WBONO0000343
WBON0000343
From: "Gaisford, Rosie" <. GRO b
To: "Parsons, Andrew" < GRO >
Subject: Spot Reviews [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:52:30 +0000
Importance: High
Attachments: Horizon_Spot_Review_5_-_Response.pdf; Supporting_Evidence_1.zip;
Supporting Evidence_2.zip; desnethld0016-06062013.zip
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png;
image006.png; image007.png; image008 jpg
Andy
Just to keep you in the loop, I spoke to Rodric earlier today; he said he was very happy with the approach we have
been taking and is impressed overall.
He had some amends which I have noted to the SR responses, a number of which I haven't been able to make
without some documentation he said he would send (witness statements in certain judicial review proceedings he
has been involved in). These witness statements apparently reference certain clauses in the modified SPMR
contracts with Post Office. He has asked that I find the clauses in the standard contract between SPMR and Post
Office which mirror those in the modified contract and insert these with an explanation where appropriate. I have
just this minute received the documentation from Rodric and so I will start working on the amends now. As you
will see from my email to Simon, I explained this and said I would provide the final responses to him by mid-
morning tomorrow (if he is happy with that approach) which he has confirmed he is. This will enable me to run
the changes past Gavin tomorrow morning before they go out (Gavin is not around today and Tom said he would
prefer Gavin to review them rather than him).
I also spoke to Steve Allchorn regarding SR 5. He confirmed he has sent the response to SR 5 to Second Sight on
Thursday of last week. He sent me what he sent to Second Sight regarding this spot review (attached above).
Hope that all makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
R
From: Steve Allchorn [
Sent: 10 June 2013 11:05
To: Gaisford, Rosie
Subject: FW: In Confidence - Spot Review 5 Response
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
Hi Rosie
Our earlier phone conversation relates. Second Sight were issued with this information last Thursday.
Thanks
Steve Allchorn I IT & Change Lead CPMO Manager
WBD_000213.000001
WBONO0000343
WBON0000343
© ;
(2) Post Office stories
©
@postofficenews
From: Steve Allchorn
Sent: 06 June 2013 23:49
To: ‘Ian Henderson’; 'Ron Warmington’
Cc: Simon Baker; Lesley J Sewell; Alwen Lyons; Pete Newsome
Subject: In Confidence - Spot Review 5 Response
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
lan/Ron
Please see attached formal responses to Horizon Spot Review 5 and a series of attachments supporting the
response document.
If you have any further lines of enquiry then please contact me.
Many thanks to Pete Newsome for co-ordinating the Fujitsu response in good time.
Steve Allchorn I IT & Change Lead CPMO Manager
2 Flr, Central Wing, 148 Old Street, LONDON, ECIV 9HQ
©®BO©OO®
@postofficenews
From: Ian Henderson j.
Sent: 03 June 2013 17:36
To: Steve Allchorn
Cc: Simon Baker; 'Ron Warmington’
Subject: RE: Follow up from call
Sensitivity: Confidential
Steve
I'm sorry for the delay in replying. There’s a lot going on at the moment...
I attach a copy of Spot Review 5 which describes the allegations that have been made.
WBD_000213.000002
WBONO0000343
WBON0000343
The emails that have been forwarded to you appear to describe matters that may be relevant to the allegation.
Please note that we are primarily interested in finding out the following:
1. What capabilities did the POL Bracknell team have? (As far as TC or Rem Out type transactions or Journal
adjustments are concerned)
2. What were the PHYSICAL or LOGICAL controls over their use of the systems available to them?
3. What audit trail is available to show the extent that they posted TC or Rem Out type transactions, or
Journal adjustments?
4. Can we reply of the COMPLETENESS of the audit trail? i.e. does it record all transactions or just
transactions meeting certain criteria? Is it protected from user manipulation?
5. What USER ID was used if TC type transactions or journal adjustments were posted?
Could the POL Bracknell team log on with either super user or SMPR credentials?
7. How would TC, Rem Out or Journal Adjustment type transactions executed by the POL Bracknell team be
seen by SPMR of Branches affected by those actions?
a
There are probably other questions / issues that will arise after you have had a preliminary look at this.
Please note that we’re not really interested in what the procedures manual says about any of this. We need to look
at whether it would be possible for a rogue employee to do what is alleged and what log files would be generated
to record that activity. Please note that I have now been provided with a second batch of employee email and I
may find other emails that are potentially relevant to this matter.
Thank you for your help with this
With best wishes
Ian R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure specialist
UK Mobile:
com
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/forensicgod
Twitter: http://twitter.com/forensicgod
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at
irht te) and delete the email and any attachments.
From: Steve Allchorn i GRO H
Sent: 30 May 2013 12:43
To: Ian Hendersoni
Subject: FW: Foll
Sensitivity: Confidential
Hi lan
I’ve been forwarded the email stream below however having not been party to prior conversations or spoken to
Susan as she is formally off-work I just need to understand the context of the enquiry as the email pdf’s attached
are a collection of individual instances rather than a clear line.
My perception of what I think you need is;
1) Aclear documentation/articulation of the end-to-end Transaction Corrections process, how it is applied
and the sign-off authorities that are in place (e.g. subpostmaster acceptance etc.).
2) An understanding of how the attached email instances relate to that process and authorities.
WBD_000213.000003
WBONO0000343
WBON0000343
Let me know if I’m on the right lines or not.
Thanks
Steve Allchorn I IT & Change Lead CPMO Manager
Post Office stories
@postofficenews
©BOOO®
From: Susan Crichton
Sent: 28 May 2013 15:00
To: Steve Allchorn
Cc: Alwen Lyons
Subject: FW: Follow up from call
Sensitivity: Confidential
Steve — copy of some of the emails as extracted by lan Henderson, please can you forward to FJ as appropriate.
Susan
From: Ian Henderson
Sent: 28 May 2013 09:
To: Susan Cricl i
Cc: rwarming!
Subject: RE: Follow up from call
Sensitivity: Confidential
GRO
Susan
! attach 11 emails from our preliminary review of the Bracknell data. Please note that I only received the second
batch of Bracknell data on Friday and it will take 3 or 4 days to process.
With best wishes
Ian R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure specialist
UK Mobile
http://advancedforensics.com
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/forensicgod
Twitter: http://twitter.com/forensicgod
WBD_000213.000004
WBONO0000343
WBON0000343
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
privile; ed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at
}and delete the email and any attachments.
From: Susan Crichton [
Sent: 24 May 2013 17:54
To: ‘irhi
Ce: 'rwarming.
Subject: Re: Follow up from call
Sensitivity: Confidential
4; Alwen Lyons
lan - thanks could you also send the details of the relevant emails to help us move forward this work next week.
Thanks
Susan
From: Ian Henderson
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 09:35 AM
To: Alwen Lyons; Susan Crichton
Cc: 'Ron Warmington’ =
Subject: Follow up from call
As requested, please find attached the letter from JA to JFSA received by us on 19 April
I also attach the Rudkin Spot Review sent to POL on 10 May
With best wishes
Ian R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure specialist
UK Mobile
LinkedIn “http: //linkedin. com/in/forensicgod
Twitter: http://twitter.com/forensicgod
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be
rivileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at
nd delete the email and any attachments.
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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
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.
WBD_000213.000005
WBONO0000343
WBON0000343
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
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: 148 OLD STREET,
LONDON EC1V 9HQ.
WBD_000213.000006