1 Wednesday, 13 December 2023 2 (10.00 am) 3 MS PRICE: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear 4 us? 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 6 MS PRICE: Sir, may we please call Mr Knight. 7 Announcement re Evidence of MARTIN SMITH 8 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Just before you do that, I need 9 to make a public announcement. Yesterday 10 I caused the Inquiry Team to notify Mr Smith, 11 who was due to give evidence tomorrow, and Core 12 Participants, that it would not be possible for 13 Mr Smith to give his evidence on account of 14 there being significant disclosure of documents 15 over the last number of days, which were 16 relevant to his evidence. 17 I want to stress publicly that the members 18 of the Inquiry Team are working extremely hard 19 to ensure that, when they are faced with late 20 disclosure, they assess the relevance of the 21 documents in the hope that a witness to whom the 22 documents relate will be able to give evidence 23 as scheduled. In most instances, happily, that 24 has occurred. 25 However, as everyone now knows, from time to 1 1 time that is not possible and it was not 2 possible in Mr Smith's case to deal with 3 upwards, as I understand it, of 700 documents in 4 the time available between the disclosure of 5 those documents and Mr Smith's evidence 6 tomorrow. 7 As I have said repeatedly, fairness demands 8 that witnesses see relevant documents in good 9 time to digest them and understand them before 10 they give their evidence to the Inquiry. 11 As it happens, no great damage has been 12 caused by this latest episode, save for the loss 13 of one day of the Inquiry's time, because 14 Mr Smith can return at a later stage, as was 15 always anticipated that he would, and so instead 16 of his giving evidence over two days, his 17 evidence will be given over one day at some 18 suitable date in the New Year. 19 Thank you, Ms Price. Over to you. 20 MS PRICE: Thank you, sir. 21 CHRISTOPHER GRANVILLE KNIGHT (sworn) 22 Questioned by MS PRICE 23 MS PRICE: Good morning, Mr Knight. My name is Emma 24 Price and, as you know, I will be asking you 25 questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Could you 2 1 confirm your full name, please. 2 A. It's Christopher Granville Knight. 3 Q. Thank you for coming to the Inquiry to assist it 4 in its work and for providing a statement in 5 advance of today. You should have in front of 6 you a hard copy of that statement. It is dated 7 23 October 2023. Do you have that statement? 8 A. I do, yes. 9 Q. If you turn to page 41 of that, please -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- you should have a copy with a visible 12 signature; is that right? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Is that your signature? 15 A. It is, yes. 16 Q. Are the contents of that statement true to the 17 best of your knowledge and belief? 18 A. Yes, they are. 19 Q. For the purposes of the transcript the reference 20 for the statement is WITN08290100. 21 Starting, please, Mr Knight, with 22 an overview of your career at the Post Office, 23 you've worked for the Post Office since 1983; is 24 that right? 25 A. That's correct. 3 1 Q. You remain employed by the Post Office today? 2 A. I do, yes. 3 Q. In the last 40 years you have held a range of 4 roles including Postal Officer roles, various 5 investigator roles and now a role within the 6 Intelligence Team; is that right? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. You say in your statement that in 1997, you 9 applied and were promoted within the Post Office 10 Investigation Department from a Postal Officer 11 role to an Assistant Investigation Officer; is 12 that right? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. You held this role until the year 2000? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What kind of investigations were you involved in 17 when you held this Assistant Investigation 18 Officer role? 19 A. It was working for the Post Office Investigation 20 Department, which was a sort of corporate 21 Investigation Department that sat over the 22 business and, initially, I was in a team, and 23 the first enquiries we did was regarding 24 postage, we used postage stamps, counterfeit 25 stamps, things like that. And then I moved on 4 1 to a team, I think there was six of us and we 2 looked at losses of Special Delivery items over 3 the Royal Mail Network, so it sort of covered 4 the country. 5 Q. You say in your statement that, when you were in 6 this role, the Post Office Investigation 7 Department underwent a structure change and 8 changed its name to the Post Office Security and 9 Investigation Service. How did your role change 10 when these structural and name changes came in? 11 A. There was the name change, that was a major 12 change, and then I think it was in 2000 there 13 was options to move into other parts of the 14 business, and I ended up moving to a newly 15 formed part of the business called Cash Handling 16 and Distribution which was an amalgamation of 17 the Cash Centres and the in-house Cash In 18 Transit business. 19 Q. When you moved into that role, you say you were 20 a Lead Investigator; is that right? 21 A. I think I was the only -- I think there was two 22 of us who went over, we were the only 23 Investigators. The previous or the current, as 24 it were, Security Managers were physical 25 Security Managers. 5 1 Q. Is it right that your investigations in this 2 role focused on possible criminal offences, 3 involving the in-house Cash in Transit Service 4 and Cash Centre staff? 5 A. Yes, that's correct. 6 Q. You say the role soon became one of physical 7 security; is that right? 8 A. It became, yeah, dual yeah. 9 Q. You stayed in this role until around 2003 -- 10 A. 2003/2004, I think, yes. 11 Q. -- at which point you took up a role as 12 an Investigator for the Post Office, 13 investigating possible criminal offences within 14 the network? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. This related to both directly managed branches, 17 formally Crown Office branches -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- and also the Branch Network; is that right? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Your job title during this period was 22 Investigation Manager? 23 A. Yes, it -- yeah. There was sort of -- I think 24 it sort of changed but, ultimately, it was the 25 same job, it was just different types: Fraud 6 1 Investigator, or whatever. 2 Q. You were doing the job of an Investigator? 3 A. Yes, yeah. 4 Q. This was a role you held until 2016, when you 5 moved to your current role in the Intelligence 6 Team? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Is it right that in your current role you have 9 no involvement in internal investigations? 10 A. There aren't any. Yes, correct. 11 Q. Turning, please, to the training you received as 12 an Investigator, in 1997 when you first started 13 as an Assistant Investigator Officer, did you 14 have any experience of criminal investigations? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Is it right that you recall attending 17 a three-week residential training course when 18 you took up the role? 19 A. Yes, I believe it was three weeks. 20 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 5 that 21 you recall this covering the Police and Criminal 22 Evidence Act Codes of Practice and the relevant 23 investigation forms that were used to ensure 24 adherence to the Police and Criminal Evidence 25 Act. Do you recall disclosure obligations being 7 1 covered on that initial three-week course? 2 A. I can't say that I remember it fully. It was 3 '97, so I apologise for that. There were -- 4 I think as I've stated, there were disclosure 5 forms that were part of the sort of plethora of 6 forms that were used in investigations. So it 7 would have been covered within that, I believe. 8 Q. So you recall being introduced to the forms on 9 that initial training course? 10 A. Yeah, yeah, and the disclosure. Yeah. 11 Q. You did some study in 1999 and 2000, as part of 12 an NVQ level 4 in Investigation but you didn't 13 end up completing that qualification; is that 14 right? 15 A. Yeah, I started it, I believe, when I was in 16 POID and my line manager was the assessor or 17 mentor, or whatever, but when I moved over to 18 CH -- Cash Handling and Distribution, CH&D, 19 there wasn't many investigations, so some of -- 20 you had to sort of covering certain aspects of 21 an investigating role. So it sort of got 22 prolonged and then I got towards the end and it 23 never got sort of finalised, but -- 24 Q. You then had some Cash Handling and 25 Distribution-specific training in the year 2000; 8 1 is that right? 2 A. It would have been around then, yes. 3 Q. When you started in your role as 4 an Investigation Manager for the Post Office -- 5 and so I think you say that was around three or 6 2004 -- 7 A. I think so, yeah. 8 Q. -- were you given any refresher training on 9 criminal investigation? 10 A. I don't believe so. I don't believe so. 11 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 10 of 12 Mr Knight's statement. That is page 7 of 13 WITN08290100. 14 In the context of the role of Investigation 15 Manager, you say this: 16 "During this time, although I cannot recall 17 exactly when, I attended Chesterfield Future 18 Walk building to receive counter training. The 19 training would have given a basic understanding 20 of Horizon, ie how the system performed 21 transactions, not data analysis. There was also 22 a refresher course where we were tasked with 23 working in the DMBs for 3 days during the 24 Christmas period and again when we were tasked 25 with covering strike action win the DMBs ..." 9 1 So those are directly managed branches? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. "... (possibly 2006 to 2008, I cannot recall 4 exactly). We also received training on security 5 equipment at various times when I was within POL 6 as the role covered both investigative and 7 physical security. I also recall Cartwright 8 King giving specific training which covered 9 notebook use, interviewing and disclosure to 10 solicitors at interview." 11 The Cartwright King training you refer to 12 here, is that the Cartwright King training which 13 happened in 2013, which is addressed in a number 14 of emails sent to you by the Inquiry for the 15 purposes of preparing your statement? 16 A. I think it would be latterly, yes. 17 Q. You address at paragraphs 44 and 45 of your 18 statement the refresher training that you do 19 recall receiving dealing with interviews and 20 taking statements. Could we turn, please, to 21 page 18 of this statement, paragraph 47, and you 22 say this: 23 "Investigators had a duty to investigate 24 a case fully. During an investigation any 25 evidence/information that came to light would be 10 1 looked and assessed and reported, whether it 2 pointed to or away from the suspect. Also, 3 every line of inquiry that was reasonable would 4 be followed. I would have been aware of this 5 process through the policies that were in place 6 and training that was provided although I can no 7 longer remember the specifics." 8 So you are clear, are you, that you 9 understood when you were an Investigator, that 10 you had an obligation to pursue lines of inquiry 11 which pointed away from the guilt of a suspect, 12 as well as towards? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Going over the page, please, to paragraph 49. 15 You say here: 16 "As mentioned previously in this statement 17 the Investigator disclosure obligation would be 18 by discharged by completing the various PO SEC 19 disclosure forms, 006 A, B, C & D. I would have 20 been aware of the disclosure forms from the 21 policies that were in place although I can no 22 longer remember the exact policy in place during 23 my time in the team. I also received training 24 when I joined the team as well as guidance from 25 the Legal team." 11 1 You refer here to the Investigator 2 disclosure obligations. 3 A. Mm-hm. 4 Q. Could we have on screen, please, a document 5 provided to you by the Inquiry for the purposes 6 of preparing your statement, which governs the 7 disclosure of unused material to the defence. 8 The document reference is POL00104762. 9 This document is dated May 2001, which we 10 can see at the bottom and we can see from the 11 title at the top that it refers to the Criminal 12 Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Codes of 13 Practice. Did you recognise this document when 14 it was sent to you by the Inquiry? 15 A. Yes, I did, the content of it. I don't know 16 whether it was this particular one as in the 17 date but, yeah, I recognised it. 18 Q. Do you think it was provided to you when you 19 were an Investigator? 20 A. I would suggest it was available, yes, and 21 provided. 22 Q. Under "Purpose", the document says this: 23 "The aim of this policy is to ensure that 24 Security Managers know and understand the 25 Investigation Procedures in relation to the 12 1 Disclosure of Unused Material as described in 2 the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 3 1996 Codes of Practice, which must be adhered to 4 by all Consignia staff undertaking 5 investigations." 6 You refer in your statement to the Inquiry 7 to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations 8 Act, governing the conduct of your 9 investigations. At the time you were 10 an Investigator, were you aware of the Criminal 11 Procedure and Investigations Act Code of 12 Practice? 13 A. Yes, I believe it was -- I think it might have 14 been a little book. 15 Q. Were you aware that this applied to your work as 16 an Investigator? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. The document explains in the "Introduction" 19 that: 20 "The rules relating to the disclosure of 21 unused material to the defence are laid down in 22 the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 23 1996. 24 "In light of the Human Rights Act 1998 the 25 Attorney General has issued new Guidelines on 13 1 the disclosure of unused material. The 2 Guidelines clarify the responsibilities of 3 Investigators, Disclosure Officers, Prosecutors 4 and Defence Practitioners." 5 Were you aware at the time you were 6 an investigator of the Attorney General's 7 Guidelines on Disclosure? 8 A. I don't recall that specifically. 9 Q. It is not referenced in this document but were 10 you aware of, and did you ever refer to, the 11 Code for Crown Prosecutors? 12 A. I don't believe so. 13 Q. Further down this page, we have the general 14 principles section with a section on 15 Investigators and Disclosure Officers. Then 16 over the page, please, the second paragraph on 17 this page says this: 18 "The Disclosure Officer is the person 19 responsible for examining material retained 20 during an investigation, revealing material to 21 Legal Services during the investigation and any 22 criminal proceedings resulting from it, and 23 certifying to Legal Services that he has done 24 this. Normally the Investigator and the 25 Disclosure Officer will be the same person." 14 1 Do you recall that being the case, that the 2 Investigator and the Disclosure Officer in 3 a case were usually the same person? 4 A. Usually. There was only one Investigator in the 5 case. So yes. 6 Q. You refer in your statement at paragraph 49, 7 which we've looked at, to the disclosure forms 8 which were completed by the Investigator. Did 9 you understand, when you were an Investigator 10 completing disclosure documentation, that you 11 were acting as the Disclosure Officer in the 12 case? 13 A. I don't know in those terms. I knew that they 14 were to be completed. I guess, by its 15 reference, that if I was disclosing it then 16 I would be the Disclosure Officer but I wouldn't 17 associate myself as that, I'd just be the 18 Investigator providing those documents -- 19 completing those forms. 20 Q. At the time, did you understand that the 21 Disclosure Officer role was a distinct role over 22 and above your role as an Investigator, which 23 imposed on you additional and distinct duties? 24 A. I don't recall thinking that. I don't know. 25 Q. In terms of your training on the Horizon system, 15 1 we have looked on screen at paragraph 10 of your 2 statement already. You deal in that paragraph 3 with the counter training you received on the 4 Horizon system. Do you recall the rollout of 5 the Horizon system? 6 A. I don't, no. 7 Q. Were you told, when you were trained on the 8 Horizon system, about any Acceptance Incidents 9 or technical problems with the system arising 10 during the rollout? 11 A. No. The training was literally just seeing the 12 screen and using it to do little transactions. 13 Q. Were you ever given any training on Horizon from 14 the point of view of an Investigator looking at 15 Horizon data in the course of an investigation? 16 A. I don't believe there was specific training of 17 looking at data. 18 Q. Turning, please, to the supervision there was of 19 Investigators' work, could we have on screen, 20 please, paragraph 24 of Mr Knight's statement. 21 That is page 11 of the statement. You say here: 22 "The Inquiry has asked me what supervision 23 there was over criminal investigations conducted 24 by Security Managers. From what I recall 25 between 2004 to 2007 Senior Managers would view 16 1 case papers that were submitted for legal advice 2 via our Casework Team and would add comments or 3 give advice to the Investigator. I believe this 4 then grew into the Case Compliance process. 5 This was a checklist setting out a list of 6 actions to ensure everything had been completed 7 correctly. In addition, during my latter years 8 as an Investigator there was a monthly Cases on 9 Hand meeting where Security Managers would 10 provide updates on their cases and what actions 11 were needed. The team leaders would discuss and 12 come up back with any recommendations. In 13 general, I could always ask my team leader or 14 a peer for advice on a current investigation. 15 But my memory of how things changed over the 16 years is not complete." 17 Should we take it from this that, at least 18 within your team, Investigators would discuss 19 their cases with each other? 20 A. Not in a formal -- there might be a mention of 21 a case. It wasn't a discussion about this case 22 and this was what happened. It might just be 23 a -- almost over a coffee type discussion. 24 Q. Going back a page, please, to paragraph 23 of 25 Mr Knight's statement. Here you address the 17 1 process for dealing with complaints about the 2 conduct of an investigation by the Security 3 Team, and you say this: 4 "I am not sure of the process or if there 5 was one. I would expect if an SPM had an issue 6 with an investigation, they would raise it with 7 their Contract Manager or the National 8 Federation of SubPostmasters who would then 9 follow up the issue with senior management in 10 the Security Team." 11 This deals with subpostmasters. Do you know 12 what the route or process was for Crown Office 13 employees if they had an issue with 14 an investigation? Those individuals, of course, 15 would not have the benefit of the membership of 16 the NFSP. 17 A. Potentially they would have their own union, the 18 UCW. So, it would be basically a union, 19 an equivalent union or, potentially, a line 20 manager, which would be the same sort of 21 structure as in the network. 22 Q. As far as you were aware, did Crown Office 23 employees, through any union or representative, 24 have any input into the policies and procedures 25 governing the investigation of Crown Office 18 1 employees? 2 A. I don't believe so. 3 Q. Turning, please, to the involvement of 4 Investigators following an audit identifying 5 an apparent shortfall. Could we have on screen, 6 please, paragraph 29 of Mr Knight's statement, 7 that is page 13. You say here: 8 "In the early 2000s an Investigator was more 9 likely to get called to an audit to enable them 10 to approach the SPM and/or staff and arrange 11 further enquiries. In later years this approach 12 diminished as Auditors were instructed to write 13 down any significant comments made by the SPM or 14 staff. Auditors were trained in this and the 15 fact that they should not solicit comments as 16 they should not get into an interview scenario. 17 This relates to adhering to PACE (cautioning 18 someone before they were asked or if they were 19 starting to admit to a crime)." 20 Were you aware of the practice of Auditors 21 taking so-called admission statements from 22 an SPM and getting them to sign it before the 23 arrival of an Investigator? 24 A. I don't know if I was aware. I -- presumably 25 there must have been because I guess this is why 19 1 this was brought in. So -- I don't know how to 2 answer that, if I'm honest. I can't think of 3 any examples but I would assume that there must 4 have been something -- or I can't remember any 5 examples but I assume there must have been 6 something for this to have been implemented. 7 Q. By "this", do you mean training of Auditors? 8 What do you mean by "this"? 9 A. Sorry, yes. They called it a -- I think they 10 brought a form in and it was "Significant 11 Comment". I forget the title of it. Notes -- 12 something of significant comment, and Auditors, 13 I believe, were -- I don't know who they were 14 trained -- I think they were possibly trained by 15 maybe some of the Security Team at team 16 meetings, or whatever, but there would be 17 something to give them details that, as it says 18 there, that they weren't to elicit -- you know, 19 get into a questioning scenario but if, 20 something was said to them, then they were to 21 write it down and get the person to sign it as 22 an agreed content. 23 Q. At paragraph 30, you deal with the circumstances 24 in which an investigation would take place, and 25 you say this: 20 1 "In order to determine if an investigation 2 was to take place, the information would be 3 given to an Investigator by the Team Leader. It 4 is my understanding that the decision would be 5 made if the loss reached a threshold (from 6 memory I think it was £5,000) or there was 7 suspected/admitted dishonesty. If the matter 8 was being dealt with by the Contract Team and 9 there was no suspected criminality 10 an investigation case would not be raised." 11 You have used the word "or" between "the 12 loss reaching a certain threshold" and there 13 being "suspected/admitted dishonesty". Should 14 the Chair understand from that that, where there 15 was an apparent shortfall identified at audit, 16 providing the amount met the threshold, there 17 would be an investigation, regardless of whether 18 there was suspected or admitted dishonesty? 19 A. This wasn't my role to, you know, begin 20 an investigation but I think there was some 21 criteria. Like I say, £5,000, I think that was 22 but I couldn't be certain of it. But I think 23 there was certainly some sort of criteria 24 involved but, again, it wasn't something that 25 I would be doing. It was a Team Leader role. 21 1 Q. Going over the page, please, to paragraph 32, 2 about five lines up from the bottom of 3 paragraph 32, you say: 4 "During the investigation of a case the 5 decision as to what crime (Theft or False 6 Accounting), if any, had been committed and the 7 points to prove would have to be covered. The 8 relevant information would be passed to the 9 Legal Team who would have the final decision on 10 whether a case should progress to court." 11 In terms of the culture of the Investigation 12 Team, were investigations viewed as 13 a fact-finding activity or were they seen 14 instead as a form of prosecutorial support? 15 A. I would have to say the former, fact-finding, 16 because I certainly, from experience, I can 17 recall interviewing somebody and realising that 18 this person wasn't either the suspect or there 19 was something else, so it was a start point. 20 Q. Looking at the wording there about points to 21 prove, were investigations seen as the vehicle 22 by which points were proved? 23 A. What I mean by that is the points to prove for 24 the offence. That would be to cover the mens 25 rea and actus reus, those points. 22 1 Q. Can have on screen please document reference 2 POL00126810. This is a copy of your CV from 3 a point in the past, I'm not sure exactly the 4 date of this document but you've seen this 5 before and were provided with a copy for the 6 purposes of preparing your statement. At the 7 top, you list a number of key achievements. The 8 third bullet point down says this: 9 "being the Lead Investigator in a number of 10 cases where the employees have been found guilty 11 after progressing an investigation to Court." 12 Was pressure ever placed on Investigators to 13 increase the number of successful prosecutions? 14 A. No. I don't see how it could be but, no, it 15 certainly wasn't, as far as I was aware. 16 Q. Was your performance ever assessed by reference 17 to the number of cases where an individual had 18 been found guilty after an investigation was 19 progressed to court? 20 A. No, not at all. 21 Q. Were bonuses or financial reviews ever linked to 22 the number of successful prosecutions achieved, 23 either by an individual Investigator or a team 24 of Investigators? 25 A. No. I don't believe so, no. 23 1 Q. Why was it that you considered it a professional 2 achievement to have been the Lead Investigator 3 in cases which led to guilty verdicts after 4 prosecution? 5 A. I don't -- well, it's obviously on my CV. 6 I don't recall when it was done. I'm guessing 7 at the time, ultimately, if you're investigating 8 a case and it went through to court and it had 9 been found guilty, you'd sort of done your job, 10 is only the way I can, you know, sort of explain 11 it. 12 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 13 reference POL00167241. This is an email from 14 Chris Card, whose role is described as Law 15 Enforcement and Performance Manager, if we can 16 scroll down a little, please -- at the bottom 17 there: Law Enforcement and Performance Manager 18 for Royal Mail Security. 19 The email itself, going back up to the top, 20 please, is dated 1 November 2011 and you are one 21 of a long list of recipients. The email 22 attached to it, if we can scroll down, please, 23 showing the attachment, an Investigation 24 Communication, "Investigation Communication 5". 25 Could we have that communication on screen, 24 1 please, the reference is POL00167242. This is 2 also dated 1 November 2011. It says it is 3 issued to "Royal Mail Letters Security 4 (Investigations)". Can you help with why it was 5 being sent to Post Office Investigators? 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Sorry, Ms Price, both those 7 documents on screen, I think, are dated 2010, 8 not '11. 9 MS PRICE: My apologies, sir. That is my 10 misdescription. You're entirely right. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That's okay. I just want to be 12 sure I had the right document, that's all. 13 MS PRICE: You entirely do, sir. My apologies. 14 It's 2010. 15 The "Issued to" lists "All Royal Mail 16 Letters Security (Investigations)". Can you 17 help with why it was being sent to Post Office 18 Investigators? 19 A. Hopefully I can, yes. Obviously, up until Royal 20 Mail and Post Office Limited split in 2012 21 I believe it was, up until that time, so 2010, 22 Royal Mail would have been the lead security 23 investigation policyholder so they would have 24 driven the policies and then disseminated it to 25 everybody, as you've seen in that list. 25 1 Q. The Procedures & Standards document is referred 2 to in here but, reading the content of this 3 communication: 4 "The recovery of criminal assets and 5 business losses is of paramount importance to 6 Royal Mail Group Limited. This not only 7 increases the deterrent effect of committing 8 acquisitive crime it also makes complete 9 commercial sense. Accordingly, new Procedures & 10 Standards dealing with the Recovery of Property 11 Obtained Dishonestly, Compensation, Costs and 12 Final Disposal of Case Exhibits have been 13 published on the Royal Mail Security SharePoint 14 site. 15 "Investigators should familiarise themselves 16 with the provisions of the new P&S and bring 17 them and the new forms into immediate effect." 18 The Procedures & Standards document referred 19 to in this investigation communication is at 20 POL00104846. Could we have that on screen, 21 please. We can see the title there "Recovery of 22 Property Obtained Dishonestly, Compensation, 23 Costs and Final Disposal of Case Exhibits, P&S 24 document 9.6", and the "Purpose" is: 25 "The aim of this document is to provide 26 1 Investigators in Royal Mail Letters Security 2 with clear guidance on the procedure to be 3 adopted to ensure that the recovery of business 4 assets dishonestly obtained is maximised and 5 that appropriate applications are made for 6 Compensation and Cost Orders at Court." 7 At paragraph 3.1, there is this: 8 "The recovery of criminal assets and 9 business losses is of paramount importance to 10 Royal Mail Group Limited. This not only 11 increases the deterrent effect of committing 12 acquisitive crime it also makes complete 13 commercial sense. Accordingly Investigators 14 must ensure that whenever possible offenders 15 repay the value of any benefit acquired as 16 a result of their criminality and any costs 17 incurred by the business as a result of the 18 investigation or prosecution." 19 Do you recall reading this document now? 20 A. I don't, I'm afraid, no. 21 Q. Do you recall there being any discussion about 22 why it was felt necessary to stress to 23 Investigators that the recovery of criminal 24 assets and business losses is of paramount 25 importance to Royal Mail Group? 27 1 A. I don't know why it was worded like that or sent 2 like that. 3 Q. As an Investigator, did you ever feel any 4 pressure to use prosecutions as a means of 5 recovery apparent losses from subpostmasters and 6 branch staff? 7 A. No, no. Just on that one, branch staff -- well, 8 yeah. Sorry, no. I was going to say branch 9 staff, if they have losses in branch, they don't 10 cover it but, if they were prosecuted 11 potentially, yes, so I apologise. 12 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 13 reference POL00167366. This is an email from 14 Jane Owen to you and a number of others, and it 15 is dated 14 April 2010. The subject of the 16 email is "Matters affecting case closures and 17 failings", and it reads as follows: 18 "Dear All 19 "Just a reminder that you need to ensure 20 that we are sent separate notifications for both 21 the case closure and the failings. 22 "There have been a couple of instances 23 whereby the failings have been included on the 24 closure document which has then been sent to 25 Secondary Stakeholders. We need to be mindful 28 1 of the audience that receives the failings as 2 these are to identify improvements within the 3 business and not for sharing with the external 4 customer." 5 Do you recall the issue being raised in this 6 email? 7 A. I don't, if I'm honest, no. 8 Q. Why would it have been a problem for secondary 9 stakeholders to have been aware of failings 10 identified in the course of an investigation? 11 A. The way I read that, and, presumably, if I read 12 it back then, would be because, obviously, the 13 Post Office conducts transactions on behalf of 14 numerous other stakeholders, so if there was 15 a failure in a product or a transaction of 16 a product, or something of that nature, that's 17 what I'm guessing what is being referred to. 18 Q. Was this reflective of a wider culture within 19 the Post Office to conceal failings from those 20 outside of the business? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 33 of 23 Mr Knight's statement to the Inquiry, that is 24 page 14. At paragraph 33 you say this: 25 "When I received a case for investigation 29 1 I would start by understanding the background, 2 including the audit result and why the audit had 3 taken place. Usually, the branch was targeted 4 for audit as the branch had come to the 5 attention of the Branch Analysis Team (BAT) due 6 to anomalies or concerns. For example, this may 7 be because the branch had not returned cash when 8 asked to do so or had complete suspicious 9 transactions such as a large number of reversals 10 or excess spoiled postage. I would also obtain 11 the last 3 months of Credence data to view the 12 updated data in relation to concerns raised by 13 BAT. If necessary, further archive data may 14 have been needed via the ARQ process." 15 You say here that you would obtain the last 16 three months of Credence data to view data 17 relating to concerns by the Branch Analysis 18 Team. First of all, what was the Branch 19 Analysis Team and where did it sit within the 20 structure of the business? 21 A. I think it sat in the FSC, the Finance Service 22 Centre, initially. 23 Q. In cases where the audit had taken place in the 24 absence of any concerns being raised by the BAT, 25 would you obtain the last three months' of 30 1 Credence data? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So you did that in all cases? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Before Credence data was available, what did you 6 rely upon? 7 A. I don't know. I don't know. 8 Q. Can you recall there being Horizon printouts 9 obtained by the Auditor printed from the counter 10 in a branch? 11 A. I do recall printouts. There was various 12 documentation that is produced by a branch at 13 various points, in a day, in a month, or 14 whatever. 15 Q. In general terms, did you consider that Credence 16 data was sufficient to evidence a loss to the 17 business? 18 A. I don't know whether it would evidence a loss. 19 It would just be sort of transactional data, as 20 I've said there, if there was something specific 21 you're looking for, it was transactional data. 22 Nothing sort of stood out, per se. 23 Q. Where you had a report from an Auditor saying 24 what had been found in terms of cash and stock 25 in a branch and that was being compared to 31 1 Credence data about what the Horizon system said 2 should be in branch, in that context, did you 3 consider that the comparison between those two 4 things was sufficient to evidence a loss to the 5 business? 6 A. The audit would be the result. So they would do 7 their balance of what the Horizon system in 8 branch said should be there and they would count 9 it and if it was there or wasn't there. If it 10 wasn't there, obviously, there was a loss. The 11 Credence data was just the data of all the 12 transactions along the way. Obviously, there 13 was other data and the back office data, for 14 transfers and logging on and logging off and 15 suchlike. That was the data. So it wasn't used 16 to verify the audit, if that makes sense. 17 Q. So from your perspective, the audit report 18 produced from the Auditor, was that the evidence 19 that you considered proved a loss to the 20 business? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What guidance was given to Investigators to 23 assist them in obtaining Horizon data from 24 Fujitsu? 25 A. I just -- you could request it from the Security 32 1 Team, the archived data. So anything over three 2 months, obviously. You could request it from -- 3 or they would request it on your behalf from 4 Fujitsu. 5 Q. You've referred to anything over three months. 6 Was that the only reason you would seek ARQ data 7 from Fujitsu, if you wanted to go further back 8 in time? 9 A. That was -- I guess so, yes. 10 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 57 of 11 Mr Knight's statement. That is page 22, please. 12 You say in the first sentence here: 13 "When required, Credence data would more 14 than likely be used as that showed exactly the 15 same information as ARQ data." 16 Who told you that that was the case? 17 A. I don't know whether anybody told me that was 18 the case. I think it was -- I think it was 19 because it was transactional data, if that ... 20 Q. Were you aware, when you were an Investigator, 21 that the audit trail data held by Fujitsu 22 contained more information than in the standard 23 ARQ response? 24 A. Sorry, say that again? 25 Q. Were you aware that there was additional data 33 1 held by Fujitsu, which contained more 2 information than you would find in a standard 3 ARQ response to a request? 4 A. I don't know, I can't recall. 5 Q. Were you ever made aware that an enhanced 6 interrogation of the audit trail could show when 7 a transaction or event had been performed by the 8 system? 9 A. There was transactional data and event data, if 10 that makes -- so one was the transaction and was 11 sort of the front end, and the other one was the 12 back office. That's what I understand. 13 Q. Were you aware that others could perform 14 enhanced interrogation of audit data and find 15 more information, particularly when 16 a transaction or event had been performed by the 17 system? 18 A. I don't know if I was aware of that. 19 Q. Who was responsible for deciding whether to 20 retrieve Horizon data from Fujitsu? 21 A. I'd say the Investigator. 22 Q. Were there ever circumstances in which you would 23 request more detailed audit data from Fujitsu 24 before you interviewed a subpostmaster or branch 25 staff member? 34 1 A. I don't know. I don't recall. 2 Q. Do you recall ever doing that? 3 A. I don't know -- no, I don't recall. 4 Q. Was this step ever taken before a decision was 5 made to prosecute? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. Was this step ever taken before a not guilty 8 plea was entered, to your recollection? 9 A. Again, I don't recall. 10 Q. Were you aware at the time that there was 11 a quota placed on audit request queries made of 12 Fujitsu? 13 A. I don't know. I'm aware now because of the team 14 I'm in, we manage that process. So I'm aware 15 now. I don't know if I was aware then. I think 16 I probably was. I think there was made mention 17 of quotas but I don't think I could pinpoint 18 what it was at the time. But I think I was 19 aware. 20 Q. Was this something which you were ever conscious 21 of when deciding whether to seek further data 22 from Fujitsu? 23 A. No, I don't believe so. 24 Q. You say at paragraph 38 of your statement to the 25 Inquiry that NBSC call logs were requested to 35 1 understand if the branch had reporting issues 2 that related to the Inquiry. Would you request 3 NBSC call logs in all apparent shortfall cases 4 you dealt with? 5 A. Possibly not. 6 Q. In what circumstances would you? 7 A. Um ... I don't know. If somebody had been 8 querying something, if they thought they'd been 9 queried it, or just to check, I don't recall. 10 Q. In what circumstances would you request Horizon 11 helpline call logs in addition to the NBSC call 12 logs? 13 A. I think that was probably -- I can't recall 14 doing it. Probably latterly, I would suggest. 15 I can't think -- sort of early, when I joined 16 POL. 17 Q. You say latterly. Why latterly? 18 A. I think there was -- just because that was -- 19 I think that was sort of brought in towards -- 20 I want to say latterly, probably 2010-ish, 21 around that way, I think. 22 Q. Turning, please, to the role of the Security 23 Team in relation to prosecution decisions. 24 Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 40 of 25 Mr Knight's statement to the Inquiry, which is 36 1 page 16. You say here: 2 "Once the Investigator had concluded the 3 investigation or got to a point where legal 4 advice was needed, the case file would be passed 5 to the Legal Team who would decide if a case was 6 to be taken to Court. The Designated Authority 7 Manager (DAM), a senior member of the Security 8 Team, would give the final consent to continue 9 to prosecution." 10 Was the Designated Authority Manager the 11 same role as the Designated Prosecution 12 Authority? 13 A. Yes, I've probably called it the wrong name but, 14 yes. 15 Q. Did an Investigator conducting the relevant 16 investigation have any input into the decision 17 as to whether someone should be prosecuted? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did it ever strike you as being inappropriate 20 that a Senior Security Manager from the Security 21 Team, which was responsible for conducting 22 initial investigations, was the one to give the 23 final consent to continue to prosecution? 24 A. I never thought about it. It was just 25 a process. 37 1 Q. Could we have, please, paragraph 56 of 2 Mr Knight's statement on the screen, please. 3 It's page 9 -- it's not page 9, my apologies. 4 It's page 22, paragraph 56. You say this: 5 "During my time in the Security Team before 6 the GLO, I do not recall an SPM, SPM assistant 7 or Crown Office employee attributing a shortfall 8 to problems with Horizon." 9 Could we have on screen, please, document 10 reference POL00066743. This is a transcript of 11 the interview with Peter Holmes on 19 September 12 2008, for which you were a second officer, and 13 this is one of the cases you address in your 14 statement. You were provided with the record of 15 tape recorded interview for the purposes of 16 providing your statement and you've more 17 recently been provided with this transcript of 18 the tape. Have you had a chance to read through 19 it? 20 A. I believe I have, yes. 21 Q. It is just a full transcript, as opposed to the 22 summary and partial transcription we find in 23 a record of tape recorded interview. 24 A. Right. 25 Q. Could we go, please, to page 7. About halfway 38 1 down the page, please, Robert Daily asks: 2 "And your experience with Horizon, how would 3 you -- how would you rate it?" 4 Mr Holmes says: 5 "Very slow, um, it's okay it's an auditor's 6 tool. Um, that particular one we had problems 7 with because it was connected to a telephone 8 line that also had the fax machine connected to 9 it." 10 Robert Daily says: 11 "The one's that? Jesmond? 12 Mr Holmes says: 13 "At Jesmond [the branch]. And we had BT 14 engineers in looking at the line, we had Horizon 15 engineers in looking at the line. And 16 eventually we had to take the fax machine out, 17 throw it away and get a new one in, provided by 18 Mr Canner. And now it seemed to work. But 19 there was a time when -- 20 "What, what", says Mr Daily. 21 "It wasn't so slow -- it wasn't so good. 22 People using cards just weren't getting 23 through." 24 Mr Daily says: 25 "Err, what period was that? 39 1 "Um, I suppose nine month ago for three 2 month. 3 "So we're talking about the beginning of 4 this year? December? 5 "I'm not very good with times, but yes, 6 possibly." 7 Mr Holmes, at this point in the interview, 8 was raising some technical problems with the 9 functioning of the system here, wasn't he? 10 A. It seems that way. 11 Q. Could we go, please, to page 27 of this 12 document, and this Robert Daily again asking the 13 questions. About two-thirds of the way down the 14 page there, he says: 15 "Yeah. So what can you tell me about the 16 shortage then?" 17 Mr Holmes says: 18 "I have absolutely no idea. 19 "No idea? 20 "Absolutely no idea. Unless it's the 21 Horizon that's let us down. I -- I mean there's 22 nobody in there storing 46,000, I haven't got 23 it, it's not in my bank account. Um, I spent 24 too many years in the police force seeing things 25 go wrong to start stealing money from anybody. 40 1 Um, I just -- I really do not know. 2 "Okay, [says Robert Daily]. Why is there 3 two cash declarations then? 4 "There was one in because I knew we were 5 showing short and I covered it up. 6 Mr Daley: "Covered what up?" 7 Mr Holmes: "The fact we were short in cash. 8 "By how much? 9 "... I can't remember ..." 10 So Mr Holmes here was offering, as 11 a possible explanation, the shortage being 12 caused by the computer system, the computer 13 system letting them down, wasn't he? 14 A. Yes, from reading that, on top of what he was 15 saying, it was slow and not very functional. 16 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 17 reference POL00120627. This is a suspect 18 offender report sent by you to the Fraud Team 19 and to Graham Ward on 1 February 2009, relating 20 to the investigation of Scott Darlington. Next 21 to the "BRIEF summary of facts of the case", 22 there is this: 23 "Audit shortage, £40K. [Subpostmaster] told 24 auditors immediately that there would be 25 a shortage. He said he was expecting TCs." 41 1 That's transaction corrections, isn't it? 2 A. Mm-hm. 3 Q. Then under this, next to "BRIEF summary of 4 admissions/denials made at interview": 5 "Admitted false accounting since first 6 shortage in September/October Trading Period. 7 Denied stealing -- adamant that it would be 8 errors and TCs would come to light." 9 So this subpostmaster was saying that the 10 shortage was caused by errors and he expected 11 transaction corrections to come to light. Is 12 that a fair summary of what this document is 13 saying? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Would you not categorise this as a subpostmaster 16 attributing a shortfall to the Horizon system? 17 A. No, I wouldn't. Not that. Errors to me -- and 18 TCs were errors, something that had occurred in 19 the branch by somebody making a mistake or, you 20 know, an error, not a technical Horizon 21 deficiency. 22 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 23 reference POL00120600. This is a memo from 24 Jarnail Singh, if we can scroll down, please, to 25 the second page. Apologies, down again. You 42 1 see at the bottom it's from Jarnail Singh, 2 Senior Lawyer, Criminal Law Division. 3 Going back to the first page at the top, 4 please. This is sent to Post Office Security 5 and copied to you and Graham Ward, as well as 6 the Press Office, and it is dated 2 March 2010. 7 Mr Singh is reporting back on the outcome of the 8 Darlington case, and he says this: 9 "The above named Defendant having pleaded 10 Guilty to all 5 counts of false accounting at 11 Chester Crown Court on 1 February 2010. He 12 attended Chester Crown Court for sentence on 13 23 February. The prosecution was conducted by 14 Deborah White and the defendant was also 15 represented and the case was heard by His Honour 16 Judge Dulton. 17 "On hearing the facts of the case His Honour 18 Judge Dulton enquired whether there was 19 an actual loss or whether the missing funds were 20 the result of a 'glitch' in Royal Mail systems. 21 Counsel for the defence maintained that he had 22 pleaded on the basis that although there was 23 a shortfall Mr Darlington was not responsible 24 for it and had merely covered it up. 25 Prosecution counsel requested a Newton Hearing 43 1 to address the issue however having considered 2 the request His Honour Judge refused the 3 adjournment that the expense of the delay of 4 further investigation was unjustifiable and that 5 he proposed to proceed on the basis most 6 favourable for the defendant. As a result 7 Mr Darlington was sentenced on the basis that no 8 money was missing and His Honour Judge sentenced 9 as follows ..." 10 Then further down that page, the sentence is 11 set out. 12 Do you recall being made aware that the 13 judge had queried in this case whether there was 14 an actual loss or whether instead there was 15 a glitch in the Royal Mail systems? 16 A. I believe I was but I think I was actually -- 17 I think I was actually in the -- not in the 18 court but in the court building, I think, at the 19 time. But I don't remember the specifics like 20 that, and obviously to that but, yes. 21 Q. Did this cause you any concern at the time? 22 A. I don't think I sort of understood it, as such. 23 I think it was just something that was said 24 there. I don't know what a glitch, or however 25 it -- meant. Obviously, you know, hindsight and 44 1 where we are now, looking back, but, at the 2 time, I wasn't thinking of Horizon issues. 3 Q. Can you recall if there was any discussion 4 within the Security Team or with the Criminal 5 Law Team following this judicial comment? 6 A. I don't believe I was -- if there was, I don't 7 think I was party to it. I don't recall. 8 Q. Can you recall anyone suggesting there should be 9 a review of what had happened in this case? 10 A. No, I don't. 11 Q. Were you ever trained or given instruction by 12 the Criminal Law Team or anyone else at the Post 13 Office on proof of loss when relying on Horizon 14 data? 15 A. I would say not. As I said, previously, I think 16 the loss was derived from an audit. 17 Q. Can you recall there being any discussion 18 following this case of what would be required to 19 prove loss when Horizon data was being relied 20 upon? 21 A. I don't recall that. 22 Q. Did the judicial comment in this case cause you 23 to question your approach to proof of loss in 24 any future cases? 25 A. I would say no because the process -- it was 45 1 always the audit. 2 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 3 reference POL00021244. This is the transcript 4 of the second tape from an interview which you 5 conducted with Alison Hall on 28 September 2010, 6 some six months after the outcome in the 7 Darlington case had been communicated via that 8 correspondence we've just looked at. 9 A. Mm-hm. 10 Q. Again, you were provided with the record of tape 11 recorded interview for the purposes of preparing 12 your statement and have more recently been 13 provided with this transcript of the tapes. 14 Again, have you had a chance to look through it? 15 A. I've had a look through it, yes. 16 Q. Could we go, please, to page 4 of this 17 transcript. About two-thirds of the way down 18 the page, you say this: 19 "Right, so you're adamant that the £14,000 20 is nothing that you've done, criminally, 21 fraudulently, however you want to put it." 22 Alison Hall says: 23 "I have not taken a penny out of that Post 24 Office, criminally. I wouldn't dare." 25 You say: 46 1 "It's something to do with some sort of 2 discrepancy." 3 Mrs Hall says: 4 "I think it's to do with discrepancy with 5 the Lottery, and I'm hoping that we can come to 6 the bottom of this." 7 You say, "Right". 8 Mrs Hall says: 9 "I will pay any money back, what's owed to 10 Post Office Limited. I am not a thief. I will 11 pay anything back, but I just want all this to 12 be looked at in detail, and because Horizon 13 system's not 100%, if I've got all the details 14 here. I'd like that to, um, be taken into 15 account, please." 16 You say: 17 "Right, and that's fine. I understand that, 18 and like I said, I, you know, I don't want to 19 harp on the subject. Yes, you have given me 20 some details." 21 Why did you not want to "harp on the 22 subject" of the problems with Horizon being 23 reported by Mrs Hall here? 24 A. I don't think I was relating to the Horizon 25 problem. I think I was just relating to that 47 1 we'd been speaking about the Lottery. I don't 2 say it would have been the Horizon system. 3 I don't think there was a discussion much about 4 that. 5 Q. That comment from you about not wanting to "harp 6 on the subject" is not included in the record of 7 tape recorded interview that we've got. Do you 8 know why that is? 9 A. I don't know. I would suggest when I was -- 10 if -- presumably I did this summary, that that 11 wasn't a significant comment or anything. 12 Q. Mrs Hall was telling you that the Horizon system 13 was not 100 per cent and asking for that to be 14 taken into account. Do you accept that Mrs Hall 15 was directly raising Horizon integrity issues in 16 her interview? 17 A. Looking at it now, looking back, but, at the 18 time, I don't think I took that as great 19 substance. Just -- it was just -- it just 20 seemed there, because Horizon not 100 per cent. 21 Lots of computers, you might say, you know, like 22 the one previously, if it's slow, or whatever it 23 might be, it's what the context is of why is it 24 not 100 per cent. 25 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 48 1 reference POL00091063. This is the report for 2 the Criminal Law Team which you produced 3 relating to Mrs Hall's case after interviewing 4 her. If we go, please, to the last page of that 5 document, maybe the penultimate page -- forgive 6 me. If we go back two pages, and again, and to 7 the bottom of that page, please, and that's the 8 last page of that document with your name and 9 the date of the report. That's 18 October 2010. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Have you had a chance to read through this 12 document recently? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. In this report, you recounted the parts of the 15 interview, if we can go, please, to page 2. 16 Without going through line by line, you set out 17 the parts of the interview with Mrs Hall where 18 she raised issues relating to the Lottery 19 scratchcards but, having looked through this 20 a number of times, I can't find any reference to 21 Mrs Hall's request that the matter be looked at 22 in detail because Horizon was not 100 per cent. 23 Do you agree that that isn't in your report? 24 A. Yes, yes. 25 Q. Why didn't you include that in your report? 49 1 A. I guess I didn't take it as a comment. She was 2 talking about scratchcards and Lottery, and 3 that's what I was sort of focused on. 4 Q. By the time you completed this report, you were 5 aware of at least two cases of subpostmasters 6 raising issues to do with Horizon: Mr Holmes' 7 case that we've looked at and Mr Darlington's 8 case. You were also aware of the judge's 9 comments in the Darlington case. 10 You were aware at the time, weren't you, 11 that the advice given by the Criminal Law Team 12 on charging and prosecution decisions was based 13 on the information contained in 14 an Investigator's report to them; were you aware 15 of that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. It was this document which the Criminal Law Team 18 considered when assessing whether any further 19 investigation was needed as well, wasn't it? 20 A. I presume so, yes. 21 Q. Would you accept, therefore, that it was 22 important for your report fully to reflect any 23 and all reasonable lines of inquiry raised by 24 Mrs Hall in interview? 25 A. I would concede that viewing this and in light 50 1 of where we are now but, back then, again, as 2 I said, that comment about not 100 per cent, 3 I wouldn't have taken that as something that was 4 fundamentally wrong with the system. And the 5 other bits and pieces, you said about the 6 glitch, I don't recall ever being given the full 7 explanation of, you know, what glitches and 8 whatever there was. 9 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 10 reference POL00055783. This is an email from 11 Rob Wilson to Dianne Chan, prosecution counsel, 12 copied to you. It is dated 17 November 2010 and 13 it relates to Mrs Henderson's case. The email 14 reads as follows: 15 "Dianne, have received a defence statement 16 today despite the telephone conversation 17 yesterday. A hard copy has been put in the post 18 today. 19 "At point 2 the Defence allege that any 20 discrepancy was as a result of the Horizon 21 system. There is also a challenge to the 22 initial missing figure of £18,000 which was 23 reduced according to the Defence statement in 24 a matter of minutes. The statement also 25 maintains that further investigation by the 51 1 auditor 'would have discovered the whereabouts 2 of the alleged missing sum'." 3 Mrs Henderson had, by this point, made it 4 part of her pleaded case that any discrepancy 5 was as a result the Horizon system, hadn't she? 6 A. I believe the defence statement mentioned 7 that -- not during the interview, I think it was 8 the defence statement, I believe. I might be 9 corrected on that but ... 10 Q. Indeed. This email is telling you that 11 a defence statement received that day contained 12 an allegation that the discrepancy was as 13 a result of the Horizon system, and you were 14 being told about this, weren't you, in this 15 email from Mr Wilson? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 18 reference POL00169422. This is an email from 19 Jane Owen to you and others. It is dated 20 18 January 2011. The subject line is "Urgent 21 update required", and Ms Owen's email reads as 22 follows: 23 "Dear All 24 "Can I please ask for your help urgently. 25 I have been asked to provide an update on the 52 1 attached cases where Horizon integrity has come 2 into question and need the information by 3 tomorrow. 4 "I have checked against the spreadsheet but 5 am unable to cover off the 'gaps' which are 6 namely 7 "Court case details 8 "Result 9 "Accused's defence (exactly). 10 "Could you either add into the spreadsheet 11 using bright pink font as I have done in the 12 recoveries column or just pop updates on 13 an email and I will collate. 14 "Many thanks." 15 Ms Owen attached a spreadsheet. Could we 16 have that on screen, please. The reference is 17 POL00169423. 18 Just scrolling through this spreadsheet, if 19 we're able to, we can see a number of cases 20 listed and, four columns in, column D, we see 21 the Post Office branch being listed, with some 22 information relating to each of those cases -- 23 A. Mm-hm. 24 Q. -- which are said to be ones where Horizon 25 integrity has come into question, as Ms Owen 53 1 puts it. On my count, this spreadsheet lists 20 2 cases. Mr Darlington's case is one of these. 3 Do you accept that by January 2011, when 4 Ms Owen sent this email, you were aware that 5 there were at least 20 cases where Horizon 6 integrity had come into question? 7 A. Yes, I would have to say that viewing this, but 8 I don't know at the time if I was -- if that 9 had -- had comprehended that. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, the email is pretty 11 straightforward in its terms, Mr Knight. 12 A. Yes, sir, it's -- I understand what the email, 13 and this sheet -- I -- again, I don't know. 14 I've got no response for it. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Would I be fair if I concluded 16 that, if you had read that email, you must have 17 understood that the attachment contained 20 18 cases where Horizon integrity issues had been 19 raised? 20 A. Yes, I would say that's a reasonable assumption. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thanks. 22 MS PRICE: Sir, I wonder if that might be 23 an appropriate moment for the morning break. 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 25 MS PRICE: If we could take 15 minutes, please. 54 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, let's say 11.40, is it? 2 MS PRICE: 11.40, sir, thank you. 3 (11.23 am) 4 (A short break) 5 (11.40 am) 6 MS PRICE: Hello, sir, can you see hear us? 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 8 MS PRICE: Mr Knight, in light of the answers you 9 gave us before the break, I'd like to go to one 10 further document and the reference is 11 POL00325402. 12 This top email is from you to Steve Bradshaw 13 dated 4 February 2010, forwarding the email 14 below which is the subject "Horizon challenges". 15 If we can go, please, to the email below, this 16 is you to Andy Hayward, Iain Murphy, Andrew 17 Daley and Jason Collins. "Horizon challenges", 18 you say: 19 "Gentlemen, 20 "Further to my remark in my previous email. 21 "Regards, 22 "CK." 23 You seem to be providing links there 24 underneath to various articles and resources 25 including Computer Weekly, The Grocer, BBC, 55 1 Talking Retail. Just scrolling down, please, 2 that's the bottom of the email, but we've got 3 the title there "Horizon challenges" of that 4 email. 5 Did you understand those Horizon challenges 6 to be challenges to the integrity of the Horizon 7 system when you sent that email? 8 A. I don't recall, obviously, what the content of 9 each one of those articles was but I knew that 10 there was a growing media -- as those, you know, 11 a talking point, a topic or whatever. But, 12 again, in comparison with what the business was 13 saying, I think that was probably my point, that 14 we were told that everything is fine, that -- we 15 weren't told anything different but there was 16 this under current. 17 Q. In terms of what you say in your statement at 18 paragraph 56, that you do not recall an SPM, SPM 19 assistant or Crown Office employee attributing 20 a shortfall to problems with Horizon, is that 21 not exactly what this is: an email about 22 subpostmasters attributing shortfalls to 23 Horizon? 24 A. It is, again, from where we are today, looking 25 back -- but, again, at the time, my viewpoint 56 1 would have been one of what the business was 2 saying and any sort of challenges, you know, to 3 Horizon that had been upheld. 4 Q. So is paragraph 56 of your statement wrong, in 5 that case? 6 A. I don't know if it's wrong. I don't know how -- 7 how I'm interpreting this information. I'm 8 going by what I sort of believed at the time, 9 and what the message was, the overarching 10 message, I should say, from the business that 11 everything was okay. 12 Q. We'll come in due course to the business message 13 but could we have on screen, please, document 14 reference POL00167369. This an email from 15 Graham Ward to a list of recipients, including 16 you. It is dated 14 April 2011, and the subject 17 line is "Credence v Fujitsu" and Mr Ward says 18 this in his email: 19 "All 20 "If anyone has any evidence of disparities 21 between Fujitsu and Credence transaction data, 22 please get in touch (eg timing issues ... 23 session numbers not matching for postage label 24 transactions etc). 25 "Ta muchly." 57 1 What was your understanding of why this 2 enquiry was made of you? 3 A. I don't honestly recall the email, or -- the 4 email -- the question. Reading it there, 5 I don't -- just discrepancies between the 6 Fujitsu and the Credence data, so ... 7 Q. On its face, it suggests there was an issue 8 being investigated by Mr Ward of a disparity 9 between the transaction data shown on Credence 10 and the data held by Fujitsu, doesn't it? 11 A. Yes, I guess it does, from the -- on the face of 12 it, yes. 13 Q. That would be potentially very significant, 14 would it not, where Investigators like you 15 understood the Credence data to show exactly the 16 same information as ARQ data? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did this concern you at all at the time or can 19 you simply not remember? 20 A. I don't -- I don't recall, I'm afraid. 21 Q. Looking at it now, would it have concerned you 22 at the time? 23 A. With hindsight, and everything that's gone on 24 subsequently, I think it would have made me 25 think, yes. 58 1 Q. This should, shouldn't it, have led you to 2 question the reliability of the Credence data 3 you were relying on to prove loss, where you 4 hadn't requested further data from Fujitsu? 5 A. Yes, looking at this in its -- you know, in the 6 sentence, yes. What those disparities were, 7 it's given some examples of timing issues, 8 session numbers not matching. I don't know if 9 they would have affected the reliability of the 10 data. I don't know. 11 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 12 reference POL00107683. This is a report to 13 Legal Services which was produced by Stephen 14 Bradshaw on 18 April 2011, four days after 15 Mr Ward's email about Credence data versus 16 Fujitsu data. It relates to a case where you 17 sat in on an interview as a second officer. 18 Could we have page 3 of this report, please. 19 About halfway down the page is a heading 20 covering the interview, with Ms Threlfall. 21 Underneath, Mr Bradshaw says this: 22 "At 12.13 am I interviewed Mrs Rita 23 Catherine Threlfall at the Liverpool North 24 Delivery Office ... Present throughout the 25 interview was Mr Christopher Knight Fraud 59 1 Investigator." 2 Then two paragraphs down, Mr Bradshaw 3 explains that a pre-prepared statement was read 4 out in the interview by the legal representative 5 in attendance and the content of that statement 6 is then set out towards the bottom of that page 7 and over to the next page. Going over to the 8 next page, please, the third paragraph down: 9 "She then explained the type of transactions 10 performed when she took over the branch, the 11 contact she had with Post Office Limited and 12 that she used to perform a weekly balance and 13 that mistakes could readily [be] found." 14 Then going down four paragraphs, please, the 15 paragraph starting "She then said": 16 "She then said that the system upgrades 17 started to be implemented and that she did not 18 know how these upgrades affected the balances. 19 She told to leave the computer switched on. 20 "She said that when there were discrepancies 21 it was difficult to get a result from the 22 transaction log and she received a printed 23 message stating 'no transaction found'. 24 "She then said that monies were placed to 25 make good the supposed cash shortages due to 60 1 discrepancies becoming increasingly difficult to 2 uncover. She said that on the balance snapshot 3 the figures show an amount defined as cash and 4 this fixed is meant to equal the declared cash 5 and that for some considerable time these 6 figures at her office differed greatly." 7 She sets out a number of other issues below 8 and then, over the page, please, the second 9 paragraph: 10 "She denied stealing any Post Office monies 11 or false accounted and that she had received no 12 assistance from Post Office Ltd. If these 13 losses had happened at her office, then they 14 must be happening at many more offices." 15 This is another example, is it not, of 16 a subpostmaster, in an interview you were 17 present at, attributing shortfalls to the 18 Horizon system? 19 A. Yes, it is. 20 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 21 reference POL00323734. This is an email chain 22 containing emails sent between you and Neil 23 Thorneycroft on 24 May 2011, a little over 24 a month after Mr Ward's email about Credence 25 data versus Fujitsu data. Can you explain, 61 1 please, who Mr Thorneycroft was? 2 A. He worked in the Finance Service Centre on the 3 Lottery Team. 4 Q. The emails relate to Mrs Hall's case and 5 starting, please, towards the bottom of the 6 page, you email Mr Thorneycroft attaching 7 a statement you put together for him from 8 previous notes about the case. 9 Just pausing there, was it usual for you to 10 prepare draft witness statements for court for 11 witnesses? 12 A. It would be, yeah, to go through it because 13 the -- obviously, a member of staff wouldn't 14 know how to complete a witness statement, so it 15 would go through and then obviously he would 16 check that everything is correct that's been put 17 in it. 18 Q. Mr Thorneycroft's email replies in the middle of 19 the page, and he says this: 20 "Hi Chris. 21 "Made a few amendments. I'm no longer 22 working as the Lottery Team manager, I've gone 23 back to my previous PO role. 24 "I hope this won't go to court. The 25 perceived Lottery discrepancy was a bit of 62 1 a phantom." 2 Then your response to Mr Thorneycroft is at 3 the top, and you say this: 4 "Neil. 5 "Thanks. I hope it won't go to court 6 either. 7 "I have heard she is blaming Horizon now 8 ...!!!!" 9 There is no way of characterising Mrs Hall's 10 position in this case other than she was 11 attributing shortfalls to the Horizon system, is 12 there? 13 A. It was around the Lottery -- she was saying it 14 was Lottery and I tried to, you know, get to the 15 bottom of that and it didn't seem it was 16 Lottery. 17 Q. But you're saying here, as a separate issue, 18 aren't you, "I have heard she is blaming Horizon 19 now"? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You were fully aware of that position at the 22 time because it's said, in terms, in this email, 23 weren't you? 24 A. It's what, sorry? 25 Q. You were fully aware that she was attributing 63 1 shortfalls to the Horizon system because you 2 have said in terms that that is the case in this 3 email? 4 A. I think I must have heard it from Legal 5 Services. 6 Q. In Mrs Hall's case you made some enquiries of 7 those responsible for the Lottery and we've seen 8 the interaction here with Mr Thorneycroft but 9 did you make any enquiries of Fujitsu or anyone 10 else within Post Office to explore Mrs Hall's 11 assertion that Horizon was not 100 per cent? 12 A. I believe I asked -- I got call logs, if she'd 13 reported any Lottery issues. I don't think 14 there was any Lottery calls to the helpline. 15 Q. So what -- 16 A. But, no -- 17 Q. -- you were looking for was Lottery calls? 18 A. Yes, I was focused on the Lottery. 19 Q. Is it the case that when you made your statement 20 and you say you don't recall cases where people 21 were attributing shortfalls to Horizon, is the 22 reason that you didn't recall that you didn't 23 treat the concerns raised as being significant? 24 A. That's probably a good explanation. I think it 25 was there was no -- I had no background on what 64 1 the claims were. And, obviously -- and I know 2 you said you're going to get on to it but 3 obviously what the business was saying. So that 4 was probably my thoughts on it. 5 Q. Would you accept now that you were unduly 6 dismissive of the concerns which were being 7 raised about the integrity of the Horizon 8 system? 9 A. Probably looking at it now, on the information 10 I had then, I was unaware, I would suggest, with 11 all the other information, as we said, about the 12 business and such like. So yeah, in hindsight. 13 Q. Do you accept that, at least in Mrs Hall's case, 14 by not exploring concerns about Horizon, you 15 failed to pursue a reasonable line of inquiry? 16 A. Again, I say, I was going with the Lottery, so, 17 in essence -- in view of that, I would have to 18 concede to that, I'd suggest. 19 Q. Could we have on screen, please, page 40 of 20 Mr Knight's statement paragraph 116. In the 21 first sentence at 116 you say this: 22 "I do not recall being aware of any robust 23 challenges to Horizon (other than the GLO)." 24 What do you mean by "robust challenges to 25 Horizon"? 65 1 A. Robust challenges where something had been shown 2 as Horizon was -- had failed or something had 3 been thrown out, you know, completely by 4 Horizon, or some message or something had come 5 through. Obviously, the GLO was the big piece. 6 So I think I was basing it on that type of level 7 of detailed information. 8 Q. But, in the context of criminal prosecutions, 9 isn't that the wrong way round? It is for the 10 prosecution to prove the guilt of someone, not 11 for them to prove their innocence? 12 A. Yes, that ... 13 Q. You go on: 14 "I dealt with a number of people who 15 admitted their dishonesty and so the integrity 16 of Horizon was not at the forefront of my mind. 17 The business message was consistent that Horizon 18 was robust so there was never any doubt in my 19 mind." 20 Who was the business message that Horizon 21 was robust coming from? 22 A. It was obviously within our Security Team, you 23 know, John Scott, and it was -- it just seemed 24 to be the business message. I think there was 25 other people, other Senior Managers, you know, 66 1 but I can't recall them exactly. But it was 2 an overarching message, you know, that the 3 system was fine, and the -- this -- you know, 4 these -- as I say, these claims, or whatever, 5 were not an issue. Just that seemed to be -- 6 that was the message. 7 Q. You've mentioned John Scott. Was the message 8 coming from outside of the Security Team as 9 well? 10 A. I think it was. I think it was. I can't recall 11 who it was but I think it was other senior, you 12 know, managers, who probably had an awareness of 13 what our team did and the business. 14 Q. Can you recall what level within the business 15 you're talking about? 16 A. I think it would have been more senior people, 17 you know, it would have been senior -- I guess 18 on a level with Mr Scott or potentially more -- 19 higher. I can't recall exactly but it just 20 seemed to be that that was the message. 21 Q. Did you ever question the party line, given the 22 mounting number of cases which you were aware 23 of, where Horizon integrity was being raised? 24 A. No, is the answer to that. 25 Q. Do you think you should have? 67 1 A. I think that email you showed where I sent the 2 four links, I think that was my point of seeing 3 these things and being -- you know, passing it 4 on. But, as for challenging the business ethos, 5 I don't know how I would have done that and I've 6 certainly -- I wouldn't have done that, and 7 I didn't, obviously. 8 Q. Regardless of what the business message was, you 9 were under a duty as an Investigator to pursue 10 reasonable lines of inquiry, weren't you? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What was a reasonable line of inquiry was your 13 call, wasn't it, nobody else's? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So would you accept that reassurance from the 16 business about Horizon could not have justified 17 a decision not to pursue an otherwise reasonable 18 line of inquiry? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 21 reference POL00141218. This is an email from 22 Andrew Daley, dated 5 July 2010, forwarding to 23 you and others an email from Jane Owen below, 24 dated 2 July 2010, and there are a number of 25 other emails beneath hers. The subject is 68 1 "Duplication of Transaction Records in ARQ 2 Returns", and this is a document you comment on 3 at paragraph 61 of your statement to the 4 Inquiry. 5 Ms Owen's email reads as follows, scrolling 6 down a little, please: 7 "Dear Both ..." 8 The original recipients being Jason Collins 9 and Andrew Daley: 10 "Please see email below from Penny Thomas. 11 "Mark, Alan Simpson and myself have had 12 a conference call today to look at potential 13 problems that this is likely to cause. Firstly 14 the suggested workaround will need to be put to 15 our Legal Team and until that has been agreed 16 any further ARQ requests, including those which 17 have already been submitted, will be suspended. 18 "There are 2 cases currently with the 19 court -- West Byfleet and Porters Avenue and 20 I will speak to Lisa and Jon about these as we 21 need to know what in the way of ARQs and the 22 corresponding statements have been presented to 23 court. In addition I have identified the 24 following offices from the casework spreadsheet 25 as ones that potentially could have already had 69 1 information presented to the court. Could you 2 please confirm whether or not this is the case 3 and also whether there are any I have missed as 4 Fujitsu will need to take corrective action." 5 On the face of things, this email is 6 expressing concern, is it not, that inaccurate 7 data may have been presented to the court in 8 support of prosecutions? 9 A. Yes, it is, ARQ, yeah. 10 Q. Was it your understanding, based on what you say 11 in your statement, that the issue affected the 12 integrity of ARQ data provided by Fujitsu? 13 A. That's what I put in my statement. That's -- 14 I don't recall this but that's, I think, how 15 I understood it, that when it was -- yeah, 16 however it was taken off the main system, that 17 something had happened with the duplication. 18 Q. Did this concern you or, if you can't recall, 19 would it have concerned you at the time that 20 incorrect data might have been provided to the 21 court in support of prosecutions brought by the 22 Post Office? 23 A. Well, yeah, any -- anything that's not correct, 24 yeah. 25 Q. In circumstances where an increasing number of 70 1 subpostmasters were raising concerns about the 2 integrity of the Horizon system, did it occur to 3 you, looking at this, that they might be right, 4 that there might be a problem, not just with the 5 ARQ data produced to support prosecutions but 6 with the integrity of the Horizon data itself? 7 A. Probably not. Again, I'm going back to thinking 8 back then, not from, you know, hindsight. And 9 this was an ARQ -- potentially an ARQ issue but 10 the Horizon data was -- you know, its integrity 11 was intact. I think that was the thought. 12 Q. I'd like to go back, please, to your involvement 13 in the investigation and prosecution of Allison 14 Henderson and we touched on an email about that 15 case earlier. 16 Could we have on screen, please, 17 paragraph 79 of Mr Knight's statement to the 18 Inquiry. It's page 29. At paragraph 79, you 19 say this: 20 "In order to progress the investigation, the 21 next step was to interview Ms Henderson. The 22 timing of the interview is down to the Lead 23 Investigator. It was standard procedure to have 24 a second officer at all interviews. In this 25 case it was my colleague Mr Paul Whitaker. 71 1 I can see that in Ms Henderson's witness 2 statement she states, 'I was allowed to bring my 3 Federation rep, but he was not allowed to speak 4 during the interview'. As part of PO rules 5 a person being interviewed can have someone from 6 the union present. This is only to act as 7 an observer. They are told at the start of the 8 interview of their role. They may be permitted 9 to speak if it helps facilitate the interview." 10 Can you help with the circumstances in which 11 it might facilitate the interview if a union 12 representative was allowed to speak? 13 A. I'm having -- relating an occasion, trying to 14 explain -- if I'm trying to talk about 15 a transaction or something like that, and maybe 16 I'm not explaining it how the postmaster would 17 understand it, and maybe if the Federation rep 18 can sort of see past my confusion or whatever, 19 is to just facilitate it. 20 Q. You go on at paragraph 80 to say this: 21 "Disclosure would only be made to 22 a solicitor not the suspect so that the 23 solicitor could advise their client." 24 Do you mean by this that pre-interview 25 disclosure would only be provided if someone was 72 1 represented by a solicitor? 2 A. Yes, we would only give the disclosure to 3 a solicitor. 4 Q. Who was it who instructed or trained you to the 5 effect that pre-interview disclosure should only 6 be made if someone was legally represented? 7 A. I believe that's how I understood it to be: 8 disclosure for the solicitor. 9 Q. What was the reasoning behind this? 10 A. Just so they could advise their client. 11 Q. Forgive me, what was the reason for not 12 providing it, if there wasn't a solicitor? 13 A. Probably -- mainly probably because we were 14 talking about something that person would 15 already know, I guess. I don't know. 16 Q. Mrs Henderson's position in interview was that 17 she did not know what the cause of the apparent 18 shortfall was and that it was a complete shock 19 to her when the shortage was found on audit. In 20 effect, she was saying the cause of the apparent 21 shortfall was unexplained. Would you agree with 22 that, having that the opportunity to read the 23 documents? 24 A. Yeah, yeah. 25 Q. The interview took place on 11 March 2010. That 73 1 was nine days after Jarnail Singh had reported 2 to you and others the result of the Darlington 3 case with the judicial comment we looked at. 4 Mrs Henderson was someone apparently completely 5 in the dark about the reasons for a shortfall. 6 Did occur to you at the time, with what you knew 7 by that point, that the Horizon data you were 8 relying on might be wrong? 9 A. No. It didn't. 10 Q. Did you consider that you were under any 11 obligation to get to the bottom of the 12 shortfall? 13 A. Yes, that's -- you're always looking to 14 understand what it was. 15 Q. You've had an opportunity to look at the record 16 of interview in Mrs Henderson's case. Your 17 questions in interview tend to suggest you were 18 convinced that Mrs Henderson was guilty of 19 theft. By way of example, you told her it was 20 difficult to believe she did not know what 21 happened to the money. Is that the case, that 22 you were convinced she was guilty of theft? 23 A. I believe she -- well, yeah -- of theft, 24 I believe she knew something that what she 25 wasn't telling me, but ... 74 1 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 75 of 2 Mr Knight's statement. It's page 28. You say 3 here: 4 "In this case I was what was known as the 5 1st Officer or Lead Investigator. Various data 6 would have been obtained from Credence, which 7 gives the same data as ARQ but is immediately 8 accessible to download rather than having to 9 request from Fujitsu. Credence data covers the 10 3-month period prior to the current date. It's 11 also easier to read than the ARQ data as the 12 'Item Long name' is shown rather than just 13 an item ID. From Credence you can obtain 14 transactional data and event data (back office 15 items)." 16 So the data you obtained in this case was 17 Credence data not ARQ data; is that right? 18 A. That's correct, yes. 19 Q. Could we have on screen, please, POL00047155. 20 This is a memo from Rob Wilson. If we can go to 21 the bottom of that, please, and over the page, 22 so we see Rob Wilson, Head of Criminal Law. 23 Going back to the top of the first page, 24 please, it's dated 25 March 2010, and 25 Mr Wilson's memo, which is sent to the Security 75 1 Team and copied to you, reads as follows: 2 "I understand from the papers that an audit 3 discovered a shortage of just in excess of 4 £11,900 at a sub post office that was only open 5 on a limited basis. 6 "I also understand from the papers that 7 whilst the suspect would maintain that she was 8 unaware of the loss, the suspicion is that when 9 she completed the branch trading statement on 10 6 January 2010 she would have been aware of the 11 loss. Could you explain to me why she would 12 have been aware of the loss? I note there is 13 reference to a table in Appendix B which leads 14 to the suspicion that she knew of the loss. 15 I am not able to understand why it shows that 16 she would have been aware that the accounts were 17 short on that occasion. 18 "Presumably, we would be able to interrogate 19 Horizon and establish a full accounting pattern 20 for the sub office to show all transactions that 21 were conducted and therefore how much money was 22 paid out, how much was received in remittances 23 and therefore how much should have been present 24 in the account. 25 "Accordingly, I would like to understand how 76 1 it is that we can pinpoint where this loss 2 occurred. You may think it sensible at this 3 stage, bearing in mind it is most unlikely that 4 she will plead guilty that we start to put 5 together full witness [statement] and exhibit 6 bundles." 7 You replied to Mr Wilson on 20 April 2010. 8 Could we have this reply on screen, please? 9 It's POL00044501. You say here: 10 "I believe that Mrs Henderson would have 11 been aware of the shortage on 6 January 2010 12 when she completed the Branch Trading statement 13 as a discrepancy was shown in the Horizon Events 14 log. 15 "I have spoken to a manager at the Crown 16 Office and she couldn't understand why such 17 a large figure had been entered. She confirmed 18 that the 'CASH' figures would have been entered 19 manually and then the system produces the 20 Discrepancy Positive or Negative entry. It 21 would appear very strange that an 'error' was 22 £20 different to the audit shortage discovered 4 23 weeks later. 24 "Circumstantial possibly but Mrs Henderson 25 hasn't been able to offer an explanation." 77 1 Then two paragraphs down, you say this: 2 "If Mrs Henderson is to be believed and the 3 BT was correct on 6 January 2010 she lost nearly 4 £12K in 5 weeks to 10 February 2010. Then 5 factor in that she is open two full days and two 6 half days, so in essence three (3) full days. 7 The £12K loss has occurred in 15 days. The 8 largest transaction in that period was a Post 9 Office Card Account withdrawal for £400." 10 Just above that, we can see your sentence 11 here: 12 "I hope you feel we can continue with 13 charges(s) of theft and false accounting." 14 Was it usual for you to express hope that 15 the Criminal Law Team would advise in favour of 16 charges? 17 A. I think that's probably badly written on my 18 part, for how it comes across. I think it was 19 more of a -- that I've answered your questions 20 and we can progress. It wasn't anything 21 malicious or anything of that nature. 22 Q. Could we have on screen, please, POL00047159. 23 This is the Criminal Law Team's advice dated 24 21 May 2010 from Rob Wilson, who says this in 25 the first two paragraphs: 78 1 "In my opinion the evidence is sufficient to 2 afford a realistic prospect of conviction of the 3 above named on a charge of theft as set out on 4 the attached Schedule. I have not drafted 5 a commencement date in the theft as I am not 6 clear when we are saying the losses started. 7 Can you fill in such a date and explain to me 8 your rationale for relying on this particular 9 date. 10 "Bearing in mind Mrs Henderson's explanation 11 in relation to the loss, it does not seemed 12 appropriate to consider false accounting 13 charges. It would be helpful if we could obtain 14 some evidence to refute the possibility that the 15 money she alleges must have gone missing was 16 not, in fact, in the account during the last 17 accounting period prior to the audit." 18 He requests some further evidence in this 19 memo. Going over the page, please, at 4 he 20 says: 21 "Reference is also made in the report at 22 page 27 to the initial entry for £6,967.28. The 23 paragraph goes on to explain that the other cash 24 figure of 11,970.69 was probably a discrepancy 25 shown which has been re-input to achieve a zero 79 1 balance. Could this theory also be explained in 2 the form of a witness statement producing all 3 documents that establish the theory. In other 4 words, the prosecution really need to try to 5 prove that the thefts in this case took place 6 over a period of time in circumstances where the 7 defendant must be the thief as she is the only 8 person who has access to the cash at the Post 9 Office." 10 A further memo was sent by Mr Wilson on the 11 19 August 2010. Could we have that on screen, 12 please. It's POL00055189. This is sent direct 13 to you and it reads as follows: 14 "The above-named entered a not guilty plea 15 in relation to the current charge. The charge 16 has been amended to read between 1 January 1997 17 and 10 February 2010. Clearly, this cannot be 18 the full period of the fraud and no doubt some 19 indication as to the beginning date will be 20 given in due course. 21 "The prosecution are now required to prepare 22 the witness [statement] and exhibit bundles and 23 serve the disclosure evidence. I would be 24 grateful if the statements as outlined in my 25 advice of 21 May could be obtained. In addition 80 1 to those statements, it would be helpful to 2 understand why the audit took place on 3 10 February. 4 "I am sure that this case will be one of 5 those cases where the Horizon evidence will be 6 challenged and in due course I expect we will 7 need to obtain expert evidence from Mr Jenkins 8 of Fujitsu." 9 So Mr Wilson was flagging that this may be 10 a case where Horizon evidence was challenged, 11 wasn't he? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. At this stage, there was still some doubt, 14 wasn't there, as to the date period in relation 15 to the alleged theft or fraud? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Could we have on screen, please, POL00055314. 18 This is a memo dated 29 September 2010, to you, 19 again from Rob Wilson. In the third and fourth 20 paragraphs, Mr Wilson says this: 21 "The current charge covers a period from 22 1 January 1997 to 10 February 2010. Is there 23 any indication from the Horizon documentation, 24 the defendant's bank statements, or any other 25 material, when this money first went missing? 81 1 Can you confirm when the last audit took place 2 so that if necessary that date can actually 3 appear in the indictment? 4 "At the moment I suspect that this will be 5 a case where Horizon itself is challenged and, 6 as such, the Prosecution will be under pressure 7 to disclose a huge amount of Horizon data. It 8 would therefore be extremely useful if we could 9 identify something that assists the prosecution 10 in the pursuit of this criminal allegation." 11 So it appears, even at this late stage, that 12 nobody could pinpoint when the alleged loss 13 first occurred; is that right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Given all the doubt over the date in this case, 16 did it not occur to you that you should seek 17 further data from Fujitsu? 18 A. Yes, I presume it would. 19 Q. Why didn't you? 20 A. I don't know. I can't recall that. 21 Q. Did it not concern you, as an investigator, that 22 a theft charge was proceeding when nobody could 23 say when or how the loss occurred? 24 A. Yeah, it would have done, asking that -- he's 25 asking that question, I don't recall the reason 82 1 why it wasn't obtained. 2 Q. Going back, please, to the email from Mr Wilson 3 dated 17 November 2010. Could we have that back 4 on screen, please. It's POL00055783. 5 This is the email we looked at a little 6 earlier and we looked at the first two 7 paragraphs there. In the last paragraph here: 8 "Clearly if there were to be a plea to false 9 accounting but on the basis that the Horizon 10 system was at fault that would not be 11 an acceptable basis of plea for the 12 prosecution". 13 Looking at the email below this, this is Rob 14 Wilson to Dianne Chan, the day before on 15 16 November, he says: 16 "Dianne 17 "Have spoken to defence solicitor who 18 indicated that the defendant may be filling to 19 plead to false accounting and pay money back. 20 Taken instructions from Chris who has confirmed 21 that he would be happy to proceed on this 22 basis." 23 Is the "Chris" there a reference to you? 24 A. I would guess it is. 25 Q. Did you form any view at the time about the 83 1 appropriateness of making a guilty plea to false 2 accounting, contingent upon Mrs Henderson not 3 making reference to her belief that the 4 discrepancies were as a result of the Horizon 5 system? 6 A. That -- the wording of that, "taken instructions 7 from Chris, who has confirmed he would be happy 8 to proceed on the basis", I don't know how -- 9 why that's written like that, because he 10 wouldn't have taken -- wouldn't have taken 11 instruction from me on anything. So I'd have to 12 query the meaning of that sentence. 13 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 14 reference POL00019111. This is a case file 15 event log and it relates, this time, to Alison 16 Hall's case. Was this event log completed by 17 you? 18 A. I believe -- yes, it was. 19 Q. There is an entry in it on 30 June 2011, if we 20 can scroll down, please. You say here: 21 "Phone call from Adrian Chaplin, Barrister, 22 while at Leeds Crown Court. Asked if we'd 23 accept False Accounting. I said we would but 24 nothing mention against Horizon." 25 This is your note in which you say the plea 84 1 was okay but nothing mentioned against Horizon. 2 You deal with this in your statement at 3 paragraph 107, if we could have that on screen, 4 please. It's page 37. You've dealt with this 5 earlier in this paragraph but, as a point of 6 general principle, about halfway down this page 7 you say: 8 "I have never had any involvement in making 9 a plea deal or applying conditions to such 10 a deal and this would be outside of my remit as 11 an Investigator." 12 Does that remain your position, 13 notwithstanding the case event log that we've 14 just looked at? 15 A. Yes, because that case -- what I'm saying here, 16 I've never had involvement in -- I think I'm 17 trying to explain that case log, that I would 18 have been passing on a message because counsel 19 had phoned me. I wouldn't have been giving 20 instructions, it would be more so passing on 21 a message because I wouldn't have been involved 22 in plea deals or conditions of any sort. 23 Q. You have referred a number of times to the 24 business line in relation to Horizon. In 25 relation to your own involvement, particularly 85 1 in the cases of Mrs Hall and Mrs Henderson, do 2 you feel any responsibility for what happened to 3 those two subpostmistresses? 4 A. I was the Investigator, so I guess that would be 5 part of it, yes. 6 MS PRICE: Sir, those are all the questions I have 7 for Mr Knight. Do you have any questions before 8 I turn to Core Participants? 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, thank you, no. 10 MS PRICE: Ms Patrick has some questions. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Certainly. 12 Questioned by MS PATRICK 13 MS PATRICK: Mr Knight, my name is Angela Patrick. 14 I act with Mr Moloney KC for a number of 15 subpostmasters who were prosecuted and who have 16 subsequently had their convictions quashed. We 17 act including for Ms Henderson and Ms Hall, who 18 sits next to me today. 19 I want to ask you about two topics and the 20 first is about a document which is at 21 POL00136717. This isn't a message that we'd 22 have expected you to see at the time, I just 23 want to ask you about it. If we can start at 24 page 2. 25 A. Excuse me, nothing has come up. 86 1 Q. I am going to say something -- 2 A. Oh, sorry. 3 Q. -- for the document management team. If we can 4 bring it up at page 2 at the very end, we can 5 see where the email trail starts, and you can 6 see there we start with a request from Simon 7 Baker dated on 9 June 2013. I'll take it very 8 quickly there. It's about a Spot Review, which 9 we understand were exercises that were conducted 10 during the Second Sight review, so not something 11 we'd have expected you to see at the time. 12 A. Right. 13 Q. If we can scroll up, we see a reply to that 14 email from Dave Posnett and, at the bottom of 15 page 1 you can see the start of that. You see 16 Dave Posnett replies on 10 June 2013. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What I want to look at, if we can scroll on to 19 the next page, it's first two paragraphs or 20 three paragraphs there. If you can read that to 21 yourself, I'll read it for the record. 22 "I've read the associated document and 23 I would say there were issues ... the 24 scratchcard process worked but some SPMRs 25 [subpostmasters] had trouble getting to grips 87 1 and understanding it. The volume of TCs [which 2 we know are transaction corrections] across the 3 network were, I recall, a concern. I owned 4 Scratchcards as a fraud risk programme when 5 I was Fraud Risk Manager up until around 6 May 2010. The problem was that scratchcards 7 were the only product which wasn't simply remmed 8 in and then sold. Instead, they had to be 9 accepted on the Lottery Terminal as received and 10 then activated as and when required on the 11 Lottery Terminal and remmed in on Horizon when 12 activated, then sold, and then prizes/stock 13 holdings were recorded on Horizon ... as well as 14 online sales. 15 "I ran a number of intervention/education 16 initiatives and associate a zip file of two such 17 initiatives (1 & 2) ... both of which featured 18 Hightown ... " 19 Now Hightown was Ms Hall's branch: 20 "... (so they weren't left to flounder as 21 seems to be the insinuation). There are also 22 help guides and comms articles included and 23 I would think that POL sent out many more comms 24 to branches and the Lottery Team made numerous 25 TP calls each month, as well as the Ops Manual 88 1 as a point of reference in branch." 2 He goes on: 3 "Also in the file [and he refers to 4 a spreadsheet]. From this data we determined 5 branches that would be telephoned and branches 6 that I would request an audit. If you see the 7 'branches of concern' tab you can get a sense of 8 the concerns around perceived scratchcard 9 holdings. There were many audit shortages and 10 scratchcard holding concerns seemed to highlight 11 other problems at branches." 12 Now, what I wanted to ask you, Mr Knight, 13 was a few questions. This seems to suggest that 14 there were problems known to the Post Office 15 arising from the management of Lottery 16 scratchcards in 2010; is that fair? 17 A. That's what that seems to imply, yes. 18 Q. And that those were problems that called, at the 19 time, for initiatives and interventions on the 20 part of the Post Office; is that fair? 21 A. Yeah, that's what it seems to be saying, some 22 sort of, yeah, clarity, yeah. 23 Q. And that those initiatives included Hightown, 24 which was Ms Hall's branch. That's recorded 25 there in that message, isn't it? 89 1 A. Yeah, yeah. 2 Q. He goes on to say that there were many audit 3 shortages and concerns which highlighted other 4 branches. 5 Now, this information about the education 6 initiatives involving Hightown and that there 7 was a known problem around scratchcards and 8 associated audit shortages, is that something 9 you would have known at the time you were 10 investigating Ms Hall in 2010? 11 A. I don't believe so. I don't think I've seen 12 this document -- or aware of the content of it. 13 Q. That content is all information that would have 14 been relevant to your investigation, isn't it? 15 A. It would have been, yes, it would have been 16 relevant. 17 Q. Thank you. Can we move on to the second topic, 18 and that's Ms Hall's interview. Now, you've 19 answered a number of questions from Ms Price on 20 Ms Hall raising Horizon Issues and integrity, 21 and your failure to explore that as a reasonable 22 line of inquiry. I only want to ask you a few 23 questions about the interview to be absolutely 24 clear on what she said to you. Can we look at 25 POL00021252 and that's the transcript of 90 1 interview, and I'd quite like to look at 2 page 11, please. 3 I'd like to start at the point where there 4 is 00.07.37, so 7 minutes and 37 seconds into 5 the transcript, please. Sorry, if I can just 6 catch up and check that we're all at the same 7 place. 8 So we see there, can you see Mr Knight, at 9 the top of that page, you say: 10 "okay, um, can you tell me why there's 11 a cash shortage of £14,000 in the account?" 12 Can you see that? 13 A. Yes, I can see that. 14 Q. I'm going to read that just so we can all be 15 looking at the same thing. Mrs Hall says: 16 "Well, I think it's all to do with the 17 scratchers, um, I've been having problems with 18 them for a while now, and I should have asked 19 for help earlier on, and I didn't. Um, I can't 20 see it being anything else. I know sometimes we 21 get, err, discrepancies for missing giros and 22 cheques and stuff, but I don't think it's going 23 to add up to that amount." 24 You go on: 25 "Right. Right, I'll ask you another 91 1 question more. You said a while." 2 She says, "Mm. 3 "Can you, you know, put some time frame on 4 that? 5 "I don't know, really. It's just probably 6 six months. 7 You say: 8 "... probably six months. 9 "Yeah. 10 "So, are we in, let's say, beginning of 11 September. 12 "I think it maybe started at the beginning 13 of the year, when it all started, um, I'm 14 building up." 15 Now stopping there, Ms Hall was referring to 16 problems and she thought the problems might be 17 about the Lottery, didn't she? 18 A. Yes, that's what we were talking about. 19 Q. That's just what she thought, wasn't it? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. But she was raising other issues, wasn't she? 22 A. Sorry, in what sense? 23 Q. She's saying: 24 "There were other problems, there's missing 25 giros, cheques and stuff, discrepancies, it 92 1 might not add up to that amount, but um ..." 2 She didn't know what was going on, did she? 3 A. Sorry, yeah. 4 Q. She couldn't explain the shortfalls, could she? 5 A. No. 6 Q. But she was telling you they'd been going on 7 from the start of the year and this was you in 8 September, wasn't she? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. That was a period of more than three months, 11 wasn't it? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. Now, if we can read on, if we go over the 14 page. Just checking you can see it. 15 A. Yes, I can see. 16 Q. At the beginning she starts: 17 "And I've been trying to rectify it and been 18 calling the helpline, the Lottery line. Just 19 trying to get everything sorted, and it's just 20 got on top of me. And I actually asked for 21 an audit myself." 22 You say, "When was that?" 23 She says: 24 "Um, I can't remember all the dates. 25 I spoke to Denise at Chesterfield, and she put 93 1 me in touch with another lady. I wish I'd have 2 wrote all the reference number down and I didn't 3 'cause I was just in such a state, but she --" 4 You say: 5 "That's fine. When did you phone up?" 6 She said: 7 "This is before, when I came back off, um, 8 holiday. It all started because the branch was 9 rolling over. No, not the branch, the, the 10 online, the, the, we were going online." 11 You say: 12 "Oh, you were going onto the next, yeah, 13 changing [onto] the new, the next generation, 14 yes." 15 She says, "Yeah, onto the new, new change 16 and that. So, I asked, um, I spoke to Denise at 17 Chesterfield, and she gave me another lady's 18 number to ring, and I requested an audit because 19 I wanted all this sorting out. So, I've got 20 nothing to hide, I just want it all sorting out, 21 so I can get back to my post. 22 "Right. Right, you're saying, just going 23 back. You said that it looks like it's been 24 happening from the beginning of the year, you've 25 had a problem. 94 1 "Yeah." 2 Now, I just want to ask you a few questions. 3 Stopping there, Ms Hall was telling you she knew 4 she had problems and she wanted help, wasn't 5 she? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. She wanted help to get to the bottom of it, 8 didn't she? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. She'd been experiencing problems over many 11 months, hadn't she? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. That was at around the time of the transition to 14 Horizon Online? 15 A. I believe so. 16 Q. Thank you. 17 We don't have any more questions for you, 18 Mr Knight. Thank you. 19 MS PRICE: Mr Jacobs has some questions, sir. 20 Questioned by MR JACOBS 21 MR JACOBS: Thank you, sir. 22 I'm going to ask you about Peter Holmes. 23 I represent him and a large number of other 24 subpostmasters who were the victims in this 25 scandal. 95 1 You have given evidence at paragraph 69 to 2 73 of your statement in relation to the 3 prosecution of Mr Holmes and your investigation 4 of him. 5 A. I can't see anything. I don't know if you're 6 showing me something, sorry. 7 Q. Okay, perhaps if we could turn that up. 8 WITN08290100. That's your witness statement, 9 and it's paragraphs 63 to 79. That's where you 10 deal with Mr Holmes' case. 11 Oh, yes, we'll locate the page number now. 12 It is 27. Thank you. 13 So you say you were involved as the second 14 officer in that case. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you recall that you attended a search of 17 Mr Holmes' family home? 18 A. I don't recall, I'm sorry, no. 19 Q. With Mr Daily, you don't recall it? 20 A. I don't recall it, no. 21 Q. You've answered questions from Ms Price about 22 what Mr Holmes said at the interview that you 23 attended? He said that he believed the Horizon 24 system may have been responsible for the alleged 25 shortfalls. He repeated his concerns of the 96 1 Horizon system during the interview and he said 2 that he was hoping that error notices would have 3 come back but he thought it was something the 4 computer had done or hadn't done. Those were 5 his words, effectively. 6 Now, his conviction, his subsequent 7 conviction, was overturned by the Court of 8 Appeal and quashed in 2021. Mr Holmes had died 9 in 2015, so it was a posthumous overturning of 10 his conviction, and the Court of Appeal found 11 that Mr Holmes' prosecution was an abuse of 12 process. They found that there was no evidence 13 to corroborate the Horizon evidence, they found 14 there was no investigation into the integrity of 15 the Horizon figures and they found that there 16 was no proof of any actual loss to the Post 17 Office. 18 Now, can we look at paragraph 73 of your 19 statement, so just scrolling down, please. 20 Page 28, thank you. You say: 21 "The Inquiry has asked me for my reflections 22 on the way the investigation and prosecution of 23 Mr Holmes was conducted ... with regard to the 24 Court of Appeal judgment ..." 25 I have just given you the findings of the 97 1 Court of Appeal. You say, from what you recall, 2 you did not have any concerns with the way the 3 investigation was run at the time as second 4 officer. 5 The question that we ask you, on behalf of 6 Marion Holmes, who is the widow of Peter Holmes, 7 is: surely you must have been concerned when you 8 were aware of this outcome from the Court of 9 Appeal that Mr Holmes had repeatedly challenged 10 the Horizon system and it was not investigated. 11 Why didn't you, as an Investigating Officer, 12 investigate the issue that Mr Holmes had raised 13 repeatedly at his interview? 14 A. I was the second officer, so I was literally 15 there on the day. I wasn't investigating the 16 case. I was there on the day to be a second 17 person for safety and other reasons, to 18 facilitate the interviews and searches, and such 19 like. So I was going by that, you know, and, 20 obviously, the case had been prosecuted so 21 I hadn't -- subsequently, obviously, having seen 22 the overturned and the reasons for that, then 23 that was that. 24 But, at the time, I believed it was -- from 25 the bits I saw, that was fine. I wasn't 98 1 involved in any other part of it. 2 Q. Well, I appreciate, of course, that you were the 3 second officer and we're going to be asking very 4 similar, if not the same, questions of Mr Daily 5 who was the primary interviewing officer? 6 A. Right. 7 Q. But surely, as an investigating officer, present 8 and in attendance at that interview, when 9 a subpostmaster, as so many others did, was 10 making these claims, wouldn't that, as 11 an Investigator, at least raise a few red flags 12 in your mind and wouldn't you have said, or 13 ought to have properly said, "Well, surely we 14 should look into this?" even though, as you say, 15 you weren't leading the investigation. 16 A. Yeah, I appreciate what you're saying. It's 17 a very difficult question to answer, really, 18 because, as I said to Ms Price, it's -- from 19 what -- where we are now, looking back then, 20 I don't think there was anything of that -- that 21 there wasn't a process in place to sort of raise 22 it and discuss it, if that makes sense. 23 Probably not a very good answer, I apologise. 24 Q. No, I can see what you're saying. You're saying 25 that there wasn't a set procedure -- 99 1 A. Yeah, it wasn't like a forum -- 2 Q. -- for looking into allegations that 3 subpostmasters made. 4 A. Mm. 5 Q. Surely that's part of the investigating function 6 though, to follow things through? 7 A. Yes, it would be. 8 Q. Right. The final question in relation to 9 Mr Holmes is, with the benefit of hindsight, now 10 you know what the Court of Appeal said, do you 11 accept that Mr Daily and you failed properly to 12 investigate Mr Holmes' case in light of what he 13 said at interview? 14 A. It sounds like I'm trying to cop out, I'm not. 15 I was second officer, I was literally there on 16 the day so, yes, I appreciate, as you've just 17 said, what I would have heard, and no action. 18 What Mr Daily did, I'm not fully aware. So 19 that -- 20 Q. Well, perhaps I'll put it in a different way. 21 As the second officer, do you accept that you 22 should have done more to ensure that this case 23 was properly investigated? 24 A. In hindsight, but, as the process was back then, 25 a second officer was just there on the day. 100 1 Sorry if that's -- 2 Q. All right, well, I'll move on. I want to ask 3 you about Rita Threlfall, and Ms Price has asked 4 you about your involvement in her interview. 5 A. Mm-hm. 6 Q. If I could perhaps ask you just to refresh your 7 memory to go to the -- if we could ask -- if we 8 could go to the document POL00107683, and it's 9 page 3 of 9. This is the document Ms Price took 10 you through, it's the investigation report of 11 Ms Threlfall. 12 A. Oh, right. 13 Q. 3 of 9, please. I think we can see that it 14 says: 15 "... I interviewed [and this is Mr Bradshaw 16 writing this] Ms Rita Threlfall at the Liverpool 17 North Office, Crown Street Liverpool ... Present 18 throughout the interview was Mr Christopher 19 Knight, Fraud Investigator." 20 That interview took place on 10 March 2011 21 and you confirmed you were there and present at 22 that interview. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, can we turn to the witness statement of 25 Ms Threlfall and I'll give you the reference for 101 1 that, it is WITN02360100. Page 7 of 15, please. 2 I should make it clear, this isn't a document 3 that you've seen previously. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. If we could go, please, to paragraph 49. So we 6 can see, in fact starting at 48 -- I should say 7 that Ms Threlfall is wheelchair dependent and 8 disabled. She says: 9 "Upon arrival they left my husband and me in 10 a hallway, we asked for a chair and never 11 received one. I ended up having to sit down on 12 the stairs. 13 "The interview room was upstairs and I told 14 them there was no way I could make it up the 15 stairs. In order to make it to the interview 16 room I was placed in a tiny parcel lift." 17 Now, Ms Threlfall is watching this hearing 18 today. She was going to give evidence in the 19 Human Impact part of the Inquiry but was too 20 upset to do so and so on 23 February 2002 21 Mr Stein, King's Counsel read a summary of her 22 statement to the Inquiry. Do you recall this 23 treatment of my client? 24 A. I don't, I'm afraid, no. I don't recall any of 25 the -- that day. 102 1 Q. It's quite striking, isn't it, that a disabled 2 lady, who is wheelchair dependent, has 3 an interview arranged up a staircase that she 4 cannot access and is transferred to the 5 interview room in a tiny parcel lift. Surely 6 that is something that you ought to have 7 remembered? 8 A. I don't. I don't remember it. Now, I would 9 imagine when we interviewed -- and I'm speaking 10 sort of generically, if that makes -- if we 11 interviewed people, then we would find 12 a location and I don't know whether -- was this 13 at a Royal Mail site? 14 Q. She says Liverpool -- 15 A. Mail -- Sorting -- Post Office. 16 Q. -- sorting -- 17 A. Yeah, it would be a Royal Mail Sorting Office. 18 So that would have been a room within that 19 building. I'd imagine, as a sorting office, the 20 ground floor would be where they're doing their 21 sorting, so this would have been up there. 22 I didn't arrange it, so Mr Bradshaw did. 23 And talking about the tiny parcel lift, 24 knowing Royal Mail buildings, it would be 25 a lift. It would be a working -- not 103 1 a passenger lift, as it were, it would be 2 a working lift. I don't know the size of it so 3 it might have appeared to be a bit rough and 4 ready not a -- as you would imagine a lift being 5 in a superstore or whatever. 6 Q. Well, her evidence, and this evidence is that 7 has been received by the Inquiry, is that it was 8 a tiny lift, it was inappropriate. She is still 9 shaken by that experience. She says in her 10 evidence that she suffers from crippling anxiety 11 and depression. Do you think this is any 12 appropriate way to treat a disabled person who 13 you're investigating, or at all? 14 A. It's not -- no, taking this aside, everybody 15 should be treated fairly. So I don't know the 16 circumstances of how -- what this lift was, tiny 17 in comparison to what? You know, and all I'm 18 going by what I'm reading here is, if you go 19 into a first floor and there's a lift, then that 20 would be the lift. 21 Q. Well, given that she says it is a tiny parcel 22 lift -- 23 A. I can't argue either way. I don't know. 24 Q. You're still a current employee with Post 25 Office. 104 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Would Post Office put a disabled person into 3 such a lift today? 4 A. Probably not but I don't know what lifts -- 5 whatever lift we had today, if we had a lift and 6 somebody is going up to another floor, we would 7 go in that lift. Over my years within the 8 business, I've been in some -- some buildings 9 had very old lifts with the old shutter, the 10 concertina shutter you pull across and then that 11 would go, whereas now they're more modern. So 12 I can't comment on what this was. 13 Q. If we can then go back to the statement, which 14 is still on the screen, paragraph 50, 15 Ms Threlfall says that she was interviewed under 16 caution. She says the interviewer was 17 horrendous, she had a solicitor with her and she 18 provided a no comment interview on advice. 19 Then scrolling down very slightly please, 20 paragraph 52. She says: 21 "At the end of the interview the Post Office 22 Investigator turned off the tape and the chap 23 turned to me and said 'Do you wear a watch, 24 I said yes and can I see your earrings and 25 rings, and, what are the colour of your eyes', 105 1 so I responded and he said in a joking manner 2 'Good so we've got a description of you for when 3 they come'. It was so awful I nearly fell to 4 the floor when he said that. I couldn't believe 5 what I had heard." 6 Now, it was Mr Bradshaw who was the Lead 7 Investigator? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you recall these comments being made? 10 A. As I said, I don't but I could give you 11 an explanation of what I believe was taking 12 place. Following an interview and, again, I'm 13 not talking about this specifically, I'm talking 14 about all interviews, we have to fill a form out 15 called a NPA01, Non-police Prosecution 16 Authority 01 form and, on that form, there's 17 lots of questions and it's basically identifying 18 a person. 19 I think it mirrors -- if you get arrested by 20 the police you go into custody and they take 21 your fingerprints, so I think it mirrors that. 22 So basically, you'd have your name, da, da, da, 23 and then it would be: male, female; left-handed 24 or right-handed; scars, tattoos, distinguishing 25 marks; build; and there would be various 106 1 questions you'd have to go through. So that 2 sounds to me that that is what is taking place 3 there, although she's not possibly describing 4 it. She's describing how she took it but that's 5 what I would suggest is taking place. 6 Q. Mrs Threlfall, who is watching today, says that 7 she believes -- in her words that she's used to 8 us today, she believes that she was deliberately 9 persecuted and the question I have for you is: 10 was there a strategy or a tactic employed by 11 Investigators to unsettle or unnerve or 12 intimidate subpostmasters and subpostmistresses 13 under investigation to exert pressure upon them 14 during interviews and in the investigating 15 process? 16 A. No, not at all. Not -- 17 Q. Do you accept from Ms Threlfall's evidence that 18 that is exactly what we see happening here? 19 A. It's her feelings, so I can't argue with how she 20 feels. So if she's saying she felt like that 21 then I would have to accept that. But I don't 22 believe that was how it was delivered. 23 Q. Mrs Threlfall says the only motive for treating 24 her in this way was to unsettle her, belittle 25 her, humiliate her and that was what Mr Bradshaw 107 1 was doing and you were involved in that as the 2 Second Investigator? 3 A. I don't believe that at all. I don't believe 4 that at all because, if you're interviewing -- 5 it's putting somebody at ease rather than 6 putting them on the -- you know, aggravating 7 them. 8 Q. I'm going to ask to see if I have any more 9 questions. 10 Mrs Threlfall was originally prosecuted for 11 false accounting and theft, the Post Office 12 dropped the charges and she was formally 13 recorded as not guilty, as a verdict. She's 14 watching today. As someone who was involved in 15 her investigation, do you have anything that 16 you'd like to say to her now? 17 A. There was -- well, as far as -- I don't remember 18 it but would say there was nothing, as you've 19 said there, malicious. 20 Q. Are you sorry for the way she was treated? 21 A. If that's how she felt she was treated, then 22 that's not nice for her. 23 Q. Are you sorry for how she was treated or are you 24 sorry -- 25 A. I don't know -- 108 1 Q. -- if that's how she felt she was being treated? 2 A. I don't believe -- I wouldn't have treated 3 anybody disrespectively (sic) so, if she felt 4 like that, then that's -- you know, I'm sorry 5 that she feels like that, but -- 6 MR JACOBS: Thank you. I haven't any further 7 questions for you? 8 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Anyone else? 9 MS PRICE: Sir, I think those are all the questions 10 from Core Participants. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, thank you. 12 I hope that Ms Hall and Mrs Threlfall have 13 found today's proceedings informative. 14 Thank you very much for making a witness 15 statement and for coming to give evidence, 16 Mr Knight. I'm grateful to you. 17 Where do we go from here, Ms Price? 18 MS PRICE: Sir, if we can come back at 2.00 for this 19 afternoon's witness, please, if we take lunch 20 now. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine, all right. 22 MS PRICE: Thank you. 23 (12.57 pm) 24 (The Short Adjournment) 25 (2.00 pm) 109 1 MS MILLAR: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and 2 hear me? 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 4 MS MILLAR: May we please call Mr Ryan. 5 KEVIN JAMES RYAN (affirmed) 6 Questioned by MS MILLAR 7 MS MILLAR: Could you please confirm your full name 8 Mr Ryan? 9 A. It's Kevin James Ryan. 10 Q. You should have in front of you a witness 11 statement, which is dated 16 November 2023. If 12 you turn to the last page of that, which is 13 page 44, is that your signature? 14 A. It is. 15 Q. Are the contents of that statement true to the 16 best of your knowledge and belief? 17 A. They are. 18 Q. For the purposes of the transcript, the URN is 19 WITN08950100. My name is Megan Millar and, as 20 you know, I will be asking you questions today 21 on behalf of the Inquiry. 22 I'm going to be asking you about issues 23 which arise in Phase 4 of the Inquiry, focusing 24 on your involvement as an Investigator in the 25 Security Team and, in particular, your 110 1 involvement in the case study of Angela Sefton 2 and Anne Nield. 3 First, I'd like to ask you some questions 4 about your professional background. Is it 5 correct that you joined the Post Office in 1985 6 as a counter clerk? 7 A. It is, yes. 8 Q. Is it correct that you are still employed by the 9 Post Office? 10 A. I am. 11 Q. Is it fair to say that you've had a varied 12 career, over almost 38 years you've been working 13 for the Post Office? 14 A. Very much so, yes. 15 Q. I just want to ask you about some of the roles 16 that you've held. Is it right that in 1997 you 17 became a National Field Trainer? 18 A. I did, yes. 19 Q. Do you remember the Horizon system being rolled 20 out during the time you held that role? 21 A. I'm not sure whether it was before I held that 22 role or -- I'm not sure exactly the date it was 23 rolled out. But I did use Horizon in that role, 24 yes. 25 Q. Were you involved in training subpostmasters to 111 1 use Horizon? 2 A. Yes, that was part of the training. 3 Q. From 2005 to 2006, you were an Area Intervention 4 Manager; is that right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Can you please give a brief description of what 7 that role entailed? 8 A. It was dealing with issues raised via a number 9 of sources, branch support, the helpline, Retail 10 Line Managers. I worked for a Retail Line 11 Manager and they would send me issues in 12 a branch, could be anything from customer 13 complaints, and it would be a case of trying to 14 resolve any issues in branches for the Retail 15 Line. 16 Q. In April 2010, you were appointed a Horizon 17 Migration Manager for a short time until August 18 2010? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that right? At the end of 2010, is it right 21 that you were initially going to take redundancy 22 but you then saw the Security Team advertising 23 vacancies and decided to apply? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What motivated you to apply for a job in the 112 1 Security Team at that point? 2 A. I wanted to stay in the Post Office. 3 Unfortunately, the role I'd previously had as 4 sales manager wasn't something that I enjoyed, 5 so I decided to leave rather than continue in 6 that role. When the Security Manager role came 7 up I thought it was appropriate to my skillset, 8 so I applied for it. 9 Q. Is it then correct that you joined the team as 10 a Security Manager in January 2011? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. For a six-week period in July 2013, did you 13 temporarily step up in a Security Team Leader 14 role? 15 A. Yeah, the team leader that was my team leader 16 left the Post Office and I was asked to stand in 17 temporarily until they either appointed somebody 18 or, due to restructure, they were not going to 19 replace that person, so they would shrink the 20 team -- the number of Team Leaders, sorry. 21 Q. Who was that, who was your team leader? 22 A. At that point it was Keith Gilchrist. 23 Q. Moving on then, please, to the structure of the 24 Security Team. Is it correct that when you 25 joined in 2011 the physical Security Team and 113 1 the Fraud and Crime Investigation Team emerged? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. At that time there were three teams responsible 4 for three regions in the UK -- 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. -- north, Midlands and South; is that right? 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. Each time at that point had approximately 18 to 9 20 Security Managers; is that right? 10 A. I think so, yes. I can't exactly remember the 11 numbers too clearly but it was larger than the 12 team is currently. 13 Q. You explain in your statement that, over the 14 years, the size of the team has decreased, so 15 now there are eight Security Managers and one 16 Team Leader in total? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You've told us that when you became a Security 19 Manager you reported to a team leader; is that 20 correct? 21 A. Yeah. 22 Q. The team leaders you remember were Leslie 23 Frankland, Keith Gilchrist, Simon Hutchinson, 24 Helen Dickinson and Simon Talbot; is that right? 25 A. Yes. 114 1 Q. Then when you became a Team Leader temporarily 2 in 2013 you reported to the Senior Security 3 Manager, who you remember being Andy Hayward? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. When you were a Team Leader, is it correct then 6 that you had three or four Security Managers 7 reporting to you? 8 A. Yeah, it may have been five, I'm not exactly 9 sure of the number. 10 Q. The Security Managers you recall reporting to 11 you were Mike Stanway, Steve Bradshaw and Robert 12 Daily; is that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You explain at paragraph 11 of your statement 15 that you don't recall providing any in-depth 16 supervision to those Security Managers; is that 17 right? 18 A. Not a great deal, no. That I can recall -- and 19 I've checked with Post Office HR -- I think 20 I was only in the role for about seven weeks, 21 maybe a little bit longer. So really speaking, 22 it was literally just a stopgap to fill a role 23 while a replacement was sourced. 24 Q. But you did remember doing some of their 25 performance reviews and conducting one-to-ones 115 1 and meetings; is that right? 2 A. Yeah, it was one-to-ones, yeah, some one-to-ones 3 with some of them. 4 Q. You go on later in your statement at 5 paragraph 28 to explain that Team Leaders 6 regularly provided supervision to Security 7 Managers conducting criminal investigations. 8 Did you provide it in that respect? 9 A. No, I didn't really have the experience, so 10 anything to do with the fraud side of things was 11 done by one of the other Team Leaders because 12 I was only standing in and I'd only been there 13 in the team for just over two years. I didn't 14 really have the experience to supervise on 15 fraud. 16 Q. So one of the other team leaders managed the 17 Security Managers reporting to you in respect of 18 fraud; is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who was that? 21 A. I seem to think it was a lady by the name of 22 Sharron Logan but I'm not 100 per cent sure on 23 that. 24 Q. Can we, please, have a document with the 25 reference POL00127137 on screen, please. This 116 1 is a one-to-one meeting record between you and 2 your line manager at the time, Simon Hutchinson. 3 At page 2, if we can have a look at that, 4 please, at the bottom of the page, the very 5 bottom of the page, I think it's a comment from 6 you saying: 7 "Glad to be back in my old role and area and 8 a job I enjoy. Team Leader role was simply not 9 for me but will fully support Simon in that 10 role." 11 Can you explain why you didn't think that 12 the Team Leader role was for you? 13 A. Throughout my career I've been working in the 14 field, being a desk job, I just didn't feel 15 comfortable with it, so -- and also there's the 16 pressures that were on that role at the time. 17 I just wanted to get back to doing what I know. 18 Q. Moving on, then, to the training you received 19 when you joined the Security Team. That 20 document can come down. Thank you. In your 21 statement you say that when you joined the 22 Security Team, you'd been working for the Post 23 Office for 26 years but you hadn't gained any 24 experience of investigations; is that correct? 25 A. Yes. 117 1 Q. Did you have any knowledge of criminal law? 2 A. No. 3 Q. After you were offered the position, you went on 4 a residential training course, which lasted 5 three weeks; is that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You remembered this training being delivered by 8 two Royal Mail Security Managers called Paul 9 Whitaker and Paul Southin; is that right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you remember any lawyers being involved in 12 delivering this training? 13 A. Not in that training, no. 14 Q. Could we have the document reference POL00129182 15 on screen, please. So we can see that's 16 "Investigations Workshop Feedback", and is that 17 then the residential training course? 18 A. Yes, it looks like, yes. 19 Q. We can see underneath the title "Course 20 Content": 21 "The topics covered on the course enabled 22 the focus to be centred on interviewing suspect 23 offenders and witnesses, the cognitive witness 24 interview process, searching and notebook 25 entries. Detailed training was provided in 118 1 those areas. 2 "Additionally training was provided in 3 respect of RIPA, Safe Systems of Work and PORA 4 ..." 5 What do you understand that to be 6 a reference to? 7 A. I can't remember. No, I can't recall what that 8 one is. 9 Q. "... NPA forms, notes of interview, tape 10 summaries and offender reports." 11 Are those the things you remember being 12 covered? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Thank you. That can come down. You explain at 15 paragraph 45 of your statement that you believe 16 you would have learned when to seek relevant 17 evidence from third parties and about your 18 disclosure obligations through mentorship and 19 shadowing; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Does that mean that you don't remember receiving 22 training on those topics? 23 A. It was -- I would say it was probably on-the-job 24 training, so, as you were going through things, 25 the mentor would talk you through how to deal 119 1 with certain things. I don't remember it 2 specifically, no. 3 Q. What did the mentorship and shadowing involve, 4 then? 5 A. Basically, initially when we started -- when 6 I started, sorry, I would only be involved as 7 Second Officers for a number of months, so 8 shadowing the mentor mostly, and then eventually 9 I'd be allocated some cases and the mentor would 10 take me from start to finish right through the 11 cases, making sure that I covered all of the 12 relevant points that need to be covered. 13 Q. Your mentor was Steve Bradshaw; is that right? 14 A. It was, yes. 15 Q. How long was the period of on the job training 16 before you were able to take on investigations 17 on your own? 18 A. I think I got my first lead -- well, you never 19 really took them on on your own, you always had 20 somebody as a second officer, which nearly 21 always was Steve Bradshaw but my first case as 22 a Lead Investigator, I think, was in late 2011. 23 Q. At paragraph 29 of your statement, you refer to 24 the fact that, even after you started 25 undertaking your own investigations, that Steve 120 1 Bradshaw attended interviews as your Second 2 Officer? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. For how long was that period of time where he 5 would attend interviews with you? 6 A. Probably until we really stopped doing full 7 investigations. We were very small team, so 8 myself and Steve Bradshaw lived relatively 9 close, so it was easier to always be -- work 10 together. 11 Q. Was that in 2013? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Then at paragraph 48 of your statement you say 14 that Cartwright King Solicitors started to 15 deliver training in 2013. Do you know why they 16 started running the training at that point? 17 A. I don't know the reason behind it, no. They did 18 run number of courses, usually once a year, for 19 a few years. 20 Q. Can we please have POL00129310 on screen, 21 please. So this is an email from Dave Posnett 22 to you and a number of others, dated 22 March 23 2013, and the subject is "Cartwright King 24 Training Day". So if we scroll down just 25 a little bit, please. There's a list of 121 1 proposed topics, which includes: awkward 2 interviewees; significant statements; points to 3 prove; interviewing techniques; defence 4 solicitor role; pre-interviewing/caution; and 5 borrow v dishonesty. 6 Do you remember attended that training? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What was your view of the training delivered by 9 Cartwright King? 10 A. Obviously, as a relatively new Security Manager, 11 any kind of training was useful. So, yeah, 12 I found it useful. 13 Q. Thank you. That document can come down. Do you 14 remember receiving any other refresher training 15 during your time as Security Manager? 16 A. We did sessions when we had team meetings on 17 various aspects of the role but I can't remember 18 anything specific, other than the Cartwright 19 King days. 20 Q. Moving on, then, to the guidance which was 21 available to you, relating to the conduct of 22 criminal investigations. The Inquiry provided 23 you with a number of policy and guidance 24 documents, which you list in your statement at 25 paragraph 19. Could we have just the end of 122 1 that list on screen, please. It's page 10 of 2 your witness statement, which is WITN08950100. 3 If we can just go down to the end of that 4 list, please. In your statement you say that 5 you don't recognise the first 21 documents we 6 provided you with. So is it correct, then, that 7 you do recognise the final four in that list? 8 A. Yeah, I've probably seen them, yes, at some 9 point. 10 Q. Thank you. That can come down. 11 Could we then, please, have POL00122557 on 12 screen, please. At the bottom of page 1 we can 13 see this is an email from Rob King and you're 14 cc'd in and it was sent on 21 July 2013. He is 15 sending through the draft case review policy and 16 key points document. 17 If we go then to the top of that page. So 18 we can see this is an email from you to another 19 address which appears to be in your name. Is 20 that your personal email address? 21 A. It was at the time, yes. 22 Q. I think you explain in your statement that you 23 sent policies to your personal email to enable 24 you to print and review them when you were 25 working away from the office; is that correct? 123 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So do we take from that that you couldn't access 3 those documents from your work devices when you 4 were away from the office? 5 A. We could access them but couldn't print them 6 when you're away from the office, you can 7 only -- because it wouldn't connect to 8 a personal printer. At that time, we weren't 9 allocated work printers at home, so the only way 10 to print something off at home would be to send 11 it to my own email address so I could print it 12 at home, so I could be able to read it. 13 Q. So you could access them remotely from your work 14 device? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You just couldn't print; is that correct? 17 A. Just couldn't print. 18 Q. Thank you, that can come down. 19 Where do you remember policy and guidance 20 documents being stored? 21 A. I would imagine they'd have been on a database 22 that we had access to. 23 Q. If I could turn, then, please, to casework 24 compliance. The Inquiry has provided you with 25 a number of emails from 2011 from David Posnett 124 1 relating to casework compliance. Is it right 2 that compliance checks were introduced shortly 3 after you joined the Security Team? 4 A. Yes, they were. 5 Q. What was your understanding of the reason those 6 checks were introduced? 7 A. I think they just wanted uniformity in the way 8 case files were put together, so that everybody 9 was doing everything in a standard fashion. 10 Q. Did you understand that there'd been a problem 11 with that before? 12 A. No, it was mentioned that it had been something 13 that had been done in the past with previous 14 Investigation Managers, so they thought, because 15 we had so many new people, it would be 16 worthwhile running again. 17 Q. So one of the documents which Mr Posnett asked 18 recipients of his email to familiarise 19 themselves with was the Identification Codes 20 document, and this is a document which you 21 comment on at paragraph 58 of your statement and 22 you refer to as a "disgrace". The Inquiry is 23 familiar with this document and I don't intend 24 to display it on screen but do you know the 25 document I'm referring to? 125 1 A. I do, yes. 2 Q. Does it remain your position that you don't 3 recall ever having seen this document before? 4 A. No, I don't. 5 Q. Can you think of any reason why you wouldn't 6 have seen it, given Mr Posnett asked you to 7 familiarise yourself with the documents attached 8 and you were fairly new to the team? 9 A. I'd never really used identity codes, so it's 10 not something that I was familiar with anyway. 11 I mean, I may have opened the document but 12 I wouldn't have read it in depth but I can't 13 recall whether I did or not. 14 Q. So you go on to explain in your statement that 15 Security Managers used identification codes for 16 reporting offences following prosecution, and 17 these were recorded using the NPA01 form at 18 interview and NPA02 form at conviction; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Could we have a document reference POL00118374 22 on screen, please. This is a blank NPA01 form, 23 if we could go to the top of page 2, please. So 24 we can see there's number of options for 25 recording ethnic appearance. Are those the 126 1 identification codes you're referring to? 2 A. That's the form we used, yes. 3 Q. Can you remember using any other identification 4 codes? 5 A. With physical security, sometimes we'd get 6 police reports that would have them on, so, if 7 I didn't know one, I would use Google to find 8 the latest ID codes. That's how I would refer 9 to it. 10 Q. Rather than using the Post Office documents? 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. So if there were only those Identification Codes 13 documents being used by the Post Office, can you 14 think of any reason why Mr Posnett would have 15 circulated a separate Identification Codes 16 document? 17 A. I don't know. 18 Q. I'd like to ask you some questions about the 19 involvement of Post Office Investigators 20 following the identification of an apparent 21 shortfall at audit. 22 Who made the decision to commence a criminal 23 investigation? 24 A. As far as I recall, the cases were raised by 25 Team Leaders. Later on it may have been the 127 1 Casework Team but, so far as I remember, it was 2 Team Leaders who'd make the decision to commence 3 an investigation. 4 Q. When you were a Team Leader in 2013, do you 5 remember what factors you would have considered 6 in raising a case? 7 A. No, because, again, I didn't really raise -- 8 that I can remember, I didn't raise any cases. 9 It was done centrally at that point. But, 10 again, possibly by another team leader. 11 Q. So it wasn't your responsibility to raise a case 12 whenever you became -- 13 A. Due to experience, no. 14 Q. At paragraph 36 of your statement, you explain 15 that you believe the level of loss required 16 changed over time. Can you explain what you 17 mean by that? 18 A. I think once everything started to reduce with 19 regards to investigations, the team got smaller, 20 I think they didn't start looking at criminal 21 investigations until the value -- it started to 22 increase before they'd start looking at it. 23 I can't remember any exact details but I did 24 hear that they were looking at different figures 25 at different times. 128 1 Q. When you refer to value, do you mean the -- 2 A. Cash. 3 Q. -- the size of the loss? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. At paragraph 31 of your statement, you explain 6 that if a significant shortage was reported 7 during a routine audit, your Team Leader may ask 8 you to attend to begin investigating the issue 9 as an open inquiry. Can you please explain what 10 an open inquiry is? 11 A. That's just an initial inquiry to find out the 12 facts of what's happened before any decision is 13 made on whether it would go to a full 14 investigation. 15 Q. So that was a step before -- 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. -- criminal investigation being commenced? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. At paragraph 32, you explain that you might also 20 be asked to attend an audit which was going to 21 be raised due to a suspicious activity? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can you help us with what you mean by 24 "suspicious activity"? 25 A. Chesterfield -- the admin centre in 129 1 Chesterfield, they may have noticed some 2 suspicious transactions going through, or Cash 3 Management might have raised an issue with cash 4 not being sent back when the branch is holding 5 an excessive amount of cash. So, under those 6 circumstances, we may have been aware of 7 an audit taking place that may result in 8 a shortage, so we may be asked to attend on the 9 day. 10 Q. You explain in your statement at paragraph 37 11 that, where there was prior notice of 12 a potential shortage which resulted in an audit, 13 the Security Manager would speak to the 14 necessary individuals in the Post Office at the 15 outset. 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. So who would that include? 18 A. The auditors, usually, and the postmaster or the 19 staff member who was on site at the time. 20 Q. Would those individuals be contacted in every 21 case? 22 A. If -- yeah, I would -- yes, eventually, yes. 23 Sometimes a postmaster might not be on site, so 24 you'd have to contact them by phone. 25 Q. You go on to say that all relevant data would be 130 1 obtained. What would that include at that 2 point? 3 A. Well, obviously, the auditors would run off 4 Horizon logs, cash declarations, et cetera, and 5 eventually they would produce an audit report, 6 so all those documents would be passed to the 7 Lead Investigator. 8 Q. What tools were available to you as 9 an Investigator to investigate that information 10 you'd been provided with? 11 A. Tools, as in? 12 Q. Transaction data or any requests that you could 13 make for further evidence? 14 A. Right, yeah. Obviously, we had access to 15 different types of data, such as Credence, 16 HORice, ARQ data, as well. 17 Q. How did you decide which type of transaction 18 data you would request in a certain case? 19 A. It varied from, in different circumstances -- 20 depends on the circumstances, whether you 21 would -- I mean, Credence was virtually 22 downloaded on every occasion. ARQ data 23 occasionally, sometimes. It just depended on 24 the facts of the case. 25 Q. With regard, then, specifically to ARQ data, 131 1 what circumstances would you request ARQ data? 2 A. I think I only ever requested it on one or two 3 occasions. Certainly high-value losses, later 4 on, as -- obviously as Horizon Issues became 5 more prevalent, then under those circumstances, 6 as well. 7 Q. You explain in your statement that you vaguely 8 remember a case you worked on in Newcastle -- 9 A. Yeah. 10 Q. -- where a subpostmaster had attributed 11 a shortfall to Horizon and you requested two 12 months' worth of ARQ data? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you request the ARQ data because they'd 15 attributed the shortfall to Horizon in that 16 case? 17 A. It was requested because my line manager at the 18 time asked me to get the data to basically 19 rebuild the account over two months, to see if 20 I could find any evidence of transactions that 21 were out of sorts, out of place. 22 Q. Is it correct that you remember going through 23 the data yourself to rebuild the accounts? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you believe you had the necessary expertise 132 1 to interpret the ARQ data? 2 A. Probably not, if I'm being honest. I did manage 3 to rebuild the accounts, everything seemed to 4 balance on that occasion but I'd never had any 5 training in going through ARQ data at all. 6 Q. Would you personally be able to recognise the 7 bug or an error with Horizon from looking at the 8 ARQ data? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You say that, as far as you recall, Fujitsu 11 would not have gone through the data in this 12 case? 13 A. Not that I am aware of, no. They would just 14 provide the data. 15 Q. Was there a reason why they wouldn't have gone 16 through it? 17 A. I'm not aware of. 18 Q. You go on to say, then, you're unsure if Fujitsu 19 went through the data in any other case; is that 20 correct? 21 A. Yeah, I wouldn't be aware of that. 22 Q. Would you not have expected Fujitsu to be asked 23 to go through the data, given it was their data 24 that they were providing? 25 A. Looking back probably, yes. 133 1 Q. Do you remember there being a limit on the 2 number of ARQ requests, which could be provided 3 by Fujitsu? 4 A. There was a limit on the number of free ones, 5 yes. 6 Q. Do you ever recall being told you could not have 7 ARQ data because of those limits? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Could we please have POL00167369 on screen, 10 please. This is an email from Graham Ward to 11 you and number of others and it's dated 14 April 12 2011. The subject is "Credence v Fujitsu" and 13 the body of the email says: 14 "All 15 "If anyone has any evidence of disparities 16 between Fujitsu and Credence transaction data, 17 please get in touch ([for example] timing issues 18 ... session numbers not matching for postage 19 label transactions etc)." 20 Do you remember there being disparities 21 between the Fujitsu and the Credence transaction 22 data? 23 A. I've never had an example of that, no. 24 Q. Did this email cause you concern when you 25 received it? 134 1 A. No. I mean, I'd only been in the role for two 2 months, so I wasn't really aware of any issues. 3 Q. Do you remember any further discussion about 4 that issue at the time? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Thank you. That can come down. 7 So you also explain in your statement that, 8 as part of the investigation, any activity would 9 be recorded on an event log. Again, is that by 10 the Security Manager? 11 A. Yes, the person who was running the case as part 12 of the case file. There was an event log that 13 every action you took, you would list. 14 Q. Were entries made throughout the investigation 15 or just at a specific part? 16 A. Throughout that, that I recall. 17 Q. Was that from 2011 when you joined the Security 18 Team? 19 A. It may have started a little bit after that. 20 But I certainly did use event logs a lot. 21 Q. Is it correct that you were also involved in 22 conducting interviews as a Security Manager? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So at paragraph 59 of your statement, you 25 explain you recall a new set of interview 135 1 questions were provided to Security Managers in 2 2013? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Can we please have POL00031005 on screen, 5 please. This is the "Conduct of Criminal 6 Investigations Policy", which is one of the 7 documents you were provided with, and if we just 8 go to the bottom of the page, please. We can 9 see just at the very top right it's effective 10 from 29 August 2013. 11 A. Yeah. 12 Q. If we can go to the bottom of page 16, please, 13 just starting at paragraph 5.11.6, it says: 14 "Should the recent Second Sight review be 15 brought up by a suspect or his representative 16 during a PACE interview the Security Manager 17 should state: 'I will listen to any personal 18 concerns or issues that you may have had with 19 the Horizon system during the course of this 20 interview'." 21 It goes on in the next paragraph to say: 22 "The following three areas need to be 23 covered in as much detail as possible at 24 an appropriate point during all PACE interviews, 25 regardless of whether Horizon is mentioned or 136 1 not. Where the case clearly has no link with 2 Horizon ([for example] theft of mail) then you 3 must gain authorisation from your line manager 4 to proceed outside of this process." 5 So if we could scroll down just a bit 6 further, we can see there's three topics: 7 training, support and Horizon. Are those the 8 new questions you're referring to? 9 A. Yeah, we were sent those on an email and, 10 obviously, they've been incorporated into that. 11 Q. Thank you. Can we please have POL00166044, 12 please. So this is a document we will come back 13 to again later, but it's a record of a case file 14 governance meeting, which took place on 15 31 July 2013. We can see that you were present. 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. If we look at the fourth point in that document, 18 please. It says: 19 "Produce Template to assist Security 20 Managers for investigation interviews (questions 21 to include 'subpostmaster training, induction, 22 support')." 23 We see your initials as one of the leads 24 beside that point. Are those the new interview 25 questions? 137 1 A. Yes. The initials are the people that the 2 action was given to. However, that was not 3 drawn up by myself. It was drawn up by a lady 4 called Sharron Logan, because the email that 5 I've got with that on, has come from Sharron. 6 Q. Were you involved in drafting, then, the new 7 questions -- 8 A. No. 9 Q. -- in the policy documents? 10 A. No, not at all. 11 Q. So what questions are those referring to that -- 12 A. They are those questions but it's just that that 13 action was actually transferred to somebody 14 else. 15 Q. Okay, so even though it says you're one of the 16 leads, that's incorrect? 17 A. It's incorrect, yes. 18 Q. Thank you. That document can come down. 19 Do you remember the reason why those new 20 questions were introduced? 21 A. I think it came after the Second Sight report. 22 That's when it was drafted for us to use at 23 interview. 24 Q. Why did you understand Second Sight prompting 25 new -- 138 1 A. I think they just wanted to cover the bases with 2 regard to questions about it, to make sure that 3 they've asked about the training, the support 4 that the branches have been given, et cetera. 5 Q. Was it because you understood there had been 6 a problem with that previously? 7 A. With? 8 Q. With covering the bases, in terms of training 9 and Horizon issues in interviews? 10 A. I don't think so, no. 11 Q. You explain at paragraph 59 of your witness 12 statement that, when the new interview questions 13 were introduced, if a subpostmaster raised 14 issues with Horizon, Investigators would have to 15 report this in the case file? 16 A. That's the way I understood it, yes. 17 Q. And that an Investigator also had to request ARQ 18 data for the relevant period? 19 A. Yes, as far as I remember. 20 Q. Do we understand from that that these weren't 21 explicit requirements before 2013? 22 A. I don't remember being told explicitly to do 23 that in the past, no. 24 Q. Could we have your witness statement on screen, 25 please, at the bottom of page 43. It's page 43 139 1 and paragraph 97. You say: 2 "Following the introduction of further 3 questions to be asked to [subpostmasters] in 4 an interview relating to the Horizon system, 5 I believe that I would have considered 6 a challenge to the integrity of Horizon in one 7 case to be relevant to others. We had to ask 8 them in all new cases going forwards. I cannot 9 recall if I would have thought the same from 10 when I started in 2011 ..." 11 So is it your position that, before 2011, 12 you don't know whether you would have thought 13 that one Horizon case might be relevant to 14 another? 15 A. No, I don't think that's particularly clear. If 16 there were issues with Horizon, then, yes, it 17 would always have been relevant to other cases. 18 Q. Is that your position even before 2013? 19 A. Yes, yeah. 20 Q. So at all points when you were a Security 21 Manager, you would have thought a challenge 22 would have been relevant to another case? 23 A. If we'd been aware of anything, then, yes, it 24 would be relevant. Of course it would. 25 Q. When you say "aware of anything", do you mean 140 1 aware of a bug or aware of an allegation? What 2 do you mean by that? 3 A. Yeah, aware of any bugs in the system that would 4 affect balancing. 5 Q. What about if there was allegations that the 6 Horizon system was at fault for a loss? 7 A. Well, obviously that would need to be looked 8 into. 9 Q. Thank you. That can come down. 10 Is it correct that following the interview, 11 the Lead Investigator would complete a report 12 which was reviewed by the Team Leader, before 13 being passed to the Legal Team? 14 A. Yes, unless he had any further investigation to 15 do before he completed the case file. But 16 eventually the case file would be passed to the 17 Team Leader and then on to the Legal Team. 18 Q. That case file would contain a report which is 19 sometimes referred to as an offender report? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Who then made the decision to proceed to 22 prosecute someone? 23 A. That would be the Legal Team. 24 Q. So you say in your statement that, at the end of 25 the offender report, there was a conclusion 141 1 section -- 2 A. Mm-hm. 3 Q. -- where a summary could be provided of which 4 offence the facts pointed to; is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So is that another way of saying that 7 the Investigator would recommend which charges 8 they considered to be appropriate? 9 A. No, just what the evidence showed. 10 Q. But would they say "The evidence shows that this 11 is false accounting", "The evidence shows this 12 is theft"? 13 A. Can you just show me the phrase at the end of 14 the report? I just can't remember it. Just 15 repeat that question again? 16 Q. Of course, no problem. So in your statement at 17 paragraph 39, you say that, at the end of the 18 report which went to the Legal Team -- I can get 19 that up for you. It's page 18 of your 20 statement. 21 A. Ah right, yeah. 22 Q. You say at the end of that paragraph 39: 23 "At the end of the report there was 24 a conclusion section where a summary could be 25 provided in relation to what the facts pointed 142 1 to." 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. My question was: is that another way of saying 4 that we recommended charges which were 5 appropriate? 6 A. Wouldn't be recommended, it would be what it 7 showed, what the Investigator's opinion would 8 be. But it wouldn't recommend charges. 9 Q. So would it be "It's my opinion that the 10 evidence shows that there is theft in this 11 case"? 12 A. I can't recall, to be honest. 13 Q. Do you think that Investigators were qualified 14 to provide a summary of what the facts pointed 15 to in terms of criminal offences? 16 A. Possibly Senior Investigators, maybe, yes. 17 Obviously, it took time to learn those skills. 18 Q. By a Senior Investigator, do you mean Security 19 Managers that have been in the post for a long 20 time or team leaders and above? 21 A. Probably both. 22 Q. Who made the decision, then, to recover a loss 23 from a subpostmaster who was being prosecuted? 24 A. That would be the Financial Investigators. 25 Q. Did you have any involvement in relation to that 143 1 decision to recover losses? 2 A. Not that I recall, no. 3 Q. Could we please have POL00105025 on screen, 4 please. This sets out the Security Team 5 objectives from April 2013 to March 2014. If we 6 could go to page 117 of that document, please. 7 Thank you. Are those your objectives for 8 that year? 9 A. They are, yes. 10 Q. Go to the bottom of that document, section 3. 11 So we see the objective is: 12 "To ensure a robust approach to fraud loss 13 recovery with a return rate of 65%." 14 Do you remember that being a personal 15 objective or a team objective? 16 A. It was a team objective. 17 Q. Did you personally receive any benefit if that 18 objective was met? 19 A. Not that I recall, no. 20 Q. Thank you very much, that document can come 21 down. 22 In the two cases that we will go on to touch 23 on in a moment, you explain that you were the 24 Second Officer in both cases; is that correct? 25 A. Yes. 144 1 Q. Can you just briefly explain the difference 2 between the Second Officer and the First or Lead 3 Investigator in a case? 4 A. The Second Officer is usually just in attendance 5 at an interview, sometimes at an audit shortage, 6 as well. At the interview, it would be around 7 meeting the interviewee, setting up the room, 8 making sure everything was set up for the 9 interview. You could interject with questions 10 if you felt there was a relevant one but most of 11 the questions would normally be done by the Lead 12 Investigator. 13 Q. Would the First and Second Officer typically 14 discuss a case before an interview? 15 A. Potentially, yes. 16 Q. Would there be any discussion afterwards about 17 further enquiries which might be necessary? 18 A. Not that I recall no. Usually once the 19 interview was done, the Second Officer would 20 step away. 21 Q. If you had a concern in respect of issues raised 22 during an interview or any other aspect of 23 a case, would you raise it with the First 24 Officer? 25 A. Yes. 145 1 Q. Turning first, please, to the case of Khayyam 2 Ishaq, who was the subpostmaster at Birkenshaw 3 Post Office, is it correct that you attended 4 Mr Ishaq's follow-up interview with Steve 5 Bradshaw -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- which took place on 27 September 2011? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Were you aware at that time that Mr Ishaq had 10 previously been interviewed earlier that year? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Prior to attending the interview, did you 13 discuss the case with Mr Bradshaw? 14 A. Vaguely. I can vaguely remember discussions on 15 the basics on the case, yeah. 16 Q. What did you understand about the case before 17 you attended the interview? 18 A. Not a great deal, to be honest. As I say, the 19 case had already been running for a while. 20 I was just asked to come along for the second 21 interview, the follow-up interview. 22 Q. Is it right that you subsequently provided 23 a witness statement in the case exhibiting the 24 interview transcript? 25 A. Yes. 146 1 Q. Is it also correct that you attended one of the 2 court hearings in his case? 3 A. Yes, I did attend. It was more of a learning 4 experience because I'd never actually been to 5 a live courtroom. 6 Q. Was it for your own experience rather than you 7 were there to provide any assistance? 8 A. Yes, it was just for my own experience. 9 Q. Did you have any further involvement in this 10 case? 11 A. Nothing at all. No. 12 Q. Moving on, then, to the case of Angela Sefton 13 and Anne Nield, who were employed at Fazakerley 14 Post Office. 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. Could we please have POL00113343 on screen, 17 please, at page 6. This is a judgment of the 18 Court of Appeal in which the court quashed 19 Ms Sefton and Ms Nield's convictions, along with 20 others. If we could go to page 6, please, 21 starting at paragraph 23, I won't read the full 22 extract but I just wanted to highlight the 23 following paragraphs. 24 So at paragraph 23, then: 25 "On 11 April 2013, in the Crown Court at 147 1 Liverpool before [His or Her Honour Judge] 2 Hatton, Angela Sefton and Anne Nield each 3 pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting 4 with which they were jointly charged. The 5 allegation against them was in short that 6 between 1 January 2006 and 6 January 2012 they 7 had falsified giro deposit entries on Horizon in 8 relation to the receipt of £34,115.50 in 9 donations made to the charity Animals In Need." 10 So paragraph 25 states: 11 "Ms Nield was employed as the branch manager 12 in the Fazakerley Post Office where Ms Sefton 13 was employed as a clerk. Their employer was the 14 [subpostmaster] but he was rarely at the branch 15 owing to illness. In 2006, the [subpostmaster] 16 identified an explained shortage of £4,000. He 17 paid half of the shortage and they paid the 18 other half. He told them that, from then on, 19 they would be responsible for all losses." 20 Paragraph 26: 21 "In December 2011, Santander bank contacted 22 [the Post Office] following a complaint to 23 Santander by Animals In Need that there was 24 a significant delay between money being 25 deposited in the Fazakerley Post Office and 148 1 payment into the charity's bank account. This 2 triggered an investigation." 3 Then paragraph 27: 4 "[The Post Office] audited the branch on 5 6 January 2012. During the audit, 40 giro 6 deposit slips and a number of cheque envelopes 7 were recovered from a cupboard which showed 8 suppressed deposits in the sum of £34,219. 9 Ms Sefton and Ms Nield handed the Auditor 10 a jointly signed letter in which they said 11 they'd tried to repay shortages by using their 12 own credit cards and their holiday money. They 13 had eventually run out of funds. As a result, 14 they began to covering up shortages by delaying 15 the processing of business deposits to Santander 16 and to one other bank. They could not explain 17 the shortages. They had reached 'breaking 18 point' in their lives and health had been deeply 19 affected." 20 Then paragraph 28: 21 "On 20 January 2012, Ms Sefton and Ms Nield 22 were each interviewed." 23 We'll come back to that interview. Over the 24 page at paragraph 33, then. The court's 25 conclusion was: 149 1 "In these circumstances, [the Post Office] 2 accepts that the prosecution of Ms Sefton and of 3 Ms Nield was unfair and an affront to justice." 4 That can come down. 5 So you explain at paragraph 76 of your 6 statement that the first thing you recall about 7 this case is Ms Nield phoning Steve Bradshaw on 8 the 5 January 2012; is that correct? 9 A. At the time, yes. 10 Q. Is it right that you understood she asked to 11 speak to him outside work about a matter? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What did you understand she wanted to speak to 14 him about? 15 A. I don't know until the day we went to the audit, 16 when Steve told me that they were having 17 balancing difficulties and they wanted to tell 18 somebody about it. 19 Q. Why was it Mr Bradshaw that she contacted in 20 those circumstances, do you know? 21 A. As Steve lives in Liverpool, so he's probably 22 aware of the office and the staff in the office, 23 so he's probably had previous dealings with 24 them. 25 Q. At the time that Ms Nield phoned Mr Bradshaw, an 150 1 audit had already been arranged at the branch 2 for the next day; is that correct? 3 A. Yes, due to the complaint made by Santander. 4 Q. Do you understand it then to be a coincidence 5 the timing of her phoning Mr Bradshaw the day 6 before? 7 A. Yes, I don't think -- she wouldn't have been 8 aware that the Auditors were going. 9 Q. Is it correct, then, that you attended the audit 10 of the Fazakerley branch on 6 January 2012 with 11 Mr Bradshaw? 12 A. Yes, I accompanied Steve Bradshaw, yeah. 13 Q. When you arrived at the branch, the audit was 14 already under way; is that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So what was your role during the audit? 17 A. I think Steve took me along just -- again, just 18 for experience and to have somebody with him in 19 case it moved on to searches, which it did. So 20 he obviously being local -- fairly local to 21 Steve, he asked me to come with him because it 22 was fairly short notice anyway. 23 Q. But your evidence is that you didn't actually 24 have any kind of active role during the audit? 25 A. No. 151 1 Q. You explain in your statement that you witnessed 2 Ms Nield hand a letter to Mr Bradshaw; is that 3 correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Can you describe the circumstances in which the 6 letter was handed to Mr Bradshaw? 7 A. I can't recall, no. 8 Q. Do you remember if anything prompted the letter 9 being handed over, a question from Mr Bradshaw? 10 A. No, I don't think so. 11 Q. So you then explain that you were directed to 12 a number of Girobank deposit slips; is that 13 correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Who was that by? 16 A. I can't recall for certainty. I think it was 17 Ms Sefton but I'm not sure on that. 18 Q. So at this point, then, had the audit finished? 19 A. No, I think it was still ongoing. 20 Q. Was there a reason that you were then directed 21 to participate rather than the Auditors? 22 A. Just because the -- I think the ladies told 23 Steve where to find the documents. 24 Q. So there was a conversation with Mr Bradshaw 25 during the Audit? 152 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is it correct, then, that you subsequently 3 attended the searches of both Ms Sefton and 4 Ms Nield's homes later that day? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What was your role during those searches? 7 A. Just to assist Steve. 8 Q. You were also present during their interviews on 9 20 January 2012; is that correct? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. If we could go, then, to the transcript of 12 Ms Sefton's interview, please, and the reference 13 is POL00044010. We can see that the date of the 14 interview is 20 January 2012 and you and 15 Mr Bradshaw attended along with Ms Sefton's 16 solicitor. If we go to page 2, please. So at 17 7 minutes and 53 seconds in, it says: 18 "SB read out the letter." 19 Do you understand that to be a reference to 20 the letter handed to Mr Bradshaw during the 21 audit? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. The start of letter reads: 24 "In 2005 we had a change of computer systems 25 by the Post Office. It occurred that we had 153 1 a £4,000 shortage. The Post Office said they 2 would leave the shortage in abeyance for 6 3 months so that all work could be checked. 4 Nobody could find the shortage so the postmaster 5 was asked to pay it back in full." 6 So, stopping there, from the documents 7 provided to you by the Inquiry, do you know 8 whether the audit was the first time you 9 attended Fazakerley branch? 10 A. No, from the documents you provided, I didn't 11 remember them, but had done a couple of 12 intervention visits there back in, I think, it 13 was 2005. 14 Q. Thank you. That document can come down. If we 15 could have on the screen POL00044222. Thank 16 you. So we can see this is an "Area 17 Intervention Manager Visit Log". The date of 18 the visit is 14 September 2005, and the name of 19 the AIM -- is that Area Intervention Manager -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- is yourself? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. So the details of visit read as follows: 24 "The above office has a loss from week 19 of 25 £592.21. OIC states this is something to do 154 1 with an upgrade of Horizon ..." 2 Just pausing there, who is the OIC in those 3 circumstances? 4 A. Officer in charge, so that would be -- I think 5 it was Anne Nield, I think. I think she was 6 the -- managing the office at the time. 7 Q. So in that context, then, the officer in charge 8 is the person at the branch -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- rather than a criminal investigator? 11 A. No. 12 Q. "... and a problem with the declaration of the 13 cash. There is no errors so I am unable to put 14 in suspense. OIC is unable to make good as the 15 [postmaster] on holiday until 12/09/05. 16 "Please contact office and reply within 17 7 days." 18 Then the next paragraph, it says: 19 "I attended the office today to find that 20 the loss has now cleared for no apparent reason. 21 The office balanced £1,330 short last week but 22 this was due to a £1,250 entry with the ATM 23 meaning that this should straighten itself out 24 on balancing today. This will make a shortage 25 of £80 which the [subpostmaster] will make 155 1 good." 2 Do you remember this visit? 3 A. I don't. 4 Q. Do you accept, looking at that first 5 paragraph -- first of all, actually, did you 6 complete the "Details of visit"? Would that 7 have been your entry? 8 A. The top half is what would have been sent to me. 9 The bottom half is what I would have responded 10 with. 11 Q. So what we can see on screen at the minute -- 12 A. Yeah -- 13 Q. -- is that your entry or somebody else's? 14 A. Yeah, the above office bit, down to "Please 15 contact office", that would have been 16 pre-populated when it was sent out to me. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. The bottom bit "I attended the office today", 19 that would have been the bit that I would have 20 filled in. 21 Q. So the top bit, would that have been 22 pre-populated by Ann Wilde? We can see that -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you know who that would have been? 25 A. I think she used to work in Chesterfield but I'm 156 1 not 100 per cent sure. But I used to get -- 2 some of these would come from Chesterfield. 3 Q. So are the circumstances this: that a problem 4 would be reported from a branch to Chesterfield? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Chesterfield would pre-populate part of the 7 form -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- send it to you to go to the branch? 10 A. To arrange a visit, yes. 11 Q. Then you would provide a response? 12 A. A response, yeah. 13 Q. If we could then just look at the first 14 paragraph. Do you accept that, from looking at 15 that, that there seems to be a problem, at least 16 on the face of it, with the Horizon system? 17 A. That seems to be what they've put it down to, 18 yes. 19 Q. When you attended the office, you found that the 20 loss had cleared for no apparent reason? 21 A. Yeah, it may well have been that they've 22 accepted another transaction correction because, 23 having read all the documents, they used to get 24 quite a few transaction corrections. 25 Q. But you can't tell that -- 157 1 A. No. 2 Q. -- from looking at this -- 3 A. No. 4 Q. -- and you have no independent recollection of 5 it? 6 A. I can't recall, no. 7 Q. If we could go then to consider POL00068605, 8 please. This is another log, again with your 9 name on it, and the date of the visit is 10 18 January 2006. The "Details of visit" say 11 "DUPOF Visit". 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What does this refer to? 14 A. I saw this one, I think you sent me this one 15 last week and I have no recollection of what 16 "DUPOF" stands for. I can only assume there was 17 some work going on at the branch. It could have 18 been disability access, or other things it could 19 have been involved with is security 20 installation, cameras, et cetera. But 21 I honestly cannot recall what that visit was 22 about. 23 Q. But would that -- would you have completed that 24 "Details of visit" section? 25 A. Yes. 158 1 Q. Okay. So that would have been your entry but 2 you can't help us with -- 3 A. I have no idea what a "DUPOF Visit" was because 4 it's obviously come out to me with just "DUPOF", 5 so at the time I assume I would have known what 6 that was about, so I must have been getting 7 a few of those at the time. 8 Q. Then, finally on this topic, can we please have 9 POL00044223 on the screen, please. This is the 10 third log and the date of the visit is 11 8 February 2006. In "Details of visit", we see 12 there's a £3,959 shortage in week 41. Would 13 that have been your entry? 14 A. That would have been -- again, that would have 15 been pre-populated and sent out to me with the 16 details. I assume the branch must have settled 17 that centrally, so it's gone to Chesterfield so 18 they will have populated it to send somebody out 19 to see if they could -- 20 Q. Sorry, can you just repeat your answer? 21 A. Can you just scroll it back down again a second 22 for me? 23 Q. Can we just go to the top, thank you. 24 A. Yeah, the top part of that would have been 25 pre-populated. I would assume that the branch 159 1 has settled the shortage centrally, so it's gone 2 to Chesterfield, and they would have 3 pre-populated the form and sent it out as 4 a request to go and assist. 5 Q. Thank you. If we could go to the bottom of that 6 page, then, please, we see another box which 7 says, "Current issues" -- would that have been 8 your entry, this box -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- which says: 11 "I attended the office as they had received 12 a request for payment for the loss sustained in 13 TP09. Chesterfield have now put a temporarily 14 block on this awaiting a transaction correction. 15 I have checked all the office documents, 16 transaction logs and events logs for the week 17 concerned and there is no sign of what has 18 caused this loss. I have contacted Girobank, 19 who are looking to see if there are any errors 20 that have come to light. I have advised the 21 manager that Chesterfield will only allow the 22 block to stand for so long unless they can 23 discover where the errors were made. If not, 24 then the postmaster will have to make 25 arrangements to settle with Chesterfield. 160 1 Girobank have stated that there is no 2 discrepancy showing." 3 Do you remember this visit? 4 A. I don't remember the visit, no. 5 Q. Do you, at any point, have a recollection of 6 speaking to either the subpostmaster or 7 Ms Sefton and Ms Nield? 8 A. I mean, obviously, I have visited the branch or 9 I must have spoken to them. I know the 10 postmaster wasn't in branch very often, he left 11 them to run the branch for them, so I would 12 assume I've spoken to one of the two ladies 13 there. 14 Q. Do you accept, then, that you've said that there 15 is no sign of what's caused this almost £4,000 16 loss? 17 A. Yeah, I mean, my role in the visit was to go 18 through all of the documents to see if I could 19 see anything. Obviously, I can only go through 20 what was on hand. So, obviously, I'm not 21 finding anything, I've contacted Girobank. In 22 those days, sometimes we could ring them to try 23 to speed up an error process, if there'd been 24 an error. And then I'd completed this to send 25 it back to where it came from so that they could 161 1 make further checks. So I had no access to any 2 other data. 3 Q. So you would have completed that and sent it 4 back to Chesterfield -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- is that your description? 7 So would it have been usual for you to have 8 received anything back from Chesterfield or 9 would it be usual for you to not hear anything 10 after that? 11 A. It would be -- usually, I would not hear 12 anything. I was just boots on the ground to go 13 and have a look to see if I could help and then 14 it goes back to Chesterfield. 15 Q. Would you have been concerned about that 16 situation, where you've got quite a large loss 17 and no sign of what's caused it? 18 A. In those days, the problem was a lot of errors 19 took a very long time to come back, hence the 20 shortcut by ringing Girobank to see if they 21 could identify anything because, historically, 22 Girobank were very, very slow on sending errors 23 back. But that wasn't -- I wouldn't say it was 24 common but it happened, where you'd have losses 25 like that. 162 1 Q. Which you couldn't find an explanation for -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- when you attended? Do you accept that this 4 sounds similar to the loss reported in the 5 letter handed to Mr Bradshaw, the £4,000 loss? 6 A. Yeah, it's similar. I'm not sure on the 7 timeline how far away it was from then. 8 Q. They say it was 2005, and the date of this visit 9 is 2006 -- 10 A. Right. 11 Q. -- at the start of 2006. 12 A. Possibly. I don't know, honestly. 13 Q. Did you inform Mr Bradshaw that you'd attended 14 this branch previously when it was experiencing 15 shortages? 16 A. No, because I had no recollection of it at the 17 time. 18 Q. Did you ever check your records to see if you'd 19 previously visited a branch you were involved in 20 investigating? 21 A. Unfortunately, as I said to you earlier, that 22 I was -- I'd decided to take redundancy, so 23 I was going through that process, so one of the 24 parts of that process was to clear my laptop, so 25 I didn't have all those records any more. 163 1 Q. So even if you'd wanted to -- 2 A. No. 3 Q. -- when you joined the Security Team you 4 couldn't have checked your records? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you ever ask whether those checks could be 7 made or think about making those checks? 8 A. Not that I recall, no. 9 Q. Can you see any potential problems with not 10 making those checks? 11 A. I mean, ordinarily when an investigation is 12 going on, they would be checking for losses 13 anyway on the branch. 14 Q. But, in this circumstance, where maybe 15 Mr Bradshaw might not have known, can you see 16 any problems with you not having independently 17 told him that you'd been at this branch before? 18 A. Yeah, obviously, if I'd recalled it, then 19 I would have told him but I didn't at the time. 20 Q. You subsequently provided a witness statement in 21 this case, dated 21 March 2012; is that right? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. That dealt with the audit, the searches -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- and the interview. Did you have any further 164 1 involvement in this case? 2 A. Nothing at all, no. 3 MS MILLAR: Thank you, sir. I wonder if that would 4 be a convenient moment. I don't have many more 5 questions for Mr Ryan but if we could have 6 a 15-minute break, please. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, certainly so what time shall 8 we -- 9 MS MILLAR: 3.25? 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: 3.25. All right, fine. 11 MS MILLAR: Thank you very much. 12 (3.05 pm) 13 (A short break) 14 (3.25 pm) 15 MS MILLAR: Thank you, sir, can you see and hear us? 16 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thanks, yes. 17 MS MILLAR: Thank you. 18 Mr Ryan, earlier on I'd taken you to one of 19 the logs where it said "DUPOF". 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You couldn't remember what that was. Does 22 "Deprived Urban Post Office Fund" sound correct? 23 A. Yes, yes, it does. It was basically a fund for 24 helping postmasters do branches up so that that 25 equates to the work that was done in the branch. 165 1 So, obviously, the Post Office had paid or 2 helped to pay for some renovations in some way. 3 Thank you. That's just for completeness. 4 Finally, I just want to turn to ask you some 5 questions about your knowledge about problems 6 with the Horizon system. At paragraph 53 of 7 your witness statement, you say: 8 "I do not recall ever having any issues or 9 errors with the Horizon system being reported to 10 me. We were always assured by the Post Office 11 and Fujitsu that the Horizon system was robust." 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. Does that remain your position? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You also say in your statement that you were 16 regularly informed the same by the Post Office 17 in your team meetings? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Can you help us with the names of the 20 individuals from the Post Office who assured you 21 that Horizon was robust? 22 A. It was a number of people from the top down, so 23 I -- John Scott, Andy Hayward, and any of the 24 team leaders that I had over that timescale. So 25 Helen Dickinson, Keith Gilchrist. I think it 166 1 always came from the top. I don't know where it 2 came from beyond John Scott, but we were always 3 told it was business as usual, "Carry on, 4 Horizon is fine". 5 Q. Were those oral assurances, written assurances? 6 A. Mostly oral at team meetings on conference 7 calls. 8 Q. Who from Fujitsu assured you that Horizon was 9 robust? 10 A. I had no contact direct from Fujitsu. 11 Q. So when you say in your statement "We were 12 always assured by the Post Office and Fujitsu 13 that the Horizon system was robust" -- 14 A. Yeah, the comments were -- from John Scott would 15 be that Fujitsu had informed him, et cetera, 16 et cetera, and he filtered that down to us, that 17 Horizon is robust. 18 Q. So it was something that he was passing on -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- coming from Fujitsu? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Was your understanding? 23 A. That's my understanding, yeah. 24 Q. Could we please have POL00094108 on screen, 25 please. We can see this is an internal memo to 167 1 the Post Office Security Team from Helen 2 Dickinson, and it's dated 9 September 2011. 3 If we go down the page, then, please, we can 4 see that it discusses a financial investigation 5 which has now been concluded: 6 "The subpostmaster ... was reinstated at the 7 branch as there had been failings in the 8 training given by Post Office Limited. He 9 intimated to the Auditor that Horizon system had 10 'lost' data. The Contracts Manager, Paul 11 Williams, felt that due to these issues he would 12 have to reinstate with conditions attached 13 including a full repayment of the shortage." 14 Next paragraph, it says: 15 "Kevin Ryan, Security Manager discussed the 16 case with Leslie Frankland and Dave Pardoe and 17 it was decided that there was no point in 18 continuing with the investigation." 19 Do you have any recollection of that case? 20 A. No, that would have been one of the very early 21 cases that I would have been allocated in 2011. 22 From reading that, I would say, the Contract 23 Manager, probably following a discussion with 24 him, he decided that there was enough to put the 25 postmaster back in place. So I raised that with 168 1 my Team Leader, they decided that, under those 2 circumstances, we wouldn't proceed with 3 an investigation. 4 Q. Do you accept that, on one reading, the reason 5 for his reinstatement and the stopping of the 6 investigation was because the Horizon system had 7 lost data? 8 A. Well, the postmaster has intimated that. I had 9 no information on that at the time. 10 Q. Can you recall what information you had or -- 11 A. I can't, no. 12 Q. Thank you. If we -- 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: It wasn't just -- excuse me, it 14 wasn't the postmaster saying it. I think 15 Ms Millar's point is that, if you carry on 16 reading, the Contracts Manager, Mr Williams, 17 appears to have accepted it. 18 A. Yes. 19 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Do you know why he accepted it. 20 A. I can't recall why, no. He's obviously had his 21 own discussion with the postmaster. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: But this is an example, is it 23 not, of a complaint about Horizon apparently 24 being accepted by the Post Office? 25 A. Feasibly, yes. 169 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, okay thanks. 2 MS MILLAR: Do you remember that when you stepped 3 into the role of Team Leader that the Second 4 Sight report was published around the same time? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What was your understanding at the time of the 7 significance of that report for criminal 8 investigations? 9 A. Again, we were informed that we would carry on 10 as normal, because they would defend Horizon. 11 So that's what they were telling us, so that's 12 what we were led to believe, so that's what we 13 continued to do. 14 Q. Could we, please, have POL00125273 on screen, 15 please. This is a "Profile Form" and it's got 16 your name on it. At the top of page 9 then, 17 please, it explains some of the activities that 18 you undertook as the Team Leader and mentions 19 that it came at an exceptionally busy time when 20 the Second Sight Report was published and this 21 resulted in a lot of work being generated around 22 case file governance. 23 Can you help us with what that means? 24 A. John Scott decided he wanted to see every case 25 file. So I was asked to put a spreadsheet 170 1 together that listed the whole -- all the active 2 cases, so that he could study every single case. 3 Q. Did that just involve you providing him 4 literally with the case files? 5 A. With the information, yeah. No, with the 6 information from the case files. It was just 7 an Excel spreadsheet, effectively, that had all 8 the active cases on. 9 Q. Were you responsible, then, for populating that 10 spreadsheet with information from the case 11 files? 12 A. I don't recall ever populating it, it was just 13 putting the spreadsheet together. As I say, 14 I was surprised to be in the role because it was 15 quite early in my career. So I was just asked 16 to put that together. That tended to be the 17 kind of thing that they asked me to do. 18 Q. You go on to say that you were tasked with 19 putting together the spreadsheet and adjusting 20 it, as and when requested by John Scott? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What does that mean: adjusting it as and when 23 requested? 24 A. One of the forms we saw earlier on mentioned 25 about adding certain tabs and lines to add 171 1 further information to the spreadsheet. 2 Q. This may be the document you're referring to but 3 could we go back, then, to POL00166044. This is 4 the record of the case file governance meeting 5 that we looked at earlier, and we've looked at 6 point 4 already. Could we look at point 7, just 7 further down the page. It says: 8 "Cascade to Security Managers: Requirement 9 to censure emails, particularly with reference 10 to Second Sight review/Horizon and any 11 personal/opinionated comments that could become 12 public/requested under the Freedom of 13 Information Act." 14 Similar to earlier, we see that your 15 initials are beside the lead for that point. 16 Can you help us with what that means? 17 A. Basically, that was a message from John Scott 18 and the other Senior Security Managers and that 19 was to be passed on to the members of your team. 20 Q. What was it that had to be passed on? 21 A. Basically, the message that is within that 22 information there. 23 Q. When it says, "The requirement to censure 24 emails", is that censor, remove information? 25 A. No, just not to put any comments on around -- 172 1 banter, that type of thing that you would get 2 between Security Managers, like people do in 3 a workplace. So just to be careful what you put 4 in an email regarding Second Sight. 5 Q. Can you tell help us with what kind of banter 6 there was going around at the time that needed 7 to be controlled? 8 A. Yeah, just everyday stuff, you know, asking 9 people what they were doing at the weekend and 10 making jokes about it. Nothing to do with your 11 case files, it was just everything else. On 12 that particular point, he was asking us not to 13 make too many references to Second Sight. 14 Q. Why did you understand he was making that 15 request -- 16 A. I don't know. I just followed what I was told 17 to do. 18 Q. Did you ever question what you were being told 19 to do? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Point 8, then: 22 "Liaison Cases: Ensure Security Managers 23 have oversight and are aware of third party 24 operations (Royal Mail/Police), that could 25 impact on the Second Sight Review/Horizon 173 1 integrity." 2 Again, we see your name beside the lead. 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. Can you help us with what that is? 5 A. Yeah, there were a lot of cases that were police 6 liaison cases. So, as an example, if 7 a postmaster reported one of his clerks for 8 theft to the police, then we needed to notify 9 the police regarding the information around 10 Second Sight. 11 Q. So that was to provide information about Second 12 Sight -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- to those people? 15 A. Yeah, we were given a document that we would 16 send in those cases, we'd send out to the 17 police. 18 Q. Do you remember what that document says? 19 A. I don't but I'm pretty sure I've probably got it 20 somewhere. 21 Q. Was the message in the document that the Second 22 Sight had taken place and was there any 23 undertaking as to the integrity of Horizon in 24 that -- 25 A. I can't remember exactly what was in it but it 174 1 was just to make them aware of it, is all I can 2 recall. 3 Q. Thank you. That document can come down. 4 So having considered all of those documents 5 and the other ones provided to you by the 6 Inquiry, does it remain your position that you 7 don't recall ever having any issues or errors 8 with the Horizon system reported to you? 9 A. Not that I can remember, no. 10 Q. You explain in your statement at paragraph 14 11 that the decision was made not to pursue any new 12 prosecutions in 2013; is that correct? 13 A. I think there may have been one or two after 14 then but I certainly wasn't involved in any. 15 Q. Were you told about the reasons for that 16 decision at the time? 17 A. They were looking for a new subject matter 18 expert to defend Horizon. 19 Q. Did you understand that there had been an expert 20 previously that they were looking to replace? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Who was that, please? 23 A. Gareth Jenkins. 24 Q. Did you have any interaction with Mr Jenkins 25 that you can remember? 175 1 A. No. 2 Q. Who told you that he was the subject matter 3 expert? 4 A. It would have, again, been relayed at a team 5 meeting, he would have been mentioned. I know 6 from the documents you've provided he was 7 involved in the two cases that you raised 8 earlier. 9 Q. But at that point in both of those cases, you 10 had no involvement; is that correct? 11 A. No. 12 Q. So when you say they were looking for a new 13 expert, what did you understand that led them to 14 seek a new subject matter expert? 15 A. I don't know. All I know was there was a reason 16 why Gareth Jenkins couldn't be used in the 17 future. So they were -- we were told that, once 18 they'd found a new subject matter expert, we 19 would continue doing prosecutions. 20 Q. Was that reason explained to you at the time? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Could we please have POL00124105 on screen, 23 please, at page 3. This is an email from Mark 24 Raymond to you and a number of others. Can you 25 help us with who Mark Raymond is, please? 176 1 A. He's the current Head of Security. 2 Q. It's dated 20 December 2017. The first 3 paragraph says: 4 "I just wanted to give you a quick update 5 from the prosecution's meeting ..." 6 The second paragraph says: 7 "A report has been produced externally 8 examining the issues with regard to the Group 9 Action litigation ..." 10 Do you have any understanding of what that 11 was at the time? 12 A. No. 13 Q. The last two sentences of that paragraph read: 14 "The report has been considered by 15 a specialist external lawyer." 16 Can you help us with who that was? 17 A. I have no idea at all, no. 18 Q. "Certain findings have been referred back for 19 clarity but overall there appear to be no major 20 flaws." 21 What did you understand that to be 22 a reference to? 23 A. I would imagine that's in relation to Horizon 24 but I'm only assuming that. I don't know for 25 certain. 177 1 Q. Can you remember receiving this email? 2 A. No. 3 Q. If we go down, then, to the fourth paragraph, it 4 says: 5 "What has been highlighted is the risk of 6 testing a case in the criminal court prior to 7 the civil hearing, where the burden of proof has 8 to be beyond all reasonable doubt, as opposed to 9 the balance of probability in civil cases. The 10 risk is that should a trial collapse or not 11 guilty advert be reached, this could have 12 a devastating impact on the civil cases ..." 13 The next paragraph reads: 14 "At this stage the risk appetite dictates 15 that every case will be reviewed on its merits, 16 weight of evidence and public interest as it is 17 now, however we are unlikely to proceed to 18 prosecute until post-civil action ..." 19 Did you understand that to mean that there 20 was going to be a pause on prosecutions because 21 of the civil litigation? 22 A. Yes, I would say so. 23 Q. What was your view of the decision? 24 A. At the time, I suppose they would know better 25 than I would, so we just accepted that. 178 1 Q. Thank you. That can come down. 2 With the benefit of hindsight, then, do you 3 have any reflections in respect of the way in 4 which criminal investigations were conducted by 5 the Post Office? 6 A. Yeah, I wish we'd have been privy to all the 7 facts because we certainly weren't. 8 MS MILLAR: Thank you for your assistance, Mr Ryan. 9 I don't have any further questions for you. 10 Sir, do you have any questions before I turn 11 to the representatives from the Core 12 Participants? 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, thank you, no. 14 MS MILLAR: I think those are all of the questions 15 for Mr Ryan. Thank you. 16 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. 17 Well, thank you very much, Mr Ryan, for 18 coming to give evidence to the Inquiry and 19 providing your witness statement in advance. 20 I'm obliged to you. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 22 MS MILLAR: Thank you, sir. 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I think, Ms Millar, tomorrow is 24 now a non-sitting day and we will resume on 25 Friday, yes? 179 1 MS MILLAR: Correct, sir. Thank you. 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, 10.00 on Friday. 3 (3.41 pm) 4 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am 5 on Friday 15 December 2023) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 180 I N D E X Announcement re Evidence of MARTIN SMITH ......1 CHRISTOPHER GRANVILLE KNIGHT (sworn) ..........2 Questioned by MS PRICE ........................2 Questioned by MS PATRICK .....................86 Questioned by MR JACOBS ......................95 KEVIN JAMES RYAN (affirmed) .................110 Questioned by MS MILLAR .....................110 181