WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
Witness Name: Patrick Bourke
Statement No: WITN09830200
Dated: 2 May 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF PATRICK BOURKE
I, Patrick Bourke, will say as follows:
1 This second witness statement (the “Second Witness Statement”) is made in
order to amend my first witness statement, dated 11 April 2024, (the “First
Witness Statement”).
2 At paragraph 134 of my First Witness Statement there is a transcription error:
the year of the email I describe [POL00149296] is 2014 and not 2018.
3 At paragraph 144 of my First Witness Statement, I refer to an email dated 20
November 2014 10:47, from Mark Underwood to Tom Wechsler, with me in
copy, attaching a paper produced by Andrew Parsons and a bulleted lists of
points for public rebuttals, exhibiting a version of Andrew Parsons’ paper and
its covering email [POL00212048] and [POL00212049] respectively. I now
exhibit to this Second Witness Statement the version of Andrew Parsons’ paper
[POL00149579] and the bulleted list [POL00149580] which were attached to
Page 1 of 9
WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
the email of 20 November 2014 10:47. At paragraph 144, I also refer to and
quote from an email from Andrew Parsons of 25 November 2014 at 14:37,
which I now exhibit to this Second Witness Statement [POL00149655].
At paragraph 157 of my First Witness Statement I refer to an email dated 10
November 2014 16:44 from Andrew Parsons which states: “I've also had some
more information from Deloitte that I have included in the note” [POL00149483]
but I had not located nor could I recall the note. I have since realised that the
note referred to in [POL00149483] is a version of the note I refer to at paragraph
144, and which I exhibit to paragraph 3 of this Second Witness Statement
[POL00149579].
References to Second Sight’s Part Two Report at paragraphs 52, 54, 57 of my
First Witness Statement all refer to the draft Part Two Report.
I also exhibit two reviews of the mediation service element of the Complaints
and Mediation Scheme (the “Scheme”) produced by John Munton, Director of
Dispute Resolution Services at the Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution
(“CEDR”) [POL00158207] [POL00078426]. The reviews — dated 24 February
2015 and 31 July 2015 — were a requirement of CEDR’s contract to provide the
mediation element of the Scheme, as it was felt important by a number of
stakeholders, including POL, that there should be ongoing monitoring of the
Scheme by CEDR because of their independence. The reviews were prepared
by Mr Munton to assist the parties to the Scheme. He made a number of
observations in his reviews:
Page 2 of 9
WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
a) “On a number of the mediations that have taken place so far the
subpostmaster has not fully comprehended the nature of mediation as a
process and they have also been influenced by the wider campaign
asserting the failings of the Horizon system. They have, therefore,
sometimes attended with the expectation that they are going into a
compensation process rather than a facilitated dialogue with the Post Office
in which claims made by either party do require some prior notification,
explanation and evidential validation.” (page 3, 31 July 2015 Review)
b) “POL at considerable effort and expense attended a full day's mediation
and made a reasonable settlement offer in the circumstances. [The
subpostmasters] requests were not realistic and [the applicant] continued to
believe ....was not guilty of false accounting, despite the weight of evidence’
Mediator report extract (page 3, 31 July 2015 Review)
“The subpostmasters] expectations set by the mediation scheme steering
committee were that the mediation scheme was a compensation scheme”
Mediator report extract (page 4, 31 July 2015 Review)
d) “Mr ... had highly unrealistic expectations of compensation ... this was
largely created by his adviser” Mediator report extract (page 4, 31 July 2015
Review)
Page 3 of 9
WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
e) “Having spoken to all of the mediators used so far there is a consensus that
perhaps some of the cases referred to mediation under the Scheme would
not have made it to that stage within a litigation process given the
uncertainty over the issues and lack of evidence available.” (page 4, 31 July
2015 Review)
f) “Claim appeared to relate to alleged losses but on the day the termination
of an agency agreement was apparently the key issue and this did not
appear to have been articulated before.” Mediator report extract (page 4,
31 July 2015 Review)
g) “The basis and amount of ... claim was not clear. .. had not adduced any
evidence in support of... claim.” Mediator report extract (page 4, 31 July
2015 Review)
h) “Mediator reports in this Scheme suggest that subpostmaster expectations
of entering a compensation dialogue are frequently at variance with the Post
Office representatives’ approach of seeking credible evidence to justify
claims before seeing a need to make negotiation offers.” (page 4, 31 July
2015 Review)
i) “In terms of the mediations themselves it is clear from the reports that the
Post Office has a willingness to explore the options, express empathy and
Page 4 of 9
WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
have constructive dialogue with the subpostmasters.” (page 6, 31 July 2015
Review)
j) “Mediation... has led to practical agreed outcomes in almost half of the
cases so far conducted.” (page 7, 31 July 2015 Review)
7 Schedule 1 sets out the amendments to the Index of the Witness Statement, at
page 148 of the Witness Statement, following receipt of URN, Document
Descriptions and Control Number from the Inquiry.
Schedule 1
No. URN Document Description Control Number
108 POLO8242040 I Draftnitial- Complaint Review-and I POL-BSFF-9050-42
Mediation Scheme, H rf n-Dat:
POL00149579 POL-BSFF-0008699
Initial__Complaint__review__and
Mediation Scheme - Horizon data:
Generic response to Second sight
question re Remote Access.
109 POL00212048 I Email_from—Andrew—Parsons—to I POL-BSFF-0050144
Belinda—Crow . Patrick—Bourk +
POL00149580 POL-BSFF-0008700
Andy-Holt-and_others Re- Remote
access {BD-4A FID20472253}
Page 5 of 9
Answers to Questions regarding
POL and FUJ Remote Access.
WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
110
POLOO212720
POL00149655
Email chain including — Mark
Underwood (POL); Andrew
Parsons (WBD); Tom Wechsler
(POL) & Others Re: Remote access
by Fujitsu.
POLBSFF-0050783
POL-BSFF-0008773
Page 6 of 9
WITN09830200
WITNO09830200
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true
Page 7 of 9
Index to Second Witness Statement of Patrick Bourke
WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
No.
URN
Document
Description
Control Number
1.
POL00149296
Email from Patrick
Bourke to Belinda
Crowe, Angela Van-
Den-Bogerd, Andrew
Parsons re Horizon
access
POL-BSFF- 0008416
POL00212048
Email from Andrew
Parsons to Belinda
Crowe, Patrick Bourke,
Andy Holt and others
Re: Remote access
[BD-4A.FID20472253]
POL-BSFF-0050111
POL00212049
Draft Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation
Scheme, Horizon Data
POL-BSFF-0050112
POL00149579
Initial Complaint review
and Mediation Scheme
- Horizon data: Generic
response to Second
sight question re
Remote Access.
POL-BSFF-0008699
POL00149580
Answers to Questions
regarding POL and FUJ
Remote Access.
POL-BSFF-0008700
POL00149655
Email chain including
Mark Underwood
(POL); Andrew
Parsons (WBD); Tom
Wechsler (POL) &
Others Re: Remote
access by Fujitsu
POL-BSFF-0008773
POL00149483
Email from Mark
Underwood1 to Patrick
Bourke RE: Remote
access [BD-
4A.F1D20472253]
POL-BSFF-0008603
POL00149579
Initial Complaint review
and Mediation Scheme
- Horizon data: Generic
response to Second
sight question re
Remote Access.
POL-BSFF-0008699
POL00158207
Letter from John
Munton to Post Office
Mediation Complaint
Review Working Group
Secretariat re: POST
POL-0146649
Page 8 of 9
WITNO09830200
WITN09830200
Office Mediation
Complaint Review
Scheme
10.
POL00078426
CEDR Review Letter.
Letter from John
Munton to Patrick
Bourke RE: PO
mediation Complaint
Review Scheme -
Review 2
POL-0074989
Page 9 of 9