1 Tuesday, 28 November 2023 2 (10.00 am) 3 MR BLAKE: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear 4 me? 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much, yeah. 6 MR BLAKE: Thank you. This morning we're going to 7 hear from Mr Brander. 8 GRAHAM DAVID BRANDER (sworn) 9 Questioned by MR BLAKE 10 MR BLAKE: Thank you, can you give your full name 11 please. 12 A. Graham David Brander. 13 Q. Thank you, Mr Brander. You should have in front 14 of you a witness statement dated 30 October 15 2023; is that correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Could I ask you to have a look at the final 18 substantive page of that statement, it's 19 page 40. 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. Is that your signature? 22 A. It is, yes. 23 Q. Thank you very much. Can you confirm that 24 statement is true to the best of your knowledge 25 and belief? 1 1 A. It is, yes. 2 Q. Thank you very much. The witness statement has 3 a URN of WITN08300100. That's now in evidence, 4 and will be published on the Inquiry's website 5 in due course? 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. Thank you very much. I want to start today 8 briefly with a little bit of background about 9 your career. You joined the Post Office in 10 1984 -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- as a counter clerk in a Crown Office; is that 13 correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did you join straight after school or was there 16 something -- 17 A. After sixth form college. 18 Q. Thank you. I think you also trained 19 subpostmasters in respect of serving customers 20 and balancing; is that correct? 21 A. Yeah, that was like an ad hoc role, as and when 22 required, whilst I was a counter clerk. 23 Q. That was pre-Horizon? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You became an Assistant Branch Manager and then 2 1 Branch Manager after that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. It was in the year 2000 that you became Security 4 Manager? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Am I right to say that, when you became Security 7 Manager you hadn't, for example, spent time as 8 a police officer or investigating regulatory 9 offences or anything? 10 A. No, no previous background in that area. 11 Q. No particular qualifications? 12 A. No. 13 Q. No background in accountancy or -- 14 A. Accounting, no. 15 Q. Horizon, obviously, was being rolled out in 16 2000? 17 A. Yeah. 18 Q. Was that very shortly or at the same time as you 19 became Security Manager? Did you experience 20 Horizon in the branch that you were working in? 21 A. Yeah, I can remember it was -- when I was doing 22 the pre-coursework for the Security Manager 23 role, Horizon had just been installed in my 24 branch. So that was going on with obviously the 25 staff, with onsite trainers, whilst I was taking 3 1 a back seat to a certain extent doing the 2 pre-coursework, as well as obviously managing 3 the branch. 4 Q. So you were training to become a Security 5 Manager? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. Am I right then to say that you didn't attend 8 the Horizon training at that point in time? 9 A. Yeah, again it's a long time back but I've 10 a vague recollection that myself and the team 11 would have done, like, some sort of 12 classroom/remote training on the equipment with, 13 like, a dummy set-up for the Horizon equipment. 14 So I can remember doing that in maybe threes and 15 fours of the team, because obviously we needed 16 the team to carry on serving the customers, so 17 I think we went away three or four at a time to 18 like a classroom environment. 19 So I did have some training in that respect 20 but I'm not sure how much involvement I had 21 whilst Horizon was installed at my branch 22 because, as I said, the focus was -- not the 23 focus, but a lot of my time was used doing the 24 pre-coursework modules. 25 Q. Thank you very much. In respect of 4 1 pre-coursework modules, I think you've said in 2 your statement that you did a two-week 3 residential course and two weeks before that was 4 pre-course learning? 5 A. From as best as I can recall, I think it was 6 roughly two weeks for each but, as I say, the 7 pre-course work, it wasn't a set amount of time, 8 that was just the time where I'd been sent the 9 modules and was trying to fit it in whilst 10 managing the branch. 11 Q. So for two weeks you were preparing for the 12 course -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- to become a Security Manager. 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. You were running the branch? 17 A. Yeah. 18 Q. Horizon was being rolled out in your branch -- 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. -- and it was perhaps a busy period of time? 21 A. It was, yes. 22 Q. Was there Horizon training as part of that 23 course to become a Security Manager or was that 24 entirely separate? 25 A. Entirely separate, I believe. I don't recall 5 1 Horizon being on the actual Security Manager 2 course. 3 Q. Thank you, another role that we will possibly 4 come to in due course, in March 2012 you became 5 a Network Transformation Field Change Advisor; 6 is that correct? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Can you very briefly tell us what that role 9 involves? 10 A. It was -- Government had funded Post Office 11 a considerable amount of money in order to 12 effectively modernise our network. So it was 13 moving away from what we called a sub post 14 office, like a typical old-style post office, 15 tucked away in a corner of a premises, or 16 whatever, to a more modern model where you'd 17 have a larger main model post office or 18 a smaller local post office. 19 So my role was to work within a geographical 20 area and engage with postmasters and they had 21 the option of either to convert to the new model 22 which had been assigned to their branch or stay 23 as they were at that time or look to leave the 24 Post Office. So I would explain the detail in 25 respect of each of those options to the 6 1 postmaster and, ultimately, look -- where we 2 were looking to do change, oversee the 3 end-to-end process for the branches within my 4 area, of where either they or a new postmaster, 5 either on site or at a new premises, would 6 actually convert to the assigned new model. 7 Q. Thank you. As I say, we may come back in detail 8 to that role. Most of our time today will be 9 spent on your period as a Security Manager. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. That later role you continued until 2017 and 12 I think in 2017 you took voluntary redundancy? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 14 Q. Then you rejoined the Post Office in 2019 as 15 something called a change manager; is that 16 right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Very briefly, what is a change manager? 19 A. It's similar issues to the NTFCA role but it's 20 more sort of like business as usual. So I deal 21 predominantly with service issues. So if 22 a branch closes for whatever reason, then, 23 subject to business need, I will look for 24 a solution to either reopen, so under the 25 existing model, or it might be that we have 7 1 a part-time outreach service or it might be 2 something where we would operate a stop from one 3 of our mobile vans. But lots of things that 4 I get involved in but, predominantly, it's 5 maintain service within a geographical area. 6 Q. Am I right to say that you're still in that role 7 and still employed by Post Office? 8 A. I am, yes. 9 Q. Thank you very much. I'm going to start, as 10 I say, by looking at the role of Security 11 Manager. I'll look at the general role before 12 going on to some case studies. 13 A. Sure. 14 Q. In terms of your early work as a Security 15 Manager, you've described in your statement that 16 you were initially based in a room above 17 Eastleigh Crown Office; is that correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. That's in Southampton, is it? 20 A. Yeah, just outside. 21 Q. Just outside. At the time, I think, Security 22 Managers were spread around the country; is that 23 correct? 24 A. Most of us were. There were some that would be 25 like at Head Office, you'd have a number of 8 1 personnel and a fellow locations would have 2 X-number but, certainly, the team I was in, I'm 3 just thinking, I think we were all individually 4 spread across the geographical area, effectively 5 working on our own. 6 Q. I think you said you were isolated to a certain 7 extent. Can you help us with what you meant by 8 that? 9 A. Obviously, it's a very steep learning curve and 10 then you come off the course and then I'm in 11 an office above a Crown Office and, obviously, 12 I've got colleagues -- at that time, it's the 13 South West area, so from the Southampton area, 14 it went down to Devon and Cornwall, I think we 15 even had South Wales, or whatever. 16 So isolated in so much as all my colleagues 17 were spread far and wide, there was no one in 18 the office working with me that I could say 19 "Ooh, how do I do this?" It was a case of pick 20 or whenever I attended a colleague's office or 21 team leader's office, or they come to my office 22 to support me in whatever area. 23 Q. Thank you very much. I'm going to say something 24 on behalf of the stenographer, who hasn't yet 25 complained but I'm going to ask if it's possible 9 1 to speak slightly slower. 2 A. Yes, I apologise. 3 Q. Thank you very much. Your early work, I think, 4 you've said was involved in things like robbery 5 cases; is that correct? 6 A. I can't remember. It fluctuated between either 7 dealing with purely with criminal investigations 8 or purely with physical security and also what 9 we called multi-skilled, where it would be 10 a combination of the both. 11 When I first joined, I think it was the 12 multi-skilled but I can't be certain but, 13 certainly within a year of that, I then moved to 14 a team that purely dealt with effectively 15 post-robbery incidents and advising on 16 procedural security and then went back to 17 an investigation role. 18 But, as I say, during the course of the 19 12 years I was in the role, it fluctuated 20 between whether it was just one particular role 21 or a multi-skilled role. 22 Q. Starting in Eastleigh Crown Office, did the 23 location that you worked and the team in which 24 you worked, change over that period? 25 A. Yes. For a brief period before I moved to the 10 1 new role, roughly nine months. So sometime in 2 2011, I moved to an office in Swindon with two 3 other colleagues, one in the Investigation Team 4 and one I think he was in the Fraud Risk Team. 5 Q. In terms of numbers of Security Managers, did 6 that change in any significant way over the 7 period of time? 8 A. It did. So I can't recall specific numbers but, 9 yeah, like anything in life, you have 10 a restructure and it's basically another name 11 for headcount reduction. So not just for 12 Security, I should imagine it was across the 13 board but, yeah, my recollection of when 14 I joined, the number of Security Managers then, 15 from when I left, had been reduced 16 significantly. 17 Q. So when you started, there was a larger number 18 but they were geographically spread out -- 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. -- and you weren't all in the office at the same 21 time -- 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. -- you were calling people up. By the time you 24 left, there was a smaller number? 25 A. Yeah. 11 1 Q. Were they more centrally located or were they 2 still dispersed? 3 A. I'm not sure about centrally but it was like, 4 um, I think -- I mean, John Scott, who was Head 5 of Security at the time, wanted to move away 6 from people being siloed in lots of different 7 locations to creating hubs. So I think there 8 were five or six hubs. 9 So I think at that time the Head Office was 10 London and then we had our Administration Office 11 in Chesterfield. So I think that held some -- 12 like, Leeds or Manchester, and Swindon because 13 that was where we -- our National Stock Centre 14 was, that was classed as one of, I think, six 15 hubs. So myself and two colleagues worked there 16 for about nine months. 17 Q. You've described in your statement different 18 types of criminal investigations you were 19 involved in: audit shortages, Crown Office 20 losses, suspension and allowance frauds, as 21 examples? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. Can you give us an indication of the proportion 24 of your time spent on those different areas or 25 a percentage or -- 12 1 A. Pretty much impossible to do. What I can say 2 is, from recollection, a lot of my time was 3 spent dealing with pension allowance fraud, 4 initially. The reason that eased off and then 5 evaporated was because the pension allowance 6 books were replaced with something called Post 7 Office Card Account, so instead of being issued 8 with a pension or allowance book, then the 9 customers or benefit claimants would be issued 10 with either a Post Office Card Account or they 11 could use their own bank account. 12 So that's why -- so it might have been up 13 here predominantly dealing with pension 14 allowance fraud -- okay, I can't remember how 15 many Crown Office losses or audit shortages but, 16 obviously, once the pension allowance books 17 ended and we had Post Office Card Accounts, 18 there seemed to be an increase in audit 19 shortages. That's just as best as I can recall. 20 Q. What kind of period? Can you give us an -- 21 A. Ooh, I really don't know when pension allowance 22 books were phased out. Probably -- I could be 23 way off -- 2005/6, something like that? 24 I really don't know. 25 Q. But around that period you experienced more 13 1 cases that involved audit shortages, did you? 2 A. Yeah, because the pension allowance books were 3 no longer, so therefore you couldn't commit 4 fraud in that way any more. 5 Q. Thank you. You've described for us the two-week 6 course. You've also referred to in your 7 statement shadowing and working with more 8 experienced colleagues. 9 A. Mm-hm. 10 Q. Was that something formal, ad hoc, informal? 11 A. Ad hoc, yeah. I can't remember but I think, 12 early days, my team leader would have popped to 13 the office as often as he could, bearing in mind 14 he was based in Taunton, so probably about 15 90 miles away from me. I had a colleague that 16 had recently joined not long before me, so spent 17 a bit of time with him but, again, I think he'd 18 only been in the role himself maybe three/four 19 months before me, so he was obviously new and 20 learning. 21 And another colleague that I recall coming 22 up to help was based in the Plymouth area, in 23 Devon. So no one particularly close. And 24 I remember the colleague in Devon actually 25 coming up whilst I was doing the pre-course 14 1 learning, basically just to show me how to type 2 with more than one finger on a laptop, because 3 no experience of typing, so ... 4 Q. So isolated to some extent, geographically 5 spread out -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- ad hoc shadowing order learning from 8 colleagues -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- but that could include something as simple as 11 learning how to type with two hands? 12 A. Well, even one finger at the time, yeah -- 13 Q. More than one finger -- 14 A. -- and I didn't even -- back in 2000, I wouldn't 15 even have had a computer or laptop. 16 Q. Was there anybody in particular who assisted 17 you? 18 A. I think probably the two that helped most was 19 probably Gary Thomas, who was the nearest to me, 20 I think he had an office in Poole, so about 21 30 miles away, but he was new to role and Geoff 22 Hall was my team manager at the time so Geoff 23 would come up to my office as often as he could 24 or I would go to Geoff's office in Taunton but, 25 like I say, I can't remember how often that was. 15 1 But, again, it's -- I certainly think -- 2 I can vaguely recall two occasions where I sat 3 in on an interview as a witness. 4 Q. Who were your team leaders? 5 A. At the time was Geoff Hall. 6 Q. Geoff Hall? 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. Thank you. Was that throughout the 12-year 9 period? 10 A. Oh, no. Might have been five, six, seven or 11 more. So do you want all the names that I can 12 remember? 13 Q. Absolutely. 14 A. Okay, so Geoff Hall was team leader at one 15 stage. When I moved into Physical Security, 16 that was, I think, Steve Rigby. Then I come 17 back and I think it was Tony Utting, and that 18 was in the South East team. I think it went 19 back to Geoff Hall, I had Dave Posnett, I think 20 I had Ged Harbinson for a time, and ended with 21 Jason Collins, and also, in the middle 22 somewhere, I had Paul Whitaker. They're the 23 ones that I can remember, so quite a few. 24 Q. Thank you. In the two-week residential 25 training, the pre-learning or the shadowing, to 16 1 what extent were you trained on things like the 2 law? 3 A. Well, the ones that I can remember, which I put 4 in the statement, I can remember the Theft Act 5 and I think the reason I remember that -- I seem 6 to recall numbers better that I can recall 7 detail and I seem to recall that the Theft Act 8 was the Theft Act 1968 or 1978, I might have got 9 that wrong but I tend to remember numbers, so 10 it's possible I remember that. 11 Obviously, the Police and Criminal Evidence 12 Act Codes of Practice. I don't recall training 13 on the Act itself, although we might have been, 14 but it was certainly the Codes of Practice we 15 were trained on. There was a fair bit other, 16 like I say, there's a box like that of various 17 modules, maybe a dozen or so booklets. There 18 was quite a bit we did. I think RIPA, 19 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? Have 20 I got that right? I think that was covered. 21 Q. That was during the two-week training? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Were there regular updates, regular training 24 that was provided to you on the job or? 25 A. There possibly was. The only training that 17 1 I can remember after that course is there was -- 2 I think it was called a cognitive interview 3 course and it was supposed to be similar to the 4 way that police conducted interviews. I can't 5 remember when that was but I remember having 6 training on that type of interview. 7 Other than that, there was no, like, 8 refresher training, or whatever, that I can 9 recall. As I say, it was just learning on the 10 job from colleagues and team leader. 11 Q. Thank you. I'm going to ask you now about the 12 role and your day-to-day work. You were 13 involved, you've said, in the interview of 14 suspects and production of various reports. 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. We're going to come to see investigation 17 reports. Are there other types of reports that 18 you were involved in producing? 19 A. Well, obviously, you do the original 20 investigation report and there might be, like, 21 further reports with further enquiries conducted 22 to the Criminal Law Team. There would also be, 23 at the same time of what I think would be 24 referred to as like the legal report, the 25 initial legal report, there'd be a discipline 18 1 report, which would be almost identical to the 2 legal report. 3 Q. In fact, we will see in due course, two 4 different reports that are very similar but 5 slightly different and maybe one is a day after 6 the other, or something along those lines. 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. Can you assist us with why that might be? 9 A. Sorry, what's -- I -- 10 Q. The legal report and the discipline report, for 11 example. Often, they're similar but not the 12 same -- 13 A. Yeah. 14 Q. -- and sometimes they're produced on sequential 15 days, or something like that. 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. Can you assist us with why that might be? 18 A. Yeah, so, from memory, it would be you would 19 type up the legal report and then, basically, it 20 would be the same report that you'd use for the 21 discipline, but you would remove things to -- 22 like all reference to exhibits, because you 23 wouldn't be sending a case file to the 24 discipline decision maker, which generally was 25 the Contract Manager. 19 1 So -- I mean, other than -- I think there 2 might have been a period of time when there was 3 a section at the end for failings in procedure, 4 or whatever. I think at the time that was also 5 in the discipline report but that might have 6 been removed towards the end of my role, from 7 memory. 8 But I think just referencing anything that 9 was in any appendices that would go in the case 10 file, that was removed from the discipline 11 report, I think, and, obviously, at the end of 12 the report, it would say something along the 13 lines of "These papers are now submitted for 14 advice on the sufficiency of evidence to the 15 Criminal Law Team", whereas I think I'd word it 16 to the discipline manager, the case file was 17 "being sent up to the Criminal Law Team for 18 advice". So slightly worded different but 19 I think, from memory, it was removing references 20 to appendices. 21 Q. Thank you. You've described in your statement 22 preparing various things along the way for the 23 criminal prosecution and investigation. At 24 paragraph 34 of your statement you say, as 25 follows, you say: 20 1 "Prior to an interview under caution, and if 2 the suspect had legal representation, I would 3 disclose to the solicitor details of the 4 suspected offence and any documents that I would 5 be producing." 6 We'll come to see those kinds of documents, 7 the interview transcripts, et cetera, in due 8 course, but can you assist me with the 9 qualification there "and if the suspect had 10 legal representation". Would you provide more 11 to somebody if they were legally represented? 12 A. Yes. If they hadn't asked for a solicitor then 13 I don't believe we would have disclosed anything 14 other than during the course of the interview. 15 So no advance disclosure to somebody that wasn't 16 legally represented. 17 Q. Did you have any guidance in that respect or 18 training in that respect? 19 A. No, I think it was just a case of if there was 20 a solicitor present, then they would ask for 21 disclosure, so you would disclose details of the 22 suspected criminal offence and -- you know, and 23 a bit of detail around how the Post Office 24 operates, and then any documentation that you 25 intended to show during the course of the 21 1 interview. 2 Q. So if it was requested, that kind of information 3 would be provided? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. But there wasn't some sort of procedure whereby, 6 in respect of all interviews, for example, 7 a minimum level of documentation was provided? 8 A. No. I can't remember what guidance there was on 9 it but it would be -- before the interview, we 10 would know what documentation that we would 11 likely to be showing during the interview, so 12 that's what we would show to the solicitor and 13 whether they wanted to take copies before we 14 started the interview. So, yeah, that's just 15 how I can recall doing it. I can't remember 16 what guidance governed that or what training 17 governed that but that's what we would have 18 done. 19 Q. Okay. You prepared a case file for the Criminal 20 Law Team. How is it that you would know what to 21 provide the Criminal Law Team with? 22 A. (a) from just being shown my colleagues, team 23 leader, whatever -- so I can't remember the 24 first case file that I would have submitted but 25 I would have been shown, so anything I didn't 22 1 know, I would be asking, whether it was somebody 2 at my office, or I've picked the phone up or 3 I've gone to their office, but it would have 4 been, I think, "Show me what I need to do". 5 Q. Is it the same in respect of a committal file, 6 for example, that you would have learned from 7 the job from colleagues what to include in that 8 kind of a file? 9 A. Yeah, I can -- I can't remember what the first 10 case was from a committal bundle but I do 11 remember, sat in my office -- again, vaguely -- 12 and thinking "What do I do?" So I think or 13 I know that my team leader and colleagues came 14 up and assisted and then, over a period of days, 15 the committal bundle was prepared and produced. 16 So I think once I'd done the first one, you 17 know, I might have needed some more assistance 18 with a further one but once you've done 19 something for the first time, that helps with 20 the next one, which then helps with the next 21 one, next one, and becomes almost like second 22 nature after a period of time, when you've done 23 enough of them. 24 Q. Can I just take you to your statement. It's 25 WITN08300100, and it's page 9. It'll come up on 23 1 screen. So, as part of your preparation for 2 drafting the witness statement, we drew to your 3 attention a number of different policy documents 4 over the years. If we scroll down we can see 5 some of those, so things like Investigations 6 Procedures Policy, et cetera. Then if we look 7 at paragraph 38, that's over the page, you've 8 said this, you said: 9 "I have no recollection of any of the 10 documents listed above. It may be that I had 11 previously seen some, or all of these documents 12 but I have no recollection. I would have 13 thought that policy documents would have been 14 stored on some sort of database, in which 15 someone could access if required." 16 Am I right to understand, from the evidence 17 you've just given and this here, that, really, 18 much of your work was about learning on the job 19 and copying what your team leader and others 20 showed you, rather than actually referring to 21 specific policies? 22 A. I believe so. There may have been some policy 23 shown on the induction training. I may have 24 been referred to them. Initially, I honestly 25 can't recall. I certainly have my recollection 24 1 of when I was up and running, so to speak, in 2 the job thinking "I'd better go and check 3 so-and-so policy", wherever that may be. It 4 really was learning on the job, as you say, from 5 colleagues and team leader. 6 Q. If we look at page 17 of the same statement, 7 paragraph 63, you say at the last sentence of 8 that paragraph, you say: 9 "As best as I can recall, following my 10 induction training, knowledge and experience was 11 gained through shadowing and working with more 12 experienced colleagues, including support from 13 the Team Leader." 14 So, again, is that much of the same, that, 15 in reality, these policies may have been 16 available somewhere, you can't recall -- 17 A. Sure. 18 Q. -- but, in reality, it was learning on the job? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Can we also look, please, at paragraph 102 on 21 page 29. In respect of cases that are 22 committed, you say: 23 "If a case was committed to the Crown Court, 24 then the Security Manager would prepare 25 a committal bundle (copies of evidence, 25 1 statements and unused material) and submit this 2 to the Criminal Law Team, who would then deal 3 with any disclosure to the Defence." 4 You say on the next paragraph, 103: 5 "I have no knowledge or recollection of 6 disclosure requests and as per paragraph 102 7 above, my understanding is that such requests 8 would be dealt with by the Criminal Law Team." 9 So am I to understand that you saw it as the 10 Criminal Law Team's responsibility to make 11 decisions in respect of disclosure and pursuing, 12 for example, reasonable lines of inquiry? 13 A. Well, it's -- I never disclosed anything 14 directly to the defence. It would be to our 15 Criminal Law Team and I just assumed that what 16 I sent them, they sent the defence. 17 Q. But did you see the burden of, for example, 18 pursuing reasonable lines of inquiry, which 19 point away from the guilt of a suspect, did you 20 see that as lying with yourself or lying with 21 the Criminal Law Team, who would then tell you 22 what you needed to do? 23 A. It was the Security Manager's role to conduct 24 all reasonable lines of inquiry and then we 25 would report that to the Criminal Law Team. 26 1 Q. So where you say "submit this to the Criminal 2 Law Team who would then deal with the any 3 disclosure to the defence", what exactly do you 4 mean? 5 A. Well, I assume that, what I sent them, they sent 6 to the defence. 7 Q. So you mean send disclosure to the defence, 8 rather than make decisions with respect to 9 disclosure? 10 A. Well, I would say -- as I say, I'd prepare 11 a committal bundle that goes up to the Criminal 12 Law Team. I didn't then know what they did with 13 that but I just assumed that they would then 14 submit copies of it to the defence team. 15 Q. Thank you. Were there any reviews carried out 16 while you were carrying out this job, key 17 performance indicators or testing in respect of 18 knowledge of Codes of Practice, and those kinds 19 of things? 20 A. Not that I can recall, no. 21 Q. I want to move on to the relationship with the 22 Audit Team. It's paragraph 45 of your witness 23 statement and perhaps that can be brought up on 24 the screen. That is page 12, paragraph 45. You 25 describe two situations where Security Managers 27 1 would attend a post office with auditors, you 2 say either at the same time as the auditor or 3 just after the audit had been completed. 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. Can you assist us with who would determine the 6 time at which a Security Manager would attend 7 with the auditors? 8 A. Okay, so say, to use a pension allowance fraud 9 as an example, there would have been a lot of 10 pre-investigation done, like collating foils, 11 analysing Horizon data, looking at who the 12 suspected perpetrator was. So once you'd done 13 lots of enquiries before and gathered evidence, 14 then the Security Manager would request an audit 15 and probably go in on the day with the auditors. 16 Primarily, you're going there to speak to them 17 about the pension allowance fraud but it was 18 standard practice to also audit the accounts at 19 the same time. So, in those situations, the 20 Security team would almost always go in at the 21 same time as the auditors or shortly afterwards. 22 You know, the auditors would go in and start 23 the audit and we'd come in a little bit later 24 because the postmaster, or whoever, the suspect, 25 would need to be witnessing the audit. So that 28 1 would be an example of when we gone in before. 2 There could have been concerns that there may be 3 issues at a branch, I -- a potential deficit in 4 the accounts. 5 And there might be occasions whereby the 6 Security team would go out at the same time as 7 the Audit Team, or shortly afterwards, or there 8 might be situations where why we would go out 9 later in the day, if the Audit Team had gone in, 10 a case that the Security team weren't aware of, 11 it could have just been a routine audit, and 12 a significant shortfall was identified and, in 13 those situations, it might be that the team 14 leader would assign the case and ask members of 15 the team to go out on that day, or it could well 16 be that an audit shortage was identified and 17 we'd look to conduct an interview sometime 18 later. 19 Q. So there's a variety of different circumstances 20 where a variety of different things might 21 happen? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. Was there any guidance as to when Security 24 Managers should or shouldn't attend with 25 auditors? 29 1 A. Again, I think it's just through learning how 2 these cases were dealt with, as part of the 3 on-the-job training and learning. 4 Q. Thinking about it, about an Auditor turning up 5 to establish whether or not there is something 6 improper going on, do you think it is 7 appropriate for a Security Manager, who isn't in 8 fact carrying out an audit, to be attending at 9 the same time as the Auditor? 10 A. As I say, I think, most of the time in those 11 cases, we turned up maybe couple of hours after 12 the audit had started, so roughly nearing when 13 the audit was being completed. Because, if we 14 went there, we would turn up, show our ID, 15 explain the nature of why we were there, and 16 literally not have any involvement with the 17 postmaster until the audit had been completed. 18 Q. Why were you there, though? If the audit was to 19 be a fair audit, which had reached no 20 conclusions prior to the audit, what would the 21 need be for a Security Manager to attend? 22 A. As I say, a prime example I was given was like 23 pension allowance fraud. Then obviously we 24 would -- that's why we were there, to speak to 25 that person about pension allowance fraud. The 30 1 actual audit in that situation was really a case 2 of, you know, we also need to check the status 3 of the accounts. We weren't necessarily 4 expecting there to be a shortfall in the 5 accounts but they needed to be checked and 6 verified anyhow. 7 Q. So in a pension allowance case was the audit in 8 fact there to gather evidence to support the 9 case, rather than to -- 10 A. No, no, it was just because we needed to check 11 the status of the accounts. So it was -- 12 Q. Can we read into it the fact that a Security 13 Manager attends and wants to speak to somebody, 14 that, in fact, there was an investigation 15 ongoing and that action was likely to be taken? 16 A. Yeah, if we were going out for a pension 17 allowance fraud then, absolutely, we would be 18 looking to interview. It might be that we've 19 identified fraud but, at that stage, we don't 20 know who the perpetrator is or it might be that 21 we've identified fraud and, through accessing 22 Horizon data, we've identified the suspect. 23 Q. How about a shortfall in accounts case? So what 24 would be the purpose be of a Security Manager 25 attending with the auditors where a shortfall 31 1 has been reported and the auditors are looking 2 into that? 3 A. As I say, I'm not sure how often that happened 4 when there was -- because, unless there was 5 something that had been brought to our 6 attention, that there were concerns about 7 a branch -- and I can't recall it happening very 8 often -- it was purely reactionary. 9 So the Audit Team would have gone in and 10 done their audit, whether it was a routine audit 11 or whether another department had asked for it 12 say, for instance, some money had been asked to 13 be returned and it wasn't or less than, that may 14 have generated an audit. But the Security team 15 might not necessarily have been told at that 16 stage, so we might have gone in afterwards. 17 Q. Absolutely. 18 A. I'm just -- 19 Q. But when you did go in, if you did go in at the 20 same time, if you attended at the same time as 21 the Auditors in a shortfall case, what could 22 have been the reason for that? 23 A. I'm just trying to remember a case where I did 24 go in at the same time as the Auditors for 25 a shortfall case. I can't recall. 32 1 Q. Can you see downsides to that? 2 A. Sorry? 3 Q. Can you see any downsides or disadvantage in 4 that happening? 5 A. I don't think I can because we certainly would 6 have gone out whilst an audit was being 7 conducted for pension allowance fraud and 8 whether it was pension allowance -- either way, 9 the accounts were going to be audited in the 10 same manner, so, using that as an example, I -- 11 I'm -- I don't -- or I certainly can't recall 12 any issue with the Security Managers going out 13 at the same time because, if there was, then we 14 wouldn't have done it. 15 If we'd have known that there was an issue 16 or somebody else more senior said, "Why are you 17 doing that?", that was just the process and the 18 guidance that we were given -- 19 Q. When you say "guidance", not written guidance, 20 just -- 21 A. Just by learning, yeah, from, you know, like 22 learning how to do the job. 23 Q. Can you see, for example, how it may have been 24 intimidating to a subpostmaster to have 25 an Auditor and a Security Manager attend? 33 1 A. Oh, absolutely. So whenever -- whether there's 2 an audit going on or not, say, for instance, if 3 you go to a Crown Office, I don't doubt for one 4 minute it was intimidating when the Security 5 team turned up, whether you'd done anything 6 wrong or not. In my opinion, we were just 7 normal people that had just come from counter 8 clerks, Branch Managers but, for somebody else, 9 they didn't know who we were, and they were -- 10 I think there was a perception of "Oh god, it's 11 the Security team turned up", or whatever. 12 So yeah, I'm absolutely certain that would 13 have been intimidating and, likewise, if there's 14 an audit going on as well, you've been audited 15 and then the Security turned up, so yeah, I'm 16 sure that was potentially intimidating for 17 somebody. 18 Q. Moving on to the interview, using an audit 19 shortage case as an example, you've said that, 20 if it was decided there needed to be 21 an interview, the suspect would be cautioned and 22 their legal rights would be explained. We'll 23 come and have a look at the records of 24 interview. 25 A. Okay. 34 1 Q. I think you've described a CS001 form, later 2 a GS001 form? 3 A. Yeah, as I say, I can remember numbers. 4 Q. Can you assist us with what those forms are at 5 all? 6 A. Yeah, the CS001 or GS001 was the legal rights 7 form. The 003 was the Post Office Friend form 8 and I think that was an 005, which was a search 9 record. 10 Q. Is that, essentially, a tick box to confirm to 11 yourself that you had informed, for example, the 12 suspect of their rights? 13 A. Not so much a tick box. I mean to say, there'd 14 be quite a bit of text on the form that explains 15 the legal rights, things like "You're not under 16 arrest, you're free to leave at any time, you 17 can ask for a solicitor now. You can change 18 your mind, if you don't want a solicitor now, 19 you can have one later on". 20 So there's quite a lot of detail and there 21 were questions to be read out to the person 22 being interviewed, and they would be asked to 23 sign and date against their answer, ie "Do you 24 require a solicitor at this time?" Yes, "Sign 25 against that line"; no, "Sign against that 35 1 line", and then you say, "You can change your 2 mind at any time". 3 And I think it mentioned also the fact that 4 the interview was conducted in accordance with 5 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes 6 of Practice and, from memory, we used to have 7 a copy of that booklet, usually just popped it 8 on top of the tape machine, if anyone wished to 9 refer to that during the course of the 10 interview. 11 Q. You've said in your statement that for voluntary 12 interviews, the suspect could have a Post Office 13 Friend present? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can I just clarify, were all of the interviews 16 that you carried out voluntary interviews or did 17 you see them as voluntary interviews? 18 A. No, because there'd be times when the police 19 were asked to assist and they'd be arrested. 20 Q. Once they'd been arrested, it was not 21 a voluntary interview but you, the Post Office, 22 were still carrying out those interviews or -- 23 A. Yes, we would still conduct the interview and 24 obviously the same legal rights would apply but, 25 in my experience, custody sergeant wouldn't 36 1 permit a Post Office Friend, only a solicitor, 2 to attend. 3 Q. Do you know why that was? 4 A. No idea. 5 Q. In terms of the Post Office Friend, we've seen 6 in some places somebody from the National 7 Federation of SubPostmasters would attend? 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. Would there be other Federations and unions who 10 would attend and other people? 11 A. It could be anyone who worked for the business 12 that wasn't directly involved in the inquiry. 13 So for instance, it couldn't be a member of 14 staff, who could potentially, either at that 15 time or subsequently, become a witness or 16 suspect themselves. Sometimes -- I think 17 sometimes we might have allowed a family member, 18 obviously they didn't work for the Post Office, 19 but we may have allowed that. 20 But, typically, it was somebody, maybe from 21 another office, another postmaster, or if it was 22 a Crown Office, somebody from another Crown 23 Office, but, typically, they had a friend, it 24 usually was somebody from the National 25 Federation of SubPostmasters, from memory. 37 1 Q. In terms of a search of the premises, you had 2 a power to conduct searches of premises, homes 3 and vehicles, you've said in your statement? 4 A. Correct, on a voluntary basis. 5 Q. Absolutely. So what would happen if 6 a subpostmaster didn't allow you to? Did you 7 have any powers in that respect or? 8 A. No, if they didn't agree to it and didn't sign 9 the form to agree to it, we wouldn't do it and, 10 again, it would be made clear on the form that 11 they could ask for the search to stop at any 12 time. 13 Q. At paragraph 55 of your witness statement you 14 say: 15 "In some cases the police were asked to 16 assist, particularly for certain cases where 17 searches were deemed essential to obtain and 18 preserve evidence. In those situations, any 19 suspect would be arrested and searches conducted 20 by the police under the relevant sections of the 21 Police and Criminal Evidence Act." 22 Are we to read into that that the police 23 searches were carried out under the Police and 24 Criminal Evidence Act -- 25 A. Yeah. 38 1 Q. -- but your searches weren't governed by those 2 codes? 3 A. Yeah, we still adhered to the codes but it would 4 be on a voluntary basis. 5 Q. We're going to now come to the decision to 6 prosecute. There comes a time after all of 7 those steps where that decision is taken. 8 You've said in your statement at paragraph 58 9 that the decision to prosecute would be made by 10 a Senior Security Manager. 11 A. Yes, as far as I can recall, yes. 12 Q. Perhaps we can go to that, actually. It's 13 page 15 of the witness statement. That's 14 WITN08300100. Thank you. 15 At the bottom of the page there, we have 16 paragraph 58 and you say in the middle there: 17 "From my recollection, the decision to 18 prosecute would be made by a Senior Security 19 Manager, and this was probably the Head of the 20 Security Fraud Team." 21 If we go over the page, paragraph 59 and 22 60 -- I'm just going to read those two 23 paragraphs -- you say there: 24 "I have no knowledge or recollection as to 25 what test was applied by those making 39 1 prosecution and charging decisions, or what 2 factors were considered at the evidential and 3 the public interest stage? 4 "I am unaware as to what advice, legal or 5 otherwise, was provided to those making 6 decisions about whether to prosecute and what 7 charges to bring, other than that I believe that 8 they would have seen the case file, or at least, 9 the advice from the Criminal Law Team when 10 considering their decision." 11 Are we to read into that that you accept 12 that you weren't qualified to make those kinds 13 of important decisions? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is it in some way an acceptance that you didn't 16 have the training or qualifications to take 17 a decision, which was potentially ultimately 18 seeing somebody go to prison? 19 A. Yeah, we could ask the Criminal Law Team and 20 say, "You may want to consider such and such 21 charge", but, ultimately, the Criminal Law Team 22 would advise on charging because they were the 23 legal experts and then the Senior Security 24 Manager would be the ones who make the decision 25 as to whether we prosecuted or not. 40 1 Q. You were Security Manager for 12 years? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Should we in any way be surprised that you're 4 not aware of the test that was applied by those 5 making the decision or what it was that they 6 considered at those stages? 7 A. I mean to say, (a) it wasn't me making that 8 decision; (b) I may have been aware but 9 I certainly have no recollection of it today. 10 Q. Having worked in that role for quite 11 a significant period of time, is it just that 12 somebody at your level didn't get involved in 13 those kinds of things or what are we to read 14 into the fact that you don't have any 15 recollection as to the test to be applied? 16 A. To be honest, I'm not even sure I recall there 17 being a test. It was like Criminal Law Team 18 advised on charges and then the Senior Security 19 Manager would look at everything, weigh it all 20 up and then they would make the decision. But 21 I don't know what test there was or what 22 guidance or training they had to make that 23 decision. Because it wasn't something that 24 I ever did. 25 Q. I'm going to look at an investigation report as 41 1 an example. It's a case study that we're going 2 to come back to. Could we look at POL00046706, 3 please. This is the investigation report in the 4 case of Lynette Hutchings. I'm going to take 5 you to that particular case in detail later this 6 morning or early afternoon but I just want to 7 look at it as an example of an investigation 8 report? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So this is a report I think that you completed, 11 if we look at the final page. At the bottom of 12 that page it has your name there, 5 May 2011. 13 If we go back to the first page, please, we 14 see there "Designated Prosecution Authority: 15 Dave Pardoe, Senior Security Manager -- 16 Operations". So when you say the Senior 17 Security Manager made the decision, is that what 18 we see there in terms of Dave Pardoe being named 19 as the prosecution authority? 20 A. Yes, it would be -- the designated prosecution 21 authority would make the decision as to whether 22 we prosecute or not. 23 Q. Who would you prepare this form for? 24 A. It says "Investigation, Legal", so that would be 25 for the Criminal Law Team. 42 1 Q. Thank you. I'm just going to take you through 2 a few extracts from this report. Could we look 3 about halfway down the first page, the paragraph 4 starting "On Wednesday", thank you. It says: 5 "... Field Support Advisor attended Rowlands 6 Castle SPOB with his colleague ... in order to 7 verify the cash on hand at the branch. 8 Mrs Hutchings was present and when they 9 identified a deficit in the accounts of around 10 [£9,000, nearly £10,000]." 11 Can we scroll down to page 4, the bottom of 12 page 4. We have there it says: 13 "On Friday, 15 April ... I was contacted by 14 Issy Hogg, solicitor who was representing 15 Ms Hutchings. It was agreed that I would 16 conduct a voluntary interview at Eastleigh Post 17 Office ..." 18 Then over the page it summarises some of the 19 interview. It was a prepared statement and it 20 says there: 21 "From the prepared statement it can be seen 22 that Mrs Hutchings believed she migrated to 23 Horizon Online in May/June 2010, although 24 I established just prior to the commencement of 25 the interview that the migration date was 5 July 43 1 2010. It states that at the time of the 2 migration, all accounts balanced. It then goes 3 on to suggest that problems arose following the 4 migration to Horizon Online. It states that 5 only her and her husband worked in the Post 6 Office and at no stage have they stolen any 7 money. It states that they only served against 8 their own usernames and did not know each others 9 Horizon passwords. 10 "It states that Mrs Hutchings altered cash 11 declarations but not in order to create a gain 12 for herself or a loss to the Post Office and 13 that she felt the balances would be corrected 14 through transaction corrections. She stated 15 that she only altered the cash declarations in 16 order to continue to operate the Post Office. 17 "The prepared statement refers to some 18 difficulties that Mrs Hutchings apparently 19 encountered. These related to unexplained stock 20 discrepancies, problems with Horizon equipment 21 and that the helpline was difficult to access 22 and unreliable." 23 So front and centre there in her defence, in 24 the statement, prepared statement, was 25 a complaint about the Horizon system. If we 44 1 move on to page 6, please, and about three 2 quarters of the way down, I'm just going to read 3 to you this paragraph. It says: 4 "The evidence, based on my analysis of the 5 inch ONCH schedule and the apparent inflation of 6 £50 notes when completing a Branch Trading 7 Statement would appear to support the fact that 8 Mrs Hutchings has committed fraud, having 9 dishonestly made false representations in the 10 accounts namely the Branch Trading Statements 11 for Rowlands Castle sub post office for the 12 period between 13 January 2010 and 30 March 2011 13 in the sum of £10,814.83 when she had thereby 14 intended to make a gain for herself or another 15 or to expose Post Office Limited to a risk of 16 loss, which is contrary to Section 1 of the 17 Fraud Act 2006." 18 Just pausing there, are those your words, 19 your analysis? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Then if we go over the page to page 7, please. 22 We have in bold, I think this may be your 23 conclusion or your summary at the end: 24 "During the course of this investigation 25 I have not identified any failings in security 45 1 procedures other than the fact, that for 2 whatever reason, as stated in her prepared 3 statement, Mrs Hutchings admits to altering her 4 cash declarations. The audit was instigated by 5 the Cash Management Team following the fact that 6 she only returned £14,000 when £30,000 was 7 requested. Although the fraud appears to have 8 been going on for some time, because of the 9 relative low amounts being inflated this branch 10 wouldn't necessarily have appeared very high up 11 in the Cash Management risk matrix." 12 Then we have the sentence that you referred 13 to earlier at the end, I think it's a standard 14 form of words, effectively: 15 "These papers are now forwarded to you for 16 sight and advice on the sufficiency of the 17 evidence as to whether criminal charges are 18 brought ..." 19 So you're sending it there to the lawyers 20 for their advice on the sufficiency of evidence. 21 Some of the words that are used in this 22 report -- I mean, the page before that I took 23 you to about the Fraud Act and you go through 24 the various elements of fraud and how they're 25 made out -- they do sound very much like you 46 1 were involved in the decision-making process; do 2 you accept that? 3 A. No, not at all. I think around that time we 4 were asked put in our report -- and, again, this 5 is only from recollection -- what offences we 6 found had been committed and it did seem strange 7 because I felt that was the role of the Criminal 8 Law Team. So if you look back at earlier 9 investigations and certainly at the reports, you 10 will get that standard bit at the end. It was 11 only -- I can only recall it sort of like 12 nearing the end when I was in the Security team 13 or for a period, that we were asked to -- not 14 stipulate but suggest what offence may have been 15 committed, in more detail than other than just 16 saying "These case papers are submitted for your 17 advice on the evidence". 18 So, obviously, I would have been -- there 19 must have been something, I'm not a lawyer, 20 there must have been something that directed me 21 to that, so I would have just pretty much copied 22 that word for word from the relevant section I'd 23 been directed to from the Fraud Act. 24 Q. So if we turn to page 6 and the penultimate 25 paragraph, is this the paragraph you mean? 47 1 Where you go through effectively some elements 2 from section 1 of the Fraud Act, and you say: 3 "... based on my analysis ... would appear 4 to support the fact that Mrs Hutchings has 5 committed fraud ..." 6 A. Yes, that wasn't typical but, again, when -- 7 I don't remember the case at all but, when I'm 8 reading through this, I seem to have a vague 9 recollection that round about that time we would 10 have been asked to, you know, suggest what 11 offence we believe had been committed, which 12 seemed a bit odd because that was the Criminal 13 Law Team's role. There would have been no other 14 reason for me to have gone and found this detail 15 from the Fraud Act, unless I'd been instructed 16 to do so. It would have been the standard 17 "Paper submitted, please advise on sufficiency 18 of evidence". 19 Q. I mean, as you say, you hadn't received any real 20 training in criminal law? 21 A. No, we would obviously have been made aware of 22 the Fraud Act and, obviously, either sent a copy 23 of it or directed to a copy of it, and I dare 24 say I read it at the time, but I'm not a lawyer, 25 so I wouldn't have had a knowledge of it. So 48 1 I'm sure there was some direction at that time 2 for a -- certainly a brief period of time, where 3 we were being asked to suggest what offence had 4 been committed. 5 Q. I mean, you had a two-week residential course 6 plus some ad hoc shadowing, for example? 7 A. Yes, obviously, by that time, I've got 11 years' 8 experience under my belt. 9 Q. Did you feel yourself qualified to analyse 10 something and come to a decision in respect of 11 Mrs Hutchings having committed fraud? 12 A. I think I would be qualified to suggest that 13 what had happened appeared to be fraud but the 14 detail was put down there as to what part of the 15 Act it related to, I would have had to have been 16 directed to that. But I think I can safely say, 17 yes, in my analysis, it appears that fraud has 18 been committed. Previously, before the Fraud 19 Act was introduced, I would have probably said 20 it would appear that false accounting had been 21 conducted. 22 Q. Going back to your witness statement where you 23 say, at paragraph 58: 24 "From my recollection the decision to 25 prosecute would be made by a Senior Security 49 1 Manager and this was probably the head of the 2 Security Fraud Team." 3 It looks very much -- at least in this 4 period and you've been very clear to say it was 5 just in this period -- that you are doing more 6 than just providing a report to the Criminal Law 7 Team. You are a Security Manager who is 8 carrying out quasi-legal analysis there? 9 A. We always conduct analysis, so we would analyse 10 the evidence that we've identified. 11 Q. You say it's particular to this period in time. 12 What period in time was it that you were asked 13 to -- 14 A. I honestly can't remember but it always was, as 15 I said, "Paper submitted, please advise on 16 sufficiency of evidence", but it's only through 17 reading through this report that I received as 18 part of the Inquiry -- because I looked at it 19 and thought "Why on earth am I putting that in 20 there?" and I was, if you like, racking my 21 brains and I seem to recall that, around about 22 that time, we were asked to suggest a charge. 23 That's my recollection, no doubt there's 24 other reports that would have been submitted 25 around that time, so, if no one else is doing 50 1 that, I don't know where I got it from, but 2 you'd be able to see from other reports around 3 about that time whether fellow Security Managers 4 were doing something similar. 5 Q. So you say around that time, that's May 2011: do 6 you mean in May 2011; do you mean in 2011; do 7 you mean in -- 8 A. I honestly can't remember. As I say, until 9 I read the report I -- well, I can't remember 10 the case at all. 11 Q. Would you expect it to be quite isolated, that 12 kind of example, where you're providing that 13 kind of analysis? 14 A. I don't think it was isolated. Obviously, 15 things chop and change over a period of time 16 and, at that time, I think there was 17 a direction -- how far before I wrote this 18 report that was the direction, how long 19 afterwards that was direction, I don't know. 20 Whether that was still in force when I left in 21 2012 and for how long that stayed there, 22 I honestly don't know. 23 But it was certainly something, through my 24 main recollection, for the bulk of the time 25 I was a Security Manager, I don't recall doing 51 1 anything other than "Here's the papers, please 2 advise." 3 Q. So is it your evidence that, in terms of 4 decision to proceed or not proceed, that wasn't 5 for you? 6 A. No, I'm just suggesting what offence may have 7 been committed. So in terms of saying it 8 appears that they've committed fraud, we were 9 instructed to (unclear) the fraud because 10 obviously there's -- the Fraud Act, like any 11 piece of legislation, can be a fairly big 12 document, so it's basically being asked what 13 Section of the Fraud Act it relates to. But, 14 again, that should really be for the Criminal 15 Law Team. 16 Q. You say you were instructed. Who were you 17 instructed by? 18 A. I honestly don't know. 19 Q. Would it have been somebody in the Security 20 team, somebody in the Criminal Law Team? 21 A. Oh, absolutely. It would have been a direction 22 from within the Security team, yeah. 23 Q. In 2011, who was the Head of the Security Team? 24 A. Well, I don't know if the direction would have 25 come from the Head but the Head of the Security 52 1 Team in 2011 would have been John Scott. 2 Q. You say you don't think it necessarily would 3 have come from the Head? 4 A. Well, no, John Scott was the overall Head of 5 Security. Then you would have, I think at that 6 time, based on that report, Dave Pardoe was the 7 Head of the Fraud strand. But we also had other 8 departments. We also had Financial 9 Investigation Team as well. There was Casework 10 Team, so -- I mean to say, we had Fraud Risk 11 Team, Crime Risk Team, so there was lots of 12 different functions within the Security Team, 13 so -- 14 Q. That kind of an instruction to analyse something 15 in a quasi-legal kind of analysis, where would 16 that have come from? 17 A. No, I don't think the instruction was to 18 analyse. That's something we would always do. 19 I think the instruction, from recollection, was 20 to expand on what offence we felt had been 21 committed. 22 Q. But you can't remember where that instruction 23 came from? 24 A. No, and I'm sure it was fairly recent, from -- 25 recent in terms of towards the end of my tenure 53 1 as a Security Manager. 2 Q. So 2011? 2010? What is recent? I'm just 3 trying to understand? 4 A. I don't want to give you a year because 5 I honestly don't know. 6 Q. Can you see how that kind of analysis might have 7 carried weight with those who were making the 8 ultimate decision? 9 A. But, as I say, the analysis is the analysis. 10 Whether I put the bit in about the specific part 11 of the Fraud Act, the analysis -- we were always 12 going to do an analysis so, basically, I'm -- 13 the ONCH, which stands for Overnight Cash 14 Holdings, I'm looking at the actual declarations 15 being made, so I'm analysing that. Whether it's 16 in the same paragraph as making reference to 17 a particular piece of the Fraud Act, the 18 Security Managers are always going to conduct 19 analysis of the evidence. 20 Q. So you were analysing the evidence but am I 21 right to say that you didn't give the 22 instruction as to whether to proceed or not to 23 proceed? 24 A. No, as I say, that would be for the prosecution 25 decision authority. 54 1 Q. Was that very clear, that delineation? 2 A. Sorry, say again? 3 Q. Was that delineation very clear? 4 A. Yes, yes, absolutely. I mean to say, it's on 5 the actual offender report for every -- for the 6 entirety that I was a Security Manager. 7 I believe that it was a prosecution decision 8 authority, so you actually had to name who that 9 person was. 10 Q. Can we look at UKGI00014355, please. This is 11 a different case. This the case of Wendy 12 Buffrey. We're now May 2010, so the previous 13 year. Can we have a look at the final page, 14 please. Page 3., thank you. So this is 15 a document that you have written. Is this is 16 an investigation report or -- this is a response 17 to a memo, I think, if we look at -- 18 A. Can you scroll back to the top, please? 19 Q. Absolutely. 20 A. Yeah, so this will be a "further to" report. 21 Q. A "further to" report. So you'd draft 22 an investigation report, there'd be some 23 questions from the Criminal Law Team, and then 24 you'd write what's referred to as a further to 25 report? 55 1 A. Yeah, this is me responding to the memo they 2 sent following my initial report. 3 Q. So it says there: 4 "Further to your memo dated 23 April 2010, 5 I now make the following points: 6 "1) I have discussed the proposal of solely 7 accepting a plea to fraud. Of £5,000 with 8 Mr Paul Southin, Financial Investigator and we 9 are both in agreement that this is unacceptable. 10 Our joint opinion is that the fraud charge 11 should remain at [£26,000], which may or may not 12 include a separate further charge for the £5,000 13 remittance deficit." 14 Then you respond to various things that are 15 said in the defence statement. That looks very 16 much like you are having a view as to whether to 17 proceed or not to proceed and playing a part in 18 that decision process? 19 A. I'm relaying the opinion of myself and Paul 20 Southin, who was the Financial Investigator. 21 Q. Yes. But I mean that's doing very much the kind 22 of thing that you said you didn't do, isn't it? 23 If we scroll up: 24 "... we are both in agreement that accepting 25 a [certain plea] is unacceptable." 56 1 Isn't that getting involved in the 2 decision-making process? 3 A. It's giving an opinion. I mean to say, there's 4 another case I'd been sent, whereby I'm asked 5 for my opinion by counsel and I say "I agree 6 with counsel but, ultimately, Dave Pardoe would 7 need to make the decision on the basis of the 8 plea". 9 Q. So in this case, would it have definitely gone 10 to Dave Pardoe? 11 A. Every decision would have to be made by Dave 12 Pardoe, is my understanding, yeah -- well, 13 whoever was the prosecution decision maker. In 14 this respect, on -- I don't know, was it -- have 15 we charged -- we must have charged at this date, 16 so, yeah, in this case Dave Pardoe would have 17 made the decision and it looks like myself and 18 Paul Southin are responding and giving our 19 opinion on the 5,000. But, ultimately, that 20 would be, yeah, for the Criminal Law Team, and 21 whether it needed to go back to the prosecution 22 decision authority, I don't know. 23 Q. Can you see how the Security Manager saying that 24 here's an agreement with the Financial 25 Investigator that a certain plea is unacceptable 57 1 might well be seen as a decision as to whether 2 to accept that plea or not? 3 A. Yes. Having read this, again, then, yes, 4 I should be giving opinion, but I shouldn't be 5 doing anything that affects a decision on the 6 basis of whether pleas are accepted. That is 7 for the Criminal Law Team, counsel, or the 8 Senior Security Manager. 9 Whether at that stage the Financial 10 Investigator had sufficient authority, I don't 11 know but, clearly, we both, having spoken to 12 Paul Southin, I'm reporting that we're -- or our 13 opinion is that we shouldn't be accepting that 14 5,000. And, yeah, without going back in time, 15 and knowing whether what conversations were had 16 or contact with Dave Pardoe, just on that basis, 17 then, yes, it should have gone back to Dave 18 Pardoe to say, "Do you agree?" So I accept 19 that, if that wasn't done. 20 Q. So reflecting on that particular case, is it 21 your evidence that that was inappropriate? 22 A. Sorry, that was? 23 Q. Inappropriate? 24 A. Well, again, it's difficult to know, of all the 25 conversations that may or may not have been had 58 1 and going back in that time, but certainly I'm 2 giving my opinion and that of Paul Southin that 3 we don't believe that the 5,000 should be 4 accepted. 5 But I agree that if -- that those decisions 6 ultimately should be made by the Prosecution 7 Decision Authority and, if I hadn't gone to 8 whoever that was, I think Dave Pardoe -- I don't 9 know whether it was Dave Pardoe, then, yes, 10 I hold my hands up, I should have done that but 11 I don't know whether I did or didn't. 12 Q. If we look at POL00112329, that's actually the 13 memo that this was sent in response to. So the 14 memo of the 23 April 2010. Thank you. It's 15 POL00112329. 16 Sorry, it's quite a large document so it'll 17 take a few moments. Thank you. It's pages 50 18 and 51. This is just a bundle of documents, so 19 we can ignore the first page. 20 Thank you. That's page 50. So this is the 21 original memo. It comes from Principal Lawyer 22 of the Criminal Law Division, it's addressed to 23 Post Office Security and you're the only named 24 individual on this particular memo. If we 25 scroll down to over the page, she says, as 59 1 follows: 2 "Could you form any consider the matter with 3 a view to whether or not a plea to the £5,000 is 4 sufficient and whether the trial should proceed. 5 "Copies of the Defence Statement and Basis 6 of Plea are enclosed. On the basis that the 7 case is to proceed, I would be grateful if you 8 could consider the defence case statement and 9 address any issues as to further disclosure." 10 Was she wrong to ask you to formally 11 consider the matter with a view to whether or 12 not to accept the plea? Should that have been 13 sent directly to the Senior -- 14 A. I'm not sure she was asking me. It was sent to 15 the generic Post Office Security address. 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. So they may well then have gone to the 18 Prosecution Decision Authority, I don't know. 19 Q. Well, we see the response to that memo which 20 is -- 21 A. Yeah, I've responded to it, yes, I see that. 22 Q. Yes. Was there any process to ensure that those 23 kinds of memos were seen by the Senior Security 24 Manager? 25 A. Well, as I say, it was sent to, as I say, the 60 1 generic Post Office Security address, so that 2 would be a team of people that would -- I don't 3 know if it was like an admin function or 4 a support function. So whether that then got 5 relayed to the Prosecution Decision Authority, 6 I don't know. But if there's no correspondence 7 from them, then I can only assume not and 8 they've just taken my opinion. So, because 9 I was copied in, I've obviously looked at that 10 and seen that they are asking me for my opinion. 11 Q. Is this, again, in your opinion, another rare 12 example where you are giving or effectively 13 giving a decision in respect of prosecution or 14 seem to be? 15 A. No, I -- based on what we've seen, myself and 16 Paul Southin have collectively given an opinion 17 that we shouldn't just be accepting the £5,000. 18 Whether anyone else was asked that as well, 19 other than obviously the email going to the 20 generic team, that address, I don't know. But 21 as I say, I can't recall a case and I can't 22 recall others, other than, as I said, I gave 23 an example of where there was another case that 24 was in the various bundles sent to me, whereby 25 I'd give an opinion, and said this decision had 61 1 to be made by Dave Pardoe, but here I haven't 2 done. So it looks like, yeah, I haven't gone to 3 Dave Pardoe and I should have done. 4 Q. Is that rare, common, exceptional? 5 A. It's hard to say, Mr Blake, because I don't 6 remember really any of these cases, so I can 7 only go on the cases that I've been supplied 8 with. 9 Q. But, in terms of the 12-year period in which you 10 were a Security Manager, was it quite routine 11 for you to offer those kinds of comments? 12 A. I don't think so, no. I mean to say, once 13 charges had been formulated or advised upon by 14 the Criminal Law Team, and then the decision to 15 prosecute had been agreed or authorised, I'm not 16 sure there was much variation in charges other 17 than it may well be that we've gone with a theft 18 charge and then the defence offer pleas to false 19 accounting, and they may have been accepted. 20 Q. I'm going to look at one more document before we 21 break for our mid-morning break and it's 22 POL00010122, please. 23 This is an altogether different case, 24 Mrs Gill, July 2010. This is correspondence 25 from yourself to Mr Jarnail Singh, senior 62 1 lawyer. It's another "Further to" memo. 2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. So did you begin all your further to memos with 4 the words "Further to"; is that right? 5 A. (The witness laughed) 6 Q. Would you call this one of your further to 7 memos? 8 A. Yes, this is -- as it suggests: Dave sent me 9 a memo and I'm responding to their memo and I've 10 worded it "Further to". 11 Q. If we could go halfway down the page, the fourth 12 paragraph, you say in this case: 13 "There does appear to be some difficulty in 14 proving at this stage that Mrs Gill is the 15 person who has stolen the money, although my 16 belief is that she has. The difficulty being 17 her 'no comment' response to the majority of 18 questions put to her at interview and the 19 possible implication that her now deceased 20 husband may have been responsible. 21 "Whether or not Mrs Gill has stolen the 22 money herself, it would seem apparent that she 23 played a key role in concealing the deficit in 24 this branch namely by not processing Lottery 25 transactions and not amending her scratchcard on 63 1 hand figures ..." 2 Then you say this, if we could scroll down: 3 "In view of the above you may feel that 4 fraud charges covering 6 November 2008 (date 5 Mrs Gill was previously reinstated) to 19 August 6 2009 (date of audit) are more fitting than theft 7 charges." 8 Then you say: 9 "You may feel it's more appropriate to 10 formulate", et cetera. 11 The "You may feel" formulation, that sounds, 12 again, very much like it is in effect 13 an instruction to the lawyer as to how you 14 consider the case should be charged. 15 A. It's not an instruction. I'm just saying that, 16 based on the evidence, it may be that they feel 17 that that's a more appropriate charge. Again, 18 I'm just giving my opinion, which is what we 19 were asked to do in the legal report. 20 Q. Did you feel sufficiently qualified to make that 21 call? 22 A. As I said, I'm not a lawyer but, back then, 23 I would have had, like, a working understanding 24 of various forms of legislation. Today, 25 I really can't answer. 64 1 Q. Was there some degree of delegation or a lack of 2 supervision coming from the Senior Security 3 Manager that allowed or perhaps required you to 4 get more involved than possibly your role should 5 have entailed? 6 A. I don't think so, because the Senior Security 7 Manager would have read the report when making 8 the decision as to whether we prosecute or not 9 and I wouldn't have thought that the way I'm 10 constructing a report and a case file would have 11 been much different, if any, to Security 12 Managers around the country. If there was, 13 then, no doubt, that would have been relayed 14 back to me. 15 Q. Do you recall any instances, where you've used 16 formulations like "You may feel that X offence 17 has been committed", are there any circumstances 18 you can recall where a charge was not brought? 19 A. A charge was not brought? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. I'm sure there would have been but I can't 22 recall any specific cases. Again, I can't 23 recall any specific cases but there may have 24 been cases where we submitted a report to the 25 Legal Team, where we got evidence of the 65 1 criminal offence but we can't pinpoint who it 2 was and, if you can't identify who -- or there's 3 insufficient evidence as to who the perpetrator 4 is, then I think in those situations it will be 5 no further action taken. 6 Q. So is it your evidence that, in certain 7 investigation reports, for example, you might 8 recommend no further action is taken? 9 A. No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't recommend no further 10 action, I don't believe. 11 Q. Are there investigation reports that you 12 completed that didn't suggest further action? 13 A. Say that again, please? 14 Q. Were all of your investigation reports aimed, 15 effectively, at building the case or were there 16 some cases where, in your investigation report, 17 you said, "I don't think criminal charges should 18 be brought"? 19 A. I am sure -- like I say, there was a number of 20 cases we would deal with, I'm going to say it 21 could be something like missing vouchers, or 22 whatever, so there could be something that's 23 gone up to our admin department and they've 24 opened it up and things are missing and you 25 might go there and you might find the vouchers, 66 1 or whatever, at the branch. 2 You'd still write it up but not to the 3 Criminal Law Team. You'd just write it up to 4 the Casework Team saying "There's no evidence of 5 criminality", something like that. But for 6 significant audit shortages or pension allowance 7 fraud, then I think they would probably all go 8 up to the Criminal Law Team but they may advise 9 no further action, but I can't recall any 10 specific ones, no. 11 Q. If we, for example, were to access all of the 12 investigation reports that you did over the 13 12-year period that went to the Criminal Law 14 Team, would we ever find one that said, "I don't 15 think there's sufficient evidence to take this 16 matter forward"? 17 A. Quite possibly. I honestly don't know. 18 Q. Wouldn't that be something that you might 19 remember? 20 A. Not necessarily, no. I'm going to say that 21 these are cases that we did prosecute and 22 I can't remember. 23 MR BLAKE: Yes. 24 Sir, thank you very much. That's probably 25 an appropriate time for a mid-morning break. 67 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. What time shall we 2 resume. 3 MR BLAKE: At 11.35? 4 SIR BRIAN LANGSTAFF: Yes, fine. 5 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 6 (11.22 am) 7 (A short break) 8 (11.35 am) 9 MR BLAKE: Thank you, Mr Brander. I'm going to move 10 on to a different topic, and that is -- 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Before you start, can I just say 12 that I'm due to take delivery of a new work 13 computer at around about 12.45. So if 14 I disappear, literally for a few seconds from 15 the screen, that's what's happening, all right? 16 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much, sir. 17 ARQ data and bugs, errors and defects. Can 18 you assist us with what you recall, insofar as 19 the process is concerned for obtaining ARQ data 20 from Fujitsu? 21 A. Yes, so whether there was a form fill in, I'm 22 not sure, or whether it was just an email, but 23 it'll go up to, like, an admin department. It 24 might have been Casework Management Team at the 25 time. 68 1 Looking at the documentation that I've been 2 sent, it looked like it subsequently then went 3 to the Crime Risk Team but, ultimately, the 4 request would go in from the Security Manager to 5 an admin function within Security, who would 6 then submit the request to Fujitsu. 7 Q. Do you recall any limitations on being able to 8 obtain that data, whether it would be number of 9 reports, cost of reports, or anything along 10 those lines? 11 A. Yeah, absolutely. I believe an ARQ request 12 covered a month's worth of data. So, obviously, 13 one request, you know, would be one month to two 14 months, and so forth. So there was quite tight 15 restrictions on what we could order as per 16 a standard request. If, at any stage, we went 17 over that, it might roll on to the following 18 month. 19 Ultimately, there could be a cost but, when 20 the Investigator requested it, it was very much 21 on -- I wouldn't say essential -- if you really 22 needed it as part of your investigation, from my 23 experience, probably ordered more requests to do 24 with a pension allowance fraud case, and 25 possibly for audit shortage cases, because of 69 1 the tight restrictions on how much we could 2 order, it was possible that any large amounts 3 requested were following on from a request from 4 either our solicitors or defence solicitors. 5 Q. Were you aware of any internal policies that 6 governed the number of requests you could make 7 or the amount of data you could request? 8 A. I can't recall what number, other than the fact 9 that it was tight. Put it this way, I -- for 10 me, personally, I could order as much as 11 I wanted to, to conduct my enquiries into the 12 Horizon data. 13 Q. Was the impression given that the amount was 14 tight, to use your words, given by the Post 15 Office, by Fujitsu, by the Security Manager, or 16 who? 17 A. No, it would have just been within the Security 18 team because I think that was part of the 19 contract that was agreed with Fujitsu. So 20 I think Fujitsu would have probably supplied 21 whatever was physically possible but there would 22 be charges to the Post Office for it, if it went 23 over the allotted amount. 24 Q. Do you recall the Post Office ever not 25 requesting ARQ data because of those 70 1 implications? 2 A. I don't know about -- depending on what 3 circumstances, but certainly it restricted the 4 amount that I would have requested. 5 Q. So it wasn't requested as a matter of course; it 6 was something that you would go through 7 a thought process before requesting? 8 A. Yeah, it's -- so, for instance, you might have 9 a case, say an audit shortage case, and you 10 might go for month prior to the audit. You can 11 get various printouts, which aren't always that 12 user-friendly and doesn't necessarily tell you 13 everything, but, with the audit data, you could 14 sort and filter, and more user-friendly to see 15 if you can identify, yeah, anything that could 16 support why there was a significant shortfall 17 there. 18 So, if -- again, this is just the best as 19 I can recall, if you look at that first month 20 and you didn't really find anything that 21 supported the investigation either way, it may 22 well be that you then didn't then order any 23 more. If you identified something, you might 24 then request more. In doing so, again, you 25 might then pluck a period of time, say maybe 71 1 three months away, six months away, or whatever, 2 it wouldn't be a case of "Ooh, I found all this, 3 so I'm going to do a blanket 1 year, 15 months, 4 or whatever, as an audit shortage case". 5 But I think you're also mindful, you may 6 have interviewed somebody, you may or may not 7 have had audit data at that time, but if -- 8 depending on what comes up at interview, you 9 might feel the need to order another batch of 10 data. But then you're mindful of the fact these 11 people are being interviewed, it's going to be 12 quite traumatic for them and it could be one 13 month/two months before I get another lot of 14 data. 15 So I can remember it being frustrating both 16 in terms of me being able to conduct 17 investigations and also how long I would have to 18 wait, which also had the effect of somebody 19 being under investigation having to wait, 20 whereas if I could access it all straightaway, 21 I can just do it all on the one day, without 22 having to delay things. 23 Q. So there were some delays in obtaining the data 24 once it had been ordered? 25 A. Yes. 72 1 Q. But, in terms of actually ordering it, you were 2 reluctant to order large amounts because of cost 3 implications? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. A lot of the evidence that you've given this 6 morning is about things being passed from your 7 predecessors or those who you work with, rather 8 than being written out in policies. Is it the 9 same case with ARQ data, that that was 10 information that had been passed to you by 11 colleagues, rather than a document that you saw? 12 A. Not so much colleagues. I think it had just 13 come down from more senior levels within the 14 Security team. But that was just always, as far 15 as back as I can remember, that was always the 16 case from when I joined, that if -- whenever the 17 first case came about, where I had to order 18 Horizon data, it was no doubt told to me "Well, 19 just be mindful of how much you feel you need 20 and order". 21 It may have been I just order one month's 22 worth. I honestly can't remember the first time 23 I first ordered it but, certainly, that was 24 always my understanding from -- because when 25 I joined Horizon had already started being 73 1 rolled out. 2 Q. We're going to see some documents that have been 3 in your pack, emails from Penny Thomas. What 4 did you understand the role of Penny Thomas who 5 worked at Fujitsu to be? 6 A. Yeah, Penny's a name that I can recall from 7 Fujitsu and I think she was the person that the 8 admin function would submit the ARQ requests to 9 in Fujitsu. And Penny would be the one to 10 supply the data and, if subsequently required, 11 a statement. 12 Q. We're going to see her mentioned in the Hamilton 13 case study that we'll come to, probably before 14 lunchtime, but I just want to start by taking 15 you to some emails of 2009. Could we can look 16 at FUJ00155399, please. So this is an email 17 that was in your pack. It's not an email that 18 was sent to you. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. We see there, if we scroll down, there's mention 21 in that second substantive paragraph of 22 an occurrence in December 2007 where there was 23 an unseen database lock, where an administrative 24 balancing transaction failed to be written to 25 the local message store database. This 74 1 generated a generic and non-specific software 2 error event, which went unnoticed in the 3 monitoring of events. A financial imbalance was 4 evident and was subject to investigation by 5 Fujitsu Service Support Centre and Post Office 6 Limited. The financial imbalance has been 7 resolved and there is reference to a software 8 correction. The "Impact", it says: 9 "We need to work with [the Post Office] to 10 recheck the ARQs and reconfirm the data 11 integrity during the period of May 2007 to 12 November 2008 -- penny will do this." 13 I'm going to take you, before I ask you 14 about this particular incident, to a couple more 15 documents addressing the same issue. 16 Can we look at FUJ00155400. So here we have 17 Peter Sewell, copied in. If we look at the 18 bottom of page 2, we have an email to Dave 19 Posnett from Rob Wilson. What was your 20 relationship like with Dave Posnett? 21 A. Dave Posnett? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. Dave Posnett was a colleague within the same 24 team at the time. He was my line manager at the 25 time. Got on really well with Dave. 75 1 Q. So if we have a look over the page, please, Dave 2 Posnett is sending Rob Wilson an email in 3 relation to this particular incident that's been 4 identified by Fujitsu, and he says: 5 "Rob, 6 "In relation to the standard witness 7 statement Fujitsu provide ..." 8 Then if we look at the second point: 9 "The following additional paragraphs have 10 been inserted (page 7). I personally do not see 11 the need for these if there are no problems 12 identified with the data relating to the case in 13 question. Why inform anyone about a problem 14 we've had within the network, but possibly only 15 at one branch, if it bears no relation or 16 relevance." 17 Then below it has the form of words that 18 Fujitsu were proposing be included within 19 a witness statement, what's described as the 20 standard witness statement that Fujitsu provide. 21 That is an explanation of the incident. So the 22 proposed form of words is: 23 "In December 2007 an occurrence was reported 24 in one office where a Stock Unit rollover 25 coincided with the End Of Day Process running. 76 1 This led to a previously unseen database lock 2 where an administrative balancing transaction 3 failed to be written to the local message store 4 database", et cetera. 5 If we have a look at page 2 at the top of 6 the page, we have Dave Posnett emailing Penny 7 Thomas at Fujitsu to say: 8 "I would say Business As Usual [regarding] 9 witness statements, ie don't include the two 10 additional paragraphs on the last page. 11 "If any issues materialise in due course, we 12 can address then -- suggest the ARQs for these 4 13 cases are assessed first." 14 Sticking with the same issue could we have 15 a look at FUJ00155421, please. Penny Thomas to 16 Dave Posnett, 4 February 2009. She says: 17 "The event logs have been checked for all 18 data provided to [the Post Office] as a result 19 of the 195 ARQs which fall within the time 20 frame. A total of 27 instances of concern were 21 identified. All instances have been fully 22 analysed and we can confirm that the locking was 23 caused by contention between the EOD process and 24 a Riposte checkpoint being written. No 25 transactions or balancing activities carried out 77 1 at branches were affect." 2 So this is an issue that affected the ARQ 3 report rather than the balancing activities at 4 branches. She says there: 5 "The standard witness statement has been 6 reviewed, and is attached. No reference has 7 been made to the locking issue but minor 8 revisions have been made." 9 Were you made aware of this incident at all, 10 or -- I know it's -- well, it's 2009. 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. Was that an incident you were aware of at the 13 time? 14 A. I certainly -- I have no recollection of it. 15 No. I don't recall it at all. 16 Q. Did Penny Thomas ever indicate to you that there 17 may be issues with the reliability of ARQ data? 18 A. No, not at all. 19 Q. Dave Posnett is obviously the point of contact 20 for Penny Thomas in relation to this issue. 21 What was his role in relation to -- that you 22 conducted your work, was he, for example, 23 responsible for training and compliance of your 24 work? 25 A. Well, like most people, Dave's role changed over 78 1 time. At one point, he was a Security Manager, 2 at the same time that I was. He then got 3 promoted, I'm not sure what role. I think, from 4 memory, Dave was in the Fraud Risk Team. He may 5 even have been Casework Manager for a time, 6 I don't know. He was a Financial Investigator. 7 He was -- 8 Q. So in 2009 we have him sending the email as 9 Fraud Risk Manager. 10 A. Yeah. There was a Fraud Risk Team that John 11 Scott had set up. I can't -- well, I've never 12 worked in that team, so I can't recall exactly 13 what they did, because we also had a Crime Risk 14 Team, as well, so I'm not sure what the 15 difference was. 16 Q. Would you have expected somebody who was in that 17 position to have provided that kind of 18 information to you about the reliability of ARQ 19 data or potential issues? 20 A. I honestly don't know. I'm going to say it's -- 21 in a broader sense, what we now know absolutely 22 should have been disseminated to numerous people 23 but that particular item, I've no idea who Dave 24 would have referred that to. I can see -- 25 I don't begin to understand half the 79 1 technicalities of it all but I can see that Dave 2 responded to Penny. Whether Dave has raised 3 that to anyone else more senior to him or anyone 4 else, I honestly can't say but I have no 5 recollection of it. 6 Q. Do you think, if you had been passed that kind 7 of information, it might have affected your 8 obligations of disclosure in particular cases? 9 A. Well, as I say, clearly what we now know and 10 with a greater understanding of disclosure, then 11 yes, it should have been disclosed along with 12 numerous other things. 13 Q. When you say a "greater understanding of 14 disclosure", do you mean a greater understanding 15 of bugs, errors and defects in the system or do 16 you mean a greater -- 17 A. No, I think a greater understanding, from 18 looking at the evidence and the documentation 19 I've been supplied with, of disclosure in 20 general. 21 Q. Have you identified deficiencies in disclosure 22 from looking at that information? 23 A. Well, it seems to be that we should have 24 disclosed all the -- well, unless I'm reading it 25 wrong, all the Horizon data. It's a tough one 80 1 because, obviously, I was Security Manager for 2 12 years, I don't recall any issues, certainly 3 in cases I dealt with, where any cases had been 4 thrown out or, for want of better terminology, 5 because of lack of disclosure, but certainly 6 from the previous inquiries, disclosure was 7 a big part of why certain convictions were 8 quashed. 9 So there seems to be a lot of emphasis on 10 the fact that why wasn't all disclosure in 11 relation to Horizon data disclosed as a matter 12 of course for the whole indictment period? So 13 when I say better understanding, I think, you 14 know, it's just understanding that all of that 15 data should have been disclosed. 16 I'm not aware of anyone that knew any bugs, 17 errors or defects and you would have thought 18 that we would have been advised of that. Had we 19 have known, then, clearly, that would have been 20 dealt with in whatever way by the Post Office at 21 the time. 22 Q. So is it your evidence that you didn't know 23 about bugs, errors and defects and hadn't been 24 told of any bugs, errors and defects? 25 A. No, no, I'm going to say, I can see from the 81 1 evidence that there were -- moving towards the 2 latter years that I was a Security Manager, 3 there were, to use the terminology, challenges 4 to Horizon but I don't recall ever seeing any 5 reference to bugs, errors or defects. 6 Put it this way, in simplistic terms, I was 7 not aware of any issues with Horizon that could 8 have caused these discrepancies. 9 Q. Can we look at POL00106867, please. It's 10 page 27. This is an email from Andrew Daley to 11 a few people. You are included on this email 12 chain at this point, and it says: 13 "Andy called me and asked whether you guys 14 (Graham, if FIU have any cases in dispute/new 15 issues that could affect your case) could put 16 together some stats on these cases, where the 17 accused's defence was/is that Horizon data is 18 unreliable for any amount of reasons given by 19 the accused." 20 Now, we're going to see from the email above 21 that, in fact, certainly in Andy Hayward's 22 opinion, that was inadvertently sent to you and, 23 in fact, should be Graham Ward. But do you 24 remember receiving an email in 2010 that sought 25 to put together statistics on cases where 82 1 Horizon data was said to have been unreliable. 2 A. I don't recall this email, no, and it was 3 clearly sent to me in error, the first one, and 4 I hadn't seen until supplied as part of the 5 bundle, any further to, other than Andy Hayward 6 saying, "Not for me". 7 Q. One thing we do see is at page 25, Dave Posnett 8 is copied in to the chain. Thank you. We see 9 there Dave Posnett's name on the top right-hand 10 side. Again, not something that you were told 11 about at the time by Mr Posnett? 12 A. Sorry, say again? 13 Q. Was it not something that Mr Posnett brought to 14 your attention at that time? 15 A. No, I don't recall ever having this brought to 16 my attention. I'm going to say Andy Hayward 17 clearly says, "Not for Graham B", and that's no 18 doubt the last I heard of it. 19 Q. If we look at page 19 of this chain, we have 20 Graham Ward's response, and it's the second half 21 of the page, and he says as follows: 22 "Andrew/Jason 23 "I'm aware of two ongoing cases at 24 West Byfleet ... and Orford Road ... and also 25 some historical cases but as [Financial 83 1 Investigators] we wouldn't have Horizon disputed 2 cases other than those reported by the 3 Investigators, who will have far more details on 4 the issues than us. 5 "I have attached an article from an IT 6 magazine, which may have bought this issue to 7 the fore in the first place which may be of 8 interest to Ian." 9 So his explanation there is that the 10 Investigators would have far more details than 11 he would. As an Investigator, presumably, in 12 2010 you were aware of a growing number of cases 13 that disputed the reliability of the Horizon 14 system. 15 A. I think, yeah, in the latter years, there were 16 more -- as I say, to use the terminology -- 17 challenges to Horizon system. I'm going to say 18 I wasn't aware of any that were what we would 19 term successfully challenged in the courts. 20 Q. If we have a look at the bottom of page 1 on to 21 page 2, into page 3 even. We have there 22 a response from Dave Posnett. It says: 23 "All 24 "Could we please ensure that Rob Wilson, the 25 Head of Criminal Law, is kept appraised of the 84 1 ..." 2 Then it's over two pages because there's a 3 blank page: 4 "... situation and included in any further 5 meetings on the subject." 6 It says this: 7 "Our prosecution cases have faced 8 an increase in challenges, as well as our civil 9 cases, so the activities outlined below and 10 indeed going forward are applicable to both 11 legal teams." 12 So you would agree that in 2010 there was 13 an increase in challenges, and your evidence is 14 yes, but -- 15 A. I believe so, yes. 16 Q. -- they didn't succeed, is ... 17 A. Well, I wasn't aware of any that -- as you'd 18 imagine, if Horizon had been successful 19 challenged in any case, then you would expect 20 the whole Security and Criminal Law Team to be 21 aware of it. But I can recall -- I can't 22 remember specific cases but I can recall there 23 were occasions where maybe a memo from the 24 Criminal Law Team successfully challenged -- 25 sorry, successfully rebutted any challenge, 85 1 something like that, some sort of wording. So 2 I think it's possibly in my mindset that Horizon 3 had been challenged but not successfully. But, 4 again, it's -- 5 Q. Didn't an increase in challenges, though, make 6 you -- 7 A. I think so, like I say, it's hard to recall but 8 I think there was a growing number in the latter 9 years, yes. 10 Q. Did you not think to yourself "Well, why is 11 there this growing number? Is this something 12 that I should be investigating?" 13 A. I may well have done, but I cannot recall 14 thinking that. 15 Q. Sorry, I don't understand that answer. 16 A. Right, you said -- yeah, I may well have thought 17 "Ooh, we're getting more challenges", and I may 18 have thought something about that, but -- 19 Q. But you didn't do anything -- 20 A. -- I cannot recall what my mindset would have 21 been at that time or even if I did have any 22 thoughts on it. 23 Q. Do you recall carrying out any investigation 24 into the reliability of Horizon, there being 25 an increase in challenges? 86 1 A. Sorry, I don't understand. 2 Q. Well, you were aware of an increase in 3 challenges. You said you may well have thought 4 about it but did you do anything about it? 5 A. As I say, I cannot recall. 6 Q. If you had done something about it, would you 7 recall having done something about it? 8 A. Well, let's put it in simple terms. I -- up 9 until the point I left Post Office, I had no 10 reason to believe there was anything wrong with 11 the integrity of Horizon. 12 Q. But that wasn't the question. The question was 13 whether you actually did something about it. 14 You were aware of an increase in cases? 15 A. Not as far as I can recall, Mr Blake. 16 Q. Can we look at FUJ00154911, please. It's 17 page 7. We're still in 2010, here, this is May 18 2010, page 7. This is an email from you at the 19 bottom half of the page. It says: 20 "Please can you arrange for Penny and Andy 21 at Fujitsu to supply statements covering the 22 workings and integrity of Horizon for Up 23 Hatherley Post Office ... from [and it gives two 24 dates]. I also need Penny to produce Horizon 25 data supplied for this period and ARQs ... and 87 1 for Andy to produce a schedule detailing all 2 calls to the [Helpdesk] during this period." 3 So in 2010 you were aware, for example in 4 this particular case, of a challenge to the 5 integrity of Horizon? 6 A. Yes, as I say, I'm sure I can recall that there 7 was an increased number of challenges to Horizon 8 but I believe Penny's statement covered the 9 integrity of Horizon anyhow. 10 Q. Were you not making enquiries of colleagues 11 about any concerns that they may have had at 12 this time, an increasing number of cases about 13 the integrity of Horizon? Was it not something 14 that was discussed in the office? 15 A. Well, as I say, up until 2011 the office was 16 just me but, at team meetings, we discussed 17 cases. I can't remember what specifically was 18 discussed but, yeah, we had team meetings. So 19 if there would have been any concerns, 20 collective concerns, no doubt they would have 21 been discussed but I don't recall anything. 22 Q. In the same year, can we look at POL00106848, 23 we're now at the end of 2010. This is another 24 case, Pamela Stubbs' case. If we have a look 25 over the page, it says as follows: 88 1 "Along with Graham Brander I met with 2 Mrs Stubbs on 17 January and she was convinced 3 that Horizon was at fault. She has retained 4 daily transaction logs for December to January 5 in which time she lost £9,000 is not prepared to 6 release this until she can compare it to Fujitsu 7 data. I have examined the Fujitsu data and 8 cannot see any indications of fraud. She has 9 declared all the losses and has been asking for 10 assistance for some time. There is 11 a possibility (although she will not accept it) 12 that an assistant has been taking the money but 13 that puts the onus back on her to report it to 14 the police. I have sent her the Fujitsu data to 15 reconcile with her daily transaction logs but 16 from a criminal/fraud point of view there is no 17 scope for further investigation into any 18 criminal activity." 19 That is a report that reports that you 20 attended alongside the Investigator or as one of 21 the Investigators in that case. Do you remember 22 that case? 23 A. No, but then, as I say, I -- other than 24 attending with Mike, whose case it would have 25 been, as I say, I don't remember it at all. But 89 1 other than attending for interview, I almost 2 certainly wouldn't have had any involvement in 3 it. 4 Q. You say there's nobody to speak to but here 5 you're working with Mike Wilcox. Do you recall 6 any discussions about whether there might be 7 something in the fact that Horizon was at fault? 8 A. We may well have done at the time but, as I say, 9 I do not recall this case at all. 10 Q. If we look at FUJ00156648, that is the Helen 11 Rose report that this Inquiry is well aware of. 12 This case actually features in that report. 13 It's page 2 of the report, the Barkham case. It 14 says: 15 "This case was raised following an ongoing 16 dispute between Mrs Stubbs and the Post Office, 17 regarding an outstanding debt ... Mrs Stubbs is 18 suggesting that Horizon is at fault when it was 19 moved into a Portakabin during renovations." 20 Were you aware of the Helen Rose report in 21 August 2012 and that it was looking into a case 22 that you had been involved in? 23 A. I have no recollection of it. It may well have 24 been during shared with the wider Security Team 25 but I certainly have no recollection of it 90 1 today, other than obviously seeing it in the 2 bundle. 3 Q. Can we go back to your witness statement, 4 paragraph 68, please. That's page 18 of 5 WITN08300100. It's page 18. Thank you. 6 Paragraph 68 says as follows, the final sentence 7 in paragraph 68: 8 "I have no recollection of any reference 9 made in relation to any 'Horizon bugs, errors 10 and defects' during my time as Security 11 Manager." 12 You then go on to talk about the various 13 case studies in your statement, and can we look 14 at page 32. It's paragraph 114. This is in 15 relation to the Hamilton case. At 16 paragraph 114, page 32, you say: 17 "... it was always my understanding that the 18 Horizon system was robust, as this was the 19 message that was always instilled in everyone by 20 [the Post Office] and I was not aware of any 21 reference to 'bugs, errors or defects' relating 22 to the integrity of Horizon." 23 Paragraph 126, that's page 34, and that's in 24 the context of the Julian Wilson case. It says, 25 at 126: 91 1 "... I was not aware of any reference to 2 'bugs, errors or defects' relating to the 3 integrity of Horizon at this time." 4 If we look at paragraph 143, that's page 39, 5 this is in the context of the Hutchings case 6 that we're going to come to, paragraph 143 says: 7 "... I was not aware of any reference to 8 'bugs, errors or defects' relating to the 9 integrity of Horizon at this time." 10 Then the paragraph below is a general 11 paragraph, which says: 12 "I have been asked to what extent (if any) 13 did I consider a challenge to the integrity of 14 Horizon in one case to be relevant to other 15 ongoing or future cases. My response is that 16 I have no recollection of any specific 17 challenges to the integrity of Horizon." 18 I mean, weren't all of those cases that 19 we've just been looking at challenges to the 20 integrity of Horizon? 21 A. Yeah, well, people saying that there might have 22 been an issue with Horizon, what I'm saying is 23 my recollection of it. From the documentation, 24 I can see that people have said "Ooh, I think 25 Horizon is at fault", or words to that effect, 92 1 but I have no recollection of any specific 2 cases, only from what I'm seeing from the 3 documentation. 4 Q. You can see from the documentation a number of 5 contemporaneous cases, 2010/2011, where there 6 are challenges to the integrity of Horizon? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you not consider that those were important 9 information in respect of disclosure in all of 10 the cases that you were dealing with that 11 challenged Horizon, that there were these other 12 cases? 13 A. Well, as I've said, it was always the belief 14 instilled in us that there was no issues with 15 Horizon. If there'd been -- if I had a genuine 16 belief that there were issues with Horizon -- it 17 was all very well somebody saying, "Ooh, I think 18 it's the equipment that's at fault", but, as 19 I've said, it was always instilled in us that 20 Horizon was robust, that's the terminology that 21 was used, I had no reason to disbelieve that. 22 We'd had cases that had gone through the court 23 system whereby Horizon had been challenged, and 24 unsuccessfully. 25 So I think that probably added to my belief 93 1 that Horizon was robust. So I believed it was 2 robust. So, if I felt it wasn't, then that 3 would no doubt be something that, not just I, 4 everyone would be disclosing. 5 Q. Well, we spoke earlier about, for example, 6 pursuing reasonable lines of inquiry. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. A feeling that the system is robust, do you 9 think that is sufficient where you have 10 a growing number of cases where people are 11 saying that there are Horizon integrity 12 problems? 13 A. There was a growing number but I'm going to say 14 that maybe a handful that I dealt with, I'm 15 going to say it wasn't like every case suddenly 16 everyone is challenging Horizon but there was -- 17 for whatever reason, there were more challenges 18 to Horizon. 19 Q. Weren't those Dave Posnett's exact words about 20 a growing number of cases? 21 A. Sorry, Mr Blake. I didn't catch that. 22 Q. I think those were Dave Posnett's exact words, 23 weren't they, "our prosecution cases have faced 24 an increase in challenges as well as our civil 25 cases"? 94 1 So there is clear reference to an -- 2 A. Yeah, exactly. I've already said that -- 3 although I can't recall the specific cases, 4 I was aware that there were more challenges to 5 Horizon at that time. Put it this way, I can't 6 remember going back, say, for the first half of 7 when I was a Security Manager there'd been any 8 challenges to Horizon, but that may be because 9 it's, you know, far longer ago, and I can't 10 recall. But it just seemed to have been built 11 up maybe last two to three years before I left. 12 Q. Clearly, there are a number of people who were 13 prosecuted and some who went to prison during 14 that two to three years. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Can we look at paragraph 144. You say: 17 "I have been asked to what extent (if any) 18 did I consider a challenge to the integrity of 19 Horizon in one case to be relevant to the other 20 ongoing or future cases. My response is that 21 I have no recollection of any specific 22 challenges to the integrity of Horizon." 23 The suggestion there is that you don't 24 consider the increase in challenges to be at all 25 relevant to those individual cases, that the 95 1 fact that number of people were challenging 2 Horizon, it seems as though you didn't consider 3 that that was relevant? 4 A. I think, if it was relevant, there would have 5 been a collective response. But, as I say, 6 I cannot recall, going back that time -- 7 Q. What do you mean by "collective response"? 8 A. Well, there might have been the fact that, 9 right, we're getting all these cases or 10 increasing cases that have been challenged in, 11 then when people view the reports that go up or 12 the committal bundle, or whatever, somebody, 13 whether Criminal Law Team or Senior Security 14 Manager, say, "Well, we need to start disclosing 15 these other cases". 16 I would only be privy to the cases I dealt 17 with. There may be references to other cases at 18 team meetings but I wouldn't know the detail and 19 I certainly wouldn't know cases from the other 20 teams in other parts of the country. 21 Q. Who was this figure who should have been 22 carrying out this task of disclosing -- 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. Because we spoke earlier about who was 25 responsible for the disclosure process. 96 1 A. Yeah, obviously -- 2 Q. I think you said that you were responsible? 3 A. -- the onus fell on the Security Manager to 4 disclose any relevant material, yes. 5 Q. And to pursue reasonable lines of inquiry? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. We have number of cases here that challenged 8 Horizon, you had team meetings where Horizon 9 challenges were mentioned; did you not think 10 that it was incumbent on you? 11 A. No, no, I said that we had team meetings where 12 this may have been a topic of discussion. 13 I also said I cannot recall what was covered at 14 the team meetings. 15 Q. Well, we've seen a number of documents that 16 mention challenges to Horizon. 17 A. Yeah, absolutely, I agree with you that there 18 were clearly a lot more challenges to Horizon 19 from maybe 2009/10/11 onwards. 20 Q. And a number of people in that period who were 21 convicted of criminal offences and who went to 22 prison? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So I think what we would like to know from you 25 is what went wrong there and why it was that 97 1 there wasn't greater disclosure of those 2 challenges to those who were being prosecuted? 3 A. As I say, I can only -- I think, when we were 4 getting more of these challenges, that was 5 more -- there's always been -- I'd no reason to 6 ever believe that there was anything wrong with 7 Horizon and I think, around about that time, 8 there may have been messages coming from above: 9 Horizon's robust. 10 I cannot recall any specifics or who that 11 was but there was always this feeling that, 12 whenever there were challenges, then the 13 business would say "There's no issues with 14 Horizon". 15 Q. Given your duties of disclosure, do you think 16 a feeling was sufficient or do you think you 17 should have been carrying out investigations? 18 A. Well, all I can say is I believe I conducted, 19 yeah, my inquiries and, you know, the work that 20 I was required to do as a Security Manager in 21 what I believed to be the correct manner. 22 Q. I'm not sure that answers the question of 23 whether your feeling were enough and why you 24 didn't carry out investigations into the 25 integrity of Horizon. 98 1 A. I really don't know what else to say. 2 Q. We're going to move on now to look at the first 3 of our case studies, that's the Jo Hamilton case 4 study, the South Warnborough Post Office. Can 5 we please bring up on screen POL00113278, and 6 it's page 37. I'm just going to briefly take 7 you to the Court of Appeal's judgment in the 8 case of Hamilton & Others. Page 37, please, 9 just because you're the first substantive 10 witness in respect of the investigation that was 11 carried out in this case. It's paragraph 142. 12 The Court of Appeal says there: 13 "On 19 November 2007, Josephine Hamilton 14 pleaded guilty to 14 counts of false accounting. 15 The prosecution case was that she had made false 16 entries on Horizon making claims about the 17 presence of cash on hand which were untrue. The 18 prosecution ICL agreed not to proceed with the 19 charge of theft (which was ordered to lie on 20 file) on the basis that the outstanding shortage 21 of [£36,000] was to be paid by the time of 22 sentence." 23 The next paragraph says: 24 "Mrs Hamilton's case was that she had not 25 stolen the money or acted dishonestly. In 99 1 a prepared statement to the criminal 2 investigation, she described number of 3 inadequacies in Horizon which she had 4 encountered. Between 23 October 2003 and 9 June 5 2006, she had made 26 calls to the Horizon 6 Helpdesk. Between 3 December 2003 and 5 January 7 2006, she had made numerous calls to the Post 8 Office's National Business Support Centre 9 Helpline." 10 Scrolling down to the bottom of the page it 11 says that: 12 "There was no examination of the ARQ data 13 for bugs, errors or defects and no examination 14 for evidence of theft. The unfiltered ARQ data 15 is no longer available but it appears that there 16 was no evidence to corroborate the Horizon 17 evidence. There was no proof of an actual loss 18 as opposed to a Horizon generated shortage." 19 The Court of Appeal says that they were 20 presented with further information which 21 bolsters their conclusion that the prosecution 22 should not have been brought and which forms 23 part of a concession, in fact, by the Post 24 Office, and that is that the Post Office 25 Investigator had reported that there was no 100 1 evidence of theft: 2 "despite this, a Post Office internal log 3 entry for 22 November 2007 records that 4 Mrs Hamilton's pleas were accepted on the 5 understanding that unless she repaid the 6 shortfall by the date for sentence, the Post 7 Office would proceed with the theft charge." 8 Paragraph 147, the Court of Appeal says: 9 "The Post Office concedes that it was 10 unacceptable to hold open the threat of the 11 theft charge unless Mrs Hamilton agreed to forgo 12 any criticism of Horizon. We regard this as 13 even more alarming in circumstances in which the 14 Post Office's own investigator had reported 15 there was no evidence of theft." 16 It says: 17 "The Post Office's conduct gives a firm 18 impression that the condition of repayment in 19 return for the Post Office dropping the theft 20 charge placed undue pressure on Mrs Hamilton. 21 It gives the impression that the Post Office was 22 using the prosecution process to enforce 23 repayment." 24 Now, I'm going to take you through a few 25 documents in relation to this case. I'm going 101 1 to start with the Auditor's report. It's at 2 POL00044497. It is 9 March 2006, "Audit of Post 3 Office". The first paragraph says: 4 "... I met the Area Intervention Manager 5 Elaine Ridge, and Graham Brander, Investigations 6 Manager. 7 "The subpostmistress, Josephine Hamilton, 8 was not in attendance at all throughout the 9 audit being too ill. Elaine went to her home 10 address, retrieved the keys, and Graham, Elaine 11 and myself entered the secure area to commence 12 the audit." 13 So it seems there were three of you who were 14 in the secure area to commence the audit; is 15 that correct? 16 A. Yes, three of us went in but the Auditor would 17 have done the audit. 18 Q. So prior to having reached any conclusion as to 19 the results of the audit, you were already in 20 attendance? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Yes. You were also aware at that time that Jo 23 Hamilton was too ill to attend? 24 A. I'm not sure when I became aware of that. It 25 might have been when I attended. 102 1 Q. Yes. If we look at that summary there, it seems 2 as though she wasn't in attendance because she 3 was too ill, so the keys were obtained. Once 4 the keys had been obtained, the three of you 5 went to conduct the audit; is that correct? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. Let's read below the figures that are given 8 there, it says: 9 "Due to the disarray of the branch, and our 10 inability to locate essential weekly paperwork, 11 it was not possible to verify volume stock 12 remittances. This was compounded by a problem 13 encountered on Horizon requiring it to be 14 rebooted. An additional £61.77 shortage was 15 consequently highlighted by Horizon which could 16 not be accounted for, and the total shortage put 17 to late accounts was £36,644." 18 Are we to understand there that the auditors 19 themselves actually experienced a problem with 20 Horizon when they attended the audit? 21 A. It looks like it, yes. Unless -- I don't think 22 it was uncommon that Horizon has to be rebooted. 23 I think it was the old switch it off and switch 24 it on again. 25 Q. It seems as though an additional £61.77 shortage 103 1 was identified after it was switched on and 2 switched off again; is that correct? 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. If we can read at the bottom of the page it 5 says: 6 "Upon reaching the result Elaine visited 7 Mrs Hamilton and precautionary suspended her." 8 Am I right to understand that you also 9 attended Ms Hamilton's address? 10 A. Well, I don't recall it but, yes, I did. 11 Q. Perhaps we can look at your witness statement in 12 this respect. It's paragraph 85 of your witness 13 statement. It's page 24 at the top of the page. 14 You say this, in respect of your attendance at 15 Mrs Hamilton's home address, you say: 16 "The purpose of my attendance was to advise 17 Ms Hamilton that I would be conducting 18 an investigation into the audit shortfall and 19 would like to interview her." 20 Why did you attend her address on that day 21 in person? 22 A. I was -- again, from reading the documentation, 23 I was asked by my team leader to attend because 24 there were concerns that there was going to be 25 a shortfall. I don't recall a situation before 104 1 or after where I was asked to do that. So, 2 obviously, when there's a significant shortfall, 3 we would invite the person, you know, suspected 4 of having committed a criminal offence to attend 5 an interview. 6 So as -- again, I can't recall exactly what 7 the mindset was but, as Elaine was going back to 8 precautionary suspend her, whether it was my 9 decision to go with her or whether I phoned 10 Geoff and Geoff said to go with her to do that, 11 I don't know. But, either way, from the 12 documentation, I went with Elaine just to 13 introduce myself and to say face-to-face, you 14 know, what would be the process in respect of 15 what I would be conducting. 16 Q. Many regulators or similar bodies often send 17 written requests for an interview. We have here 18 a case, it's a village Post Office, a lady who 19 was well established in the local community, 20 approaching 50 years old with two children. 21 I don't think -- you didn't have any information 22 to suggest, for example, that she was a flight 23 risk or anything along those lines, did you? 24 A. No, it wasn't a concern. It -- I could have 25 easily not gone and just written to her but 105 1 I think it was just -- courtesy is not the right 2 word but it was just a case of -- again, I can't 3 recall it but I just assume it was just Elaine 4 was going there to precautionary suspend her and 5 I went with her just to explain -- so that 6 Mrs Hamilton wasn't all "Well, what happens 7 next?" 8 This is what has happened next and it can be 9 seen from the documentation that we're in and 10 out in ten minutes. It wasn't a lengthy visit 11 it was purely just to say this is what my role 12 is, and I said, "Please contact me when you're 13 ready because I understand that you've been 14 signed off on sick leave". So there was no 15 pressure applied. It was just really for 16 Mrs Hamilton's information as to, you know, what 17 was going to be conducted in respect of my 18 investigation. 19 Q. Mr Brander, she had already given her keys to 20 the Area Manager for the audit to be conducted. 21 You were aware that she was unwell at the time. 22 What was the purpose of attending her home 23 address on that occasion? 24 A. As I said, to explain -- introduce myself and 25 explain the process for the criminal 106 1 investigation. 2 Q. All of that could have been done in writing. 3 A. It could have been. 4 Q. You were aware she was unwell and was 5 cooperating. The suggestion might be made that 6 you went to her home address to have a little 7 look around? 8 A. Why would I be having a look around? 9 Q. Were you looking to see her lifestyle, for 10 example? 11 A. And I would know that from ten minutes in her 12 house? 13 Q. Mr Brander you're quite a large gentleman; do 14 you think it might have been quite intimidating 15 to Mrs Hamilton -- 16 A. As I've said previously, Mr Blake, I don't doubt 17 for one minute that every time members of the 18 Security team attended a branch, it was 19 intimidating for somebody, irrespective of our 20 size. 21 Q. But it wasn't just intimidating; it was also 22 unnecessary, wasn't it? 23 A. Well, it certainly wasn't my intention. I could 24 have easily not gone and just sent the letter 25 out, which I did later that day, but I just must 107 1 have felt it was more appropriate just to go and 2 introduce myself, as I was there, for no other 3 reason. 4 Q. You gave evidence earlier today about attendance 5 with the Auditors. It seems, from hearing your 6 evidence earlier and from hearing other 7 evidence, that there was certainly a practice 8 that built up that Security Managers would 9 attend with Auditors, there would be a number of 10 people attending. Is this part of that 11 practice, that it was important for you as 12 a Security Manager, to make your presence known 13 on that occasion? 14 A. I went there because I was asked to attend by my 15 team leader and, as I said, I cannot recall any 16 other incidents, in my 12 years, where I would 17 have attended in that scenario. If we were 18 attending -- attending with the intention to 19 pursue the investigation at the time, there 20 would have been at least one other colleague and 21 possibly two other colleagues. But, as I went 22 on my own, it was purely just to see what 23 discrepancy, if any, there was and then, at that 24 time, whether it was my decision to go with 25 Elaine or whether I spoke to Geoff and Geoff 108 1 said, "Go and introduce yourself and do this"; 2 I honestly can't recall. 3 Q. You said that you recall that you were asked to 4 attend by a team leader; is that your 5 recollection or isn't it your recollection? 6 A. I have no recollection but that's what the 7 documentation suggests. 8 Q. Where in the documentation does it suggest that 9 your team leader suggested that you attend? 10 A. Well, I believe it's in some of the emails. 11 Q. Okay, well, we can have a look at those emails 12 in due course. 13 A. Well, the information would have been passed on 14 to Geoff Hall, as is in the documentation, and 15 then for that to have been given to me as 16 a case, or just to attend, Geoff Hall would have 17 instructed me to do so. 18 Q. To attend in person? 19 A. Yes. I -- 20 Q. To attend her home address? 21 A. I wouldn't have just done that off my own bat. 22 Q. To attend her home address? 23 A. Well, to actually go out to the audit. I didn't 24 know until that point whether the keys had been 25 obtained or -- I think I was -- I didn't know 109 1 Elaine Ridge, so I was just asked to attend and 2 meet this person and the auditor. 3 Q. What I'm trying and to understand is why you 4 were an essential element to attendance on that 5 day. So we have the auditors, they're carrying 6 out an audit. 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. We have the regional manager who has obtained 9 the keys. 10 A. Yeah. 11 Q. Why was it necessary -- we have an audit report 12 so they report what they've carried out? 13 A. Yeah -- 14 Q. Why was it necessary for a large Security 15 Manager to attend on that day? 16 A. I completely understand what you're saying, 17 Mr Blake, and, as I have said, I do not recall 18 a situation, either before or after, where I had 19 been asked to attend because, if there was 20 a discrepancy, that could have been relayed back 21 to us and we could have just dealt with it as we 22 normally would do. 23 I can't -- I don't know why I was asked to 24 attend because the only other time that I've 25 attended an audit would have been with at least 110 1 one other colleague where we would be intending 2 to conduct interviews on that day. But, 3 clearly, in this case, there was no intention. 4 So I'm not really sure why I was asked to spend 5 the morning there, effectively, witnessing 6 something which the Auditor could ordinarily 7 have relayed back to us, as would have been the 8 normal case, other than the fact that Geoff must 9 have asked me to go there. 10 Q. Looking back at that, do you think that it 11 wasn't appropriate to attend? 12 A. I can't say it wasn't appropriate. As I say, 13 it's ... 14 Q. Were there any guidelines in place in respect 15 of, for example, someone who was unwell, whether 16 attendance at their home address was appropriate 17 or not appropriate? 18 A. I honestly don't know but, obviously, when I was 19 there, I certainly wasn't looking to do anything 20 relating to the investigation at that time. 21 I made that clear and I left it entirely with 22 Mrs Hamilton to contact me when she felt in 23 a position to do so. So I felt that I had, you 24 know, acted fairly. 25 Q. Did your presence add any value that a letter 111 1 couldn't have? 2 A. Oh, no, absolutely. It could have been done 3 afterwards. As I say, I went to the house, no 4 doubt, because I was at the audit and Elaine was 5 going there to do the suspension. So, as 6 I said, I don't know if it was my decision to go 7 or whether I spoke to Geoff, because obviously 8 I'd been relaying back whether there was 9 a shortfall or not to Geoff, and whether Geoff 10 advised me to go there, I honestly can't recall. 11 Q. Okay, so when you say your attendance was 12 required by the team leader, you mean your 13 attendance at the audit not at Mrs Hamilton's 14 home address -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- and it was a personal decision to attend the 17 home address or you can't recall? 18 A. I can't recall whether that was my decision to 19 go with Elaine, because she was going there 20 anyhow, or whether I would have spoken to Geoff 21 and Geoff suggested I went there. 22 Q. Do you have any reflections on even the 23 attendance of Elaine and the termination of the 24 contract in person? Do you think that needed to 25 happen in person? 112 1 A. Well, just for clarity, there was no termination 2 of the contract. They were precautionary 3 suspended. But if -- put it this way, if I'd 4 have thought that there was an issue with it, 5 I wouldn't have gone but I don't know whether 6 that was an instruction or whether I just felt 7 it appropriate at that time, as I was there, to 8 just introduce myself. Nothing more than that, 9 just to introduce and explain to Mrs Hamilton, 10 you know, what the nature of the investigation 11 would be. 12 Q. Looking back at it, do you still think it was 13 appropriate? 14 A. I really don't see that I did anything wrong by 15 doing that, no. I'll say if Mrs Hamilton felt 16 intimidated by me being there then I can only 17 apologise but that certainly wasn't in my 18 mindset that she would have felt that way. And, 19 again, that was more the reason why we were 20 literally we in and out. 21 Q. Can we look at POL00044389, please. This is the 22 investigation report of 19 May. If we look at 23 the final page, it has your name as the 24 Investigations Manager. Thank you. Can we look 25 at page 3, please. 113 1 I'm just going to take you through certain 2 sections of the investigation report. It says 3 there: 4 "Whilst at the Post Office, I obtained some 5 Horizon printouts and accounting documentation, 6 including cash account finals and branch trading 7 statements." 8 Am I right in saying that you obtained the 9 data from the Horizon system, so we're not 10 talking here about any audit data, ARQ data? 11 A. No. 12 Q. This is printouts? 13 A. These are physical printouts, yes. That -- the 14 Horizon printouts and accounting documentation 15 would have been items that a postmaster would be 16 required to generate whenever they do their 17 daily transaction summaries or weekly or 18 accounting at the end of either the week, when 19 it was cash accounts, or the end of the month, 20 when it was branch trading. But there may well 21 have been some Horizon printouts that the 22 Auditor generated. 23 Q. It then says: 24 "At 10.50 hours, together with Ms Ridge 25 I attended Mrs Hamilton's private residence. 114 1 I introduced myself to Mrs Hamilton and her 2 mother, showing both of them my identity card. 3 I was present when Ms Ridge precautionary 4 suspended Mrs Hamilton's contract for services." 5 It then says, if we could scroll down 6 slightly: 7 "I explained to Mrs Hamilton that I wasn't 8 able to discuss anything relating to the audit 9 deficit until the interview. Mrs Hamilton made 10 no significant statement at that time. I was at 11 the private residential for ten minutes, leaving 12 with Ms Ridge at 11.00. Mrs Hamilton's mother 13 was present the whole time, a copy of my 14 notebook entry can be found ..." 15 Then if we have a look slightly further down 16 the page, it says: 17 "Having analysed the Horizon printout and 18 accounting documentation, I was unable to find 19 any evidence of theft or that the cash figures 20 had been deliberately inflated." 21 Now, we know that you're not an accountant, 22 and that you don't have a background in those 23 kinds of matters. Can you assist us with how it 24 would be that you would find evidence of theft, 25 looking at those printouts? 115 1 A. Quite often you wouldn't. Because a lot of the 2 printouts were just summaries of transactions 3 conducted during the course of the week. So you 4 might have -- I don't know, say something that 5 says X amount of giro deposits, totalling X 6 amount, which wouldn't necessarily tell you that 7 much. 8 There could be things like -- things that we 9 would look at would be like cash declarations so 10 you would look to see whether there was one done 11 shortly after a previous one. So it might be 12 that somebody has declared the true cash on hand 13 followed by with what I would have referred to 14 an inflated figure but, again, looking at the 15 reports and documentation it appeared that only 16 one declaration was being done at a time. So 17 when I'm making that statement, it's not like 18 "Here's the true cash, here's the inflated 19 cash"; there was just one declaration. 20 And although, obviously, the amount's been 21 declared, based on the physical cash that was 22 found on hand, it would have appeared that they 23 were being inflated, I didn't have the true one 24 followed by what I would have referred to as the 25 inflated one. 116 1 Q. So if we look at the final paragraph, for 2 example, one of the things you looked at was 3 whether there was an occasion where a genuine 4 cash figure would be declared followed by 5 an inflated figure. That was one kind of 6 investigation that -- 7 A. Yes, that's what I've just referred to, yes. 8 Q. If we go over the page to page 4, the 9 penultimate paragraph on page 4, you say: 10 "In my experience, it was unusual to see 11 regular deposits, all round figures, although 12 I now believe that these represent genuine 13 deposits, possibly the shop takings." 14 So, again, was another thing you looked for 15 whether there were lots of round numbers, as 16 opposed to decimal figures? 17 A. No, I think it was -- I was looking at, you 18 know, large figures. But, again, if somebody's 19 banking shop takings, they would generally, you 20 know, to make things account with like their 21 private retail, it might be, say for instance, 22 if somebody is banking £2,000, it might be that 23 they want to bank £2,235.60. 24 For instance, when I go back to my days 25 working in a post office as a counter clerk, 117 1 et cetera, et cetera, we wouldn't necessarily 2 get round amounts. From all the shops that paid 3 in, it might be like £2,226.46, because that was 4 of the takings of the day. So that's what 5 I would mean by I wouldn't necessarily have seen 6 rounded figures because, if somebody is making 7 a deposit, and it's just a round figure, 8 potentially, that could have been somebody 9 making a fraudulent entry. 10 Q. So are we to read into this that the 11 investigation that you carry out in respect of 12 the printouts is a slightly unscientific look at 13 the figures to see if there's anything that 14 stands out? 15 A. Yeah. Exactly because you've literally just got 16 printouts and nothing more that you can sort or 17 filter. 18 Q. Could we look at page 5, please, the bottom of 19 page 5. It then refers to the prepared 20 statement that was read out at the interview and 21 it says: 22 "The prepared statement seems to intimate 23 that she didn't receive adequate training at the 24 time and that the manuals were old and out of 25 date. It also suggests that she didn't receive 118 1 any training in respect of other matters. It 2 also refers to an alleged £1,500 error, which 3 doubled to £3,000, when attempts were made to 4 correct it, and another error of £750. No dates 5 are supplied in respect of those alleged errors. 6 It also suggests that the Post Office's systems 7 are shambolic and details alleged problems 8 encountered. It states that all staff used the 9 same Horizon username, again citing a lack of 10 training for this." 11 Over the page, thank you. Finally, it 12 states: 13 "I can say that I've never stolen any money 14 or acted dishonestly." 15 If we look down, please, down the page, you 16 showed Mrs Hamilton a couple of branch trading 17 statements. Those are, I think, the documents 18 that were printed off the Horizon system. If we 19 please go over the page to page 7, this is the 20 relevant part that I think was highlighted at 21 the bottom of this page by the Court of Appeal. 22 It says as follows: 23 "I'm unable to state what would appear to be 24 the period of offending, mainly due to the fact 25 that Mrs Hamilton responded no comment to my 119 1 questions. You may wish to consider a charge of 2 theft for the audit deficit of £36,000 ..." 3 Sorry, this isn't the part that was 4 mentioned by the Court of Appeal, that's going 5 to come shortly but here you're doing exactly 6 the thing that we talked about earlier, which is 7 saying you may want to consider a charge of 8 theft; is that correct? You're suggesting 9 a potential charge there? 10 A. Well, in such wording "You may wish to consider 11 a charge of theft", yes. 12 Q. Then you say: 13 "The only evidence appears to be the fact 14 that the audit identified the money as missing. 15 Concerns only came to light following a request 16 to return excess cash and instead of doing so 17 Mrs Hamilton was signed off as sick. 18 Additionally, Mrs Hamilton has only supplied 19 a prepared statement as some form of 20 explanation, yet refused to answer any 21 questions." 22 How is it that you can say that it was 23 a case of theft and they may want to consider 24 a charge of theft if the only evidence was that 25 the audit identified the money as missing? How 120 1 is that sufficient, in your view, to justify the 2 previous paragraph? 3 A. Well, because there's a significant shortfall 4 and, at the time, we weren't aware of any issues 5 with Horizon. So -- 6 Q. Well, you were aware that issues had been raised 7 with Horizon by Mrs Hamilton. How can you reach 8 the conclusion -- 9 A. Yeah, yeah -- 10 Q. -- that they may wish to consider a charge of 11 theft when you yourself made clear in your 12 investigation report that the only evidence 13 appears to be the fact that the audit identified 14 the money as missing? 15 A. Yes. Well, in terms of theft but, also, I do 16 make mention the fact that the purported cash on 17 hand increases over a period of time. I also 18 make mention that -- and, again, I do a schedule 19 as well, showing that the cash was recorded up 20 until quite some time prior to the audit and 21 then that ceased for some reason. 22 But, yeah, as far as the theft charge, it 23 was. It was simply the case that a large 24 shortfall and I had no reason to believe that 25 the cause of that was anything other than the 121 1 fact that someone had stolen the money. 2 Q. Were you aware at that time that theft required 3 proof of dishonesty? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Where in those two paragraphs, where you're 6 recommending a charge of theft and saying that 7 the audit identified cash money as missing, do 8 you identify any element of dishonesty? 9 A. No, there's nothing in the report to say that. 10 Q. So do you think it was appropriate in those 11 circumstances, where there's nothing in the 12 report to suggest dishonesty, to suggest 13 a charge of theft? 14 A. Well, from my recollection, dishonesty is 15 always -- not always the easiest part of the 16 elements of the points to prove for theft to 17 prove, and it's down to would the layman, 18 average man or woman on the street, think it 19 a dishonest act or would the person themselves 20 think it was a dishonest act? I don't recall 21 ever, in the report, writing whether I felt it 22 was dishonest in a report. I didn't see that 23 was a requirement. 24 Q. So you didn't have a view as to whether it was 25 dishonest or not and, in essence, your view was 122 1 let's leave it up to the jury? 2 A. No, if I believed that some had stolen the 3 money, I believe that that would be a dishonest 4 act but I wouldn't report that I believed it to 5 be dishonest. 6 Q. So was your view that, in any cases where 7 an audit identified the money as missing, that 8 would be a crime of theft, irrespective of the 9 circumstances? 10 A. Yeah, if there was a significant audit shortage 11 that there was no reasonable explanation for, 12 then that would be, to me, evidence of 13 a criminal offence. 14 Q. Was that something -- a criminal offence, yes, 15 but in terms of theft -- 16 A. Well, evidence of theft, yes. 17 Q. -- was there any internal guidance or was it 18 just a gut feeling that, if money is missing, 19 it's theft? 20 A. Well, I don't think it was as clear-cut as that, 21 but, yeah, in situations like this, where 22 there's a large shortfall, I think that was just 23 everyone's belief that it would, you know, it 24 would be down to theft or fraud because as 25 I say, people weren't always charged with theft. 123 1 In this case, I'm asking them to consider 2 a charge of theft, but -- 3 Q. But you're accepting there, are you, that there 4 was, at that stage, no evidence of dishonesty? 5 A. If I -- if I believed somebody had stolen money, 6 I'd believe them to be dishonest. 7 Q. Where's the evidence that they've stolen money? 8 A. Well, as I say, the significant shortfall. 9 Q. Yes. Where does that lead you to the conclusion 10 that the money has been dishonestly 11 appropriated? 12 A. I couldn't see where the money had gone. 13 Q. Didn't Mrs Hamilton tell you that there was 14 a problem with Horizon? 15 A. I can't remember everything that was on the 16 prepared statement but she was saying that she's 17 had some issues and, obviously, we looked into 18 that, in terms of obtaining call logs and 19 I think it was Andy Dunks produced the call logs 20 in evidence. 21 Q. You did look into it, actually, and we can see 22 over the page, page 8, the same investigation 23 report. You say: 24 "I requested Horizon data in respect of this 25 case, covering the period 9 February 2006 to 124 1 8 March 2006. This wasn't received until after 2 I had interviewed Mrs Hamilton. I've now had 3 a chance to view the data and I'm unable to 4 identify anything of an incriminating nature." 5 So, in fact, in your own investigation 6 report, you're saying you've reviewed the ARQ 7 data and haven't found anything incriminating. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So again -- 10 A. In that one-month period, yes. 11 Q. -- does that support or undermine a charge of 12 theft? 13 A. I'm simply saying I've analysed one month of 14 data and haven't found anything of 15 an incriminating nature. So I haven't found 16 where the money has gone and I haven't found any 17 evidence, whereby things like declaring the true 18 cash on hand followed by a fraudulent figure, as 19 referred to earlier. 20 Q. So might that support her explanation or might 21 it support your view that it was theft? 22 A. I don't think it really changed. I'm going to 23 say it's hard to recall going back all that time 24 what my mindset was. 25 Q. Well, looking at it now, we see that you've 125 1 looked at the data, you're unable to identify 2 anything of an incriminating nature. Does that 3 support or undermine a charge of theft? 4 A. I say it was purely just for one month of data. 5 If I'd have had access to the whole data and 6 analysed that and didn't find anything of 7 an incriminating nature, then that might have 8 affected my mindset more so than just analysing 9 one month. 10 Q. So your view is that one month's worth of data 11 that doesn't contain anything incriminating is 12 of no evidential value? 13 A. I think, again, I can only go on what was in the 14 report. As I say, I don't recall the case. 15 I -- 16 Q. I'm not asking you to recall the case, just 17 looking act it now -- 18 A. I understand that. 19 Q. -- with 12 years of experience as a Security 20 Manager, is your view that, having not found 21 anything of an incriminating nature in one 22 month's worth of ARQ data, that supports or 23 undermines a case of theft? 24 A. I don't really see it does either. 25 Q. Okay, well, let's move on to the next paragraph: 126 1 "In view of the fact that the prepared 2 statement suggests that numerous problems had 3 occurred at South Warnborough Post Office 4 I requested and subsequently received details of 5 calls made to both the Network Business Support 6 Centre and the Horizon Support Helpdesk. From 7 the NBSC log, it can be seen that numerous calls 8 were made requesting advice on a number of 9 subjects. It also details a number of losses 10 reported, details as follows ..." 11 It sets out each of those losses and it says 12 below that: 13 "Both the NBSC and HSH call logs detailed 14 reported problems in respect of the Horizon 15 kit." 16 So it seems there as though she was 17 contemporaneously reporting problems with 18 Horizon to the Helpdesk. 19 A. Yeah, it refers to problems with the Horizon 20 kit, yes. 21 Q. Yes. In your experience, what kind of a thief 22 would call their victim, three years before 23 they're investigated, to ask the victim to help 24 them identify where the missing money was? 25 A. Sorry, you've lost me there. 127 1 Q. We have there Mrs Hamilton phoning the Post 2 Office -- 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. -- the alleged victim of a loss -- 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. -- saying, "I'm experiencing these losses. Can 7 you help me find it?" 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. In your experience, how on earth can that 10 support a case for theft? Surely that 11 undermines a case for theft, doesn't it? 12 A. I'm not sure it does. I mean to say, I think it 13 was Colin Woodbridge went out and looked at it, 14 these -- they're not all individual shortfalls; 15 they were shortfalls that obviously started at 16 £2,000-odd and ended up at £3,000-odd, as per 17 what Mr Colin Woodbridge had reported. And, 18 from what I can remember of the documentation, 19 he went out there and couldn't find anything 20 wrong. 21 Q. We have Mrs Hamilton phoning the Helpdesks in 22 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, reporting missing funds. 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. If the crime of theft requires dishonesty -- 25 A. Yeah. 128 1 Q. -- does this support or undermine a case of 2 theft? 3 A. Well, as I say, collectively the £2,000 became 4 the £3,000 and then there's one for £750 and, in 5 Mrs Hamilton's prepared statement, she mentioned 6 something along the lines of £1,500 which 7 doubled to £3,000, which, without her giving me 8 dates, I assume is the first four entries, and 9 then the £750 afterwards, and then there's 10 another one for £1,000. So that's quite small 11 amounts in respect of the overall deficit of 12 £36,000. 13 Q. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 entries. If we scroll 14 up, these are calls made to the Post Office 15 requesting advice on discrepancies. In your 16 experience, as an Investigator, would it be 17 usual or unusual for a thief to call up the Post 18 Office to tell them how much money they had been 19 missing? 20 A. I have absolutely no idea whether these may well 21 have been genuine losses at the time, and 22 whether money was dishonestly appropriated after 23 that time. 24 Q. We have, in the paragraph below, it says: 25 "I explained to Ms Taylor that the Post 129 1 Office would be looking to recover the funds 2 owing from Mrs Hamilton and that any payments 3 would be accepted without prejudice." 4 Was it important for the Post Office to 5 recover the money? 6 A. That was -- something we were tasked with was 7 trying to recovery monies owed to Post Office, 8 yes, from criminal investigations. 9 Q. Then we have at the bottom there, at the bottom 10 of page 8, your summary: 11 "During the course of this investigation, 12 the following failings were identified. It was 13 identified that this office had been holding 14 approximately £25,000 more that its ONCH targets 15 but excessive cash holdings appeared to have 16 gone unnoticed for some time." 17 Over the page please: 18 "In Mrs Hamilton's prepared statement, it 19 states that all staff used the same Horizon 20 username. The prepared statement suggests that 21 Mrs Hamilton didn't comply with all the training 22 aids sent to her. These papers are now 23 forwarded to you for sight and advice on the 24 sufficiency of the evidence as whether criminal 25 charges are brought against Mrs Hamilton." 130 1 Looking back at that, looking at her 2 explanation in her interview, looking at all 3 those points that I've just taken you to, do you 4 think that your statement within this 5 investigation report, that the criminal team 6 should consider a charge of theft, was 7 appropriate. 8 A. At the time, I would have done, obviously. Now, 9 it's many, many years since I've been in the 10 investigation role, so it's very hard to 11 comment. But, yes, I'll say it was 12 a significant shortfall, so I'm sending it up to 13 the Legal team, asking for their expertise as to 14 whether they feel that criminal charges are 15 bought against Ms Hamilton. 16 Q. You're also suggesting what criminal offence 17 they should charge, weren't you? 18 A. Earlier on, I've asked they may wish to consider 19 theft, yes. 20 Q. Having considered all those things that we've 21 looked at just now, do you still consider that 22 that was an appropriate recommendation to make? 23 A. As I say, I have no recent experience of 24 conducting criminal investigations but, at that 25 time, that would have been my thought. But 131 1 ultimately. 2 Q. You have 12 years of experience of criminal 3 investigations. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You've been provided with this investigation 6 report. We've gone through it. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Looking back at the points that I've highlighted 9 to you, do you still think that recommending 10 a charge of theft was appropriate? 11 A. Again -- 12 Q. I'm not asking you at the time what you thought, 13 I'm asking you -- 14 A. I appreciate that, Mr Blake. 15 Q. -- now, looking back? 16 A. I'm not recommending, I'm asking them to 17 consider. They are the legal experts. No 18 solicitor is going to think "Ooh, the Security 19 Manager has suggested or asked me to consider 20 this charge, I'll go with that". They will use 21 their legal expertise to determine, based on the 22 law, what if any charges they feel our 23 appropriate. 24 Q. I don't think you've answered the question as to 25 whether you still think it's appropriate. But 132 1 if we stick with that, is it really your view 2 that it didn't really matter what you 3 recommended because the Criminal Law Team would 4 make up their own minds? 5 A. Yes, we were asked to sort of say, you know, you 6 may wish to consider a particular offence as 7 part of their report but, ultimately, the 8 Criminal Law Team will advise on it and then 9 a Senior Manager will decide whether we 10 prosecute or not. 11 Q. I think your evidence is that you still think 12 that that was appropriate? 13 A. I really don't because it's been so long since 14 I have done it -- or whether I've had 12 years' 15 experience or not, I've really struggle remember 16 details of what I did as a Security Manager. 17 It's only through looking at the documentation 18 that I'm gaining an understanding as opposed to 19 a recollection. 20 MR BLAKE: Sir, I think, unless you have any 21 questions, that might be an appropriate moment 22 to take our lunch break. 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, start again at 2.00, yes? 24 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 25 (1.00 pm) 133 1 (The Short Adjournment) 2 (2.00 pm) 3 MR BLAKE: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear 4 me? 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 6 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 7 Mr Brander, I've got a few more questions on 8 the case of Hamilton and then we will move on to 9 the other two case studies, but they'll be quite 10 brief, and then I have a few miscellaneous 11 topics, some of which have been suggested by 12 other Core Participants. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. Can we begin, please, with POL00118745, please. 15 This is a letter dated 30 June 2006 to the 16 manager at Nationwide Building Society. It's 17 a letter you wrote, and I'm just going to read 18 to you from it. You say there that: 19 "Mr and Mrs Hamilton have given you signed 20 authority for bank account details to be 21 disclosed to [you]. 22 "Unfortunately, to date, I have not received 23 any such details from you. As this information 24 has been requested as part of a criminal 25 investigation that I am conducting, I would be 134 1 grateful if you would arrange for copies of the 2 requested statements to be sent to me as soon as 3 possible." 4 So are we to understand from this that Jo 5 Hamilton had given you signed authority to 6 obtain her bank details for the relevant period 7 of the alleged offending. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Can we just look back at your witness statement 10 for this Inquiry, that's WITN08300100 and it's 11 page 24, paragraph 85, please. It's actually 12 page 25, paragraph 93. 13 At the very end of that paragraph, at the 14 very bottom of the page, it begins "I", and then 15 if we scroll down over the page, it says: 16 "I can also see that I sought to obtain bank 17 statements relating to Ms Hamilton." 18 Do you think that is a fair reflection of 19 the evidence? I mean, one thing you don't 20 mention there is that you don't mention that 21 Ms Hamilton had given you permission. It reads 22 perhaps as though you sought to obtain them from 23 Mrs Hamilton but had not been provided with 24 them. 25 A. Sorry, I think that was just a summary of the 135 1 enquiries I conducted. 2 Q. Yes, so what you don't say there is 3 "Mrs Hamilton gave me authorisation to obtain 4 her bank statements but I unfortunately was or 5 wasn't successful in obtaining them from the 6 bank itself"? 7 A. No, but I would have been in -- you know, the 8 reports and -- that had been submitted and were 9 part of the bundle. 10 Q. But for the purposes of this Inquiry, do you 11 think it might have been helpful in that 12 statement to have said Mrs Hamilton actually 13 gave permission for me to access her bank 14 statements? 15 A. Okay, I'm going to say it wasn't a deliberate 16 omission but, yeah, apologies if it should have 17 been added. 18 Q. Do you think that the fact that she had given 19 authority to obtain her bank statements was 20 a relevant factor to consider when weighing up 21 an offence of dishonesty? 22 A. Not necessarily because there may not have been 23 any evidence of criminality in the bank accounts 24 and I wouldn't have known what bank accounts she 25 held so I would have only been submitting 136 1 requests for ones that she gave authority to. 2 Q. You're an Investigator, presumably you had the 3 power to obtain information as to how many bank 4 accounts a person had, didn't you? 5 A. I can't recall what powers I had. I know that 6 we would, almost as a matter of course, ask if 7 they would sign authority for bank accounts. 8 I know that we subsequently had a Financial 9 Investigation Team that had powers. I'm not 10 sure whether I had any powers, other than on 11 a voluntary basis. 12 Q. When you're weighing up whether somebody was 13 dishonest, if they've given you permission to 14 contact their bank and to obtain their 15 statements and to look to see, for example, 16 whether they were leading a particular 17 lifestyle, do you think that that might be worth 18 considering when you're weighing up whether 19 somebody was dishonest or not? 20 A. Well, not necessarily, because, as I said, 21 I don't know whether I'd have been given 22 authority for all bank accounts. Also people -- 23 sometimes with looking at bank accounts, it's 24 not always what you see, it's what you don't 25 see. So they might not have been aware of that. 137 1 So for example, if -- certainly, going back, you 2 know, several years, people used to purchase 3 things with cash more so than they do with cards 4 these days. So if, for instance, I'm looking -- 5 they might have thought "Okay, I haven't paid 6 any fraudulent deposits into my accounts so they 7 won't find anything, but I might also be looking 8 for the fact have you been making any cash 9 withdrawals, ie how have you paid at the cash 10 and carry, for your suppliers, for your private 11 business? How have you paid for money for your 12 food?" 13 So, again, I might be looking at something 14 that isn't there, ie cash withdrawals, to 15 sustain just basic living and the person may 16 have given authority, not realising that I will 17 be looking at other things, other than just, 18 boom, here's a deposit that looks like it's 19 criminality. 20 Q. So you didn't have powers to obtain those bank 21 statements by compulsion? 22 A. I don't recall. I may have done but I don't 23 recall. 24 Q. The way that you would go about it normally 25 would be to request that they sign authority 138 1 over to you? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You would use that authority to go through and 4 not just check for any excessive amounts within 5 the bank statement but also for cash 6 transactions -- 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. -- et cetera. Isn't the fact that somebody is 9 volunteering that information, volunteering that 10 statement, something that you thought merits 11 consideration in weighing up whether they were 12 dishonest? 13 A. Not necessarily but it was clearly reported to 14 the Criminal Law Team that that's an inquiry 15 I had looked to conduct. So, if they want to 16 place any credence on it, they could have done 17 but I don't think so, for the reasons I've just 18 given. 19 Q. You were providing opinions as to offences, so 20 it's relevant to your own consideration of 21 whether offences have been committed as well as 22 the Criminal Law Team's, isn't it? 23 A. Yes -- 24 Q. Was that something -- 25 A. -- and, as I said, from recollection, I don't 139 1 think I placed any emphasis on whether somebody 2 did or didn't but, ultimately, I think from the 3 documentation, I wrote to two banks and two 4 banks are saying, well, I think the answer was 5 given that they hadn't received them. So I went 6 back to Mrs Hamilton and asked if she wouldn't 7 mind signing them again, which I know was 8 an inconvenience, but I don't appear to have had 9 a response. 10 Q. If somebody hadn't provided you with the 11 original authority to contact their bank, you 12 would have held that against them, wouldn't you, 13 in weighing up dishonesty? 14 A. No, I don't think so. I mean, it's hard to 15 think back what my mindset would have been at 16 that time but I don't think so. 17 Q. So -- 18 A. But certainly, at the time -- 19 Q. -- the act of obtaining a bank statement didn't 20 matter one way or another? 21 A. As I say, it's really hard to think back to what 22 my mindset would have been at that time but, 23 certainly, I don't know when the Financial 24 Investigation Unit came into force but they 25 would -- I think they could do -- was it 140 1 production orders, something like that? 2 Q. Yes. How would that affect things? 3 A. Sorry, say again? 4 Q. How would that affect your decision making? If 5 you had the power to obtain a bank statement via 6 a production order but, in fact, the person you 7 were investigating said, "I don't mind signing 8 a piece of paper that allows you access to my 9 bank statements", did it still not make any 10 material difference to your decision -- 11 A. I'm not sure I had any thoughts on it because 12 they would -- certainly in the case of 13 Ms Hamilton, she took advice and her solicitor, 14 I believe from the documentation, advised her 15 that it was okay to do so. I don't think I had 16 any firm opinion that it was being authorised. 17 Sometimes the advice from the solicitor was do 18 so, sometimes it was not do so, and I would just 19 report accordingly. I don't think I had any 20 real thoughts on it. 21 Q. Can we look at POL00118610. This is a "further 22 to" memo in the case of Hamilton on 11 August 23 2006. You provide some information further to 24 enquiries. Can we please turn to page 4. 25 I just want to ask you a few questions about 141 1 this. The first substantive paragraph there 2 says: 3 "I have spoken to Mr Graham Ward, 4 Investigation Team Casework Manager who advises 5 that a standard statement could be obtained from 6 Fujitsu covering the fact that the discrepancies 7 would not be due to system error." 8 Now, first of all, who was Graham Ward and 9 why was he the relevant person to approach? 10 A. At that time, Graham was the Casework Manager. 11 Q. Why would he be the person to approach for 12 a statement from Fujitsu? 13 A. At the time, as I said earlier, I think we had 14 links to Fujitsu and I think that was either -- 15 I think at the time it would be the Casework 16 Team and I think, later on, I think the main 17 person was, like, Jane Owen in the Crime Risk 18 Team. 19 Q. What did you understand by a standard statement 20 from Fujitsu that could cover the fact that 21 discrepancies would not be due to system error? 22 A. I can only assume that was, you know, the 23 standard statement that we would get when -- 24 like, for instance, when they're producing ARQ 25 data but, basically, as it suggests, a standard 142 1 statement that would cover the integrity of 2 Fujitsu, I believe. 3 Q. The integrity of Horizon? 4 A. Sorry, yeah, the integrity of Horizon. 5 Q. The next paragraph: 6 "In respect of NBSC calls, Mr Ian Speck, 7 Service Review Manager, has advised me that it's 8 impossible to highlight what call may have 9 caused a discrepancy. He basically states that 10 discrepancies are due to mistakes made at the 11 Post Office branch, either directly with the 12 customer, which wouldn't be recoverable, or by 13 incorrectly using Horizon, which would usually 14 be recoverable by means of an error notice (now 15 called transaction correction) being generated 16 when a mismatch in the accounting becomes 17 apparent", and he refers to an email. 18 The fact that an error could generate 19 a discrepancy, is that something that would be 20 relevant to your consideration as to whether 21 somebody had committed an offence of dishonesty? 22 A. Sorry, can you say that again? 23 Q. You're being told, in respect of the NBSC, that 24 it was possible for there to be a discrepancy as 25 a result of user error. Is that something to 143 1 weigh up when you are considering whether 2 somebody has committed an offence of dishonesty? 3 A. Yeah, yeah, I mean to say that, obviously, 4 there's some things called human error and, if 5 there was an error made, it could be something 6 that could be identified. If, say, for 7 instance, you're serving on a counter and you 8 give somebody £10 too much change, unless the 9 customer has noticed and is honest and said, 10 "You've given me £10 too much" that's not going 11 to be recoverable. 12 If somebody has, you know, entered something 13 on Horizon and when the physical document or if 14 it's gone -- if it's like an online transaction, 15 but either way when it's married up with the 16 actual transaction, if it's identified there's 17 an error then, obviously, a transaction 18 correction would be produced and that would have 19 been sent back to the branch. So yeah, 20 absolutely, human error can occur. 21 Q. Did you, in this case, consider whether, for 22 example, human error, or the fact that a human 23 error could result in a discrepancy, might be 24 something to take into account when considering 25 whether the alleged offender was acting 144 1 dishonestly? 2 A. Well, I think this is the reason why I've gone 3 to Mr Speck in the first place and he is 4 basically saying it's impossible to highlight 5 what would have caused a discrepancy. 6 Q. So can the fact that a discrepancy can be caused 7 by user error, did that feature in your thinking 8 in respect of criminality, in an offence of 9 dishonesty? 10 A. If somebody has made an error then that's not 11 going to be criminality, unless it was maybe 12 a deliberate error to hide something. But, 13 yeah, human error can occur, and that wouldn't 14 be, in the main part, a criminal offence. 15 Q. Your response to that is: 16 "Having looked at the call logs myself, 17 I cannot see anything that relates to a single 18 or multiple discrepancies that would account for 19 the audit deficit." 20 So your response to that was to check the 21 call logs, was it, rather than the underlying 22 ARQ data, for example? 23 A. Yeah, I'm looking at the call logs and I can see 24 reference to what we've mentioned earlier, the 25 actual discrepancies that Ms Hamilton raised 145 1 with the Helpdesk, but looking at Horizon data, 2 if there were declared discrepancies, I would 3 see them, but I wouldn't see an error. 4 Q. If there was user error that didn't result in 5 a telephone call to the Helpdesk, that wouldn't 6 have been picked up by your review of the call 7 logs, would it? 8 A. If those -- 9 Q. Because you're only reviewing those issues that 10 are raised on the call? 11 A. Yeah, this calls primarily for assistance from 12 Ms Hamilton to the Helpdesk. 13 Q. Yes. The paragraph below refers to the banks. 14 It says: 15 "I posted disclosures signed by Mrs Hamilton 16 to the two banks in question but the banks have 17 advised me that they never received them. 18 I sent out further disclosure forms to 19 Mrs Hamilton explaining the situation, but so 20 far they haven't been returned." 21 So we have here, on 17 May, the document 22 I took you to before lunch, you said in that 23 investigation report that the only evidence was 24 the audit identified money as missing. 25 A. Yeah. 146 1 Q. By the 30 June, Mrs Hamilton had given you 2 signed authority to obtain her bank statements 3 and here, 11 August, you were, for example, 4 being told by the NBSC, or in respect of the 5 NBSC, that user error could be or is a potential 6 cause of discrepancies and you're being told 7 that there's a standard statement that's 8 available from Fujitsu. 9 Why isn't it, at this stage, that you are 10 not revisiting your initial investigation report 11 or making further inquiries of Fujitsu in 12 respect of the particular concerns that 13 Mrs Hamilton had raised? 14 A. User error can happen at any time and, if there 15 was -- and as I say, other than the scenario 16 I gave where you've given a customer too much 17 money, then, generally, over a relatively short 18 period of time, from my understanding, is 19 a transaction correction would come back. So if 20 you caused an error and your accounts go down, 21 the transaction comes back and the accounts 22 recalibrate. 23 Q. I'm not talking specifically about user error, 24 I'm talking about everything you've learnt by 25 this date. You don't seem to have in any way 147 1 revisited your opinion that a charge of theft 2 would be appropriate? 3 A. Sorry, I missed that last bit. Sorry, my 4 hearing is not the best. 5 Q. There is nothing that has shown you, since your 6 original investigation -- nothing to build upon 7 that charge of theft, was there? You hadn't 8 received any further evidence that -- 9 A. No, I don't think so, no. Not in respect of the 10 call logs anyhow, no. 11 Q. Irrespective of the call logs, we've seen the 12 investigation report and then we've seen what 13 you've called a further two memos. 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. So that is your standard second step -- 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. -- responding after the investigation report. 18 You haven't received any further evidence to 19 make you more sure of theft or anything along 20 those lines, have you? 21 A. I'm going to say I believe the theft was, you 22 know, an offence that was committed because 23 there's nothing that had come back to show that 24 this £36,000 attributed to any errors that I was 25 aware of. 148 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That's it in a nutshell, isn't 2 it? You thought that the Auditor had identified 3 a loss of £36,000, you believed Horizon was 4 accurate and, therefore, there must have been 5 a theft; that's what it boils down to, isn't it? 6 A. Pretty much, sir, and -- 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, and nothing happened during 8 the course of the investigation thereafter that 9 deflected you from that opinion. That's what it 10 boils down to also, isn't it? 11 A. Again, I can't recall but, from looking at this, 12 I think my thought was that it remained theft, 13 yes. 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. Fine. 15 MR BLAKE: Thank you. Can we look at POL00049083, 16 please, now in October 2007. The bottom email 17 is an email from Richard Jory who was, 18 I believe, counsel in this case. He is emailing 19 Jennifer Andrews in the Criminal Law Team, he 20 says: 21 "Juliet/Jenee. 22 "Counsel defending has offered pleas to 23 false accounting in this matter (I presume 24 Counts 2-9 inclusive) and asked me to take 25 instructions as to whether this might be 149 1 an appropriate offer. My view is that there is 2 evidence that she has taken the money and that 3 there is sufficient evidence to support theft, 4 but Royal Mail may be content with guilty pleas 5 to dishonesty matters if she undertook to repay 6 the amount of the shortage, ie £36,344.89. It 7 might be the worth speaking to the officers 8 Graham Brander and Colin Price to canvass their 9 views." 10 We then have an email from Jennifer Andrews 11 to yourself: 12 "Could you provide your views with regard to 13 indicated please as soon as possible?" 14 The top email is from you responding, 15 saying: 16 "I agree with counsel. In my opinion, the 17 evidence clearly shows theft, Charge 1. 18 However, if the defence are offering up guilty 19 pleas to all false accounting charges then 20 I would suggest we accept this on the 21 understanding that Mrs Hamilton agrees to repay 22 the full amount." 23 So you are there giving an opinion and 24 suggesting that it is accepted. We spoke 25 earlier about who is the decision maker in 150 1 respect of the acceptance of pleas and the 2 bringing of charges. It seems there that you 3 are very much filling the shoes of the Senior 4 Security Manager, aren't you? 5 A. No, I said any decision, in respect of whether 6 we accept this, would need to be made by Dave 7 Pardoe. 8 Q. Well, your view is canvassed by the Criminal Law 9 Team in the email below "Could you provide your 10 views with regard to pleas", and you are giving 11 quite a definitive opinion there, aren't you? 12 A. They've asked for my opinion and I agree with 13 counsel. 14 Q. Do you think it was an appropriate thing to be 15 giving an opinion on? 16 A. Well, if I didn't think counsel felt it 17 appropriate, then surely counsel wouldn't have 18 asked the Investigator. 19 Q. Are you sure you ran this past the Senior 20 Security Manager? 21 A. I have no idea. This is 2007. 22 Q. You've said that the Senior Security Manager 23 made the decision in every case. Might it be 24 possible that this is a case where the Senior 25 Security Manager didn't make the decision? 151 1 A. It's possible. I've gone back to the Criminal 2 Law Team and said it needs to be made by Dave 3 Pardoe. I'm going to say also included in that 4 email it says Investigation Team Post Office so 5 that would have been the generic email for the 6 Investigation Team. So I can't say whether -- 7 well, I saying that, I can actually see that 8 Dave Pardoe is copied in. 9 Q. Are you aware of Dave Pardoe ever disagreeing 10 with your opinion in respect of acceptance of 11 pleas? 12 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. I'm going to say 13 I don't recall this coming up very often, 14 whereby I'd be asked for my opinion because, 15 ultimately, that would be for the, you know, 16 once we got to this stage, it would be like 17 counsel deciding. 18 Q. Is that right? By this stage, when counsel were 19 advising, was it effectively acceptance of 20 counsel's advice? 21 A. Well, as I say, I can't recall exactly how it 22 worked but, certainly in this case, Dave Pardoe 23 was copied in to what I've -- you know, how I've 24 responded with my opinion and the fact that it 25 should be for Dave Pardoe to consider. I can't 152 1 recall this case or any other particular cases 2 whereby I've been asked to give my opinion. But 3 counsel, if they need opinions sought, it might 4 come back to the Security Manager, it might come 5 back to the Criminal Law Team. I honestly can't 6 say. 7 Q. In respect of the substantive decision, do you 8 think it was appropriate to offer a lesser 9 charge in return for payment of money that you 10 couldn't prove had been stolen? 11 A. I'm not a lawyer, so it's not really my decision 12 on what charges to, you know, charge or accept. 13 Q. If you're not a lawyer -- 14 A. I'll happily give my opinion if I'm asked for my 15 opinion. 16 Q. But you didn't think that you were qualified to 17 actually give that opinion? 18 A. I've given my opinion but the decision is to be 19 made by Dave Pardoe. 20 Q. Why did you give an opinion, if you didn't think 21 you were qualified to do so? 22 A. No, I'm not saying I wasn't qualified. I said 23 if I was asked to give an opinion, I would do my 24 best to give an opinion and that's what I've 25 done. But, ultimately, it's for the experts to 153 1 decide on what charges are acceptable and for 2 the Senior Security Manager to decide whether 3 they concur. 4 Q. Can we look at POL00049154, please. We're now 5 in November 2007. This is correspondence to the 6 Investigation Team from the principal lawyer, 7 and she says: 8 "As you know there has been some discussion 9 as to whether or not pleas to false accounting 10 would be acceptable. I note this would be 11 agreeable providing that Mrs Hamilton were to 12 repay the full amount." 13 She says: 14 "I understand, however, that she is not yet 15 in a position to repay and has not yet given 16 a date on when this can be done." 17 She says there: 18 "One option would be for the theft count to 19 be left on file pending payment by the date of 20 trial or some later date." 21 Is this something that you remember 22 discussing at the time? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Did you attend any of the hearings in this case? 25 A. Typically, I would attend most if not all 154 1 hearings, as would any Security Manager. 2 Q. Could we look at POL00044388, 19 November. This 3 is the ultimate court hearing and a reporting 4 back from the principal lawyer. She says as 5 follows: 6 "The defendant pleaded guilty to false 7 accounting, counts 2-15 on the indictment. The 8 case has been adjourned to 25 January for 9 pre-sentence reports. 10 "The defendant has been informed that full 11 payment must be made prior to that date. The 12 theft count has remained on file on the 13 understanding that it should be proceeded with 14 if the money is not repaid." 15 At the bottom of that page, it says: 16 "It has been made clear to the defence that 17 there must be some recognition that the 18 defendant that the money short of theft and that 19 a plea on the basis that the loss was due to the 20 computer not working properly will not be 21 accepted." 22 Having attended that hearing, presumably you 23 were present at those discussions? 24 A. Yeah, I've attended but I don't recall that 25 statement, whether that statement actually came 155 1 up in court or whether that was just reported 2 back. It looks like it would have been covered 3 in court but I certainly can't remember that far 4 back. 5 Q. Would you have been the only Investigator in 6 court or would Mr Pardoe, for example, have been 7 present? 8 A. No, Mr Pardoe wouldn't have been there. 9 Q. Insofar as there needed to be liaison with 10 an Investigator, were you the appropriate person 11 on that occasion to be liaising with and 12 discussing next steps? 13 A. It was always the Investigator that attended 14 court hearings but we're not the experts there. 15 There would also be someone from the Criminal 16 Law Team, usually one of the -- either the 17 solicitor or one of the -- I don't know the 18 legal analysts or legal executives, somebody 19 from the Prosecution Support Office. 20 Q. Who would they take their instructions from? 21 A. Who would they take their instructions from? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. Well, I should imagine counsel would take 24 instructions from the Criminal Law Team. 25 Q. Who do the Criminal Law Team take their 156 1 instructions from? 2 A. I should imagine a Senior Security Manager. 3 Q. The Senior Security Manager not being present at 4 court, do you recall on this occasion who 5 instructions were taken from in respect of this 6 agreement? 7 A. I'm certainly not -- I don't -- I've had to read 8 that paragraph a few times to try and even 9 understand it. I've not instructed -- I don't 10 even understand -- you know, recognise that 11 terminology. That would have been -- whoever 12 has made that statement would have been Criminal 13 Law Team or counsel. 14 Q. I'm going to move on to a slightly different 15 topic but just sticking with the Hamilton case, 16 and I'll take this very quickly because you've 17 already given evidence in relation to your 18 understanding of the disclosure process. But 19 I just want to look through the schedules that 20 were completed. 21 Can we look at POL00059376, please. You'll 22 recall this morning I asked you about 23 a paragraph in your witness statement where you 24 said that the Criminal Law Team would deal with 25 any disclosure to the defence. I think you 157 1 accept that, in fact, you were ultimately 2 responsible for disclosure and, if we look over 3 the page, we can see the schedule that is signed 4 by you. 5 A. Yes, so I would produce a committal bundle and, 6 if further evidence was required, I might do 7 further schedules, but I also believe that the 8 Prosecution Support Office would also disclose 9 things. 10 Q. So would you not be the single point of contact 11 for disclosure? 12 A. I don't think so, certainly from doing the 13 committal -- so the bulk would be covered on the 14 committal bundle. Once it gets into the court 15 process, something -- you know, counsel may 16 require something else and, then -- or it may 17 well be that they've asked for something to be 18 produced as an exhibit, so it might come off the 19 unused and then get a statement that goes on 20 exhibits. 21 But, typically, from how I remember it, 22 I would submit the committal bundle and, in 23 terms of disclosure via the Criminal Law Team, 24 that would generally be all I would do. 25 Q. So I properly understand this, are you saying 158 1 that you would create the Schedule of Unused 2 Material but then there may be further unused 3 material that had come from another route within 4 the Post Office that you're not aware of? 5 A. If I'd been asked to conduct further enquiries 6 or something else comes to light -- and I can 7 only think of the one case in the bundle and 8 I can't remember which case it was, but there 9 was further documentation, I'm going to say it 10 might have been Mrs Hamilton's case, that the 11 defence had made counsel aware of, and I don't 12 recall it but I had to go up to chambers to look 13 through loads of ringbinders containing 14 documentation. 15 So I think possibly that then was added to 16 another unused material statement. So in that 17 scenario -- but I can't recall any others. Not 18 to say that there weren't but that's just, 19 I believe, an example where it -- you know, 20 further enquiries were required or further items 21 were identified and it was then added to, 22 I believe, the unused material. 23 Q. In your recollection, who would decide whether 24 there was material that might reasonably be 25 considered capable of undermining the 159 1 prosecution case or assisting the defence case, 2 which hadn't already been disclosed? 3 A. Yeah, I'm going to say that was -- when we were 4 doing the committal bundle or filling these 5 forms anyhow, then obviously there's one of the 6 forms is unused material that may undermine the 7 prosecution, assist the defence. So the 8 Security Manager was tasked with doing that. So 9 they would fill that form in. 10 Q. Aside from the form filling though, who do you 11 consider was responsible for determining what 12 might reasonably be considered capable of 13 undermining or assisting? 14 A. Well, the Security Manager would present it as 15 they thought but, obviously, then the Criminal 16 Law Team and counsel would obviously have a view 17 on it, and there were -- I think, things were 18 moved or there was times when I'd been asked to 19 give a deeper explanation of some things on the 20 unused material. 21 Q. Can we look at POL00048205. We'll see a series 22 of memos over 2006 and 2007 that are send by the 23 Criminal Law Team to the Investigation Team, 24 copied to you. This is the first of those. If 25 we scroll down to the bottom, it says: 160 1 "I list below the statements which appear to 2 be necessary in this case but the Investigation 3 Manager should also consider whether there are 4 any other areas which can usefully be covered", 5 et cetera. 6 It refers at number 5, over the page, to 7 a copy statement dealing with the Horizon system 8 and confirming that the calls could not have 9 been attributed to the discrepancy in the 10 accounts. 11 Did you see it as part of your role to carry 12 out investigations as to the reliability of the 13 Horizon system? 14 A. Well, basically, I would have -- you know, 15 when -- I'd have conducted the enquiries as part 16 of the investigation and, once it went up to the 17 Criminal Law, from memory it was quiet reactive. 18 So whatever they asked for, I would have 19 endeavoured to obtain. 20 Q. So you would wait for them to ask for 21 information and you would see it as your job to 22 go and -- 23 A. If something else came about or I was still 24 conducting enquiries, then, yeah, then I would 25 do it myself. But I think, once the case file 161 1 went up, most if not all enquiries had been 2 conducted. 3 Q. If we scroll down, you'll see there wording 4 that's included in other memos that says: 5 "You will be aware of the provisions of the 6 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 7 concerning disclosure. Please confirm whether 8 there is any material which might be reasonably 9 be considered capable of undermining the 10 prosecution case or assisting the defence case 11 and which has not already been disclosed. 12 Please also let me have", and there are various 13 forms there. 14 There's another example of that at 15 POL00048473. I think this is, in fact, the 16 document you were referring to where there's 17 reference to something being taken off the 18 unused material list because it's become 19 an exhibit. That's number 3. Then, at the 20 bottom paragraph, it's again standard wording: 21 "I remind you that the requirement for the 22 disclosure to the defence is a continuing duty. 23 If there is any such material [et cetera], 24 please forward this to this office immediately. 25 If you're in any doubt", et cetera. 162 1 In your witness statement, as we went over, 2 you said that the Criminal Law Team would deal 3 with any disclosure to the defence. Looking at 4 this and looking back now, would it be more 5 accurate to say that, in fact, you were 6 ultimately responsible for disclosure decisions. 7 A. As I said, I would disclose it to the Criminal 8 Law Team and I'd assume they would disclose 9 everything to the defence but I didn't know what 10 they did disclose. I think it's terminology. 11 I didn't see myself as a Disclosure Officer. It 12 was just one of the many tasks that the Security 13 Manager had to deal with because there was no 14 separate Disclosure Officer. 15 Q. Thank you. I'm now going to move on to the case 16 study of Lynette Hutchings. Could we please 17 look at POL00113278. That's the judgment in the 18 Hamilton Court of Appeal case. I just want to 19 again take you to the relevant part that deals 20 with the Hutchings case, that's page 57, 21 paragraphs 267 to 272. 22 Just to assist everybody who is sitting here 23 today, I'm just going to briefly outline what 24 this case is about. 25 The Court of Appeal say that on 30 July 163 1 2012, Lynette Hutchings pleaded guilty to one 2 count of false accounting. The Post Office 3 offered no evidence against her on one count of 4 fraud and a not guilty verdict was entered. 5 They say that between 1 June 2010 and 6 5 April 2011, Ms Hutchings made 33 calls to the 7 National Business Support Centre, two of which 8 related to losses or gains. Dip samples 9 covering 13 January to 30 March showed that she 10 had made four calls to the Horizon System 11 Helpdesk for advice: 12 "Ms Hutchings produced a prepared statement 13 at her interview under caution, saying that 14 problems had arisen since her branch had 15 transferred to Horizon Online. She had believed 16 that the incorrect balances would be sorted out 17 by transaction corrections in the fullness of 18 time. She had not stolen any money nor had she 19 acted dishonestly. She gave specific examples 20 of problems she had experienced, including the 21 fact that the Post Office advice was difficult 22 to access and unreliable. 23 "In her written basis of plea, Ms Hutchings 24 said that she had balanced the books to put off 25 the evil day of having to sort out the muddle. 164 1 She did not take any money nor had she intended 2 to. That basis was not accepted by the 3 prosecution but they did not contest it." 4 If we look at paragraph 271, the final part 5 of that paragraph, it says: 6 "There was no investigation into the 7 integrity of the Horizon figures. The 8 investigation concentrated on proving how the 9 accounts were falsified, which was admitted, 10 rather than examining the root cause of the 11 shortfall. There was no investigation of 12 Ms Hutchings' complaints, as set out in her 13 prepared statement. There was no proof of 14 an actual loss, as opposed to a Horizon 15 generated shortfall." 16 I want to take you to the interview that was 17 carried out with Ms Hutchings and that can be 18 found at POL00056417, please. We have two 19 records of interviews, this is the first of 20 those two, and you are listed there as the 21 interviewing officer, alongside Gary Thomas. 22 If we scroll down, we can see there various 23 things that you referred to before as being part 24 of the interview process, so reminded of rights, 25 confirmed solicitor explained the caution, not 165 1 under arrest, free to leave, et cetera. All of 2 those are set out in the record of interview. 3 Could we turn over the page, please. This 4 is her written statement. I'm going to read 5 some of it. It says: 6 "I am Lynette Hutchings. This statement is 7 my version of events and I have asked my 8 solicitor to write it down. We migrated to 9 Horizon Online in approximately May/June 2010. 10 At the time of migration all accounts balanced. 11 Ever since we have been with Horizon Online the 12 balances have been wrong. When I talk about we, 13 I also refer to my husband who assists me in the 14 Post Office. At no stage have we stolen money 15 from the Post Office nor are we aware of making 16 mistakes in our day [must be 'to day'] operation 17 of the system. Because of this we always 18 believed that incorrect balances would be sorted 19 out through transaction corrections. When 20 I altered the cash declarations, this was not 21 done in order to create a financial gain for 22 myself or a loss to the Post Office. 23 I genuinely believed that there was no loss and 24 that the balances would be corrected in the 25 fullness of time. The only reason the cash 166 1 declarations were altered was to enable me to 2 operate the Post Office. I am unable to explain 3 why the balances are incorrect but would give 4 examples of some of the difficulties as follows: 5 the helpline was difficult to access and 6 unreliable, secure stock created unexplained 7 discrepancies on a weekly basis, the screen on 8 the stock unit needed recalibrating on occasions 9 due to cursor sticking, the back office printer 10 was replaced because it was unreliable, the 11 smaller counter's printer stuck and not produced 12 expected receipts, one monitor crashed and the 13 power pack had to be replaced", et cetera. 14 Would you agree that the reliability of the 15 Horizon system was front and centre of her 16 defence to this case? 17 A. Well, I think she's referred to a few occasions 18 where equipment needed to be replaced. As 19 I say, I can't recall the detail but I think -- 20 did we not get a statement from Andy Dunks that 21 explained all the calls in this case? 22 Q. That wasn't actually my question. My question 23 was about her case -- 24 A. I know, I'm just trying to recall -- 25 Q. -- and her defence. Do you agree that the 167 1 reliability of the Horizon system was central to 2 her defence? 3 A. Oh, no, absolutely, in her prepared statement 4 she's saying that -- where is it? Yeah, she's 5 listed a few issues that she's had with the 6 Horizon equipment. 7 Q. I just want to move to page 8, please. 8 Mr Thomas, your co-interviewing officer, says as 9 follows to Ms Hutchings, he says: 10 "Okay, in respect of obviously we have Issy 11 today and you have prepared a statement, etc, is 12 there any reason I could ask you why you've 13 actually got Issy Hogg as you solicitor and not 14 somebody from [and then it's not clear what is 15 said]. Do you not have any solicitors locally?" 16 Do you consider that to be an appropriate 17 question to put to a defendant in an interview? 18 A. I'm going to say when I was looking through the 19 documentation I did see that and I don't 20 understand it, to be honest. But I knew there 21 was a reason why Gary had asked that at the time 22 but I don't know what it would have been. 23 Q. Were you aware that Issy Hogg had represented, 24 for example, Jo Hamilton, Seema Misra and other 25 defendants? 168 1 A. I wasn't aware of Seema Misra but I was aware 2 that Issy Hogg was the person I spoke to in 3 respect of Ms Hamilton. But Issy Hogg wasn't 4 the solicitor in attendance at the interview. 5 Q. I mean, you were sitting next to Mr Thomas at 6 this interview. If he had said something like 7 that, which is recorded in the transcript, would 8 that not have struck you as slightly odd? 9 A. As I say, it's -- I honestly don't know. 10 I can't say. I'm going to say, looking at it 11 now, it strikes me as slightly odd -- going back 12 in time, there may have been some reason why 13 Gary has asked that. Perhaps Gary was aware of 14 other cases where Issy had represented people. 15 Q. What possible relevance could that have to 16 whether this individual was guilty or not of 17 a criminal offence? 18 A. Well, at face value, I don't see it does. 19 Q. You see the suggestion, it seems from there, 20 that in some way those who were conducting these 21 interviews held it against defendants if they 22 were represented by a particular solicitor, the 23 suggestion being perhaps that that solicitor is 24 helping to run a particular argument in a range 25 of cases? 169 1 A. I don't think that's the case. You can have 2 whoever you like as your legal representative. 3 Q. Absolutely. So why do you think it was 4 considered to be a relevant question to be 5 asked? 6 A. As I say, I can't answer why Gary has asked that 7 question. 8 Q. Can we move on to the next interview, that's 9 POL00044505. This interview is largely a no 10 comment interview but, if we go to page 15, 11 halfway down page 15, it does seem to be 12 a substantive answer to the question of the 13 branch trading statement showing no 14 discrepancies and her being asked was it a true 15 and correct cash figure declared on the account 16 on that day? She says, "No". Do you recall 17 that at all? 18 A. Yeah, I think that was a requirement when we 19 were -- there was an audit shortfall 20 investigation, we would put cash accounts or 21 branch trading statements to them and ask if the 22 cash figure was a true reflection of the cash 23 that was on hand, so I think that's fairly 24 standard. 25 Q. That's in admission from her that it wasn't 170 1 true? It wasn't a correct cash declaration? 2 A. Yeah, she's saying it wasn't a true figure. 3 Q. Can we please go back to a document that we 4 started with this morning and that is 5 POL00046706, and that is the investigation 6 report from this particular case study. It's 7 5 May 2011, investigation report. I read to you 8 from it this morning. I'm just going to 9 repeat -- it's page 5. 10 In fact, could we go to the bottom of page 4 11 and down to page 5., and slightly up, thank you. 12 Perfect. 13 So you can see there a paragraph that begins 14 "I was made aware that", and that's something 15 I'm just going to ask you just to hold in your 16 mind when we look at another document. It may 17 be that I can bring them both up on screen next 18 to each other. Then the next paragraph: 19 "On Friday, 15 April I was contacted by 20 Ms Issy Hogg, solicitor who was representing 21 Ms Hutchings. It was agreed that I would 22 conduct a voluntary interview." 23 Then over the page it details what was said 24 in the interview and the detail of the prepared 25 statement. So it says: 171 1 "From the prepared statement it could be 2 seen that Mrs Hutchings believed she migrated to 3 Horizon Online in May/June although 4 I established just prior to the commencement of 5 the interview that the migration date was 6 5 July. It states that at the time of the 7 migration all accounts balanced. It then goes 8 on to suggest that problems arose following the 9 migration to Horizon Online. It states that 10 only her and her husband worked in the Post 11 Office and at no stage had they stolen any 12 money. It states that they only served against 13 their own usernames and did not know each others 14 passwords. 15 "It states that Ms Hutchings altered cash 16 declarations [and that's the admission I just 17 took you to] but not in order to create a gain 18 for herself or a loss to the Post Office and 19 that she felt the balances would be corrected 20 through transaction corrections. She stared 21 that hes only altered the cash declarations in 22 order to continue to operate the Post Office. 23 "The prepared statement refers to some 24 difficulties that she encountered. These 25 related to unexplained stock discrepancies, 172 1 problems with Horizon equipment and that the 2 helpline was difficult to access and 3 unreliable." 4 This is the investigation report. I now 5 want to take you to another report. I think 6 it's the disciplinary investigation report, this 7 being the criminal investigation report. It's 8 POL00044508. If it's possible to have that 9 document side by side with this, that would be 10 ideal. 11 So if we look at the final page on the 12 left-hand side, that one's dated 6 May. The one 13 on the right-hand side is 5 May and they're 14 slightly different and you explained this 15 morning that a disciplinary investigation report 16 is slightly different to a criminal 17 investigation report; is that correct? 18 (No audible answer) 19 The one on the left-hand side, does it look 20 like a disciplinary investigation report? 21 A. No, the one on the left is -- it's got -- 22 I don't understand that because it's got 23 "Personnel" at the top and "Legal" at the 24 bottom. Can you go to -- if it's addressed 25 to -- did you say it was Nigel Allen, was it? 173 1 Q. If we could go to the first page of the one on 2 the left. 3 A. Yeah, so it's headed to Nigel Allen, so this -- 4 obviously I've not changed the footer to 5 "Personnel". So yeah, this is the discipline 6 one. 7 Q. So the one on the left is the discipline one. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Thank you. Can we turn to page 3 of the 10 discipline one, so 3 on the left; and could we 11 have a look at page 4 on the right. Could that 12 one on the right be a full half? Thank you very 13 much. You'll recall that I took you to the 14 point where it said, "I was made aware that", so 15 if we have a look on the right, that is near the 16 bottom, and there's a paragraph that says, 17 "I was made aware that there were two errors", 18 and on the left discipline report, it says, 19 "I was made aware there were two errors", on the 20 final paragraph. Thank you. 21 The one on the right, as we've seen, if we 22 scroll over the page on the right, goes on to 23 detail Mrs Hutchings' account in interview and 24 the detail of that interview. It also then 25 refers to telephone call with Mr Allen, talking 174 1 about the logs. 2 If we look on the left-hand side, if we 3 scroll over the page on the left-hand side, 4 there is no summary of the interview. There is 5 no summary at all of Mrs Hutchings' account, as 6 provided in the interview. You've said that 7 certain information was left out of the 8 disciplinary investigation report, things like 9 appendices or similar documents. 10 A. Mm. 11 Q. Was it standard not to include a subpostmaster's 12 account in a disciplinary investigation report? 13 A. I don't think so. Whether it was because it was 14 summarised in the prepared statement, I honestly 15 can't say. 16 Q. Do you think it would have been helpful to those 17 considering disciplinary investigations to know 18 what was said by a defendant in an interview? 19 A. Well, as I say, my recollection was that it 20 would almost be identical, other than the fact 21 that you would remove reference to, you know, 22 exhibits and appendices, and whatever, and 23 I think there was a period of time when the 24 failings of -- in procedure were included in 25 both reports but at a time it was removed from 175 1 the discipline one and that was e-mailed 2 separately. 3 Q. Can you think of any good reason why the account 4 in this case doesn't seem to be included? 5 A. Well, I'm not sure because it was a summary of 6 the prepared statement, which obviously came 7 from the -- Mrs Hamilton and the defence 8 solicitor. So I'm really not sure. 9 Q. It is summarised as follows, in the one on the 10 left, it says: 11 "From the summaries, it can be seen that 12 Ms Hogg reads out a prepared statement, 13 following which Mrs Hutchings answers no 14 comments to questions put to her." 15 But there is no detail contained in that 16 report of the kind that we see on the right-hand 17 side. 18 A. I'm just trying to correlate the two. I can see 19 from the summaries it can be seen on the third 20 paragraph on the left one -- 21 Q. Yes, and on the right is the detail that isn't 22 included on the left-hand side. So all of 23 those, top half of that page, is not included at 24 all. 25 A. So obviously on the left I'm going to say -- 176 1 Q. If you look on the left-hand side -- 2 A. Can we go one page above, please, on the 3 right-hand one? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. Right, I can't see where the bottom of page 2 6 finishes and I can't -- sorry, I know it's 7 a pain. The one on the left, can we go up 8 a page? I'm just trying to see where they were 9 last the same. 10 Q. So it's there it's "I was made aware that there 11 were two errors", that paragraph is included? 12 A. Right okay, yeah. 13 Q. But then they depart from one another over the 14 page -- 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. -- on the left-hand side. That's different, and 17 if we look on the right-hand side, if we go over 18 the page, they meet up again where it says, "As 19 can be seen from the taped summaries". So 20 that's the bottom -- 21 A. Yeah, as I say, I really don't know why -- I'm 22 going to say there would have been some reason 23 but I don't know what the reason would have been 24 because, normally, it was the same report with 25 just certain things omitted for the discipline 177 1 report. 2 Q. Yes, I mean, would you accept that it's not 3 helpful to have a subpostmaster's account 4 removed from a discipline report? 5 A. Yeah, I can't explain why it's not there 6 because, as I say, they need to consider that 7 when they're considering that with things like 8 the audit report and any other evidence that 9 they've gathered themselves to make a decision. 10 So there must have been some logical reason why 11 it's not there but I cannot recall why not. 12 Q. Can we stick with the right-hand side, please. 13 I just want to read -- there's a paragraph there 14 that I haven't read out and it begins "Prior to 15 the interview commencing". It says: 16 "Prior to the interview commencing 17 I telephoned Mr Allen who advised me that he had 18 a schedule of call logs made by Rowlands Castle 19 Post Office to the Post Office helpline. He 20 then emailed it to me and I printed off a copy. 21 The first entry [and it gives it the date] 22 irrelevant, beyond that they relate to the 23 branch being closed for the audit [gives a date] 24 and after that there's one call from the interim 25 subpostmaster and one relating to the request 178 1 for a call log." 2 You had spoken to Mr Allen and requested 3 a schedule of call logs made to the Post Office 4 helpline. We're aware of a separate helpline 5 being held by Fujitsu, the Horizon System 6 Helpdesk. Did you make enquiries of Fujitsu 7 systems, in respect of this matter? 8 A. As I say, I don't recall it, but from reading 9 the documentation it seems -- I think Nigel 10 Allen was due to conduct the disciplinary 11 interview with Ms Hutchings and it was then that 12 he gave me the evidence that he had been given 13 by, I think, the Auditor. 14 I can't recall why -- the purpose of, you 15 know, the conversation with Mr Allen, but 16 I hadn't requested. He obviously made me aware 17 that he had a schedule of call logs to the Post 18 Office helpline, not the Horizon Support 19 Helpdesk. So, clearly, I've asked him to email 20 them over to me. 21 Q. Was it more common for you to obtain information 22 from the Post Office helpline than it was the 23 Fujitsu one? 24 A. Absolutely, it's purely because, for whatever 25 reason I spoke to Mr Allen, he made me aware 179 1 that he had them. So I said -- clearly have 2 said, "Can you send them over?" 3 Q. But in terms of a typical case, for example -- 4 A. In terms of what, sorry? 5 Q. -- a typical case -- was it more common for you 6 to obtain Post Office helpline information? We 7 spoke earlier about, for example, difficulties 8 with ARQ data. In respect of the Horizon 9 Helpdesk information, was it straightforward? 10 Did you regularly obtain that information or did 11 you rely more on the Post Office's own helpline 12 records? 13 A. I think, I can't remember if they were requested 14 all -- through the Post Office helpline or how 15 I got them from the Horizon Support Helpdesk, 16 I think it was possibly all through the Helpdesk 17 but the actual call logs that Mr Allen sent me 18 would have been the same way. He would have got 19 them from the Post Office Helpdesk. 20 Q. Okay. We can move on. One final document in 21 relation to this particular case, and that is 22 POL00046626. It's a memo from Jarnail Singh 23 copied to you but to the National Security Team. 24 If we could scroll down, please. He says: 25 "The defence solicitors read out the 180 1 pre-prepared statement which was followed by no 2 comments to all questions put to the defendant. 3 Bearing this in mind and the contents of the 4 pre-prepared statement, it is very likely that 5 the above-named defendant may contest the case. 6 It appears from the contents that she may bring 7 into question her claim that the Horizon system 8 was not working properly and refers to some of 9 the difficulties the defendant encountered with 10 the system. 11 "I am therefore of the view that it would be 12 more prudent for the officer to complete his 13 enquiries and further investigations and produce 14 the evidence by means of witness statements and 15 exhibits at this stage", and it lists certain 16 things that needed to be obtained. 17 If we go over the page, it's number 5 and 6 18 that I'd like to look at. Number 5 says: 19 "The officer should find evidence rebutting 20 the allegations and criticisms made in the 21 pre-prepared statement, which was read out by 22 the defendant's solicitor in the defendant's 23 interview under caution. Evidence is needed to 24 rebut these." 25 Then: 181 1 "Statements dealing with the integrity of 2 Horizon and call logs to the Horizon Support 3 Helpdesk which should also go into some depth 4 explaining the workings of the system." 5 Do you recall making enquiries with Fujitsu 6 in respect of this matter? 7 A. As I say, I don't recall the case at all. 8 Q. Do you recall ever making enquiries with 9 Fujitsu, other than requesting those standard 10 statements in respect of any concerns with the 11 integrity of the Horizon system? 12 A. Not specifically. I can see from the 13 documentation that there were some -- yeah, some 14 references to either what's a standard statement 15 and then some that would cover the integrity of 16 Horizon but, I must admit, I thought the 17 standard statement covered the integrity of 18 Horizon. But, either way, if I'm requesting 19 statements, it will be on the behalf of the 20 Criminal Law Team and it will go through the 21 relevant security admin department to actually 22 go to whoever in Fujitsu and ask for them. 23 Q. Looking at this particular case, obviously there 24 were some examples of problems with Horizon that 25 were raised in the prepared statement in 182 1 interview. From your recollection, in this kind 2 of a case, would you simply rely on a statement 3 from Fujitsu, rather than making direct 4 enquiries with Fujitsu about the reliability of 5 the Horizon system? 6 A. Well, as I've said, anything that we got from 7 Fujitsu, we would do from, you know, a central 8 point in security. I wouldn't request anything 9 directly from Fujitsu unless, for example, I'm 10 emailing Andy or Penny directly just to say when 11 can we expect this statement because, obviously, 12 the clock's ticking? But the initial request, 13 I would be requesting it myself, only via the 14 Security admin team that submitted the requests. 15 Q. Is that Mr Ward or somebody else? 16 A. I think, looking at this as addressed to Maureen 17 Moors, she I think, it was what was then 18 referred to as the -- or part of the Crime Risk 19 Team that would do it. I'm not even sure that 20 there actually was a Casework Team per se at 21 that stage. Certainly, Mr Ward, in 2011, I'm 22 pretty sure would have been a Financial 23 Investigator at that time. 24 Q. So was it later that he carried out that 25 function of liaising with Fujitsu, or? 183 1 A. It would have -- from recollection, it was 2 either through the Casework Team originally and 3 then it was this Crime Risk Team but, either 4 way, it was -- even within the Casework Team, it 5 may or may not have been Graham Ward that did 6 it, or whoever was the Casework Manager at the 7 time. There was other -- you know, like, direct 8 reports in a support function within the 9 Casework Team and, likewise, I think Maureen was 10 in, like, a support function within the Crime 11 Risk Team. 12 But, either way, whichever relevant 13 department it was, to all intents and purposes, 14 it was an admin team within Security that would 15 make the requests or, as we've seen, Graham Ward 16 in his capacity as Casework Manager would make 17 requests. 18 Q. Thank you. I'm going to move on to the final 19 case study and I'll be very brief with this case 20 study. This the case of Julian Wilson. Can we 21 look again at the Court of Appeal judgment, 22 POL00113278, please. It's page 43 of that 23 judgment, paragraph 175 to 178. Thank you. 24 Very briefly, the appeal in Mr Wilson's case 25 was brought posthumously. He had pleaded guilty 184 1 to two counts of fraud. It appears that three 2 counts of false accounting did not proceed: 3 "In his interview under caution, Mr Wilson 4 said that he had raised problems with Horizon 5 with his line manager and was told that there 6 was nothing wrong with the system. In his 7 resignation letter to his Contract Manager, he 8 stated that he had raised the problem of 9 misbalances on three occasions and received no 10 adequate response. In an agreed basis of plea, 11 Mr Wilson stated that the losses occurred 12 because of staff or systemic errors and not 13 because the money had been stolen. He admitted 14 to inflating the cash-on-hand figures over five 15 years to ensure that the accounts balanced, but 16 believed that the alleged shortfall was due to 17 problems with Horizon." 18 The Court of Appeal notes there, in 19 paragraph 177, about halfway through: 20 "The Post Office did not investigate any of 21 the criticisms of Horizon made by Mr Wilson 22 historically and during his detailed interview." 23 We'll look, very briefly, at what he said 24 about Horizon, in interview. Can we look at 25 POL00050140, please. So you're one of the 185 1 interviewing officers, again, with Gary Thomas. 2 Was it quite regular for you to work with Gary 3 Thomas on cases to interview together? 4 A. Yeah, I think, more often than not, due to the 5 fact that we were relatively close to each other 6 in respect of other members of the team. 7 Q. Thank you. Could we scroll down, and it's here 8 that Mr Wilson gave his account. He says, for 9 example: 10 "I had an audit some six months later and 11 everything on the audit was fine. I had trained 12 for one week when I first covered the Post 13 Office. I didn't have any more training after 14 that. So not all of the transactions that 15 I carried out I was familiar with, so 16 I therefore had to ask a member of staff how to 17 perform a particular transaction, had it not 18 come up in the first week of training. When 19 I balanced, I balance every Wednesday as 20 required by Post Office Limited, some weeks it 21 was up, some weeks it was down and I kept 22 a record of all those transactions as to what 23 was up and down during, you know, my period as 24 a postmaster. I at one time had a manager who's 25 the line manager in those days, I think they 186 1 were called, and I raised the question of 2 misbalances with him, and I'd been keeping 3 a record. I said could the system be wrong or 4 are we doing, he said "No, no the system cannot 5 be wrong as there's nothing wrong with the 6 system". Perhaps two years ago we had a letter 7 sent round from the Federation as to whether 8 anybody was experiencing misbalances. I said 9 that I had and I actually then was asked to 10 submit to the Federation copies of trading 11 reports. This relates to the trading reports 12 not the old, the old system, and I sent copies 13 of those to the Federation." 14 So, again, straightforward away in his case 15 he raised issues with the Horizon system in 16 interview. 17 I mean, looking at these case studies that 18 I've taken you to, each one raising issues with 19 the Horizon system, I know that you've explained 20 that the Casework Team would liaise with Fujitsu 21 but, as an Investigator, do you think that you 22 did enough investigating in respect of problems 23 with the Horizon system? 24 A. I'm really not sure what I could have done. I'm 25 going to say I can't go -- (a) it wouldn't have 187 1 been my mindset to do so because we were -- 2 I think when these -- the increased number of 3 cases come about, we were getting messages from 4 various sources, I believe, saying, yeah, 5 there's nothing wrong with the Horizon, 6 whatever, so that was in my mindset. 7 But I don't see how a Security Manager could 8 go to Fujitsu and say -- or anyone, and say, 9 "Can you check the integrity?" because I believe 10 that's what Fujitsu were doing when they were 11 being asked to produce statements. 12 Q. You were an Investigating Officer tasked with 13 investigating criminal offences that could lead 14 to people's convictions and imprisonment. Do 15 you not think that you should have been trying 16 to find out more about these alleged issues and 17 pressing Fujitsu in respect of them? 18 A. I say, again, it wouldn't be for me to go to 19 Fujitsu but there may well have been questions 20 asked amongst the team with these cases. 21 I really can't recall. 22 Q. But you were the person who was investigating 23 those cases, so -- 24 A. Well, not this case I wasn't. I was second 25 officer. I was only there for the interview. 188 1 Q. Absolutely, but some of the cases that I've 2 taken you to, you were, for example, the 3 Disclosure Officer and had specific duties 4 relating to disclosure, specific duties to 5 pursue reasonable lines of inquiry. Did you 6 think that it was unreasonable to pursue those 7 kinds of lines of inquiry? 8 A. Well, all I can say, Mr Blake, is, from 9 recollection, I had no reason to believe that 10 there was any issue with the integrity of 11 Horizon because that was the message that came 12 through. That seemed to be conveyed in the 13 statements. As I say, we'd had challenges that 14 had gone through the courts system and none were 15 upheld so I can't say for certain but I'm just 16 surmising that that was probably why I, like, no 17 doubt, others, had the mindset that there was no 18 issue with Horizon. 19 Q. Who was the message coming from, internally at 20 the Post Office? You've said a number of times 21 that was the message. 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. Who was it coming from? 24 A. As I say, I think -- I can't think specifically 25 or where the sources were, I think once there 189 1 was number of cases, you know, at the latter 2 stages, possibly it was coming down the line 3 from, you know, like senior Security, whether 4 that was the Fraud strand lead, whether that was 5 the Head of Security, whenever we had national 6 meetings, I don't know. But it was just always 7 the belief -- and I had no reason to disbelieve 8 that Horizon wasn't working. 9 So I think it's possibly a combination -- 10 because there were times when there were 11 becoming more and more cases where there were 12 challenges. So, again, I can't recall 13 specifically but I'm sure there was messages 14 saying no, Horizon is fine, but I don't know -- 15 I couldn't give you a name of who said that or 16 a particular source. 17 Q. One final document in Mr Wilson's case, can we 18 look at POL00044767, please. This is a summary 19 of facts that was prepared for the Magistrates 20 to consider suitability for the Magistrates 21 Court or the Crown Court. Is this a document 22 that you would have seen at the time? Is it 23 a document you prepared? Do you recall this 24 document? 25 A. Well, as I say, I wasn't the Investigator but 190 1 this doesn't look like something the 2 Investigator would have done. 3 Q. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions 4 in relation to this case study. 5 I have a few very brief miscellaneous 6 topics. The first is Mr Gareth Jenkins. Can we 7 look at FUJ00156530, please. 8 Can we start on page 3. Thank you. There's 9 an email here that you're not a party to yet, 10 and that is an email from Emma Haley to Andrew 11 Bolc, and she says -- it's a case of Bramwell. 12 Is that a case you remember at all, Royal Mail v 13 Bramwell. 14 A. I didn't until I saw the documentation. 15 I vaguely recall it, and I think it was 16 Mike Wilcox's case, and I was second officer, 17 and I think when Mike left it was transferred to 18 me, I believe. 19 Q. It says: 20 "Council would bluntly like Fujitsu to pour 21 as much cold water as possible on the defence 22 report. If the expert is saying we cannot 23 disagree with anything at all, then we're 24 potentially in some difficulty. I've asked 25 counsel to provide a specific list of questions, 191 1 but really the essence is: how much, if 2 anything, can we rebut?" 3 So it seems as though there is a defence 4 report addressing Horizon. She says there: 5 "I mentioned to counsel Mr Brander's 6 suggestion of barrister training in Cardiff. 7 That might be ideal." 8 Are you able to assist us with what 9 barrister training in Cardiff might have been 10 a reference to? 11 A. I think it might have been, like, training on 12 the use of Horizon. I can't be certain but 13 I think possibly that was, I'm going to say, 14 because I see the barristers, you know, the 15 chambers are in Cardiff. My recollection was 16 that they would be at Bell Yard in London, 17 but -- so whether we started using a different 18 chambers and they might not have been as au fait 19 as our barristers in London, I don't know, 20 but -- 21 Q. So that's training for prosecution counsel on -- 22 that's prosecution counsel it's talking about, 23 in terms of -- 24 A. Oh, absolutely, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes. 25 Q. Can we go to page 2, please, and it's the bottom 192 1 of page 2 and this is where you are included in 2 the email, so you will have received that chain. 3 This says: 4 "Graham, 5 "Please see Emma's email for your 6 information. Could you see if Fujitsu can work 7 with these rather vague instructions, otherwise 8 I think the only way forward is for you to meet 9 with Sue as soon as possible to help her 10 understand the system and iron out the specifics 11 that need to be addressed. 12 "It would seem easiest if you could contact 13 Sue's clerk." 14 So it seems to be that counsel is called 15 Sue. 16 Could we scroll up to the bottom of page 2. 17 You then email Penny Thomas and you say: 18 "Hi Penny 19 "Please would you look at the email below 20 from our solicitors in the Bishops Hull case and 21 pass on to Gareth. Counsel would like Gareth to 22 advise on what from the defence expert report 23 faxed to you last week that he is able to rebut 24 if anything. 25 "I have asked for an electronic copy of the 193 1 expert report but it is down to the defence as 2 to whether they are prepared to supply this as 3 they are only required to serve a hard copy." 4 In your witness statement for this Inquiry, 5 I think you've said that you have no 6 recollection of the name Gareth Jenkins. 7 A. No, not at all, until I saw this. 8 Q. Do you know why that might be, given that you're 9 referring to him, you know, by his first name 10 there. It seems certainly from that email that 11 you seem to be quite familiar with -- 12 A. Well, I can only assume that I was advised that 13 Gareth was the person to give a statement in 14 that respect, because, previously, my 15 understanding was it would have been Penny 16 Thomas. 17 Q. Absolutely. So I'd like to actually take you 18 back to a document that we've looked at, it's 19 a different page of the same document. It's 20 POL00112329, please, and it's page 63. That's 21 exactly the issue that I'd like your assistance 22 with, and it's the role of Penny Thomas. If we 23 look at page 63 of this document, there's 24 an email from you to Phil Taylor in the case of 25 Wendy Buffrey. Thank you. 194 1 It's the third paragraph in that email. You 2 say: 3 "... only Penny Thomas performs the expert 4 witness role for Fujitsu. As you have probably 5 gathered, we have enough problems getting Andy 6 Dunks to produce the call logs, let alone the 7 entire workings of Horizon. As such, if defence 8 wish to cross-examine on Horizon, ie Penny's 9 statement, then we will have to rearrange trial 10 date. If Penny isn't required to give evidence 11 in person then we're okay so I don't know if 12 Alex wants to speak to defence counterpart to 13 gauge if Penny will be required." 14 Why is it that you describe Penny Thomas 15 there as performing the expert witness role for 16 Fujitsu? 17 A. Because that would have been my understanding, 18 whether that was correct or not, but I think 19 it's because Penny was the one that was 20 producing the bulk of the statements so -- when 21 she was doing the Horizon data, and then, you 22 know, covering the workings of Horizon, so that 23 was probably why I thought it was Penny Thomas, 24 so I don't think I was, you know, even aware of 25 somebody called Gareth Jenkins until the 195 1 Bramwell case. 2 Q. What did you understand the expert, an expert 3 witness role to involve? 4 A. Somebody who just had an expert knowledge of the 5 relevant subject matter, I guess. 6 Q. Was it something that you'd received any 7 training or instruction in or were there any 8 policies that you're aware of? 9 A. Having seen bits about expert witnesses in the 10 bundle and Inquiry, then, no, I'm pretty sure my 11 understanding -- let me rephrase that. 12 I am pretty sure I wouldn't have understood 13 exactly what an expert was, and their duties at 14 that time, having seen what I've seen recently. 15 Q. Thank you, then I have just a couple of very 16 small topics. The first is Crown Offices. Did 17 you experience any differences in attitude 18 towards Crown Office employees to subpostmasters 19 in respect of the approach to investigations? 20 A. Not from anything I dealt with or was, you 21 know -- where I assisted in an interview with 22 a colleague. As far as we were concerned, if 23 there was evidence of a criminal offence, 24 everyone would be treated the same and, in my 25 experience, that would be fairly and 196 1 professionally. 2 Q. Were there any differences in the proportion of 3 Crown Office employees you investigated 4 compared -- 5 A. Sorry any difference in the? 6 Q. Proportion of the Crown Office employees 7 compared to subpostmasters? 8 A. Well, I think there were less because there were 9 far less Crown Offices than there were sub post 10 offices. 11 Q. Thank you, another topic: your role as the 12 Network Transformation Field Change Advisor. 13 Were there any financial incentives, such as 14 bonuses, to convert branches to the new model? 15 A. I think so, yes. I think there was, for 16 a period of time, an incentive bonus. I can't 17 remember what the criteria was but there was 18 a bonus of some sort, yeah. 19 Q. Was that to get people to change the contract 20 that they were on? 21 A. Well, if they converted to either the local or 22 the mains model, whichever one was attributed to 23 them, then, yes, they would get a new contract. 24 But, although there was an incentive bonus, when 25 we -- certainly when we started the process, we 197 1 were absolutely inundated with postmasters 2 either wanting to leave because they would have, 3 at the time, received a payment equivalent to 4 18 months of their best year of remuneration out 5 of the last three, which, fairly quickly, 6 I believe, moved to 26 months, which, from my 7 understanding, was possibly more than they would 8 have obtained from looking to do a commercial 9 transfer where they might sell their retail 10 business and market the post office alongside 11 it. 12 But also the postmaster would get 13 a conversion payment, which I believe was 14 12 months of the best year out of the last 15 three, to convert to the local model or the 16 mains model. So there were obviously incentives 17 to both the postmaster but I think because the 18 Post Office were keen to get numbers of new 19 models ASAP, that's possibly why there was 20 an incentive bonus, initially, but that bonus 21 wasn't there for the whole time. I can't say 22 how long it was. 23 MR BLAKE: Thank you. 24 Sir, those are all of my questions. We have 25 questions from Mr Moloney and Mr Jacobs at 198 1 least. 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, unless they're going to 3 tell me that they're only going to be literally 4 a few minutes we'll have a break, all right. 5 MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir. Perhaps we could come 6 back at 3.40. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. 8 MR BLAKE: I don't believe they're going to be very 9 long but they will be more than a few minutes. 10 (3.24 pm) 11 (A short break) 12 (3.38 pm) 13 MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir. 14 Mr Jacobs. 15 Questioned by MR JACOBS 16 MR JACOBS: Good afternoon, Mr Brander. 17 Hello, I represent 156 subpostmasters and 18 subpostmistresses and assistants instructed by 19 Howe+Co. I want to ask you about your knowledge 20 of the bugs, errors and defects. I don't want 21 to go over the evidence that we've heard this 22 morning in your answers to questions from 23 Mr Blake but do you recall you were taken to the 24 Helen Rose report and you were taken to 25 a synopsis of a number of subpostmasters who'd 199 1 raised Horizon Issues and one of those was our 2 client Pam Stubbs. 3 A. Yeah, as I say, I recall that there was a larger 4 or increased number of challenges nearer or 5 leading up to the time when I left the Post 6 Office, maybe the first couple of years, but 7 yes. 8 Q. You were taken to page 2 of the report and we 9 don't need to call it up because we've seen it, 10 unless you want to see it again, but the passage 11 was: 12 "Mike Wilcox stated, along with Graham 13 Brander I met with Mrs Stubbs on 17th January 14 and she was convinced that Horizon was at 15 fault." 16 It goes on to say that Mrs Stubbs had 17 retained her own transaction logs and was going 18 to compare them with Fujitsu data. So she was 19 very much challenging the Horizon system. 20 A. Mm-hm. 21 Q. Mr Blake took you to other evidence, the case of 22 Mrs Hutchings, when at interview she again made 23 a very strong challenge to the system. It was 24 suggested that this is inconsistent with what 25 you've repeatedly said in your statement, where 200 1 you say, paragraph 144, an example: 2 "I have no recollection of any specific 3 challenges to the integrity of Horizon." 4 A. Mm-hm. 5 Q. When that was put to you, you said: 6 "Well, the message from above was that there 7 were no issues with Horizon." 8 Then you went on to say, this was about 9 12.15 this afternoon -- I'm sure it's been 10 a long day but you might recall saying that -- 11 you went on to say that you can't recall who 12 that message came from. 13 A. Yeah. 14 Q. Now, my clients are a little anxious that a lot 15 of people who were in senior positions at the 16 time are coming to the Inquiry and are not 17 answering this question. They're not able to 18 say who told them to disregard, essentially, 19 what subpostmasters were saying about the 20 Horizon system. 21 A. Yeah. 22 Q. So what I want to do is I just want to go 23 through that. Could you tell me who your line 24 managers were at the time, about 2010, for 25 example, which was when you spoke to Ms Stubbs? 201 1 A. Well, going back, when I left, it was Jason 2 Collins. 3 Q. Right. 4 A. I cannot recall, it might have been ... err ... 5 I think -- it might have been Jason. I was 6 temporarily promoted, I think, for a few months 7 in 2008. I think then Ged Harbinson acted as 8 team leader for a fairly small period of time 9 because Jason was effectively Casework Manager 10 at that stage. So I think, roughly from -- 11 sometime in 2009 to when I left it might have 12 been Jason Collins. So Geoff Hall early days; 13 changed teams and I think there was Tony Utting; 14 Paul Whitaker was just before I was temporarily 15 promoted; Dave Posnett, I can't quite remember 16 when he was in there; but certainly when I left, 17 it was Jason. 18 Q. Jason Collins? 19 A. Yeah, and, as I say, I think -- but that doesn't 20 mean to say any message came via Jason. It 21 might have been that we were at an national team 22 meeting and it could have been there. As I say, 23 I can't remember what source -- well, 24 I really -- if I could, I would absolutely have 25 no qualms saying but I just cannot recall. 202 1 Q. What about John Scott? 2 A. John Scott was the Head of Security so, 3 obviously, when we periodically got together as 4 a national team, there would be agenda items but 5 I honestly can't recall what they would be. 6 But, like everyone seems to have been saying, 7 this word "robust", which isn't a word I would 8 necessarily have used in everyday occurrences, 9 seemed to be the word that was always used. 10 So when I first joined Investigations, 11 because I had no IT background, this was all 12 brand new, it was new to everybody, we had no 13 reason to believe there was any issues. But 14 suddenly the word "robust" seemed to appear. So 15 I am just assuming that was the wording in the 16 message we were given but I don't know from what 17 source. 18 Q. What about David Pardoe? 19 A. Well, Dave Pardoe would have been -- so, for 20 instance, myself as a Security Manager, say, for 21 instance; Jason when I left, team leader; then 22 it would be Dave Pardoe as the Fraud Strand 23 leader, who would then report to John Scott. 24 Q. So are you saying then that all of these people 25 are people who could have told you the message 203 1 is "There's nothing wrong with the Horizon 2 system" -- 3 A. It could have come from there it could have been 4 coming from cases from -- you know, where the 5 Criminal Law Team has said that we've, you know, 6 successful rebutted, to use the terminology, 7 cases. I don't know but I think I do -- without 8 being specific, I'm sure, once we got to the 9 stage where there was more and more cases 10 challenging Horizon, there was definitely 11 a message that come through from somewhere, 12 so -- and, again, even if it was, say, 13 John Scott, and it may well be that he was given 14 the message from somewhere else. 15 Q. Okay, but when you say a message came through 16 from somewhere and you said earlier on it might 17 have been a national team meeting, are you 18 really not able to say who that came from? 19 A. I really -- if I knew, I would absolutely, I'm 20 on oath, if I could recall where and whom, 21 I would absolutely share that with the Inquiry. 22 Q. So it was just a general view that you all held; 23 is that right? 24 A. Well, I can't speak for everybody but, just 25 speaking to colleagues, that did seem to be the 204 1 actual belief, not just in Security. I think 2 with all personnel in Post Office. 3 Q. Did you think, when confronted by 4 subpostmistresses like Mrs Stubbs and when 5 interviewing Ms Hutchings, did you not think 6 "Well, there must be something wrong with that 7 instruction, with that general view"? 8 A. When there was an increase, I may well have done 9 but I honestly can't recall that. And, as 10 I said, it's -- looking back in hindsight, you 11 can -- if there was a national picture that 12 individual Security Manager was fed into and 13 I could see the national picture, I might have 14 a better gauge of it. 15 I'm going to say we talked over a period of 16 time of, I think, 2006 to 2011, maybe three or 17 four cases, and not making excuses, that would 18 have been maybe one of 10 to 15 cases was 19 dealing with at the time. So you're on the 20 constant conveyor belt of boom, boom, boom, 21 boom, dealing with umpteen different cases, 22 I don't really think there was much time to 23 reflect and review cases. I assume that, if 24 that was being looked at, that would be looked 25 at by a central point, so from the Inquiry I see 205 1 that there was the Helen Rose report. I don't 2 believe I was aware of that at the time, I may 3 have been. But that would have made sense to 4 me, that, if it was being looked at it would 5 have been a central point who would have had 6 access to all cases, nationally. 7 I would only have been aware of my cases. 8 Yes, the lady just mentioned, I think 9 Mrs Stubbs, I don't recall it. I would have 10 been aware for the interview and I would have 11 had no other dealings with it but it would have 12 made more sense to me that somebody that could 13 have looked at this centrally could have 14 reviewed the cases, but I don't believe that 15 report was disseminated to people like myself. 16 May have been, I just don't recall. 17 MR JACOBS: I am just going to ask if I have any 18 more questions for you. 19 I don't have any more questions for you. 20 A. Okay, thank you. 21 MR JACOBS: Thank you. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Moloney? 23 MR MOLONEY: Thank you. 24 Questioned by MR MOLONEY 25 MR MOLONEY: Mr Brander, I ask questions on behalf 206 1 of a group of former postmasters, all of whom 2 were prosecuted and convicted and all of whom 3 have had their convictions quashed? 4 A. Uh-huh. 5 Q. One of those former postmasters is Mrs Josephine 6 "Jo" Hamilton, who sits next to me. 7 A. Yeah, okay. 8 Q. Do you recognise her, Mr Brander? 9 A. Only from -- I can't remember. I think was 10 there a local news article that Jo may have 11 appeared on that I recognised her from, fairly 12 recently? 13 Q. Right okay. 14 A. Then I've seen her at -- who I thought was 15 Jo Hamilton, I've seen her at the Inquiry and 16 I've seen other evidence. But, other than 17 seeing Jo, Mrs Hamilton, on the -- I don't know, 18 have I got that right or wrong? Was there 19 a news article? I don't know. But I think I do 20 recognise Jo from recent events, not from when 21 I did the investigation. 22 Q. All right. Well, I just want to ask you about 23 two days, one at the start and one at the end, 24 of the investigation and prosecution of 25 Mrs Hamilton. The first is the day of the audit 207 1 of her post office. Mr Blake has asked you 2 questions about that, in fact it was during the 3 course of this morning? 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. You said today that your reason for going to 6 Mrs Hamilton's house with Elaine Ridge was to 7 introduce yourself and to set out how things 8 would proceed from that day. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. But didn't you say to Mrs Hamilton, "There's 11 a big deficit, where is it?" 12 A. Sorry, say that bit again? 13 Q. There's a big deficit, where is it? 14 A. No, I didn't ask her any questions relating to 15 the investigation whatsoever. 16 Q. You told her about a deficit of £30,000, didn't 17 you? 18 A. I -- from looking at the documentation, I said 19 there's a deficit in excess of or around 20 £30,000, but that's probably because that was 21 when Ms Ridge was explaining the reason for 22 precautionary suspending her, that would have 23 been the reason given. 24 Q. She replied to you "I'm struggling with the 25 computer", didn't she, when you asked her about 208 1 where the deficit was? 2 A. No, that's not true. I made a notebook entry of 3 what was actually covered at the time. There 4 was nothing discussed and I don't believe 5 Mrs Hamilton made any comment whatsoever but, 6 again, I'm only going on the documentary 7 evidence including the notebook entry I would 8 have made at the time. 9 Q. Then didn't you say "Well, you're the only one 10 that's had problems with it"? 11 A. Okay -- no, that's completely untrue. 12 Q. All right. From where you were sitting on the 13 sofa in the living room -- 14 A. Sorry, I didn't catch that last bit? 15 Q. From where you were sitting on the sofa in the 16 living room, do you remember -- 17 A. I have no idea if I was sitting or standing. 18 I cannot recall, even through looking at the 19 documentation and my notebooks, I cannot recall 20 going to Ms Hamilton's address. 21 Q. All right. Well, see if you remember this, that 22 you began to look around the room at the objects 23 in the room, and -- 24 A. Sorry, say that again? 25 Q. You began to look round the room at the objects 209 1 in the room and Mrs Hamilton's late mother, who 2 sadly died before Mrs Hamilton's conviction was 3 quashed, said, "This is my house as well", 4 didn't she? 5 A. I would not be looking around -- I was in and 6 out in ten minutes. That was time for us to 7 introduce ourselves, for Elaine Ridge to then 8 precautionary suspend Mrs Hamilton, for me to 9 explain the nature of the investigation and that 10 I would be writing to her later that day and 11 asking her to contact me when she felt able to 12 be interviewed. 13 So I was just there explaining the process 14 because I'd been asked to attend the audit and 15 I was just explaining the nature of the process 16 to Mrs Hamilton. There was no -- in no case 17 whatsoever would I be asking any questions 18 relating to an investigation whereby somebody 19 hadn't been cautioned. 20 Q. No, because that would be wrong, wouldn't it? 21 A. Sorry, I didn't catch that? 22 Q. That would be wrong, wouldn't it? 23 A. Absolutely. 24 Q. The second day I'd like to ask you about is the 25 day of Mrs Hamilton's sentencing. When 210 1 Mrs Hamilton was sentenced at Winchester Crown 2 Court, were you present, Mr Brander? 3 A. I was, yes. 4 Q. Yes. So you remember that. A large number of 5 residents of Mrs Hamilton's village, customers 6 of the Post Office, turned up to court to give 7 support to her; do you remember that? 8 A. Exactly, and that's the reason why I remember 9 being at that court appearance because it was 10 almost surreal in the fact that there were so 11 many people, the public gallery was filled, 12 I think every seat was taken. 13 Q. Outside court, after the proceedings had 14 concluded, the local press -- 15 A. Sorry, what's the last bit? 16 Q. Is it that you can't hear me or is it you can't 17 understand -- 18 A. My hearing is appalling. My hearing isn't the 19 best. 20 Q. Okay. Outside court, after the proceedings had 21 concluded, the local press took group photos of 22 Mrs Hamilton and those from the village who came 23 to support her. Do you remember that? 24 A. I don't, no. 25 Q. Because, as the press were taking photos, do you 211 1 remember saying to them as you walked past 2 "Don't take photos of her, she's a criminal"? 3 A. Oh, do you want -- I'm not even sure whether 4 I should actually grace that with an answer. 5 No, I wouldn't have said something like that. 6 MR MOLONEY: That's all I ask, sir. Thank you very 7 much. 8 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is that it, Mr Blake? 9 MR BLAKE: Yes, sir, it is. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, thank you, Mr Brander, for 11 giving a witness statement and for coming to 12 give evidence and I hope that all those Core 13 Participants who are listening and/or who are 14 present at the hearing, including of course 15 Mrs Hamilton, will have found the evidence today 16 informative. 17 So I'm sorry to have to announce that we're 18 starting at 9.00 tomorrow morning. That is 19 because I have an appointment at 3.00 pm which 20 I have to keep and, therefore, we have to finish 21 at 2.00 but I thought everyone was entitled to 22 some explanation of why we were starting, by 23 court standards, at a very early time. 24 Thank you, I'll see you in the morning. 25 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much, sir. 212 1 (3.54 pm) 2 (The hearing adjourned until 9.00 am 3 the following day) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 213 I N D E X GRAHAM DAVID BRANDER (sworn) ..................1 Questioned by MR BLAKE ........................1 Questioned by MR JACOBS .....................199 Questioned by MR MOLONEY ....................206 214