WITN03540100
WITN03540100
Witness Name: Peter John Rowley
Statement No.: WITN0354:
Exhibits: WITN0354_01/1 to WITN0354_01/29
Dated: 25 January 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF PETER JOHN ROWLEY
I, MR PETER JOHN ROWLEY, will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a former employee of Fujitsu Services Limited (“Fujitsu”). I currently hold a
part-time position as Chairman of Thales Pension Trustees Limited.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the
“Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request provided to me on
17 November 2022 (the “Request’) and subsequent questions asked of me by the
Inquiry, to the extent I have or had direct knowledge of such matters.
3. I note that the topics set out in the Inquiry’s Request relate to events that took place
over 12 years ago. I have set out my best recollection of those events, which relate
to the negotiation, development, re-baseline and management of Horizon Online (or
“HNG-X”), as well as the relationship between Fujitsu and Post Office Limited
(“POL”) at the relevant time. As I mention below, my period of employment at Fujitsu
ran from 2005 to 2009. I have tried to remember relevant events to the best of my
ability. However, there are areas where my recollection is unclear or limited.
Page 1 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
4. As requested by the Inquiry, I have refreshed my memory by reviewing the
contemporaneous documents brought to my attention by the Inquiry in the Request.
Where relevant, I have also drawn on other contemporaneous material made
available to me by Fujitsu. Where my recollection has been either supported by or
prompted by such documents, they are referred to using references
WITNO0354_01/1 to WITNO354_01/29 and are listed in the index accompanying this
statement.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
5. I qualified as a practising solicitor in England and Wales in 1980. I started my in-
house legal career in 1981 before moving to the General Electric Company PLC in
1990, where I held a number of senior managerial positions (including a four-year
relocation to Pittsburgh U.S.A.). I returned to the UK in 2004 and joined Thales UK
as Commercial Director.
6. I joined Fujitsu in 2005 as the Group Legal and Commercial Director, reporting
directly to the CEO of Fujitsu, David Courtley. On or around 1 April 2009, I then
became the interim Managing Director (“MD”) of the Private Sector Division of
Fujitsu UK and Ireland (“PSD”). My tenure in this role lasted just over three months,
ending in July 2009 when Duncan Tait was appointed as my permanent
replacement. I left Fujitsu in September 2009 and, shortly after, returned to Thales
UK as Commercial Director responsible for the business’ commercial activities
internationally. This included an 18-month secondment to Thales Australia. I retired
from full-time employment at Thales in 2018 but continued my part-time role as
Chairman of Thales Pension Trustees Limited.
Page 2 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
My Involvement in relation to Horizon
7. By way of background, throughout my time at Fujitsu, the Post Office Account
(‘POA’) predominantly operated out of Fujitsu’s Bracknell office, and the team
located there was responsible for managing day-to-day operations of the POA. This
team included, (i) David Baldwin as the Account Director, (ii) Liam Foley as the POA
Sales Director, and (iii) Colin Lenton-Smith as the POA Commercial Director. During
my time as Group Legal and Commercial Director, Colin Lenton-Smith reported to
the Commercial Director of the PSD at the time, Clive Bailey, who in turn reported
to me. Colin Lenton-Smith handed over to Guy Wilkerson towards the end of my
tenure as Group Legal and Commercial Director, although I do not recall when.
8. My involvement in relation to the POA differed between my role as Group Legal and
Commercial Director and my role as MD of the PSD. These roles are addressed in
turn below. However, in neither role was I involved in detailed technical issues
(either in relation to the POA or any other account) unless such technical issues
were likely to result in a dispute with the relevant customer. In those circumstances,
I would rely on the expertise of the relevant technical teams.
Group Legal and Commercial Director
9. As Group Legal and Commercial Director, I was responsible for legal and
commercial activities across all Fujitsu’s accounts. The POA was only one such
account. Until I joined Fujitsu in 2005, the Legal and Commercial functions worked
as separate teams. One of my first acts upon joining Fujitsu was to integrate these
two teams into one function.
Page 3 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
10. In light of the above, I had very limited involvement in the steady state services
operating in respect of the Legacy Horizon system or in the negotiations
surrounding, and development of, HNG-X. My role in respect of the POA during this
time related largely to reviewing and approving bid proposals and Change Control
Notes (also referred to as CCNs). The negotiation of contractual amendments or
changes to the Horizon system was largely undertaken by members of my team,
although I was available to answer any questions that the team might have.
Discussions with my team would typically relate to the status of negotiations with a
customer, with particular reference to requests that a customer might make during
negotiations for commercial concessions or commitments.
11. Although I was aware of delays in the delivery of HNG-X, nothing reported to me in
respect of the POA during my time as Group Legal and Commercial Director caused
me undue concern. The type of issues that would have been brought to my attention
during this time were typically those that might lead to serious commercial disputes
with the customer. I do not recall receiving any such reports in relation to the POA
at this time.
Managing Director of the PSD
12. As noted above, on or around 1 April 2009, I replaced Michael Stares as interim MD
of the PSD. I held this position until July 2009.
13. The PSD had oversight of the Fujitsu accounts responsible for delivering services
to customers in the private sector. Despite having a UK Government stake, the POA
fell within the remit of the PSD and was treated as a commercial account. During
my time as MD of the PSD, the POA therefore ultimately reported to me. As MD of
Page 4 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
the PSD, I also amended the reporting lines so that the POA reported directly to me.
POL were pleased with this change as it meant there were no intermediary levels of
management between me and the POA Account Director (see, for example,
WITNO354_01/1).
My Working Relationship with Post Office
14. As noted above, during my time as Group Legal and Commercial Director, I had
limited involvement with the POA and, as such, do not recall having a working
relationship with POL.
15. By the time I became MD of the PSD, Fujitsu’s relationship with POL had
deteriorated due to delays in the delivery of HNG-X. This deterioration can be seen
from the reports generated as part of Fujitsu’s ‘Customer Satisfaction Interview
Programme’, which POL took part in during at least 2008 and 2009 (see, for
example, WITN0354_01/2 to WITN0354_01/4). The main reason I recall for delays
in the delivery of HNG-X when I took over as interim MD of the PSD were the
programme management issues described in this witness statement.
16. I have been provided with documents which show that I did meet with Mike Young
and David Smith of POL during my three months as MD of the PSD (see, for
example, WITN0354_01/5 to WITN0354_01/10). While these documents have not
prompted my recollection of any specific meetings, in reviewing the documents, I
can see that I became more involved in the POA to, (i) provide some assurance to
POL that the issues they had identified in relation to the HNG-X programme were
being addressed, (ii) take accountability for fixing these issues, and (iii) meet Mike
Young to provide updates on the steps being taken to improve the programme's
Page 5 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
performance. As I note below, I was also involved in other meetings with POL,
including in relation to specific reviews and ‘Amber Alerts’.
17. In 2008 and 2009, I recall that POL took part in Fujitsu's ‘Customer Satisfaction
Interview Programme’.
HORIZON ONLINE/HNG-X
HNG-X Bid and Subsequent Negotiations
18. The Inquiry has asked about my involvement in relation to the HNG-X bid and my
understanding of the reasons why POL wanted to migrate to an online version of
Horizon. The bid for HNG-X took place early on in my tenure as Group Legal and
Commercial Director. In accordance with the description provided above in respect
of my involvement in the POA more generally at this time, I do not recall being
involved in the bid itself or the resulting contractual negotiation. These activities
would have been managed on a day-to-day basis by members of my team, with
external legal advice being sought where appropriate. I would, however, have been
part of a senior management review team for the bid along with, amongst others,
David Courtley and Brian Harris, then Chief Financial Officer of Fujitsu (the “Senior
Management Review Team’).
19. The Inquiry has referred me to an email from David Jones, Head of Legal for the UK
Commercial Business Unit (as it was at the time), to a Jeff Triggs dated 15 May
2006 and with subject line “HNG-X Conditionality” (the “Conditionality Email”)
(WITN0354_ 01/11). I am copied to this email with a number of other recipients. I do
not recall what is meant by “HNG-X Conditionality” or what the associated issues
were. The Conditionality Email does, however, demonstrate the involvement of
Page 6 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
David Jones and Colin Lenton-Smith from my team in negotiations surrounding
HNG-X, who I would have supported if any issues arose. The email also copies
Myles Blewett of Pinsent Masons LLP. I do not recall having any dealings with Myles
Blewett but Fujitsu had a longstanding relationship with Pinsent Masons in respect
of work on the POA.
20. The Inquiry has also pointed me specifically to item one of the Conditionality Email
and asked if I am aware of what the “issue” being discussed might be. I do not recall
what this might be a reference to, neither is it clear to me from the face of the
document what the “issue” might have been.
21. I do not believe that I would have reviewed the contract relating to HNG-X from end
to end at the relevant time. I would have reviewed the contract if I received specific
requests for clarification or direction in relation to particular aspects of the contract,
or as a result of an action relating to a ‘Group Review’. An example of document
listing such ‘Group Review Actions’ is noted below at paragraph 22.
The HNG-X Re-Baseline
22. The Inquiry has referred me to a contract approval ‘Group Review Actions’
document dated 18 September 2008 which relates to the HNG-X re-baseline (the
“HNG-X Re-Baseline Review’) (WITN0354_01/12). At this time, I would have been
Group Legal and Commercial Director. The HNG-X Re-Baseline Review is a typical
example of my involvement in approving contractual amendments during that time.
The Senior Management Review Team met frequently each week in relation to
these types of Group Review Actions. I do not therefore have any specific
recollection of the meeting that the HNG-X Re-Baseline Review relates to.
Page 7 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
23. As stated in the HNG-X Re-Baseline Review, by that time, the HNG-X programme
had suffered a 12-month slippage, having a significant impact on the project and
lifetime profit and loss (“P&L”). As a result, modifications and updates had to be
made to the original baseline P&L agreed for the project. In addition to updating the
baseline P&L, my understanding is that the HNG-X re-baseline also contained
increased functionality. It is for this reason that I referred to the HNG-X re-baseline
as a “key win” in a presentation I gave to the PSD when I took over as MD at the
end of financial year 2008/2009 (WITN0345_ 01/13).
24. In the HNG-X Re-Baseline Review, there was one action point listed under my
name. This was “to review the cure periods and termination risk’. Although I do not
recall the specific termination risks considered in respect of HNG-X, ordinarily, if a
project does not complete within the agreed time frame, there is a risk that this delay
will lead the relevant customer to seek termination of the contract. To mitigate this
risk, suppliers will attempt to negotiate a lengthy cure period to enable them to
remedy any bugs, defects or delays before the customer has a right to terminate the
contract.
25. In light of the above, by the time I became MD of the PSD in or around 1 April 2009,
the HNG-X contract had already been signed, and the re-baselining of the project
was complete. My focus as MD of the PSD was therefore to ensure that Fujitsu
could deliver HNG-X to time and cost.
Page 8 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
HNG-X Business Assurance Review
26. In order to respond to questions regarding the delivery of HNG-X, the Inquiry has
pointed me to documents WITN0354_01/10 and WITN0354_01/13 to
WITNO354_01/20.
27. From handover discussions with Michael Stares shortly before my commencement
as MD of the PSD, I understood that there were issues on the POA which had led
to delays in the delivery of HNG-X. In order to better understand those issues and
how best to address them, one of my first acts as MD was to commission a review
of the HNG-X programme by Fujitsu’s central Business Assurance team (the
“Business Assurance Review’). The Business Assurance Review included not
only interviews with Fujitsu staff but also with employees of POL, who were well
aware that the Business Assurance Review was being undertaken.
28. As is apparent from the face of the ‘PSD Review Pack’ from May 2009 at
WITN0354_01/14, the commencement of the Business Assurance Review and the
reasons behind it should provide some explanation as to why the HNG-X delivery
plan is described as a “Problem Contract’ and one of the immediate priorities listed
is to “get underneath HNGx and fully understand delivery and integration issues’.
This was a presentation given by me and my colleague Gareth Pugh (then Financial
Director of the PSD) to Roger Gilbert upon taking over the PSD.
29. The findings and recommendations resulting from the Business Assurance Review
are set out in a report dating from June 2009 (the “Review Results”)
(WITN0O345_01/18). Having refreshed my memory by considering the Review
Results whilst preparing this statement, the main findings of the Business Assurance
Page 9 of 18
30.
31.
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
Review appear to relate to issues with internal communication and programme
management. The Review Results do not appear to raise any fundamental technical
issues or defects with the HNG-X programme, with the ‘Technical’ findings in the
Review Results relating largely to programme management issues. If there were
such fundamental defects with the HNG-X programme, I would expect them to have
been raised in the Review Results.
In addition to the above, I have also been provided with a copy of a presentation
titled “HNG-X, Release 1, Re-plan Presentation”, which I gave to POL on 9 June
2009 along with colleagues Lester Young, Mike Wood, Alan D’Alvarez and Andrew
Hall, who by that time had taken over from David Baldwin as the POA Account
Director (the “Re-Plan Presentation”). Attendees from POL appear to have been
Mike Young (Operations Director), David Smith (Head of Change) and Mark Burley
(Programme Manager) (WITN0354_01/7 and WITN0354_ 01/8).
One of the first items addressed in the Re-Plan Presentation is a summary of the
failures identified by the Business Assurance Review. The Re-Plan Presentation
then goes on to describe the “Way Forward’, which included a “[mJjajor re-planning
exercise”. My understanding is that this ‘re-planning exercise’ was not a re-plan of
the programme as a whole, but a re-validation of the plan. If the Business Assurance
Review raised a major flag in relation to the current delivery plan and date, that
would have needed to be raised with POL. The primary purpose of the review was
to validate and make sure that we had the right people and processes in place to
secure the revised delivery date.
Page 10 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
Development of HNG-X
32. The Inquiry has asked me a number of questions in relation to my role in respect of
the development and rollout of HNG-X. At no point during my time at Fujitsu was I
involved in the day-to-day development of HNG-X, neither was I involved in
considering technical aspects of the system (I was not qualified to do so). The only
instances where I might have worked with members of the development teams
working on HNG-X would have been if fundamental defects were identified that may
have impacted the POA’s ability to meet the delivery timetable or led to a dispute
with POL. I do not recall any such issues being escalated to me by the POA during
my time at Fujitsu.
33. As described above, during my time as Group Legal and Commercial Director, I had
very limited involvement in the HNG-X programme. As MD of the PSD, however, my
focus was on ensuring that the delivery of HNG-X ran to time and in accordance
with agreed budgets, and on ensuring that suitable and sufficient resources were
available to do so. It is for this reason that I sought to strengthen the POA team
through a number of new recruitments, both at the POA level and at a PSD level.
These recruitments included Alan D'Alvarez as POA Programme Director and Mike
Wood the Head of Programmes for the PSD.
34. The recruitment of new resources was only part of the solution, however. This was
a very busy period in the delivery of HNG-X which, in combination with previous
programme management issues, had led to issues with staff morale among the POA
team. The other part of the solution was therefore to retain talented members of staff
Page 11 of 18
35.
36.
37.
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
on the POA and to avoid them either looking for new opportunities with other Fujitsu
accounts or leaving Fujitsu altogether.
At the Inquiry’s suggestion, I have reviewed the actions from the PSD Retail, Royal
Mail and Technology Business Review in May 2009 (WITN0354_ 01/20). The Inquiry
has pointed me to one of the actions listed which asks, “how do we reward people
working on the project to keep them motivated?” This question is seeking to address
the matter of retention I describe above. In order to retain members of staff who
were key to the success of the delivery of HNG-X, it was necessary for there to be
a reward scheme in place. These sorts of incentive schemes are not unusual, as
they mitigate the risk of suffering a high turn-over of staff in crucial roles at critical
stages of a project.
At the time I joined the PSD, the focus was not on reducing the costs of delivering
HNG-X but was instead on, (i) how the POA could deliver the programme to time,
and (ii) how to deliver in line with forecasts for the financial year 2009/2010. I was
not put under any pressure to reduce the number of Fujitsu staff working on the
project, nor was I put under any pressure to increase the speed with which HNG-X
was rolled out and bring forward the delivery date. Roger Gilbert and I agreed that
we commit to an achievable delivery date, as I would have been criticised had I
brought forward the delivery date only then to miss it.
The Inquiry has also asked me to review a Bid Approval Review titled “HNG-X
Release 2” and dated 3 July 2009 (the “Release 2 BAR’) (WITN0354_01/10). In
particular, the Inquiry has asked me to consider the following extract:
Page 12 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
“Contractually, no funding for the maintenance of a test and development facility
beyond the requirements for the delivery of the current HNG-X Release 1 (Horizon
On Line) and POLSAP programmes”
38. I do not recall the Release 2 BAR from the relevant time. However, having reviewed
it for the purpose of preparing this statement, the above extract appears to relate to
concerns that no funding was available under the contract to maintain the testing
facilities at Bracknell beyond HNG-X Release 1.
The Globe Opportunity
39. I have been asked by the Inquiry about my understanding surrounding the ‘Globe
Opportunity’. To refresh my memory, the Inquiry has pointed me to documents
WITNO0354_01/21 to WITN0354_ 01/23.
40. These documents have not assisted my recollection of the Globe Opportunity,
although I can see from the Release 2 BAR (WITN0354_ 01/10) that Mike Wood,
Andrew Hall and I presented to Mike Young of POL that “Globe enablers would be
part of Release 2”. I do not recall this presentation. I can also see that I am copied
to a ‘Bid Review Action’ for the Globe Opportunity dating from 6 July 2009
(WITN0354_01/23). It appears, however, that David Roberts was given my
delegated authority for the review. It may therefore have been that this bid was
submitted for review following the end of my tenure as MD of the PSD.
41. Given that my priority as MD of the PSD was to ensure that HNG-X was delivered
to time and cost, I would not have approved any new business with POL during that
time which would have drawn resources away from the main deliverable. That being
Page 13 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
said, from a commercial perspective, it was still important to understand what new
business opportunities may be available in due course.
ERRORS OR ISSUES WITH THE HORIZON SYSTEM
42. During my time at Fujitsu, I do not recall being made aware of any fundamental
defects with either Legacy Horizon, which was operating in steady state, or in
respect of HNG-X which was in development. Bugs, errors and defects are not
unusual in large IT systems like Horizon, especially as systems go through the
testing and integration cycles. Given the senior nature of my roles at Fujitsu, the
only technical issues I would have expected to be brought to my attention would
have been fundamental defects escalated to me in order to navigate any impact on
the timing of delivery or on cost, for example if the defect might lead to a costly
dispute.
43. In respect of information that was escalated to me internally during my three months
as MD of the PSD, I recall receiving emails containing ‘Amber Alerts’ in respect of
the POA, which provided updates relating to activity being done to address issues
that had been RAG (Red-Amber-Green) rated as amber (see, for example,
WITN0354_01/24 to WITN0354_01/27). I would have read these alerts in order to
interrogate the corrective actions being taken. For HNG-X, the problem details in
the Amber Alerts were as follows: “/t/here is a concern regarding the quality of the
deliverable impacting timescales and cost. No of bugs is significantly higher than
anticipated.” This statement would not have caused me undue concer at this stage
in the project, being relatively early in the testing cycle.
Page 14 of 18
WITNO03540100
WITNO3540100
44. During my time as MD of the PSD, I also received daily milestone teports from Alan
D’Alvarez, who applied a RAG rating to each of the milestones. I do not recall these
milestone reports and do not believe that I would have read them as a matter of
course. I would, however, have reviewed any of the reports flagging potential delay
(see, for example, WITN0354_01/28 and WITNO354_ 01/29).
45. In addition to any internal escalation either through the above means, the Business
Assurance Review or otherwise, were there to have been any fundamental defects
in either Legacy Horizon or HNG-X, I would have expected those to be flagged by
POL in the Customer Satisfaction Interview Programme reports described above.
GENERAL
46. In the Request, the Inquiry has asked whether I consider the management of the
HNG-X programme was adequate with hindsight, and what I would have changed.
I was not sufficiently close to the HNG-X development programme until I became
MD of the PSD to critique the early stages of the programme. However, I do believe
that HNG-X would have been delivered earlier and ata lower cost if the actions that
resulted from the Business Assurance Review to strengthen the management of the
project had been taken earlier in the project.
Statement of Truth
Signed
Dated: 25 January 2023
Page 15 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
INDEX TO THE FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF PETER JOHN ROWLEY
Exhibit No. URN I __ Document Description Control Number
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
WITNO354 I FUJ00126069 Email chain between Clive Bailey, POINQ0127351F
_01/1 Peter Rowley and others with subject
‘Account Positioning and Peter
Rowley’
WITNO354 I FUJ00126071 Fujitsu Services Customer POINQ0127353F
01/2 Satisfaction Interview Programme —
Interview date 29 May 2008
WITNO354 I FUJ00126073 Fujitsu Services Customer POINQ0127355F
01/3 Satisfaction Interview Programme
— Interview date 5 November 2008,
WITNO354 I FUJ00126075 Fujitsu Services Customer POINQ0127358F
01/4 Satisfaction Interview Programme —
Interview date 31 July 2009
WITNO354 I FUJ00126076 Email from Andrew Hall to Peter POINQ0127359F
_01/5 Rowley and others with subject
‘Meeting with Mike Young
Operations Director POL’
WITNO354 I FUJ00126077 Email chain between Peter Rowley I POINQ0127360F
_01/6 and lan O'Driscoll with subject ‘Post
Office — HNGX’
WITNO354 I FUJ00126078 Email from Andrew Hall to Peter POINQ0127361F
_01/7 Rowley and others with subject
‘Meeting with Post Office 9/6/09"
witNo354 I FUJ00126079 I HNG-X Release 1 Re-plan POINQ0127362F
_01/8 Presentation
WITNO354 I FUJ00126081 Email between Peter Rowley, Mike POINQ0127364F
_01/9 Wood and others with subject
‘HNGX update’
HORIZON ONLINE/HNG-X
WITNO354 I FUJO0116738 Bid Approval Review presentation POINQ0122909F
_01/10 titled ‘HNG-X Release 2’
WITNO354 I FUJ00116293 Email from David Jones to Jeff POINQ0122464F
01/11 Triggs with subject ‘HNG-X
~ Conditionality’
WITNO354 I FUJ00116552 HNG-X Group Review Actions POINQ0122723F
01/12
Page 16 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
Exhibit No. URN Document Description Control Number
WITNO354 I FUJ00116659 Presentation titled ‘Private Sector POINQ0122830F
01/113 Division: Review of 2008/9”
WITNO354 I FUJ00116684 Presentation titled ‘PSD Review POINQ0122855F
01/14 Pack’
WITNO0354 I FUJO0116693 Private Sector Division POINQ0122864F
01/15 Commercial Function Report
WITNO354 I FUJO0116722 Presentation titled ‘PSD BU POINQ0122893F
01/16 Review’
WITNO354 I FUJ00116731 Email from Pandora Ward to Peter POINQ0122902F
01/17 Rowley, Lester Young, Mike Wood
and others with subject ‘Final
HNG-X report from Business
Assurance’
WITNO354 I FUJO0116732 Presentation titled ‘Phase 2 POINQ0122903F
01/18 Delivery Assurance Review’
WITNO354 I FUJO0116808 Business Unit Review — Actions POINQ0122979F
01/19
WITNO354 I FUJO0116682 Actions from PSD RRMT Business POINQ0122853F
_01/20 Review May 2009
WITNO354 I FUJ00116701 PBU Bid Review Actions POINQ0122872F
01/21
WITNO354 I FUJO0116689 Presentation titled ‘Multiple POINQ0122860F
01/22 Opportunities’
WITNO354 I FUJO0116743 PBU Bid Review Actions POINQ0122914F
01/23
ERRORS OR ISSUES WITH THE HORIZON SYSTEM
WITNO354 I FUJ00126082 Email from Amber Alerts to POINQ0127365F
01/24 multiple FSL employees with
subject ‘Amber Alert Ref 1053 —
Post Office (HNG-X) — Update
Report (Including plan)’
WITNO354 I FUJ00126083 Spreadsheet containing Milestones I POINQ0127366F
_01/25 and agreed plan execution dates
WITNO354 I FUJ00126084 Email from Amber Alerts to Clive POINQ0127367F
01/26 Bailey and others with subject
‘Amber Alert Ref 1053 - Post Office
(HNG-X) - Update Report’
WITNO354 I FUJO0126085 Spreadsheet titled ‘Ref 1053 HNG- POINQ0127368F
_01/27 x extended milestones 090612’
WITNO354 I FUJ00126086 Email between Peter Rowley, Mike POINQ0127369F
01/28 Wood and others with subject ‘FW:
Page 17 of 18
WITN03540100
WITN03540100
Exhibit No. URN Document Description Control Number
Milestones Update’
WITNO354 I FUJ00126087 Spreadsheet with filename ‘Ref POINQ0127370F
_01/29 1053 HNG-x extended milestones
090707'
Page 18 of 18