Chair’s Statement on Phase 4 written closing submissions on behalf of the Post Office

Chair’s Statement on written closing submissions made on behalf of Post Office Limited (“the Post Office”) in relation to Phase 4 of the Inquiry

1. In its closing written submissions, the Post Office relies upon the report of Jonathan Laidlaw KC which it commissioned to provide expert opinion upon the matters considered by Duncan Atkinson KC in the written and oral evidence he provided to the Inquiry at my request.[1]

2. Mr Laidlaw’s report is in two parts. The first part is dated 8 September 2023 (“Part 1”); it was received by the Inquiry on 12 September 2023. The second part (“Part 2”) is dated 2 February 2024 and it was received by the Inquiry at 7.49pm on that date.

3. Part 1 of Mr Laidlaw’s report covers much the same ground as Volumes 1 and 1A of the written evidence provided to the Inquiry by Mr Atkinson. Part 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report provides his analysis of the case studies chosen by me and which are the subject of analysis by Mr Atkinson in Volumes 2 and 2A of his written evidence.

4. Volumes 1 and 1A of Mr Atkinson’s written evidence were disclosed to Core Participants respectively on 30 May 2023 and 12 September 2023 and Mr Atkinson gave oral evidence about the contents of those volumes on 5 and 6 October 2023. Volume 2 of his written evidence was first disclosed to Core Participants on 29 November 2023; a revised version was disclosed (twice) on 14 and 15 December 2023. Volume 2A was disclosed on 15 December 2023. Mr Atkinson gave oral evidence about the case studies he had analysed in Volumes 2 and 2A on 18 and 19 December 2023.

5. Following the receipt of Part 1 of Mr Laidlaw’s report on 12 September 2023, I considered whether I should admit it as written evidence. I decided not to do so. I had not invited the Post Office to obtain evidence from Mr Laidlaw (or any other barrister of similar experience and seniority). I was content to rely upon the expertise of Mr Atkinson and, as is no doubt well known to Core Participants, I have substantial experience of participating in criminal trials and criminal appeals both as a barrister and as a judge. By email sent 20 September 2023 all Core Participants were informed that I had decided that I would not admit Part 1 of Mr Laidlaw’s report as a source of evidence, at least at that stage.   

6. As I have said, Part 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report was received by the Inquiry during the evening of 2 February 2024. In paragraph 11 of Part 1, Mr Laidlaw had made it clear that he anticipated providing a second part to his report to provide analysis of the case studies which I had asked Mr Atkinson to consider. However, between 20 September 2023 (when I had indicated that Part 1 was not being admitted in evidence) and 2 February 2024 there was no communication from the Post Office to the Inquiry about Part 2 and, specifically, no request by the Post Office that I should admit Part 2 as written evidence should it be disclosed to the Inquiry. Furthermore, the Post Office made no request to me (between these dates) that I should re-visit the decision which I had made about Part 1. When Part 2 was disclosed to the Inquiry on 2 February 2024 there was no accompanying request from the Post Office that I should admit it as written evidence. 

7. Oral closing submissions were made to me on 2 February 2024 on behalf of a number of Core Participants. The submissions were completed by lunchtime; i.e. they were completed many hours before Part 2 was disclosed to the Inquiry. None of the oral submissions made to me made any reference to Parts 1 or 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report. I infer that the absence of such submissions was because (a) I had declined to admit Part 1 of the report as written evidence and (b) those making oral submissions were unaware of Part 2.

8. Written closing submissions were received on 16 February 2024 in accordance with the directions I had made. The Inquiry received such submissions on behalf of the Post Office, Fujitsu Services Ltd and those Core Participants represented by Hodge Jones & Allen. The written submissions made on behalf of Fujitsu Services Limited and the clients of Hodge Jones & Allen make no reference to Parts 1 or 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report. I infer that the absence of such references is because I had refused to admit Part 1 as written evidence and the authors of the written submissions were unaware of Part 2.

9. I can confirm that Part 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report was not disclosed by the Inquiry to Core Participants prior to 16 February 2024. I regarded such disclosure as unnecessary because I had received no request from the Post Office to admit Part 2 as written evidence. 

10. In the light of this history, I was surprised to read references to Parts 1 and 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report in the written closing submissions on behalf of the Post Office. I had refused to accept Part 1 as evidence and no application had been made to me to treat Part 2 any differently.

11. However, given that the Post Office obviously wishes to rely upon the report of Mr Laidlaw, I have considered whether I should, even now, admit Parts 1 and 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report as written evidence. Were I to do so the consequence would be that I would take account of the report in reaching conclusions about aspects of Phase 4 and also take account of those parts of the closing submissions made on behalf of the Post Office which rely upon the report of Mr Laidlaw.

12. I have decided that it would not be appropriate to admit the report as written evidence. My principal reasons are as follows.

13. So far as Part 1 of the report is concerned, I decided against admitting it as evidence as long ago as 20 September 2023. I have no doubt that all Core Participants, save for the Post Office, proceeded on the basis that Part 1 could be ignored in the way they participated in Phase 4 of the Inquiry. If I admitted Part 1 as evidence now, I would have to afford to all Core Participants (other than the Post Office) the opportunity to make detailed observations upon Mr Laidlaw’s report. It may be, too, that it would be necessary to call Mr Laidlaw as a witness to be questioned by counsel to the Inquiry and the representatives of Core Participants. Such steps would be taking the Inquiry backwards as opposed to forwards and, crucially, in my judgment, they would be very unlikely to further my understanding of the core issues under consideration in Phase 4.

14. Part 2 of Mr Laidlaw’s report was delivered to the Inquiry some hours after oral closing submissions were presented to the Inquiry. Part 2 was not accompanied by a request that I should admit it as evidence. No reasons were provided which would justify admitting Part 2 as evidence and no reasons were provided to explain why the disclosure of the report was occurring at such a late stage. If I were to admit Part 2 now I would be bound to afford all Core Participants (save the Post Office) the opportunity to make written submissions upon it and it may be that oral evidence would become necessary as I have suggested might be necessary should I admit Part 1. I can think of no cogent reason which would justify me admitting Part 2 in evidence given the above.

15. I am surprised, to say the least, that the Post Office thought it appropriate to submit written closing submissions on 16 February 2024 (the last day for filing such submissions) containing copious references to Mr Laidlaw’s observations in Parts 1 and 2 of his report without first seeking my permission for Parts 1 and 2 to be admitted as evidence. 

16. Since I decline to admit either part of Mr Laidlaw’s report as written evidence, I will ignore those parts of the closing submissions of the Post Office which refer to or rely upon the report.  

17. In the light of the contents of this statement no Core Participant should send to the Inquiry any written observations relating to the report of Mr Laidlaw.

 Sir Wyn Williams

29 February 2024