1 Wednesday, 22 November 2023 2 (10.00 am) 3 MS PRICE: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear 4 us? 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much. 6 MS PRICE: May we please call Mr Harbinson. 7 GERALD OWEN HARBINSON (sworn) 8 Questioned by MS PRICE 9 MS PRICE: Can you confirm your full name, please, 10 Mr Harbinson? 11 A. Gerald Owen Harbinson. 12 Q. You should have, in a bundle in front of you, 13 a hard copy of a witness statement in your name, 14 dated 17 October this year. Could you turn, 15 please, to page 67 of that statement. Do you 16 have a copy with a visible signature? 17 A. I do. 18 Q. Is that your signature? 19 A. It is. 20 Q. I understand there is a correction you wish to 21 make to paragraph 70 of this statement; is that 22 right? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Would you like to tell us what that is? 25 A. There are two names there, Brian Sharkey and Ray 1 1 Platt. That should read Ray Pratt, not Ray 2 Platt. 3 Q. With that correction made, are the contents of 4 the statement true to the best of your knowledge 5 and belief? 6 A. They are. 7 Q. For the purposes of the transcript, the 8 reference for the statement is WITN08150100. 9 Thank you for coming to the Inquiry to assist it 10 in its work and for providing the witness 11 statement that you have. As you know, I will be 12 asking questions on behalf of the Inquiry. 13 You worked for the Post Office for 12 years 14 from 1998 to April 2010, when you moved to Royal 15 Mail; is that right? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Your first role was as a TV Enquiry Officer. 18 Can you explain please what this role involved? 19 A. That was going out on site to visit properties 20 that you were sent lists to, to visit to check 21 on the -- whether or not they were operating 22 a TV with or without a Licence. 23 Q. In the year 2000, you were internally recruited 24 into the Post Office Security Team as 25 an Investigation Manager; is that right? 2 1 A. Yes, that's correct. 2 Q. You held this role until early 2005, when you 3 became a Compliance Manager -- 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. -- before becoming a Financial Investigator 6 later in the same year? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Did you remain in a financial investigation role 9 until you left the Post Office in 2010? 10 A. Yes, I did. 11 Q. You have provided some clarification in your 12 statement at paragraph 6 to the effect that the 13 word "Manager" in the job title of Investigation 14 Manager did not, in fact, mean that you held 15 a managing position; is that right? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. So you were an Investigator conducting 18 investigations, rather than a manager of those 19 conducting investigations? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 7 that 22 there was a big intake into the Security team at 23 around the time you were internally recruited in 24 the year 2000, with about 15 to 20 people being 25 recruited at that point? 3 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Were these people recruited internally, as you 3 were? 4 A. I genuinely don't know the answer to that but 5 I believe they were. 6 Q. Do you know why there was a recruitment drive at 7 this point in time? 8 A. I wasn't aware of the reason. I know it covered 9 both Post Office and Royal Mail. 10 Q. Did you have any experience in criminal 11 investigations or criminal law when you became 12 an Investigator for the Post Office? 13 A. No. 14 Q. You recall having training early on, which took 15 place over the course of a few weeks, and you 16 described this course at paragraph 61 of your 17 statement. Could we have that on screen, 18 please. It's page 24 of Mr Harbinson's 19 statement WITN08150100 -- thank you. Page 24, 20 a little further down at 61, please. You say 21 here: 22 "When I first joined the Security team as 23 an Investigation Manager, very early on I was 24 required to attend a formal training course at 25 a college in Milton Keynes, which was led by 2 4 1 or 3 senior members of the Security team. 2 I recall that Mick Matthews was one of the 3 trainers and I remember he was very thorough in 4 his teaching. Whilst I cannot remember all the 5 modules we were required to learn, I believe 6 that they did cover the following -- the duties 7 of investigators to conduct full and thorough 8 investigations, taking witness statements in the 9 course of an investigation, conducting 10 interviews under caution, obtaining evidence in 11 the course of an investigation, seeking evidence 12 from third parties who might hold relevant 13 evidence and drafting investigation reports and 14 the legislation relevant to our role. In order 15 to continue in the role of an Investigation 16 Manager you had to pass an exam at the end of 17 the course. I cannot remember the specific 18 details of that exam, but I do recall passing 19 it." 20 Is it right that this training was provided 21 internally by Post Office Security team members, 22 rather than being provided by external trainers? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Did your initial training cover disclosure, as 25 far as you can remember? 5 1 A. I can't remember that initial training, on that 2 subject. 3 Q. You say at paragraph 10 of your statement that 4 you also received training in the form of 5 shadowing. How did that work? 6 A. When you first joined the team, you would not be 7 allowed to lead an investigation; you would 8 always be a second or third body to the 9 investigation. You'd be shadowing and listening 10 and watching and, back in the office, you would 11 be taking instructions and listening to what the 12 other investigators said about the roles that 13 they were performing. 14 Q. Could you explain, please, the structure of your 15 team when you first started as an Investigator, 16 and how cases were allocated within the team? 17 Do refer to your statement if you need to. 18 A. When you say the structure of the team, do you 19 mean the Investigation Team or the team that 20 I was in? 21 Q. The team that you were in, so you cover this at 22 paragraph 11 of your statement. You say here 23 you had team leaders. 24 A. Oh, right. Okay. I was in a team, I had a team 25 leader, the team leader at that time, I think, 6 1 was Tony Utting, and there would be -- the team 2 consisted of about half a dozen Investigators. 3 That was the team I was in. 4 The Investigation Team, as a whole, would be 5 team leaders around the country with the 6 Investigators, and then there was the -- back to 7 the investigation senior people, who run the 8 investigation side of things. 9 Q. You say that when you started in the role you 10 carried out investigations in relation to 11 potential pension allowance fraud to help 12 identify whether such fraud was committed 13 internally at the Post Office or externally. 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. You say at paragraph 12 you also investigated 16 cases where there was a discovery of a cash 17 shortfall at a Post Office branch following 18 an audit? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Where there was a discovery of an apparent cash 21 shortfall at a Post Office branch, how did the 22 Investigation Team become involved? 23 A. The -- that would come through from the Casework 24 Management Team or the Audit Team and they would 25 be told the branch that had the shortfall and 7 1 then the team leader will allocate the people 2 that will go out to do the investigation. 3 Q. You address the process followed, once 4 an investigation commenced in an apparent 5 shortfall case, at paragraph 13 of your 6 statement. If we could have that on screen, 7 please. It's page 5 of Mr Harbinson's 8 statement. You say this: 9 "When carrying out an investigation I would 10 collate the necessary records and documents 11 (such as reports that the Auditor had printed 12 from the Horizon System on the day), take 13 witness statements from relevant persons and 14 conduct interviews under caution with the 15 relevant persons (for example, the SPM)." 16 Taking this in stages, is it right that the 17 Horizon data you were considering at this stage 18 was that contained in the printout from the 19 Horizon system, obtained from the counter in the 20 branch? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. So you were simply looking at the record of what 23 the Horizon system said should be held in 24 a branch against the record of what the auditors 25 actually found to be held in the branch? 8 1 A. That would be part of the records that would 2 come off. The Audit Team could print off quite 3 a few days or weeks of information from the 4 system at that time so there'd be quite a roll 5 of information. I'm not sure exactly how far -- 6 I can't remember how far they could go back but 7 it would be quite an extensive roll of 8 information that was printed off. 9 Q. But it was -- they were reports which were 10 printed off from the counter in the branch? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Where an audit identified a discrepancy between 13 the Horizon system reports and what was actually 14 held at branch, how soon would you interview the 15 subpostmaster or relevant member of staff? 16 A. That would depend. That could happen almost 17 immediately, it could be days later, depending 18 on the circumstances of the information and 19 who -- where the subpostmaster was or who else 20 was in the office. It could be over a period of 21 time but is often fairly early in the 22 investigation. 23 Q. You go on at paragraph 14 of your statement to 24 say: 25 "Following this [you] would write up 9 1 a report of findings and open a case file." 2 The report you refer to here, is that the 3 report which would go to the Criminal Law Team, 4 the legal report produced by Investigators? 5 A. That report would eventually arrive at -- with 6 the Criminal Law Team, yes. 7 Q. But the report of findings which you refer to 8 here, that's referring to the legal report, is 9 it? 10 A. It is, yes. 11 Q. Did you ever conduct further enquiries or seek 12 further evidence after conducting interviews but 13 before writing that report for the Criminal Law 14 Team? 15 A. I genuinely can't remember myself but it's 16 something you would do, is -- if you didn't have 17 all the information that you were going to 18 submit in your report at that time, you might do 19 further interviews with other people or 20 subsequent interviews with the same person. 21 That would depend on a case-by-case, but I can't 22 recall. 23 Q. Is it right that you would send the case file, 24 once fully prepared, to your team leader? 25 A. It would normally go through the team leader, 10 1 yes. 2 Q. Was it any part of your team leader's role, on 3 receipt of the file, to review the evidence to 4 determine whether further action should be taken 5 in that case? 6 A. I can't remember that part of it. I think they 7 would give you advice prior to writing your 8 report as part of the team. It's such a long 9 time ago, I'm struggling to remember that. 10 I would only be guessing now. I can't remember. 11 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 14 that 12 your team leader would send the file to the 13 Casework Management Team to check it from 14 a procedural standpoint. What do you mean by 15 "procedural standpoint" here? 16 A. I think I'm talking about almost like the 17 compliance, to make sure all the documents were 18 there that were, you know -- if they were listed 19 as items in the file, that they were actually in 20 the file. Things -- everything was complete, it 21 was going to the right place. It was like 22 a check on it, really, I believe. I'd never 23 worked in casework management so I'm not 24 completely sure. 25 Q. You also say in your statement at paragraph 14 11 1 that the report was then sent to the head of the 2 Security team; is that right? 3 A. I believe that's where it went, yes. 4 Q. You refer to Phil Gerrish, Tony Utting, and John 5 Scott having held the role of Head of Security 6 at various points. Do you recall Tony Marsh at 7 all? 8 A. I know of Tony Marsh. I think he was always the 9 senior person in both Royal Mail and Post Office 10 at the same time. He was very senior. I don't 11 recall him being in charge of the Investigation 12 Team. 13 Q. Do you recall him holding the role of Head of 14 Security prior to John Scott? 15 A. I thought the Head of Security prior to John 16 Scott was Phil Gerrish, and Tony Marsh was 17 senior to Phil Gerrish, so there was Post Office 18 and Royal Mail. Phil Gerrish, Head of Post 19 Office, and I thought Tony Marsh was head of 20 both groups, Royal Mail and Post Office. But my 21 memory is poor in that area, sorry. 22 Q. Do you recall that there was a role entitled 23 National Internal Crime and Investigations 24 Manager when you were an Investigator? 25 A. I don't remember that title, I'm sorry. 12 1 Q. Do you think that might have been the role which 2 Mr Gerrish and Mr Utting held, rather than the 3 overarching Head of Security role? 4 A. I'd be guessing now. I can't remember. 5 Q. Could we have paragraph 15 of Mr Harbinson's 6 statement on screen, please. It's page 5. You 7 say here: 8 "Once the case file was with the Head of 9 Security team, it is my understanding they would 10 then liaise with the Case Management to get it 11 passed on to the Criminal Law Team in the POL. 12 I do not know if there were any specific factors 13 considered to determine whether to pass it on or 14 not, or whether all case files were passed on in 15 any event. Other than on an evidential basis 16 (which I deal with in paragraphs 18 and 19 17 below), I do not believe that I had any 18 involvement with liaising directly with any 19 other POL department during my role as 20 an Investigation Manager. I believe that any 21 other necessary cross-department liaison was 22 dealt with by colleagues in a more senior 23 position to me or with Casework Management." 24 As far as you can recall, did the Head of 25 Security review the evidence in a case before 13 1 the case was transferred to the Criminal Law 2 Team to determine whether further action should 3 be taken in the case? 4 A. I don't know. I don't know what the Head of 5 Security did with the documents or what 6 evaluation he made of them. 7 Q. In terms of the decision on whether someone 8 should be prosecuted, you say at paragraph 16 of 9 your statement that you believe it was always 10 the decision of the Criminal Law Team whether to 11 pursue a criminal prosecution or not and you do 12 not recall that decision ever being made by 13 anyone in the Security team. Do you recall the 14 title of Designated Prosecution Authority from 15 the time you were an Investigator? 16 A. I don't recall that position. No, I don't 17 remember it clearly. 18 Q. Could we turn, please -- scroll down, please -- 19 to paragraph 18 of your statement. You say 20 here: 21 "In the event that an incident I had 22 investigated was being prosecuted, I would 23 continue to assist the Criminal Law Team on 24 an evidential basis. For example, if the 25 Criminal Law Team required additional evidence, 14 1 the Criminal Law Team or my team leader would 2 inform me and I'd carry out additional work to 3 obtain such evidence (for example, taking 4 an additional witness statement). Due to the 5 passage of time, I am unable recall any specific 6 examples of this occurring." 7 After a decision had been made to prosecute, 8 would it be fair to say that any further 9 enquiries or evidence gathering would be 10 reactive and done when required by the Criminal 11 Law Team? 12 A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. 13 Q. So after a decision has been made to 14 prosecute -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- so you've done your legal report, it's gone 17 to the Criminal Law Team and a decision has been 18 made to prosecute the individual -- with 19 reference to this paragraph that we've just 20 looked at, were your further enquiries or 21 evidence gathering done when required by the 22 Criminal Law Team, rather than because you 23 decide you should do further enquiries or 24 evidence gathering? 25 A. It would be on instruction, if I'd been required 15 1 to do something. That would come, I believe, 2 from the Criminal Law Team. 3 Q. Were you ever involved in investigating a case 4 which went to trial in the Crown Court or in any 5 other case in which external solicitors or 6 counsel were instructed to prosecute. 7 A. Do you mean at the court, attending the court? 8 Q. Any case where your investigation led to 9 criminal proceedings in which external 10 solicitors and counsel were involved? 11 A. I think the solicitors always came from our 12 Criminal Law Team. In the court itself, the 13 barristers were from other chambers, I think 14 it's called, but everything came from our own 15 Criminal Law Team, I believe. 16 Q. So you don't recall receiving requests, even if 17 those came via the Criminal Law Team, to conduct 18 further investigations, requests coming from 19 prosecuting counsel or an external prosecuting 20 agent? 21 A. I can't recall, no. 22 Q. Were you ever asked to obtain further 23 information as a result of a disclosure request 24 or an assertion contained within a defendant's 25 defence case statement? 16 1 A. I can't recall. 2 Q. You say at paragraph 19 of your statement that 3 you had to assist the Criminal Law Team with 4 meeting any disclosure obligations, which you 5 say involved compiling a list of all used and 6 unused evidence in the investigation and 7 collaborating those documents into a bundle. 8 Would that bundle then be provided to the 9 Criminal Law Team? 10 A. It would, yes. 11 Q. Did you understand, when you were 12 an Investigator assisting the Criminal Law Team 13 with disclosure, that you were acting as the 14 Disclosure Officer in the case? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. At the time, did you understand that this was 17 a distinct role, over and above your role as 18 an Investigator, which imposed on you additional 19 and distinct duties? 20 A. It was invariably the role of the Investigator 21 that did the -- produced the disclosure list 22 and -- as part of the committal bundle. But 23 the -- I knew about disclosure, that everything 24 you obtained had to be disclosed as used or 25 unused, but I was aware that we had to produce 17 1 those lists and those documents, and supply them 2 to the Criminal Law Team. 3 Q. Who would you have gone to if you were in any 4 doubt about whether there was an obligation to 5 disclose material? 6 A. Back then, I think the first port of call would 7 have been to my team leader but certainly 8 I would've seen it progressed from there but, 9 initially, certainly the team leader. 10 Q. Do you recall being aware that, when you were 11 acting as a Disclosure Officer, you had 12 obligations under the Criminal Procedure and 13 Investigations Act? 14 A. I believe I did. 15 Q. Do you recall being aware, when you were acting 16 as a Disclosure Officer, that you had 17 obligations under the Criminal Procedure and 18 Investigations Act Code of Practice? 19 A. Such a long time ago -- I believe that that was 20 the role, yes. 21 Q. The same question in relation to the Attorney 22 General's Guidelines on disclosure? 23 A. I don't remember that particular line that 24 you've spoken there. It's not something that 25 comes back to me -- to mind. 18 1 Q. Were key pieces of legislation which governed 2 the conduct of investigations and disclosure 3 provided to investigators, as far as you can 4 recall? 5 A. I genuinely can't remember. 6 Q. Can you recall ever accessing such legislation 7 when you were an Investigator? 8 A. It would be easy for me to say yes but I can't 9 remember. 10 Q. What about key policy documents governing the 11 conduct of investigations and disclosure; were 12 these provided to Investigators, as far as you 13 can recall? 14 A. I don't recall. 15 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 16 reference POL00064235. This is a Disclosure 17 Officer's report. Is this one of the forms you 18 recall completing when you were an Investigator? 19 You can scroll down a little, please, so we can 20 see the full page. Don't worry about the 21 specific details on the form at the moment. 22 A. No. It looks familiar, yes. 23 Q. Scrolling back up, please, we can see, beneath 24 the case name: 25 "The following items are listed on the 19 1 schedule(s) for this case and may undermine the 2 prosecution case (primary disclosure)/assist the 3 defence (secondary disclosure)/or are required 4 to be supplied under Section 7.3 of the Code 5 (delete as applicable)." 6 So this form requires the Disclosure Officer 7 to identify any unused material which may 8 undermine the prosecution case or assist the 9 defence; is that right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Was that the question which you applied to the 12 unused evidence gathered during the 13 investigation when you completed disclosure 14 forms to assist the Criminal Law Team, or do you 15 not remember applying your mind to that? 16 A. I don't remember that, no. No. 17 Q. Who made the final decision on whether material 18 should be disclosed in any given case? 19 A. That would be the Criminal Law Team. 20 Q. Would you agree that it was important for the 21 Criminal Law Team to be aware of the existence 22 of all material which might undermine the 23 prosecution case or assist the defence? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you understand the importance, therefore, of 20 1 the job you were doing when completing the 2 disclosure schedules? 3 A. Yes, I believe we did. 4 Q. Were you aware, when you were an Investigator, 5 that there was an obligation on a criminal 6 Investigator to pursue lines of inquiry which 7 pointed away from the guilt of the suspect? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. In an apparent shortfall case, did you 10 understand it to be any part of your role to 11 make enquiries into the reliability of the core 12 evidence being relied upon, to evidence, for 13 example, theft? 14 A. Sorry, I didn't understand that. 15 Q. When you were an Investigator and you were 16 investigating an apparent shortfall case, did 17 you understand it to be any part of your role to 18 enquire into the reliability of the evidence you 19 were relying upon to demonstrate, for example, 20 theft? 21 A. Oh, I see. 22 Q. So, specifically speaking, Horizon reports? 23 A. I'm not sure that it's a piece of information 24 that I could have obtained but I'm aware that 25 on -- where Horizon data was used in evidence, 21 1 I believe there was a witness statement from 2 Fujitsu to say that the system was working 3 correctly at the time, at the material time. 4 But I'm not sure how, as an Investigator, 5 I would have checked the reliability of the 6 system. But I understood that was part of -- it 7 became part of the investigation, yes. 8 Q. We'll come on to evidence from Fujitsu shortly 9 but, staying with what you understood your role 10 to be in terms of enquiries when you were 11 conducting your investigation, in an apparent 12 shortfall case, where an essential element of 13 an offence to which an investigation related was 14 dishonesty, did you, as a matter of course, make 15 financial enquiries relating to the suspect as 16 part of your investigation? 17 A. Would I or did I? 18 Q. Did you? 19 A. I can't remember cases back then but, part of 20 it -- no, I can't remember cases back that 21 far -- you would have looked at the financial 22 position of people, yes. 23 Q. In an apparent shortfall case, where a suspect 24 was saying that they did not understand where 25 an apparent shortfall had come from, did you 22 1 make enquiries relating in particular to the 2 operation, reliability and accuracy of Horizon 3 data? 4 A. I can't remember doing that no. 5 Q. Was there a checklist of steps to take or any 6 other guidance to ensure all relevant 7 information was identified, collected and sent 8 to the Criminal Law Team in proceedings brought 9 by the Post Office against subpostmasters? 10 A. I don't recall a checklist. 11 Q. When you first became an Investigator, were you 12 aware of the rollout of the Horizon system? 13 A. Sorry? 14 Q. When you first became an Investigator, and that 15 was in 2000, and in the early point of being 16 an Investigator, were you aware of the rollout 17 of the Horizon system, its introduction? 18 A. I knew it was a new system that had come in, 19 yes. 20 Q. Did you have any awareness of there being bugs, 21 errors and defects or any Acceptance Incidents 22 during the rollout of the Horizon system? 23 A. Not that I recall, no. 24 Q. Were you given any training on the Horizon 25 system at any stage? 23 1 A. I seem to recall some training on how to obtain 2 data off the system, how to produce the data. 3 But, genuinely, that was usually done by the 4 Audit Team. 5 Q. By obtaining data, do you mean printing off the 6 reports -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- from the counter in the branch? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 64 of 11 Mr Harbinson's statement, that's page 25 of 12 WITN08150100 -- 13 Page 25. At paragraph 64, you say this: 14 "In relation to training about obtaining 15 information from third parties, particularly 16 Fujitsu, I do recall receiving training on the 17 processes to follow, however, I cannot recall 18 when and how this training was delivered. 19 I deal further with such processes under the 20 subheading 'Analysing Horizon data and 21 requesting ARQ data from Fujitsu' below." 22 Can you recall how long this training 23 lasted, the training on obtaining information 24 from third parties? 25 A. From the Fujitsu training? 24 1 Q. You've referred here to receiving training about 2 obtaining information from third parties, 3 particularly Fujitsu, and being trained on the 4 processes. You say you can't recall when and 5 how the training was delivered, but can you 6 recall how long the training lasted? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Can you remember who delivered it? 9 A. I don't remember clearly. It might have been by 10 the Audit -- some of the Auditors, I don't 11 recall. But I think it might have been by the 12 Audit Team. 13 Q. So when you refer to obtaining information from 14 third parties, are you referring here, again, to 15 the printing out of data from the counters in 16 branches or something different? 17 A. I think that's what I refer to, yes. 18 Q. Did anyone tell you that there was a duty on you 19 as an Investigator to obtain and consider 20 third-party material from, for example, 21 financial institutions and Fujitsu in 22 appropriate cases? 23 A. I believe that would have been part of it, the 24 training, yes, and understanding that. The 25 Fujitsu -- you could obtain further Fujitsu 25 1 data. There was the ability to do that. 2 Q. You deal with the process by which Horizon data 3 was obtained at paragraph 75 of your statement. 4 Could we turn to that, please. It's page 31. 5 You say here at paragraph 75: 6 "I can comment on how Horizon data was 7 obtained and analysed in more general terms 8 where a cash shortage was discovered during 9 an audit. The relevant Horizon printouts were 10 obtained by the Auditor on the day at the 11 branch. If anything further was required during 12 an investigation, for example, printouts from 13 an earlier period to determine at which point 14 the accounts no longer balanced, then you could 15 receive this information directly from Fujitsu. 16 An Investigation Manager could simply ask the 17 Casework Management Team to make this request to 18 Fujitsu." 19 In general terms, did you consider that the 20 Horizon printouts obtained by an Auditor -- the 21 counter printed reports -- were sufficient 22 evidence of a loss? 23 A. Sorry the last bit? 24 Q. Were sufficient evidence of a loss? So the 25 printouts that were obtained by the Auditor, in 26 1 general terms, did you consider those to be 2 sufficient evidence of a loss, alone? 3 A. Yes, they were evidence -- I would consider them 4 evidence of the loss. But depending on -- if it 5 was me investigating, depending on what the -- 6 came up on interviews, you might need to go back 7 further to establish and to look at further 8 documents, and go to the casework and obtain 9 further data. 10 Q. What guidance was given to Investigators to 11 assist them in obtaining Horizon data from 12 Fujitsu? 13 A. I don't know what guidance was given. 14 Q. Well, do you recall there being any, apart from 15 being aware you could request data? 16 A. Yeah, I knew you could -- that further data 17 could be requested. I'm not sure you -- what 18 guidance there was on that. 19 Q. What further data or audit reports did you 20 understand could be produced by Fujitsu over and 21 above the printouts? 22 A. I genuinely don't remember. 23 Q. Were you ever made aware that an enhanced 24 interrogation of the audit trail could show when 25 a transaction or event had been performed by the 27 1 system? 2 A. I'm not aware of that. 3 Q. Who was responsible for deciding whether to 4 retrieve Horizon data from Fujitsu? 5 A. I think initially would be the Investigator. 6 But, further, that might come from -- the 7 Criminal Law Team might advise you to get 8 further data but, on a case-by-case, I don't 9 know. 10 Q. Were there ever circumstances in which you would 11 request more detailed audit data from Fujitsu 12 before you interviewed a subpostmaster or 13 a member of their staff? 14 A. I don't recall that happening. 15 Q. Was that step ever taken before a decision was 16 made to prosecute? 17 A. I don't recall. 18 Q. Were you aware that there was a quota placed on 19 audit request queries made of Fujitsu? 20 A. No. 21 Q. At paragraph 75 that we've just looked at, you 22 describe processes for obtaining Horizon data in 23 the context of cases where a cash shortage was 24 discovered during an audit. But you say at 25 paragraph 74 of your statement that you do not 28 1 ever recall a situation where a cash shortfall 2 that you were investigating was attributed to 3 problems with Horizon by anyone subject to the 4 investigation. By that, do you mean that you 5 cannot recall anyone saying the shortfall is 6 caused by problems with the system? 7 A. I don't recall that, no. 8 Q. When you were an Investigator, were you aware of 9 any other Investigators having investigations 10 where a shortfall was attributed to problems 11 with Horizon? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. Did you ever have an apparent shortfall case 14 where someone was saying they simply couldn't 15 explain how an apparent shortfall had occurred? 16 A. No, not that I -- I don't recall that, no. 17 Q. Were you ever aware that there were bugs, errors 18 or defects in the Horizon system, which had the 19 potential to cause discrepancies in branch 20 accounts? 21 A. Certainly not, no. 22 Q. Would you agree that it was critical for 23 Investigation Managers and those overseeing 24 investigations to be informed of any ongoing 25 technical issues with the Horizon system? 29 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. You refer at paragraph 76 of your statement to 3 believing it to have been common to have 4 a Fujitsu manager as an expert witness in 5 criminal proceedings relating to cash shortages, 6 to provide their own analyses on the data and to 7 determine whether Horizon was operating 8 properly. What is the basis for that belief? 9 A. I believe that they were a witness at any trial, 10 if not in attendance but, certainly, part of the 11 committal bundle would contain a witness 12 statement. That's what I always thought and 13 always believed occurred because it was 14 a question of the reliability of the evidence 15 that you were producing. 16 Q. Do you recall when a Fujitsu manager was engaged 17 in this way: before or after a charging 18 decision? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Do you recall the name of any Fujitsu manager 21 engaged in that way? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Were you ever involved in providing instructions 24 to any Fujitsu manager engaged in this way? 25 A. No. 30 1 Q. When you used the term "expert", are you 2 referring to the status of an expert witness 3 statement in legal proceedings or do you mean 4 that they had expertise in the system? 5 A. I thought it was because they were an expert -- 6 they were producing a witness statement, or in 7 person, as an expert on the system and the 8 reliability of the system, at that particular 9 time. 10 Q. Would such a statement usually simply produce 11 audit data or Horizon helpline call logs or 12 would they include specific analysis of the data 13 or call logs in that specific case, as far as 14 you can recall? 15 A. I don't recall the specifics of their statement. 16 Q. Turning please to the Compliance Manager role 17 you held in 2005, you say in your statement that 18 you were internally promoted to this role in 19 early 2005; is that right? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Who did you report to in this role? 22 A. David Pardoe. 23 Q. What did your role entail? 24 A. To start with, I was uncertain about what it was 25 that I was doing, but it was really panned out 31 1 as the compliance of -- of the case file, the 2 construction and times of case files, to try to 3 raise the standard of the file itself. 4 Q. Can you recall now the type of forms you would 5 have expected to see an Investigator completing? 6 A. Sorry? 7 Q. Can you recall now the type of forms you would 8 have expected to see an Investigator completing, 9 in 2005? 10 A. Some of them, yes, but for me, it was about the 11 file itself, the green file with the -- how 12 everything was meant to be laid out in it, with 13 the different documents, different appendices, 14 that type of thing. 15 Q. As a Compliance Manager, did the issue of the 16 accuracy of Horizon ever arise? 17 A. No. 18 Q. In the short time that you held this role, did 19 you come across the Identification Codes 20 document that you address at paragraph 73 of 21 your statement? 22 A. I knew there was identification codes but 23 I don't recall that document. 24 Q. You say in paragraph 73 of your statement that 25 you do recall Investigation Managers being 32 1 instructed to assign identification codes to 2 suspected offenders. Does it remain the case 3 that you cannot recall the reasoning behind 4 that? 5 A. It's true, yes. 6 Q. You say at paragraph 73 -- and if we can just go 7 back a page, please -- that you cannot remember 8 seeing this document. Is that at any point that 9 you were employed by the Post Office? 10 A. I don't remember seeing that document. 11 Q. Is that why you say you cannot recall what your 12 view at the time was of the appropriateness of 13 the codes described? 14 A. I don't -- I didn't see that document, I don't 15 believe. I don't recall that, no, or its 16 appropriateness. 17 Q. Moving, please, to your role as a Financial 18 Investigator. You say at paragraph 22 of your 19 statement that you and Mick Matthews were both 20 put forward for a new role for the Security 21 team, that of Financial Investigator, by David 22 Pardoe; is that right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. This would have been late 2005, you think? 25 A. That's correct. 33 1 Q. You say this new role was campaigned for by 2 David Pardoe. Is it right that the purpose of 3 creating the role was to recoup losses through 4 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You and Mr Matthews were both successful in 7 obtaining the role. Was it initially just the 8 two of you who held that role? 9 A. I think Graham Ward was with us for a very 10 short -- for a few weeks or a month, but he went 11 back to being Casework Manager and it remained 12 as myself and Mick Matthews. 13 Q. You had a national remit covering all areas of 14 the UK? 15 A. Not Scotland. 16 Q. You discussed the training you received for the 17 role at paragraph 24 of your statement. Could 18 we have that on screen, please. It is page 8 of 19 the statement. At paragraph 24, you say this: 20 "All training for my Financial Investigator 21 role was provided under the Asset Recovery 22 Agency (ARA), who at that time were the 23 Government department established under the 24 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ('POCA') to take 25 action against those benefiting from crime. As 34 1 far as I am aware, the Financial Investigation 2 Unit within POL were one of the first non-police 3 bodies who applied to exercise powers of 4 recovery under POCA. The ARA took the lead in 5 delivering the relevant training to myself and 6 Mick Matthews in order for us to become 7 Accredited Financial Investigators. In doing 8 so, they provided us with a mentor, Elaine 9 Blewitt, who was an experienced Accredited 10 Financial Investigator in the police. 11 Initially, we received mentoring from Elaine 12 Blewitt and carried out our work under her 13 supervision and accreditation. This continued 14 until we passing the necessary exams in place to 15 become accredited ourselves. I cannot recall 16 what the specific exams were, but I remember 17 them being very difficult and requiring a lot of 18 preparation and application of the knowledge we 19 had gained from our mentoring and experience so 20 far. I was qualified in POCA parts 2, 4 and 8." 21 You say at the next paragraph, at 22 paragraph 25, that: 23 "Once [you] passed [your] exams and became 24 accredited [you] were able to carry out your 25 duties as an Accredited Financial Investigator 35 1 independently." 2 Do you mean by that that you no longer 3 carried out your work under the supervision of 4 Elaine Blewitt, the police Accredited Financial 5 Investigator. 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. But you did report to David Pardoe, who was your 8 Senior Authorising Officer? 9 A. We did, yes. 10 Q. Mr Pardoe would review and approve any work you 11 had done, where necessary, in line with ARA 12 guidance? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. You deal with what your role as a Financial 15 Investigator entailed at paragraph 26 of your 16 statement, about halfway down the page, and you 17 say this: 18 "My role as a Financial Investigator 19 essentially involved the recovery of financial 20 loss suffered by the POL following a conviction 21 for crimes such as theft of POL assets and false 22 accounting. This involved investigating what 23 assets were held by the convicted individual and 24 how they could potentially cover the loss 25 suffered, and the likelihood of recovery. In 36 1 some cases it also involved making a case for 2 restraint over particular assets found, in order 3 to stop them from being dissipated prior to any 4 application for a confiscation order being 5 awarded following a conviction. Any restraint 6 considered would not be done without the 7 approval of my Senior Authorising Officer (David 8 Pardoe), and ultimately the approval of the 9 Criminal Law Team." 10 You go on at paragraph 27: 11 "I would also put together an application to 12 the court for a confiscation order. In doing 13 so, I would produce a Section 16 statement, 14 completed on a pro forma available from the ARA. 15 Such statement would attach and address all the 16 evidence obtained during my financial 17 investigation against the convicted individual 18 and attempt to logically set out my reasoning, 19 aims and objectives around obtaining 20 a confiscation order, for the judge to consider. 21 It would be passed on to the Criminal Law Team 22 to review and approve. If approved, they would 23 then arrange for it to be served on the 24 defendant's solicitor and filed at court." 25 You say at paragraph 28 that, where the 37 1 court proceeded to grant a confiscation order, 2 it would always be requested that a compensation 3 order be attached for the same amount. You 4 address this in a little more detail at 5 paragraph 115 of your statement. Can you 6 explain, please, why this was done, the request 7 for a compensation order? 8 A. Yes. The -- any funds obtained from 9 a confiscation order were then -- would then go 10 centrally to the Asset Recovery Agency and that 11 money would be distributed between all those 12 bodies carrying out financial investigations and 13 was used to drive forward further confiscation 14 initiatives throughout the UK. So that money 15 would not come back to Post Office Limited as 16 the loser in this case, the public money. 17 So, therefore, you were acquired to attach 18 a compensation order which then would take the 19 confiscated amount and pay that exact same money 20 in compensation back to Post Office Limited. So 21 it didn't disappear into the Asset Recovery 22 Agency coffers for distribution; it came back to 23 Post Office Limited. There was no double 24 jeopardy; it was the same money. 25 Q. You say in your statement that the Financial 38 1 Investigation Unit had no role in enforcing 2 a confiscation order once obtained. Can you 3 just explain why that was? 4 A. Once we'd gone through the court process of 5 confiscation and the order was made, it then 6 went to the Regional Asset Recovery Teams, 7 whether that's by the Asset Recovery Agency or 8 by the courts themselves. They would follow 9 through and they were the people programmed to 10 make recoveries once the order was made. It 11 didn't come back to our team. We were kept 12 informed about when money was received and when 13 it was going to come back, and it was -- it came 14 back to the Criminal Law Team. 15 But we were kept informed about the 16 process -- not the process, but the actual 17 amounts that were recovered. But the process of 18 recovery was outside of the Post Office Limited. 19 Q. You also say, at paragraph 30 of your statement, 20 that the Financial Investigator did not play any 21 part in investigating the potential criminal 22 incident. In relation to a number of the 23 specific cases you address in your statement, 24 you were copied into correspondence about the 25 progress of a criminal prosecution. Can you 39 1 assist with why that was? 2 A. I think once the -- it was coming to the 3 Financial Investigators for confiscation, people 4 just naturally started to copy us in and keep us 5 informed about the process and where we were. 6 It was quite important for us to know the court 7 process because we needed documents ready so 8 that we could produce them at the sentencing 9 hearing, for example a -- I think it was 10 a Section 18, which was a provision of 11 information, which would have to be served on 12 the day, so we would need to know when -- or 13 what stage cases were in the prosecution 14 process. 15 But they kept us informed of all those types 16 of -- once the cases were going to be picked up 17 by the confiscation team. 18 Q. You say at paragraph 30 that the Financial 19 Investigator might start the recovery process 20 earlier than post-conviction, in cases where 21 a subpostmaster had admitted to actions of theft 22 or false accounting from the outset; is that 23 right? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 31 that, 40 1 when Mr Matthews left the Post Office in late 2 2006 or early 2007, you were left with the 3 entire Financial Investigation caseload. Do we 4 take it from that that, apart from the short 5 time you remember Graham Ward being involved, 6 until that point, the Financial Investigation 7 Team consisted of you and Mr Matthews reporting 8 to David Pardoe? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. But after Mr Matthews left, two others were 11 brought in to help manage the workload? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Those other two were Paul Southin and Graham 14 Ward? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. At that point, is it right that you became 17 Financial Investigation Unit Manager and you 18 trained Mr Southin and Mr Ward to manage their 19 own recovery cases? 20 A. I did. I took them through the same process 21 that we went through with the Asset Recovery 22 Agency taking the lead role in the examinations 23 and training as well. 24 Q. So they had the same experience that you did? 25 A. Yes, but I was their mentor. 41 1 Q. I see. Was it at this point when the Financial 2 Investigation Unit formally came into being, 3 when Mr Matthews left and you were given two 4 other people? 5 A. Sorry? 6 Q. So, prior to this point, had the Financial 7 Investigation Unit existed formally as a unit, 8 or had it just been you and Mr Matthews doing 9 the work? 10 A. Before, it was -- if we -- we were a team 11 together, Mick Matthews and I, and the team 12 became three people, when it was myself, Graham 13 Ward and Paul Southin. But that was the 14 Financial Investigation Unit, yes. 15 Q. Had you always been known as the Financial 16 Investigation Unit, from the point you and 17 Mr Matthews took up your roles? 18 A. I see where you're coming. I'm not sure when 19 this -- the word "Unit" was added on but I think 20 probably you're right that it was when there was 21 three of us. 22 Q. You went on to become the Senior Authorising 23 Officer for Mr Southin and Mr Ward? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. You say at paragraph 42 of your statement that 42 1 the Financial Investigation Unit sat within the 2 investigatory arm of the Security team? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. But its role was distinct from the role of 5 Investigation Managers? 6 A. That's correct. 7 MS PRICE: Sir, I have reached the end of one topic. 8 I wonder if we might take our morning break at 9 that point, slightly earlier than usual. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, certainly, yes. So what are 11 we going to do, begin again at 11.25? 12 MS PRICE: Yes, sir, thank you. 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Thank you. 14 (11.09 am) 15 (A short break) 16 (11.25 am) 17 MS PRICE: Hello, sir, can you see and hear us? 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 19 MS PRICE: Mr Harbinson, you deal at paragraph 45 of 20 your statement with policy and guidance applying 21 to the work of Financial Investigators. Could 22 we have paragraph 45 on screen, please. That's 23 page 18 of Mr Harbinson's statement. You say: 24 "I have been asked to set out the 25 legislation, policies and/or guidance that 43 1 covered the conduct of criminal and financial 2 investigations during the period I worked within 3 the Security team. When I worked as 4 an Investigation Manager within the Security 5 team, I do not remember any particular internal 6 policies or guidance that governed the work 7 I carried out. I believe that policies were 8 created and introduced over time but I am unable 9 to pinpoint when or what they related to. I can 10 only rely on the policies provided to me with 11 the Request, and as explained above, most of 12 those policies post-date my time at the POL. 13 However, as I was investigating incidents that 14 may have a potential criminal element, which 15 involved carrying out interviews under caution 16 and taking witness statements during 17 an investigation, I was of course required to 18 understand and adhere to the Police and Criminal 19 Evidence Act 1984 and the PACE Codes of 20 Practice. There were other acts that I had to 21 refer to and whilst I would not be able to 22 reference these from direct memory, I believe it 23 would have been all the legislation listed in 24 Section 3.15 of the document." 25 At paragraph 46 you talk about when you 44 1 joined the Financial Investigation Unit and you 2 say: 3 "Again, when I joined the Financial 4 Investigation Unit, I believe there were no 5 internal policies or guidance to govern our 6 practice in place. We were a new subsection 7 within the Security Team, therefore, internal 8 policies and guidance documents were yet to be 9 created. We relied on the policies and guidance 10 put in place by the ARA, which our police 11 mentor, Elaine Blewitt, would have made us aware 12 of. Unfortunately I cannot recall what those 13 specific policy or guidance documents were, 14 especially as they evolved continuously in line 15 with developments to POCA and changes within the 16 ARA itself." 17 When you stopped being supervised by your 18 police mentor, how would you have been made 19 aware of any changes in policy or guidance? 20 A. The Asset Recovery Agency continued and 21 maintained contact with us, as they did with all 22 other Financial Investigators, and there was 23 continual updates sent to us later on, I recall, 24 that they gave us weekly or monthly tests. They 25 sent us changes in the Proceeds of Crime Act, 45 1 they kept us informed with changes and updates, 2 so we were constantly -- we were always in 3 contact with the Asset Recovery Agency and their 4 trainers. 5 Q. You say you would have relied heavily on the 6 Proceeds of Crime Act itself to ensure that you 7 were carrying out your practice appropriately -- 8 A. Absolutely. 9 Q. -- and this was the central piece of legislation 10 that governed your activities as a Financial 11 Investigator? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You note in your statement that the policy 14 documents which do specifically relate to 15 Financial Investigation Policy post-date your 16 time as an employee of the Post Office. There 17 is, however, an undated document which you were 18 provided with for the purposes of preparing your 19 statement, which you describe as an early 20 attempt as a process map relating to the work 21 undertaken by the Financial Investigation Team, 22 in line with the guidance put in place by the 23 ARA. Could we have that on screen, please. The 24 reference is POL00084989. 25 The title is "Security & Investigation Debt 46 1 Process Text", the document is, as you observe, 2 undated. It has two sections, one starting on 3 the first page, dealing with "Security & 4 Investigation Financial Investigation Unit 5 Criminal Debt Recovery Process" for amounts 6 under £25,000 (sic). 7 Then on page 11 of this document, please, 8 there is a section dealing with "Security & 9 Investigation Criminal Debt Recovery Process" 10 for more than £20,000. Going back to the first 11 page, please. Towards the end of the first 12 paragraph here, there is a reference to you 13 being the Financial Investigation Unit Manager. 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Based on the reference to the Joint Asset 16 Recovery Database, which you think the Post 17 Office only started using from 2009, is it right 18 that you think this document is likely to have 19 been created at some point in that year, in 20 2009? 21 A. I believe so. I'm not sure when this document 22 was created. 23 Q. Well, if it assists to look at your statement, 24 it's paragraph 41 of your statement. You say 25 the reference to you as a Financial 47 1 Investigation Unit Manager indicates the 2 document must have been created at some point 3 from 2007 onwards? 4 A. And JARD, yeah. I understand now, yes. 5 Q. You say: 6 "[It's most] likely to have been created 7 sometime in 2009, as it refers to the Joint 8 Asset Recovery Database." 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. "JARD was a system maintained by the ARA to log 11 the actions taken in Financial Investigation, 12 and was implemented later on in my career." 13 But you believe that the Post Office only 14 started using that from 2009 onwards? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. So that's the basis on which you say you think 17 this document was likely created in 2009? 18 (No audible answer) 19 As far as you're aware, is this the first 20 policy or guidance document that dealt with the 21 role of the Financial Investigations Unit? 22 A. It's the first one I've seen and I don't recall 23 this one. 24 Q. You say you don't recall it. Have you had 25 a chance to read through the processes set out 48 1 in it for the purposes of preparing your 2 statement? 3 A. I've read it through, yes. 4 Q. As far as you can recall, do the processes set 5 out in this document reflect the processes which 6 were followed during the time you were the 7 Financial Investigation Unit Manager? 8 A. I think so, yes. 9 Q. You say at paragraph 59 of your statement that, 10 although Financial Investigators would provide 11 an opinion on the best mode of recovery, you 12 never made the ultimate decision on whether 13 criminal enforcement proceedings should be 14 pursued. Who did make the ultimate decision? 15 A. It would be the Criminal Law Team and the senior 16 people within the Investigation Team. It 17 usually came back to us from Dave Pardoe, who 18 was the senior person managing myself and the 19 team, but it came from, I believe, the Criminal 20 Law Team or seniors in the Investigation Team. 21 Q. As far as you can recall, was any application 22 for a confiscation order prepared by you not 23 approved by the Criminal Law Team? 24 A. It was always -- had to be -- a confiscation 25 order had to be approved by the Criminal Law 49 1 Team. 2 Q. But where that was being proposed, because you'd 3 drafted up paperwork proposing a confiscation 4 order, did the Criminal Law Team ever disagree 5 with the proposal that a confiscation order 6 should be sought? 7 A. I wouldn't draw up a Section 16 if it hadn't 8 already been agreed that that's where we were 9 going. 10 Q. I see. In terms of the possible modes of 11 recovery, as you term them, can you explain, 12 please, the difference between a restraint order 13 and a confiscation order? 14 A. Yes. A restraint order restrains an asset and 15 prevents a person from disposing or reducing 16 that asset until it's resolved in the courts, 17 whereas a confiscation order is the order made 18 by the courts to remove the benefit of 19 a criminal conduct in an order. 20 Q. What were the considerations in play when it 21 came to restraint orders? 22 A. It had to be proportionate. There had to be 23 a realistic asset to restrain, a benefit within 24 it. But it had to be proportionate: you 25 wouldn't restrain a property for a few thousand 50 1 pounds or a bank account for a few thousand 2 pounds. 3 There had to be a proportionate effect and 4 there had to be consideration made to the 5 defendant's living -- their ability to live 6 normally within that restraint, so you wouldn't 7 block them from living. You were trying to 8 secure assets that could be used to service 9 a confiscation order in the future. 10 Q. Where a decision was made to pursue a restraint 11 order, what was your role in relation to the 12 process? 13 A. As the Financial Investigator, I would have to 14 come to a rationale about why I wanted to 15 restrain, what was the objective in restraining 16 the assets. I would have to get the agreement 17 of the Senior Authorising Officer and I would 18 then have to take it to the Criminal Law Team 19 for them to agree for an asset to be restrained. 20 I'd then have to write up the restraining order 21 myself, and I'd have to present it in court for 22 a judge to authorise the restraint. Then 23 I would have to return that back to the -- that 24 would have to be then served on the defendant. 25 Basically, I think I've run through about 51 1 all I meant to -- as I recall. That would be my 2 job. But it would be -- it would have to 3 authorised, it would have to be signed by 4 a judge. All those things would have to be in 5 place. 6 Q. What were the considerations in play when it 7 came to confiscation orders? 8 A. The confiscation order needed to list all the 9 assets available for the confiscation. We'd 10 have to list what the confiscation -- what the 11 amount was that the confiscation was for. That 12 would -- the Financial Investigator would have 13 to -- there was quite a process before you 14 arrived at it but you would have to write the 15 Section 16 statement and -- having obtained all 16 the documents, and that would all have to be 17 served on the defendant. They would have 18 an opportunity to reply to that and the court 19 may have made an option for you -- for a further 20 response for the Section 16. But it would then 21 go to court, and the order would be made one way 22 or the other. 23 Q. You deal at paragraph 58 of your statement with 24 the case for confiscation where the conviction 25 was for false accounting. 52 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Could we have that on screen, please. It's 3 page 23 of the statement. 4 At paragraph 58, you say: 5 "Although not impossible, it was a lot 6 harder to justify a case for confiscation where 7 a person had been convicted for false 8 accounting. This is because confiscation 9 essentially relates to removing the convicted 10 person's benefit that they received as a result 11 of criminal conduct, in order to recover the 12 losses faced by the POL. It could be extremely 13 difficult to work out what the benefit received 14 actually was in a false accounting case." 15 When you say it was a lot harder to justify 16 a case for confiscation where a conviction was 17 for false accounting, do you mean in comparison 18 to a conviction for theft? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Can you explain why it is easier to achieve 21 a confiscation order following a theft 22 conviction, please? You deal with this a little 23 further at paragraph 109 in your statement. 24 A. I understand. Because on a theft you have 25 a figure of benefit of the criminal conduct, and 53 1 so it's quite easy to set out your objective in 2 the confiscation order to say, "I want to 3 recovery the -- that figure, because that's the 4 figure that was involved in the theft". 5 Whereas, in false accounting, you've got to 6 come up and arrive at a figure how the person 7 benefited by that figure in a false accounting. 8 So one is easier than -- they're not impossible, 9 but they're -- one's easier than the other. 10 Q. Could we have on screen please document 11 reference POL00121639. This is a presentation 12 handout, which you comment on at paragraph 66 of 13 your statement. You describe it as being 14 an attempt to raise the understanding and 15 profile of recovery through POCA and the role of 16 the Financial Investigation Unit within the Post 17 Office. 18 The title here is "Financial Investigations 19 Partnership for Recovery". Your name and Graham 20 Ward's on that front slide. 21 Was this presentation delivered to the Post 22 Office Criminal Investigators. 23 A. I don't remember this -- I can see that we 24 produced it but I don't remember it. Its 25 purpose would have been to go out to the 54 1 Investigation Team. 2 Q. Do you recall being involved in producing the 3 content of this? 4 A. I don't recall being involved in the -- 5 producing the contents of it, no. 6 Q. Do you think that you were, given that your name 7 appears on it? 8 A. It's most likely, yes. 9 Q. Could we turn to page 14 of this document, 10 please. The heading on this slide is "How can 11 I make the offender pay when the courts don't 12 ever award compensation or costs. (Get the 13 'offences charged' right)". The slide goes on 14 as follows, the first bullet point: 15 "Theft, fraud and money laundering offences 16 support the POCA 2002 and Criminal Justice Act 17 1988 confiscation process and in consequence 18 recovery of the loss." 19 Bullet point 2: 20 "Settling for false accounting as the 21 predicate offence creates massive problems with 22 recovery (what is the offender's benefit)." 23 Bullet point 3: 24 "The investigation and the interview should 25 be programmed to establish what has happened to, 55 1 what is and where is the criminal property, what 2 offences have occurred, and to what extent 3 others are involved in those offences and/or 4 have benefited." 5 Is this you sharing your view, expressed at 6 paragraph 58 of your statement, with the 7 Criminal Investigation Team, namely that it was 8 harder to get a confiscation order for false 9 accounting than it was for theft and other 10 offences? 11 A. I think that's within it. I don't think that's 12 the extent of it -- of my view there. 13 Q. Could we have on screen, please, page 3 of this 14 presentation. This covers the Fraud Team's 15 recovery objective for 2007 to 2008. The first 16 bullet point says: 17 "Deliver casework effectively to ensure sure 18 30% loss recovery, or greater, is achieved 19 2007/08. 20 "It would not be unreasonable to project 21 future Fraud Strand recovery targets to increase 22 year on year." 23 The next bullet point: 24 "Deliver casework effectively to ensure 35% 25 loss recovery, or greater, is achieved 2008/09." 56 1 3: 2 "Deliver casework effectively to ensure 40% 3 loss recovery, or greater, is achieved 2009/10. 4 Etc. Etc." 5 Is it fair to say that recovery was a key 6 goal for the Fraud Team? 7 A. It was a goal for the Financial Investigation 8 Team. I would have hoped that it was a -- that 9 more Investigators would look at the recovery 10 side of things. 11 Q. Could we have on screen, please, POL00051539. 12 Looking please at the email about halfway down 13 the page, from Phil Taylor, a Legal Executive in 14 the Criminal Law Team, to Warwick Tatford, 15 counsel in the case to which this email relates, 16 the case of Seema Misra, this is dated 22 May 17 2009. The email reads as follows: 18 "Hi Warwick, 19 "I am just a little bit in the dark about 20 Misra. You will recall that there is one count 21 of theft and some false accountings. The 22 Defence will plead Guilty to the false 23 accountings and Jon Longman is fairly happy for 24 us to accept those pleas. However, we are some 25 70-odd thousand pounds light at the moment as 57 1 I understand it and if we just accept the false 2 accountings it is very difficult for us later to 3 obtain a Confiscation Order and subsequently 4 compensation out of the Confiscation. 5 "Could you let me have your views on this. 6 I would be very grateful to hear from you." 7 Did you share your view on getting the 8 charges right and the difficulty of achieving 9 a confiscation order off the back of a false 10 accounting conviction or plea with the Criminal 11 Law Team; do you remember having any discussions 12 with them about that? 13 A. I think, later we see a document where I exactly 14 say that to the Criminal Law Team. I'm not 15 surprised by that, no. 16 Q. You provided some advice on confiscation in 17 relation to the prosecution of Josephine 18 Hamilton and you deal with that at 19 paragraphs 106 to 110 of your statement. Could 20 we have on screen, please, document reference 21 POL00049154. This is a memo from Juliet 22 McFarlane -- so scrolling down, please, to the 23 bottom -- Principal Lawyer, Criminal Law 24 Division, to the Investigation Team -- scrolling 25 up to the top, please -- copied to you, among 58 1 others, including Graham Brander and Dave 2 Pardoe. It is dated 15 November 2007 and we see 3 there it relates to the case of Josephine 4 Hamilton. It reads as follows: 5 "I refer to previous correspondence 6 regarding this matter. 7 "As you know there has been some discussion 8 as to whether or not pleas to false accounting 9 would be acceptable. I note this would be 10 agreeable providing that Mrs Hamilton were to 11 repay the full amount. 12 "On Counsel's request this matter has been 13 listed for Mention on 19 November 2007. The 14 purpose of this is to see whether or not the 15 trial can be vacated. It is possible that 16 Mrs Hamilton may wish to enter pleas to false 17 accounting. I understand however that she is 18 not yet in a position to repay and has not given 19 a date as to when this can be done. 20 "One option would be for the theft count to 21 be left on file pending payment by the date of 22 trial or some later date." 23 Then in bold: 24 "Ged 25 "Could you let me have your views as to 59 1 confiscation in this matter, and if appropriate 2 the prospect of recovery under such an order. 3 A copy of the indictment is attached." 4 Do you recall giving advice in this case now 5 or are you reliant on the documents? 6 A. I'm reliant on the documents. 7 Q. Your response was provided by email on 8 16 November 2007. Could we have that on screen, 9 please. It's POL00049168. It's page 2 of that 10 document, please. You see the email from you to 11 Juliet McFarlane, copied to Graham Brander, 12 16 November 2007. You say this: 13 "Juliet 14 "Thank you for your memo. 15 "I am never confident with false accounting 16 charges in relation to recovery under POCA 2002 17 and the theft charge makes life so much easier. 18 The defendant has General Criminal Conduct under 19 the proposed charges and this would be so with 20 just the false accounting however we have been 21 challenged once before when proceeding to POCA 22 where only false accounting was charged, and 23 I would probable be more inclined to except 24 Particular Criminal Conduct when dealing with 25 confiscation in that scenario. I fully 60 1 understand the balance of cost in court time 2 against recovery and if the charge of theft was 3 dropped for a guilty plea then I would still 4 believe it appropriate to follow to confiscation 5 and ask for a 'Benefit figure' of £40,201.58 6 (increase in the value of money)." 7 Then you deal with the apparent assets in 8 the case and, at the bottom, you summarise your 9 opinion. Your opinion is: 10 "1. Charge her with theft and go to 11 confiscation, or 12 "2. Accept a plea of false accounting and 13 go to confiscation 14 "3. If she pays us before we can always 15 draw back out of the case but we need minimum 16 £40,201.58." 17 What stage did you understand the 18 proceedings to have reached when you were 19 providing your opinion? I know it's difficult 20 casting your mind back now. 21 A. I can't recall exactly. I would imagine we were 22 looking at sentencing -- sorry, no, that's not 23 right. Looking at going to court. But I'm 24 really not sure what position we were at there. 25 Q. But you -- 61 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I think we must be in a position 2 where criminal proceedings had started -- 3 A. Yes. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: -- wherefore a charge had been 5 laid, because counsel is talking about getting 6 is listed for mention a couple of days later, 7 isn't he, to sort it out? So there clearly are 8 charges by this stage. 9 MS PRICE: So you were not being asked to advise in 10 relation to what charges should be brought in 11 the first place here, were you -- 12 A. No. 13 Q. -- but asked to advise in the context of whether 14 the theft charge should be dropped? 15 A. No. I think I was being asked my opinion on how 16 it might have affect confiscation. 17 Q. Indeed. Do you recall ever being asked to 18 advise on the confiscation implications of 19 potential charges at the time that a reviewing 20 lawyer was making the initial decision whether 21 to charge a suspect and, if so, with what? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Going, please, to page 1 of this document, 24 towards the bottom of the page there's an email 25 from Juliet McFarlane to Graham Brander, dated 62 1 16 November 2007. It is copied to you and the 2 material parts of it read as follows: 3 "Graham 4 "I have forwarded Ged's memo to Counsel, 5 Richard Jory. I have informed him that whilst 6 there is no outright objection to proceeding 7 with the False Accounting, there is a concern as 8 to recovery of Money. We have to date been able 9 to recover where False Accounting only is 10 charged though on one or two cases the Defence 11 will argue against. 12 "Whilst a plea to Theft would be preferable, 13 in the event of non-payment the intent would be 14 to proceed to confiscation." 15 Then, at the top of the page, the first 16 page, we have an email from Graham Brander to 17 Juliet McFarlane, dated 19 November, and it 18 reads: 19 "Juliet 20 "REF: Hamilton Mention Hearing 19 November 21 2007 -- Winchester Crown Court. 22 "Richard Jory advised me earlier today that 23 he hadn't received this email. Any chance you 24 could forward it to him again. 25 "Hamilton pleaded guilty to the 14 FA [false 63 1 accounting] charges. 2 "Agreement by both counsels that provided 3 full amount (I advised Richard of increase in 4 value of money) is repaid by sentencing date 5 (25/01/08) then the single theft charge would be 6 dropped. 7 "Richard stipulated that if the full amount 8 wasn't repaid by that time, we would go to trial 9 in respect of the theft charge, unless it could 10 be shown that payment would soon be forthcoming; 11 in which case sentencing would be adjourned." 12 Had you ever intended that your view would 13 form the basis of a stipulation that all sums 14 should be repaid in order to avoid a theft 15 trial? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Are you aware now that the way this was dealt 18 with, that making repayment a condition of 19 dropping the theft charge, was criticised by the 20 Court of Appeal when it overturned 21 Mrs Hamilton's conviction? 22 A. No. 23 Q. There is a memo from Juliet McFarlane also dated 24 19 November 2007, which you were copied into. 25 Can we have that on screen, please. The 64 1 reference is POL00044388. We see that this memo 2 goes to the Investigation Team, copied 3 specifically to Graham Brander, you and David 4 Pardoe. It reads as follows, and this again 5 relates to the Josephine Hamilton case: 6 "The Defendant appeared before the Court 7 today. The prosecution was represented by 8 Mr Richard Jory of 9-12 Bell Yard ... and the 9 Defendant was represented by Anita Saran. 10 "The Defendant pleaded Guilty to the false 11 accounting counts 2-15 on the indictment. The 12 case has been adjourned to 25 January 2008 for 13 pre-sentence reports. 14 "The Defendant has been informed that full 15 payment must be made prior to that date. The 16 theft count has remained on file on the 17 understanding that it should be proceeded with 18 if the money is not repaid. 19 "It is believed that the Defendant has 20 monies which will be available at the end of the 21 year. If the Defendant does not repay then 22 consideration will need to be given to the 23 practicalities of proceeding with the charge of 24 theft or whether confiscation proceedings should 25 pursue. 65 1 "I note that the compensation outstanding is 2 £36,644.89. 3 "I note that the figure canvassed of 4 £40,201.58 is a sum which includes interest, the 5 greatest sum will no doubt be pursued should 6 confiscation proceedings be brought." 7 Then this: 8 "It has been made clear to the Defence that 9 there must be some recognition that the 10 Defendant had the money short of theft and that 11 a plea on the basis that the loss was due to the 12 computer not working properly will not be 13 accepted. 14 "As stated above the next hearing is on 15 25 January 2008." 16 Do you now recall Mrs Hamilton raising 17 allegations that the Horizon system was not 18 working properly? 19 A. No, I don't remember that memo. 20 Q. You were being told, among others in this memo, 21 that a plea on the basis that the loss was due 22 to the computer not working properly would not 23 be accepted. Can you recall whether you formed 24 any view at the time on the appropriateness of 25 that? 66 1 A. No. 2 Q. What is your view on the appropriateness of that 3 as you sit here now? 4 A. With the knowledge of where we are now, then it 5 probably was -- not probably, it wasn't 6 appropriate. 7 Q. Was this a Post Office line to take, that the 8 computer not working properly was not to be 9 entertained as a defence to a criminal 10 allegation? 11 A. It's something I'm not aware of, no. 12 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 13 reference POL00119228. This is a memo dated 14 16 September 2009 and, scrolling down, actually, 15 we can see there from Paul Southin to the Fraud 16 Team. It's copied to you. 17 Scrolling back up, please, it reports on the 18 outcome of a case and the first paragraph reads 19 as follows: 20 "Following successful negotiations between 21 the FIU, the Investigator and the solicitor 22 representing the defendant, the full amount of 23 the loss (£27,407.43) was repaid via a BACS 24 payment into a bank account of Post Office Ltd." 25 Was it common for the Financial 67 1 Investigation Unit to be involved in 2 negotiations in the context of criminal 3 investigations? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Can you help with why the FIU was being referred 6 to there as being involved in negotiations? 7 A. No, I don't know whether Paul Southin is 8 referring to himself or as the team, but I don't 9 remember that. 10 Q. Where a confiscation order was pursued, did your 11 role involve anything over and above the steps 12 you've already discussed in relation to 13 confiscation proceedings? 14 A. No. 15 Q. You have been provided with a number of memos, 16 among the documents which had been provided to 17 you quite recently by the Inquiry, which suggest 18 that you were notified following an audit where 19 shortfalls were identified on some occasions. 20 In what circumstances would the Financial 21 Investigation Unit be notified following 22 an audit? 23 A. You mean by the Auditors to us, or just 24 following an audit? 25 Q. Well, either by the Auditors or by someone else, 68 1 following an audit but at that stage of 2 proceedings where a shortfall had been 3 identified on an audit? 4 A. I think normally we'd be informed once there was 5 an investigation into a loss over a certain 6 amount but, normally, it came later than that. 7 But we were -- no, we normally were informed 8 once there was an investigation into a loss. 9 Q. Also among the documents more recently provided 10 to you by the Inquiry, are a number of memos 11 which suggest that, because a case was not being 12 criminally investigated or prosecuted, the Late 13 Account Team should pursue any outstanding 14 losses. Does that represent a default position 15 on the part of the Post Office to pursue 16 a suspect via a criminal investigation or 17 prosecution and, if that failed, to refer to the 18 suspect's case to the Late Accounts or Debt 19 Recovery Team? 20 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand. 21 Q. Are you aware of the memos I'm referring to 22 where there is a one-liner, essentially, saying, 23 "No further action is going to be taken, the 24 matter should be referred to the Late Accounts 25 Team"? 69 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So the Debt Recovery Team on the civil side. 3 A. Yes, I saw that document. 4 Q. Yes. My question is whether that reflects 5 a default position of the Post Office, initially 6 to pursue a suspect via a criminal investigation 7 or prosecution and, if that failed, to reference 8 their case to the Late Accounts Debt Recovery 9 Team? 10 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. 11 MS PRICE: Sir, those are all the questions I have 12 for Mr Harbinson. I'm turning to see whether 13 CPs have any questions. 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 15 MS PRICE: Mr Jacobs? 16 Questioned by MR JACOBS 17 MR JACOBS: I do have a question, yes, thank you. 18 I act for 156 subpostmasters, one of who is 19 the widow of Peter Holmes. You deal with his 20 case in your statement at paragraph 159. Do you 21 recall? 22 A. No, I don't. 23 Q. Prosecution of Peter Holmes. Maybe we could 24 turn, then, to your statement at page 159, 25 that's 63 of 78, and have that on the screen, 70 1 please. You see there "Prosecution of Mr Peter 2 Holmes"? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. At paragraph 162, you say that you have reviewed 5 emails dated 30 January 2009, if we could go to 6 paragraph 162, please. Maybe if we could just 7 pull up POL00050817, so we know what you're 8 referring to there. This is an email dated 9 30 January from you to what appears to be the 10 Criminal Intelligence Team within Post Office 11 Limited; is that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You're authorising cheques in relation to Marion 14 Holmes and we understand that was in relation to 15 her financial matters. 16 What was the Criminal Intelligence Team; who 17 were they? 18 A. They were an internal team that sat in Croydon 19 who would obtain documents they had, things 20 like -- for vehicle checks, that type of thing, 21 that would go to the DVLC, and those type of 22 documents. 23 Q. Now, I know you've said at paragraph 3 of your 24 statement that you don't remember much about the 25 documents that you've been shown by the Inquiry. 71 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. What was your involvement with the Criminal 3 Intelligence Team? What sort of cases did you 4 refer to them and why would you contact them? 5 A. I didn't refer cases to them. They -- part of 6 your -- as a Financial Investigator, as part of 7 your -- the gathering of information about 8 assets that might be used in a confiscation 9 order, you go to them to get DVLA records about 10 a vehicle, to know whether or not it was 11 financed or whether -- or the make, models, 12 those types of things, would come from DVLA. 13 A person's -- I can't remember the document, 14 but when you applied for the financial data 15 about something, you know -- I'm sorry, but 16 I can't remember the actual document, but it 17 would have the history of your payments and 18 things like that. They would be the type of 19 documents that they would be able to receive, 20 but they would need to -- you'd need to apply to 21 get those. 22 Q. Right. 23 A. And there were the connections within that team 24 that were established with the police and the 25 DVLA and different departments that obtained 72 1 those documents. 2 Q. If we could go to paragraph 163 of your 3 statement, please. Sorry to jump around. 4 A. Sorry. 5 Q. That's WITN08150100, paragraph 163, please, 6 which is on page 65 of 78. 7 In this part of your statement, you refer to 8 a memo and that is a memo from Ms McFarlane, 9 referring you to an accountant's report. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Now, Mrs Holmes has given evidence to the effect 12 that Post Office thought that some money that 13 was in her joint account had been taken by her 14 husband and put into that account and they 15 engaged a forensic accountant and he prepared 16 a report and, as a result of that report, Mr and 17 Mrs Holmes were completely vindicated and Post 18 Office didn't pursue that further. 19 But the question I want to ask you is: why 20 was it had you were looking at accountant's 21 reports? Did you have any experience in 22 accountancy or any particular knowledge of that 23 field? 24 A. I did not, no. 25 Q. No. Do you recall looking at or analysing 73 1 an accountant's report in relation to this case 2 or in other cases? 3 A. I don't recall that, no. 4 Q. This may be a difficult question for you to 5 answer, but are you able to say why it is, then, 6 that you were given a forensic accountant's 7 report to look at? 8 A. I could only speculate, if you want me to do 9 that. 10 Q. Well, yes. 11 A. Because we had the title Financial 12 Investigations, people thought we had greater 13 understanding, probably, than we did have in 14 some cases and I think Juliet may well have been 15 saying "Look at this, what's your opinion?" 16 rather than me having a great understanding of 17 what it was. And I think -- I know we can't ask 18 Juliet but I really don't know why she sent it 19 to me. I can't remember. 20 Q. Now, the Court of Appeal found that Mr Holmes' 21 prosecution had been an abuse of process. They 22 found that ARQ data had been obtained but it 23 wasn't clear whether it was disclosed and they 24 found there was no evidence to corroborate 25 Horizon evidence, no investigation into the 74 1 integrity of Horizon figures and there was no 2 proof of any actual loss to the Post Office. 3 Was this something -- was this information that 4 you would have been party to or aware of at the 5 time when you were involved? 6 A. No, sir. 7 Q. No. 8 A. No, sir. 9 Q. Finally, at the end of your statement, 10 paragraphs 166 and 167 -- we don't need to turn 11 these up -- you say: 12 "I was not aware of any concerns regarding 13 the robustness of the Horizon IT system during 14 my entire career with the [Post Office]. As far 15 as I was aware, the system operated as was 16 expected." 17 Then you go on to say: 18 "If I had ever been aware that there was 19 a potential problem with the robustness of the 20 ... system, I would have raised this with senior 21 colleagues and flagged to them that in my 22 opinion any criminal investigation would need to 23 cease." 24 Now, the subpostmasters and mistresses that 25 we represent are very keen to know the names of 75 1 the individuals who were the decision makers, 2 who would have been able to put a stop to 3 prosecutions once it became clear -- or once it 4 should have reasonably become clear -- that 5 there were problems with the system because of 6 what subpostmasters were saying. 7 So my question for you is: can you name the 8 senior colleague or colleagues, to whom you've 9 referred, who you would have discussed any 10 potential problems with the Horizon system with, 11 with a view to stopping prosecutions if you'd 12 come to know about these problems with Horizon? 13 A. Well -- thank you. I think, sir, that, if, as 14 an Investigator, I'd become aware of something 15 like that, I would have spoken to my team leader 16 straight away. If as a Financial Investigator, 17 I was aware of that, I would have spoken to 18 Mr Pardoe. 19 But, you know, it's -- that information 20 would have to go up, wouldn't it? You'd feed 21 up. 22 Q. So would Mr Pardoe, for example, have had the 23 authority to investigate and put a stop to 24 prosecutions on the basis of what he was being 25 told from people like you in your position? Or 76 1 would that have had to have gone up? 2 A. I think Mr Pardoe -- a question for Mr Pardoe, 3 but I don't -- I think it would need to go up 4 further, yeah. 5 Q. Right. What about Mr Utting and Mr Scott? Are 6 they people that you might have spoken to? 7 A. It's unfair of me, I think, to speculate on what 8 their positions were, sir. 9 Q. The question I'm asking is: who would you have 10 gone to, regardless of what they would have 11 done? 12 A. As an Investigator, I'd have gone to my team 13 leader. As a Financial Investigator, I'd have 14 gone to Mr Pardoe. 15 Q. Who was your team leader? 16 A. When I was an Investigator, it changed a few 17 times. It started off as Tony Utting. There 18 was a guy called Paul Dawkins, who was my team 19 leader. There were different people, but that's 20 20 years ago, so I apologise if -- 21 Q. That's quite all right. Thank you. 22 I just need to ask if I have any more 23 questions that I need to ask you. I'm told that 24 I don't, thank you very much. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Anyone else? 77 1 MS PRICE: Sir, there are some questions from 2 Ms Page. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 4 Questioned by MS PAGE 5 MS PAGE: Thank you, sir. 6 Just very briefly, Mr Harbinson, I appear 7 for a group of subpostmasters also, one of whom 8 being Jannet Skinner, who sits besides me on my 9 right. Is that a name that rings any bells for 10 you? 11 A. From the documentation, yes. 12 Q. You've told us about your opinion that it more 13 difficult to obtain confiscation in cases where 14 a theft charge had been dropped, leaving only 15 a false accounting charge, yes? 16 A. Not dropped, but the difference between a theft 17 charge and a false accounting charge, yes. 18 Q. Well, in Ms Skinner's case, that was what 19 happened and the theft charge was dropped, 20 leaving only a false accounting charge. 21 Even so, there was a -- confiscation 22 proceedings proceeded and there was 23 an application from the defence saying that 24 those confiscation proceedings were an abuse of 25 process. Does that ring any bells for you? 78 1 A. No. 2 Q. I ask because you've told us that there were 3 cases where there were challenges when the only 4 charge left was false accounting. Is this not 5 one of those cases? 6 A. No. 7 Q. What were the cases, then, that you -- 8 A. I don't remember the specific case but they're 9 not -- they weren't challenges against 10 confiscation. It's about the amount, what was 11 the value -- when it's a false accounting, how 12 did the -- what value did they benefit by? And 13 there's different ways you can work out the 14 benefit figure. 15 It's not always totally just the amount 16 that's gone but you can benefit from continuing 17 to receive pay, having false accounted. So the 18 person's payment -- so they maintain their job 19 but their money after that period of time could 20 be considered as benefit from criminal conduct. 21 So you -- it's -- I didn't say it's impossible; 22 I said it's more difficult. 23 Q. Well, certainly in Ms Skinner's case and also in 24 Mrs Adedayo's case, another of our Core 25 Participants, it was very straightforward: the 79 1 Post Office simply proceeded in the same way as 2 it would if it had been a theft charge, for the 3 full amount that was the shortfall or that they 4 said was the shortfall. 5 A. Absolutely. Because, in fairness, it wasn't for 6 the prosecution to talk down the value of the 7 benefit but for the defence to say, you know, 8 "How do you obtain your -- you know, what is 9 your benefit figure? How did you obtain that 10 benefit figure?" 11 But you would always go -- the object of the 12 confiscation within Post Office Limited was to 13 try to recover the loss amount, the benefit -- 14 as the benefit figure. We didn't go beyond 15 that. A lot of -- POCA would allow you, in some 16 respects, to accumulate massive benefit figures. 17 The objective of the confiscation was to recover 18 the loss figure. 19 Q. Can you think of any case where you didn't 20 recover the loss figure, even if it was only 21 a false accounting charge, or the figure that 22 Post Office claimed was the loss? 23 A. I can't remember now, no. 24 Q. The advice, then, that you were giving to 25 continue with theft charges, on the basis of 80 1 recovery, was then based on no cases, as such? 2 A. I never -- advice -- my advice wasn't to 3 continue on theft charges. My advice was one is 4 easier and then, I think if you see underneath, 5 I say "Whichever one you do, whatever you do, 6 this is what we should proceed -- you know, we 7 should go for these figures". It was -- I was 8 giving my opinion. The decision for the 9 charging was for the Criminal Law Team. 10 MS PAGE: Yes, thank you. Those are my questions. 11 Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: On this issue of the comparative 13 difficulties of pursuing confiscation in false 14 accounting cases, does it really come to this, 15 that if the charge was theft and there was 16 either a finding of guilt or a plea of guilty, 17 then there was acceptance that the money stolen, 18 say £20,000, was the benefit figure, yeah? 19 If the charge was false accounting, there 20 would be a variety of ways in which benefit 21 could be looked at but some of those ways would 22 be that the defence would argue that the benefit 23 figure was nothing like as much as the alleged 24 loss to the Post Office. 25 A. Exactly, sir, yes. 81 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, and you were anticipating, 2 quite correctly, that, in some such cases, the 3 advocates for the defence would maintain that 4 argument before the court and the court would 5 accept it. 6 A. Yes. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So from a purely pragmatic point 8 of view, it was much easier if the charge was 9 theft; that's what it boils down to, isn't it? 10 A. Yes. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. All right. Thank you 12 very much, Mr Harbinson. 13 Thank you for -- 14 Oh, sorry. Are there any other questions? 15 MS PRICE: No, sir. I think those are all the 16 questions from Core Participants. 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. 18 Well, then, thank you Mr Harbinson, for 19 making your witness statement and for giving 20 evidence this morning. I'm grateful to you. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So we adjourn until Friday; is 23 that right, Ms Price, and we have two witnesses 24 on Friday? 25 MS PRICE: We do. We resume at 10.00 on Friday to 82 1 hear from Diane Matthews, followed by Lisa 2 Allen. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. See you all 4 then. 5 MS PRICE: Thank you, sir. 6 (12.27 pm) 7 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am 8 on Friday, 24 November 2023) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 I N D E X GERALD OWEN HARBINSON (sworn) .................1 Questioned by MS PRICE ........................1 Questioned by MR JACOBS ......................70 Questioned by MS PAGE ........................78 Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS ...............81 84