WBONO0000826
WBON0000826
GRO
Se At
From: "Parsons, Andrew"
To: Belinda Crowe <b. b>, Angela Van ‘Den-Bogerd _
GRO Andy Holt <é
Rodric Williams < GRO !
Ce: Chris Aujard < GRO >, David Oliver
, "claire.parmenter@_
i GRO }
Subject: RE: Post Office Mediation Claims. [BD-4A.FID20472253]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:42:12 +0000
Importance: Normal
Inline-Images: image001 jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg
Belinda
I've spoken to both Rodric and Simon Clarke at CK about the email from Priti Singh at Howe and all three of us have
similar thoughts on the way to proceed.
The only redactions made to the copies of the reports sent to SPMRs was to remove:
1. the personal information of some of the individuals named in the report (eg. names, telephone numbers, etc.)
2. aheader in the document that said that the document was subject to legal privilege when it clearly was not.
This was done to avoid any confusion over the privilege status of the document.
In light of this, I do not understand Howe & Co's complaint that there is substantial missing material. It is not
suggested that POL provides an un-redacted version of the report as (i) this is not necessary and (ii) we do owe some
duty of privacy to the individuals in involved. Instead, it is recommended that POL maintains its current position and
simply explains the redactions to the report.
In this vein, I've set out below a possible response to Howe to go from Chris. This response is purposefully short in
order to avoid any dialogue with Howe on this matter. I do not believe that this matter need go through the WG as this
is about POL's prosecution duties and not Scheme business. This response could, and in my view should, be sent
regardless of Steve Darlington's email below as it is important that POL's position is clearly stated before Ron's begins
to escalate Steve's views to the Working Group.
Just for background information, the material part of the Helen Rose report has nothing to do with her comments about
reversal data. SS and Howe are taking this point as evidence of a problem with the integrity of Horizon. In fact,
Helen's issue was that the credence data, although accurate, did not on its face clearly distinguish between automated
reversals and user generated reversals. This information is available but in a different report. The concern was not
with the data's accuracy but that the presentation of the data could be misleading if its limitation were not fully
understood. Putting this issue aside, the real (and confidential) reason that the report was disclosed was because
Helen's comment at the bottom of page 3 suggests that it was widely known that there were problems with Horizon.
This statement (regardless of whether it is correct) could have been used to attack Gareth Jenkin's credibility as POL's
Horizon expert as he had previously stated that there were no problems with Horizon.
As a side point — in Steve's email he refers to an "Andy Winn / Andy Lusher email". I don’t know anything about this
document — does this mean anything to anyone else?
Kind regards
Andy
Dear Ms Maru-Singh
I refer to your email of 7 April 2014.
The version of the report sent to Ms Robinson was redacted to protect the privacy and personal information of the
individuals named in the report. This was done to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. All material
information in the report has been provided to your client in full compliance with Post Office's legal duties. We will
therefore not be providing an unredacted copy of the report..
WBD_000696.000001
WBONO0000826
WBON0000826
For the sake of good order, I note that Post Office disagrees with the statements in your email about the integrity of
data on Horizon and the safety of convictions
I do not believe that this matter should delay the submission of your clients' CQRs. However, should you require
further time on any particular case you may of course apply in the usual way to the Working Group for an extension —
please make this request in writing to schemeenquiriesi~ ~~~
Yours sincerely
Chris Aujard
Andrew Parsons
Senior Associate
for and on behalf of Bond Dickinson LLP
Follow Bond Dickinson:
Blin}
www.bonddickinson.com
From: Belinda Crowe
Sent: 08 April 2014 19:42
To: Angela Van-Den-Bogerd; Parsons, Andrew; Andy Holt; Rodric Williams
Ce: Chris Aujard; David Oliver}
Subject: Fwd: Post Office Mediation Claims.
Please see below. Not yet decided about whether to postpone this week's WG call but does anyone know anything
about the email being quoted below about remote alteration of figures in branch? I think that this is a new one on
me.
Andy P, can we please chase CK for a response on the Rose report point.
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
448 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
Postlin I
belinda.crowe
From: Ron Warmington < GRO
Date: 8 April 2014 17:30:57 BST
To: ‘Belinda Crowe’ <{ GRO i
Ce: <f
Subject: FW: Post Office Mediation Claims.
Agenda item for this week's WG call perhaps?
WBD_000696.000002
WBONO0000826
WBON0000826
Regards, Ron.
From: Steve Darlington [i GRO
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 1:50 PM
To: 'Ron Warmington’
Cc: Post Office Group
Subject: FW: Post Office Mediation Claims.
Importance: High
Dear Ron,
As Priti has stated in her last sentence we are seeking a stay on the time limits on all cases under review due to the
implications of POL’s non-disclosure of system-generated transactions and Horizon’s integrity issues.
The ‘Helen Rose Report’ is of critical significance to all cases. The information contained within it is a compelling
case for such a stay in its own right. When combined with the Andy Winn/Alan Lusher email in the case of Ward
which explicitly states that Fujitsu can remotely change the figures in the branches without the SPMs’ knowledge
or authority, the case for a general stay is overwhelming.
We ask that the Working Party considers this request as a matter of urgency In order that we do not prejudice our
clients’ cases by omitting what is clearly information of the utmost general significance,.
We also request that the Working Party demands that POL acts quickly to provide the information requested in
Priti’s email immediately so that the mediation process is not hindered further.
Regards
Steve Darlington BA (Hons) ACA
Finance Director
Tel Fax:
1010 Great West Road, Brentford, TW8 9BA
www.howe.co.uk
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_000696.000003