachments identity code
unredacted.docx
Document entitled: Synopsis of email attachments Identity
Codes.docx
Document entitled: TERMS OF REFERENCE project May - Copy
A.docx
Document entitled: TOR-PROJECT MAY.docx
MAY = Action and Decision Log.xlsx
CV - John Bartlett
CV — Robert Hazel
22070
“sQ>9a0 50
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 12
3. Report Findings
As outlined in paragraph 2.1 above, ETICA (Global) was requested to undertake two
parallel lines of assessment, considering:
a. The conduct of the Project May fact-find, and;
b. The conclusions reached by the Project May fact-find.
This report will now address these two broad areas having considered all
documentation received from POL (see para. 2.3).
3.1. Investigative approach (conduct)
3.1.1. Having read the Final Report and Terms of Reference for Project May (see
paragraphs 2.3b and 2.3c, Ixvii), the investigative approach and the questions set for
the project to examine were, overall, perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.
However, the question (or aim) “...to determine if the descriptors used in the
document originated from the Home Office or other department of the State and if
so when they were in use in public service” (Final Report, para. 5b) could have been
broader to include other (non-state) law enforcement organisations like the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the European Police College
(CEPOL). I know from personal experiences having served with the Royal Air Force
Police in Germany, that some practices used by our European and US colleagues
were adapted for use within HM Armed Forces; this may well be the case for the
current enquiry. However, it is acknowledged that in the Final Report (see para. 77c),
establishing where the descriptors originated from remains (at this time) unanswered
and will likely be brought out by the ongoing Horizon Inquiry process.
3.1.2. Sequencing of the enquiries undertaken, the use of digital forensics, and the
interaction between the project and the Horizon Inquiry all appears to be clear,
diligent and wholly professional throughout.
3.2. The project's ethos (conduct)
3.2.1. As part of the project's ethos, it is necessary for all investigators involved to
have a good understanding of what is meant by an ‘investigative mindset’. As
outlined by the College of Policing (CoP)? for England and Wales, an investigative
mindset is the term used to describe a disciplined approach to all types of
investigation that ensures all decisions made are appropriate in nature, reasonable
and can be explained to others (in other words, legally defencible). There are five
broad approaches that all investigators of fact should maintain:
Understanding one's role in an investigation and their contribution
to the process from the outset;
ii. Being open-minded, professionally curious, and able to identify and
follow all reasonable and identifiable lines of enquiry;
2 Colage of Posing (2024). inoducton tothe auelnes on conducting efecive invexipaions, Accessed vin
iege. police uk/quidance/conducting -effective-inv Jinktodyetion on 15 Feb 24,
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 13
ii. I Being proportionate;
iv. Having an understanding, and being aware, of biases;
v. Good interpersonal skills.
3.2.2. From reviewing all documentation received, there is nothing to suggest that
the team involved with Project May had anything other than an appropriate
investigative mindset throughout. The ‘fact find’ identified key issues around ‘the
Document's' origin (from around 1987) and issues that are contrary to the Equalities
Act (2010). 1 found no evidence, whatsoever, of the Project May team displaying
any unfair treatment to witnesses and/or providers of information during the ‘fact
find’.
3.3. Unconscious bias (conduct)
3.3.1. A key aspect for any investigator in either a criminal or work-place
investigation is to ensure they conduct an ethical, unbiased and independent
inquiry about the facts of a given case$45. A major issue in all types of investigations
is judging individuals from pre-conceived ideas or notions and judging them as
either more or less credible as a consequence’®. This argument is highly pertinent for
the Project May team as any perceived bias may be more prominent with the
coverage of the Horizon investigation in numerous social media outlets.
3.3.2. There are five ways in which unconscious bias may present itself during an
investigation’ and include:
Confirmation bias: the tendency to look for information during an
investigation that supports one's own preconceptions. This is usually
done by interpreting evidence to confirm existing beliefs and
rejecting other evidence’;
ii. Affinity bias: Where an investigator favours people who are more
similar to them in terms of interests and background etc’;
iii. Priming bias: Where decisions are affected by one's exposure to
other information or material gained!°;
iv. Expediency/Rush to solve bias: Where decisions are made quickly
without considering all other evidence or facts;
v. Availability bias: This is where an investigator is easily influenced by
the most easily available evidence to hand!!.
3.3.3. From the information provided to me, I could not find any evidence of
unconscious bias by the Project May team. However, as this was a ‘fact find’
exercise, and not a criminal investigation, there are no video/audio files or
3 Ibid!
«Ibi?
5 Oxburgh, G.E. Myklebust,T.. Fallon, M., & Hartwig, M. (2023). Interviewing and interrogation: A review of research and practice since World Wer I
Published on 3 Nov 23 by: Torkel Opsahi Academic EPublisher: Brussels (ISBNs: 978 -82-8348-200-3 [print] 978-82-8348-201-0 [e-book])
* Perez, P. (2017).1s your investigator more biased than you think? Part 1: Unconscious bias can disrupt your workplace investigations . Ogletree: Deakins.
” Brinson, L., Cooper. C., Daly. E. Gallagher. KS., Gross. Kidwingia, P., Kopernackl, N.. MacGilivray, R,, Miler... Pokorny, K.. Schulze, K.. TOPOS, K.. &
Walthour, N. (2020). Unconscious bias: Increasing awareness, providing training and mitigating the impact of bias in workplace investigations . Ethics and
Compliance Initiative: Vienna, Austria
@ Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, Vol 2 Isue 2. pp.175 -220.
° Ibi
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 1400 pees
transcripts of interviews that I could analyse to determine any potential unconscious
bias and its impact.
3.4. Evidential basis (conclusion)
All conclusions in the Project May final report appear to be adequately based on
the evidence that was obtained and are adequately reflected on the balance of
probabilities.
3.5. Objectivity (conclusion)
I have no concerns regarding the findings reached and the way in which material
gathered was interpreted. From the information provided to me, I believe the
Project ‘fact find' was conducted with professionalism and demonstrated objectivity
from the outset; this is clear in the Project May ToRs (para. 2.3c, Ixvii).
3.6. I Unconscious bias (conclusion)
As previously highlighted at para. 3, I could not find any evidence of unconscious
bias by the Project May team, however, please note my previous point regarding
this finding (see para. 3.3.3).
3.7. Reasonableness of scope of enquiry (conclusion)
3.7.1. As previously highlighted in this report, the Project May ‘fact find’ was not a
criminal investigation, or an inquiry undertaken as part of legal proceedin gs.
As such, the process by which the ‘fact find’ was undertaken appears
reasonable, comprehensive, and conducted in a suitable time frame;
3.7.2. In terms of decisions made during the process, I was provided with the Project
May Action and Decision Log (MS Excel spreadsheet). This log commenced
on the 30'* of May 2023 (serial number: D001), with the last decision dated the
2°¢ of February 2024 (no serial number included). The Action and Decision Log
appears to be detailed and I have no concerns at this stage.
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 15
4.
41.
POL00401681
POL00401681
Conclusions
The following points can be made based on my reading of the material
supplied by POL (see para. 2.3), my own previous research, together with my
psychological and investigative expertise (see Appendix 1):
Al.
In April 2023, Post Office Ltd (POL) received a request under the Freedom of
Information Act for documents that were used by the Security Team between
2008-2011. Eight documents were supplied to comply with the request, one of
which had seven identity codes that described racial origins, one of which
used the outdated and offensive term ‘negroid’;
. The descriptors of the codes were believed to have been produced by the
State and used in law enforcement and the wider Criminal Justice System;
. Project May was established by POL to undertake a ‘fact find’ to identify any
earlier use of the offensive terms within documentation discovered during
eDiscovery searches or otherwise, in order to properly contextualise any use
during the post-2012 period. Please also refer to the Project May ToRs (para.
2.3c, Ixvii) for further details;
. ETICA (Global) were requested to be an Ethics Monitor to undertake an
independent check of the practices of the ‘fact find’;
. Based on the Final Report and all documentation provided by POL (see para.
2.4), it is my considered opinion that the ‘fact find' was comprehensive,
timely, and conducted with professionalism, demonstrating objectivity
throughout;
. All actions and decisions made appear to be well-founded and thorough - I
have no concerns at this stage;
. I could find no evidence to suggest any form of unconscious bias, however,
as this was a ‘fact find' exercise, and not a criminal investigation, there are no
video/audio files or transcripts of interviews that I could analyse to determine
any potential unconscious bias and its impact. The Project May team (for
whom I was provided Curriculum Vitaes) appear to be suitably trained with
regards to unconscious bias;
. Overall, I agree with all conclusions in the Project May (Phase 1) Final Report.
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 1600 peers
5. Recommendations
5.1. Based on my conclusions, I recommend the following for all staff involved in
Project May (and any related/further wider enquiries relating to the Horizon Inquiry):
Relating directly to Project May (Phase 1)
5.1.1. To liaise with other organisations like the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training
(CEPOL) to establish what identification codes they use (and refer to) relating
to different ethnicities.
General (fo maintain currency)
5.1.2. To undertake annual refresher training relating to unconscious bias;
5.1.3. To have regular training in order to remain up-to-date with current best
practice on science-based, psychologically-proven, guidance on non-
coercive investigations and interviewing (e.g., see The Mendez Principles on
Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering’.
"Ibi!
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 17
6. Declaration and Statement of Truth
I (Gavin Eric Oxburgh) declare that:
lam an expert in the field of psychology and policing, and I have been
requested to provide a statement. I confirm that I have read guidance
contained in two documents: (i) The British Psychological Society (BPS)
entitled: Psychologists as Expert Witnesses: Best Practice Guidelines for
Psychologists!3, and (ii); The Health and Care Professions Council approved
guidelines: Acting as an Expert or Professional Witness - Guidance for
Healthcare Professionals'4 both of which detail my role, and outlines my
responsibilities in relation to being an Expert Witness. I have followed the
guidance and recognise the continuing nature of my responsibilities of
revelation. In accordance with those duties, I:
(a) Confirm that I have complied with my duties to record, retain and
reveal material in accordance with the Criminal Procedure and
Investigations Act 1996, as amended;
(b) Have compiled an Index of all material (see para. 2.4). I will ensure
that the Index is updated in the event I am provided with or generate
additional material;
(c) That in the event my opinion changes on any material issue, I will
inform my contact at POL, as soon as reasonably practicable and give
reasons.
Statement of Truth
I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this
report are within my own knowledge and those which are not. Those that are
within my own knowledge, I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed
represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to
which they refer.
Signature!
"8 Brish Psychological Society (BPS) (2021). Psychologists as expert witnesses: Bes! practice guidelines for psychologisis. Accessed via
ting as an expert or nals. Accessed via
nals) on 22 Fab 24,
POL00401681
POL00401681
Review of Project May (Phase 1) 18