WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Witness Name: CHRISTA BAND
Statement No.: WITN10370100
Dated: 22 November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTA JANE BAND
I, Christa Jane Band, of One, Silk Street, London EC2Y 8HQ, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. I am a Partner of Linklaters LLP (“Linklaters” or “the Firm’).
2. This Witness Statement (the “Statement”) is made in response to the letter
dated 12 August 2024 which I received from the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(the “Inquiry”) pursuant to Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 (the “Request’).
Professional experience
3. I have a degree in law from the University of Cambridge (1985) and a post-
graduate degree in law from Oxford University (1987). I was called to the
Bar of England and Wales in 1986 and was engaged in pupillage and practice
until 1990. From 1990 to 1992 I was employed by Baker & McKenzie,
Solicitors, in Sydney Australia. I joined Herbert Smith, as it then was, in
London in 1992, was made a Partner in 1996 and remained there until I
joined Linklaters as a Partner in 2009. I am qualified as a Solicitor and
practise in the field of commercial litigation.
Page 1 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
In making this Statement I have been assisted by lawyers and a paralegal at
Linklaters, who have helped me retrieve, search for and review relevant
documents. The evidence in this Statement is all my own.
Save where the contrary appears, the facts and matters which I relate in this
Statement are within my own knowledge. Where I rely on what others have
told me, I believe that information to be true. I have refreshed my memory
from considering such contemporaneous documents as have been available
to me. This Statement reflects those documents where I do not have an
independent memory of the detail, given the passage of time since the
relevant events.
The work to which this Statement relates was carried out principally by me
and Jonathan Swil, then a Managing Associate at Linklaters. When I refer to
“we” or “us” in this Statement I mean to refer to Mr Swil and myself unless
otherwise clear from the context.
Contemporaneous documents
7.
It is my usual practice to file emails, though at the time of the work to which
this Statement relates, email filing was not automatic and I cannot be sure
that all relevant emails were filed and/or are now identifiable and/or available.
The Firm has sought to identify emails which were filed by Mr Swil during the
relevant period. Again, there can be no guarantee that this is a complete set
of all the emails which Mr Swil sent or received on this matter.
I often take handwritten notes in meetings and on calls. I have identified one
notebook which relates to this matter. Given the time period covered by the
Page 2 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
notes in this book, I think it likely that it was the only one I used. However, it
is perfectly possible that, in the time between 2014 and now, other
handwritten notes of mine have been misplaced or otherwise become no
longer available.
10. Ithas not, I understand, been possible to identify any handwritten notes made
by Mr Swil.
11. In a number of instances I have confirmed the date of meetings or calls and
who attended them by reference to time sheets.
Production of documents by the Post Office
12. In November and December 2021, Linklaters assisted the Post Office by
responding to its requests to provide it with relevant communications sent to
or from the Post Office and which were held by the Firm. I understand that
these requests were made to assist the Post Office in replying to one or more
Rule 9 Requests made by the Inquiry to the Post Office. These requests
were limited to documents held by the Firm to which the Post Office was
entitled and expressly excluded the Firm's internal correspondence.
Privilege
13. On 12 November 2021, Mark Underwood then the Legal, Compliance and
Governance Operations Director at the Post Office informed Linklaters that
the Chairman of the Inquiry had issued a statement on 8 November 2021
seeking a waiver of privilege in the Post Office’s (and others’) otherwise
privileged materials relevant to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
Page 3 of 69
14.
15.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
I have since seen the Post Office’s statement in response to this request,
dated 15 November 2021 and published on the Inquiry’s website.
Accordingly, I have prepared this Statement on the basis that there is no
relevant claim to privilege on the part of the Post Office and that I am not
bound by any duty of confidentiality to the Post Office which would prevent
me from including any relevant information in this Statement.
The Request
16.
17.
In making this Statement I have been guided by, and am responding to, the
questions set out in the Annex to the Request. I have responded to those
questions where I am able to do so, though have not recited them individually.
I have been provided with 72 documents by the Inquiry and have, as
requested, considered them for the purposes of this Statement.
The scope of Linklaters’ engagement
18.
19.
20.
As is not uncommon, particularly where there is an existing client
relationship, recording the terms of this individual aspect of our engagement
happened shortly after the work had commenced.
The Firm completed an eSRF for this work in response to a request from the
Post Office by email dated 31 March 2014 (WITN10370101). This indicated
the anticipated scope of our work and the estimated fees.
The relevant terms of Linklaters’ engagement that prescribed the mandate
for our work were set out in a “eSRF” from the Post Office in April 2014 sent
to Mr Swil (POL00304817). It stated that our work was to involve providing
advice in relation to the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme. The
Page 4 of 69
21.
22.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
work would be divided into two stages: firstly, preparation of a report
addressing the legal issues in respect of claims made; and secondly,
assistance in formulating options to implement alternatives to a proposed
Mediation Scheme.
There were further email exchanges with Mr Swil in April 2014
(POL00304817). Mr Swil asked whether the Firm would be asked to
“develop appropriate questions for POL to submit to an independent expert”
as indicated in square brackets in the eSRF because this may have affected
the fee estimate. We had not been asked to do that.
There was a further email exchange with Mr Swil in June 2014 on the
question of what a reasonable fee estimate for our work was
(WITN10370102). The Post Office wished to hold the estimate at £149,000
and we indicated that we had been asked to do some work outside the
additional scope, at the request of the Post Office and that £167,000 was a
more reasonable figure.
Background
23.
Throughout the period in which I was involved in advising the Post Office, it
was clear that it had, and had had, a number of other firms advising it on
different aspects of the issues it was facing and on individual cases. I do not
think that I ever had a comprehensive picture, and the identity of firms and
individuals probably changed over time. However, I knew that Bond
Dickinson as it then was, which I understood was a long-standing adviser to
the Post Office, was advising on civil law issues and that Cartwright King was
Page 5 of 69
24.
25.
26.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
giving advice on criminal law. I also knew that Counsel were involved,
including Richard Morgan QC.
It was not clear to me how advice between the several different legal advisers
whom the Post Office engaged was being coordinated or managed and
whether this was being done by one or more individuals in the Post Office
legal team or by an external firm. We were not asked to undertake that task.
During the time that I was involved, there was no pattern of updates or regular
information sharing between the external legal teams, certainly none which
involved the Firm. The only information which we had was information with
which we were specifically provided by the Post Office or at its behest.
For as much as the Post Office had several external legal advisers, the in-
house team also comprised a number of individuals and their respective
responsibilities were not always clear to me.
Advising the Post Office and knowledge of issues with Horizon
Initial instructions from the Post Office
27.
My introduction to this work was an email from Hugh Flemington dated
Wednesday, 26 February 2014 (WITN10370103) asking me and Satindar
Dogra (a Partner of the Firm who ultimately did not become involved in this
matter) to liaise with Chris Aujard and Belinda Crowe:
“Who wish to discuss tomorrow or Friday matters regarding our
criminal prosecutions, the civil mediation scheme we have set up
concerning such prosecutions and other cases, the possibility of us
facing a class action coming out of the mediation scheme. Essentially
Page 6 of 69
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
we will be looking at the legal, financial and pr risks to Post Office (and
potentially it's directors etc).”
I believe that Mr Flemington had my (and Mr Dogra’s) name from John
Crozier. Mr Crozier was a member of the Firm’s Technology, Media and
Telecoms practice and was at that time the relationship partner for the Post
Office. He retired from the Firm in late 2021. I had not previously done any
work for the Post Office.
I attended a meeting with David Oliver, Belinda Crowe, Chris Aujard and
Rodric Williams of the Post Office in-house legal team on 28 February 2014
and in that meeting I asked for some initial documentation. I believe that I
attended on my own for the Firm.
I took handwritten notes in the meeting. (WITN10370104)
From the outset and throughout, it was clear that we were being asked for
strategic advice in relation to the Mediation Scheme as a whole. Other firms
were, as I understood it, being asked to advise on individual cases. We were
not. We were provided with certain materials in relation to individual cases
but this was in the context of illustrating what sort of issues were being
addressed within the Mediation Scheme.
It is clear from my notes that I asked the Post Office at the meeting on 28
February 2014 what its overall aim was in relation to the Mediation Scheme.
Even at that initial stage, it did not seem to me that a mediated approach was
likely to be the best dispute resolution mechanism for the issues which the
Post Office, and the sub postmasters (the “SPMRs’), were facing. Mediation
is a consensual process and even from what I learned at the meeting on 28
Page 7 of 69
33.
34.
35.
36.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
February 2014, it was clear to me that some form of adjudication was likely
to be necessary.
My notes show that I was told that the Post Office board believed that the
Mediation Scheme would enable the Post Office to determine as a matter of
fact what happened in particular cases. I said that mediation schemes were
not really designed to establish the truth and were generally ill-suited to
situations where facts were complex and in dispute. The Post Office itself
acknowledged that the Scheme was not working — hence the request to us
to provide some strategic advice.
I was told that the Post Office considered that an adjudication system would
not work and that at its core there was not much of a legal dispute. Many of
the complaints were about the Post Office’s conduct rather than translating
into a question of legal liability.
I was told at the meeting that there was, in the view of the Post Office:
“nothing wrong with the Horizon system. Horizon and its metadata are
Suitably robust and have integrity.”
There were, I was told, 11,500 Sub Post Offices and around 60,000 terminals
in use every day that those Sub Post Offices were open. Only 149 SPMRs
had complained about the reliability of the Horizon system. As to whether
Horizon was working reliably, there had been a couple of suggestions
including that the “debit” and “credit” keys were too close together and that
this resulted in mistakes. There were also various suggestions that
telephones could affect the proper operation of Horizon.
Page 8 of 69
37.
38.
39.
40.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
I asked how money had, in fact, been lost. I was told that if the Horizon
system showed a loss then the Post Office was contractually entitled to look
to the SPMR to make it good. On a stock take, I was told, the books would
not balance in those cases in which the Post Office sought recovery. A stock
take was performed in order to “confirm the losses.” The computer terminal
was shut down each day and whilst it did not need to “balance perfectly”
every day, it would need to balance over a trading period — of about a month.
The reason for this was that on a daily basis some transactions might take
time to work through and not yet be fully reflected. For example, the SPMR
had, in error, processed the sale of 10 vehicle licence discs instead of 1. He
or she had then corrected it, but the reversal to remove the sale of 9 tax discs
could take some time to process and show in the Horizon system.
I was told that there was a Working Group of which Sir Anthony (Tony)
Hooper was the chairman. Terms of Reference had not yet been signed. My
notes show that I was told that the “political answer is very different.” I do
not now remember what those words meant or how I understood them at the
time.
The Post Office told me that Second Sight had been engaged to and had
produced a report which the Post Office described as “colourful.” I was told
that Second Sight had found no systemic issues on Horizon but it had
criticised the training and support provided for SPMRs.
There were at that time around 47 cases in the Mediation Scheme where the
Post Office considered that the accounts showed a loss and around 150
applicants overall. The Scheme was at that time closed to new applicants.
Page 9 of 69
41.
42.
43.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
I typed up a note of the meeting on 28 February 2014, not least as I had
attended it alone and wanted to be in a position to brief Mr Swil
(WITN10370105). My note stated:
“The Post Office has not conducted a full internal investigation of its
own in a form which we would recognise.”
‘It has engaged Second Sight — a two person practice of forensic
accountants. There is an issue since they have refused to sign the
engagement letter as they object to various terms. There seems a
lack of clarity as to:
For whom they are acting;
From whom they take instructions;
Their capability and experience which makes them suited for the task;
Whether they have the expert experience necessary to express certain
views which they seem nonetheless to be expressing;
What ability there is for the Post Office to challenge their views;
Whether they can now realistically be terminated.”
The Post Office asked us for a workplan and a report for the Board within
three weeks.
Over the course of the period from 28 February to 26 March 2014 (the date
of the Board Meeting) we were sent in various emails:
Page 10 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Application, Case Questionnaire, Post Office case report
and Second Sight report (WITN10370106) (POL00099705)
(POL00196559) (POL00130785) (POL00108214)
. Subpostmaster contract (POL00144032)
. Spot Review Bible (containing all the reviews) (WITN10370107)
. Draft settlement policy (POL00302526) (POL00199361)
. Draft Engagement letter for Second Sight and their comments
(WITN10370108) (POL00302530)
° Draft Working Group Terms of Reference (POL00302529)
. The initial Scheme documentation (POL00022120)
* Case I ¢ WITN10370109) (POL00108306) (POL00108212)
(POL00086863)
e Weblinks to certain public statements (WITN10370110)
° Case I cro I (POL00074348) (POL00099683) (POL00069278)
(POL00086844)
Ms Crowe also emailed me on the evening of 28 February to provide “the
paper I sent to the Board for discussion last week.” (WITN10370111)
(POL00027452) She added:
“You suggested that Post Office might wish to write to Second Sight in
response to the comment in their report on case
has already sent to you) we discussed.
Page 11 of 69
45.
46.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
We are minded to send such a letter but would need to do so early
next week. Would you be able to draft us a letter along the lines you
described which challenges the Second Sight assertion?”
Mr Swil sent an email to Mr Oliver on 5 March 2014 (WITN10370112) with a
list of documents which seemed to us to be relevant and with which we had
not yet been provided with copies.
At various times between 6 March and the 26 March 2014 Board meeting,
the Post Office sent through copies of the following (in addition to the
documentation noted specifically above):
An “independent service auditor report” (WITN10370114)
(POL00002314)
Certain emails between Ron Warmington of Second Sight and the
“Professional Advisers” (WITN10370115)
Certain copies of Working Group Minutes (WITN10370116)
(WITN10370117) (POL00026638) (WITN10370118) (POL00026640)
(POL00026641) (POL00026682) (POL00026636) (POL00026635)
(WITN10370119) (POL00026637)
The skeleton argument for the Castleton case (WITN10370120)
(POL00069911)
A note from Sir Anthony Hooper on a “way forward for Second Sight
and their reports.” (WITN10370121) (POL00302815)
Page 12 of 69
47.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
. “The key [Bond Dickinson] advice.” (POL00021991) (POL00006484)
(POL00193585) (POL00006485) (POL00023297) (POL00022002)
(WITN10370122)
. Alink to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lalji v POL (WITN10370123)
(POL00243088)
. Draft advice from Slaughter and May from January 2006 on
discretionary payments under the Scheme (WITN10370124)
I do not recall any discussion of Dr Gareth Jenkins in the course of my work.
I had no contact with him.
Second Sight
48.
From what I saw of the work which Second Sight had done, it seemed to me
wholly unsuited to the task in hand and I formed the view that this was in part
due to the poor quality of the work itself but that the problems had their
foundation in the way in which Second Sight had been instructed. I was
concerned that there was no clarity of thought as to what Second Sight had
been asked to do and why. Second Sight should have been acting on the
instructions of someone — albeit that those instructions should have been to
direct Second Sight to express their objective, independent, professional
view. However, Second Sight seemed to be effectively taking direction from
themselves and the result served the interests of none of the Scheme, the
SPMRs or the Post Office. I also questioned whether Second Sight had the
depth of resource to undertake what was a complex exercise within a
reasonable time. I thought that the whole situation was confused and
unsatisfactory.
Page 13 of 69
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Instead of starting where I would have expected them to start, with a generic
description of Horizon, its functionality and a view on whether or not it was
operating reliably, Second Sight had descended into the detail of individual
cases. The generic report which Second Sight should have done would then
have been available for use as a baseline against which to assess individual
cases in which complaints had been made about how Horizon had
functioned.
A generic report needed to be supported by evidence and reflect Second
Sight’s professional expertise. The views expressed in the individual reports
that we had seen were not properly supported by evidence. This considerably
lessened the impact of the reports and the reliance which could be placed on
them.
Although we were told that a generic report was expected, even this
document was not what we would have recommended be obtained as it was
anticipated that it would describe the themes and types of loss which had
been identified from individual cases.
On 12 March 2014, Mr Oliver emailed to say that the timing of the generic
report from Second Sight had slipped to 26 March so was unlikely to be
available to us in time for our work on the legal report in relation to claims
made by SPMR (WITN10370125).
I formed the view that the work which I had seen from Second Sight did not
reflect the sort of understanding of the nature or purpose of expert evidence
which I would have expected a firm engaged for this sort of work to have had.
The draft work plan
Page 14 of 69
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
To the best of my knowledge there were no further discussions between me
and the Post Office between 28 February and 4 March 2014. On 4 March
2014, Mr Swil sent Ms Crowe and Mr Oliver a workplan for the Post Office’s
comments. (POL00021989) (POL00021990)
The workplan was intended to be a document for discussion and to be
iterative. The Post Office could decide which work it wanted us to perform
under the categories of “Proposed Work” or indeed could decide to extend
the work to other issues we had not covered in the workplan. It was
essentially intended as a prompt for the Post Office to decide on its
instructions to us. The workplan raised for consideration whether to
correspond with Second Sight as had been suggested by Ms Crowe
' GRO}
specifically in relation to cas
noted at paragraph 44 above).
Not all of the work which was listed in the workplan was eventually requested
or carried out. I do not believe that the workplan document was ever updated
and recirculated. As it transpired, the draft outline of what became our Report
to the Board fairly quickly took the place of the workplan.
Mr Swil and I attended a meeting at the Post Office first thing on Thursday, 6
March 2014. In preparation for that meeting, we prepared a list of questions
(WITN10370126). I do not believe that we sent this to the Post Office ahead
of the meeting, or shared it during the meeting (an updated version was
shared later) but it would have been used by Mr Swil and me as a speaking
note and checklist.
I evidently gave the Post Office in-house legal team an “outline document’ of
what our report might cover at our meeting on 6 March 2014. (POL00114414)
Page 15 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
59. Ms Crowe emailed Mr Swil later in the day at 17:43 on 6 March 2014
(POL00147643) with initial comments on the outline document in which she
noted the Post Office Board’s request that:
“it was acknowledged that, in light of the facts now available, and the
projected level of claims and costs, it would be sensible to commission
more generic legal advice on the overall level of legal and financial
exposure (taking into account the possibility of class actions) and
steps that could be taken to mitigate any exposure ...”
Ms Crowe further commented that the outline required “CEO approval’ and
that she would revert with more detailed comments.
60. Mr Swil chased for comments on the outline document by email on Friday, 7
March 2014 (POL00147643). Ms Crowe replied on Sunday, 9 March
(POL00147643) to say they would get back to us with comments the next
day after discussing it with Paula Vennells. Ms Crowe asked us for a draft
“cover sheet” the next day which would set the context for the report.
61. On Saturday, 8 March 2014 and following our meeting with them, Mr Swil
emailed Ms Crowe and Mr Oliver (WITN10370127) (WITN10370128) with a:
“list of questions to which it would be helpful to have responses where
possible to fill in gaps in our overall understanding ... We discussed
the majority of these questions on Thursday and I have sought to
provide answers to ensure I have understood you and Belinda
correctly and there is nothing important that I have missed.”
Page 16 of 69
62.
63.
64.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Some follow up questions were also included. This was an updated version
of the note to which Mr Swil and I had spoken in the meeting of 6 March
2014.
This list of questions shows that at the meeting Mr Swil and I must have been
told that we would get “key advice” from Bond Dickinson and Cartwright King
and could follow up with them if we had questions.
Although the possibility of contacting Cartwright King had been raised and
contact details were provided to us, I do not believe that Mr Swil contacted
them. I did not do so. Although we had at the outset expressed an interest
and willingness to gain a better understanding of advice given by Cartwright
King, as the scope of our instructions narrowed, this ceased to be relevant.
It was not suggested to us by anyone at the Post Office that a discussion with
Cartwright King would reveal to us information about the reliability of Horizon.
To the best of my knowledge we did not receive any advice or other
documentation from Cartwright King.
The note also shows that we had asked at the meeting whether there had
been any investigation or analysis of the “alleged issues with Horizon” by
anyone other than Second Sight. We were told that there had not been aside
from the “regular audit of the system”. A recent “independent service audit’
had been carried out by Ernst & Young. We had also asked about Fujitsu’s
position.
Linklaters Report on Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Page 17 of 68
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Draft outline of Report
65.
67.
68.
The outline document that we gave to the Post Office team at our meeting
on 6 March 2014 (POL00114414) was intended to be a skeleton for the
Report which we had been asked to prepare so that the Post Office could
comment on scope.
I have some handwritten notes dated 10 March 2014 and headed “Chris
Aujard” (WITN10370129). It is not clear to me whether these relate to a call
or meeting with Mr Aujard. I did not record time for work on the Post Office
matter on 10 March 2014.
As noted above, on Sunday 9 March 2014, Ms Crowe had asked for a cover
letter or note for the outline and Mr Swil sent through a draft on the morning
of 10 March 2014 (POL00201709) (POL00201708).
Mr Oliver replied by email on 10 March 2014 (POL00147649) asking us to
reconfigure the outline and cover letter apparently following some internal
discussions. In our original outline we had included, in paragraph 13 “Some
fundamental questions”. They included:
“13.1 The Post Office will have, or will need to have, a view on a
number of fundamental points which will guide the decisions as to
future options:
13.1.1 The aims of the Mediation Scheme - is it primarily to improve
relations with some Sub-Postmasters or offer apologies and
explanations, or to enable compensation to be paid/explain why none
is due, or to establish what happened? Clarity around the aims of the
Scheme is important.
Page 18 of 69
69.
70.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
13.1.2 In any claim is the Post Office’s stance to be more conciliatory
than adversarial? What are the limits of that approach?
13.1.3 How important is it to the Post Office to determine the facts in
any individual case? How easy might it be to achieve this?
13.1.4 To what extent is the Post Office comfortable defending the
operation of the Horizon system but perhaps accepting that there
could have been better training or communication?
13.1.5 Does the Post Office wish to consider paying compensation by
reference to principles other than legal entitlement? If so, how will it
articulate and apply those principles? What will it say to Sub-
Postmasters and stakeholders?
13.1.6 How will the Post Office strike the balance between resolving
past issues and putting the future operation of Horizon and the
relationships with Sub-Postmasters on a sound footing.”
Mr Oliver’s email suggested adding to those questions:
. an examination of the legal implications of any Parliamentary
statement and whether Post Office wish to confirm the truth about the
Horizon system “not just on a case by case basis but systemically.
Mr Oliver indicated that he was talking to Ms Vennells later that afternoon.
By “systemically” I understood Mr Oliver to mean issues which would affect
the proper functioning of the Horizon system on a general, system-wide,
basis. This would be to distinguish it from issues which might affect the
proper working of an individual Horizon terminal. It would also, in my mind,
Page 19 of 68
71.
72.
73.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
distinguish it from design features which might, in one sense, be said to result
in errors but would not be a fault affecting the entire system. An example
might be the debit and credit keys being so close together that the user would
be apt to select the key other than the one he or she intended to use.
As to the “truth about the Horizon system” I understood Mr Oliver to mean
that there should be a document which detailed how the Horizon system
worked and confirmed whether or not it was functioning reliably. In other
words, to address the issues which we set out in the outline which we
prepared for the expert report which we had suggested the Post Office obtain
and to which I refer in paragraph 114 below.
In using the words “the truth about the Horizon system” I did not understand
Mr Oliver to be suggesting that the reliability of Horizon was somehow other
than had been understood to that point, or that such knowledge as there was
as to the functioning of the system was not being shared. Whilst I cannot
remember the detail of the conversations which I had at that time, I am
confident that I read no pejorative meaning into the expression “the truth
about the Horizon system.” Had I done so, I would have raised it with the
Post Office and our work would have proceeded very differently.
Mr Swil replied to this email a couple of hours later, as requested, with revised
drafts of the outline and paper (POL00147650) (POL00147651)
(POL00147652). Paragraph 13 had become paragraph 7, where Mr Oliver's
suggestion noted above was included at paragraph 7.1.3. Mr Swil again
asked for comments.
Page 20 of 69
74,
75.
76.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
In the early evening of 10 March, Mr Oliver emailed again (POL00147656)
(POL00147659) with a version of the paper which had been “cut down further
and reshaped to fit house style.” The questions which we had posed in
paragraph 7.1 had been changed. So far as the functioning of Horizon was
concerned:
(i) Former paragraph 7.1.3 had been deleted.
(ii) I Anew paragraph 3.1.2 had been added: “Does the Post Office wish
to continue not to establish a full baseline audit of the successful
functioning of the Horizon system”.
From the emails (POL00302770) it is clear that Mr Swil discussed the cut
down version with Mr Oliver the following morning and Mr Oliver later emailed
him by way of follow up and to confirm that the Post Office’s revised structure
should be used.
In that email, Mr Oliver asked for an “urgent answer” to the question of
whether we had seen anything which:
“called into question Bond Dickinson’s advice that Post Office’s liability
with respect to a SPMR who has been summarily dismissed is framed
by the contractual notice period? Please let us know asap if you have
a different view. In other words, are the claims for consequential loss
completely out of court?”
We had not at that time been provided with the Bond Dickinson advice, which
Mr Oliver later sent to Mr Swil on 12 March 2014 (see paragraph 46 above).
Page 21 of 69
77.
78.
79.
80.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Mr Swil responded to the point on damages as a result of wrongful
termination by email on 11 March 2014 (WITN10370130), noting that: “they
are likely limited to the pay which he would otherwise have been entitled
during the three month notice period”.
I am asked to refer to an email from Ms Crowe to Mr Swil on 11 March 2014
(POL00147679) which attached a “cut down Outline Paper” “with CEO
comments tracked.” The attachment (POL00147680) does not appear to
have tracked comments, but a review of our emails suggests it contained no
material changes to the Outline Paper we received from Mr Oliver on 10
March. Mr Swil shared the final version of the Outline Paper later that
evening, along with a marked-up version highlighting the minor drafting
changes made to the version Ms Crowe had shared. (POL00147683)
(UKGI00002211) (WITN10370131)
Mr Aujard apparently suggested to Mr Swil on 12 March 2014 that our advice
could be given by way of PowerPoint presentation. Mr Swil sought to
dissuade him from that.
Ms Crowe emailed on 12 March 2014 to say that we should be ready to deal
with the question of how to manage the expectations of applicants who were
seeking very high levels of compensation. In her email of 13 March 2014,
Ms Crowe confirmed that the Board would prefer a paper to a PowerPoint
presentation (POL00201779). Mr Oliver emailed on 13 March 2014
(POL00201779) with comments following what he said was a discussion at
ExCo on the “legal advice and scoping.”
Page 22 of 69
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
We received certain comments on the draft outline document from Board
Members following 14 March 2014, forwarded to us by the legal team at the
Post Office (WITN10370132) (WITN10370133) (WITN10370134)
(WITN10370135) (WITN10370136) (WITN10370137).
I recorded time for a meeting at the Post Office on 18 March 2014 and it
seems from timesheets that I attended that alone. I do not have any
handwritten notes of such a meeting and do not recall it.
Mr Oliver emailed on 18 March 2014 (WITN10370138) to “feedback on post
a discussion with Paula just now.” Mr Oliver asked if we could:
“set out at a very high level the kinds of areas that you will be exploring
in the Part B paper for the April Board in the paper you will be
submitting tomorrow. It would be helpful if this can be covered in the
executive summary and also if you can address (again at a high level)
the difficulty/challenge of implementing any of the options.”
The email attached a copy of a file note of Ms Vennells’ meeting with the
Financial Ombudsman Service the previous day (which we had not been
asked to attend) (POL00168007).
We were chased repeatedly on the evening of 19 March 2014 for our draft
report. Mr Swil sent through the draft report on the legal issues shortly before
40pm on 19 March 2014 (POL00201938) (POL00201939). We asked for
comments.
Mr Aujard emailed at 20 past midnight on 19 March 2014 (POL00022016)
with a version of the draft incorporating his detailed comments marked up on
Page 23 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
the draft report and “two big points.” These were a suggestion that the
introduction be reworked to stress that the report:
“focuses mainly on the legal liability point and that you will be working
with us in relation to alternative structures (and may not even be
producing a report). The reason for this is that some board members
think that the task of coming up with alternatives to the scheme should
be an internally driven bit of work, not something that is outsourced to
a law firm.”
86. The second “big point” was to request that we revisit whether the executive
summary could be made clearer since it:
“doesn't hit the reader between the eyes with what I understand to be
your main conclusion — namely: unless there is something wrong with
the system, we are entitled to rely on the accounts produced by
Horizon as the basis of claiming sums of money from SPMRs. Further
that there can be no question of a claim for consequential losses based
simply on the recovery by the Post Office of losses if the losses were
properly payable and the Post Office was entitled to the money.”
87. We had stated in paragraph 1.3 of the draft that:
“We note that there is, so far as we understand it, no in-depth and
objective Report which describes and addresses the use and reliability
of Horizon. This is a major gap and one which we would recommend
is remedied as soon as possible.”
88. In his detailed comments marked on the draft report (WITN10370139), Mr
Aujard suggested that “the language be softened — ie is one we suggest that
Page 24 of 69
90.
91.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
the post office consider” and also that it be clarified that we were not
suggesting “an in depth drains up audit’.
I do not remember if it was Mr Swil who discussed these comments with Mr
Aujard or if I was party to those discussions. If it was Mr Swil, he would have
updated me. Either way, I do remember that this recommendation caused
Mr Aujard concern. My impression at the time was that he thought that the
recommendation would not be welcomed by the Board given how late into
the overall process this was and that it was, on any view, going to be a
substantial piece of work. Getting such a report would be bound to cost
money and also take some time. My recollection is that Mr Aujard thought
that the Board would react badly to the advice being expressed as it was and
that different language would have given the recommendation a better
chance of being accepted.
It is not unusual that we are asked to adapt the wording in advice we give,
not to change its overall sense but to ensure that it will land appropriately
with the intended audience. In making the edits which we did to our draft
report, I had not intended to dilute the recommendation that there be a full
and independent report on Horizon. I was, however, concerned that our
advice should be well-received and acted upon and if a variation in the
language made that more likely, I was happy to accommodate it.
In no sense did I get the impression that there was a nervousness about
having a full report prepared on Horizon for fear of what it would show. Those
with whom we dealt at the Post Office always expressed confidence in the
Page 25 of 69
92.
93.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
proper functioning of Horizon. I assumed that they would have had a
reasonable foundation for forming that view. In particular, I had in mind that:
. The Post Office had been considering these matters for a long time
with the benefit of significant professional advice.
. We were told that it was a small fraction of the overall users of Horizon
who complained that it did not function properly in their case.
° Although I had real reservations about Second Sight, they had
confirmed that they had found no systemic issues with Horizon.
° No articulated concerns had been advanced as to exactly how Horizon
was said to be malfunctioning, over and above issues which seemed
to me implausible — e.g. having a telephone too close to the computer
terminal.
e Jo Swinson MP had made comments in Parliament to the effect that
there was no evidence of a systemic problem with Horizon.
It was not suggested to me at any time that these were not appropriate
assumptions, or that there were other factors relevant to the proper
functioning of Horizon which we should bear in mind.
What we were advising was that there is a difference between believing
something to be the case and having the objective evidence which would
enable that to be proved in contentious proceedings, should the need arise.
I also thought that, were the Post Office to obtain such an independent report,
it would be very helpful in terms of explaining to the SPMRs how Horizon in
fact works and that the Post Office had confidence in the system. This
Page 26 of 69
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
needed to be done by a firm recognised as being both independent of the
Post Office (and Fujitsu) and with the appropriate expertise if it were to stand
a chance of being accepted by stakeholders.
Our advice was clearly predicated on Horizon functioning properly and
reliably. In doing this, we were not expressing a view on whether this was in
fact correct — we had no basis on which we could have expressed such a
view, nor were we in a position to validate such a working assumption.
We would have expected to have been told by the Post Office had there been
any significant doubt as to the correctness of our approach. Had we been
told that there were, in fact, doubts about the reliability of Horizon or evidence
that it was not functioning properly, we would have advised that there was no
point in seeking in principle legal advice which was based on a premise which
was, in those circumstances, recognised as being flawed.
Clearly our work and our advice would have proceeded very differently had
we thought that there was insufficient support for the Post Office’s view that
the system worked properly, still less had there been any indication that the
Post Office itself did not consider that to be the case.
In his email at 20 past midnight on 19 March 2014 (POL00303275), Mr Aujard
made certain other comments and suggestions on the draft Report which
included the deletion of everything after section 6.
By email on 20 March 2014 (POL00303275), Mr Swil sent Mr Aujard a:
“final version of the report and a mark up showing the changes we
have made to address your comments ... Given the time available, we
have not had a chance to run the report by Richard Morgan. We will
Page 27 of 69
99.
100.
101.
102.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
do so now and should have any comments back from him by before
the Board meeting tomorrow.”
We had adapted paragraph 1.3 in the final version of our report (now
paragraph 2.3) to read:
“We note that there is, so far as we understand it, no objective Report
which describes and addresses the use and reliability of Horizon. We
do think such a report would be helpful, though there is a decision to
be made about how broad and/or thorough it needs to be.”
There were some email exchanges that morning with inconsequential
comments and the emails show that Mr Swil also took some comments over
the telephone. Mr Swil emailed (POL00303275) to attach a further mark up
and to say that this was the version which would be sent to Richard Morgan
QC for his review before the Board meeting.
By email on 20 March 2014 (POL00138177) (POL00346319), Ms Crowe
sent me a “Board paper which is, in effect, a cover note for your paper.” The
note stated at paragraph 3.1:
“In preparing their advice Linklaters have, in effect, made the working
assumption (which we believe to be correct) that there is nothing
“wrong” with the Horizon system.”
By email on 20 March 2014, Mr Swil sent the final version of the Report to
Mr Morgan QC (POL00022042) (WITN10370140). Mr Swil said:
“We were pressed for time to get this to the Post Office today in final
form before sending it to you so that it could go to the Board ahead of
Page 28 of 69
103.
104.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
the Board meeting next week at which Christa will be presenting the
advice. Accordingly, please limit your comments to high level points
of which you think we or the Post Office should be aware before the
Board meeting.”
Mr Swil evidently spoke to Mr Morgan QC who relayed his comments, which
Mr Swil summarised in an email to me at 19.34 on 20 March 2014
(WITN10370141). That email states:
“Richard Morgan called to discuss his comments. He said none were
big picture and that to the extent that we need to make any changes
arising from his comments, he suggested we gloss them in the
presentation to the Board rather than amend the document
(particularly given it has now gone to the Board).”
Overall, I took Mr Morgan QC’s comments to be ones that I could bring out
when presenting our report to the Board, should the need arise.
I replied to Mr Swil with my own thoughts on the comments arising from the
call with Mr Morgan QC (WITN10370142). Mr Swil’s email to me included
this comment from his conversation with Mr Morgan QC:
“more of an observation than a point for clarification, he said that
Horizon is extremely complicated and has been built up over many
years so it would be very difficult to produce a baseline report that we
are expecting Second Sight to have done i.e. he has a bit of sympathy
for them in that regard at least. I acknowledged that but said
presumably someone who has had the knowledge over the years i.e.
Fujitsu or someone else will have the relevant technical expertise, not
Page 29 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
SS, could do it. I also said Post Office in any event not unhappy for
us to disparage them.”
My reply comment to Mr Swil was:
“Noted. But so what? This case is all about whether Horizon works
properly and no one has anything clear to which they can point which
gives an answer which could be relied on.”
105. I evidently spoke to Mr Morgan QC myself on 25 March 2014 . I have some
handwritten notes (WITN10370143). They seem to reflect Mr Morgan QC
having told me that in his view a report on Horizon would be seen as being
self-serving for the Post Office and dismissed accordingly. Or it would be
critical which would be a disaster. My notes record:
“All singing all dancing report for Part.
Self-serving — dismissed accordingly.
Or, so critical + disaster.
Part of PR strategy not necessary + v expensive.
Complaints seem historical — and you can’t reverse engineer. Can't
wind back time. Can’t recreate the programme at any given time.”
Presentation to the Board
The Board meeting on 26 March 2014
406. In preparation for the Board meeting on 26 March, Mr Swil emailed Mr Aujard
and Ms Crowe on 24 March to ask whether a preparatory call would be
Page 30 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
helpful (POL00303275). There was such a call on 25 March 2014 and I have
some handwritten notes, which I believe were of that call (WITN10370144).
107. Those notes include the following:
“Legal analysis only. Not had regard to other issues.”
“If you do this by reference to principles other than the law, you need
to define how to do it.”
“One step in the journey. Not the final decision.”
4108. There is also reference to the fact that the Post Office were of the view that
they would not be susceptible to judicial review.
409. I have another page of notes which is not obviously of the meeting, but is
likely to be. That reads:
“Concem re commissioning a full report on Horizon. Don't tell them
they need a report.
5.30 a matter for the Post Office.
Setting precedents.
1. Second Sight spot criticisms — nothing to counter them.
2. Restore confidence.
3. Common reference point to compare complaints.
5.36 Ls cannot comment.”
Page 31 of 69
110.
111.
112.
113.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Whilst it is not entirely clear to me to what these notes referred, I believe that
the numbered points were ones which I made to support our view that it
would be a good idea to seek a report on the functioning of Horizon.
I attended the relevant part of the Board meeting on 26 March (Mr Swil was
not invited and did not attend). I spoke to the Report which we had produced
for the purposes of the meeting. Given that I was on my own, and presenting,
it was not easy to take notes and although I have some handwritten notes
(WITN10370145), they are far from a complete record.
My notes do reflect some of the discussion about the Horizon system. I
asked what had been done about Horizon. Reference was made to a Deloitte
study — though I cannot now recall what this was. Ernst & Young were said
to have reviewed a Fujitsu report on the architecture of the system which was
done for the audit committee. This was high level. Either I said, or someone
else commented, that it would not be possible to rely on that work to support
the position on individual claims or as to individual technical errors. There
could be a single instance of something going awry even if there were no
systemic issues. There was reference made to the fact that CCI standards
as to credit and debit card systems should give some comfort at a high level
in terms of integrity. Moreover, someone, I do not know who (and it would
not have been me) said that the data is not rewriteable — it could not be
changed on the system without leaving a trail which should “itself go a long
way to rebutting the assertion that changes were not made properly.”
I do remember talking about the need for a baseline report on Horizon at the
Board Meeting and recommending that one be obtained. This was reflected
Page 32 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
in our Report. It was also something which stuck in my mind as I was
surprised that such a report had not been obtained to date — it seemed to me
both an obvious and a necessary step. It was also a function of the fact that
I had formed a poor opinion of the work which Second Sight were doing which
seemed to me confused, ill-structured and not directed at answering the
questions which needed to be addressed. I remember saying as much at the
Board Meeting.
An independent investigation into, and report on, Horizon
114.
115.
116.
Following the Board Meeting, and at the Post Office’s request, Mr Swil and I
put together a draft outline of what we thought that a baseline report into
Horizon should cover. He emailed me this on 27 March 2014
(WITN10370146) (WITN10370147).
There was a call which Mr Swil attended on 28 March 2014 and Mr Oliver
emailed with a summary of next steps later that day (POL00022092).
Mr Swil sent a copy of the outline to Mr Aujard on 28 March 2014
(POL00022092) (POL00022093). We made a number of suggestions as to
what the Report needed to cover. In that outline we said this:
“We see the intended purpose of the report as potentially being one or
more of the following, depending on what the Post Office’s key
objectives are:
To show that the Post Office takes the issue of the proper working of
Horizon very seriously and is determined to identify whether there are
systemic problems and thereafter remedy them if necessary. To
Page 33 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
achieve this end, the report — or some edited version of it — would have
to become public in due course. This should be assumed in any event.
To counter the general criticisms which have been made of the Horizon
system, in Parliament and elsewhere.
To the extent possible, explaining to, or reassuring SPMRs who have
brought complaints as to the efficacy and reliability of Horizon.
To form a point of reference against which specific comments as to
potential malfunctions in Horizon could be assessed. This could be
relied on in considering complaints made by SPMRs.
In order to achieve these goals the report would have to be:
Prepared by an expert whose views would be respected: they have to
be credible on the basis of their skills and expertise.
Appropriately supported by evidence so that the conclusions reached
can be shown to be careful and robust.
Prepared by an expert with sufficient independence from the Post
Office, even if the expert is assisted (but only to the extent necessary)
by parties who might be seen to lack the requisite independence such
as Fujitsu.”
417. I have been provided with an email from Ms Crowe to colleagues of hers in
the Post Office dated 31 March 2014 and a reply from Ms van den Bogerd of
the same date both of which refer to the note which Mr Swil had sent through
on what a report on Horizon should cover (POL00138192). I have no
recollection of any discussion about the “FactFile” at this time. In any event,
Page 34 of 69
118.
119.
120.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
it is clear from how the engagement of Deloitte progressed and my reaction
to the work which the Post Office instructed them to do, that I did not think
that a “validation” exercise was what was needed at the time. What part the
FactFile could or should have played in the context of Deloitte’s work would
have depended on the way in which that work had been performed, as to
which I had no information at the time.
Mr Swil and I then prepared a draft note on options focused on the future of
the Mediation Scheme. We were chased by Ms Crowe on the afternoon of
31 March 2014 for this note as she was due to meet Ms Vennells later that
week and needed to put together a plan based on the options
(POL00147899).
Mr Swil sent through the draft paper in the evening of 31 March 2014
(POL00022096) (POL00022095). His cover email stated:
“We had done a substantial amount of work on this aspect of the
original brief before you asked us to limit the scope of the first Report
and before we have ventilated fully all of our thoughts with you, but we
thought it useful to include all of that thinking and drafting (together
with the remaining issues we did not get to) as a starting point. This
means that the paper may be longer and more detailed than you had
envisaged or may be too “directive rather than "suggestive" for
present purposes.”
In paragraph 3.24 of the options note, we stressed that further decisions
about the Scheme needed to reflect the Post Office’s key objectives and we
Page 36 of 69
121.
122.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
raised a number of questions which we suggested that the Post Office
needed to consider.
There was a meeting on 1 April 2014 of which I was only able to attend part
and which Mr Swil emailed me about “to fill you in on what happened after
you left.” (WITN10370148). I have some handwritten notes of this meeting
(WITN10370149).
We were evidently told that the Post Office wanted to cut down the scheme
alternatives document to a “pros and cons note in much shorter form’. There
was also reference to a note on “the format and scope of a review of Horizon.”
The comments I have noted that “we don’t want this to be huge” and “doing
a report for court could be a different exercise” would have come from the
Post Office team. My notes further state:
“All depends on the use to which you want to put the report.
Primary question re whether it is going to be taken forward. Q for the
[board] — conjunction with the q of what it wants to do [in relation to]
the Scheme. Interrelated questions.
What might be the scope of work.
Scoping work for expert [witness] — outline scope?
Driven by the criminal prosecutors’ view of what they wanted to
establish. May not be realistic. Broken Horizon into 2 parts. Core
coding of the transaction. Looked at data integrity from end to end.
To scope what they need for the big piece ICL need to kick the tyres
and work out what the system looks like generally.
Page 36 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Assurance project — scoping exercise. Board not sure of the precise
requirements — just want something which is good enough. Helpful to
pick up on any thematic points that Second Sight raise. Good to have
it done quickly and to be cost effective.
The Board may not speak with one voice as to what assurance looks
like.
Materiality threshold for auditors £600,000. Quite low.
Lesley to talk to Deloittes.
KPMG would also do it. Lesley to talk to them.
E&Y are the auditors.
Make sure that this is a privileged piece of work. Take this out of the
scope of FO! as well.
Pick out the guts from the themes identified by Second Sight
What are their key themes? Air gap, processing half a transaction, link
to other systems, third party intervention.
Fujitsu keen to help. Need to be clear with Fujitsu what we are asking
KPMG to do.
Need to be clear as to the scope of work.
Post Office needs to meet KPMG or Deloittes.
What does the work look like? Too early to say.
Page 37 of 69
123.
124.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Can we persuade the Chairman of the Working Group that we need to
replace Second Sight.
We said we would consider alternatives.
Tony thinks that the political situation is such that we can’t abandon
the Scheme in its entirety. Fair enough.
Genuinely think that Second Sight are incapable of dealing with this.”
These notes refer to legal professional privilege. I do not remember whether
this reflects something which I raised at the meeting or if it was raised by
others present. My notes also refer to “FOI” — Freedom of Information Act
requests. It is more likely than not that the point about FO! requests was
made by an attendee for the Post Office (and not by me).
I do not recall being asked to advise on the applicability of legal professional
privilege in the context in which we were advising the Post Office. It was
clear to me that subject to the usual tests, including as to the purpose of
communications, both legal advice and litigation privilege were potentially
applicable. I thought that it was sensible that the work of preparing an expert
report on Horizon was done with the benefit of such litigation privilege as was
available to the Post Office. The reason was simply that it was important that
the expert was able to have full, frank and open communications with the
Post Office without, at that stage, the concern that the views expressed would
not be treated confidentially. Had it been the case that privilege protection
was not claimed, the expert might have felt constrained in their views, and
the Post Office limited in its response. We had been clear with the Post Office
Page 38 of 69
125.
126.
127.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
that the final report on Horizon would only serve its purpose were it to be
openly shared with relevant stakeholders, including SPMRs. It should work
on the basis that the final work product would be public.
At this meeting we learned that the Post Office had brought on board
consultants — PA Consulting — who were due to provide slides for the CEO
and Exco on next steps and recommendations. It seems that we had been
given to understand that PA Consulting had been engaged in relation to this
work “in the last day or so.” It was not clear to me how their work was
supposed to fit with the legal analysis.
The Options Slides prepared by PA Consulting were sent to us on 1 April
2014. Mr Swil and I discussed our thoughts on them. It was concerning that
these slides were being presented as a synthesis of Linklaters’ thinking when
it was not how we would have expressed ourselves. Mr Swil sent Ms Low at
PA Consulting a manuscript mark-up of the slides by email on 2 April 2014
(WITN10370150) (WITN10370151). Mr Swil’s email pointed out that the
slides should not be presented as a summary of the Linklaters Report.
Ms Low replied by email on 2 April 2014 at 16:16 (WITN10370152) saying
that “My initial brief was to prepare a summary of your doc ... I am now in the
process of fundamental redraft which uses this as a basis.” We did not know
this; if we had been asked to, we would have prepared a summary of our
document. Ms Low then circulated the redraft of her Options Slides at 17:44
for discussion the next morning, copying Mr Swil and me (POL00147933)
(POL00147934). I believe that I was out of the office from 2 April 2014 for the
rest of that week and do not recall attending a meeting the next day. Areview
Page 39 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
of our time sheets suggests that neither Mr Swil, nor I attended a meeting
with PA Consulting and the Post Office on the morning of 3 April 2014.
128. On 2 April 2014, Mr Williams sent us:
“Fujitsu’s powerpoint on Horizon’s Core Audit Process. This was
prepared to help the independent expert being instructed to support
criminal prosecutions understand the system, and may therefore
assist in scoping any additional assurance work undertaken in
connection with the Mediation Scheme.” (POL00202498)
I had no contact with anyone at Fujitsu during the course of our work. I did
not know who the “independent expert” was to whom reference was made in
this email. We were apparently sent these documents following the meeting
on 1 April 2014, to which I have referred above. However, we were not asked
to do anything specific with them and as I relate further below, as it transpired
we were not asked to be involved in the instruction of Deloitte to which the
Post Office presumably thought that these documents might be relevant.
Susceptibility to Judicial Review
129. One point which Mr Swil and I had been considering was whether, were a
decision to be made to close the Mediation Scheme, this decision could be
susceptible to challenge by way of judicial review. Mr Swil spoke to Mr Aujard
about this on 3 April 2014 as his email to me of that day indicates
(WITN10370153). Mr Swil and I thought that it was a point worth considering
in the context of any decision to terminate the Scheme. Mr Aujard apparently
told him that Beachcrofts had already advised on “a range of JR issues.” Mr
Swil said in his email to me that he had encouraged Mr Aujard to seek
Page 40 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
specialist advice on this issue from a QC but that Mr Aujard had not seemed
keen to do it. The Beachcrofts advice on judicial review was not shared with
us.
Work post the Board meeting
130.
131.
132.
On 10 April 2014, apparently not having heard anything further in the
meantime, Mr Swil telephoned Mr Oliver for an update and then emailed me
to summarise the call (WITN10370154). Mr Oliver had apparently told Mr
Swil that:
“There was a Board meeting yesterday. The recommendation the
Executive gave for dealing with the Scheme was to stop the process
and get rid of the Working Group and Second Sight but continue
investigating claims internally in order to "do the right thing“ by
SPMRs.”
Mr Oliver indicated that he would come to us for further assistance once a
decision had been made on what they wanted us to do. Separately, Mr Oliver
mentioned to Mr Swil that an “assurance report” had already been
commissioned from Deloitte who were due to report within 15 days (or
business days) from 9 April 2014. We had not been requested to help with
the instructions for the engagement of Deloitte, nor were we consulted in
relation to the scope of its work. It was not clear to me why Deloitte's work
was to take the form of an “assurance report’.
We were asked for a call on 15 April 2014 under what appeared to be
significant pressure of time. The call was fixed for 8pm (WITN10370155). I
don't have notes of it.
Page 41 of 69
133.
134.
135.
136.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
The following day, Mr Oliver sent Mr Swil, who forwarded it to me, an email
with some slides Mr Oliver had drafted “as a first step to documenting some
of the thoughts” (WITN10370156) (WITN10370157). We were asked to
comment on whether our legal advice had been captured accurately. Mr Swil
sent me an email on 17 April to confirm that he would look at these slides. I
have not identified an email responding to Mr Oliver so expect that Mr Swil
may have spoken to Mr Oliver about them.
It appears that Mr Oliver spoke to Mr Swil again on 22 April 2014
(WITN10370158) and asked him for a:
“document on the principles against which we might make a settlement
payment as well as your thoughts on the circumstances and the
Quantum (accepting that you won't be able to produce a figure as that
would be case specific).”
Mr Oliver indicated that his timescale was later that day.
As requested, Mr Swil sent a draft letter to the Chairman of the Working
Group and the settlement principles document through to Mr Oliver in the
evening of 22 April 2014 (WITN10370159) (POL00428668) (POL00108446).
The draft letter to the Chairman of the Working Group anticipated what it was
hoped that the Deloitte Report would say about Horizon and would clearly
have required amendment in light of what was in fact apparent from the final
version of the Deloitte Report. At that time, we did not know the terms on
which Deloitte had been instructed.
By email on 23 April 2014, we were asked for our views on ex gratia
payments and the impact which conditional fee arrangements are likely to
Page 42 of 68
137.
138.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
have on settlements. On 24 April 2014, Mr Swil sent through the note
requested (POL00203973) (POL00203974).
On 8 May 2014, it seems that Ms Vennells at the Post Office had asked
Linklaters to review some correspondence and on 9 May sent us draft letters
addressed to Jenny Willott MP and James Arbuthnot MP to ask that we
review them “from a legal perspective.” Mr Swil sent through our comments
on 9 May 2014 (POL00304464) (WITN10370160) (WITN10370161). Mr
Swil’s email refers to the advisability of the Post Office considering whether
it should make an unqualified statement that it was committed to the
Mediation Scheme. Mr Swil suggested that it would be better to express
commitment to the fair and just resolution of all complaints/applications to the
Scheme rather than being unequivocal that that resolution could only happen
through the Scheme. This seemed to me very sensible. It was not intended
to indicate any lack of intention to deal with cases. Rather it was to preserve
such flexibility as may have been open to the Post Office to resolve them
otherwise than through the Mediation Scheme. As I have mentioned, we
thought that any decision to abandon the Scheme called for very careful
thought. But equally it was apparent that it was not working as intended.
I was asked to join a call with Ms Vennells, Ms Crowe and Mr Aujard on 14
May 2014 in order to brief Ms Vennells for a meeting with Sir Tony Hooper
later that week. Mr Oliver called Mr Swil to discuss this and Mr Swil updated
me by email (WITN10370162). The purpose of the meeting was apparently
to explain the Post Office’s thinking about the future of the Mediation Scheme
and to gauge Sir Tony Hooper's reaction to it. I was sent by email the note
Page 43 of 68
139.
140.
141.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
which the Post Office had drafted to brief Ms Vennells in advance of the call
with Sir Tony Hooper (POL00204482) (WITN10370163).
I have some handwritten notes of the briefing call (WITN10370164). I think
that the points I have numbered 1 — 9 in my notes were prepared by me in
anticipation of the call. The remainder of my notes reflect some at least of
what was discussed. Those notes include: “They are terminating Second
Sight.”
I attended a meeting on 28 May 2014 with Mr Aujard and Mr Williams in which
they reported back on discussions with Sir Tony Hooper. I have some
handwritten notes of that meeting (WITN10370165). I was told that Sir Tony
Hooper thought that the Scheme should be given a chance to work, and that
it would work.
I was also told that the Board had been interested in our view on the need
for an expert report on Horizon and that the Post Office had spoken to
Deloitte about this. Whether it was the Post Office or a view from Deloitte is
not clear from my notes but they show that I was told that:
“They could not test the system and you can’t really do that anyway.
Real hand offs to third party systems. IT auditors don’t do that. They
look at design and key features. Then they look at implementation of
the design features. Good baseline. Operating environment — does it
give rise to properly recognised and controlled risks.”
I believe that the following notes reflect my comments:
“Risks of what?”
Page 44 of 69
142.
143.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
“They don’t answer the question. Does the system work properly?”
It seems that I was told that the original Horizon documentation is very old
and that design features are not fully documented and/or could not be found.
Assurance could, however, be given as to those design features if they were
properly implemented.
I was also told that there was a summary from Deloitte which gave a lot of
comfort and went “almost far enough.” There was said to be a comparison
with other companies. My notes reflect that I said, “comparative and
qualitative.”
Deloitte
144,
145.
By email on 30 April 2014 (WITN10370166), the Firm was asked to sign a
“hold harmless letter’ before Deloitte would be prepared to release to us a
copy of the “Exec Summary of their work to date.” This was signed on behalf
of the Firm and returned on 1 May 2014 (WITN10370167).
We received a copy of the Deloitte Executive Summary — Draft on 1 May
2014 (WITN10370168) (WITN10370169). I remember being very
disappointed when I read this. It was not the work which we had
recommended be carried out. It seems from my emails that Mr Swil spoke
to Mr Williams about the draft on 12 May 2014. Mr Swil updated me by email
(WITN10370170) and stated:
“He [Mr Williams] said that the job that is required in order to do a
drains up assessment of Horizon is immense which is why they are
only doing the scope of work below. He asked me to let him know if
Page 45 of 68
146.
147.
148.
149.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
we have any concerns about the outline below. I don’t have any
comments on it.
For my part, I don’t think that the Phase 1 work, the exec summary of
which is what we have seen, addresses the point we raised. The
Phase 2 work seems to be closer to the mark so hopefully that is the
case when we see a copy of it.”
We were sent a copy of the full Deloitte Report by email on 27 May 2014
(POL00138376) (WITN10370171). I remember reading this and thinking that
it was not at all the sort of report which we had recommended that the Post
Office seek.
It appears that on 27 May 2014, Mr Aujard telephoned Mr Swil who then
emailed me by way of update from that call (WITN10370172).
It was apparent that all that Deloitte had been asked to do was a desk top
exercise. Mr Aujard apparently told Mr Swil that there was not going to be a
full “end to end” test of the system as this would be too complex and too
expensive. Mr Aujard asked us to think about how we could use the report
to get to a position where the statements in the draft correspondence we had
prepared, as referred to in paragraph 135 above, could be supported.
This was a significant mismatch in terms of expectations. The exercise which
the Post Office had carried out with Deloitte was not what we had
recommended. The Post Office was now apparently hoping to rely on it to
support a position on the functioning of Horizon which the work of Deloitte
was not designed to, and did not, support. Mr Swil and I were not even sure
that the Deloitte report went as far as Mr Aujard seemed to think that it did.
Page 46 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
150. Mr Swil’s email to me of 27 May 2014 (WITN10370172), indicated that Mr
Aujard was annoyed. It was our advice that had led to Deloitte being
instructed and now we were saying that the work which they had done was
not suitable for its intended purpose. Mr Swil said that:
“Chris seemed to be annoyed (not necessarily with us) about what
Deloitte have done (or not done) but also mentioned that it was our
clear recommendation to the board that lead to this (you'll recall that
was the issue over which he thought he would lose his job and was
keen for us to water down our view), so we may need to be careful not
to downplay the importance of the Deloitte report or suggest not relying
on it, if that is an option we might otherwise suggest to them. He might
say what was the point of it and why did we suggest it etc. (the answer
would be we weren't involved in briefing them and had no involvement
in overseeing what they were doing, nor did we prejudge or know what
conclusion they would reach etc but I’m not sure we can say that).”
151. On 28 May 2014, MrAujard was at our offices for a meeting to which we were
not invited but Mr Swil and I took the opportunity to meet him
(WITN10370173). Mr Swil drafted a note of some questions in preparation
for that discussion. He emailed them to me on 28 May 2014
(WITN10370174).
152. On 28 May 2014, Mr Williams apparently told Mr Swil (who updated me by
email) that he wanted an “outline of what we want from Deloitte by tonight’
(WITN10370175).
153. Mr Williams followed up with an email at 15:13 (POL00148464) indicating:
Page 47 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
“Our CEO is concerned about the time available to knock Deloitte's
work into shape. Can you please therefore get to us by close of play
today the structure/outline you would like it to take, so as to maximise
the time available to Deloitte to repackage their findings.”
154. Mr Williams had evidently intended to send us the Board update from Deloitte
and a “FactFile” prepared by the Post Office which provided an overview of
Horizon and Post Office’s branch trading practices. The Board Update
proved difficult to send so Mr Williams emailed us with his summary of the
“Key Features’ of the “Horizon Features.” (POL00148446)
155. The timetable for us to revert to the Post Office with an outline for Deloitte
was ridiculously short. The work which we had been recommending that the
Post Office commission would not have been met by a desk top review. It
would have been a much more thorough exercise. It is clear that Mr Williams
spoke to Mr Swil who emailed me (WITN10370176) to say:
“Rodric is desperate. I explained the situation but he is under immense
pressure from Chris who is under pressure from the CEO etc etc. He
insisted on getting anything so has asked for literally 5 headings in an
email. I will send you something very shortly ... “
156. Mr Swil sent an email to Mr Williams and Mr Aujard on the evening of 28 May
2014 (POL00148464) with a suggested approach for Deloitte’s next draft and
an outline of what the Deloitte report would ideally cover. The email stated:
“As discussed earlier today, when considering what approach to take
in producing the next draft, we suggest Deloitte
Page 48 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Use non-specialised language that the layman, including SPMRs and
MPs and any other interested parties, can understand;
Should not only describe processes but reach conclusions wherever
possible about the adequacy and appropriateness of the relevant
processes;
Not treat the report as an audit — it should be as positive as possible
so that where there are deficiencies that must be covered, they must
be explained, contextualised and/or neutralised where possible;
Avoid making recommendations — they are not necessary or
appropriate in this context;
Need not produce a lengthy report and ideally the report should be
kept as concise as possible ...”
157. The email indicated that we would be happy to refine the outline in
158.
159.
conjunction with Deloitte “to ensure that what we are suggesting is both
achievable and capable of producing the type of report suited to the Post
Office’s needs.”
Mr Williams then copied Mr Swil on his email to Deloitte (WITN10370177).
Mr Williams decided to omit the general comments on approach which we
had included in our email to him. It was not clear to us why.
Mr Swil emailed me on 29 May 2014 to say that he had been asked to attend
a meeting with Mr Williams “and Deloitte on Monday’ to discuss the approach
(WITN10370178). The Post Office apparently expected that a further draft
would be ready by then. This seemed to me to be an unreasonably tight
Page 49 of 68
160.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
timetable. Mr Swil’s timesheets include a call to Mr Williams in relation to the
Deloitte report on 2 June 2014. Mr Swil did not record time for attendance at
a meeting with Deloitte.
Mr Swil’s timesheets include a call with Mr Williams about the Second Sight
report on 31 July 2014. To the best of my knowledge we otherwise heard
nothing further from the Post Office during June and July 2014.
The SPMR contract
161.
162.
On 1 August 2014, Mr Williams sent Mr Swil an email relating to the Second
Sight report, “containing a pdf of the first draft of this report, Section 2 of
which sets out SS’s “commentary” (for want of a better word) on the standard
subpostmaster contract.” (WITN10370179) (POL00207100)
(POL00022150) (POL00000213) (POL00000214) (POL00405441). Mr
Williams asked for our help in challenging this commentary. This was the
first time that we had been asked to look at the SPMR contract more
generally — in other words beyond what we needed to do to advise in relation
to compensation which might have been due on termination of an individual
contract.
On 5 August 2014, we received the final draft of the Second Sight report and
were asked to comment on that report (as opposed to the underlying
standard SPMR contract) by the next day (WITN10370180)
(WITN10370181) (POL00021819). In Mr Swil’s email to me of 20:58 he noted
that we were asked:
“ _. to provide any views we have about a) what Post Office can do
about the report eg to prevent its publication and b) what they can say,
Page 50 of 69
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
especially about section 2, to neutralise it, including what might be put
in a draft letter to Second Sight in response to the report.
For context, Belinda said the gloves are off now and they do not wish
to treat Second Sight kindly any longer.”
I emailed Mr Swil on 5 August 2014 with my thoughts on the situation
(WITN10370182). This is a very full email which reflected my thinking at the
time.
It is evident that Mr Swil spoke to Ms Crowe that day too and he updated me
by email (WITN10370183).
Ms Crowe also sent Mr Swil the Post Office's “contract management team’s”
responses on the contract section. (WITN10370184) (WITN10370185)
Having pooled our thoughts, Mr Swil emailed Ms Crowe and Mr Williams on
6 August 2014 with some “general, preliminary observations about the report
and Post Office’s relationship with Second Sight.” (WITN10370186) We
included some more detailed comments on the contract section.
Ms Crowe replied that she aimed to weave much of what our email said into
a letter to Second Sight.( WITN10370187)
On 8 August 2014, Ms Crowe emailed individuals within the Post Office, Bond
Dickinson, PA Consulting and Mr Swil to ask for “urgent views” on a letter to
Second Sight. (POL00305565)
Mr Swil replied on the same day with some comments. (POL00305565)
I was on annual leave from 8 August 2014 until 29 August 2014. Mr Swil sent
me an email on 23 August 2014 with an update on the work which he had
Page 51 of 69
171.
172.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
been doing whilst I was away, mainly relating to the role of Second Sight and
its report published on 21 August 2014. (WITN10370188) (POL00022215)
(WITN10370189) (WITN10370190) (POL00207714) (WITN10370191)
(POL00021861) (WITN10370192)
Neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge Mr Swil, heard anything more from
the Post Office after late August 2014. It was not explained to me why the
Post Office decided that it did not want any more advice from the Firm but
the nature of the work was such that we provided advice on an “as required”
basis. Moreover, as will be apparent from the above, my impression was
that the Post Office had become frustrated with the overall situation. I think
in part we were the cause of some of that frustration, having advised that the
Post Office obtain an objective report on Horizon and then not agreeing that
what the Post Office decided to obtain was suitable. I assumed that the Post
Office had decided that they had what they needed from us and that it was
progressing outstanding issues with its other legal advisers. For
completeness, I should say that the advice to the Post Office as described in
this statement is all the advice which I gave in line with the scope of our
instructions.
The situation facing the Post Office at the time that they asked for advice
from us was highly complex. There were very many stakeholders, not all of
whom had the same interest or level of information. There was intense public
scrutiny in relation to what the Post Office was doing — including from
Parliament and a number of Members of Parliament. I was never ina position
to make an informed assessment of how these various drivers interrelated
and affected the Post Office. We had no real opportunity to understand the
Page 52 of 69
173.
174.
175.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
broader context. It was a situation for which a full understanding probably
depended on having been involved from the outset and throughout.
In terms of our working relationship with the Post Office, my greatest concern
at the time was that there was a lack of clarity of thought on the part of the
Post Office as to what they were asking us to do as their external lawyers
and why. Further and better thought needed to be given to how the various
advisers’ work fitted into the overall context and strategy. The implications of
the issues which the Post Office had asked us to advise on needed further
work. Our work was limited and halted prior to there being any realistic
opportunity to assist the Post Office with the strategic implications of what we
had advised. It remains possible, of course, that the Post Office was seeking
and receiving such advice from other legal advisers, but we were not asked
to advise on the wider strategic implications.
The time in which the Post Office wanted particular aspects completed was
always short; in my view, sometimes unrealistically short given the long-
standing nature of the matters on which advice was being sought and their
complexity. Although I am used to working to tight deadlines, we are usually
instructed to do this where there is a genuine need for urgency. It was not
apparent to me that there was such urgency in the issues that I was asked
to consider for the Post Office. Many of them would have benefited from
more time for consideration and discussion.
The in-house legal team members with whom we dealt gave every indication
of being stretched and under pressure. Mr Aujard and Mr Williams often
seemed to me to be under some stress.
Page 53 of 69
176.
177.
178.
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
The in-house legal team were not the ultimate decision makers, which is not
an unusual situation. There were certain references to particular points being
“with the CEO” which I understood to mean Ms Vennells. However, we did
not always have clarity as to who the decision makers were. There was no
general and regular pattern of us having access to Ms Vennells or other
decision makers. Outside of the specific instances which I relate in this
Statement, we were not offered and did not have any discussions with Post
Office staff other than the in-house legal team.
In those instances where we offered broader help to the Post Office (for
example in our initial work plan or in relation to judicial review) and the Post
Office did not instruct us to undertake particular tasks, it was not clear to me
whether the Post Office had other advisers engaged in work which would
fulfil those objectives. But I thought that, at least in some respects (including
what became the Deloitte report) this was not the case. Whether this was
for reasons of time, or budget, or because the Post Office thought that it was
not necessary was not clear to me.
At no point during the period that I undertook work for it did I think that the
Post Office was aware, or had reason to believe, that there were systemic
issues with the Horizon system.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this Witness Statement to be true.
Signed:
Dated: 22 November 2024
Page 54 of 69
Index to First Witness Statement OF CHRISTA BAND
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
No.
URN
Document Description
Control Number
WITN10370101
Email from Jonathan Swil to Renata
Prywerek copying Rodric Williams re
Horizon report dated 7 April 2014.
WITN10370101
POL00304817
Email from Jonathan Swil to Jessica
Madron copying Renata Prywerek re
eSRF — Project Sparrow with Linklaters
dated 30 April 2014.
POL-BSFF-0142867
WITN10370102
Email from Jonathan Swil to Jessica
Madron copying Christa Band re eSRF —
Project Sparrow with Linklaters dated 23
June 2014.
WITN10370102
WITN10370103
Email from Hugh Flemington to Christa
Band, Satindar Dogra, Chris Aujard and
Belinda Crowe copying John Crozier re
Legally privileged and confidential dated
26 February 2014.
WITN10370103
WITN10370104
Christa Band manuscript note re David
Oliver, Belinda Crowe, Chris Aujard and
Rod meeting on 28 February 2014.
WITN10370104
WITN10370105
Christa Band Note - Meeting with David
Oliver, Belinda Crowe, Chris Aujard and
Rodric Williams on 28 February 2014.
WITN10370105
WITN10370106
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Belinda Crowe re Documents
dated 28 February 2014
WITN10370106
POLO00099705
Post Office Application Form for Case
Overview received 7 September 2013.
POL-0099288
POLO0196559
I GRO Case Questionnaire and Guidance
Notes received 21 October 2013.
POL-BSFF-0034622
10
POL00130785
Post Office Mediation Scheme Second
Sight Case Review Report (DRAFT 1).
POL-0124284
11
POL00108214
[GRO Post Office Investigation Report.
POL-0106343
12
POL00144032
1994 Issue SPSO Contract dated 8
January 2008.
POL-BSFF-0003185
13
WITN10370107
Bond Dickinson Spot Review Bible.
WITN10370107
Page 85 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
14
POL00302526
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Belinda Crowe re Documents
email two dated 28 February 2014.
POL-BSFF-0140576
15
POL00199361
Confidential and Legally Privileged Draft
Settlement Policy.
POL-BSFF-0037424
16
WITN10370108
Second Sight Engagement Letter
Template.
WITN10370108
17
POL00302530
Second Sight comments on Draft
Engagement Letter.
POL-BSFF-0140580
18
POL00302529
Draft Terms of Reference for the
Working Group.
POL-BSFF-0140579
19
POL00022120
Overview of the Initial Complaint Review
and Mediation.
POL-0018599
20
WITN10370109
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Belinda Crowe re Documents
email three Casi
February 2014.
WITN10370109
21
POL00108306
Letter from Taylor Rushby to Second
Sight re Post Office mediation scheme
dated 21 October 2013.
POL-0106423
22
POL00108212
Post Office Investigation Report
POL-0106341
23
POL00086863
Post Office Mediation Scheme (DRAFT
2) Second Sight Case Review Report —
POL-0083921
24
WITN10370110
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Belinda Crowe re Web links
dated 28 February 2014
WITN10370110
25
POL00074348
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Belinda Crowe re Documents
email four - case! idated 28
February 2014.
POL-0070911
26
POLOO099683
Post Office! GRO ‘Application Form.
POL-0099266
27
POL00069278
Letter from Aver to Second Sight re Lee
Castleton; ¢ jdated 23 October 2013.
POL-0065841
Page 56 of 68
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
28
POL00086844
Post Office Preliminary Investigation
POL-0083902
29
WITN10370111
Email from Belinda Crowe to Christa
Band copying David Oliver re
Documents dated 28 February 2014.
WITN10370111
30
POL00027452
Attachment: Post Office — Initial
Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme dated 20 February 2014.
POL-0024093
31
WITN10370112
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Christa Band and Belinda
Crowe re Mediation Scheme —
confidential and privileged dated 5
March 2014.
WITN10370112
32
WITN10370113
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Belinda Crowe attaching the
Second Sight report ot 'GRo idated 6
March2014. 0
WITN10370113
33
POL00107227
Post Office Mediation Scheme Case
Review Report (DRAFT).
POL-0105535
34
WITN10370114
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
attaching an “independent service
auditor report” dated 6 March 2014.
WITN10370114
35
POL00002314
Description of Fujitsu's System of IT
Infrastructure Services supporting Post
Office Limited’s POLSAP and HNG-X
applications.
VIS00003328
36
WITN10370115
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Belinda Crowe attaching certain
emails between Ron Warmington of
Second Sight and the “Professional
Advisers” dated 7 March 2014.
WITN10370115
37
WITN10370116
Email from Nicky Mal to Jonathan Swil
copying David Oliver and Belinda Crowe
attaching certain copies of Working
Group minutes dated 10 March 2014.
WITN10370116
38
WITN10370117
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme
Key points and actions from the
conference call dated 12 December
2013
WITN10370117
39
POL00026638
Amended Minutes Following Feedback
From Chair
POL-0023279
Page 57 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
Working Group For The Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme
dated 3 January 2014
40
WITN10370118
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda for Thursday Calls
dated 16 January 2014
WITN10370118
41
POL00026640
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda for Thursday Calls
dated 23 January 2014
POL-0023281
42
POL00026641
“Initial Complaint Review And Mediation
Scheme
Working Group — Minutes dated 30
January 2014
POL-0023282
43
POL00026682
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Key points and actions from the
conference call dated 9th January 2014
POL-0023323
POL00026636
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda for Thursday Calls
dated 20 February 2014
POL-0023277
45
POL00026635
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda for Thursday Calls
dated 6 February 2014
POL-0023276
46
WITN10370119
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Key points and actions from the
conference call dated 19 December
2013
WITN10370119
47
POL00026637
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda for Thursday Calls
dated 27 February 2014
POL-0023278
48
WITN10370120
Email from Nicky Mal to Jonathan Swil
copying David Oliver and Belinda Crowe
attaching the skeleton argument for the
Castleton case dated 13 March 2014
WITN10370120
Page 58 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
49
POL00069911
Post Office v Lee Castleton Claimant's
Skeleton on trial to be heard from 4
December 2006
POL-0066474
50
WITN10370121
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Belinda Crowe attaching a note
from Sir Anthony Hooper dated 17
March 2014.
WITN10370121
51
POL00302815
Note from Sir Anthony Hooper
POL-BSFF-0140865
52
POL00021991
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Belinda Crowe and Andrew
Parsons attaching “the key Bond
Dickinson advice” dated 12 March 2014
POL-0018470
53
POL00006484
Bond Pearce summary of Conference
dated 12 June 2012
POL-0017789
POL00193585
Bond Dickinson Note on Insurance Risks
dated 15 August 2013.
POL-BSFF-0031648
55
POL00006485
Bond Dickinson Note of Conference
dated 9 September 2013.
POL-0017790
56
POL00023297
Bond Dickinson Note on Non-Pecuniary
Losses
POL-0019776
57
POL00022002
Bond Dickinson Post Office Presentation
dated 8 October 2013.
POL-0018481
58
WITN10370122
Bond Dickinson Note on Civil Claims by
SPMRs
WITN10370122
59
WITN10370123
Email from Rodric Williams to Christa
Band copying Jonathan Swil attaching
the Court of Appeal's decision in Lalji v
POL and the Draft advice from Slaughter
and May dated 14 March 2014
WITN10370123
60
POL00243088
Moeze Lalji v Post Office Limited Draft
judgment dated 4 December 2003
POL-BSFF-0081151
61
WITN10370124
Slaughter and May Royal Mail/Pol —- Sub
Post Office Network
Preliminary Advice Note dated 6 January
2006
WITN10370124
62
WITN10370125
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Christa Band and Belinda
Crowe re Mediation Scheme —
confidential and privileged dated 12
March 2014.
WITN10370125
Page 59 of 6
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
63
POL00021989
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
and Belinda Crowe copying Christa
Band re Mediation Scheme- confidential
and privileged
POL-0018468
64
POL00021980
Post Office Limited — Work Plan and
issues (DRAFT) dated 4 March 2014.
POL-0018469
65
WITN10370126
Sub-post office claims — questions for
Post Office dated 6 March 2013.
WITN10370126
66
POL00114414
Draft Outline of Mediation Scheme.
POL-0113341
67
POL00147643
Emails between Belinda Crowe and
Jonathan Swil copying David Oliver,
Chris Aujard and Christa Band re M001
between 6 - 9 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0006766
WITN10370127
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Belinda Crowe and Christa
Band re Questions discussed on
Thursday dated 8 March 2014.
WITN10370127
WITN10370128
Sub-post office claims — Questions for
Post Office privileged and confidential
dated 8 March 2013.
WITN10370128
70
WITN10370129
Christa Band manuscript note re Chris
Aujard dated 10 March 2014.
WITN10370129
71
POL00201709
Email from Jonathan Swil to Belinda
Crowe copying David Oliver, Chris
Aujard and Christa Band re M001 dated
10 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0039772
72
POL00201708
Letter from Linklaters to Post Office
dated 10 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0039771
73
POL00147649
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
and Belinda Crowe copying Chris Aujard
and Christa Band re comments on letter
dated 10 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0006772
74
POL00147650
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Christa Band, Chris Aujard, and
Belinda Crowe re comments on letter re
dated 10 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0006773
75
POL00147651
Draft report on the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme dated 10
March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0006774
76
POL00147652
Letter from Christa Band to Chris Aujard
te Outline of report on Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme dated 10
March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0006775
Page 60 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
77
POL00147656
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Chris Aujard, Christa Band and
Belinda Crowe re cutdown Outline Paper
dated 10 March 2014
POL-BSFF-0006779
78
POL00147659
Cutdown Outline Paper dated 10 March
2014
POL-BSFF-0006782
79
POL00302770
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Chris Aujard, Christa Band and
Belinda Crowe re Following discussions
at Post Office dated 11 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0140820
80
WITN10370130
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Chris Aujard, Belinda Crowe
and Christa Band re Following
discussions at Post Office dated 11
March 2014.
WITN10370130
81
POL00147679
Email from Belinda Crowe to Jonathan
Swil copying Belinda Crowe, Chris
Aujard and David Oliver re Cut down
Outline Paper 14032014 dated 11 March
2014.
POL-BSFF-0006802
82
POL00147680
Draft The Post Office Limited Initial
Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme Proposed outline of report for
the Board dated 10 March 2014
POL-BSFF-0006803
83
POL00147683
Email from Jonathan Swil to Chris Aujard
copying Christa Band, Belinda Crowe
and David Oliver re Cut down Outline
Paper 14032014 dated 11 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0006806
84
UKGI00002211
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme - Proposed outline of report for
the Board dated 10 March 2014.
UKGI013025-001
85
WITN10370131
Delta Compare of Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme -
Proposed outline of report for the Board
dated 10 March 2014.
WITN10370131
POL00201779
Emails from David Oliver to Christa
Band, Belinda Crowe and Jonathan Swil
copying Chris Aujard re Following
discussions at Post Office dated 13
March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0039842
87
WITN10370132
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
re Linklaters scope paper dated 17
March 2014.
WITN10370132
Page 61 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
WITN10370133
Email from Belinda Crowe to Christa
Band copying David Oliver re Board
Comments on the Scope Paper dated 17
March 2014.
WITN10370133
89
WITN10370134
Post Office Board Comments on
Linklaters Scope Paper dated 16 March
2014
WITN10370134
90
WITN10370135
Post Office Board Comments on
Linklaters Scope Paper dated 17 March
2014
WITN10370135
91
WITN10370136
Post Office Board Comments on
Linklaters Scope Paper dated 16 March
2014
WITN10370136
92
WITN10370137
Post Office Board Comments on
Linklaters Scope Paper dated 17 March
2014
WITN10370137
93
WITN10370138
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Chris Aujard, Jonathan Swil,
Jessica Barker and Belinda Crowe re
Board presentation and paper dated 18
March 2014.
WITN10370138
94
POL00168007
File Note: Meeting with the FOS at the
FOS’ Offices on Monday 17th March at
4:45PM.
POL-0163304
95
POL00201938
Email from Jonathan Swil to Chris
Aujard, copying Christa Band, David
Oliver and Belinda Crowe re Draft
Report dated 19 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0040001
96
POL00201939
Draft Linklaters’ Report into Initial
Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme dated 20 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0040002
97
POL00022016
Email from Belinda Crowe to Rodric
Williams copying David Oliver and Chris
Aujard attaching a Draft report dated 20
March 2014.
POL-0018495
98
WITN10370139
Report into Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme — PO mark up dated
20 March 2014.
WITN10370139
99
POL00303275
Email from Jonathan Swil to Amanda A
Brown copying Christa Band, Rodric
Williams and David Oliver re Draft report
dated 24 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0141325
Page 62 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
100
POL00138177
Email from Belinda Crowe to Christa
Band copying Jonathan Swil, David
Oliver and Chris Aujard re Post Office
Ltd board mediation scheme update
March 2014 dated 20 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0000406
101
POL00346319
Strictly confidential — initial complaint
review and mediation scheme dated 19
March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0172040
102
POL00022042
Email from Jonathan Swil to Richard
Morgan copying Christa Band re Post
Office dated 20 March 2014.
POL-0018521
103
'WITN10370140
Linklaters Report into initial complaint
review and mediation scheme legal
issues dated 20 March 2014.
WITN10370140
104
WITN10370141
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Post Office dated 20 March
2014.
WITN10370141
105
WITN10370142
Email from Christa Band to Jonathan
Swil re Post Office dated 21 March 2014.
WITN10370142
106
WITN10370143
Christa Band manuscript note re Richard
Morgan 25 March 2014.
WITN10370143
107
WITN10370144
Christa Band manuscript note re pre-
board meeting call 25 March 2014.
WITN10370144
108
WITN10370145
Christa Band manuscript note re Post
Office Board Meeting 26 March 2014.
WITN10370145
109
WITN10370146
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Post Office — note on report
dated 27 March 2014.
WITN10370146
110
WITN10370147
Post Office mediation scheme — outline
of report on Horizon dated 27 March
2014.
WITN10370147
111
POL00022092
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Chris Aujard, Rodric Williams,
Belinda Crowe and Christa Band re
Going forward dated 28 March 2014.
POL-0018571
112
POL00022093
Outline of points produced by Linklaters
to explain Horizon and form a basis for a
report to respond to public criticism and
individual complaints by SPMs dated 28
March 2014.
POL-0018572
113
POL00138192
Email from Angela Van-Den-Bogerd to
Belinda Crowe, Lesley J Sewell and
Rodric Williams copying David Oliver
POL-BSFF-0000421
Page 63 of 68
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
and Chris Aujard re Horizon dated 31
March 2014.
114
POL00147899
Email from Belinda Crowe to Jonathan
Swil copying Chris Aujard, Christa Band
and David Oliver re Going forward dated
31 March 2014.
POL-BSFF-0007022
115
POL00022096
Email from Jonathan Swil to Belinda
Crowe copying Christa Band, Chris
Aujard and David Oliver re Going
forward dated 31 March 2014.
POL-0018575
116
POL00022095
Preliminary note on the future of the
mediation scheme dated 31 March 2014.
POL-0018574
117
WITN10370148
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Post Office dated 1 April 2014.
WITN10370148
118
WITN10370149
Christa Band manuscript note re
meeting with David Oliver, Belina Crowe
and Chris Aujard 1 April 2014.
WITN10370149
119
WITN10370150
Email from Jonathan Swil to Carolyn
Low copying Christa Band re Post Office
dated 2 April 2014.
WITN10370150
120
WITN10370151
Initial complaint and mediation scheme:
The Way Forward
WITN10370151
121
WITN10370152
Email from Carolyn Low to Jonathan
Swil copying Christa Band re Post Office
dated 2 April 2014.
WITN10370152
122
POL00147933
Email from Carolyn Low to Chris Aujard,
Belinda Crowe and David Oliver copying
Jonathan Swil, David Oliver and Christa
Band re Scheme options paper: to be
discussed at 10.30 on 3/4/14 dated 2
April 2014.
POL-BSFF-0007056
123
POL00147934
Initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme:
the way forward dated 2 April 2014.
POL-BSFF-0007057
124
POL00202498
Email from Rodric Williams to Jonathan
Swil copying Belinda Crowe, David
Oliver, Christa Band and Chris Aujard re
Horizon Core Audit Process dated 2 April
2014.
POL-BSFF-0040561
125
WITN10370153
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Legitimate expectation dated 3
April 2014.
WITN10370153
Page 64 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
126
WITN10370154
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Post Office update dated 10
April 2014.
WITN10370154
127
WITN10370155
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Belinda Crowe, Rodric Williams
and Amanda A Brown re Further work on
the Scheme dated 15 April 2014.
WITN10370155
128
WITN10370156
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Rodric Willians re Slides dated
16 April 2014.
WITN10370156
129
WITN10370157
Answering the five questions —
subjective analysis.
WITN10370157
130
WITN10370158
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Belinda Crowe and Carolyn Low
re Further questions dated 22 April 2014
WITN10370158
131
WITN10370159
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Belinda Crowe, Carolyn Low
and Christa Band re Further questions
dated 22 April 2014.
WITN10370159
132
POL00428668
Initial complaint review and mediation
scheme — note on settlement dated 22
April 2014.
POL-0204128
133
POL00108446
Initial complaint review and mediation
scheme draft letter.
POL-0106544
134
POL00203973
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Belinda Crowe, Carolyn Low
and Christa Band re Further questions
dated 24 April 2014.
POL-BSFF-0042036
135
POL00203974
Initial complaint review and mediation
scheme — note on ex gratia payments
dated 24 April 2014.
POL-BSFF-0042037
136
POL00304464
Email from Jonathan Swil to David Oliver
copying Sophie Bialaszewski, Rodric
Williams, Belinda Crowe and Christa
Band re Correspondence for review
dated 9 May 2014.
POL-BSFF-0142514
137
WITN10370160
Draft letter to Ms Willlott.
WITN10370160
138
WITN10370161
Draft letter to James Arbuthnot.
WITN10370161
139
WITN10370162
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Call with Paula Vennells dated
13 May 2014.
WITN10370162
Page 65 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
140
POL00204482
Email from David Oliver to Christa Band
copying Jonathan Swil, Belinda Crowe
and Chris Aujard re pre call brief ahead
of meeting with Tony Hooper dated 14
May 2014.
POL-BSFF-0042545
144
WITN10370163
Pre Brief Call ahead of Meeting with
Tony Hooper Note
WITN10370163
142
WITN10370164
Christa Band manuscript note 14 May
2014.
WITN10370164
143
WITN10370165
Christa Band manuscript note re
meeting with Chris Aujard and Rodric
Williams 28 May 2014.
WITN10370165
144
WITN10370166
Email from Rodric Williams to Jonathan
Swil re Post Office Ltd / Deloitte dated
30 April 2014.
WITN10370166
145
WITN10370167
Deloitte hold harmless letter dated 30
April 2014.
WITN10370167
146
WITN10370168
Email from Rodric Williams to Jonathan
Swil copying Christa Band re Post Office
Ltd / Deloitte dated 1 May 2014.
WITN10370168
147
WITN10370169
Attachment: Deloitte executive summary
WITN10370169
148
WITN10370170
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Deloitte's work for the Post
Office Limited dated 13 May 2014.
WITN10370170
149
POL00138376
Email from Amanda A Brown to
Jonathan Swil re Project Zebra — Draft
full report dated 27 May 2014.
POL-BSFF-0000600
150
WITN10370171
Horizon — Desktop review of assurance
sources and key control feature draft
dated 23 May 2014.
WITN10370171
151
WITN10370172
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Project Zebra — draft full report
dated 27 May 2014.
WITN10370172
152
WITN10370173
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Deloitte report dated 28 May
2014.
WITN10370173
153
WITN10370174
Initial complaint review and mediation
scheme — notes on Deloitte report dated
28 May 2014
WITN10370174
154
WITN10370175
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Post Office dated 28 May 2014
WITN10370175
Page 66 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
155
POL00148464
Post Office and Linklaters emails re
Deloitte report dated 28 May 2014.
POL-BSFF-0007587
156
POL00148446
Email from Rodric Williams to Jonathan
Swil copying Chris Aujard and Christa
Band re Follow up dated 28 May 2014.
POL-BSFF-0007569
157
WITN10370176
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Post Office dated 28 May 2014.
WITN10370176
158
WITN10370177
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re FW: Project Zebra —Next Steps
dated 29 May 2014.
WITN10370177
159
WITN10370178
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Project Zebra — next steps
dated 29 May 2014.
WITN10370178
160
WITN10370179
Email from Rodric Williams to Jonathan
Swil copying Belinda Crowe and David
Oliver re Project Sparrow dated 1 August
2014.
WITN10370179
161
POL00207100
Email from Belinda Crowe to Andrew
Parsons, Angela Van-Den-Bogerd and
Rodric Williams copying David Oliver,
Jessica Barker and Melanie Corfield re
Second Sight Part Two report dated 1
August 2014.
POL-BSFF-0045163
162
POL00022150
Draft Mediation Briefing Report dated 30
July 2014.
POL-0018629
163
POL00000213
Letter from Post Office to Second Sight
re Engagement Letter dated 1 July 2014.
VIS00001187
164
POL00000214
Side Letter from Post Office to Second
Sight re Engagement Letter dated 1 July
2014
VIS00001188
165
POL00405441
1994 Issue SPSO Contract dated 8
January 2008.
POL-BSFF-0229760
166
WITN10370180
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band copying Paul McNicholl re Project
Sparrow dated 5 August 2014.
WITN10370180
167
WITN10370181
Email from Belinda Crowe to Jonathan
Swil re Second Sight report dated 5
August 2014.
WITN10370181
168
POL00021819
Draft Mediation Briefing Report dated 5
August 2014.
POL-0018298
Page 67 of 69
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
169
WITN10370182
Email from Christa Band to Jonathan
Swil copying Paul McNicholl re Project
Sparrow dated 5 August 2014.
WITN10370182
170
WITN10370183
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Project Sparrow dated 6 August
2014
WITN10370183
171
WITN10370184
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Project Sparrow dated 6 August
2014.
WITN10370184
172
WITN10370185
Draft Mediation Briefing Report
privileged and confidential dated 30 July
2014.
WITN10370185
173
WITN10370186
Email from Jonathan Swil to Belinda
Crowe and Rodric Williams copying
David Oliver and Christa Band re Project
Sparrow dated 6 August 2014.
WITN10370186
174
WITN10370187
Email from Belinda Crowe to Jonathan
Swil and Rodric Williams copying David
Oliver and Christa Band re Project
Sparrow dated 6 August 2014.
WITN10370187
175
POLO0305565
Email from Rodric Williams to Jonathan
Swil copying Belinda Crowe re
Response to Second Sight Part dated 8
August 2014.
POL-BSFF-0143615
176
WITN10370188
Email from Jonathan Swil to Christa
Band re Post Office dated 23 August
2014.
WITN10370188
177
POL00022215
Email from Belinda Crowe to Jonathan
Swil copying Rodric Williams re Second
Sight's Draft Two Report dated 15
August 2014.
POL-0018694
178
WITN10370189
Letter from Rodric Williams to Second
Sight re Draft Report dated 14 August
2014.
WITN10370189
179
WITN10370190
Appendix to Post Office letter dated 14
August 2014
WITN10370190
180
POL00207714
Email from David Oliver to Jonathan Swil
copying Belinda Crowe and Rodric
Williams re Part Two Report dated 21
August 2014.
POL-BSFF-0045777
181
WITN10370191
Attachment: Briefing Report - Part Two
dated 21 August 2014.
WITN10370191
Page 68 of 68
WITN10370100
WITN10370100
182
POL00021861
Email from Jonathan Swil to Belinda
Crowe copying Andrew Parsons, David
Oliver, Rodric Williams and Melanie
Corfield re Examples of Letter to Second
Sight [BD-4A.FID20472253] dated 21
August 2014.
POL-0018340
183
WITN10370192
Attachment: Revised Draft Letter to
Second Sight
WITN10370192
Page 69 of 69