1 Wednesday, 20 December 2023 2 (10.00 am) 3 MS PRICE: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear 4 us? 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I can. Thank you very much. 6 MS PRICE: May we please call Ms Allen. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 8 LISA JANE ALLEN (affirmed) 9 Questioned by MS PRICE 10 MS PRICE: Could you confirm your full name, please, 11 Ms Allen. 12 A. Lisa Jane Allen. 13 Q. You should have in front of you a hard copy of 14 a witness statement in your name dated 15 27 October 2023. If you could turn to page 33 16 of that, please. 17 A. Yes, that's it. 18 Q. Do you have a copy with a visible signature? 19 A. I do. 20 Q. Is that your signature? 21 A. Yes, it is. 22 Q. At the time you made your statement, there were 23 three documents which were referenced in the 24 request for a statement sent to you by the 25 Inquiry, but had not been provided to you. They 1 1 are the three document references marked in red 2 in your statement. I understand these three 3 documents have since been provided to you; is 4 that right? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Are there any corrections you wish to make to 7 your statement, having had sight of those 8 documents? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Are there any corrections you wish to make to 11 your statement in light of your consideration of 12 other documents provided by the Inquiry since 13 the making of your statement? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Are the contents of your statement true to the 16 best of your knowledge and belief? 17 A. They are. 18 Q. For the purposes of the transcript, the document 19 reference for the statement is WITN08920100. 20 Thank you for coming to the Inquiry to 21 assist it in its work and for providing the 22 witness statement that you have. As you know, 23 I will be asking questions on behalf of the 24 Inquiry. 25 You joined the Post Office in 1986 as 2 1 a Postal Officer working within the Crown Office 2 Network; is that right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. In April 1995 you became an Assistant Branch 5 Manager? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. With the exception of a short secondment 8 providing administrative support to Retail Line 9 Managers, you stayed in that role until July 10 2000; is that right? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. At which point you joined the Security Team as 13 an Investigation Manager? 14 A. I did. 15 Q. Is it right that that role involved 16 investigating criminal offences against the 17 business and its assets? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. You explain that your role was at one point 20 a multi-skilled role, whereby you did some 21 physical security work. 22 A. That's right. 23 Q. Physical security work related to advising on 24 external crime risk from threats such as 25 burglary and robbery; is that right? 3 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. But the role went back to being a purely 3 investigative one by the time you left the Post 4 Office in April 2012? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. In April 2012, you transferred to the Royal Mail 7 Investigation Team where you remain employed; is 8 that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 4 that, 11 when you were first working on the counter in 12 Post Office branches, balancing of stock units 13 was done on a weekly basis and was completed 14 manually by producing a balance sheet of 15 summarised daily and weekly transactions, but in 16 August 1992 you transferred to a branch where 17 a computerised system had already been 18 implemented; is that right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What were the systems that you used between 21 August 1992 and July 2000 when you became 22 an Investigation Manager? 23 A. Sorry, what systems I used? 24 Q. You talked about computerised systems that you 25 were using from 1992 -- 4 1 A. Oh, sorry -- 2 Q. -- in your statement. What were those 3 computerised systems? 4 A. There was ECCO and ALPS, which I think stood for 5 "All London Post Offices". 6 Q. How did the use of those computer systems change 7 the process for balancing? 8 A. It was basically -- it was computerised, so 9 where you would manually write down deposits and 10 things on manual sheets, the computer would 11 print them all out for you, so you would enter 12 it onto the computer and, at the end of the day, 13 you would run off a summary, as opposed to 14 manually add a summary up. 15 Q. Did you ever work on the counter in a branch 16 where the Horizon system was being rolled out? 17 A. No. 18 Q. When you were working on the counter, did you 19 know anyone who worked in a branch where Horizon 20 was being rolled out? 21 A. I was -- I had friends in the post offices that 22 worked with the Horizon system. 23 Q. But at the stage in 2000, before you became 24 an Investigation Manager, did you know anyone 25 who was in a branch where the Horizon system was 5 1 being rolled out? 2 A. I wasn't aware of anyone, no. 3 Q. Were you aware of any Post Office staff or 4 subpostmasters experiencing difficulties in 5 using the Horizon system when it was first 6 introduced? 7 A. I wasn't, no. 8 Q. Were you aware of any Post Office staff or 9 subpostmasters feeling that their training on 10 the Horizon system was insufficient? 11 A. I don't recall, no. 12 Q. Were you made aware of any such issues when you 13 were an Investigation Manager, about the rollout 14 period? 15 A. I don't recall the rollout period, so I'd have 16 to say no. 17 Q. When you became an Investigation Manager, did 18 you have any prior experience in criminal 19 investigation or criminal law? 20 A. No, I never. 21 Q. In terms of process, you applied for 22 an Investigator role within the Royal Mail 23 business and when you were successful in your 24 application you were allocated to Post Office 25 Limited, based on your experience on post office 6 1 counters; is that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 11 that 4 when you began your role as an Investigation 5 Manager, you completed a three-week residential 6 training course? 7 A. I did. 8 Q. Was that for both Post Office and Royal Mail 9 Investigators? 10 A. Yes, it was a joint course run for new recruits 11 at that time. 12 Q. You describe the people who delivered the 13 training in your statement as being members of 14 the Royal Mail training team. Michael Matthews 15 is one of those people. Was the training team 16 made up of Royal Mail, as opposed to Post 17 Office, Investigators? 18 A. The training was delivered by Royal Mail 19 trainers, yes. 20 Q. You recall sitting an exam at the end of the 21 course; is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You set out a non-exhaustive list of the topics 24 that training covered at paragraph 13 of your 25 statement. That list includes: commencement of 7 1 an investigation; approaching suspects; 2 interviewing; searches; statement taking; the 3 completion of Royal Mail forms; the Police and 4 Criminal Evidence Act; definition of offences; 5 report writing; and notebook entries. Have you 6 listed those topics because you recall them 7 featuring on the course? 8 A. Yes, I think so. 9 Q. Do you recall the topic of disclosure in 10 criminal prosecutions being covered on that 11 initial three-week course? 12 A. No, I don't. 13 Q. You do recall covering the Police and Criminal 14 Evidence Act. Do you recall covering the 15 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 16 on that initial course? 17 A. I don't, no. 18 Q. Do you recall covering the Code of Practice to 19 that Act? 20 A. No. 21 Q. You say at paragraph 14 of your statement that 22 you undertook a court workshop in March 2002 to 23 understand the legal proceedings and guidance on 24 giving evidence at court? 25 A. Yes. 8 1 Q. You also recall human rights training? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You also refer at paragraph 15 of your statement 4 to a financial investigation course you did in 5 March 2011? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Did you receive any refresher training on the 8 conduct of criminal investigations between doing 9 your initial training in 2000 and moving to 10 Royal Mail in 2012? 11 A. I don't recall any but that doesn't mean that we 12 didn't have it. But I don't recall it. 13 Q. Were you given any training on the Horizon 14 system when you became an Investigation Manager? 15 A. I was. I don't actually remember the training 16 myself. I believe it would have been probably 17 just one day, more for -- because I was 18 obviously counter trained, I had the knowledge 19 of performing transactions, which probably 20 didn't vary very much from one computer system 21 to the other, but obviously for -- maybe for 22 balancing or other -- printing off other reports 23 that I might not be aware of, I think I was 24 given one day's training. 25 Q. Were you ever given any training on Horizon from 9 1 the point of view of an Investigator, looking at 2 Horizon data in the course of an investigation? 3 A. No. 4 Q. When you became an Investigation Manager in 5 2000, you recall that Tony Marsh was Head of 6 Security for Post Office Limited; is that right? 7 A. He was. 8 Q. You recall that he was replaced by John Scott 9 after a short period when Tony Utting was 10 temporary Head of Security? 11 A. Yes. Can I also add, in between Tony Marsh and 12 Tony Utting there was also Phil Gerrish. 13 Q. You identify at paragraph 27 of your statement 14 five strands within the Security Team, which 15 were Physical Security, Information Security, 16 Commercial Security, Fraud risk and Security 17 Operations. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Dealing first with the Information Security 20 strand, you say at paragraph 27 that this team, 21 headed up by Richard Barber, managed IT issues 22 relating to systems in place at the Post Office 23 and their compliance. You give an example of 24 ensuring the systems were payment card industry 25 compliant. 10 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Did you understand the Information Security 3 strand to have knowledge of the Horizon system 4 and any issues relating to it? 5 A. I did not, no. 6 Q. Did that team ever provide the Security 7 Operations strand with any updates relating to 8 the Horizon system? 9 A. Not to my knowledge. 10 Q. Did you have regular tact with anyone in the 11 Information Security Team? 12 A. We was all based within the same office, a big, 13 large, open-planned office but we didn't really 14 interact, as such, with them, no. 15 Q. Who did you ask if you wanted information 16 relating to the working of the Horizon system? 17 A. We would go to the Casework Manager, who was 18 a single point of contact, I suppose, for 19 Fujitsu and I think they would approach Fujitsu 20 requesting whatever information it was we was 21 after. 22 Q. You address the Security Operations strand at 23 paragraph 28 of your statement. Could we have 24 that on screen, please. It is page 10 of 25 WITN08920100. You say at paragraph 28: 11 1 "When I joined the Security Team around 2 July 2000, I believe there were 7 teams within 3 this strand which I think was known as the 4 Investigation Team. I believe the name changed 5 to Security Operations upon John Scott heading 6 up the Security Team. Each team consisted of 7 around 6 Investigators and one team leader. 8 Between 2000 and 2012 when I left the business, 9 there had been numerous headcount reduction 10 exercises. This reduced the teams over the 11 years eventually to 3 teams with 3 team leaders 12 and around 18 Investigators." 13 Could we have on screen, please, document 14 reference POL00166566. This is an email from 15 Tony Marsh, the Head of Security at the time. 16 It is dated 17 October 2003. It goes to a long 17 list of recipients, including you, if we can 18 scroll down a little, please. We see, three 19 lines up from the bottom, your name there as 20 a recipient. 21 A. Yeah. 22 Q. Going over the page, please. The body of the 23 email starts towards the bottom of the page. It 24 says this: 25 "Dear Colleague 12 1 "As you will be aware from recent 2 communications from both the Chief Executive, 3 David Mills and the personnel director, Ian 4 Anderson, Post Office Ltd must make further 5 headcount reductions to support Royal Mail Group 6 in its drive back to sustainable profitability. 7 "As part of this exercise the Security Team 8 was asked to review its structure and to 9 establish what further savings it could make and 10 what the impact of these would be on its key 11 customers and stakeholders. 12 "The Security Lead Team and I examined 13 a number of options and came to the conclusion 14 that the structure could be further streamlined 15 in the following ways ..." 16 The first two points are: 17 "Collapsing the Risk and Commercial Security 18 function into the Internal and External Crime 19 functions, thus saving a Senior Manager post. 20 "Removing the Training and Support Manager 21 role, formerly within the Risk and Commercial 22 Security area, with the remaining functions 23 taking direct responsibility for provision of 24 professional training and liaison with 25 communications, thus saving a CM1 post." 13 1 Then there are two further cuts affecting 2 non-Internal Crime functions and, the fifth 3 bullet point, the following cut is identified, 4 "Removing the following support jobs", and among 5 those is Internal Crime two of the five -- 6 apologies, two of the four, thus saving four 7 Post Office posts. 8 The remaining bullet points address the 9 collapsing of the Risk and Commercial Security 10 functions and, further down the page, some 11 changes affecting the Audit function are 12 discussed. 13 Over the page, please. The first paragraph 14 says this: 15 "There is no suggestion that any of the jobs 16 that have been removed were superfluous. Each 17 job added value to the team in its own way and 18 for each one the team will need to be open to 19 exploring different ways of working to absorb 20 the loss. We have calculated however that with 21 the removal of these jobs we can make savings 22 which will not immediately impact on the service 23 that we provide to our customers, primarily the 24 Retail and Cash Logistics frontline, Sales and 25 Marketing teams, subpostmasters and branch 14 1 staff." 2 Is this one example of one of the numerous 3 headcount reduction exercises to which you refer 4 in your statement? 5 A. Yes, it is. 6 Q. What impact did the numerous headcount reduction 7 exercises have on the workload of Security 8 Operations Investigators? 9 A. I suppose there was less staff to do the same 10 amount of work. Maybe the trigger points may 11 have changed to reduce the amount of cases that 12 we would investigate but, obviously, we were 13 quite busy because the headcount was reducing. 14 Q. What impact, if any, did the numerous headcount 15 reduction exercises have on the quality of 16 security operations and investigations? 17 A. I'm not sure it would have had an effect on the 18 quality. Casework -- the cases should have been 19 going through a compliance check, so they should 20 have still met the standard. It was just we 21 were probably having more cases to deal with 22 than normally, possibly. 23 Q. Did your own workload ever prevent you from 24 following further lines of inquiry or gathering 25 further evidence in an investigation you were 15 1 conducting? 2 A. Not that I'm aware of. 3 Q. Do you recall there being any time frame within 4 which you were expected to produce your legal 5 report for the Criminal Law Team after a case 6 was allocated to you? 7 A. There probably was timescales but I don't recall 8 what those were. 9 Q. You say at paragraph 29 of your statement that 10 the Financial Investigation Team also sat within 11 the Security Operations strand; is that right? 12 A. They did, yes. 13 Q. Then at paragraph 30 of your statement, you 14 address the work of the Casework Team. Could we 15 have that on screen, please. That's page 10 of 16 the statement. You say, starting at 17 paragraph 30: 18 "Also within this strand was the Casework 19 Team, originally based in London. I can recall 20 Brian Sharkey, Graham Ward, Dave Posnett and 21 Jason Collins working within this unit at 22 various times, until it was relocated to 23 Manchester and Jane Owens became the manager 24 (date unknown). 25 "The London Casework Team managed the case 16 1 papers between the Investigator and the Legal 2 Services. They were also responsible for 3 amongst other things for compliance checks on 4 the files, requesting Fujitsu data, dealing with 5 Post Office Card Account enquiries and raising 6 cases. This may be as a result of an audit 7 shortage or if information had been received 8 where suspected criminal offences had taken 9 place. 10 "I cannot recall the responsibilities of 11 Jane Owen once the Casework Team transferred 12 other than being the Fujitsu liaison point and 13 Post Office Card Account enquiries. I do not 14 think she had the relevant experience to 15 compliance check the case papers." 16 You refer here to the Casework Team being 17 the Fujitsu liaison point. Is it right 18 therefore that any request you made for Horizon 19 data from Fujitsu went through this team? 20 A. That's correct, yes. 21 Q. You address the process which was followed after 22 an audit identified an apparent shortfall, 23 starting at paragraph 40 of your statement. 24 Could we have that on screen, please. It is 25 page 12. Do you say at paragraph 40: 17 1 "After an audit shortage had been reported 2 to the Security Casework Team it would be 3 assessed as to whether a case should be raised. 4 If a case was raised then it was allocated to 5 the Team Leader for that area. The Team Leader 6 would then assess what response was required and 7 if necessary allocate it to an Investigator. 8 An Investigator would attend the office and try 9 to establish the facts and identify if 10 a suspected criminal offence had or had not 11 taken place. They would identify persons of 12 interest to the investigation. If a suspect was 13 identified they would be cautioned and depending 14 on the circumstances request voluntary searches 15 and attendance at interview." 16 You deal with the steps which would be taken 17 once a case had been raised at paragraph 44 of 18 the statement, which is on page 14. You say: 19 "Once a case had been raised and assigned to 20 an Investigator the stakeholder (Contracts 21 Manager) would be informed that the 22 investigation had been assigned to them for 23 further enquiries to be made. Contact made with 24 the informant to establish the facts and 25 consideration given to obtaining a witness 18 1 statement. Intelligence gathered on the subject 2 and a risk assessment performed should searches 3 be required. Evidence collected to 4 support/undermine the investigation by attending 5 the office and retaining documentation. 6 Consideration given to advising the Financial 7 Investigators of the loss. Contact made with 8 the subject either in person or on the phone 9 seeking an explanation. Arrange interview under 10 caution if suspected criminal offence." 11 When you refer here to attending the office 12 and attaining documentation, are you referring 13 to the Horizon reports which could be printed 14 from the counter in the branch? 15 A. Yes, documents that are on hand that have 16 already been printed or provided by the -- if it 17 was an audit shortage, the Audit Team. 18 Q. S you were looking at the record of the cash and 19 stock which the counter-printed Horizon reports 20 said should be in the branch, against the record 21 of what the Auditors had actually found to be 22 held in the branch; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Where there was a difference between these two 25 records, an apparent shortfall, did you consider 19 1 that this alone was sufficient evidence of 2 a criminal offence to proceed to an interview 3 under caution of a subpostmaster or branch staff 4 member? 5 A. I think it would depend on the circumstances on 6 what the subpostmaster has said to us. So each 7 case was on its own merits, really. So it may 8 be that there might be an explanation for it, in 9 which case there wouldn't be an interview; or it 10 may be that they've admitted to something, in 11 which case there would be an interview under 12 caution. 13 Q. What about where someone hadn't admitted 14 something and had given an explanation that you 15 didn't, on face value, accept? Would there 16 still be an interview in those circumstances? 17 A. Possibly, taking into -- other factors that 18 might have been evidence of false accounting or 19 something along those lines. 20 Q. Could we have the next page on screen, please, 21 paragraph 45. Here you say this: 22 "Case papers were submitted to Legal 23 Services for advice as to whether a case was 24 suitable for a prosecution. The Lawyer 25 allocated the case would decide if there was 20 1 sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of 2 conviction. If Legal Services recommended 3 a prosecution then the case papers were sent to 4 the Designated Prosecution Authority to decide 5 if a prosecution proceeded. On authority from 6 the DPA the legal process would commence." 7 Who acted as the Designated Prosecution 8 Authority? 9 A. It was a senior manager within the Investigation 10 Team. 11 Q. Did an Investigator conducting the relevant 12 investigation have any input into the decision 13 as to whether someone should be prosecuted? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 42 of 16 Ms Allen's statement, that is page 13. Here you 17 say this: 18 "The contracts investigation would run 19 independent of the investigation case. However, 20 if the Contracts Manager decided that they would 21 accept a repayment of a loss and not suspended 22 the subpostmaster, then a criminal investigation 23 would not ensue." 24 Was a subpostmaster having made good 25 an apparent shortfall therefore a material 21 1 factor in decisions about whether that 2 subpostmaster should be criminally investigated? 3 A. No, I don't believe it was. 4 Q. How does your answer fit with that paragraph in 5 your statement, that if the Contracts Manager 6 decided that they would accept a repayment of 7 a loss and not suspend the subpostmaster, then 8 a criminal investigation would not ensue? 9 A. Well, I don't think it would be right to 10 prosecute somebody who we was employing. 11 Q. So is it the fact of not suspending them, rather 12 than the repayment, that you're referring to 13 there as to why a criminal investigation would 14 not ensue? 15 A. Yes, if the Contract Manager thought they were 16 fit to still serve as a subpostmaster and be 17 employed, then we would not obviously prosecute. 18 It wouldn't be right to prosecute somebody who 19 we was employing. 20 Q. As far as you were aware, was repayment of 21 an apparent shortfall a material factor in 22 decisions about whether that subpostmaster or 23 branch subpostmaster, should be prosecuted? 24 A. I don't think so because people were still 25 prosecuted who had made full repayment. 22 1 Q. Going over two pages, please, to paragraph 46. 2 You say here: 3 "I do not recall the Contracts Manager 4 having any input into the decision." 5 This is decision making about prosecution, 6 in terms of the context of the question you're 7 answering: 8 "However, if the Contracts Manager decided 9 to reinstate the subpostmaster then 10 a prosecution would not be deemed appropriate 11 and would not proceed." 12 Why would a prosecution not be deemed 13 appropriate and not proceed in these 14 circumstances? 15 A. Well, it's the same answer as before, really. 16 If -- I don't think we could prosecute somebody 17 who we was employing. If it was that serious, 18 then I think the Contracts Manager would have at 19 least suspended, if not dismissed, and then we 20 would have proceeded with a prosecution. 21 Q. Do you ever recall a Contract Manager 22 reinstating a subpostmaster and a prosecution 23 decision being changed as a result of that? 24 A. I don't, no. 25 Q. In principle, who would reassess the position in 23 1 relation to the prosecution in these 2 circumstances? 3 A. Well, I think if an investigation was raised and 4 the Contract Manager reinstated the 5 subpostmaster, then that -- the case wouldn't go 6 no further. It would just be no further action. 7 So I would imagine that possibly the Team 8 Leader. 9 Q. What about in circumstances where the Criminal 10 Law Team had already provided advice, for 11 example, to proceed with the prosecution? 12 A. I don't ever recall a case getting that far. 13 Q. To the extent that you can say, where no further 14 action was taken on a criminal investigation, 15 would a subpostmaster or branch staff member who 16 had been suspended be reinstated in those 17 circumstances? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 34 of 20 Ms Allen's statement. It is page 11. In 21 paragraph 34, you say: 22 "We adhered to PACE 1984, Criminal Procedure 23 and Investigations Act 1996, Human Rights Act 24 2000, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Data 25 Protection Act 1998." 24 1 You go on at paragraph 35 to say: 2 "There were also a number of RMG policies 3 within our databases that we adhered to." 4 The databases you refer to here, were they 5 Royal Mail Group databases or a Post Office 6 database or databases? 7 A. They was all held by Royal Mail Group. 8 Q. How would an Investigator access this database 9 or databases? 10 A. I believe we had a Corporate Security database 11 on the intranet, so everything was listed on 12 there: communications, the policies, et cetera. 13 Q. The legislation you refer to at paragraph 34, 14 where would an Investigator find copies of that 15 legislation if they wished to refer to any of 16 the legislation referred to? 17 A. On the Corporate Security database. We were 18 provided with PACE books and the CPIA books. 19 But the majority of the stuff we could find, it 20 was on the Royal Mail Group Corporate Security 21 database. 22 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 22 of 23 Ms Allen's statement. That is page 5. Under 24 the heading of "Disclosure in criminal or civil 25 proceedings", you say: 25 1 "In all cases where I was Officer in the 2 Case, I was also the Disclosure Officer. My 3 role as the Disclosure Officer was to retain, 4 record and reveal any material that may assist 5 the defence or undermine the prosecution case. 6 I was responsible for completing the disclosure 7 schedules and for conducting all reasonable 8 lines of inquiry." 9 At the time you were an Investigator with 10 the Post Office, did you understand that the 11 Disclosure Officer role was a distinct role 12 which you held over and above your role as 13 an Investigator? 14 A. I knew I was signing the documentation as the 15 Disclosure Officer because that's what it says 16 on the form. Whether or not I've properly 17 understood, I'm not 100 per cent sure. 18 Q. Did you understand that holding that role 19 imposed upon you additional and distinct duties? 20 A. I knew I had to obviously record, retain and 21 reveal information, and I had a duty to do that, 22 and it was an ongoing duty. That was my 23 understanding, probably at that time. 24 Q. At the point of submitting your report to Legal 25 Services for advice on charge and prosecution, 26 1 what documentation would you provide to the 2 Legal Team? 3 A. Sorry, when I sent my report -- 4 Q. When you produced your legal report for the 5 Criminal Law Team, having done your initial 6 investigation -- and we'll come to an example of 7 one of those reports later -- at that stage, 8 what documentation would you provide to the 9 Legal Team, apart from that report itself? 10 A. Taped summary, any witness statements that had 11 been taken, any evidence from those witness 12 statements, the disclosure documents, NPA forms, 13 antecedents, I believe. 14 Q. When you say "disclosure documents", do you mean 15 that disclosure schedules were provided -- 16 A. Yes, sorry. 17 Q. -- at that stage? 18 A. Yeah. Yes. I think -- yeah, they would have 19 been put in the jacket at that time. 20 Q. Was it at that stage, as opposed to at the point 21 of doing the committal bundle? 22 A. It may have been at the committal, actually. 23 When we -- I think it was when I would have done 24 the committal bundle, actually. 25 Q. You refer at paragraph 22 of your statement to 27 1 conducting all reasonable lines of inquiry. You 2 also address lines of inquiry at paragraph 55 of 3 your statement. Could we have that on screen, 4 please. It's page 17. You say at 55: 5 "An Investigator should take steps to make 6 all reasonable lines of inquiry under CPIA that 7 points to or away from the suspect." 8 The question you were responding to here 9 relates to instructions, guidance and/or 10 training on the duty to investigate a case 11 fully. You don't, in your answer there, 12 identify any instructions, guidance or training. 13 When you were a Post Office Investigator, were 14 you ever given any instruction, guidance or 15 training about what following a line of inquiry, 16 pointing away from a suspect, might mean in 17 practice? 18 A. I don't recall any specific training given to 19 it, but I can give an example of a case where 20 I think the subpostmistress may have been 21 arrested in relation to a big giro, a green giro 22 fraud. Having interviewed her and her giving 23 the explanation, I obviously went away and made 24 some enquiries to from what she'd said interview 25 and identified that she'd been actually targeted 28 1 by an organised crime group. 2 She was subsequently reinstated but, 3 obviously, given further training on how to 4 identify manipulated green Giro cheques. So 5 yes, I think we did -- or I did investigate to 6 the best of my ability. 7 Q. My question related to instructions, guidance 8 and training. You've given an example of what 9 you did in practice, but just going back to the 10 question: you don't recall being given any 11 instruction, guidance or training on that? 12 A. I don't, no. 13 Q. Would you accept that fully investigating 14 a suspected theft required an Investigator to be 15 satisfied that an apparent shortfall represented 16 an actual financial loss to the Post Office? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. When you were an Investigator, were you aware 19 that the obligation to pursue lines of inquiry 20 pointing away from a suspect extended to 21 material in the hands of a third party, for 22 example Fujitsu? 23 A. Yes, I think so. 24 Q. Could we have on screen, please, page 21 of 25 Ms Allen's statement. In response to a question 29 1 about whether ARQ data was requested from 2 Fujitsu -- if we can scroll down a little 3 further, please. 4 So paragraph 74 is your response to 5 a question about whether ARQ data was requested 6 from Fujitsu, as a matter of course, in cases 7 where subpostmasters were attributing 8 a shortfall to problems with Horizon. You say 9 in response: 10 "I cannot recall if it was requested as 11 a matter of course." 12 Exploring that a bit further, please, do you 13 accept, having seen the papers which have been 14 provided to you by the Inquiry, that you were 15 involved in a number of cases where 16 subpostmasters were attributing shortfalls to 17 problems with the Horizon system? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. In such cases, would you accept that it was 20 a reasonable line of inquiry to seek more 21 detailed audit data from Fujitsu to explore 22 whether further data might support what the 23 subpostmaster was saying? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Going over the page, please, to paragraph 75. 30 1 When you were asked whether ARQ data obtained 2 from Fujitsu was provided to a subpostmaster as 3 a matter of course, you say: 4 "ARQ data obtained was not provided as 5 a matter of course but was retained for 6 providing to the defence upon request." 7 Taking this in stages, would any ARQ data 8 which had been obtained as part of the initial 9 investigation be provided to the Criminal Law 10 Team at the point that they were advising on 11 charge and prosecution? 12 A. I don't know. Sometimes maybe but not all the 13 time, I wouldn't have thought. 14 Q. Why not, in cases where it wasn't? 15 A. Maybe it wasn't obtained at that time, it was -- 16 Q. But where it had been obtained by 17 an Investigator, why would it not have been 18 provided to the Criminal Law Team at the point 19 they were advising on charging and prosecution? 20 A. I don't know. 21 Q. On the question of what was provided to the 22 Criminal Law Team, we've touched on whether 23 disclosure schedules themselves were provided at 24 the point of charge and prosecution and I think 25 you were saying it may well have been at the 31 1 committal bundle stage. But in terms of 2 material that you had collected in the course of 3 your investigation, quite apart from the any ARQ 4 data, how much of the material were you 5 providing to the Criminal Law Team? Was it 6 everything? Was it select documents? 7 A. It was probably documents that had been 8 potentially exhibited within the statements, or 9 documents that were going to be relied upon if 10 a prosecution was authorised. 11 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 12 reference POL00141170. Starting about halfway 13 down the page, please, there is an email from 14 Juliet McFarlane -- apologies, from you to 15 Juliet McFarlane, and it relates to the Jerry 16 Hosi case. It is dated 21 January 2010 and it 17 appears, on the face of this, that you are 18 providing comment on a number of disclosure 19 requests made by the defence in this case. 20 I know this is one of a number of documents 21 provided to you quite recently. Have you had 22 a chance to have a look thorough this document? 23 A. Briefly. 24 Q. Focusing, please, just on point 4, to start 25 with, you say: 32 1 "The full Fujitsu Data can be provided but 2 who would pick up the cost? I am not sure what 3 the benefit would be for obtaining the full 4 data. We could provide a sample of a time 5 specified by the defence to allow the Accountant 6 to gain understanding of the system etc." 7 Picking up, first of all, on the second and 8 third sentences here, you seem to be expressing 9 some doubt about the utility of obtaining the 10 full Fujitsu data, as you describe it. Was your 11 understanding at the time that the sole purpose 12 further Fujitsu data might serve was that it 13 could help an accountant to gain 14 an understanding of the system? 15 A. I mean, obviously they wanted to do their own 16 analysis on the documents -- on the data, but 17 yes, it looks like that. It is for the 18 accountant to gain understanding of the system. 19 That's how that reads. 20 Q. Were you ever given any training or instruction 21 on the differences between Horizon data 22 available from the counter in a branch, and 23 later, Credence data, on the one hand, and the 24 data held by Fujitsu as part of the audit trail, 25 on the other? 33 1 A. I was aware of both Credence and data from 2 Fujitsu. It varied. It was slightly different. 3 Q. How did you understand it to be different? 4 A. The layout of how it was laid out was different. 5 I think on the Credence data it gave you the 6 explanation or the -- instead of the product 7 look-up number, PLU number of an item, it gave 8 you a description, where number 1 would be cash 9 it would say, "Cash", so it's easier to 10 understand. 11 I think it only went back 90 days. I think 12 it was just the same data presented in 13 a different way. 14 Q. Were you aware that there was a difference 15 between the standard ARQ request and the full 16 data held by Fujitsu? 17 A. I wasn't aware there was a difference but I was 18 aware that you could -- I requested some data 19 for an office, and I needed the Special Delivery 20 numbers, and the address that was entered into 21 the system at the time of posting. The data 22 came back, and it came back without that 23 information. So I had to resubmit it to get 24 this data. So I did know that there was extra 25 data you could get but I didn't know, obviously, 34 1 to what extent. 2 Q. Did you know that more information could be 3 gleaned from the data held by Fujitsu than could 4 be from the counter printouts or the Credence 5 data? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you know that there was more information in 8 an enhanced request than the standard ARQ 9 request I've just referred to? 10 A. I didn't know there was an enhanced data 11 request. 12 Q. Does it follow that you didn't know that 13 an enhanced interrogation of the audit trail 14 could show when a transaction or event had been 15 performed by the system, when Credence could 16 show it had been performed by a subpostmaster or 17 branch staff member? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you think you would have benefited from being 20 trained in the types of Fujitsu data which were 21 available and what they could show? 22 A. I do, yes. 23 Q. Could we have back on screen, please, 24 POL00141170 -- ah, it's still there. 25 Picking up the first sentence in point 4: 35 1 "The full Fujitsu data can be provided but 2 who would pick up the cost?" 3 Did you consider at the time that the cost 4 of obtaining data from Fujitsu was a relevant 5 factor when deciding whether it should be 6 obtained and disclosed? 7 A. The problem with Fujitsu data was that we was 8 limited to a number of requests, so if I had put 9 in a request for the full data, it would have 10 been refused. So I was limited to picking 11 a particular period to be able to provide that 12 data. 13 Q. You refer in your witness statement at 14 paragraph 78 to a quota of requests for ARQ 15 data; is that what you're referring to? 16 A. It is, yeah. 17 Q. That was a quota placed on ARQ data requests 18 made of Fujitsu which would be met without 19 additional cost; is that right? 20 A. That's right, yes. 21 Q. Was this something you were conscious of when 22 deciding whether to seek ARQ data from Fujitsu 23 as part of an investigation you were conducting? 24 A. Yes, probably, because if I'd have submitted the 25 request for the full lot, I know it would have 36 1 been refused because every 30 days would have 2 taken up one request. So even if you wanted 3 a full month, 31 days, that would have been two 4 requests. So, yes, I suppose we was conscious 5 of the requests we were putting in. 6 Q. Was the quota widely known about within the 7 Investigation Team? 8 A. I believe it was, yes. 9 Q. Who was responsible for deciding whether to 10 retrieve Horizon data from Fujitsu and does the 11 answer to that depend on the stage that the case 12 had reached? 13 A. Quite possibly, yes. 14 Q. So at the initial investigation stage, was it 15 the Investigator conducting the investigation 16 who decided? 17 A. It was, yes. 18 Q. Once the decision had been made to prosecute, 19 whose decision was it then? 20 A. If a direction had been given from counsel 21 maybe, or the solicitor, or from the defence, if 22 they'd requested some particular period, then, 23 obviously, that would have been applied for. 24 Q. In general terms, is it right that ARQ data was 25 only obtained as a last resort? 37 1 A. I wouldn't say as a last resort. I think it was 2 in most cases some form of data was requested, 3 but obviously due to the amount of requests we 4 had, we were limited to what we could ask for. 5 Q. Before we move on from this document, looking at 6 point 7 at the bottom, please, you say this: 7 "We do not have the facility to make any 8 adjustment to the cash balance. We can only 9 send a TC ..." 10 Transaction correction; is that right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. "... which when accepted will affect the cash 13 figure." 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Were you aware at the time, or any other time 16 when you were an Investigator for the Post 17 Office, that there was facility for Fujitsu to 18 alter a branch value at the counter of the 19 branch without the branch knowing? 20 A. Absolutely not. 21 Q. Thank you. That document can come down. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Can I just ask you, Ms Allen, 23 I think on two occasions in answer to Ms Price's 24 questions, you said that, if you had asked for 25 a full set of ARQ data -- they may not be the 38 1 precise words but you know what I mean -- it 2 would have been refused. Who would have refused 3 you? Do you mean by that, Fujitsu wouldn't have 4 supplied it or do you mean by that that the 5 person responsible in the Post Office for asking 6 for the data, would have refused to ask for it? 7 A. The person who I would have submitted the 8 request to, who was dealing with that -- the 9 Fujitsu contract at the time, they would have 10 refused it and sent it back and said, "Can you 11 ask for -- we've only got so many quotas left 12 this month, can you either hold on until next 13 month or can a just submit less requests?" 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Remind me again, what was the job 15 title of that person who'd be making that 16 decision? 17 A. That would have been the Casework Manager, 18 I believe. 19 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, that's it. Thank you. 20 Yes, thank you very much. 21 MS PRICE: Thank you, sir. 22 Where someone was attributing shortfalls to 23 a problem with the Horizon system, did you, as 24 a matter of course, check if there was any 25 history of problems with the Horizon system 39 1 being reported by the relevant branch? 2 A. We would have obtained the call logs from the 3 National Business -- NBSC and from the Horizon 4 Service Helpdesk. 5 Q. Would you have done that as a matter of course 6 in every case? 7 A. I believe so. 8 Q. Even at the stage of an initial investigation? 9 A. Possibly not at the initial investigation, 10 obviously depending on the circumstances. 11 Q. Was there any one team within the Post Office of 12 which an enquiry could be made about whether 13 there was a history of reporting of problems 14 with the Horizon system, bearing in mind that 15 there were different relevant helplines? 16 A. The subpostmaster should always have reported 17 any issues into the NBSC. So any issues they'd 18 identified should have been recorded at that 19 point. 20 Q. I'd like to turn, please, to your involvement in 21 the criminal investigation and prosecution of 22 Suzanne Palmer. You deal with your involvement 23 in the case from paragraph 84 of your statement. 24 Is it right that you first became involved 25 following an audit of Mrs Palmer's branch on 40 1 3 February 2006, which recorded an apparent 2 shortage in the branch of £14,700? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You say you would have attended the branch that 5 day and spoken to Mrs Palmer -- 6 A. I believe so, yes. 7 Q. -- and made arrangements for an interview under 8 caution to take place on 6 February 2006? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is it right that Lester Chine acted as Second 11 Officer in the case for the purposes of that 12 interview? 13 A. He did. 14 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 90 of 15 Ms Allen's statement. That is page 26. You say 16 here: 17 "I do not recall specifically any issues 18 relating to the reliability of the Horizon 19 system. I have considered doc (POL00053009) 20 [which is the record of tape recorded interview] 21 and Mrs Palmer does comment within the interview 22 (tape 1) on the system going down and causing 23 a loss in which she repaid and some other issues 24 where the system is offline. I do not recall 25 whether this issue was recorded on any Helpdesk 41 1 logs and I am unable to recall if further 2 enquiries were made." 3 So, although you do not now recall Horizon 4 issues being raised by Mrs Palmer, you accept, 5 do you, that, looking at the record of taped 6 interview, she did raise Horizon issues 7 interview with you? 8 A. I think she raised one issue in relation to the 9 system going down in August 2005, and she 10 referred in another part of the interview to the 11 losses being £100 up or £100 down, which I took 12 to mean that one week she was £100 over and the 13 next week she was £100 short, which could have 14 been the result maybe as not counting the cash 15 properly. As an ex-counter clerk, it happened 16 to me, so that was my understanding of it. 17 Q. If we could look, please, at the transcript of 18 that first tape from the interview, which took 19 place on 6 February 2006. The document 20 reference is POL00069058. 21 Mrs Palmer declined to have a solicitor or 22 a friend present; is that right? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Could we go, please, to page 7 of this document. 25 About two-thirds of the way down the page, 42 1 Moderator 1, is that you, where we see 2 "Moderator 1" in the transcript? We have 3 Moderator 1 and Moderator 2? 4 A. Yes, I think that's me, yes. 5 Q. You refer to some sheets which Mrs Palmer had 6 given you on Friday -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- that was the day of the audit, was it? 9 A. I believe so. 10 Q. Mrs Palmer says: 11 "Okay, so, the cash is this." 12 You say: 13 "Right, if I could just, for the purpose of 14 the tape, explain, these are A4 sheets of paper, 15 they're listed from Thursday to Wednesday and 16 then we've got a breakdown of all the notes and 17 coin. It's written in pencil and there are -- " 18 Suzanne Palmer says: 19 "They're just, as we do them every evening. 20 The top here is scratchcards." 21 You say: 22 "You're putting 'S' and 'M'. Scratchcards? 23 Mrs Palmer says: 24 "Because that was, they sent me bundles of 25 error notices that they asked me to go through 43 1 and they said they needed them put -- and 2 I never agreed with them. I phoned several 3 hundred, million times. Well, no ... eight. 4 You say: 5 "So, on this particular sheet which, it's 6 not data or anything, you're pointing to -- 7 "That is scratchcards", Mrs Palmer says. 8 You say: 9 "Scratchcards and it says £2,500? 10 "Yes, and that was an error note and they 11 told me I had to put them through. I didn't 12 agree with them but she said they had to go 13 through the system. So, I just wrote them as 14 'odds' because I wanted somebody to come and 15 sort it out with me, but that's been going on 16 a little while." 17 Just pausing there, Mrs Palmer was telling 18 you that she had noted at the time on the 19 records that she disagreed with the error 20 notices she was receiving and she wanted someone 21 to come and sort it out for her, wasn't she? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Then you ask: 24 "How long has that been going on?" 25 She says: 44 1 "I can't think. Because I haven't been in 2 the post office, I can't think how far long it 3 went back. 4 "Has it gone months or weeks? 5 "Yes, months. 6 "Months?" 7 Mrs Palmer says: 8 "What they were, they were error notices. 9 They said they had been activated. Then they 10 sent me reams of paper and I tried add to sort 11 it at. I tried to I think them several times 12 but, obviously, they're only there 9.00 until 13 5.00 and I'm in the post office. I mean, I've 14 got all ... Sorry." 15 She says: 16 "I just can't believe this. Sorry. So, 17 I just wrote it like "Oh, well, it's written 18 every time. It's all' -- 19 "So, have you brought the error notices to 20 account, is that what you've done?", is your 21 question. 22 The reply: 23 "I've brought them to account because 24 they've told me to. There's no question. So, 25 I just put them through but there is nobody to 45 1 contact now. When Nick Kerr came, he's the guy. 2 I used to speak to Deirdre South, she was there, 3 but then they said that she doesn't deal with 4 that any more. There is actually nobody. You 5 have to dial through to the -- " 6 Moderator 2, is that Mr Chine? 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. "Helpline?" 9 You said: 10 "Helpline at the FBC?" 11 What does "FBC" stand for? 12 A. I think that should be NBSC. 13 Q. The response: 14 "Yes, then they couldn't help me. Then when 15 the office was closed for a week, we had no 16 online, no anything and I kept saying to them, 17 you know, 'I need some help here'. Nobody did 18 anything. I couldn't get anybody down to come 19 and see me. I mean, there is a loss that week 20 which, obviously, I put in, but they've never 21 explained to me what happened there. You know, 22 I feel a bit -- that's why it's there. The 23 £2,500 is cash that I put in. 24 "Right, so this is £2,500. This is 25 scratchcards that, you've talked to account and 46 1 you're basically carrying that as a cash figure 2 because you've not put the £2,500 cash in to 3 account for the error notice?" 4 Suzanne Palmer says, "No". 5 So Mrs Palmer was reporting to you, wasn't 6 she, that she was experiencing unexplained 7 losses and that she had sought help from the 8 helpline at the time. 9 A. She'd been sent transaction corrections for 10 scratchcards that she couldn't understand and 11 didn't accept. 12 Q. Could we go, please, to page 34 of this 13 document. About halfway down, Mr Chine asks 14 this: 15 "In terms of the £2,500 which, you've 16 explained, relates to error notices that you 17 brought to account, how long have you been 18 holding -- " 19 The response is: "A few months". 20 Mr Chine: 21 "A few months. What, we're talking about, 22 sort of, November? October, November time, 23 maybe?" 24 The response is: 25 "It might've been before that. What 47 1 happened was, they sent me loads of error 2 notices over scratchcards and I've got reels of 3 paper that they just sent me things through and 4 the lady, I tried to ring her and I said to her, 5 'I don't agree. I can't make out what is here. 6 I can't understand it'. I tried to sort it out 7 and I rang her, like, several times trying to 8 sort it out and she said, 'You know, you have to 9 bring them to account'. But I've never been 10 able to -- so, yes, I just put them through. 11 Then I thought I'd be able to sort it out at 12 some point. Not quite in this way." 13 Your question: 14 "So, you were holding them in the hope 15 something would come back?" 16 The response is: 17 "Yes, I mean, I know it's a larger amount 18 but it's like the £253. Like, they said to me 19 I could take that out because it's -- " 20 You say: 21 "It was a surplus for the week?" 22 She says: 23 "Yes, I mean, I just never touched it. 24 I know it isn't mine. I know that something is 25 going to come back somewhere. It's like, that's 48 1 what I said, when we had the week where the 2 whole system went down, it took them a week to 3 fix it. I had no online, but they still said 4 that I had to keep the post office open. I was 5 still taking in giros, couldn't put them through 6 the system, couldn't do anything. I was holding 7 a whole week and I kept ringing up and saying, 8 'I've got over £100,000-odd here'. You know, 9 when it noted that this is what -- that's what 10 I said, I've never had any back-up here." 11 You say: 12 "When was it this happened then? Do you 13 remember?" 14 Mrs Palmer says, "That was August. 15 "... and is it Mick Clerk? 16 "Mick Clerk, yes." 17 A. I think that should be maybe Nick Kerr. 18 Q. Nick Kerr, the name we saw earlier. 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. Suzanne Palmer says at the bottom: 21 "He even sent emails to them but, you know, 22 lots of them because there was a shortage that 23 week and they just said 'Oh, you know, you've 24 got to put that in'. Which obviously I just 25 did. I mean, I just said, 'Surely these errors 49 1 will come back?' I mean, the system went wrong 2 on the Saturday, I rang the helpline straight 3 away. They said they'd get somebody out on 4 Monday. They sent somebody Monday who didn't 5 have the right box part. He went away and came 6 back with the wrong part. Then I rang and said, 7 'What do we do?' They said, "Well, just carry 8 on taking'. I said, 'But Swallow Aquatics and 9 all the businessmen', I've got no online 10 banking. I can't do any off-reports, I can't do 11 anything'. I had to carry on for a week and 12 then on Wednesday, they finally brought the 13 right box for the computer but didn't bring 14 a printer that was compatible with it. So, 15 I couldn't even do the office balance. So, they 16 made me shut on the Thursday. Then he came with 17 the printer on the Thursday they said, they're 18 not allowed to carry ink ..." 19 She goes on: 20 "... I kept ringing people to say to them, 21 you know, 'I need help here. Somebody's got 22 to -- I've got all this money, I've got all of 23 these giros not going through the accounts. 24 Everything is a mess' ... it might have been 25 after -- hang on, forgotten where I was going 50 1 there, badgering on, but that's what I'm saying. 2 Here, that's what I said, when, I'm not sure if 3 it's £500 or £600 that was in error that week. 4 I kept thinking, 'Well, the errors are going to 5 come back'. You know, like, they send you 6 an error notice? Like with these, I thought, 7 'They've sent me an error but it will come 8 [back]." 9 You say: 10 "You think you'd get a compensating one?" 11 Suzanne Palmer says, "Yes". 12 Moderator 2 goes on to ask about error 13 notices and whether they're sent usually because 14 you've made mistakes in previous weeks, and 15 there's discussion down that page about the time 16 frame for error notices, about eight weeks being 17 suggested by Mrs Palmer. 18 At the bottom of the page, Suzanne Palmer 19 says: 20 "So, when I'm thinking, that's what I said, 21 like, with the surplus. They said to me, 'Well, 22 you've taken it out'. I said 'Well, I know it's 23 not mine. It's not my money. I know that'." 24 So she's saying here that there's been 25 a surplus, she's been told she can take it out 51 1 of the till but she doesn't want to because she 2 thinks it's not right and it's an error; is that 3 right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Then Moderator 2, so Mr Chine: 6 "For that £2,500, had you had £2,500 worth 7 of surpluses in the, sort of, months prior to 8 receiving those error notices?" 9 She says: "No. 10 "You haven't? 11 "That's what I said to you. I mean, I still 12 have, you've seen, I've got it all in the post 13 office, I've still got everything that relates 14 to that period. I've just got pages and pages 15 of why." 16 Then you ask: 17 "What are the losses like at the office, 18 generally?" 19 She says. 20 "Well, it goes from £100 over to £100 21 under." 22 I think this is what you were referring to 23 earlier when you were recalling -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- what you were being told about. You say: 52 1 "A bit up and down, are they?" 2 At the bottom, Mrs Palmer says: 3 "Yes, they're a bit erratic, but it seems 4 to -- like three weeks ago we balanced and all 5 week, I haven't got the figures here, but we 6 were, like, running £100 wrong and I said to Mo, 7 'Look, we'll count all of the money again, we'll 8 unbag all of the money that we've done up to run 9 out, we'll count it all again'. Then, just on 10 the Wednesday, I suppose it could could've been 11 in the stamps, couldn't it? But it then comes 12 back, are you with me? It's, sort of, like, one 13 overtakes the other. So, like, where I was £250 14 over and they said to me, I should've taken that 15 out to make my balance correct -- " 16 Moderator 1: "Yes". 17 Moderator 2: 18 "Yes, that's what you should do." 19 So Mrs Palmer was giving a detailed account 20 here, wasn't she, of the technical problems she 21 was experiencing with the Horizon system, and 22 the difficulty she was having balancing over 23 a period of months? 24 A. She had indicated she had had issues, yes. 25 Q. She gave you a particular month when she kept 53 1 ringing up the helpline and that was August of 2 the previous year, wasn't it? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you think at the time that the technical 5 difficulties and balancing problems Mrs Palmer 6 was experiencing with the Horizon system were 7 relevant to your investigation? 8 A. I was not aware of any issues with the Horizon 9 system. 10 Q. But you were being told, weren't you, that she 11 was having issues with the Horizon system, and 12 particularly that she'd been having balancing 13 issues? 14 A. At one point in August she had an issue, yes. 15 Q. Well, there are a number of references in the 16 transcript we've just looked at to things being 17 out, being up or down. 18 A. Yes, there were but, as I explained, that, quite 19 often, when you're balancing yourself, as I've 20 experienced myself as a counter clerk, when 21 you're counting your cash and you're entering it 22 into the system, you can't see your own 23 mistakes. So I could keep entering the same 24 mistake every time, the following week, 25 obviously, it will get rectified, which is where 54 1 I think I understood her balancing £100 up, £100 2 down would have come into it. 3 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 4 reference POL00053007. This is the report that 5 you completed for Legal Services in Mrs Palmer's 6 case. Going, please, to page 6 of this 7 document, towards the bottom we see your name 8 and the date of the report, 20 February 2006. 9 A. Yeah. 10 Q. Going back, please, to the first page and 11 scrolling down a little, please, you set out, 12 first of all, some of the background to the 13 interview conducted. Going over of the page, 14 please, and about halfway down you start to 15 address the interview of 6 February 2006. 16 You say in that paragraph that you are 17 enclosing a transcript of the interview. So is 18 it right that you provided the Criminal Law Team 19 with a transcript of the interview that we've 20 just looked at? 21 A. I did, yes. 22 Q. Going over the page, please, the last paragraph: 23 "Mrs Palmer was asked to explain the entries 24 made on the daily record sheets. She claimed 25 that the £2,500 entry that there is each day is 55 1 related to scratchcard error notices. Some 2 months ago now she received a number of error 3 notices related to scratchcards. She was unsure 4 of why she had received them and requested 5 assistance from the Post Office for dealing with 6 this problem. Nobody visited the office and she 7 was informed that they had to be brought to 8 account immediately. As instructed Mrs Palmer 9 processed the error notices. In order to do so 10 as she did not have sufficient funds to pay for 11 the error notices, she was carrying the amount 12 of £2,500 in her daily cash on hand. She 13 claimed that she believed a further error notice 14 would be received and that it would compensate 15 for the loss. To date this has not been the 16 case." 17 Then going over the page, please, to the 18 last paragraph. Scrolling down, please: 19 "At the present time it is not known when 20 the error notices were processed so I am unable 21 to identify the date at which Mrs Palmer 22 inflated her cash-on-hand figure by £2,500. 23 Again she did not have the funds to cover this 24 and continually accounted for this in the cash 25 hoping for a compensating error notice. 56 1 However, she admitted that error notices were 2 usually received within 8 weeks and she has been 3 holding this amount for many months." 4 You have had a chance to read this report 5 for the purposes of preparing your statement. 6 Would you agree that there is no reference in 7 this report to the wider technical problems and 8 balancing issues which Mrs Palmer raised in her 9 interview with you? 10 A. Not within the report there aren't but there 11 are -- obviously, the taped transcript was 12 provided for the Legal Team and the Designated 13 Prosecution Authority to consider when making 14 the decision. 15 Q. Why didn't you include them in the report, 16 knowing that this would be the key document 17 considered by the Criminal Law Team when they 18 advised on charge and prosecution? 19 A. Because, at the time, I didn't believe there was 20 an issue with the Horizon system. I believed 21 that the one-off incident in August -- the 22 incident in August was a one-off and the issues, 23 as explained with the balancing up and down, 24 were compensating errors, mistakes with counting 25 cash or stock. 57 1 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 90 that 2 you do not recall whether system issues reported 3 by Mrs Palmer were recorded on any Helpdesk 4 logs. There is no reference in this report to 5 you having made any enquiries of any helplines 6 by this stage? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. We'll come on to what happened later. Why 9 didn't you contact the helplines, specifically 10 the NBSC and Horizon Helpdesk, following your 11 interview with Mrs Palmer and before submitting 12 your report to the Criminal Law Team? 13 A. Obviously, this was almost 18 years ago now, so 14 it's quite hard to recall back then. But 15 I believe the audit shortage itself was 16 explained, as in the £9,000-odd of 17 non-accounting for sales of scratchcards, money 18 used to put into the personal ATM machine and, 19 obviously, the transaction correction notices. 20 So, as far as the way I viewed it, the loss was 21 accounted for, if that makes sense. 22 Q. Did you consider seeking ARQ data from Fujitsu 23 following your interview with Mrs Palmer and 24 before submitting your report to the Criminal 25 Law Team? 58 1 A. I don't think I obtained the logs before but 2 I do think I've obtained them after. 3 Q. We'll come on to what was obtained for the trial 4 in due course but, just in terms of this stage, 5 before submitting your report to the Criminal 6 Law Team, did it occur to you or did you 7 consider whether you should be asking Fujitsu 8 for ARQ data? 9 A. I don't recall what I was thinking at that time. 10 Q. Given what Mrs Palmer was telling you about the 11 technical difficulties she was experiencing and 12 the balancing problems she was having, did you 13 consider raising with anyone the question of 14 whether there should be any investigation into 15 the operation of the Horizon system in 16 Mrs Palmer's branch? 17 A. No. 18 MS PRICE: Sir, I wonder if that's a convenient 19 moment for the morning break? 20 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. Are we on a reasonable time 21 schedule? 22 MS PRICE: Yes, sir, we are. 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Very good. Do you want 24 15 minutes? 25 MS PRICE: Just 15 minutes, please, sir. 59 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So what time will that be please? 2 MS PRICE: I think that takes us to 11.35. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. 11.35 then please. 4 (11.22 am) 5 (A short break) 6 (11.35 am) 7 MS PRICE: Hello, sir, can you see and hear us? 8 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much. 9 MS PRICE: Could we have on screen, please, document 10 reference POL00052990. Going to the second 11 page, please, we can see this is from Jarnail 12 Singh, senior lawyer with the Criminal Law Team. 13 Going back to page 1, please. We can see it 14 is dated 10 March 2006. It is sent to the 15 Investigation Team and copied to you. Mr Singh 16 says this: 17 "Noted thank you. 18 "I am of the opinion that there is 19 sufficient evidence to afford a realistic 20 prospect of conviction of Miss Palmer for the 21 offences of false accounting. 22 "This case is in my opinion more suitable 23 for trial in the Crown Court in view of the 24 deficiency in the account of £14,712.11. Once 25 the decision has been made please proceed to 60 1 obtain summonses. 2 "No further statements need to be obtained 3 at this stage." 4 Mr Singh then goes on to deal with evidence 5 which would be needed in the event that the 6 matter were to proceed to trial. He lists: 7 "1. Statement from the Auditors. 8 "2. Statement dealing with Mrs Palmer's 9 appointment at the office as the subpostmistress 10 producing a copy of the relevant extract of 11 Mrs Palmer's contract showing it is not 12 permitted to use Post Office Limited funds. 13 "3. Statement from Lisa Allen and Chester 14 [sic] Chine outlining their total involvement in 15 the matter and producing the relevant exhibits 16 for the weeks charged. 17 "4. Any other statements the Officers 18 consider relevant." 19 So Mr Singh did not ask you to make any 20 enquiries of the helplines or to obtain any 21 audit data from Fujitsu at this stage, did he? 22 A. Not at that stage, no. 23 Q. Could we have on screen, please, POL00053003. 24 This is a memo dated 26 July 2006. Scrolling 25 down, please, it is from Ms Andrews, from the 61 1 Criminal Law Team. It is again sent to the 2 Investigation Team, scrolling up please 3 a little, and copied to you. It reads, as 4 follows: 5 "The Brief for the Prosecution has been sent 6 to Mr Stephen John of Counsel. A copy of the 7 Indictment is enclosed herewith the for your 8 information. 9 "A copy of Counsel's Advice on Evidence is 10 also attached. I would be grateful if you could 11 deal with the matters raised at paragraphs 3 and 12 4." 13 Could we have on screen, please, counsel's 14 advice referred into this memo. The reference 15 is POL00053008. Going, please, down to 16 paragraph 3, "Further Inquiries": 17 "There are a few issues arising from the 18 papers which I would be grateful to have 19 answering by the Investigation Manager, and 20 appropriate statements made and served to 21 confirm: 22 "a) To whom would the Defendant report 23 scratchcard errors? Are any records kept? If 24 so, they should be made available. 25 "b) When were the error notices to which the 62 1 defendant refers in interview processed? The IM 2 could not supply this answer when her report was 3 submitted. 4 "c) Is there any record of the Defendant's 5 training? Experience has shown that statement 6 to the effect that 'training would have been 7 given' are of no value ..." 8 Then "Further Evidence" at 4: 9 "The following matters of evidence should, 10 please, be attended to: 11 "a) Does the Counter Operations Manual 12 contain a section which deals with specifically 13 how scratchcard sales should be dealt with (on 14 Horizon)? If so, the relevant portion needs to 15 be copied and served with a supporting 16 statement. 17 "b) The SPM contract signed by the Defendant 18 should be obtained, copied and served as above. 19 "c) A statement should be obtained from Nick 20 Kerr to deal with the matters raised in 21 interview at [the relevant page references]." 22 At this stage, counsel advises that further 23 evidence needs to be obtained. Would it have 24 been you who actioned his requests? 25 A. Yes, it would. 63 1 Q. Mrs Palmer's case proceeded to trial. You don't 2 mention in your statement having any involvement 3 in the trial but further material relating to 4 Mrs Palmer's case has been made available to you 5 since completing your statement. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you now recall that you made two statements 8 for the purposes of the trial and attended court 9 to give evidence? 10 A. I do. 11 Q. Is it right that you were present for the whole 12 of Mrs Palmer's trial? 13 A. I would imagine I would be but I don't recall 14 that, but I should have been there, yes, 15 throughout the whole trial. 16 Q. Do you recall the trial at all? 17 A. Not specifically, no. 18 Q. Could we have on screen, please, the second of 19 the statements you made for the trial. The 20 reference is RMG00000254. This statement is 21 an unsigned draft, dated 11 September 2006. We 22 have been unable to locate the final signed 23 version. Have you had a chance to read this 24 statement recently? 25 A. Can I have a look at it? 64 1 Q. Of course. If we can just scroll down. I'll 2 take you through what it covers. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Just to refresh your memory as to which one it 5 is, there was an earlier statement from June 6 2006, which was in the papers you've now been 7 provided with -- 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. -- and this was a further statement from 10 September 2006. 11 (Pause) 12 If I take you through the relevant sections 13 and you just say if you need more time to look 14 at it. 15 A. Okay, yeah. 16 Q. You deal, first of all, in this statement with 17 the procedure applying to Camelot Scratchcards. 18 You set out there that you produce as an item 19 LJA/10, which is the Counter Operations Manual 20 relating to Camelot Scratchcards, and then you 21 explain which sections there are in that 22 extract. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Going over the page, please. You say: 25 "I have now obtained a Fujitsu log for The 65 1 Grange SPSO from 15 to 21 September 2005 that 2 I produce as item LJA/11." 3 It says: 4 "This log shows all the transactions entered 5 into the Horizon computer system during these 6 dates." 7 You produce a further extract from the log. 8 So the log you obtained covers the period of 9 one week, is that right, from 15 to 21 September 10 2005? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. It appears from what follows, and please do take 13 the time to -- we can go through this, but do 14 cast an eye down, and going over the page, 15 please. It appears from what follows that the 16 purpose of obtaining the log for this week was 17 to show the entry of six error notices on to the 18 system; is that right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. "From item LJA/12, it can be seen that there are 21 six charge error notices entered by user SPA004 22 on 20 September ... These six charge error 23 notices amount to £2,520 and are the liability 24 of the subpostmistress to pay." 25 You say, having described what the log 66 1 shows: 2 "Therefore it was the responsibility of 3 Mrs Palmer to pay this amount to Post Office 4 Limited at the time of entering the error 5 notices on 20 September 2005. It would appear 6 that Mrs Palmer has taken cash out of the Post 7 Office relating to the claim error notice but 8 has not paid the £2,520 that she owed to Post 9 Office Limited for the charge error notice." 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is it right that you only ever requested from 12 Fujitsu a log covering the period of the entry 13 of the error notices covered in this statement 14 and not for any wider period? 15 A. I don't recall what logs were requested at the 16 time but that log was obviously only for one 17 week, so that was one request, but I don't 18 recall if there was any other requests made. 19 Q. Given the wider issues being raised by 20 Mrs Palmer about the Horizon system and being 21 mindful that August 2005, for example, was 22 a month that was raised as a point when she was 23 calling for help, why was ARQ data not requested 24 for a longer period? 25 A. Given the time, I don't recall why. 67 1 Q. In the final paragraph of the statement, you say 2 this: 3 "I have contacted Security at Camelot and 4 there are no records of Mrs Palmer contacting 5 them querying any error notices. Likewise 6 I have contacted both Chesterfield who raise the 7 error notices and the Post Office National 8 Business Service Centre (NBSC), and there are no 9 records of any calls made relating to Camelot 10 Scratchcard or error notices relating to 11 scratchcards." 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Did you read through the NBSC logs which were 14 obtained for the purposes of the trial by Julie 15 Edgely who exhibited them? 16 A. Sorry, did I read thorough? 17 Q. Did you read through the NBSC logs, which were 18 obtained for the trial and exhibited by Julie 19 Edgely? 20 A. I would have thought so, yes. 21 Q. Have you had a chance to read through the log of 22 NBSC calls which has been disclosed since you 23 made your statement, as part of the more recent 24 documentation? 25 A. I have. 68 1 Q. You are specific here in saying there were no 2 records of calls relating to scratchcards. 3 There were calls made reporting issues with the 4 Horizon system and with balancing though, 5 weren't there? We'll have a look at those. 6 So could we have on screen, please, document 7 reference RMG00000223. There are 57 log entries 8 relating to Mrs Palmer's branch on this log, by 9 my count. 10 Going, please, to the month of August 2005 11 the month that was raised interview, the first 12 entry is at line 29, 10 August 2005. 13 That's is, line 29. 14 So the detailed description column, which is 15 column E, for the 10 August first entry there, 16 says: 17 "How do we redeem a rem shortage out of 18 suspense." 19 Then the entry below says this: 20 "Incorrect stock descrep return form office 21 have remmed out stock." 22 Then in the resolution column, which is 23 column G: 24 "Advised office to check to see if she had 25 a minus figure advised to adjust the stock to 69 1 correct amount then go to trial balance." 2 Are scratchcards counted as stock? 3 A. They are once they've been activated. 4 Q. So although the very few words used by the maker 5 of this log do not use the word "scratchcard" 6 why do you assume this call did not relate to 7 scratchcards? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. The 17 entries which follow are all dated August 10 2005. They set out the technical problems which 11 Mrs Palmer was encountering with the system, 12 don't they? We don't need to go through them 13 line by line but if you just cast an eye down? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Just scrolling down, please, if we can, you'll 16 see a reference on 18 August there to the 17 trouble with the printer that she was talking 18 about. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Then 19 August: 21 "Horizon system down stopped collection. 22 Unable to rem out. Too much cash now in the 23 office." 24 19th: 25 "PM says she will hold the money in the 70 1 office as no one has called back from service 2 support. 3 "... system failure is in cap ..." 4 "... printer problems." 5 23 August: 6 "PM reported fault on system ... Engineer 7 brought printer but not accessories." 8 Going down again, another issue with trying 9 to have printer fixed. 10 So those are, aren't they, the technical 11 problems which Mrs Palmer was describing in the 12 interview; that log directly supports what she 13 was saying about what she was reporting in 14 August 2005. 15 A. Some of the issues on that log are related to 16 Horizon, yes. 17 Q. Had you requested the NBSC call logs when 18 Mrs Palmer first raised this issue in the 19 interview, they would have corroborated the 20 account she gave interview, wouldn't they, of 21 the problems she was experiencing and the 22 attempts she made in August 2005 to resolve 23 them? 24 A. There was an issue in 2005, which, obviously, 25 you can see that she has tried to resolve, yes. 71 1 Q. Do you think this might have put a different 2 complexion on the case, if the logs had been 3 obtained and looked at alongside her account 4 from the outset? 5 A. I think the transaction corrections were in 6 relation to transactions prior to August 2005, 7 if I believe. They were something like end of 8 April, maybe May time. So before the issue that 9 she's reported in August. 10 Q. In circumstances where Mrs Palmer was giving you 11 an account of having difficulties and saying 12 there were technical problems and she was 13 experiencing balancing issues, there was 14 an entry about stock and a discrepancy in stock. 15 The fact that there was a log supporting what 16 she was saying to you, would that have made any 17 difference to your assessment of the case? 18 A. Given the time, I wouldn't be able to answer 19 that now. 20 Q. Contacting the helplines was a reasonable line 21 of inquiry which you should have pursued at the 22 outset of the case, wasn't it? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. It was also a reasonable line of inquiry to 25 request audit data from Fujitsu in this case, 72 1 wasn't it? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you accept that it was a failing in your 4 investigation that you did not pursue those 5 lines of inquiry? 6 A. I'm not sure if having obtained them would have 7 assisted any further but, obviously, having the 8 data would have been, I suppose, making, 9 I suppose, all reasonable lines of inquiry. 10 Q. You've said that you don't specifically recall 11 Mrs Palmer's trial. But on one specific point, 12 Mrs Palmer remembers there being a question from 13 the jury which was read out on the morning of 14 the third day, in which the jury asked what 15 Mrs Palmer was supposed to do if she didn't 16 agree the figure that Horizon had produced. Do 17 you recall that? 18 A. I don't, no. 19 Q. Mrs Palmer recalls that neither the prosecuting 20 barrister nor anyone from the Post Office had 21 an answer to that question. Again, do you 22 recall any discussion of that at court? 23 A. I don't, no. 24 Q. Mrs Palmer was found not guilty on all three 25 counts of false accounting by the jury. The 73 1 case closure report, which has been provided to 2 you quite recently, records that the jury 3 returned their verdict after 35 minutes. 4 Mrs Palmer recalls it being less time than that. 5 Is that something you recall, the speed with 6 which the jury returned the not guilty verdict? 7 A. I don't recall that, no. 8 Q. We have heard evidence from Rob Wilson who was 9 the Head of the Criminal Law Team, that there 10 would usually be a review done by the Post 11 Office where an acquittal was reported in a case 12 it had prosecuted. First of all, do you recall 13 that being right, that where there was 14 an acquittal, there was a review done by the 15 Post Office? 16 A. I don't recall. 17 Q. Do you recall there being any such review 18 following the outcome in Mrs Palmer's case? 19 A. I don't, no. 20 Q. I'd like to turn, please, to the events in 2010 21 and 2011. Ms Allen, you were sent a document by 22 the Inquiry for the purposes of making your 23 statement, which relates to the duplication of 24 transaction records in ARQ returns, and you 25 commented on that document at paragraph 76 of 74 1 your statement and said that you didn't recall 2 the issue. 3 More recently, the Inquiry has provided you 4 with two further documents relating to that 5 issue. Could we have one of those on screen, 6 please. The document reference is POL00169416. 7 The top email here is an email from Jon Longman 8 to you, dated 15 July 2010. It is entitled: 9 "[Forward]: Duplication of Transaction 10 Records in ARQ Returns." 11 Would you agree it is forwarding on to you 12 the email chain which follows further down the 13 page? 14 A. It would appear so, yes. 15 Q. The email below is dated 2 July 2010. It is 16 from Jane Owen to Jon Longman, forwarding to Jon 17 Longman the chain beneath that. 18 Over the page, please, we have an email from 19 Jane Owen, also dated 2 July 2010 to Jason 20 Collins and Andrew Daley, copied to Mark 21 Dinsdale. It reads: 22 "Dear Both 23 "Please see email below from Penny Thomas. 24 "Mark, Alan Simpson and myself have had 25 a conference call today to look at potential 75 1 problems that this is likely to cause. Firstly 2 the suggested workaround will need to be put to 3 our Legal Team and until that has been agreed, 4 any further ARQ requests, including those which 5 have already been submitted, will be suspended. 6 "There are 2 cases currently with the 7 court -- West Byfleet and Porters Avenue, and 8 I will speak to Lisa and Jon about these as we 9 need to know what in the way of ARQs and the 10 corresponding statements have been presented to 11 court. In addition, I have identified the 12 following offices as ones that could potentially 13 have already had information presented to the 14 court." 15 Has sight of this email chain helped at all 16 with your recollection of this issue? 17 A. I don't recall this at all. 18 Q. The issue was described in the emails which 19 follow this one. Have you had a chance to read 20 through the email chain? 21 A. I believe I have, if you can scroll up and have 22 a look at it. 23 Q. If you can just scroll down so we can see. Just 24 scrolling down through, so that Ms Allen can see 25 which email chain this is. 76 1 If we just stop there, please, going 2 a little further up, would it be a fair summary 3 to say that the issue being reported by Penny 4 Thomas was a number of recent ARQ returns for 5 use in prosecutions contained duplicated 6 transaction records? 7 A. I believe so, yes. 8 Q. What was your understanding, if you can say, of 9 why you were being informed of the issue 10 directly by Jon Longman; was it because of your 11 involvement in either the West Byfleet or the 12 Porters Avenue case? 13 If it assists, West Byfleet was the Seema 14 Misra case and Porters Avenue was the Jerry Hosi 15 case. 16 A. I would imagine it was because of the Jerry Hosi 17 case because I wasn't actually involved in the 18 Seema Misra case. I obviously did attend for 19 the purposes of searching but I had no 20 involvement after that point. So I would 21 imagine it was in relation to the Hosi case. 22 Q. Can you recall how the question of what data had 23 been presented to the court in those two cases 24 and whether it was accurate was resolved? 25 A. I don't recall. 77 1 Q. If entries were being duplicated, that would 2 affect the integrity of the audit data, wouldn't 3 it? 4 A. Potentially, although I think from reading the 5 emails, I think maybe Penny Thomas has said that 6 it didn't affect -- it was just -- didn't affect 7 the balances or anything, it was just duplicate 8 transactions put into the log, or something 9 along those lines. 10 Q. The data being produced to the court was 11 incorrect, wasn't it, because it contained 12 duplicate entries? 13 A. It was duplicated, yes. 14 Q. Did that concern you at the time, that incorrect 15 data might have been provided to the court in 16 support of prosecutions by the Post Office? 17 A. I don't recall this. 18 Q. You just can't recall? 19 A. No, I don't recall it at all. 20 Q. Thank you. That document can come down now. 21 You say in your statement that your 22 involvement in the Seema Misra case was limited 23 to assisting Jon Longman, the Officer in the 24 Case, with searches of Ms Misra's home address. 25 I'd just like to ask you about one document 78 1 which has been provided to you recently by the 2 Inquiry. 3 Could we have that on screen, please. It's 4 document reference POL00169419. This is 5 an email dated 1 October 2010, from Jon Longman 6 to Steve Bradshaw and to you. It is forwarding 7 on an email chain about the Seema Misra case. 8 Do you know why you were being sent a copy 9 of the defence expert's report in the case? 10 That appears to be what is happening here. 11 We can go to it if we need to but the 12 attachment to this email was one of the reports 13 from the expert on behalf of the defence. 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Having seen the emails in this email chain, do 16 you recall being aware that Ms Misra was 17 challenging the integrity of the Horizon system 18 and attributing shortfalls to it? 19 A. I was aware of that, yes. 20 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 21 reference POL00169422. This is an email from 22 Jane Owen to you and a number of others. It is 23 dated 18 January 2011. The subject line is 24 "Urgent update required", and Ms Owen's email 25 reads: 79 1 "Dear All 2 "Can I please ask for your help urgently. 3 I have been asked to provide an update on the 4 attached cases where Horizon integrity has come 5 into question and need the information by 6 tomorrow. 7 "I have checked against the spreadsheet but 8 am unable to cover off the 'gaps' which are 9 namely 10 "Court case details. 11 "Result 12 "Accused's defence (exactly). 13 "Could you either add into the spreadsheet 14 using bright pink font as I have done in the 15 recoveries column or just pop updates on 16 an email and I will collate." 17 Ms Owen attached a spreadsheet. Could we 18 have that on screen, please, it's POL00169423. 19 If we can just scroll down, so we can see at 20 a glance the entries on here. 21 On my count, this spreadsheet lists 20 cases 22 where Horizon integrity has come into question, 23 as Ms Owen described it. Ms Misra's case is one 24 of these. So it would appear that, by January 25 2011, you and a number of others were being made 80 1 aware there were at least 20 cases where Horizon 2 integrity had come into question; is that right? 3 A. I don't recall this document but, yes, looking 4 at it, I would have been aware. 5 Q. Do you recall receiving information about the 6 number of cases where Horizon integrity was 7 being challenged? 8 A. I don't, no. 9 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 10 reference POL00167369. This is an email from 11 Graham Ward to a list of recipients including 12 you. It is dated 14 April 2011. The subject 13 line is "Credence versus Fujitsu". 14 Mr Ward says this in his email: 15 "All 16 "If anyone has any evidence of disparities 17 between Fujitsu and Credence transaction data, 18 please get in touch (eg timing issues ... 19 session numbers not matching for postage label 20 transactions etc)." 21 What was your understanding of why this 22 enquiry was being made of you? 23 A. I don't recall this request. 24 Q. Do you recall being aware of any issue about 25 a discrepancy or disparity between Fujitsu and 81 1 Credence transaction data? 2 A. I don't, no. 3 Q. This would potentially be a significant issue, 4 would it not, where Investigators were relying 5 on Credence data, rather than having obtained 6 ARQ data? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. You don't recall it now but do you think you 9 would have been concerned at the time about this 10 issue? 11 A. Potentially, yes. 12 Q. Because it would make you question, wouldn't it, 13 the reliability of the Credence data you were 14 looking at to prove a loss and might make you 15 more inclined to request further data? 16 A. Possibly, yes. 17 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 108 18 of Ms Allen's statement. That's page 32. You 19 say here: 20 "I believed the Horizon system to be robust 21 as documented in the relevant Fujitsu statements 22 provided." 23 You did not have a Fujitsu statement in 24 every case you were involved in where shortfalls 25 were being attributed to problems with the 82 1 Horizon system, did you? 2 A. Probably not, no. 3 Q. Were you aware of a general message coming from 4 within the Post Office, to the effect that the 5 Horizon system was robust? 6 A. I don't know where the information came from, 7 but we was led to believe that there was no 8 issues with the Horizon system. 9 Q. When you say you were led to believe, who by? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. Was it within the Security Team or wider than 12 that? 13 A. I don't believe anybody in the Security Team 14 thought there was an issue with the Horizon 15 system and, obviously, when we had statements 16 from Fujitsu saying that the system was robust, 17 we never challenged it. 18 Q. You say you never challenged it but, given the 19 mounting number of cases in which Horizon 20 integrity was being raised and thinking back to 21 that January 2011 email with the 20 cases, do 22 you think that you should have questioned it or 23 challenged it, the party line that Horizon was 24 robust? 25 A. Possibly, but I don't know how we would have 83 1 gone about challenging that, as, obviously, we 2 was getting the information from what we 3 believed was an expert within Fujitsu, so 4 I would have had no understanding of the 5 Fujitsu -- of the workings of the Horizon 6 system. 7 Q. Regardless of what you were being led to believe 8 about whether the Horizon system was robust, do 9 you accept that you were under a duty as 10 an Investigator to pursue reasonable lines of 11 inquiry? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What was a reasonable line of inquiry was your 14 call, wasn't it, nobody else's? 15 A. It was. 16 Q. So would you accept that reassurance from the 17 business about Horizon could not have justified 18 a decision not to pursue an otherwise reasonable 19 line of inquiry? 20 A. Well, I think the problem was we went to the 21 expert to get the statement. The statement said 22 the system was robust and we had no reason to 23 disbelieve them. So I don't think we would have 24 challenged it because we believed what they were 25 saying. 84 1 Q. What about the cases where no further data was 2 sought from Fujitsu, and certainly no statement 3 was obtained, where that line of inquiry simply 4 wasn't pursued because you assumed the Horizon 5 system was robust? 6 If a subpostmaster raised with you interview 7 problems with Horizon, and attributed shortfalls 8 to it, how do you justify not pursuing the line 9 of inquiry -- we went over this earlier -- in 10 terms of going to the helpline or obtaining 11 data? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. What I'm saying is: a business message that 14 Horizon was robust, that simply couldn't have 15 justified a decision not to pursue otherwise 16 reasonable lines of inquiry, could it? 17 A. Maybe in hindsight we should have requested 18 Fujitsu logs in all cases to assist. 19 MS PRICE: Sir, those are all the questions I have 20 for Ms Allen. Do you have any questions before 21 I turn to Core Participants? 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, thank you. No. 23 MS PRICE: I think Mr Jacobs has questions, sir. 24 Questioned by MR JACOBS 25 MR JACOBS: Ms Allen, I appear for 156 85 1 subpostmasters, all of whom have fallen foul of 2 the Post Office in relation to the Horizon 3 system and one of whom is Suzanne Palmer, who 4 sits to my left, who you investigated, and we 5 have been dealing with that in your evidence 6 this morning. 7 Now, this morning you accepted four things: 8 you accepted where subpostmasters allege that 9 shortfalls are due to problems with Horizon, 10 a reasonable line of inquiry would be to seek 11 audit data to explore whether that data might 12 support what the subpostmaster says, and you 13 agreed that was right. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You also accepted and acknowledged, when 16 Ms Price took you through the interview, that 17 Ms Palmer raised Horizon integrity issues at her 18 interview. 19 A. Yes, she raised issues with the Horizon system. 20 Q. You requested no data from Fujitsu, you 21 requested no data to check the integrity of the 22 Horizon terminal at her branch; that's right, 23 isn't it? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You omitted to mention the matter in your 86 1 investigation report? 2 A. It wasn't in the report but it was in the taped 3 transcript that was provided. 4 Q. Yes, but it wasn't in your report? 5 A. No, it wasn't in my report. 6 Q. Your investigation was inadequate, wasn't it? 7 Do you accept that now? 8 A. It was inadequate? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. No. I don't accept that. 11 Q. Well, it was inadequate because you failed to 12 act in accordance with your duty as 13 an Investigator to conduct reasonable lines of 14 inquiry. Surely you must accept that? 15 A. There probably were more reasonable lines of 16 inquiry I could have made but I think I made the 17 reasonable lines of inquiry for the case at that 18 time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. 19 Q. I don't want to go round in circles but you've 20 accepted that, where a subpostmaster or mistress 21 alleges shortfalls in the Horizon system, it is 22 a reasonable line of inquiry to request data to 23 support what the subpostmaster is saying and you 24 didn't do that and you didn't refer to it in 25 your report: so you didn't carry who reasonable 87 1 lines of inquiry in this investigation, those 2 enquiries you did not undertake? 3 A. In this investigation, it wasn't a cash loss. 4 This investigation was related to scratchcards, 5 error notices and money placed into a private 6 ATM machine. 7 Q. The jury didn't accept that, did they? 8 A. They didn't, no. 9 Q. To be frank, my client finds it extraordinary 10 that you do not remember attending her trial. 11 You were there for three days. You gave 12 evidence at her trial. You were there, as 13 Ms Price has said, when the jury asked 14 a question "What is Mrs Palmer supposed to do if 15 she doesn't agree with the Horizon system?" You 16 and the Legal Team were floundering, you 17 couldn't answer that question, and the jury 18 acquitted my client between 10 and 35 minutes. 19 Surely you must remember that? 20 A. I remember going to Southend Crown Court but 21 I don't actually remember the trial. 22 Q. Do you remember that there was a petition with 23 600 signatures attesting to Mrs Palmer's good 24 character presented at the hearing? 25 A. I've read about it in documents. 88 1 Q. Are you aware that Post Office put pressure on 2 Mrs Palmer's assistant not to give evidence to 3 support her case because they said they might 4 investigate her? Are you aware of anything 5 surrounding that? 6 A. I've seen that in a document but I am not aware 7 of that at all, no. 8 Q. Do you remember, between the audit and 9 Mrs Palmer's interview with you, going to her 10 shop, having an interview with her in her stock 11 room, because she wasn't allowed into her post 12 office, having a meeting with her and telling 13 her that, if she paid the money back, the Post 14 Office probably wouldn't prosecute? 15 A. No, I don't, but I believe at that time she'd 16 already written a cheque and gave it to the 17 Auditors, possibly. But I wouldn't have said 18 that because that's not a decision that I make. 19 Q. Well, you said, in your view, you believed that 20 if she paid the money back, the Post Office 21 probably wouldn't prosecute? 22 A. I wouldn't say that because it's not my decision 23 to make. 24 Q. She was worried that her cheque might bounce and 25 so she came to the interview with you and 89 1 Mr Chine with £9,000 in a bag, do you remember 2 that? 3 A. I do recall her having some money with her, yes. 4 Q. Do you remember, three months after the 5 interview, phoning her up and saying, "Oh, 6 Mrs Palmer, not good news for you. They're 7 going to prosecute you"; do you recall using 8 those words? 9 A. I don't, no. 10 Q. Mrs Palmer recalls that very well. Do you 11 accept that that would not have been 12 an appropriate for professional way to behave? 13 A. I don't think I would have said it the way 14 you've put it, no. 15 Q. Do you accept an Investigator saying those words 16 would not have been appropriate and would not 17 have been professional? 18 A. No, it wouldn't have been professional. 19 Q. Mrs Palmer was acquitted, she was completely 20 vindicated. We understand that there was no 21 review into her case, notwithstanding that the 22 Post Office position of Horizon being robust was 23 thoroughly disbelieved by the jury. She wasn't 24 reinstated. She was bankrupt until 2016. This 25 effectively has ruined her life. 90 1 Do you accept, as the Investigator, that you 2 have some role to play in what happened to her 3 and some responsibility? 4 A. I didn't make any decisions regarding 5 prosecution. I presented the case and the 6 decision to prosecute was on the legal advice 7 and the Designated Prosecution Authority. 8 Q. So no regret whatsoever from you? No -- 9 A. I'm sorry that Mrs Palmer found herself in that 10 position, yes, but the decision to prosecute was 11 not mine. 12 Q. Do you think the decision to prosecute might 13 have been a different decision if you had 14 pursued the appropriate lines of inquiry and 15 mentioned the issues that Mrs Palmer raised with 16 the Horizon system in your report? 17 A. I don't -- 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: We allow hypotheticals but 19 I think that's putting it a bit too far, 20 Mr Jacobs. 21 MR JACOBS: Sir, yes. I'll ask if I have any more 22 questions. 23 I don't have anything else to add. Thank 24 you. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. Anyone else? 91 1 MS PRICE: Sir, that appears to be all the further 2 questions that there are. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. 4 Well, first of all, I hope that Mrs Palmer 5 has found this morning's session informative. 6 Secondly, I'd like to thank you, Ms Allen, 7 for making a witness statement and answering all 8 the questions put to you this morning. 9 You will all be glad to hear that I don't 10 propose to deliver an end of term report, so to 11 speak, but there are two things that I'd like to 12 say publicly before we break for the holiday. 13 The first is that I would like to pay 14 tribute to all members of the Inquiry Team, that 15 is barristers, solicitors, paralegals, trainee 16 solicitors and anyone else who is not 17 encompassed by those four categories, for the 18 huge amount of work they have done over the last 19 year to facilitate the smooth running of the 20 Inquiry. That public admiration applies with 21 equal force to every member of the Secretariat, 22 in whatever role they have played. No Chairman 23 could be more satisfied with the support he 24 receives from his Inquiry Team. So that's 25 a public tribute to you all. 92 1 I would also like to thank all the Core 2 Participants and their representatives. To say 3 that there has not been the occasional hiccup, 4 for example in relation to disclosure, would be 5 to go too far but I do wish to thank all the 6 Core Participants and their representatives for 7 the efficient way in which they conduct their 8 part in this Inquiry. 9 For various reasons, there has been a need 10 for a great deal of flexibility and all the Core 11 Participants and their representatives have 12 demonstrated willingness to act flexibly to help 13 me. For the help that I received from you all, 14 I give you considerable thanks. 15 It also remains for me to wish you a happy 16 holiday, and I hope you celebrate this period in 17 the way in which you all feel most appropriate. 18 I know that I'm going to celebrate it in the way 19 that I feel appropriate but I'm not going to 20 declare publicly how that is. 21 So thank you all very much and I'll see you 22 on 11 January; is that correct, Ms Price? 23 MS PRICE: Yes, sir, it is. Steve Bradshaw on 24 11 January. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. All right then. 93 1 (12.22 pm) 2 (The hearing adjourned until 3 Thursday, 11th January 2024) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 I N D E X LISA JANE ALLEN (affirmed) ....................1 Questioned by MS PRICE ........................1 Questioned by MR JACOBS ......................85 95