WITN10500105
WITN10500105
Message
IRRELEVANT
From: Andrew Parsons:
Sent: 07 September 2018
To: Anthony de Garr Robinso!
Cc: Gavin Matthews! Jonathan Gribben Lucy
Bremner I _5 Emma Campbell-Danesh‘” H
Subject: RE: Scope of Horizon [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Will do.
The meeting with the criminal guys has just been confirmed for 11am at OEC.
It will be Simon Clarke - https://cartwrightking.co.uk/profile/simon-clarke-P309/ and Martin Smith, solicitor.
Rod Williams from POL will also be there.
Simon and Martin have done lots of prosecutions for Post Office over the years so understand how branches work and
the role of Horizon. I've attached an advice note Simon did 5 years ago about why POL should be wary about relying on
Gareth Jenkins, which sets the context for the meeting.
In terms of what we may need from GJ, it covers broadly two things:
1. Information about remote access — see attached note that was sent to FJ to start the discussions about this
evidence
WITN10500105
WITN10500105
2. Evidence responding to particular bugs in the system that GJ directly dealt with.
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON v ©
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson!”
Sent: 07 September 2018 10:01
To: Andrew Parsons; Simon Henderson
Cc: Gavin Matthews; Jonathan Gribben; Lucy Bremner; Emma Campbell-Danesh
Subject: RE: Scope of Horizon [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
I’d forgotten about them — I should have looked at my diary before responding. Maybe Simon and I could put our heads
together after that meeting — assuming it happens — before having a discussion with you.
In his email of a few minutes ago, Simon expresses the view that, before deciding what to do about the proper scope of
Horizon and whether the Horizon issues can be determined without a consideration of other systems such as POLSAP, it
would be helpful if Robert could articulate his views. I agree with that. Might it be possible for Robert to produce
something in writing for us to reflect on before we discuss this further? On Monday, perhaps?
The more time we have for this the better. But one of the things we need to factor into our deliberations is when and how
to raise any points we decide to raise. In that regard, the date of the forthcoming CMC on 19/09 complicates matters
somewhat.
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Andrew Parsons
Sent: 07 September 2018 0:
To: Simon Henderso:
Cc: Gavin Matthews!
} Anthony de Garr Robinsot
Jonathan Gribben 7 GRO
5 Emma Campbell-Danesh !_
Subject: RE: Scope of Horizon [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Lucy
And yes, this one isn't urgent.
I'm still trying to get confirmation of whether the criminal lawyers are coming into Chambers on Monday...
A
WITN10500105
WITN10500105
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON v ©
From: Simon Henderson
Sent: 07 September 2018 09:48
To: ‘Anthony de Garr Robinson’; Andrew Parsons
Cc: Gavin Matthews; Jonathan Gribben; Lucy Bremner; Emma Campbell-Danesh
Subject: RE: Scope of Horizon [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Hi Tony
Our emails crossed: but yes I’m happy to discuss on Monday morning
Best
Simon
From: Anthony de Garr Robinson
Sent: 07 September 2018 0!
To: ‘Andrew Parsons’ Simon Henderson
Cc: Gavin Matthew: Jonathan Gribbeni
Bremnel mma Campbell-DanesI
Scope of Horizon [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Bearing in mind the other things going on at the moment, I'd like a little time to reflect on this point and on the essay plan
you sent over earlier, if that is possible.
Could we aim to respond on Monday afternoon, Andy? If so, would you be free to talk about this with me on Monday
morning, Simon?
Best wishes,
Tony
From: Andrew Parsons
Sent: 07 September 2018 0:
To: Anth de Garr Robi
Lucy
Emma Campbell-Danesh!_
Subject: FW: Scope of Horizon [WBDUK-AC.FID26896945]
Tony, Simon.
Second thing from Robert — see below.
WITN10500105
WITN10500105
The scope of Horizon is plainly going to be a big issue. I agree with Robert that moving the boundary to include POLSAP
is a bad idea. I'm sure there are many ways that POLSAP and Horizon talk to each other, but the key one that I am aware
of is TCs. In crude terms, TC information is manually loaded into POLSAP and then POLSAP sends the TCs to
Horizon. This is why, I suspect, Coyne wants to include it.
In response to this:
First, I agree with Robert that this would be a massive increase in scope.
Second, we have given very little (if any?) disclosure on POLSAP.
Third, the definition of Horizon in the Horizon Issues is limited to just the Horizon system. There is no doubt in my mind
(and I'm sure that Robert would back this up) that no properly informed person would say that POLSAP was part of
Horizon — they are two separate systems, although part of a highly integrated IT estate.
Fourth, the Cs have no pleaded case against any system other than Horizon — see para 12 GPOC onwards that only talks
about Horizon.
The challenge is whether or how to raise this with the Judge. The options I see are:
1. Raise it with the Judge before Coyne does his report. Perhaps Robert could do this under CPR 35.14? I'm not
attracted to this approach:
o We already have enough work for the Judge to do with adding another issue (Simon — we have just made
a security for costs and a strike out application on the Common Issues side — if you would like copies,
please say).
oI think it will be difficult for the Judge to decide on this without first seeing the extent of the problem. This
is a technical question about where you draw the boundary between one system and the next one: which
in my experience of doing IT disputes is fertile ground for litigation in itself.
2. Raise it after we get Coyne's report, but put down a marker now in correspondence
o This is my preferred way forward. Its pro-active but keeps our options open.
3. Stay silent and then use it as grounds to attack Coyne at trial. He's going to look pretty silly giving opinions on
topics where there has been no disclosure or evidence.
o This is a high stakes play because to make this work Robert will need to say nothing about POLSAP in
his report, giving us nothing to throw back at Coyne.
o It might irritate the Judge if we get to trial and there is a chasm between the two experts on an issue as
fundamental as "what is the Horizon system?"
Thoughts?
A
Andrew Parsons
Partner
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
WITN10500105
WITN10500105
Stay informed: sign up to our e-alerts
WOMBLE womblebonddickinson.com
BOND
DICKINSON v ©
Simon Henderson
4 Pump Court, Temple, London, EC4Y 7AN I www.4pumpcourt.com
Follow us on twitter @4PumpCourt
Connect with us on LinkedIn
Pump Court International I www.pumpcourtinternational.com
Terms of Work: Barristers at 4 Pump Court carry out services on 4 Pump Court Terms, which are available on our
website, unless otherwise agreed in writing. I View Terms
Privacy: Your attention is drawn to our Privacy Notice in relation to any personal data that we may obtain and/or
otherwise process about you. I View Privacy Notice
Notice of Confidentiality and Privilege: This email (including attachments) is confidential to the addressee, and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the addressee, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise use it
or any information contained in this email. Please delete it, and destroy all copies
From: robert worden!
Sent: 06 September 201
To: Andrew Parsons
Cc: 'Chris Emery’; Jonathan Gribben
Subject: Scope of Horizon
Andy -
In our JM meeting and in the JM itself, Coyne has clearly signalled that he will consider POLSAP to be within the
boundary of Horizon.
I think there is no possibility of expert agreement here.
WITN10500105
WITN10500105
So it will be determined by lawyers sooner or later. We would be interested to know when you think that will be, and
I can offer some expert considerations that are relevant.
In addressing robustness of Horizon - the core issue of the case - neither expert has the evidence to assess robustness of
POLSAP. So issue 3 cannot be decided, if POLSAP is within Horizon. Coyne should have requested disclosure of POLSAP
evidence a long time ago, if he needed to assess that.
Obviously POLSAP does all the accounting for PO - and being a SAP ERP system, probably also does a lot more as well.
Accounting is just one module of SAP. So including POLSAP would be a massive increase in scope, bringing in a load of
irrelevant stuff.
No doubt you will put all the arguments about proportionality, trial date, and so on.
Regards
Robert
Please consider the environment! Do you need to print this email?
nly is authorised to access this e-
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged and protected by law. arobinsonj~
ts. Ifyou are not arobinsoni please notify andrew.parsons™ soon as possibl
ation, distribution, publication or copying tinication or attachments is prohib ye unlawful. Information about how we
Privacy Policy on our website.
mail and any attachm: copies. Unauthorised use,
disser
use personal data
us with virus detection software before tran
mission, Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP accepts no liability for any
s before opening any attachment
Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked by
loss or damage which may be caused by software
Content of this email which does not relate to the official business of Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, is neither given nor endorsed by it
wid and Wales under number 0C317661. Our registered office
m partner to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee ot
This email is sent by Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP which is a limited liability partnership registered in E:
is 4 More London Riverside, London, SE 2AU, where a list of members’ names is op
consultant who is of equivalent standing. Our VAT registration number is GB123393627.
to inspection. We use the t
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is a member of Womble Bond Die ational) Limited, which consists of independent and autonomous law firms providing services
in the US, the UK, and elsewhere around the world. Each Womble Bond Dickinson entity is a separate legal entity and is not responsible for the acts or omissions of, nor can bind
Womble Bond Dickinson entity. Womble Bond Dickinson (Intemational) Limited does not practice law. Please see www.womblebonddickinson.convlegal
notices for further details.
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
WITN10500105
WITN10500105
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email
security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human
error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.