WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Witness Name: Benjamin Andrew Foat
Statement No: WITN09980400
Dated: 3 May 2024
THE POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FOURTH WITNESS STATEMENT OF
BENJAMIN ANDREW FOAT
I, Benjamin Andrew Foat, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. I have been employed by Post Office Limited (POL) as its Group General
Counsel (GC) since 1 May 2019.
2. This witness statement has been prepared in response to a request made by
the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the Inquiry) pursuant to Rule 9 of the
Inquiry Rules 2006, dated 27 March 2024.
3. The facts in this witness statement are true, complete, and accurate to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Page 1 of 77
WITN09980400
WITNO09980400
4. I have been assisted in preparing this witness statement by Farrer & Co, who
act for me in my personal capacity.
5. I have previously given three corporate witness statements to the Inquiry
(dated 23 March 2023, 21 June 2023 and 22 August 2023) and four interim
disclosure statements (dated 27 May 2022, 18 October 2022, 30 November
2022, and 12 January 2023). I attended a hearing about disclosure at the
Inquiry as a corporate witness on 4 July 2023.
6. I include here abbreviations that I use throughout my statement which I hope
is helpful to the Inquiry.
AC
Alisdair Cameron
ARC Audit & Risk Committee
BAU Business as Usual
BEDS Bugs, errors or defects
The Board The POL Board
CCRC Criminal Case Review Commission
ClJ Common Issues Judgment
DBT Department for Business and Trade (formerly BEIS)
EDQ Electronic Documents Questionnaire
GC Group General Counsel
GE General Executive
Page 2 of 77
GLO
Group Litigation Order
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Group Litigation
Horizon Group Litigation (including the GLO)
HIT Horizon Issues Trial
HSF Herbert Smith Freehills
HSS Historical Shortfalls Scheme
The Inquiry Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
JMC Jane MacLeod
Legacy Horizon
The Horizon system in use between 2000-2010
LPP Legal professional privilege
NED Non-Executive Director
Pol Post Office Insurance
POL Post Office Limited
RCC Risk and Compliance Committee
RU Remediation Unit
RW Rodric Williams
SID Senior Independent Director
SRA Solicitors Regulation Authority
Steerco Steering Committee
TC Thomas Cooper
UKGI UK General Investments
WBD Womble Bond Dickinson
Page 3 of 77
WITN09980400
WITNO09980400
Background
7. I have been asked to set out a summary of my career and qualifications before
joining POL.
8. I am a dual qualified solicitor having trained at Norton Rose Fulbright (formerly
known as Deacons) in Brisbane, Australia. I was admitted as a solicitor in
Queensland, Australia in 2002, and subsequently in England and Wales in
2008. I hold a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in Government, a Bachelor
of Laws (Hons) and a Master of Laws.
9. Upon qualifying as a solicitor, I worked in private practice at Sparke Helmore
and then Gadens in Brisbane, Australia, in their Corporate Risk and Insurance
department. I was promoted to Senior Associate at Gadens in 2006.
10. In 2007, I moved to London, having accepted a role at Kennedys, specialising
in insurance coverage, policy issues and professional indemnity disputes.
11. In 2008, I accepted an inhouse role at Zurich Insurance PLC, and was
promoted to Senior Legal Counsel in 2010.
12. I have been asked to briefly summarise the roles I held whilst employed by
POL.
13. I commenced employment with POL in August 2015 as Head of Legal -
Financial Services. My line manager was the GC of POL at the time (Jane
MacLeod, JMC), but I also reported (with a dotted line) to the Financial
Services Director (the accountable business representative for the Financial
Services business unit — there were three business units at POL at this time:
Page 4 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Financial Services, Commercial, and Network, as well as the supporting
functions). My role was to support the Financial Services business unit of POL
and Post Office Management Services (known as, Post Office Insurance
(POI)) to help them manage their legal and regulatory risks.
14. The following year, in August 2016, I was appointed as Group Legal Director,
responsible for supporting the broader Post Office business to manage its
legal risk and to oversee the Legal team operations, still reporting into JMC.
‘Legal risk’ is a subset of operational risk and generally refers to a risk where
the source or consequence is legal in nature. The focus of my role was to
manage the Legal department, and particularly the legal operations and the
supporting processes across POL and POI. At this time, I sat on the POI
Executive Team and the Risk and Compliance Committee (RCC) of POI.
15. POL as a business was operating across multiple markets including banking
services and products, insurance, mails, retail, foreign exchange, payments,
telecommunications and government services. Consequently, the
management of the legal aspects of POL was complex because of the diverse
markets and sectors in which it operates (which has varying degrees of
legislation and regulation) but also due to its Government ownership, which
imposes additional legal and or regulatory obligations. My role also involved
designing and implementing legal operations (including central repository of
contracts, establishing a precedent database, management information and
legal manuals for each area across the business, as well as providing training
to both inhouse and business colleagues).
POL legal department
Page 5 of 77
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
I have been asked to briefly describe the background to my appointment as
GC of POL, including the application process.
I do not recall exactly when, but the interim Chief Executive Officer, Alisdair
Cameron (AC) spoke to me and offered me the GC role in or around April
2019. At this point it was offered on the understanding that Herbert Smith
Freehills (HSF) was being appointed to oversee the Horizon Group Litigation
(Group Litigation). I was interviewed by the Group People Officer and Group
Retail Director. I had previously had leadership testing by an external
company which I understand was utilised as part of the assessment process.
I have been asked to describe the nature of my role as GC and the extent of
its responsibilities.
At the time of my appointment, I was (and remain) responsible for the legal,
compliance and company secretariat team (although I am not and have never
been the Company Secretary, in contrast to my predecessor).
My role is to support and facilitate the business, as the second line of defence
(and by that I mean am responsible for supporting management and the
business to help ensure risks and controls are effectively managed).
Moreover, my role is to manage and comply with its legal and regulatory
obligations through operational processes, the drafting of legal instruments
and the provision of legal and regulatory advice.
In addition, I am the Chairman of First Rate Exchange Services Limited, which
is a joint venture travel currency business between POL and the Bank of
Ireland.
Page 6 of 77
22.
23.
24.
25.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Principally, my role currently is to advise the CEO, the POL Strategic General
Executive (GE) (I am not a member but an adviser), and the POL Board (the
Board) (I am also not a member but an adviser) as directed. I report to the
CEO. The GE is comprised of the most senior executives (two of whom are
also Board directors), who manage and lead the business on a day-to-day
basis.
In addition, I sit on the POL RCC (which is the executive forum that oversees
risk and compliance across the business) and, as of March 2024, I now chair
the POL RCC. I also attend (but am not a member of) the Audit & Risk
Committee (ARC) which is a Board subcommittee set up to enable the Board
to have proper oversight over the risk management of the business and in
particular the RCC. The Government Shareholder Representative is a
member of the ARC.
Between September 2021 and July 2023, I was the temporary sponsor of the
now called Remediation Unit (RU) and Inquiry programmes. My role as
temporary sponsor lasted longer than expected. This was to ensure that
principally the GE (but also the Board) was kept appraised of the two
programmes through one direct report to the CEO. I therefore had line
management responsibilities over the relevant directors but not decision-
making ability.
Prior to my temporary sponsorship, the Board made the decision to separate
the RU and Inquiry programmes from the ‘business as usual’ (BAU) business
structure, and in or around July 2020, it initially appointed Declan Salter to
manage these programmes, reporting to the CEO. Subsequently the RU and
Page 7 of 77
26.
27.
28.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Inquiry programmes were separated from each other, with Simon Recaldin
taking over as RU Director. Although Simon Recaldin was line managed by
me, I did not have any decision-making authority in respect of these
programmes. He had direct decision-making authority in respect of the RU
and if he needed additional authority, such decisions would be escalated to
the HMRC (Historical Matters Remediation Committee - the Board
subcommittee overseeing the HMBU (Historical Matters Business Unit), which
is presently known as the RU). In summary, material decision making was
taken by those appointed by the directors of the RU and the Inquiry
programmes.
I ceased the sponsorship role in July 2023. During the course of 2023, a Group
Assurance Director was appointed who reports into me. On 1 January 2024,
my role was expanded to include risk.
I have been asked to set out my view of the extent of my professional
responsibilities derived from my position as a legal professional whilst acting
as GC.
As a qualified solicitor practising in the UK and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (SRA), I am subject to a number of professional
responsibilities. The SRA has personal jurisdiction over me as an individual
but not over POL as it is not a law firm. I am, along with all other qualified legal
professionals, bound by the standards, principles, and regulations set out by
the SRA and uphold them at all times in the conduct of my role.
Page 8 of 77
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
I am aware of my duties to the law and courts as well as my duty to my client
and profession. In particular, I am aware of the SRA Principles contained
within the SRA Standards and Regulations.
As part of my duties to my client (POL) it is important that I act on instructions
even in an inhouse environment. I have given recommendations and advice
about the role of lawyers at POL including that they are to advise POL; not to
make decisions — which is for the business.
I have also ensured, since becoming GC, that the Legal team receives training
on ethics from the Law Society and other providers (which I have also
attended).
In addition, the employment law contracts of all inhouse lawyers employed at
POL were amended to acknowledge the fact that solicitors are regulated by
the SRA and therefore owe duties of independence.
I directed the need for all inhouse lawyers to have personal development plans
to ensure that they remain appropriately skilled in technical and soft skills.
I have been asked to provide an overview of the management structure within
POL’s Legal department when I joined, as well as those who worked in senior
management positions therein. I have also been asked to describe any
material changes to the same.
When I joined POL in August 2015 as Head of Legal - Financial Services, I
reported to the GC at that time, JMC. I was one of three Heads of Legal,
alongside the Head of Legal — Network (Jessica Madron) and the Head of
Page 9 of 77
36.
37.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Legal — Commercial (Piero D’Agostino). The Heads of Legal mirrored the
business units. Jessica Madron was responsible for supporting the Network
business unit (now known as ‘Retail’) to manage legal issues pertaining to the
network including Postmasters, and Piero D’Agostino was responsible for
supporting the Commercial business unit (including IT) to manage their legal
risks.
In 2016 JMC restructured the Legal team, in which she created the role of
Legal Director. I was invited to apply for this role and duly did so, being
promoted to it in August 2016.
After my appointment, JMC divided responsibilities and, as Legal Director, I
was responsible for managing the Legal team, with the primary focus of
managing the BAU legal matters. Given the lack of and poorly documented
legal operational processes (such as legal tools, controls and management
information) within the business and legal team that existed when I was
appointed as Legal Director, a considerable focus of my work was aimed at
legal operations. This enabled JMC to remain focussed on the material legal
matters on which she reported to the GE and Board, including the Group
Litigation programme, together with Rodric Williams (RW) the senior litigation
lawyer who directly reported to her in respect of the Group Litigation. As Legal
Director, I was not involved in the working group associated with the Group
Litigation, nor did I attend the Postmaster Litigation Steerco (the predecessor
of the Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee (PLS)), GE or the Board in respect
of this matter. I did, however, ask RW to keep me abreast of material
milestones in relation to this work, either directly and/or via external lawyers.
Page 10 of 77
38.
39.
40.
4.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
In reality, JMC would often liaise directly with and email RW directly on these
matters.
During my time as Legal Director there was a further restructure. Five Heads
of Legal were appointed: (1) Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution and Brand;
(2) Head of Legal - IT and Procurement; (3) Head of Legal - Employment and
Industrial Relations; (4) Head of Legal — Retail; and (5) Head of Legal —
Financial Services.
When I became GC, the role of Legal Director was subsequently filled with an
interim and then permanent employee, but not immediately.
I have been asked to describe the reporting line of the POL Legal department
to (a) the GE; and (b) the Board.
The POL Legal Department would report to the GE and the Board on a variety
of matters principally through the accountable business executive or
representative. For example, the establishment of the Banking Framework
Agreement or the acquisition of the payments business would be done through
the accountable business executive (i.e., the Group Financial Services
Director) with the GC being in attendance at the GE (though not necessarily
Board) in an advisory role. The GC would, at times with the relevant inhouse
and/or external lawyer, explain to the GE and if present for that particular topic
at the Board, the legal advice and/or legal risks related to the particular matter.
Generally, a Legal Risk Note (drafted by the relevant lawyer) would
accompany the executive report, which would be provided to the GE and/or
the Board as necessary.
Page 11 of 77
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
As GC, having set up and had Board Champions appointed for whistleblowing
and investigations, I would also have meetings with those Board Champions.
Finally, I would have fortnightly meetings with the Senior Independent Director
(SID).
I have been asked to provide an overview of the work that POL’s Legal
department undertook when I joined as GC.
When I commenced the GC role, the Legal team supported numerous
business units to manage their legal risk including banking, insurance,
payments, retail, government services, mails, foreign exchange and
telecommunications services. Given the broad markets within which POL
operates and competes, together with its Government ownership, there is a
broad range of legal obligations and risks. Unlike its competitors, POL is
subject to additional regulatory requirements (e.g., Public Procurement
Regulations and the Freedom of Information Act 2000).
As a result of POL’s funding arrangements, including the restrictions on its
ability to raise capital (given its Government ownership), the Legal team also
support the finance team and other support functions such as HR and
Communications.
In terms of the type of legal work undertaken, it would principally involve
advisory work (e.g., legal risk and regulatory advice), drafting of legal
instruments (e.g., contracts), and dispute resolution, which kept the legal
department extremely busy.
Page 12 of 77
47.
48.
49.
50.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
I have been asked to set out what I knew of POL’s role in prosecuting
subpostmasters for theft, false accounting and / or offences under the Fraud
Act 2006 when I joined POL.
When I joined POL in 2015, I knew very little of POL’s role in prosecuting
subpostmasters for theft, false accounting and/or offences under the Fraud
Act 2006. The remit of my role of Head of Legal — Financial Services had very
limited intersectionality with subpostmasters directly. That said, I was made
aware of a Panorama programme and POL provided information about the
programme within the first few weeks of my employment [POL00152923] and
there were subsequent communications around this time ([POL0146535] and
later on in 2018 [POL0146594)).
I have been asked to set out my view, at the time I joined POL, on the
circumstances in which legal professional privilege (LPP) would apply to
communications between POL’s legal department and its other employees or
agents. If there was a different view within the POL legal department, I have
been asked to set that out. I have also been asked to describe any material
changes to my view or POL’s Legal department's view that may have occurred
in the relevant period.
Upon joining POL, my view was that LPP applied on the standard basis. My
client was POL (the “client group” was usually its Board or GE, but some
matters were delegated within the organisation and so it would depend on the
type of matter), but I understood that it was important to have a particular client
group such that the recipients of the advice were no wider than was necessary.
Page 13 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
51. The Board decided to waive LPP in certain respects (for the Inquiry) in 2021.
Otherwise, I understand that LPP remains in place as it would normally.
Relationship with the Board
52. I have been asked to summarise my relationship with the Board during my
time as GC, to include the issues on which I briefed the Board, who my main
point of contact(s) on the Board was / were, how often I attended Board
meetings and in what circumstances.
53. My relationship with the Board upon my appointment as GC was in an advisory
capacity, as noted above.
54. As GC, I briefed the Board on material legal and regulatory matters, including
the Group Litigation. To brief the Board on the Group Litigation, I received
information from Womble Bond Dickinson (WBD) (as overseen from HSF),
and counsel. More broadly, I briefed the Board on BAU legal and regulatory
matters across the business and material projects (where it was appropriate
to do so), these updates often having been reported to me by my Group Legal
Director and / or the relevant lawyer within the Legal team, or the Compliance
Director or a member of the Compliance team. When I briefed the Board
formally it was generally in the relevant Board or Board subcommittee
meetings which I would be invited to depending on the topic being discussed.
55. My main points of contact for more informal briefings (by email or in person)
were the CEO (as both an executive director and my line manager) and the
CFO (also an executive director). However, I also had interactions with the
Chair, Government Shareholder Representative, and the ARC Chair initially,
Page 14 of 77
56.
57.
58.
59.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
given the nature of my work. Over time my relationship with the other non-
executive directors (NED(s)) grew, particularly when I established a Speak Up
/ Whistleblowing Board Champion and an Investigations Board Champion in
2021 and 2022. If a matter required urgent Board attention, I would liaise with
the CEO first and then with the Company Secretary and the Chair's PA as to
whether to call a Board meeting or issue an urgent email to the Board.
The Board appointed Benjamin Tidswell as a NED in July 2021 to support the
Board in its consideration of legal issues particularly in respect of the post-
GLO settlement programme. Benjamin Tidswell is Chair of the RU Board
Subcommittee and the Investigation Board Champion. He is an experienced
solicitor with respect to complex disputes and had been a Disputes partner
and Global Chairman of Ashurst prior to joining POL.
I attended my first PLS (which was a Board subcommittee established to
oversee and manage the Group Litigation) meeting on 24 April 2019, a week
before I became GC, and I continued attending the PLS meetings until my
temporary sponsorship of the RU ended in July 2023. The PLS was comprised
of the Chair, Government Shareholder Representative, the Interim CEO (AC)
and the SID. I also attended the ARC (another Board subcommittee).
I have been asked to summarise my understanding of how Government
maintained oversight of POL during my time as GC and to what extent I
consider that oversight to be adequate.
The Government owns 100% of POL. The Government Shareholder is the
Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) (formerly
Page 15 of 77
60.
61.
62.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
BEIS). The Government Shareholder had a team of civil servants, lawyers and
advisers, who were involved in material matters, in particular, the post-GLO
settlement programme. UKGI acts as the interface between the Government
Shareholder and its portfolio of assets (of which one is POL). The Government
Shareholder Representative is from UKGI and sits on the POL Board and
some of its subcommittees (including the ARC and the PLS (which
subsequently evolved into the Remediation Committee)).
As outlined above, material decision making was done by the Board or by
delegating to its subcommittees (such as PLS or Remediation Committees).
The Government Shareholder Representative sat on the Board (and PLS) and
was part of the decision making, including in relation to funding (and
specifically all compensation funding). The Government Shareholder
ultimately had to approve any settlement figure for the Group Litigation.
In addition to the above, there are a number of other mechanisms of oversight
of POL by the Government Shareholder and UKGI. This includes not only
attendance at Board meetings, but also attendance at quarterly Government
Shareholder meetings (in which representatives from DBT and UKGI are
present to question and oversee POL representatives). In addition, POL would
produce reports for the Government Shareholder and UKGI, in a number of
areas including risks of the organisation (POL). The Government Shareholder
and UKGI have oversight in respect of risk.
The Government Shareholder Representative, Thomas Cooper (TC) and
subsequently Lorna Gratton, sits on the Board, the ARC, the Remediation
Committee and, as above, formerly on the PLS. There is therefore significant
Page 16 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
oversight. I understand that UKGI and the Government Shareholder have
teams supporting the Government Shareholder Representative to have proper
oversight.
63. The Government Shareholder and UKGI were involved in the design,
establishment and implementation of the compensation schemes.
64. In 2018 and 2019 enhancements were introduced by UKGI and the
Government Shareholder (with the approval of the Board) to give them greater
oversight over POL, including a revision to the Articles of Association,
entrustment letters and, for the first time, a Framework Agreement between
the Government Shareholder, UKGI and POL, which is a non-legally binding
agreement that sets out the expectations and obligations in respect of each
party.
65. During my time as GC, the Government Shareholder maintained and further
enhanced oversight of POL through a number of forums and processes,
including:
65.1 the Government Shareholder Representative sat on the Board and Board
subcommittees pertaining to the issues before the Inquiry (i.e., the PLS;
Remediation Committee) (focused on compensation redress) and also the
ARC (focused on risk management oversight)); and
65.2 after the Common Issues Judgment (ClJ), it was evident that the Government
Shareholder and UKGI was exercising greater scrutiny over POL as POL
began considering settlement and it was accepted, given that the Government
Shareholder had to consider POL’s ability to fund the compensation (as it is
Page 17 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
the 100% owner of POL), that it would need greater oversight in respect of
these issues.
66. POL’s CEO has the authority to sign off on payments up to a particular
amount. Anything in excess of that amount needs to go to Board (which
includes the Government Shareholder Representative).
67. In terms of whether I consider the oversight to be adequate, the Government
Shareholder Representative was given increased oversight during my tenure
as GC, in that there was substantial involvement by the Government
Shareholder Representative and representatives of UKGI and DBT in respect
of the Group Litigation. My concern, which I expressed a number of times, was
that this increased oversight had implications, particularly from a timing
perspective as the additional assurance and oversight of the Government
Shareholder and UKGI contributed to the significant delays in making
payments under the settlement. I understand the need for them to perform
their role and comply with legal obligations and duties on them and their
respective teams.
Knowledge of the Horizon IT System
68. I have been asked to describe the extent of my knowledge of the Horizon IT
system when I started as POL’s GC. In particular, whether I was aware of
either (a) bugs, errors or defects in the Horizon IT system (BEDS); and/or (b)
a lack of integrity in the same; or (c) complaints addressing BEDs or concerns
with integrity.
Page 18 of 77
69.
70.
71,
72.
73.
74.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
When I started as GC, I had knowledge of the Group Litigation generally and
specifically that the Claimants in the Horizon Issues Trial (HIT) had claimed
that there were BEDs in the Horizon IT system and that it wasn’t sufficiently
robust. I recall being told that the robustness of the Horizon IT system was
commensurate with the systems used by air traffic controllers and that it was
robust. I had understood that this was the primary issue at the heart of the
HIT (i.e., whether the system was robust / had integrity; whether BEDs had
caused losses; or whether in fact, data had been remotely changed).
I have been asked to describe any training provided to me in respect of the
same.
After I became GC, I asked to undertake the POL Horizon IT system training
so that I could better understand the IT system particularly as it presented to
subpostmasters. I had also had some training in the Post Office model office
in Finsbury Dials, though I don’t recall when that was.
I have not received any back-office training in respect of the Horizon IT
system. In terms of its robustness, from a technological perspective, that was
covered by POL’s IT team and its external reviewers and providers.
I have been asked to set out what steps I took, if any, to increase my
knowledge of the Horizon IT system.
As briefly mentioned above, when I became GC, I requested and undertook a
2-day induction training programme that subpostmasters receive when
onboarding with POL.
Page 19 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
75. This training covered various issues from setting up each day, transactions
and dealing with corrections and discrepancies. I wanted to make sure I
understood the system the subpostmasters were using.
76. I also attended several subpostmaster listening events about the experience
(good and bad) of being a Postmaster and what they thought of POL and the
issues that they experience. In addition, I have participated in “adopt an area”
scheme in which I go to a number of post offices, make enquiries about their
issues and report them back to the Area Manager and the Retail team. During
the Christmas periods (with the exception of 2023) I have attended post offices
to support during that period particularly in respect of the self-service kiosks,
mails segregation and collection by the Royal Mail.
77. Separately the IT department produces a dashboard to the GE and Board on
the integrity of the IT system so that they can monitor its ongoing integrity.
Bates and Ors Litigation
78. I have been asked to consider the following documents:
i. [POL00006705] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 2
May 2019);
ii. I [POL00006706] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 7
May 2019);
iii. I [POL00103534] (the Post Office Group Litigation action list as at 10
May 2019);
Page 20 of 77
vi.
vii.
viii.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
XV.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
[POL00006707] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 9
May 2019);
[POL00103551] (emails of 13 to 15 May 2019);
[UKG100009765] (emails of 9 to 15 May 2019);
[POL00006709] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 16
May 2019);
[POL00026004] (emails dated 16 May 2019);
[POL00042675] (emails of 15 to 17 May 2019);
[POL00103554] (Post Office Group Litigation action list as at 17 May
2019);
[POL00042688] (emails dated 16 to 22 May 2019);
[POL00103559] (my email dated 23 May 2019);
[POL00042698] (emails dated 25 to 28 May 2019);
[POL00023648] (emails dated 4 June 2019);
[UKG1I00018405] (my email dated 19 June 2019);
[POL00023656] (the emails dated 25 and 26 June 2019);
[UKG1I00010304] (emails from 11 to 27 June 2019);
[POL00006716] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 4
July 2019);
Page 21 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
xix. [POL00128834] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 8
July 2019);
xx. [POL00128837] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 15
July 2019);
xxi. [POL00128841] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 18
July 2019);
xxii. [POL00042841] (emails dated 29 July 2019);
xxiii. I [POL00091452] (draft communications plan re. Horizon Issues
Judgment);
xxiv. [POL00006734] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 15
August 2019);
xxv. [POL00043529] (emails dated 21 October 2019);
xxvi. [POL00107191] (Operations and GLO contingency planning report
dated 22 October 2019);
xxvii. I [POL00006743] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 24
October 2019);
xxviii. [POL00114236] (annotated Group Litigation Update for a Board
meeting on 29 October 2019);
xxix. [POL00119730] and [POL00119731] (email dated 4 November 2019
and attached Horizon Judgment draft communications plan);
Page 22 of 77
79.
80.
Xxxi.
xxxii.
Xxxiii.
XXxiv.
XXXV.
XXxxvi.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
[POL00026327] (emails dated 7 November 2019);
[POL00006750] (minutes of GLO contingency planning meeting on 7
November 2019);
[POL00043279] (Group Litigation Update for Board meeting on 13
November 2019);
[POL00043283] and [POL00043284] (email dated 14 November 2019
and attachment);
[POL00026379] and [UKGI00018548] (emails dated 22 November
2019);
[POL00023104] (emails dated 25 November 2019); and
[POL00129086] (Horizon Issues Trial Judgment Contingency Planning
Update ahead of meeting on 4 December 2019).
I have been asked to give a comprehensive account of my involvement in the
Bates and Ors litigation (the Group Litigation), the role I played, the litigation
tactics that were adopted and my reflections of the same.
As I set out above, I became Legal Director in August 2016, five months after
the Group Litigation commenced. Between August 2016 and May 2019 (when
I became GC), I had very little involvement except as I have set out below.
JMC, as GC at the time, divided responsibilities between us, such that I was
responsible for managing the day-to-day running of the Legal team and BAU
or non-material matters and legal operations, while she was responsible for
managing material matters, including the Group Litigation, alongside external
Page 23 of 77
81.
82.
83.
84.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
counsel. There were a significant number of matters that the Legal team was
supporting the relevant business units with, so it was important to have the
Legal Director focused on BAU.
At the time, I was broadly aware of the litigation as many of my colleagues
worked on it including RW; however, I was not involved in advising or decision-
making. I was not a part of the steering committee (Steerco), had no
involvement in instructing external counsel, and I did not sit on any decision-
making forums. Even when JMC was away from the office I did not cover her
work on the Group Litigation — to my knowledge this was done by Andrew
Parsons, RW or Patrick Bourke.
I recall asking JMC in October 2016 whether she wanted me to become
involved in the Group Litigation and she told me she did not. I subsequently
asked again in 2018 (and, again, she said no).
That said, I requested that RW keep me abreast of material developments of
the Group Litigation, either directly or through the external lawyers, given its
significance and that I was RW’s line manager (albeit not for his work on the
Group Litigation). I was informed of material developments when they
occurred and during this period I was occasionally copied into emails for my
information. I do not recall being copied into any emails which required a
substantive response from me.
With regard to the litigation strategy adopted by POL during this period, I can
only speculate given my lack of involvement. My impression was that senior
people within POL genuinely held the belief that the Horizon system was
Page 24 of 77
85.
86.
87.
88.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
robust and that contractually the approach it had taken in respect of
subpostmaster contracts had been correct. From the developments which I
heard about during this period, I was given the impression that POL
considered that its position would be upheld by the Courts (and in fact previous
Court decisions had so upheld POL’s position).
In early March 2019, in preparation for the handing down of the ClJ, JMC
asked me and the then Head of Legal — Retail, Zoe Brauer, to become
involved in the business continuity planning (i.e. to consider the implications
of the ClJ for POL, should the decision be adverse to it). This was aimed at
identifying the different subpostmasters’ contracts and the terms and
associated operational processes with the relevant POL business
representatives.
After the ClJ was handed down, there was a shift in approach driven in part
by the interim CEO at the time (AC). The ClJ cast significant doubt over POL’s
position in ways which had not been previously appreciated by the business.
My impression was that the Clu came as a great shock to POL.
In April 2019 HSF was appointed to oversee the Group Litigation, reporting to
AC and the Board. HSF was appointed by the Chair, Government Shareholder
Representative and AC. I shared the view that it was sensible to have new
legal counsel in light of the Clu, given it was so different to what had been
expected by POL.
I was aware that Board meetings were held on 18, 20 [POL00021563] and 25
March 2019, in which it was decided that a recusal application would be made,
Page 25 of 77
89.
90.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
and if it was refused, that decision would be appealed. I did not attend these
meetings. On 21 March 2019 POL filed its application for recusal which was
heard by Justice Fraser on 3 April 2019 and refused by him on 9 April 2019.
POL then appealed Justice Fraser’s decision to the Court of Appeal on 11
April 2019. I attended my first PLS meeting on 24 April 2019 [POL00006755).
At this point the Board had already made its decision in respect of the recusal
and to seek leave to appeal the ClJ. Although the minutes of the PLS meeting
formally reapprove the decision to appeal the ClJ, I do not recall this being
discussed in any detail. My impression was that it had been discussed prior to
the meeting taking place and I recall that the focus of the meeting on 24 April
2021 was on whether the recusal application and the ClJ appeal should be
co-joined. WBD and David Cavender KC advised the Board to co-join the
applications whereas HSF, who were there to assist the Board oversee the
Group Litigation, advised they should be kept separate. It was my first PLS
meeting and, having not had been comprehensively involved previously, I did
not feel in a position to comment, and I do not recall speaking during the
meeting.
As outlined above, I became GC on 1 May 2019 and around this time I became
substantively involved in the Group Litigation. During the first six months of my
tenure as GC, I sought to appraise myself of my new role, responsibilities and
remit, which now included the already significantly advanced Group Litigation.
At the point I became GC I joined the PLS, as an adviser (not a member, given
I am not and was not a Board director). HSF would also be present at PLS
Page 26 of 77
91.
92.
93.
94.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
meetings, giving oversight such that the Board could be comfortable with how
the external representatives were progressing matters.
At the time I commenced my role as GC, it appeared to me the PLS was
reconsidering POL’s litigation strategy (including that which it had taken to
date), in light of the ClJ. AC was keen to demonstrate that POL had listened
to the criticisms made in the ClJ. As a result, changes were made to personnel
and the approach to the Group Litigation was changed. POL made a
conscious and concerted effort not to take every point it could in appealing the
ClJ and dropped points of appeal which had been taken by WBD and/or David
Cavender KC, while still maintaining its position for the case to be reviewed.
This included a change in tone.
Increasingly, from May to December 2019, POL was focussed on the
consideration of settlement and/or alternative dispute resolution. In terms of
litigation strategy for the settlement, which was being discussed in greater
detail from September, POL’s clear strategy was to prioritise reaching a
settlement.
Contingency planning work continued throughout this period and beyond to
implement the changes required by the ClJ, as well as Horizon contingency
planning to ensure that POL was appropriately prepared for whatever the
outcome of the HIT would be (see [POL00107191]).
I was aware that the PLS had received significant external legal advice on the
recusal application and the ClJ appeal. I thought it was right that they reflected,
reconsidered and changed the previous approach to the Group Litigation (e.g.,
Page 27 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
through the appointment of HSF and Helen Davies KC (by way of illustration)).
The PLS was keen to listen, and to be seen to have listened, to the criticisms
in the ClJ whilst, as directors of the Board, appreciating that the Clu caused
significant operational impact and change to POL’s operating model which
they needed to factor in. In addition, the new advisers appointed also
recommended appealing the ClJ.
95. I have been asked to set out my role and responsibilities in relation to the
litigation and the nature and extent of my involvement in POL’s work and
decision-making process in that case, in particular addressing:
95.1 POL’s general litigation strategy:
95.2 As noted above, I was not involved with POL’s litigation strategy prior to
becoming GC and my involvement since becoming GC is set out above.
95.3 Its approach to the disclosure of documents:
95.4 Given my lack of involvement in the Group Litigation while disclosure of
documents was ongoing, I was not involved in fulfilling the original disclosure
obligations. At the point I became involved, the ClJ had already been handed
down and over half of the HIT completed.
95.5 I did, however, become involved in matters which were brought to my attention
following my appointment as GC, such as issues in relation to known error
logs (KELs) which were flagged to me. I have set this out below.
95.6 On Saturday 25 May 2019 I received an email from RW (copying WBD,
including Andrew Parsons, the Partner at WBD leading the Group Litigation)
Page 28 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
notifying me of an issue with global user access (which appeared to be linked
to the remote access issue) [POL00042698]. RW informed me that he would
like to speak to counsel, and Andrew Parsons confirmed counsel’s advice
would be sought.
95.7 I noted my understanding on 26 May [POL00042698], subject to counsel's
view, but requested that I have counsel's opinion by Tuesday such that I could
inform the PLS. On Tuesday, Andrew Parsons advised me that, contrary to
their preliminary assessment, counsel’s advice was that disclosure should
now be given. Disclosure was then subsequently provided by the external
lawyers.
95.8 Its preparation of lay and expert evidence:
95.9 Generally speaking, I was not involved in the preparation of lay and/or expert
evidence as this happened prior to my involvement in the Group Litigation.
95.10 However, I note I was copied into an email dated 22 May 2019 regarding
whether to apply for permission to rely on ‘Worden 3’ (POL’s expert's third
witness statement) [POL00042688]. A decision I believe was taken by the
PLS following external advice.
95.11 Its decision to seek that Justice Fraser recuse himself:
95.12 I did not have any role in POL’s decision to seek that Justice Fraser recuse
himself. I understand that there was a Board meeting on 18 March 2019 in
which legal advice pertaining to the ClJ, including recusal and appeal was
given. I did not attend this meeting.
Page 29 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
95.13 There was a further Board meeting on 20 March 2019 in which I understand
that JMC provided a summary of Lord Grabiner KC’s legal advice and the
Board resolved to make the recusal application (and that should Justice Fraser
not elect to recuse himself, that POL would take it to the Court of Appeal)
[POL00021563]. In addition, it was further agreed that leave to appeal the ClJ
should be sought. I was not in this meeting either.
95.14 I was however aware at the time that advice had been obtained from Lord
Neuberger, Lord Grabiner KC, and David Cavender KC that POL should make
the application.
95.15 The decision to apply for permission to appeal:
95.16 The decision to apply for permission to appeal the ClJ was taken by the Board
initially on 18 March 2019 [POL0006397] prior to my involvement in the Group
Litigation, and I did not play a part in making that decision, albeit I was aware
it was being made. I understand that WBD, HSF, David Cavender KC and
Lord Grabiner KC discussed the merits of the Cld and advised JMC.
95.17 As I have set out above, when I attended my first PLS meeting on 24 April
2019, the decision to appeal the ClJ had already been made, and the
discussion at this stage was whether the recusal application and the appeal
should be co-joined or dealt with separately. During this meeting WBD and
HSF attended to advise, although the advice relayed was mainly what had
been advised by Lord Neuberger, Lord Grabiner KC and David Cavender KC.
95.18 On 23 May 2019 POL went before Justice Fraser to seek permission to appeal
the ClJ, which was refused. On 13 June 2019 POL applied to the Court of
Page 30 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Appeal for permission to appeal and the application was refiled in shorter form
on 28 June 2019, as was ordered by the Court of Appeal on 18 June 2019.
POL had recently instructed HSF and Helen Davies KC to assist with drafting
the appeal. There was a new approach to tone, learning lessons from Justice
Fraser's criticism and the decision was made not to pick up all the points in
the appeal which Lord Neuberger had suggested. This is demonstrated at
[POL00103551] (page 5) — we sought to limit the grounds of appeal to the ClJ
such that they did not include a challenge to procedural unfairness or findings
of fact.
95.19 Consideration was given as to how the appeal should be presented to the
Court of Appeal [POL0020135], [POL0020136], and HSF, WBD and Helen
Davies KC’s advice was communicated to me. One of the things they
suggested was that we ask for three Court of Appeal Judges to hear the
appeal.
95.20 The appeal was heard before Lord Justice Coulson in November 2019, and
he refused permission to appeal on the basis that there was no realistic
prospect of success.
95.21 The approach to the Horizon Issues trial:
95.22 As mentioned above, over half of the HIT had already been completed before
I became GC, and I was not involved in it prior to becoming GC.
95.23 For the remainder of the trial we kept the same external legal team (WBD and
counsel), with HSF overseeing the process. I therefore did not have significant
involvement in the HIT even after I became GC, albeit I did attend the trial for
Page 31 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
one day. The PLS continued to be the decision-making authority, and external
counsel and RW continued to attend the trial.
95.24 I would however receive briefings from the legal teams involved regarding the
trial and would update the GE, the Board and the PLS accordingly.
95.25 Mediation and settlement:
95.26 I attended the mediation at the end of November and during December 2019.
I was involved in obtaining legal advice in respect of the mediation and
settlement (primarily from HSF). The advice was reported to the GE, PLS and
the Board.
95.27 I was authorised to make offers to a certain limit and ultimately sign a
settlement agreement following necessary approvals. However, it was not my
decision to settle — that sat with the Board and Government Shareholder —
although I agreed it was the right thing to do.
95.28 I consider mediation and settlement in more detail later in my statement.
96. Public statements and communications on all of the above:
97. My involvement in public statements and communications varied. I was not
asked to advise on public statements or communications on POL’s litigation
strategy and surrounding topics until I became GC. When I became GC, if
there was something substantive in respect of these issues, it would generally
be reviewed by HSF, WBD or other inhouse lawyers (more appropriately
placed than me to comment). An example of that is set out at [POL00042841]
which relates to the drafting for Post Office’s Annual Report and Accounts.
Page 32 of 77
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
The POL Communications team was responsible for POL’s communications
and would engage the POL’s inhouse and / or external lawyers to support. By
way of example, in preparation of the meeting with Kelly Tolhurst MP on 24
June 2019, I provided to AC, Richard Watson (former UKGI GC) and TC, a
draft agenda and speaking note covering the issues (change of strategy,
update on the litigation, and settlement) [UKGI00018405]. These attachments
were provided to me by HSF having worked with the WBD and POL
representatives.
I have seen the Horizon Issues judgment Draft Communications Plan
[POL00091452], but I do not recall seeing or reviewing it at the time.
I have been asked to address the extent to which I kept, or had responsibility
for keeping, the Board or Government informed of the matters set out above.
Prior to becoming GC I did not have responsibility for keeping the Board
informed of the matters set out above. As GC it was my responsibility to keep
the GE and the Board informed on matters in respect of the Group Litigation
amongst other matters. I did not have such a direct responsibility to the
Government — it is the role of the Government Shareholder Representative
who sat on the Board, ARC and PLS, and UKGI representatives to keep the
Government informed.
I did have meetings with and corresponded primarily with the UKGI GC, given
they were supporting TC. During this period, it was rare that meetings and
correspondence in relation to the above matters would also have directly
included the representatives from the Government Shareholder i.e., any
Page 33 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
information would go via UKGI (but I note that through the subsequent years
there was increasing direct engagement of the representatives of the DBT).
103. Asnoted above, Alan Watts, a HSF partner, attended the PLS and Board with
me. My attendance at PLS and Board meetings was significantly supported
by our external legal team and RW who had longstanding involvement in these
matters.
104. There were regular PLS meetings where the PLS would make decisions. In
addition, updates were also given at Board meetings where information from
the PLS was provided, and additional decisions were made and directions
given.
105. I have been asked to set out who was responsible for decision making in
relation to POL’s conduct of the Group Litigation, setting out if and when that
changed. I have been asked to set out to what extent, if at all, the Board or
individual directors were involved in such decision making.
106. Since my appointment as GC, decision-making in relation to POL’s conduct of
the Group Litigation was primarily done by the PLS. This included Nick Read
once he was appointed as CEO in September 2019. The Board had delegated
the management and decision making of the Group Litigation to the PLS but
the Board still ultimately retained broader oversight through its meetings and
the receipt of papers and advice. I attended the PLS and Board meetings in
an advisory capacity as GC together with HSF who had responsibility for
advising and overseeing the Group Litigation. In addition, external legal
Page 34 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
advisers (including KCs) would attend PLS or Board meetings to report on
matters as requested.
107. The PLS had responsibility for decision making in respect of the recusal
application, the appeal, mediation, and settlement as well as the general
litigation strategy and conduct.
108. I have been asked to explain how I and/or POL satisfied myselffitself that the
substantive positions taken in letters and court documents were accurate.
109. As GC, part of my role was to ensure POL had access to and was receiving
advice from appropriately expert and experienced lawyers (who would draft
letters and court documents and advise the PLS).
110. The external lawyers and inhouse team would take instructions from the
relevant areas of the business directly to seek to ensure accuracy. This was
coordinated through the Group Litigation Steerco which is an executive
working group initially Chaired by me when I became GC and then Nick Read
(CEO) after the GLO Settlement (the minutes may still refer to the previous
name of the working forum “GLO Contingency Planning” because I evolved
that working group into the Group Litigation Steerco). The purpose of that
group was to ensure that the work tasks were being coordinated and to
facilitate the inhouse legal team and external lawyers receiving instructions
from accountable business representatives. Those accountable business
representatives including myself, would attend those meetings and also the
GE, PLS and Board meetings as appropriate.
Page 35 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
111. By way of example of an additional measure, after the ClJ was handed down,
HSF was appointed specifically to give oversight to the Board, in respect of
the work the existing external legal team was undertaking. Helen Davies KC
was also appointed to provide a fresh perspective. There are other examples
of additional experts being brought in to provide oversight and assurance,
which I talk about later in my statement.
112. From a resource perspective, we secured additional legal support inhouse for
RW via two external secondees.
113. As GC I had oversight through regular correspondence with the external
lawyers and attendance at Steerco meetings (i.e., Group Litigation
contingency planning meetings).
114. I have been asked to consider the following documents:
i. [POL00080043] (The email dated 20 April 2016 from Rodric Williams);
ii. I [POL00117757] (The emails dated 17 July 2017);
iii. I [POL00024282] (The “Decision Paper” dated 15 December 2017);
iv. _[POL00104316] (The Annual Legal Risk Review 2017);
v. [POL00006490] (The email dated 28 January 2018);
vi. [UKGI00018269] (The Post Office Limited Board Report for a meeting
on 10 March 2019); and
vii. I [POL00023791] (The emails dated 15 March 2019).
Page 36 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
I have been asked when I first learned of the Bates litigation, what I was told
about it and by whom.
115. I donot recall exactly when I first learnt of the Group Litigation and what I was
told about and by whom. I am aware, the Inquiry having provided me with
[POL00080043], that I was informed at least by 20 April 2016 that 91 mostly
former postmasters had issued a High Court claim against POL. At the time
that I received this email, my role was Head of Legal — Financial Services and
so it would not have fallen within the remit of my role.
116. RW reported into the Head of Legal — Network (JM) and the then GC (JMC)
in respect of this matter. However, I was aware of the issue generally as I have
outlined above (see, for example, [POL0152923] showing POL circulating an
email with its response to BBC’s Panorama programme about POL in August
2015, very shortly after I had started at POL).
117. I have been asked what the extent of my involvement in the Group Litigation
was between being made aware of it and taking over from JMC as GC.
118. When I was first made aware of the Group Litigation I was Head of Legal —
Financial Services and so I was not directly involved. I was aware of the
matter.
119. However, during my time as Legal Director, I asked my Head of Legal (RW)
to keep me informed of material developments as outlined above. The Group
Litigation was run as a separate programme from ‘BAU’. It had its own
Postmaster Litigation Steerco chaired by a Retail Director of the business,
Page 37 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
which JMC and RW attended. External lawyers including WBD and counsel,
would attend such meetings as well as Board meetings.
120. During this period, I was sometimes asked for ad hoc advice, for example, in
July 2017 I provided some general advice on potentially defamatory
allegations [POL00117757]. Given my lack of involvement in the Group
Litigation, however, I passed this query to WBD. I was also sometimes copied
into emails for my information.
121. I otherwise refer to the content of paragraph 85 in respect of this matter.
122. Please note that the Board Report at [UKGI00018269] is incorrectly dated and
should be dated 10 March 2020, rather than 10 March 2019.
123. I have been asked when I took over from Ms MacLeod as GC.
124. I was appointed as GC with effect from 1 May 2019.
125. I have been asked what the reason was for Ms MacLeod’s resignation, as far
as I am aware.
126. I understand JMC resigned following a discussion with AC (the interim CEO),
after the handing down of the Clu.
127. I have been asked what handover, if any, I received from Ms MacLeod on
taking over as GC.
128. There was limited handover, albeit JMC and I did have a meeting sometime
in April 2019. We discussed the different committees that she had sat on
Page 38 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
(some of which I would then sit on upon my appointment). I do not recall further
details from the handover.
129. I have been asked when I first read the Common Issues Judgment of Justice
Fraser in Bates & Others v Post Office Limited [POL00004094] and what my
initial thoughts were on reading it. I have been asked to set out the detail of
any discussions which followed and any advice I provided on the judgment at
this stage, including any advice I provided on how POL should respond to the
ClJ and the financial and operational issues raised by it.
130. I first read the ClJ during the course of March and April 2019. My first
observation was that there was strident criticism of POL. Whilst there are
always risks with litigation, the judgment was overwhelmingly in favour of the
Claimants, inconsistent with the advice POL had received and the expected
outcome.
131. The advice on the judgment at this stage was being provided by external
counsel and legal advisers.
132. Separately and as mentioned above, we commenced contingency planning in
respect of the ClJ implications, which was supported by external resource.
133. I The discussions regarding the recusal application also then ensued, which is
covered earlier in my statement.
134. I have been asked to describe the extent to which I was involved in instructing
Lord Neuberger to advise POL, if and when I read Lord Neuberger’s note of
Page 39 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
advice [POL00025910], my views on it and any discussions I was involved in
around the proposed recusal application.
135. I was not involved in instructing Lord Neuberger as this happened before I
became substantively involved in the Group Litigation. I was aware that there
was a recusal application being considered, however, I was not party to the
substantive discussions surrounding this. I did read Lord Neuberger's advice,
I suspect around 18 March 2019 (having received a copy by way of email on
17 March 2019).
136. I noted that Lord Neuberger’s advice was that POL had some strong
arguments in respect of the recusal application and some less strong (but they
could still be reasonably made). Although Lord Neuberger’s advice has explicit
limitations (he had not studied all of the transcripts, for example), it provided
an independent view by a former Judge about another Judge’s judgment. As
a result of him being a Judge, I felt he was in a position to be able to
understand the mindset of a judicial officer and have that insight, from an
independent perspective, having not previously been involved in the Clu.
137. I recall speaking to JMC about the threshold for the recusal application (as a
result of her making me aware of the intended application and the advice from
external legal advisers that she had procured). I had queried whether the test
was a “high bar”. JMC informed me that it was not and articulated the test at
law (having received advice from Lord Neuberger and Lord Grabiner KC).
138. I have been asked to describe the extent to which I was involved in instructing
Lord Grabiner KC to advise POL, as well as the extent to which I was made
Page 40 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
aware of the advice given by him in conference in March 2019
[POL00006397], my views on it and any discussions I was involved in about
that advice.
139. I was not involved in instructing Lord Grabiner KC to advise POL, but I was
aware that he gave advice in a conference on 18 March 2019. I was not
present at the conference.
140. On 20 March I was copied into an email which attached a Note of Conference
(with him) from 18 March 2019. On 26 March, I received an updated version
contained at [POL00006397].
141. Having read the note, although I cannot recall exactly when, I became aware
(potentially via other email correspondence also) that he had given POL strong
prospects of success in a recusal application and had advised that what
Justice Fraser had done was “an unbelievable nonsense and demonstrated
apparent bias.” I do not recall having any specific discussions about his
advice.
142. I have been asked to consider [POL00006399] (Brian Altman’s advice of 14
April 2019). I have been asked to set out the extent to which, if at all, I was
involved in instructing Mr Altman KC to provide advice which was produced
on 14 April 2019.
143. I was not involved in instructing Mr Altman KC to provide this advice.
144. I have been asked whether I read Mr Altman KC’s advice at the time and, if
so, what my thoughts were on it.
Page 41 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
145. I do not recall reading the full advice at the time. I do know that I read it at
some point because I recognise it. It is possible that I read it at the end of April
or May 2019.
146. In summary, (and at risk of over-simplifying the advice) I thought that the
advice outlined that the ClJ did not impact the safety of the past convictions
but that the HIJ could be relevant to the safety of past convictions. My
understanding was that WBD and RW were taking the advice forward and
considering the next steps. When the HlJ was handed down in December
2019, Brian Altman KC was again asked to consider the impact to the safety
of past convictions.
147. I have been asked to consider the following documents: [POL00103497]
(email from Diane Blanchard to myself and others on 23 April 2019),
[POL00103498], [POL00103499], I [POL00103500] —_ (attachments),
[POL00006538] (the supplemental paper by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) and
[POL00006755] (the minutes of the Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee
meeting of 24 April 2019) and to describe how the Subpostmaster Litigation
Committee worked in practice, including its leadership.
148. As set out above, the PLS was a Board subcommittee. The PLS made
decisions in respect of the Group Litigation. The GC (JMC or me) and the
external lawyers would seek instructions and decisions from the PLS in
respect of the matters listed above.
149. The PLS would meet and, prior to the meetings, the Company Secretary would
circulate papers for discussion. The papers were prepared in a combined
Page 42 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
effort between POL business representatives, inhouse lawyers and external
legal teams. The members of the PLS are as set above, but other
representatives from the GE and the business generally, as well as inhouse
and external lawyers, would join the committee meetings to support the
members in the execution of their role.
150. As GC, I was an adviser to the PLS rather than a member (as I was not a
Board director). HSF had been specifically appointed to advise the PLS and
Board in relation to the Group Litigation.
151. I have been asked to describe my role at the time of the meeting of 24 April
2019, in general terms and specifically in relation to the Subpostmaster
Litigation Committee.
152. This was a week prior to my becoming GC. Given I did not have the benefit of
being sufficiently up to speed on the matters to meaningfully contribute, had
not yet been appointed to GC and the advice that had been given was from
external legal experts, I do not recall saying anything during the meeting and
I did not have a set role. However, as JMC was leaving the business (I do not
recall if that was widely known at the time but it was known that she was
stepping back from the Group Litigation in or around 21 April 2019 given HSF’s
involvement), as the Legal Director I thought it appropriate to join the meeting
in her absence. I do not believe that my promotion to GC had been confirmed
at this point though I was expecting to be appointed.
Page 43 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
153. I have been asked to set out my recollection of the meeting on 24 April 2019,
including the questions Board members asked of legal advisers and any legal
advice given.
154. As outlined above, HSF attended the meeting and provided advice, alongside
WBD, Lord Neuberger and David Cavender KC. The focus of this meeting
was for the PLS to decide whether the proposed ClJ appeal should be joined
with the already submitted recusal appeal. The critical question was whether
joining the ClJ appeal to the recusal application gave POL better prospects of
success on either or both. WBD, David Cavender KC and Lord Neuberger
gave their views which were that POL should join the ClJ appeal to the recusal
application, but HSF did not agree. The PLS decided to write to Lord Justice
Coulson advising him that POL would seek leave to appeal the ClJ on 16 May
2019 (the intervening time to prepare the appeal) and to not join it to the
recusal application.
155. I do not have a more detailed recollection of the meeting than as set out in
[POL00006755].
156. I have been asked to explain what effect, if any, the involvement of new
external lawyers on the discussions concerning strategy.
157. I HSF were assessing the advice provided by WBD and various counsel on co-
joining the appeal with the recusal. It enabled the PLS, in the execution of
their duties as Board directors, to be better assured that they had fully tested
the advice they were receiving about co-joining of the appeal, which was the
focus of that discussion. It transpired that HSF did not agree.
Page 44 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
158. I have been asked to consider the following documents: [POL00023207]
(judgment of Coulson LJ on the application to appeal to recusal application),
[POL00103536] (email chain on 11 May 2019) and [POL00103541] (email
chain on 13 May 2019) and to describe my views when I read the judgment of
Coulson LJ.
159. I had thought it was unusual to make an application for a Judge to recuse
themselves. However, POL had received advice from David Cavender KC,
Lord Grabiner KC, Lord Neuberger and WBD; in short, their view was that POL
had good merits of succeeding in the application. The contrast of the final
outcome to that advice was significant.
160. At the time the judgment came out, it was difficult for me to assess it, as I did
not have the benefit of all of the background and contextual information
leading up to this point especially as I had not attended the trial, and nor had
I been involved in the obtaining of the advice or attended the relevant board
meetings.
161. My overarching observation upon reading the judgment was that it was highly
critical of POL. The tone of the judgment was also particularly striking. I do not
recall stating formal view on this at the time but, as outlined above, I did feel
that it was unusual to make a recusal application, but I noted the extensive
advice that had been received by various external legal experts and that that
advice had gone to the PLS and then the Board in accordance with proper
governance.
Page 45 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
162. Over the following months it became clear to me and to HSF that the previous
litigation legal team may have had entrenched ‘group think’ which might have
impacted the advice. I was supportive of the fact that we had a new legal team
to review the issues going forward.
163. I have been asked for my view on POL’s strategy in respect of the recusal
application by this point.
164. As above, I was not involved in advising on or making any decision in respect
of the recusal application.
165. POL had taken and had followed expert legal advice, which has been tested
by Lord Neuberger, in making the recusal application, but clearly POL’s
strategy was not correct.
166. I have been asked to describe any conversations I had regarding the Horizon
issues around this time and any advice I gave.
167. I recall at a GE meeting in May 2019, Rob Houghton (Group IT Director)
mentioned that he was planning to facilitate an independent review of the
Horizon system. Whilst it later transpired that he was in fact facilitating the
equivalent of a test or ‘system check’, I wanted to make sure that anything
‘Horizon’ related was being properly coordinated (from a governance
perspective) within POL. In that context, I sent an email to RW and Andrew
Parsons (WBD) querying our disclosure obligations, mindful of our duties to
the court, and therefore the need for us to ensure we were approaching this
in a joined-up way (i.e., that decisions were not just being taken without
considering them in the round) [POL00042675].
Page 46 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
168. I amnot sure why it required an independent company save for I would expect
it would need to be outsourced because of internal capacity (most if not all of
the IT facility was outsourced at this time).
169. I did not take the decision regarding whether the test should take place (and
the timing for it), which was a matter for the Group IT Director and / or CEO.
The test was carried out, I believe over the August bank holiday although I am
not certain of this date, but it was before the judgment was handed down. Had
there been any adverse findings resulting from the test, there would have been
an obligation to disclose them, commensurate with the approach taken on
KELs.
170. I would also refer to the global user access issue as outlined above.
171. I have been asked to consider [POL00021566] (minutes of the POL Board
meeting on 28 May 2019). I have been asked to set out my recollection of the
discussion of the Bates litigation.
172. I donot recall this specific meeting. I can see that I was in attendance as was
HSF partner, Alan Watts. I believe (and can see from the minutes) that the
focus of the discussion was on the ClJ appeal and in particular the
appointment of Helen Davies KC and a new approach to the appeal (i.e., focus
on the key points) which would shorten the application and adapt the previous
tone.
173. I have been asked to consider “/t was critical that Horizon was seen as a robust
system today’ and to set out any discussions or concerns raised about the
robustness of Horizon since 2000 at or around the time of this meeting.
Page 47 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
174. I donot recall this Board meeting. I also do not recall the specific sentence in
the minutes of the meeting being said: “It was critical that Horizon was seen
as a robust system today” [POL00021566]. From the manner in which the
minutes have been written, it looks as though this statement was made by a
Board director. Having now considered the minutes, I think it is possible it
could have meant one of these two things: (i) it draws meaning and context
from the preceding sentence (i.e., POL’s expert had previously stated that the
Horizon system was robust) and, as a matter of fact, that would need to be the
position in order for POL to succeed at trial; and/or (ii) it could have been a
reference to the obvious fact that generally Horizon was essential to the
operation of POL.
175. My recollection is otherwise set out above, in respect of the global access
issue.
176. I have been asked to consider [POL00103595] (minutes of the PLS meeting
of 12 June 2019). I have been asked to set out my recollection of this meeting,
including the questions Board members asked of legal advisors and any legal
advice given.
177. I do not remember this specific meeting or what questions were asked so I
have to rely on the minutes I have been directed to. There was a focus on
ensuring that POL only appealed the ClJ points that it had a good chance of
succeeding with. Julie Thomas and Amanda Jones were not in attendance, so
I gave the update on the operational work stream. From the meeting minutes
it looks like I also gave an update on the HIT. HSF gave an update on the ClJ
appeal.
Page 48 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
178. I have been asked if I agreed that the previous approach to the litigation had
been flawed.
179. Broadly speaking, I agreed that the changes to the approach to the litigation
as implemented by AC were helpful. Given the content and tone of the Justice
Fraser and Lord Justice Coulson’s judgments, I did think that there had been
strategic errors. I attended the HIT for one day, and it was clear that the
relationship between David Cavender KC and the Judge was strained.
180. As I mentioned above, it became evident to me that there had been some
‘group think’ amongst the legal advisers.
181. With the benefit of hindsight now, I do believe the previous strategy to the
litigation was flawed.
181.1 I have been asked how the new approach to litigation differed.
182. The new approach was to remove the potential ‘group think’ in the manner I
have outlined above, and to provide greater assurance or oversight over the
legal team, which included the appointment a new external legal team
(including counsel), resulting in the ClJ appeal submissions being reduced to
those which Helen Davies KC considered meritorious, and tonally trying to get
the points across in the right way. The new approach also tried to take on
board the points raised in the ClJ and operationalising changes which were
appropriate irrespective of the appeal.
Page 49 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
183. I have been asked to consider my email dated 18 June 2019 and the chain
beneath it at [>OL00276883] and to explain the issue which I was addressing
in my email and that which was the subject of the chain beneath.
184. I Theissue which I was addressing in my email of 18 June 2019 was a response
to Andrew Parson’s email to me, sent in light of a discussion at PLS held on
12 June 2019. In that meeting the PLS members had noted surprise that WBD
had received a schedule of information setting out individual Claimants’
estimated losses and that WBD had apparently not given this to POL. The
PLS directed that WBD be asked to explain the position. In light of that
direction, Andrew Parsons emailed me including an attachment of an email
sent by JMC to the former CEO, Paula Vennells and AC (who at the time was
CFOO) a year and a half prior, referencing the £224m figure (being the
Claimants’ total estimated losses) to show that WBD had given this figure to
POL. Andrew Parsons also noted in the email to me that JMC had a speaking
note when meeting TC in April 2018 in which the £224m figure was also
referred. Andrew Parsons was therefore letting me know that at least some of
the PLS were aware and that, if pressed, he would need to raise this
appropriately.
185. In my response I wanted to give Andrew Parsons an opportunity to reflect on
the point. Whilst I empathised with this position, I was concerned it looked
defensive and given WBD were involved in the ClJ which had been
unsuccessful, it was my attempt to help him better manage key stakeholders
within POL and land the point. I also noted that since becoming GC I had on
occasion observed some liberal expressions being used by Andrew Parsons
Page 50 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
to convey the message that the Claimants had not properly particularised their
claim.
186. I have been asked to consider [POL00006752] (minutes of the PLS meeting
on 20 June 2019) and to set out my recollection of the advice given by Anthony
de Garr Robinson KC.
187. I donot recall this particular meeting, or the advice given by Anthony de Garr
Robinson KC. I am aware from the minutes that I attended this meeting;
however, I am afraid that I do not recall it.
188. I have been asked to set out what I understood from Mr Robinson KC’s advice
in respect of how the POL and Fujitsu witnesses presented (including the
expert).
189. I have reviewed Anthony de Garr Robinson KC’s advice note and the minutes
as contained at [POL00006752], and note the summary provided by Mr
Robinson KC.
190. I have been asked to set out what I understood from Mr Robinson KC’s advice
that “Both expert witnesses were unsatisfactory but the documents
demonstrated the reliability of the system’.
191. I do not recall Mr Robinson KC’s advice at the time, but my interpretation of
this statement is that this is a reference to the performance of the witnesses
on the stand rather than the conclusions they had reached. My understanding
of his view, having read his note, is that he thought POL should be successful
because the objective documented evidence showed that Horizon was robust,
Page 51 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
but that POL’s expert witness’s credibility was undermined because his
analysis was not sufficiently detailed, and the Claimant’s witness's credibility
was undermined because of what Mr Robinson KC perceived to be
demonstrable bias against POL.
192. I have been asked to consider [POL00006483] (Group Litigation Update for
the July 2019 POL Board meeting) and [POL00021568] (minutes of the POL
Board meeting on 30 July 2019) and to describe my recollection of the
discussion concerning the Bates litigation at this meeting, along with what my
view on the benefit of settlement was at this point.
193. I only have a vague recollection of this meeting. My memory is that it was
primarily focused on the operational / postmaster components rather than the
Group Litigation. I gave an update on milestones of the Group Litigation
including the permission to appeal the ClJ and the HlJ. However, the focus of
my update pertained to setting out the approach to settlement and potential
issues that would need to be worked on should the Board approve a
settlement or mediation.
194. In accordance with the Board’s endorsement, further analysis was carried out
as to the approach which would be taken in relation to the mediation.
195. At this point, I thought the benefit of settlement was that it would resolve the
dispute and prevent two further trials taking place in the interests of all parties,
bringing finality to the litigation, save all parties legal costs, and prevent further
reputational damage to POL.
Page 52 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
196. I have been asked to consider [POL00026939] (agenda and enclosures for
the meeting of the PLS on 17 September 2019) and [POL00103667] (minutes
of the meeting of the PLS on 17 September 2019) and to set out my
recollection of this meeting and in particular discussions relating to settlement
/ mediation.
197. I recall that this was the first substantive discussion around settlement advice
provided by HSF. There was a quick status update on other issues (the ClJ
appeal, the HIJ, the Further Issues Trial and contingency planning) and a
detailed discussion around the approach to the settlement range and the
approvals which would be required by the Government Shareholder.
198. _ HSF had provided detailed advice which they took the PLS through including
the proposed draft Board paper (the next Board meeting was on 23 September
2019 though it incorrectly refers in the header to being held on 24 September
2019). HSF provided strategic advice as to the mediation and the settlement.
The PLS recommended that POL obtain a better understanding of the
Claimants’ position and strategy. There was also consideration given as to
whether settlement could be offered to the Claimants who had criminal
convictions which had not yet been overturned. The existence of and potential
impact of the Claimants’ funding arrangements was flagged, and this is
covered further below. The PLS with the UKGI GC discussed the approval
process that would be required for a mediation and settlement.
199. I have been asked to consider [POL00128938] (agenda and enclosures for
the meeting of the PLS on 23 September 2019), [POL00155497] (minutes of
the meeting of the PLS on 17 September 2019) and [POL00042954] (my
Page 53 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
email of 23 September 2019 listing actions on GLO arising out of the meeting)
and to set out my recollection of the discussion in respect of settling the Bates
litigation.
200. [POL00155497] contains the minutes for a (full) Board meeting taking place
on 23 September 2019 rather than a PLS meeting. During this Board meeting
I recall that the Board principally focused on the HSF advice pertaining to
settlement and the benefits of alternative dispute resolution. My impression
was that the Board (like the PLS in the previous week) had considered the
HSF mediation and settlement advice but were concerned with a number of
uncertainties including what the Claimants’ likely position and approach would
be at a mediation; the findings from the HIT; and the need for further quantum
analysis. There was also a discussion around the process of how to obtain
authority from the Government Shareholder.
201. ‘The first page of [POL00128938] is an agenda pertaining to a PLS meeting
on 22 October 2019 (as noted in the footer) but is incorrectly dated in the
header (as 22 September 2019). There was in fact a PLS meeting held on 22
October which again was attended by Andrew Parsons (WBD), Alan Watts
(HSF), and Catherine Emanuel (HSF) as well as other business
representatives including the Operations Director, Julie Thomas and Network
Director, Amanda Jones. Various topics were discussed at that meeting
including an update on the different aspects of the litigation (i.e., awaiting the
HIT judgment); the hearing from the application to appeal the ClJ (which had
been listed for 12 November 2019); and the Further Issues Trial. In addition,
the PLS was updated on the position regarding KELs. There was also a
Page 54 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
discussion on the operational improvements and how POL was changing its
interaction with subpostmasters (the paper pertaining to this topic is the
penultimate document in [POL00128938)]).
202. [POL00128938] also includes the update to the Board dated 29 October 2019
which is set out in my response below. In summary, the Board noted the
updates regarding the litigation and the approach to mediation and authorised
the PLS to delegate to me to make settlement offers at the mediation on terms
to be determined by the PLS.
203. I have been asked to consider the following documentation relevant to the KEL
disclosure issue: [POL00112564], [POL00112590], [POL00026216],
[POL00043001], [POL00112614], [POL00112591], [POL00112593],
[POL00043004], [UKGI00018388], [POL00285674], [POL00043028},
[POL00043032], [UKGI00018417], [POL00006741], [POL00043054],
[POL00043063], [UKGI00018459], [POL00043146], [POL00043153],
[POL00043154], [POL00026263], [POL00026270], [POL00026268],
[POL00043156], [POL00043164], [POL00103675], [POL00104329],
[POL00043189], [POL00043188], [POL00026304], [POL00043190],
[POL00043192], [POL00026314], [POL00103690] and [POL00112752] and
to set out a full account of the KEL disclosure issue, how it arose, what
information was provided to the Board about this issue, what steps were taken
to rectify the position and how it was resolved:
204. I was informed on 2 October 2019 that there was a failure of Fujitsu to properly
advise POL of the KELs, which in turn meant POL had not complied with its
Page 55 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
duties of disclosure when it completed the electronic documents questionnaire
(EDQ) prior to the commencement of the HIT.
205. In the evening of 2 October 2019, I wrote to relevant persons at POL (including
some that sat on the GE), informing them of the issue and that there were a
number of steps for POL to take, including to write to the Claimants’ solicitors
to advise them of the issue and update the EDQ (both were done, I believe,
on 3 October). As part of this email, I also outlined that I had asked the team
to ascertain what POL did to assure itself that the information provided by
Fujitsu was accurate and what controls were in place to provide such
assurance [POL000112590].
206. A Board meeting took place on 3 October 2019 in which I updated the Board
on the KELs disclosure issue (see [POL00112614]).
207. In relation to disclosure, my direction and intent was as set out in my email of
4 October 2019, in which I confirmed that it was POL’s obligation to disclose
this and disclosure needed to be made quickly [POL00043032]. That is what
I believed POL’s legal obligation was at the time. As I go on to say, though, as
HSF is instructed by the Board, I would like to obtain their view and
recommendation in relation to the matter. This was important because the
reason for HSF’s appointment, was to have a firm that was not involved in the
original HIT, with oversight.
208. The advice subsequently received is as contained within the documents as
outlined in paragraph 205, in particular, [POL00026268]. Having received that
Page 56 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
advice from those experts involved in the litigation, I accepted it, and (together
with HSF) took it to PLS and the Board where it was approved.
209. The Claimants informed the Court that they did not intend to review the new
KELs or make further submissions on the issue. The audit did not identify any
further KELs which needed to be disclosed to the Claimants or require POL to
change its submissions made about Horizon when the trial closed.
210. External auditors A&M, who were conducting the audit, completed their
investigation and did not find anything to suggest that Fujitsu had not now
given proper disclosure (within the issue of the Group Litigation). The Board
received a note setting out the above on 8 November 2019 [POL00103690].
At the subsequent Board meeting on 29 November 2019, the Board was
reminded of the note pertaining to the KELs.
211. Throughout this period, the Board was given regular updates, which included
a KELs action tracker.
212. I have been asked to consider [POL00155496] (minutes of the POL Board
meeting on 29 October 2019) and to set out my recollection of the discussion
in respect of settling the Bates litigation.
213. I was not present for the entire meeting (as is usual), but I attended for the
Group Litigation update (together with Alan Watts from HSF). The Board noted
that the PLS was authorised to consider the proposed settlement figures. Alan
Watts and I updated the Board on the approach - to make a reasonable offer
based on the legal analysis of quantum noting: (a) the governance required;
(b) the requirements of managing public monies; and (c) issues around “novel,
Page 57 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
contentious or repercussive” expenditure under the Managing Public Money
guidance, which was particularly important to TC and had also been previously
discussed with the UKGI GC.
214. This is why I believe that the Board paper notes “Our limiting factor was what
we thought we would pay if we went through a court process, the other sides
was their funding position”. What I think this comment refers to is that there
was a concern that the mediation may not be able to resolve the matter,
because each party had a principal challenge. POL’s (and the Government
Shareholder’s) principal challenge was the quantum that a court would award
under legal principles (heads of damage which, as outlined in HSF’s note to
POL, was within a particular range), and the factors outlined at paragraph 213
above, might mean that POL would not be able to reach an sum acceptable
to the Claimants. The challenge for the Claimants was that they would need
to pay their litigation funder, which would be a significant sum.
215. In the context of the above, it was noted that if the first mediation was not
successful, POL would go on to consider either a second mediation and/or the
use of Part 36 offers. My perspective was that there was a genuine desire by
the Board to resolve and settle the matter. Some of the Claimants had criminal
convictions, and my understanding at the time was that POL was unable to
give compensation for the same circumstances in which they hold a conviction
(in summary). The position in respect of these Claimants had not been fully
determined and therefore further review was required.
216. I have been asked to consider the following documents: [POL00026418]
(email from myself dated 28 November 2019), [POL00026420] (email from
Page 58 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
myself dated 29 November 2019), [POL00091455] (email from Andrew
Parsons dated 8 December 2019), [POL00043341] (email from myself dated
9 December 2019), [POL00023524] and [POL00023525] (email from
Jonathan Gribben dated 9 December 2019 and attachment), [POL00023523]
(email from Andrew Parsons dated 9 December 2019), [POL00026459]
(Group Litigation Update for meeting on 10 December 2019) and
[POL00128935] (minutes of the Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee on 10
December 2019) and to set out my assessment at the time of the implications
of the HIJ for POL, including POL’s position in respect of subpostmasters who
had been convicted using data from Legacy Horizon and Horizon Online.
217. When the embargoed HIJ was handed down, in the course of mediation,
external lawyers advised me that the Horizon system in use between 2000-
2010 (Legacy Horizon) “was not robust”; the previous system (HNG-X, 2010-
2018) was “questionable” and did not justify the confidence placed in it by POL
in terms of its accuracy; and broadly that the current system (HNG-A 2018
onwards) was “relatively robust” [POL00091455].
218. My initial assessment, based on the external legal advice that POL had
received, was that:
218.1 as the current system was found (as per the experts and concluded by Justice
Fraser) to be relatively robust, the immediate worst case scenario contingency
planning was not necessary, but other contingency steps needed to be acted
on, included the ongoing improvements that would still be required, (for
example, the IT controls framework and audits);
Page 59 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
218.2 POL would likely receive more civil claims against a result of the HlJ findings
in respect of the Legacy Horizon and HNG-X periods; and
218.3 there was a significant risk that convictions which had relied on Legacy
Horizon and HNG-X would be unsafe and therefore would need to be
reviewed by a criminal law expert.
218.4 I have been asked to describe any conversations I had with members of the
POL Board or BEIS in the immediate aftermath of the HlJ.
219. I do not recall any conversations with members of the Board or BEIS in the
immediate aftermath of the judgment, I was at this time in the middle of the
mediation, save for:
219.1 I informed the Board and the PLS of the embargoed HIJ and provided a brief
summary on 28 November 2019 at 23:31 (see [POL00026418]). Shortly, after
at 00:16 on 29 November 2019 [POL00026420] I provided a more detailed
summary (which I suspect was based on further legal advice I had reviewed
from the external lawyers).
219.2 I provided a further note to the Board and PLS on 9 December 2019 at 22:44,
based on the advice I had received from external lawyers, regarding the
outstanding chapter M of the HlJ. Essentially, chapter M sets out the specific
answers to the 15 HliJ questions that were being determined in the HIJ
[POL00091455).
220. A Group Litigation Update paper was sent to the PLS prior to 10 December
2019 [POL00026459] for discussion at the PLS on that day. This set out the
Page 60 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
summary of the HlJ and a number of the implications, which included Brian
Altman KC’s initial views as can be seen summarised within that paper. It also
approved that Brian Altman KC be approached to act as POL’S KC in relation
to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC).
221. The PLS also noted the advice of Simon Henderson and Owain Draper (the
note of which was also reviewed by Anthony de Garr Robinson QC but for the
reasons given in paragraph two of the note he could not add his name to it,
but he did not disagree with anything in the advice) not to appeal the HlJ.
222. The correct communication channel to BEIS was through the PLS which
included the Government Shareholder Representative (TC). It was part of
TC’s and his team’s role to oversee and liaise with the DBT.
223. I have been asked to set out any legal advice I provided, or POL received on
the judgment.
224. As noted above, POL received a number of different pieces of legal advice
from external lawyers (WBD, HSF and counsel), following the handing down
of the HIJ and I informed the GE and Board including the PLS of salient
features of the HIJ and a number of implications of it.
225. This included advice on whether there were any grounds to appeal the HlJ
({POL000023525] - Simon Henderson and Owen Draper). The overall
recommendation was not to appeal the judgment [POL000123523], which the
PLS agreed with.
Page 61 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
226. In addition, Brian Altman KC had given initial views about the implications of
the HlJ from a criminal law perspective. Importantly, even though settlement
had been achieved, I advised the Board that settlement would not bring a
conclusion to the matters [POL00128935], it would require POL to
operationalise the ClJ and HlJ; more claims could be expected; criminal
convictions would need to be reviewed; and the obligations of the settlement
agreement would need to be complied with (i.e., delivered).
I have been asked to consider the following documents relating to the
settlement negotiations: [POL00289279], [POL00128887], [POL00006807],
[POL00021572], [POL00103702], [POL00026418], [UKGI00018527],
[UKG100018525], [POL00107189], [UKGI00010796], [UKGI00010798},
[UKGI00010811], [POL00128892], [POL00043319], [POL00043320],
[UKG100018677], [UKGI00018728], [UKGI00018815], [POL00043335],
[UKG100018695], I [UKGI00018779], [POL00026474], [POL00026480],
[POL00103707], [POL00103708], [UKGI00010880], [UKGI00010891],
[POL00026486], [POL00103711], [POL00103714], [POL00026508] and
[POL00026490] and provide a full account of my role / involvement in the
settlement negotiations and their outcome.
227. As GC and a representative of POL, my role in the settlement negotiations
and the outcome was as follows:
227.1 I would ensure that POL received expert legal advice in respect to the dispute
resolution process and settlement negotiations, both leading up to and during
the mediation. Representatives from both WBD and HSF attended the
Page 62 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
mediation, though principally HSF led the settlement negotiations and
mediation on behalf of POL;
227.2 I attended the mediation over its course which was conducted from 27
November 2019 until the evening of 10 December 2019. I was involved in and
contributed to the mediation where I was appropriately placed to do so, e.g.,
at one point I recall speaking to the mediators and asking whether I or POL
could see the Claimants’ litigation funding agreement (as POL knew that
litigation funders were involved and would likely impact the settlement but did
not know of their terms and conditions); checking twice whether litigation
funding was a recoverable head of loss; and liaising with business
representatives about additional non-financial terms which ultimately formed
part of the settlement deed (e.g., Amanda Jones and Julie Thomas — both of
whom had also attended the mediation at particular stages);
227.3 I provided update reports to the PLS and the UKGI GC throughout the
mediation;
227.4 I was given certain delegated authority to make offers up to a particular
amount, but any higher offer would require escalation to the Government
Shareholder (via the Government Shareholder Representative) - but only on
the basis that it would settle the matter; and
227.5 I was instructed, following approvals from the CEO, Chairman, and UKGI (as
per the previously agreed governance process) to execute the settlement
deed which the parties had agreed.
Page 63 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
228. The outcome of the mediation was achieved as a consequence of the
respective party’s decision makers deciding that the terms of the settlement
deed (which included financial and non-financial components) were
acceptable. Both parties had had the benefit of knowing that the ClJ appeal
had been refused and knowing the findings of the HlJ at the time of settlement.
Both parties were represented by external lawyers.
229. I have been asked to consider the following documents relating to POL’s
response to the HlJ: [POL00023527], [POL00043351], [POL00043360],
[POL00091460], [POL00113696], [POL00114465], [UKGI00019083],
[POL00112898], [UKGI00011156], [POL00112873], [POL00103840],
[POL00103870], [UKGI00011710], [UKGI00018731], [POL00021580],
[UKGI00011825], [UKGI00011826], [POL00112943], [POL00066711],
[UKGI00017761], [POL00104178], [POL00021596], [POL00031089],
[POL00030907], POL00021463], [POL00021604], [POL00021606] and
[POL00113200] and to set out any steps taken by POL in 2019/2020 following
the judgment in relation to individuals who may have been affected by bugs,
errors and defects and in particular in relation to the convicted claimants and
historical shortfalls.
230. There were numerous steps taken by POL in 2019 and 2020 following the HIJ
in relation to individuals who may have been affected by BEDs and in
particular in relation to convicted Claimants and historic shortfalls. A significant
amount of work has been undertaken by the organisation and the Legal team
to embed and operationalise the HIJ (as well as the Clu).
231. Principally, these steps included:
Page 64 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
231.1 setting up the post-GLO settlement programme, chaired by Nick Read and
consisting of a subset of GE and their direct reports to oversee the different
workstreams and tasks, because it involved multiple accountable people
across the business, and it needed to be carried out in a joined-up way as a
result. This programme included, by way of example, how POL would manage
the criminal law implications of the HlJ;
231.2 obtaining suitably qualified and expert criminal lawyers such as; Brian Altman
KC; Zoe Johnson KC; and Sir David Calvert-Smith (Sir David Calvert-Smith
was there to support the Board in overseeing and managing the criminal law
decisions including the disclosure process i.e., oversight over the criminal law
firm Peters & Peters, Brian Altman KC and Zoe Johnson KC);
231.3 reporting that advice to the PLS and Board, and ultimately following that
advice and liaising with the CCRC as required;
231.4 liaising with criminal law experts in terms of the Post Conviction Disclosure
Exercise (PCDE) including the steps that would be required to identify past
convictions;
231.5 the establishment of the HSS (civil compensation scheme); various steps were
taken to contact impacted postmasters including writing to all former and
current subpostmasters and placing notices in national press publications;
231.6 conformance with the settlement deed of 10 December 2019; and
Page 65 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
231.7 the establishment of the ClJ and HlJ conformance programme in order to
embed the legal requirements into POL’s operational practices. This included
various improvements such as remediating any historical errors and bugs.
232. I have been asked to describe POL’s position in relation to criminal appeals
following the Horizon Issues judgment and any legal advice on this provided
by myself or received by POL.
233. POL’s position in relation to the criminal appeals following the HIJ was to
understand the details of the individuals who had been convicted; to
understand the legal requirements on how to manage a criminal appellate
process (as this was not something that a corporate entity would normally be
involved in); to ensure that its duty as prosecutor was complied with; and to
assist the CCRC and ultimately the Court of Appeal in relation to the appeals
of past convictions.
234. I did not provide any legal advice personally or directly as I am not a criminal
lawyer. However, POL received extensive legal advice through: through the
instruction of Brian Altman KC who was highly experienced and, as a result of
his previous involvement, had knowledge of the issues; the instruction of Zoe
Johnson KC who could look at matters afresh; and the instruction of Sir David
Calvert-Smith, giving the Board additional oversight over the other KCs, their
counsel teams and Peters & Peters.
235. It had been noted to the Board and PLS that POL could not unilaterally
overturn past convictions of its own volition; it had to work through the criminal
law processes.
Page 66 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
236. At the risk of over-simplifying, the criminal law advice from the experts above
was that a Limb 1 abuse had occurred (i.e., non-disclosure at previous criminal
trials) which meant that the defendants had not received a fair trial, but that in
their view and according to the case law, Limb 2 abuse had not been satisfied.
The Board was very keen to get it right and really tested the external legal
team on this. Ultimately, however, the Court of Appeal found that both Limb 1
and Limb 2 abuse had occurred [POL0031089].
237. I have been asked to describe the financial and operational issues raised by
the judgment.
238. The financial and operational issues raised by the HIJ included:
238.1 in the immediate aftermath the Horizon contingency plan (as previously
produced) commenced;
238.2 there would be an increased financial exposure and operational impact to POL
because there would be further civil claims as a result of the finding in respect
of HNG-X and Legacy Horizon;
238.3 there would be appeals by those with previous convictions to have their
convictions overturned;
238.4 subject to the criminal law process being worked through, there would
ultimately be further civil law claims arising from convictions that had been
overturned;
238.5 full conformance with the HIlJ (and ClJ) was required, and a programme of
work was set up with the newly established Operations Modernisation /
Page 67 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Operations Transformation programmes (which were subsequently subsumed
by the Improvement Development Group) with the accountable business
representatives. This included ensuring that the historical BEDs found in the
HIJ had been remedied and assessing whether the subpostmasters had
suffered any detriment as a result of them;
238.6 instructing KPMG to review the suspense account issue (suspense accounts
are accounting tools in POL’s finance team for temporarily holding differences
in payments moving between Post Office and its clients, where the client and
Post Office's view of what is payable or receivable may differ). Unresolved
differences are moved to Post Office suspense accounts. Both HSF and
Peters & Peters were involved in providing legal advice in relation to POL’s
obligations in respect of this report. The matter was discussed at the PLS,
RCC and ARC;
238.7 assurance over the operational changes principally by external independent
parties; and
238.8 funding arrangements between the Government Shareholder and POL would
need to be considered.
239. I have been asked to describe any critical analysis which was done of how
POL had handled the Bates litigation and any conclusions drawn.
240. Following the handing down of the ClJ appeal judgment, the HlJ and following
settlement of the Group Litigation proceedings, the CEO and the Chair initially
requested information about the events that led up to the commencement of
the Group Litigation. Ultimately more fulsome critical analysis was undertaken
Page 68 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
(which I believe is subject to LPP which has not been waived by the limited
waiver given to the Inquiry by POL).
241. I have been asked to set out my involvement in public statements and
communications (including to Parliament / with MPs) about the issues which
were the subject of the HlJ.
242. The extent of my involvement in public statements and communications
(including to Parliament and or with MPs) about the issues which were the
subject of the HiJ varied. There were a number of occasions in when I was
involved in reviewing public statements and communications, such as the
Group Litigation settlement deed apology of the Chair and Nick Read.
Members of my team and external lawyers were also asked to review
statements and communications because they were better placed given their
expertise or involvement in the detail of a particular issue.
243. I have been asked to explain my involvement in any work managing the
ongoing impact of the Bates litigation, including but not limited to settlement
compliance and liaising with the CCRC.
243.1. I have continued to be involved in my capacity as GC in the ongoing
operational and cultural changes at POL. The post-GLO settlement
programme was broad and far-reaching, including compliance with the GLO
settlement deed. Other areas of work included the criminal law process to
have convictions overturned (including engagement with the CCRC), such as
encouraging those that had criminal convictions to come forward to have their
Page 69 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
convictions overturned (including engaging Citizen’s Advice to assist with
this).
244. I have been asked to consider [POL00128937] (minutes of the PLS on 22
January 2020 and 4 February 2020) and describe my recollection of those
meetings and, in particular, the discussion on the criminal appeals and
Historical Shortfalls Scheme (“HSS”).
245. Anupdate was given on the post-GLO programme. I noted that the team were
working through disclosure obligations in relation to the convicted Claimants.
246. The Board directed that another KC be appointed to ensure independent
analysis, as Brian Altman KC had been previously involved in the litigation. I
was supportive of this decision. Consequently, Zoe Johnson KC was
appointed to act in respect of the criminal law matters in addition to Brian
Altman KC. Following those PLS meetings, the Board wanted additional
support to assist it in scrutinising and testing the criminal law advice that it
received, including in relation to key strategic decisions that needed to be
made, the approach to be taken on the disclosure review and issues relating
to the CCRC and Court of Appeal. Consequently, Sir David Calvert-Smith (a
former Court of Appeal Judge; and former Director of Public Prosecutions)
was appointed to fulfil that role, in order to ensure that independence. My
understanding was that the Board agreed there was merit in retaining Brian
Altman KC (a former First Senior Treasury Counsel to the Central Criminal
Court), given his expertise and corporate memory (due to his previous
involvement from around 2013 onwards).
Page 70 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
247. Over January and February 2020, the HSS was designed by HSF following
the GLO settlement in December 2019. HSF provided the initial draft Terms
of Reference, eligibility criteria, process maps and proposed approach to
decision making. However, a number of these concepts were discussed at
subsequent PLS meetings and changes were made. For example, it was
decided that POL would appoint an external independent panel to provide it
with the recommended claims assessment decision and then POL would take
it through its governance process for approval (albeit I do not recall exactly
when this was). Moreover, the PLS did not accept HSF’s proposal for a
potential application fee to join the scheme. Both UKGI and DBT
representatives became heavily involved in the design and implementation of
the HSS.
248. I have been asked to consider [POL00104107] (emails dated 22 April 2020)
and explain the issue that was being discussed in these emails and my
understanding of whether the board had been made aware of the Deloitte
report.
249. I understand that this email correspondence followed a Board meeting which
took place on 16 April 2020, at which Catherine Emanuel from HSF was
updating the Board. Some members of the Board expressed surprise and
discomfort upon hearing that there had been a previous Deloitte Report about
remote access which they had not heard of.
250. I did not sit or report to the Board at the relevant times and am not aware of
when the Board first became aware of the relevant report. However, at the
latest, the Chair and CEO (Nick Read), received a summary and attachment
Page 71 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
of the Project Bramble report (which is a Deloitte report) by 9 March 2020
[POL000103870] [UKGI00011826]. The reports (Project Bramble and Project
Zebra) were subsequently provided to Government Shareholder (note
[UKG100011825}).
Relationship with Fujitsu
251. I have been asked to provide a comprehensive account of my involvement
with Fujitsu in relation to matters relevant to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
I am asked to detail my interactions with Fujitsu over the period covered by
this request.
252. I do not recall any involvement with Fujitsu directly because, practically
speaking, as an inhouse lawyer my role generally is inward (i.e. to support the
accountable business representative, which in this case is the Group IT
Director and the IT Department). Although there is a Chief IT Officer with an
internal IT team at POL, like other parts of the business, the IT team utilised
outsourced providers such as Fujitsu. The IT department is the responsible
business unit to manage the IT systems. The inhouse legal department
provides ‘second line of defence’ legal services to the IT business area to
support them to manage legal and regulatory risk.
253. As Head of Legal — Financial Services (before I was Legal Director and then
GC), I do not recall having any involvement with Fujitsu. When I started at
POL, there was a Senior Legal Counsel - IT, Kenneth Garvey, who reported to
Piero D’Agostino (Head of Legal - Commercial), on IT issues. When Piero
D'Agostino left (and following a restructure of the IT department), Kenneth
Page 72 of 77
254,
255.
255.1
255.2
255.3
255.4
255.5
255.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Garvey became Head of Legal - IT and Procurement, and he continued to
work with the IT department when they required legal support together with
external lawyers. I believe the Fujitsu contract had a particular escalation
procedure which was managed within the IT team.
I did deal with broader matters related to IT (at times, linked to Fujitsu, like
contract conformance, for example), but these did not necessitate my direct
contact or engagement with Fujitsu. On 13 January 2020 I was asked to join
a meeting with a Fujitsu representative with the CEO and IT Director. WBD
and RW did send me a note for it, but I do not recall attending the call.
I have been asked to set out in detail my interaction with Fujitsu over the period
covered by this request, to include the following:
Bugs, errors and defects in Horizon:
At the relevant time, I did not have any contact with Fujitsu in relation to bugs,
errors and/or defects in the system.
In terms of prosecutions of subpostmasters, managers and assistants:
I was not involved in prosecuting any subpostmasters, managers or
assistants.
In terms of the provision of expert evidence:
I was not directly involved in procuring expert evidence, albeit I was aware of
evidence being given in the second part of the HIT and I was involved in high
level terms, reporting to the PLS together with HSF and other external lawyers,
including counsel.
Page 73 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
255.7 In terms of Bates & Others v Post Office:
255.8 I did not have any involvement with Fujitsu in respect of the Bates & Others v
Post Office trial. At the appeal stage of the ClJ, when I was involved, the
matters for determination were questions of law and therefore did not require
my engagement with Fujitsu. As the HIT was already over halfway through
when I became GC and was being managed by the existing external team as
overseen by HSF, there was no necessity for me to engage directly with
Fujitsu on this.
255.9 In terms of my reflections on the above interactions:
255.10 Whilst POL was dependent on Fujitsu in terms of the operating system, my
reflection generally is that POL ought to have had, and should have going
forward, proper oversight over its outsourced IT arrangements.
256. I have been asked what, if any, extent did these matters arise in the context
of the contract renewal or extension discussions and if not, why not.
257. I am aware that POL was concerned about Fujitsu’s performance and
commitment. My understanding is that such issues would have been factored
into the decision of whether to renew or extend the Fujitsu contract, though I
note that new personnel and potentially a consequential lack of corporate
memory may have affected POL’s approach to the above issues. That
decision sits with the Board and the Government Shareholder with the Group
IT Director and CEO reporting to those forums. I would not attend Board
meetings for that matter as I am not the accountable GE representative.
Page 74 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
258. The Legal team, including me and the Head of Legal — IT & Procurement
(Kenneth Garvey) together with external lawyers have supported the various
Group IT Directors and the IT Department, who are responsible for the
management of the Fujitsu contract and the commercial relationship, through
the provision of legal advice. I do not recall having any direct involvement in
the negotiations with Fujitsu.
259. I have been asked whether I consider that the level of scrutiny applied to
Fujitsu’s operation of Horizon was sufficient.
260. I suspect that POL was over-reliant and dependent on Fujitsu and that it may
not have had sufficient controls in place to oversee its outsourced
arrangements.
261. During my time as Legal Director, with the assistance of the GC who reviewed
the Annual Legal Risk Report, I reported to the RCC and ARC that contract
management needed to be improved across the business, which would
include with Fujitsu. With increased oversight, I would hope that, for example,
the fact of the KELs would have been identified sooner.
Conclusions
262. I have been asked if there are any further key topics not otherwise addressed
above, to set them out here.
263. I do not have any further topics to provide to the Inquiry at this time. I have
answered these questions to the best of my knowledge and belief, but if there
are documents I have not addressed or matters I have not covered which the
Page 75 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Inquiry would like me to do, I am very happy to provide any such further
assistance to the Inquiry should it require it.
264. Please note that for the purposes of this witness statement I have only
mentioned the KCs when talking about counsel. There were many junior
barristers also involved in providing advice, but I have not specifically
mentioned them by name.
265. I have been asked if there is anything further that I would like to bring to the
attention of the Chair.
266. As the current GC to POL, due to the limited privilege waiver by POL there is
material that I am unable to place before the Inquiry.
267. Finally, but most importantly, I would like to express my genuine apology to
the subpostmasters and their families who have been so dreadfully impacted
by the above issues. The accounts that I have seen from correspondence,
heard at GLO mediation, and in the Inquiry (especially during Phase 1) have
been harrowing. I also recognise that the problems with respect to disclosure
in the Inquiry have exacerbated that pain for which I again apologise. I want
those subpostmasters to know that I remain fully committed to supporting POL
to do the right thing; ensuring compliance with the ClJ, HlJ and Hamilton
judgments; and testing and challenging all POL colleagues to ensure that such
mistakes can never be repeated and to continue to do all that I can in respect
of subpostmaster compensation.
Page 76 of 77
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Benjamin Andrew Foat
Date: 3 May 2024
Page 77 of 77
Index to Fourth Witness Statement of Ben Foat
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00152923
Email from the POL Communications
Team to various recipients dated 14
August 2015
POL-BSFF-
0012035
POL0146535
Email from the POL Communications
Team to various recipients dated 24
August 2015
POL00158234
POL0146594
Email from the POL Communications
Team to various recipients dated 12
January 2018
POL00158365
POL00006705
Minutes of Meeting 2 May 2019: GLO
Contingency Planning Governance
POL-0017963
POL00006706
Minutes of Meeting 7 May 2019: GLO
Contingency Planning Governance
POL-0017964
POL00103534.
POL00006707
The Post Office Group Litigation - Action
List as at 10 May 2019
Minutes of Meeting 9 May 2019: GLO
Contingency Planning Governance
POL-0103117
POL-0017965
POL00103551
Email Chain from Alan Watts to Thomas
Cooper; re: Legally Privileged and
Confidential - GLO dated 15 May 2019
POL-0103134
UKGI00009765
Email from Tom Cooper to Richard
Watson, Tom Aldred and Stephen
Clarke re: Group Litigation dated 15 May
2019
UKGI020573-001
10.
POL00006709
Minutes of Meeting 16 May 2019: GLO
Contingency Planning Governance
POL-0017967
11.
POL00026004
Email thread from Alisdair Cameron to
Alan Watts and Ben Foat cc: HSF Post
Office re: Privileged and Confidential on
16 May 2019
POL-0022483
12.
POL00042675
Email chain discussing independent
review of Horizon and FJ products on
POL-0039157
4125-1477-8191.6
WITN09980400
WITNO9980400
current and test strategies. Email chain
from Ben Foat to Andrew Parsons,
Rodric Williams and Jonathan Gribben
re Independent Testing of Horizon dated
17 May 2019
13.
POL00103554.
The Post Office Group Litigation Action
List as at 17 May 2019
POL-0103137
14.
15.
POL00042688
POL00103559
Email chain from Rodric Williams to
Kirsten Massey, Andrew Parsons, Ben
Foat and Others re Worden 3 - Update
and Recommended Action dated 22
May 2019
Email chain from Ben Foat to Tom
Cooper, Alisdair Cameron and Tim
Parker re Post Office Group Litigation -
Subject to Legal Privilege - Do Not
Forward dated 23 May 2019
POL-0039170
POL-0103142
16.
POL00042698
Email chain from Andrew Parsons to
Ben Foat, Rodric Williams, Jonathan
Gribben and Charlie Temperley re
Global User Access. Discussion re
disclosure obligation within group
litigation dated 28 May 2019
POL-0039180
17.
POL00023648
Email from Mark Underwood to Ben
Foat, Rodric Williams, Andrew Parsons
and others RE: Legally Privileged - GLO
sub-committee dated 4 June 2019
POL-0020127
18.
UKGI00018405
Email from Tom Aldred to Tom Cooper,
Richard Watson and Stephen Clarke re:
Group Litigation - Board Subcommittee
dated 20 June 2019
VIS0001 1804
19.
POL00023656
Emails between Amy Prime, Ben Foat,
Andrew Parsons, Rodric Williams and
others RE: Cover Letter dated 26 June
2019
POL-0020135
20.
UKGI00010304
Email chain from Eleanor Beal to
Richard Watson, Tom Cooper, cc'ing
Tom Aldred and others - Re:
Commission: Briefing for meeting with Al
Cameron and Tim Parker, Monday 24
June re POL dated 27 June 2019
UKGI021112-001
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
21.
POL00006716
Minutes of meeting 4 July 2019: GLO
Contingency Planning Governance
POL-0017974
22.
POL00128834
Post office; 8 July 2019 GLO
Contingency Planning Governance
POL-0132182
23.
POL00128837
15 July 2019 GLO contingency planning
governance by 'AD'
POL-0132183
24,
POL00128841
18 July 2019 Meeting minutes for GLO
contingency planning governance
POL-0132187
25.
26.
POL00042841
POL00091452
Email chain between Andy Parsons,
Ben Foat and others dated 29 July 2019
Draft Communications Plan
POL-0039323
POL-0090474
27.
POL00006734
Minutes of Meeting 15 August 2019:
GLO Contingency Planning
Governance
POL-0017992
28.
POL00043529
Email from Andrew Parsons to
Catherine Emanuel, Ben Foat, Rodric
Williams and others re Scope of FIT —
harassment and costs on 21 October
2019
POL-0040011
29.
POL00107191
Post Office Board - Operations and GLO
Contingency Planning Meeting -
Executive Summary 22 October 2019
POL-0105499
30.
POL00006743
Minutes of Meeting 24 October 2019:
GLO Contingency Planning
Governance. 2024-03-05 GM: RE-
ISSUED AS POL00128859
POL-0018001
31.
POL00114236
Post Office Board- Group Litigation
Update dated 29 October 2019 with
annotations- Author: Ben Foat / Rodric
Williams
POL-0113163
32.
POL00119730
Email from Declan McHugh to Melanie
Corfield and others re Stakeholder
comms plan/matrix and collateral index
on 4 November 2019
POL-0119733
33.
POL00119731
Horizon Issues Judgment Draft
Communications Plan
POL-0119734
4125-1477-8191.6
WITN09980400
WITNO9980400
34,
POL00026327
Email from Ben Foat to Tom Cooper,
Rodric Williams, RE: GLO sub-
committee dated 7 November 2019
POL-0022806
35.
POL00006750
Minutes of Meeting 7 November 2019:
GLO Contingency Planning
Governance
POL-0018008
36.
POL00043279
Group Litigation Update dated 13
November 2019
POL-0039761
37.
POL00043283
Email attaching briefing paper on
POL/WBD's decision not to call Gareth
Jenkins as a witness in HIT trial in group
litigation. Email itself includes summary
of reasons. Email from Andrew Parsons
to Rodric Williams re Gareth Jenkins
briefing dated 14 November 2019
POL-0039765
38.
POL00043284
Post Office Group Litigation: Gareth
Jenkins Report
POL-0039766
39.
UKGI00018548
Email from Tom Aldred to Richard
Watson, Joshua Scott, Tom Cooper and
others re FW: URGENT Court of Appeal
Order A1/2019/1387 on 22 November
2019
VIS00011947
40.
POL00026379
Email from Rodric Williams to Ben Foat,
Catherine Emanuel, RE: Urgent Court of
Appeal Order on 22 November 2019
POL-0022858
4.
POL00023104
Email from Zoe Brauer to Ben Foat and
Rodric Williams cc’ing Ainslie Cranwell,
Andrew Parsons, Catherine Emanuel
and others re: GLO - Adverse comments
in PTA Judgement on 25 November
2019
POL-0019583
42.
POL00129086
Horizon Issues Trial Judgment
Contingency Planning Update on 4
December 2019
POL-0132243
43.
POL00021563
Minutes of Board Meeting on 20 March
2019
POLO000096
44.
POL00023656
Email from Amy Prime to Ben Foat,
Andy Parsons, Rodric Williams and
others on 26 June 2019
POL-0020135
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
45.
POL00023657
Email from Helen Davies to Andy
Parsons and Amy Prime on 26 June
2019
POL-0020136
46.
POL00080043
Email chain between Robert Findlay and
Rodric Williams and others Re:
Important Email Re: Preservation of
documents/ high court litigation.
Discusses Frank Holt as potential GLO
claimant on 21 April 2016.
POL-0076606
47.
POL00117757
Email chain from Kerry Moodie to
Natalie Whitty, Mark Underwood, Ben
Foat and others re: Post Office Facts
Twitter Account on 17 July 2017
POL-0114694
48.
POL00024282
Decision Paper Re: Proposal for the
March 2019 Trial and a Long-Term
Strategy for the Group Litigation.
POL-0020761
49.
POL00104316
Post Office Ltd ARC Report on Annual
Legal Risk Review: 2017 dated 29
January 2018
POL-0103899
50.
POL00006490
Email from Andrew Parsons to Ben
Foat, Rodric Williams and others: Board
sub-committee on Thursday on 18 June
2019
POL-0017795
51.
52.
UKGI00018269
POL00023791
POL Board report, (Criminal Cases)
from Herbert Smith Freehills on 10
March 2020 (incorrectly dated as 10
March 2019)
Email chain from Amy Prime to Rodric
Williams, Ben Foat and Zoe Brauer re:
Group litigation materials on 15 March
2019
VISO001 1668
POL-0020270
53.
POL00004094
Judgement (no.2) of the High Court of
Justice in Alan Bates and Others v Post
Office limited [2018] 2698 (QB).
VIS00005108
54.
POL00025910
Bates and others v Post Office Limited -
Observation on Recusal Application by
Lord Neuberger
POL-0022389
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
55.
POL00006397
Note of conferences on 18 March 2019
and 20 March 2019 with Lord Grabiner
Qc
POL-0017702
56.
POL00006389
Brian Altman QC advice on the
Common Issues Trial Judgment dated
14 April 2019
POL-0017704
57.
POL00103497
Email from Diane Blanchard to Tim
Parker, Thomas Cooper, Alisdair
Cameron and others re. Board GLO
Sub-Committee Meeting 24.04.19
POL-0103080
58.
POL00103498
Post Office Limited Board Litigation
Sub-Committee Postmaster Litigation -
Executive Summary Confidential and
Subject to Legal Privilege dated 24 April
2019
POL-0103081
59.
POL00103499
Womble Bond Dickinson Common
Issues Judgment: Appeal Advice dated
11 April 2019
POL-0103082
60.
61.
62.
POL00103500
POL000065338
POL00006755
Confidential and Privileged - Alan Bates
& Others v Post Office Limited -
Common Issues List
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP The Post
Office Group Litigation Board Litigation
Sub-Committee: 24 April 2019
Meeting Minutes of the Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee Meeting held
on 24 April 2019
POL-0103083
POL-0017843
POL-0018013
63.
POL00023207
Permission to appeal against
Judgement No.4 (Recusal) REFUSED
In the Court of appeal Civil Division for
Post Office v Bates & Others. Order
made by the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice
Coulson.
POL-0019686
64.
POL00103536
Email from Alan Watts to Thomas
Cooper re: For info: recusal application
refused on 11 May 2019
POL-0103119
65.
POL00103541
Email from Thomas Cooper to Tim
Parker and others re. Legally privileged
and confidential - GLO on 13 May 2019
POL-0103124
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
66.
POL00021566
Minutes of Board meeting held on 28
May 2019
POL0000099
67.
POL00103595
Postmasters Litigation Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes 12 June 2019
POL-0103178
68.
POL00276883
Email from Andrew Parsons to Ben
Foat, Rodric Williams, Andrew Harding
and others re Board sub-committee on
Thursday dated 19 June 2019
POL-BSFF-
0114946
69.
POL00006752
Draft Meeting Minutes of the Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee of POL of 20
June 2019
POL-0018010
70.
POL00006483
Post Office Board: Group Litigation
Update
POL-0017788
71.
POL00021568
Meeting minutes: minutes of Board
meeting held on 30 July 2019
POL0000101
72.
73.
POL00026939
POL00103667
Post Office Limited Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee Agenda &
Minutes 17 September 2019
Minutes of Meeting of the Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee of POL 17
September 2019
POL-0023580
POL-0103250
74,
POL00128938
Post Office Limited - Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee Agenda 22
September 2019
POL-0132240
75.
POL00155497
Minutes of a POL Board Meeting on 23
September 2019
POL-0143662
76.
POL00042954
Email chain from Ben Foat to Rodric
Williams, Andrew Parsons, Alan Watts
and Others re GLO Board Actions dated
23 September 2019
POL-0039436
77.
POL00112564
Email from Alisdair Cameron to Nick
Read, Re: Horizon trial missing from
closing arguments dated 25 September
2019
POL-0110038
78.
POL00112590
Email from Ben Foat to Nick Read,
Alisdair Cameron, Mark Davies cc'ing
POL-0110060
4125-1477-8191.6
WITN09980400
WITNO9980400
others re GLO -Disclosure Incident —
KELs dated 2 October 2019
79.
POL00026216
Email from Ben Foat to Nick Read,
Alisdair Cameron and Mark Davies cc:
Shikha Hornsey, Rodric Williams,
Sherrill Taggart, RE GLO - Disclosure
Incident dated 2 October 2019
POL-0022695
80.
POL00043001
Email Chain from Shikha Hornsey to
Rodric Williams, Ben Foat, Gary Walker
and Others, Re Horizon Issues Trial
Disclosure dated 2 October 2019
POL-0039483
81.
POL00112614
Post Office Limited Board Meeting 3
October 2019
POL-0110081
82.
POL00112591
Email chain from Alisdair Cameron to
Ben Foat cc Nick Read and Mark R
Davies Re: GLO-Disclosure Incident re.
KEL logs dated 3 October 2019
POL-0110061
83.
POL00112593
Email from Nick Read to Ben Foat,
Alisdair Cameron, Mark Davies, RE:
GLO - Disclosure Incident dated 3
October 2019
POL-0110063
84.
POL00043004
Email Chain from Rodric Williams to
Andrew Parsons, Kenneth Garvey,
Catherine Emanuel and Amy Prime re
Important - Horizon Issues Trial
Disclosure - Privileged & Confidential -
Do not forward dated 3 October 2019
POL-0039486
85.
UKGI00018388
Email from Thomas Cooper to Tom
Cooper re Fwd: Legally Privileged -
Legal Advice - GLO - Disclosure
Incident dated 3 October 2019
VIS00011787
86.
POL00285674.
Email Chain from Rodric Williams to
Andrew Parsons, Catherine Emanuel
and others re Legally Privileged - Legal
Advice - GLO - Disclosure Incident
dated 3 October 2019
POL-BSFF-
0123737
87.
POL00043028
Email chain between Rodric Williams
and Andy Parsons dated 4 October
2019
POL-0039510
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
88.
POL00043032
Email from Andrew Parsons (WBD) to
Ben Foat (PO), Catherine Emanuel,
Rodric Williams and others re KELs —
query dated 4 October 2019
POL-0039514
89.
UKGI00018417
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker,
Carla Stentl, Tim Franklin and others re:
Legally Privileged - Legal Advice - GLO
- Disclosure Incident dated 4 October
2019
UKGI00018417
90.
POL00006741
Minutes of Meeting 7 October 2019:
GLO Litigation Activity Planning
POL-0017999
91.
POL00043054
Email chain discussing audit of FJ as
they extract KELs for litigation purposes.
Email from Ruth Cowley to Andrew
Parsons, Rodric Williams and Sherrill
Taggart re Legally Privileged - Legal
Advice - GLO Disclosure Incident dated
9 October 2019
POL-0039536
92.
POL00043063
Email from Ben Foat to Andrew
Parsons, Rodric Williams, Kenneth
Garvey and others re Fujitsu / KELs
issue — privileged dated 9 October 2019
POL-0039545
93.
UKGI00018459
Email from Richard Watson to Tom
Aldred, cc'ing Tom Cooper, Robin
Culshaw and others Re: GLO -
Disclosure Incident (progress made on
the GLO KELs disclosure incident)
dated 11 October 2019
VIS00011858
94,
POL00043146
Email chain from Rodric Williams to
Andrew Parsons, Sherrill Taggart,
Catherine Emanuel and others re GLO
Board Actions Table Update dated 18
October 2019
POL-0039628
95.
POL00043153
Email chain discussing comments for
Board on newly disclosed KEL
documents. Email from Andrew Parsons
to Ben Foat, Catherine Emanuel, Rodric
Williams and others re KEL Documents
dated 19 October 2019
POL-0039635
96.
POL00043154
Counsel's Opinion on whether to Audit
Fujitsu
POL-0039636
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
97.
POL00026263
Email from Ben Foat to Andrew
Parsons, Catherine Emanuel, Rodric
Williams etc, RE: KEL documents dated
20 October 2019
POL-0022742
98.
POL00026270
Email from Ben Foat to Catherine
Emanuel, Rodric Williams, Veronica
Branton and others, re KEL Documents
dated 20 October 2019
POL-0022749
99.
POL00026268
Email from Ben Foat to Catherine
Emanuel, Rodric Williams, cc Andrew
Parsons and others RE: KEL documents
- analysing KEL docs dated 20 October
2019
POL-0022747
100.
101.
POL00043156
POL00043164
Email from Ben Foat (POL) to Catherine
Emanuel (HSF), Rodric Williams (POL),
Veronica Branton (POL) and others re
KEL issue dated 21 October 2019
Email from Andrew Parsons to Rodric
Williams, Ben Foat, Sushma MacGeoch
and others; re: Headlines/ actions for
today's board SubCo dated 22 October
2019
POL-0039638
POL-0039646
102.
103.
POL00103675
POL00104329
Email from Catherine Emanuel to Alan
Watts, Alisdair Cameron, Thomas
Cooper, Privileged & Confidential: Costs
budgeting hearing tomorrow dated 22
October 2019
Minutes of PLS meeting held on 22
October 2019
POL-0103258
POL-0103912
104.
105.
POL00043189
POL00043188
Email from Rodric Williams to Catherine
Emanuel, Andrew Parsons, Jonathan
Gribben and others re KEL Disclosure -
response from Freeths dated 1
November 2019
Email from Andrew Parsons to Ben Foat
and Rodric Williams re KEL Disclosure -
response from Freeths dated 1
November 2019
POL-0039671
POL-0039670
106.
POL00026304
Email from Rodric Williams to Ben Foat,
cc'ing Alan Watts, Catherine Emanuel,
Alex Lerner, and others RE UPDATED
POL-0022783
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
KEL Disclosure Actions Table - as at
01.11.19 dated 4 November 2019
107.
POL00043190
Email from Andrew Parsons to Rodric
Williams, Ben Foat, Catherine Emanuel
and others, Re: KEL audit [WBDUK-
AC.FID26896945] dated 4 November
2019
POL-0039672
108.
POL00043192
Email chain from Ben Foat to Andrew
Parsons, Rodric Williams, Catherine
Emanuel and others, re: "KEL audit."
Dated 4 November 2019
POL-0039674
109.
POL00026314
Email from Rodric Williams to Ben Foat,
Alan Watts, Catherine Emanuel etc, RE:
Updated KEL Disclosure Actions Table-
5 November 2019
POL-0022793
110.
POL00103690
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker,
Carla Stent, Tim Franklin re: GLO - KEL
Disclosure Actions — Final dated 8
November 2019
POL-0103273
111.
POL00112752
Email chain from Owen Woodley to
Alisdair Cameron, Shikha Hornsey, Nick
Read, Re: Fijitsu decisions thoughts
dated 12 November 2019
POL-0110196
112.
113.
POL00155496
POL00026418
POL Board minutes on 29 October 2019
Email from POL in house lawyer
providing update on second day of
mediation, including financial proposals.
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker, Tim
Franklin, Carla Stent, RE: GLO
Mediation Day 2 and Summary of
Embargoed Horizon Judgement dated
28 November 2019
POL-0143661
POL-0022897
114.
POL00026420
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker, Tim
Franklin, Carla Stent and others RE:
GLO - High Level Review Embargoed
Horizon Judgment dated 29 November
2019
POL-0022899
115.
POL00091455
Email from Andrew Parsons to Ben Foat
and others re horizon IT Judgment
dated 8 December 2019
POL-0090477
4125-1477-8191.6
WITN09980400
WITNO9980400
116.
POL00043341
Email chain between Ben Foat, Tim
Parker, Tim Franklin and others RE:
GLO - High Level Review Embargoed
Horizon Judgment - Section M dated 9
December 2019
POL-0039823
117.
POL00023524
Email from Jonathan Gribben to Rodric
Williams and Ben Foat re: Horizon
Issues Judgment: Appeal and Costs
dated 9 December 2019
POL-0020003
118.
POL00023525
Alan Bates & Others and Post Office
Limited - Note on Potential Appeal of
Horizon Judgment
POL-0020004
119.
POL00023523
Email from Andrew Parsons to Ben Foat
and others, re Horizon Issues
Judgment: Appeal and Costs dated 9
December 2019
POL-0020002
120.
POL00026459
Post Office Board Subcommittee Group
Litigation Update Executive Summary
dated 10 December 2019
POL-0022938
121.
122.
POL00128935
POL00289279
Minutes of Postmaster Litigation
Subcommittee of 10 December 2019
Email from Richard Watson to Tom
Cooper, Catherine Emanuel, Tom
Aldred and others RE: Post Office: GLO
- .. - settlement authority dated 25
November 2019
POL-0132237
POL-BSFF-
0127342
123.
POL00128887
Email from Ben Foat to Alisdair
Cameron and others re Post Office GLO
- settlement authority dated 25
November 2019
POL-0132212
124.
POL00006807
POL Board Group Litigation Update:
Executive Summary dated 28
November 2019
POL-0018043
125.
POL00021572
Meeting minutes: meeting minutes for
Board meeting held on 26 November
2019
POL0000105
126.
POL00103702
Email from Tim Parker to Ben Foat, GLO
- Mediation Update - Highly Confidential
POL-0103285
4125-1477-8191.6
WITN09980400
WITNO9980400
and Legally Privileged dated 28
November 2019
127.
POL00026418
Email from POL in house lawyer
providing update on second day of
mediation, including financial proposals.
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker, Tim
Franklin, Carla Stent, RE: GLO
Mediation Day 2 and Summary of
Embargoed Horizon dated 28
November 2019
POL-0022897
128.
UKGI00018527
Email from Richard Watson to Ben Foat,
Tom Cooper and Alan Watts re:
Mediation dated 30 November 2019
VIS00011926
129.
UKGI00018525
Email chain from Joshua Fleming to
Tom Cooper cc'ing Richard Watson,
Tom Aldred and others - Re: Mediation
dated 1 December 2019
VISO0011924
130.
POL00107189
Email to Ben Foat from Andrew Parsons
Re: Plan for historic claims dated 1
December 2019
POL-0105497
131.
UKGI00010796
Email from Tom Cooper to Carl
Creswell, Joshua Fleming, Richard
Watson and others re. GLO Mediation
Update - Day 4 dated 2 December 2019
UKGI021604-001
132.
UKGI00010798
Email chain from Nick Read to Tom
Cooper and Ben Foat cc'ing Richard
Watson and others re: GLO Mediation
Update - Day 4 - High confidential &
Legally privileged dated 2 December
2019
UKGI021606-001
133.
134.
UKGI00010811
POL00128892
Email from Ben Foat to Richard Watson,
cc'ing Tom Cooper, Nick Read and
others re GLO - Mediation and General
Update dated 4 December 2019
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker, Tom
Cooper, Nick Read and others Re: GLO
- Mediation Update - confidential and
legally privileged dated 6 December
2019
UKGI021619-001
POL-0132217
135.
POL00043319
Email from Rodric Williams to Patrick
Bourke, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd, Mark
POL-0039801
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Underwood and others re GLO - Post
Office - Timetable / Actions dated 6
December 2019
136.
POL00043320
Article - Post Office Bard Subcommittee
- Group Litigation Update dated 10
December 2019
POL-0039802
137.
UKGI00018677
Email from Ben Foat to Tom Cooper and
Richard Watson re: GLO - Mediation
Update dated 6 December 2019
VIS00012076
138.
UKGI00018728
Email chain from Tom Cooper to Carl
Creswell re: GLO - Mediation Update -
confidential and legally privileged dated
6 December 2019
VIS00012127
139.
UKGI00018815
Email chain from Richard Watson to Ben
Foat CC Tom Cooper - Re: GLO -
Mediation Update dated 6 December
2019
VIS00012214
140.
POL00043335
Email chain between Catherine
Emanuel, Ben Foat, Rodric Williams,
Andrew Parsons and others RE: FW:
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT DEED
- Undertakings conditional on settlement
dated 9 December 2019
POL-0039817
141.
UKGI00018779
Email from Richard Watson to Ben Foat
RE: POL settlement authority dated 9
December 2019.
VIS00012178
142.
POL00026474
Email from Rodric Williams to Ben Foat,
Catherine Emanual, Alan Watts, cc'd
Veronica Branton, RE: GLO- latest
version of the settlement agreement
dated 10 December 2019
POL-0022953
143.
POL00026480
Email from Rodric Williams to Drew BJ
Mason, Tim Perkins, Michelle Stevens,
cec'd Angela Van-Den-Bogerd, Julie
Thomas, Ben Foat, RE: Urgent request
for MI - Branch Shortfalls/Settles
Centrally dated 10 December 2019
POL-0022959
144.
POL00103707
Email from Ben Foat to Richard Watson
and Tom Cooper, re _ Settlement
POL-0103290
4125-1477-8191.6
WITN09980400
WITNO9980400
Agreement — GLO dated 10 December
2019
145.
146.
POL00103708
UKGI00010880
Settlement Deed
Email from Tom Cooper to Richard
Watson re settlement agreement - GLO
dated 10 December 2019
POL-0103291
UKGI021688-001
147.
UKGI00010891
Email from Tom Cooper to Richard
Watson cc: Carl Cresswell re.
Settlement Agreement dated 10
December 2019
UKGI021699-001
148.
POL00026486
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker, Nick
Read cc'ing Tom Cooper and others RE:
GLO - settlement agreement agreed
dated 10 December 2019
POL-0022965
149.
POL00103711
Email from Tom Cooper, to Ben Foat,
Re: GLO - settlement agreement agreed
dated 10 December 2019
POL-0103294
150.
POL00103714
Email from Nick Read to Tim Parker,
Ben Foat, Tom Cooper and others; Re:
GLO - settlement agreement agreed
dated 10 December 2019
POL-0103297
151.
POL00026508
Email from Richard Watson to Ben Foat,
GLO - settlement agreement agreed
dated 10 December 2019
POL-0022987
152.
POL00026490
Email from Nick Read to Ben Foat, Tim
Parker, Tim Franklin, cc'ing Debbie
Smith, Owen Woodley, Shikha Hornsey,
RE: GLO - Settlement Achieved -
Confidential and legally privileged dated
11 December 2019
POL-0022969
153.
POL00023527
Email from Rodric Williams to Amanda
Jones, Ben Foat and others re-
Postmaster Litigation Steering Group
Meeting 19 December 19 dated 19
December 2019
POL-0020006
154.
POL00043351
Email from Mark Underwood to Ben
Foat, Rodric Williams, Angela Van-Den-
Bogerd and others re GLO dated 20
December 2019
POL-0039833
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
155.
POL00043360
Email from Mark Underwood to Ben
Foat, Rodric Williams, Andrew Parsons
and others re GLO dated 20 December
2019
POL-0039842
156.
POL00091460
GLO Post Settlement Programme
executive report dated 15 January 2020
POL-0090482
157.
POL00113696
Email from Zoe Brauer to Julie Thomas,
Tim Perkins, Amanda Jones and others
re: GE Post GLO Settlement; Contract
Reform Programme - overview of
actions dated 16 January 2020
POL-0112804
158.
POL00114465
Email from Ben Foat to Nick Read,
Avene Regan and Diane Blanchard RE:
GLO- CCRC, Lord Arbuthnot Response,
GLO Programme Approach dated 20
January 2020
POL-0113347
159.
UKGI00019083
Email chain from Richard Watson to
Tom Cooper, cc’ing Tom Aldred, Joshua
Scott and another re: Query re POL
Prosecution powers re horizon issues
dated 22 January 2020
VIS00012482
160.
POL00112898
Email from Ben Foat to Tim Parker re.
GLO — Previous Investigations — Legally
Privileged and Highly Confidential - Do
Not Forward dated 24 January 2020.
POL00112898
161.
UKGI00011156
Email chain from Catherine Emanuel to
Tom Cooper and Alan Watts re: FW:
Lords transcript - Lord Arbuthnot of
Edrom's Transcript - Post Office Powers
to Conduct Prosecutions dated 5
February 2020.
UKGI021964-001
162.
POL00112873
Email from Ben Foat to Nick Read re:
GLO - Previous Investigations &
milestones leading up to proceedings
dated 20 February 2020
POL-0111597
163.
POL00103840
Email sent from Tim Parker to Alan
Watts, Catherine Emanuel and others re
: GLO : Meeting Yesterday dated 7
February 2020
POL-0103423
164.
POL00103870
Email from Tim Parker to Ben Foat RE.
GLO — Historic Management of GLO —
POL-0103453
4125-1477-8191.6
WITNO09980400
WITNO9980400
Q &As — Response to Chairman dated 9
March 2020
165.
UKGI00011710
Email chain from Tom Cooper to Joshua
Scott, Richard Watson and Tim McInnes
re: Computer Weekly - Wildblood and
Murray Article dated 20 March 2020
UKGI022518-001
166.
UKGI00018731
Email from Tom Cooper to Joshua
Scott, cc Alex Cole, Desai Meet and
others re Secret Post Office deals cause
fury among Horizon IT scandal
campaigners dated 20 March 2020
VIS00012130
167.
POL00021580
Meeting minutes: minutes of Board
meeting held remotely on 27 April 2020
POL0000113
168.
UKGI00011825
Email chain from Joshua Scott to
Richard Watson, Tim Mclnnes CC
Richard Callard RE Deloitte Project
Zebra reports dated 4 May 2020
UKG1022628-001
169.
UKGI00011826
Bramble - Draft Report by Deloitte dated
19 January 2018
UKGI022629-001
170.
POL00112943
Letter to Darren Jones MP from Post
Office Limited in response to specific
questions raised in Darren Jones MP's
letter of 2 June dated 16 June 2020
POL-0110339
171.
POL00066711
Post GLO Settlement Programme
SteerCo Presentation prepared by the
Post Office dated 8 July 2020
POL-0063190
172.
173.
POL00104178
POL00021596
GLO Organisational Design' PowerPoint
Presentation August 2020
Meeting minutes: minutes of Board
meeting held on 22nd September 2020
POL-0103761
POL00021596
174.
POL00031089
Post Office Board Agenda CCRC
Meeting 19 November 2020
POL00031089
175.
POL00030907
POL Audit, Risk & Compliance
Committee Report into The Historical
Operation of Suspense Accounts, Mark
Underwood, 24 November 2020
POL-0027389
4125-1477-8191.6
WITN09980400
WITNO9980400
176.) POLO0021463 I Meeting of the Audit, Risk and I POL-0018093
Compliance Committee of POL Minutes
of 24 November 2020
177.I POLO0021604 Meeting minutes: minutes of Board I POL0000137
meeting held on 7 December 2020
178.I POL00021606 Meeting minutes: minutes of meeting I POL0000139
held on 7 January 2020
179.I POLO00113200 Email thread from Mark Siviter to I POL-0110582
Alisdair Cameron RE: ARC - mails fraud
update dated 2 February 2021
180.I POL00128937 Post Office Limited - Postmaster I POL-0132239
Litigation Subcommittee Agenda
181.I POLO0104107 Email from Ken McCall to Veronica I POL-0103690
Branton, Tom Cooper, Tim Parker and
others re: PDF of CCRC Papers 23 April
2020 dated 22 April 2020
4125-1477-8191.6