Thread by @RichardMoorhead

Not.me.gov. UKGIs interesting opening written submissions to the PO Inquiry. Tl,dr. They indicate, from where they are sitting, it was largely the fault of PO execs, interim GC Aujard and CEO Vennells feature heavily. 1/ #postofficescandal postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/sites/default/…

It has a strong ‘let the finger pointing’ begin vibe. The claim is the Board we’re kept in the dark. The admission is the non execs did not do their job until 2018 at any rate. And while they do appear to have learnt several lessons, I predict they’ll learn more 2/

Key point one is the claim there is no evidence the Board were ever shown the Clarke Advices. Instead they focused on how Second Sights investigations might open them up to attack. 3/

"Instead, what was communicated to the POL Board at its meeting on 25 September 2013, was that Brian Altman QC had been instructed to oversee the process by which Cartwright King were reviewing POL's historical criminal cases…

…to advise on POL's continued disclosure obligations; and to recommend whether POL should continue to bring private prosecutions, and if so, to assist with re-drafting POL's prosecutions policy…. 5/

From ShEx's perspective, the instruction of a highly
regarded senior criminal QC (and former First Senior Treasury Counsel) to carry out these tasks appeared to be a reasonable response to the concerns that had been raised following receipt of Second Sight's interim report.” 6/

October 2013, CEO Vennells reports to Bd. 10 out of 301 cases warranted disclosure of SSs report. Brian Altman QC's review of the overall process concluded the process was 'fundamentally sound". No appeal has been made to the Court of Appeal following the 10 disclosures. 6/

Various discussions about the mediation scheme and prosecution policy ensue. ‘On 9 September 2014, Cartwright King completed Phase Two of its review’ /

In a report on this for the Bd meeting General Counsel (Chris Aujard) indicated, ‘that POL had found nothing in any of the 73 cases which had been investigated within the Scheme that raised concerns about faults with the Horizon system, the safety of convictions…’ 9/

‘During the autumn of 2014, a draft of POL's new prosecutions policy prepared by Brian Altman QC was presented to POL and… considered internally.’ A copy of the draft was not provided to the POL Board Until January 2016. [red hot the Board were not] 10/

‘When the POL Board met on 28 January 2015, the CEO provided a paper updating the Board on a number of matters, including Project Sparrow45. She informed the Board that the investigation of all cases within the Scheme was now complete and, significantly, stated… 11/

… “To date, we have found no evidence, nor has any been provided by either an Applicant or Second Sight, of either faults with the Horizon system or unsafe convictions, and we are not aware that any convictions have been appealed." 12/

[UKGI opine] It is not clear whether the CEO was aware of Simon Clarke's advice in July and August of 2013… once again, her report provided significant reassurance to the Board and Shareholder NED (Richard Callard), that there were no concerns with previous prosecutions.” 13/

In c. February 2015, the CCRC contacted POL asking for information
about Brian Altman QC's review of POL's prosecutions policy. But UKGI report Brian Altman QC's conclusion that prosecutions had been handled appropriately, was once again reassuring. 14/

On the 9 April 2015, Second Sight presented its final report to POL. That report raises several serious concerns about prosecutions. A few days later a rebuttal document is produced by POL

E.g. POL therefore disputed Second Sight's findings in section 25 of its report, as being '...based on generalised and anecdotal assertion which is unsubstantiated'. /16ish

“A copy of Second Sight's final report and POL's response was provided to the Department upon ShEx s request, but does not appear to have been circulated to the full Board.” [the Execs had it, the Department had it, the Bd did not. Wow, wow, and thrice Wow] 17/

PO and the gov non exec seen to blame Second Sight for delay in progress within mediation scheme and poor quality work (praying in aid apparent criticism from Sir Anthony Hooper, mediation chairman). 17/

Apologies, my numbering is awry 19/

In September 2014, POL's General Counsel prepared an update
for the Bd, “a relatively optimistic assessment of future progress.”Said, “POL in 'a strong position to be more directive and assertive in our approach with Second Sight, JFSA and at Working Group more generally.' /

“Of particular significance was this assertion by the General Counsel, "This has been helped by the fact that we have found nothing in the 73 cases investigated which has raised concerns about faults with the Horizon system, the safety of convictions or Post Office's liability" /

Hooper gives a report to Minister limited due to confidentiality. UKGI do not report him criticising Second Sight /22

[The Vennels vs Henderson Select Committee hearing takes place that Feb. Even then, the NonExec doesn’t seem to grasp the problem, the UKGI response is here as in several places less than impressive in its self reflections] 23/

the Sparrow sub-committee, 11 February 2015, are treated to A paper by POL's legal team and communications director: A 'fundamental change' …mediation in all non-criminal cases … removing the requirement for a Second Sight's report, but applicants can still request one /

[At the least Second Sights involvement was curtailed and foreshortened] James Arbuthnot went ballistic. JFSA pulled out of the Scheme. PO and their non exec seen to be explaining SS have not been sacked/

July 2015, Vennells writes to the Minister to say the mediation scheme is still viable. [aka Liz Truss calms the markets]
/26

“That position was reflected in a detailed PowerPoint presentation prepared by POL's CEO and General Counsel at a face-to-face meeting in early August 2015 and presented to the Minister.” 27?/

UKGI spend a few moments rationalising the Government sitting on hands. [tl, dr It was a commercial dispute between business parties not a catastrophic miscarriage of justice and corporate governance shambled.] /27?

August though they/ the Minister decide to do something. They tell new chair (Parker) to do something. /29

Their self reflection here are interesting…

“There is no doubt that the message that the POL executive management consistently delivered to ShEx and the POL Board throughout this period was that it had acted responsibly and ethically in conducting a thorough investigation… /29

…into Horizon and there was no evidence of any problems with this system. …it was often supported by very detailed analysis (such as the August 2015 PowerPoint presentation" /30? [Powerpoints, eh. Well that’s alright then]

The POL Board was briefed on Second Sight, prior to its publication, during the course of a conference call by the Chief Executive “The investigation to date had found no systemic issues with the Horizon computer system but had highlighted areas for improvement [e.g. training." /

“The correspondence indicates that a copy of Second Sight's interim report was not shared with the POL Board in advance of this meeting.” The Shareholder NED, depended on the CEOs reassuring summary [🤪] /

The desire to reassure remains mysteriously strong the roost is seen in draft to prepare a briefing for the Minister, we’re back to Swinson, “Second Sight's conclusion that they had not identified problems of a systemic nature, although two 'anomalies' had been investigated… /

…in which defects or bugs in Horizon (which were presented as having been remedied) had affected the balances or transactions within 77 branches.” /

InAug 2014 we are told the acting GC wrote a detailed critique of Second Sights thematic report for government consumption.

“There was a POL Board meeting on 25 September 2014. The Board received an update on the progress of the Scheme but it would appear that neither the Second Sight thematic report nor the POL response were provided to the Board.” /

Why? “It seems likely that this reflects the fact that the documents
had been prepared for the purposes of an independently administered mediation scheme that was currently in operation.” The mediation scheme boxed off the evidence, whilst their GC criticised that evidence. /

March 2015 Vennells reports to the Board that Second Sight’s report is, “inaccurate and inflammatory; we will respond shortly". UKGI tell us, Second Sight's draft report was not provided to the POL Board at that stage. /

‘On 14 April 2015, POL's Communications Director was chased by the Shareholder NED for a copy of the report, which was provided later the same day, accompanied by POL's draft response.’ /

UKGI then make some, to my eyes rather mealy mouthed criticisms of the Second `sight report. This quote will give you a flavour, para 122 onwards is where to go and look… /

“From ShEx's perspective it was not immediately apparent from the report whether the conclusion expressed in Second Sight's interim report concerning the lack of any evidence of systemic problems with the Horizon software required amendment and, if so, to what extent.” /

And, “With the benefit of hindsight, the reference to Horizon being 'systematically flawed' …appears both highly relevant and concerning. However, it was not readily apparent from this single subparagraph in a very lengthy and detailed report.” /

[suffice to say, I see what they mean, and I also think this is a very kind interpretation of their own failure here] /

POLs 83 page response to the report included this assertion… "Having investigated each Reported Issue, and responded to the challenges put to Post Office by Second Sight, this has reinforced Post Office's confidence that there are no systemic failures in Horizon." /

UKGI recognise, “POL might not have been regarded as an entirely objective commentator” on SS [!] But note Linklaters also criticised their work in 2014. They recognise the board failed to look into the issues properly. /

They also admit their summaries for Ministers which were relied on by @GeorgeFreemanMP did not do justice to the detail of the conclusions contained in the Second Sight final report. (Para 135) /

Ron Warmington tried to put the Minister straight @WarmingtonRjw Neville-Rolfe acted shortly afterwards /

In 2014 Deloittes were also commissioned by the PO to do some work to, “complement the work undertaken by Linklaters, "to give them and those concerned outside the business, comfort about the Horizon system" / [the Board’s illuminating phrasing it appears]

A Deloitte partner attended a Board meeting and is reported to have given reassurance about what their work was finding. /

They report in May. The relevant committee, Sparrow, is sent the Rupert but does not refer to it in its subsequent meeting. Instead…/

[I think you can guess, but let me tell you my way…] /

Anyway not my way… /

A summary was provided by the General Counsel:

"5.1 The Deloitte report raises two types of issues: the first relates to Sparrow, the second to wider business learnings.
/

‘As regards the Sparrow-related issues it is believed that given the limited scope of the work Deloitte were able to undertake it is highly unlikely that we will be able to extract any further comfort or assurance without their doing substantially more work. /

…Furthermore, it is also clear that Deloitte will not consent to the publication of their report or the use of their name to publicly assert that the system is working with integrity unless they undertake specific testing. /

That said, the report does give some comfort for the Board on the design for processing and storing transaction data / [do I need to say this, perhaps I do 🚩🚩🚩]

Oh, and… “Subject to the limitations and assumptions expressed in their report, Deloitte 'have not become aware of anything to suggest that the system as designed would not deliver the objectives of processing of baskets of transactions… /

…and keeping copies of them in the Audit Store with integrity. " [So more red flags than Moscow in November] /

UKGI put it rather more kindly, but damningly nonetheless…/

it did not and could not convey the detail of Deloitte's full report, or its findings on important issues such as remote access… Instead, it gave a broadly reassuring impression that the findings of Deloitte's review were that there were no systemic issues with Horizon. /

And the Board? They picked up these red flags, right? Well….

“From the documents we have seen, there is no evidence that the full report was ever shared with the Sparrow sub-committee, the POL Board or ShEx, whether by email, or as part of a document pack for a meeting.” /

A further board briefing prepared by the GC appears to have not disclosed remote access findings by Deloitte. /

Or rather the possibility to remotely access Horizon SPMs without their knowledge. /

We move on to how PO dealt with the Panorama story which revealed the secret remote access allegations to the World. /

Corporate Affairs Director, Mark Davies, led a response which claimed “that allegations of remote access to alter branch accounts, and thereby creating discrepancies, were untrue.” /

Suffice to say UKGI reached this conclusion about POs public statement… “It is now apparent, of course, that a number of the assertions made by POL in the statement were inaccurate and misleading. The Horizon system was not effective and robust./

The 'independent enquiry' (Second Sight) had not failed to find anything wrong with the system. There was no overwhelming evidence that it was not the computer system that was responsible for missing money in all of the branches investigated. /

They say the Board was not involved, bless their little cotton socks. And that the CEO briefed them on the [misleading] approach aided by, amongst others new GC, Jane Macleod/

Vennells tells them, “The programme contained no new information and received almost no pick up from other media.” /

And POs GC briefs the Minister on POs rebuttals. /

“the BBC had declined POL's offer to provide documents which 'would have conclusively disproved the claims being made'” [Perhaps this is why disclosure in the Inquiry is taking so long, they’re still looking for these documents] /

UKGI admit the Board should have done better. /

The Parker review is up next. We know quite a lot about that and I am tired so less on this…. /

Their line is they didn’t see it and Parker’s letter on it was reassuring. I raise my eyebrow slightly and move on… because their case is this was effectively overtaken by events. By which they mean Bates, the litigation… /

There’s quite a lot on privilege and why they need to, and have started manage this better post Magnox [no idea what that’s about…] /

Very clear the Bd should have been shown Swift. /

As Bates began, in 2016, the PO GC told the minister the case raise no new issues./

In 2018 the Bd started to get their act together. A postmaster Litigation sub-committee was created comprised Tim Parker, Ken McCall (the Senior Independent Director) and Tom Cooper, the Shareholder NED designate (who formally took up his position in March 2018) /

In May 2018 leading counsel said they had the better case. September their expert said Horizon was sound with some bugs. Interestingly, given the High Court was told the case was an existential threat, the Minister was told the operational impact of losing would be limited /

By Feb 2019 Leading Counsels nerves seem to be showing, he, “explained that the case advanced by Post Office and Fujitsu on the issue of remote access had 'changed over time' in that, 'Initially
Fujitsu had said that remote access was not possible. /

They do not discuss the hot mess that was PO and Fujitsus evidence in either trial. Funny that. They do discuss the recusal application /

They say, on advice, “the Shareholder NED recused himself from the decision-making” on this. I thought, but may have misunderstood, he and Parker participated in the discussion but did not vote. If I’m right, this kind of finesse does UKGI no credit /

Neuberger advice is dealt with in par a 214. /

They lose of course and this prompts this interesting comment… /

..following intervention by the Chair and the Shareholder NED, POL
had refreshed its legal team, including internally reorganising its legal team and replacing its General Counsel and … /

…employing a new firm of solicitors, HSF, to 'revisit the approach to the litigation' in respect of both substance and tone. As noted
in the update, this was a welcome development from UKGI's perspective. /

My impression was HSF had been instructed before or by the time of the recusal application, or even that they were instructed on it. Maybe I got that wrong, will check /

HSF prepared a briefing in advance of a meeting of the Postmaster Litigation Sub-committee on 9 May 2019 in which they set out the extent to which they agreed and disagreed with the current litigation strategy being pursued by POL's original legal team. / 🍿

They helped reformulate grounds of appeal [leave was refused] /

The change in legal teams was said to an approach, “more receptive to these fuller sharing arrangements, and in particular the insistence that appropriate consideration was given to settling the litigation.” /

Para 225 for the [rather obvious] corp governance lessons to be drawn on major litigation/

And para 230 on for more on lessons learned. A bit better than earlier reflections in the document. /end!

@UnrollHelper unroll this thread please