WBONO0000567
WBON0000567
From: Anthony de Garr Robinso1
To
Simon Henderson ¢.
Ce: Jonathan GribbenI _ GRO.
Subject: RE: Stage 3 Disclosure - Project Zebra [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:54:57 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png
Dear Amy,
This is an awkward issue. If we get it wrong — either by claiming too much privilege or too little — it could
be very damaging for the client.
Simon and I have had quite a long discussion and we are likely to conclude that privilege cannot be claimed
over the whole of the Zebra Action Summary but the parts which repeat or summarise the contents of the
Deloitte report can be redacted. However, we have identified a number of questions which should be
answered before final conclusions can properly be drawn. Some are factual and some are legal.
As you anticipated, we need further information regarding the background to the Deloitte report and the
Zebra Action Summary and would be grateful for clear instructions on the following points:
1. Is it definitely the case that the dominant purpose for which the Deloitte report was obtaining legal
advice about or obtaining information in connection with the conduct of anticipated litigation? We ask
because section I of the report records (amongst other things) that Deloitte were appointed to raise
suggestions for potential improvements in the assurance provision for Horizon and the final section of
the report contains 6 pages of recommendations to management to strengthen the quality and
assurance in place over the Horizon system. What we are hoping to receive is factual instructions
allowing us to be clear that the Deloitte report was not created for two equal purposes, one of which
was anticipated litigation and the other was making Horizon more robust (compare the unsuccessful
claim to privilege made in relation to the accident report in Waugh v British Railways Board).
2. Who produced the Zebra Action Summary, who was it produced for and for what purpose was it
produced? To whom was it disseminated and what actions were taken as a result of it?
3. What was the source and purpose of the “recommended remediations” set out in the Zebra Action
Summary For example, were they recommendations produced by management of changes to be made
in the systems around Horizon with a view to giving effect to recommendations of a more general
nature made in the Deloitte report?
4. Were these “recommended remediations” actually implemented?
WBD_000437.000001
WBONO0000567
WBON0000567
5. Who were the parties to the email you attached (Julie George, Lesley Sewell, Rod Ismay, David
Mason, Malcolm Zack and Gina Gould) and why was the Zebra Action Summary sent to them? Were
they part of the Post Office litigation team concerned with subpostmaster claims, for example, or were
they management people responsible for deciding what improvements to make to the Horizon systems,
or what?
With clear answers to these questions, and a bit of research from Simon, we can then take a final view.
Should we pencil in a telecon on Monday afternoon?
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Andrew Parsons <
Sent: 26 July 2018 13:51
To: Anthony de Garr Robinso1
Simon Henderson +
Ce: Jonathan Gribben } GRO }
Subject: RE: Stage 3 Disclosure - Project Zebra [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Sensitivity: Private
Tony
Thanks. I can only give a second-hand answer to question 1, because I was not involved in the first Deloitte report.
My understanding is that the report was produced on the recommendation of Linklaters and for the purpose of
understanding Post Office's litigation risk if the mediation scheme collapsed. We will however speak to Rod to confirm
this.
On question 2, we don't know the answer but I presume that there may be other similar documents out there.
However we only need to disclose those documents that fall within our Model C disclosure classes and only after
having conducted a reasonable search. So far, this is the only document on this nature that we have found. Note —
there are several other documents about Zebra but these are reports by lawyers and so are privileged.
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP.
WBD_000437.000002
WBONO0000567
WBON0000567
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON Ain)
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson [mailt«
Sent: 26 July 2018 13:30
To: Amy Prime; Simon Henderson
Cc: Jonathan Gribben; Andrew Parsons
Thanks for your email, Amy.
Simon and I will be discussing this later today. In the meantime, there are a couple of questions you might
be able to help me with.
First, the Deloitte report was marked “Privileged”. Is this because the report was commissioned for the
dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice about, or helping in the conduct of, anticipated litigation? Is it
definitely the case that an equally important purpose was not (say) reducing the incidence or risk of
undetected Horizon accounting errors in the future?
Second, am I right in thinking that there are lots of documents out there charting the steps taken to
implement Deloitte’s recommendations, that these steps included numerous changes that were made in
Horizon and/or in the systems and processes supporting, improving or ensuring the proper use of Horizon
and that some the relevant documents (at least) indicate that the relevant steps are being taken as a result of
Deloitte’s recommendations will have the relevant documents? Have these documents been / are they going
to be disclosed and if not, why not?
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Amy Prime
Sent: 25 July 2018 21:34 .
To: Anthony de Garr Robinson} GRO § Simon Henderson
; Andrew Parsons
C.FID26896945]
WBD_000437.000003
WBONO0000567
WBON0000567
Tony, Simon
In 2014 and as part of the Mediation Scheme, Linklaters produced a piece of advice for Post Office on the complaints
made by SPMRs about Horizon. A copy of this advice is attached. Linklaters recommended that Deloitte undertake a
review of the integrity of Horizon — this review is known as Project Zebra and a copy of Deloitte's report is also
attached.
Whilst Deloitte's report itself is covered by privilege and the Cs do not know of the existence of this report, we have
come across an ancillary document which followed on from the report and discusses how to implement the findings
within the business. This document falls within one of the Stage 3 Disclosure Classes and we are concerned that we
are not able to assert privilege over this document (or privilege would be limited to those sections which refer to the
Deloitte Report directly). I have attached the email chain but the document of interest is the Zebra Action Summary
attached to the email.
We would welcome your thoughts on whether privilege can be asserted over the Zebra Action Summary, if parts of the
document can be redacted for privilege or if the full document needs to be disclosed.
If you require any further information about the background to this document please let me know.
Kind regards
Amy
Amy Prime
Solicitor
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
‘Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
womblebonddickinson.com
¥®
WBD_000437.000004
WBONO0000567
WBON0000567
WOMBLE
BOND
DICKINSON
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership r cd in England and Wales under number OC317661. Our registered
office is 4 More London Riverside, London, SEI 2AU, where a list of members’ names is open to inspection. We use the term partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an
employee or consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627,
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, which consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing
in the US, the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of,
bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited does not practice law. Please see
www.womblebonddickinson.com/legal notices for further details.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
WBD_000437.000005