WBONO000724
WBON0000724
From: Anthony de Garr Robins
To: 'Simon Henderson’ I — Jonathan Gribben'
ndrew Parsons <}
RE: Question re POL's Opening Submissions [WBDUK-AC.FID 124042615]
: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 14:24:47 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png
That’s right. This was a way of making our second order issue point — that even if there had been some
dishonest or negligent injection, editing or deletion of branch data, it could not have occurred on more than a
tiny number of occasions. It was not intended as any sort of concession that there had been.
On our case, there was no factual basis for such a concession. We submitted that there was no evidence of
any dishonest injection etc of branch data or of any negligent injection etc of branch data. On the contrary,
on the basis of FJ’s evidence, we submitted that great care was taken in remotely changing branch data.
However, we did not go so far as to contend that mistakes were impossible.
As I recall, there were some examples of false reference data being added to the system and also some
examples of the injection etc of erroneous data into Post Office’s back end systems. In addition, although I
do not have the details to hand, my recollection is that there was one peak in relation to which Cs suggested
that false branch data was injected and we showed (and got Coyne to admit in XX) that this was not the
case. The judge should have deal with this in his judgment somewhere but I have not got to it yet. Does this
ring a bell with you, Jonny?
Tony
Sent: 09 December 2019 I
To: ‘Jonathan Gribben' <
< GRO_
Ce: Andrew Parsons <
Subject: RE: Question re POL's Opening Submissions [WBDUK-AC.FID124042615]
}>; Anthony de Garr Robinson
GRO. >
Jonny
I will let Tony take the lead on responding to this. My view is that it was certainly not the intention to make
any such concession. The point is made in the context of what we called “second order issues” which we
argued were relevant to the central issue of likelihood and extent. The point that we were making is that (i)
the need for remote access would be very rare — and in the unlikely event that remote access was required,
the Branch would generally be made fully aware of what was happening; so that (ii) it would only be if the
remote access was carried out negligently or dishonestly that it would give rise to any problem. We were not
conceding that such negligent or dishonest use had in fact occurred but we could not rule out the logical
possibility that it might have occurred. As a matter of common sense, it could only affect things in a tiny
proportion of instances of remote access which themselves occurred very rarely. The point of the argument
was to persuade the Court that the whole remote access issue simply could not account for the shortfalls
being claimed.
WBD_000594.000001
WBONO000724
WBON0000724
Best
Simon
From: Jonathan Gribben; GRO i
Sent: 09 December 2019 13:44
nthony de Garr Robinson (GRO. Simon Henderson
GRO >; 'Owain Draper" <
Ce: Andrew Parsons < GRO
Subject: Question re POL's Opening Submissions [WBDUK-AC.FID 124042615]
Dear all,
Brian Altman QC is advising Post Office in relation to the Horizon Issues Judgment from a criminal perspective. He
has asked the following question in relation to a statement made in para. 41 of our opening submissions:
"The reference in POL’s opening submissions to the occasions on which privileged Fujitsu users “have exercised their
ability to remotely inject, edit or delete branch transactions or accounting entries will represent a tiny percentage of the
relevant transactions/accounting entries. And the occasions on which they have done so negligently or dishonestly will
... represent a tiny percentage of those occasions” [A/2/18, para. 41]. This apparent concession made on behalf of
POL appears to be that entries may have been entered/edited/deleted negligently or dishonestly. On what factual basis
was this concession made?"
Please would you let me have a response for Brian?
Kind regards
Jonny
Jonathan Gribben
Managing Associate
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
WOMBLE seommblabon:
WBD_000594.000002
WBONO000724
WBON0000724
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
"ply is authorised to
BTe and delete any copies.
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidentis
access this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not shen
Unauthorised use, dissemin
personal data is in our Privacy Policy on our website.
Any files attached to this e-mail will checked by us with virus detection software before transmission. Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP accepts no liability for
which may be caused by software viruses and you should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
any loss or dam:
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is neithe
given nor endorsed by it
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered
office is 4 More London Riverside, London, SE1 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,
kinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Dickinson (International) Limited, which consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing
services in the US, the UK, and elsewh
nor can bind or obligate, another Womble Bond Dickinson ent
www,womblebonddickinson,comvlegal notices for further ¢
Womble Bond [
al entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of
‘Womble Bond Dickinson (Internation
does not practice law. Please see
‘Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Simon Henderson
4 Pump Court, Temple, London, EC4Y 7AN I www.4pumpcourt.com
Follow us on twitter @4PumpCourt
View Profile Connect with us on LinkedIn
Pump Court International I www.pumpcourtinternational.com
Terms of Work: Barristers at 4 Pump Court carry out services on 4 Pump Court Terms, which are available on our website,
unless otherwise agreed in writing. I Vi
Privacy: Your attention is drawn to our Privacy Notice in relation to any personal data that we may obtain and/or otherwise
process about you. I View Privacy Notice
Notice of Confidentiality and Privilege: This email (including attachments) is confidential to the addressee, and may be
subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the addressee, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise use it or any
information contained in this email. Please delete it, and destroy all copies
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_000594.000003
WBONO000724
WBON0000724
WBD_000594.000004