1 Thursday, 20 June 2024 2 (9.45 am) 3 MR BEER: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear us? 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much. 5 MR BEER: Can I check that Mr Ward can see and hear us? 6 THE WITNESS: I can, yes. 7 MR BEER: Thank you very much. May I recall Graham Ward, he 8 needs to be resworn, please. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 10 GRAHAM WARD (re-sworn) 11 Questioned by MR BEER 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Ward, you may recall that, before you 13 gave evidence on the last occasion, I gave you what I'll 14 call a direction about answering questions which the 15 answers to which might incriminate you. Do you remember 16 you doing that? 17 A. I recall that, yes. 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Since a number of months have gone by, 19 I think it's appropriate that I remind you of that 20 before you answer questions this morning, all right. So 21 it will be in very similar terms, if not identical, to 22 the direction I gave you on the previous occasion when 23 you gave evidence. So, under our law, a witness at 24 a public inquiry has the right to decline to answer 25 a question put to him by any lawyer at the Inquiry, or, 1 1 for that matter, by anyone else, if there is a risk that 2 the answer to that question would incriminate the 3 witness. This legal principle is known in shorthand 4 form as the privilege against self-incrimination. 5 I remind you that is for you to make it clear to me 6 in respect of any question put to you if you wish to 7 rely upon the privilege against self-incrimination. So 8 if any questions are put to you by any of the lawyers 9 who ask you questions, or by me, which you do not wish 10 to answer on the ground that to answer might incriminate 11 you, you must tell me immediately after any such 12 question is put to you. At that point I will consider 13 your objection to answering the question and, 14 thereafter, rule upon whether your objection should be 15 upheld. 16 Now, you're giving evidence remotely this morning. 17 Do you have the facility to take legal advice from 18 anyone should this issue arise. 19 A. Yes, I have, yes. 20 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. So should this issue arise and 21 should you wish to speak to the legal person who is 22 assisting you, you must tell me and then I will consider 23 whether that is appropriate, all right? 24 A. Okay. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So do you understand all that, Mr Ward? 2 1 A. Yes, sir, I understand. 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. Over to you, Mr Beer. 3 MR BEER: Thank you. 4 Good morning, Mr Ward. 5 A. Good morning. 6 Q. You gave evidence on 1 February 2024, and I want to ask 7 you some questions today about a single issue, namely 8 your involvement in changes made to Gareth Jenkins' 9 witness statement in the case of Noel Thomas; do you 10 understand? 11 A. Yes, I do. 12 Q. You gave evidence about that issue on 1 February 2024. 13 The Inquiry is now in possession of material with which 14 we can further explore that issue. Can I recap in 15 general terms of where we were when you gave evidence on 16 the last occasion. We're dealing with events in 2006, 17 where you were the assistant Casework Manager in the 18 Security team; is that right? 19 A. I think in 2006 I was the Casework Manager. 20 Q. Okay. That was a position you'd held since 2002? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. You told us on the last occasion that you were the 23 Casework Manager for the case of Noel Thomas and, 24 therefore, acted as the single point of contact between 25 the Post Office and Fujitsu in relation to Litigation 3 1 Support in that case. 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. On the last occasion, we dealt with proposed changes and 4 changes made to a witness statement prepared by Gareth 5 Jenkins for the purpose of the prosecution of Noel 6 Thomas. 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Now, before I ask my questions of you, I think it's fair 9 to remind you of what you said on the last occasion 10 about this topic. Now, that's going to involve reading 11 a very significant part of the transcript of your 12 evidence on the last occasion but it's important that 13 I put the questions that I'm about to ask you in the 14 context of that evidence, so that you can see and hear 15 what you said on the last occasion, okay? 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. Can we look, please, at the transcript. It's 18 INQ00001124. We can see, at the top left-hand side, if 19 we can just scroll in on -- zoom in on that, rather. 20 It's Thursday, 1 February 2024, and you gave evidence 21 and you swore an oath like you have on this occasion. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Can we go forward to page 40, please, and can we look in 24 the bottom right-hand corner, please, at internal 25 pagination 160, and scroll down once more. Thank you. 4 1 This is partly picking it up mid-way through the topic, 2 or partway through the topic, but I had to pick 3 somewhere to start and this is a good place. It's 4 a gentle run in to the questions that matter. I'll read 5 it. It's me speaking, page 160, line 2: 6 "We're now in March 2006 and you're emailing the 7 Fujitsu email account in relation to a range of cases, 8 'ARQs, statement request and assistance', and you speak 9 about two attached files: 10 "'Both of the above requests relate to cases where 11 the Post Office are being challenged about the accuracy 12 ...' 13 "You deal with Marine Drive and Torquay [Drive] 14 next, further down, if we scroll on, please. Then at 15 the bottom of the page, you say: 16 "'On a separate matter, I also require a witness 17 statement in [relation] to the following ARQs', and then 18 there's one of the ones we've seen already, 401. 19 "Answer: Yes. 20 "Question: There's also 459 and 460, all of which 21 relate to Mr Thomas' branch: 22 "'We need the usual (leave out paragraphs H(b) and J 23 but we do need K) covering an analysis over the period 24 01/11/04 to 30/11/05. Penny -- you may recall this one 25 relates to nil transactions, my previous emails ... 5 1 refer. Can you add an extra paragraph in your statement 2 explaining how online banking transactions are processed 3 and the data downloaded and how nil transactions can 4 occur?'" 5 Then over the page, page 161: 6 "So five or six months has now passed and you're now 7 asking for a witness statement to address the things 8 that had been mentioned in the three emails that you 9 refer to there it; is that right? 10 "Answer: Sounds like it, yeah. 11 "Question: Can we go to FUJ00152582. Look at 12 page 3, please. This is 11 days later, you emailing 13 Penny Thomas about Mr Thomas' branch: 14 "'These are the nil transactions you sent us and 15 will need to be produced and explained within your 16 (Brian's) statement.' 17 "You attach the 401 analysis and then the ARQ data 18 under the numbers 459 and 460, by which you have now got 19 these, yes? 20 "Answer: Yes. 21 "Question: If we go down to page 2 please. We can 22 see that, if we scroll down a little bit, in an email 23 that you wouldn't have known about at the time, Brian 24 Pinder of Fujitsu is forwarding that email to Gareth 25 Jenkins: 6 1 "'... please see extract from a recent email below 2 in italics from Graham Ward ...' 3 "Then he extracts your email of 10 March that we 4 looked at a moment ago: 5 "'... regarding providing a statement about nil 6 transactions and online banking. If you're able to put 7 something together for us, I'd be grateful. If you send 8 it back I'll arrange for Neneh or Penny to write into 9 a statement for your signature.' 10 "Then he cuts in what you had said in your 10 March 11 email; can you see that?" 12 "Answer: Yeah." 13 "Question: The important part is in bold in 14 italics: 15 "'Can you add an extra paragraph in your statement 16 explaining how online banking transactions are processed 17 and the data downloaded and how nil transactions can 18 occur.' 19 "So this is Mr Pinder asking Mr Jenkins to put 20 something together for him or for us, for Fujitsu, in 21 order to address that issue. If we go up to page 1, 22 please, scroll down, please, we can see Mr Jenkins' 23 reply: 24 "'I've had a look at the ARQs and I think there is 25 sufficient info there to explain in most cases why there 7 1 are zero ... transactions. I suggest the [that should 2 probably be 'following') as a brief explanation. 3 "'Three main reasons why zero transactions maybe 4 generated as part of the banking system. 5 "'No financial effect; 6 "'Declined by bank; or 7 "'There has been some sort of system failure.' 8 "He gives some examples: 9 "'How do you want to play this? Do you want to add 10 in specific text to the witness statement to cover these 11 two codes or persuade [Post Office] that the generic 12 statement is okay perhaps with some clearer words?' 13 "Further up the page, please. She -- that's Neneh 14 Lowther -- says that she's updated your witness 15 statement -- Mr Jenkins' witness statement. She's not 16 included the response below because she's not sure how 17 to fit it in. Could you help: 18 "'Also I believe that Graham Ward is thinking that 19 'system failures' are drastic events.' 20 "Is that true? 21 "Answer: Well, I just wanted them explained. I 22 didn't know whether they were drastic or not. It's just 23 from -- you know, and it's going back such a long, it's 24 so hard to sort of recall what I was thinking, but I'm 25 guessing that the first statement wasn't clear to me at 8 1 that time so I just wanted a bit more context around 2 what he meant by system failures. 3 "Question: Then scroll up, please. Mr Jenkins says 4 he's annotated it with revisions and doesn't feel able 5 to include the last two paragraphs which may make the 6 statement useless. 7 "Can we now look, please, at the draft that he had 8 previously provided. Can we start, please, with 9 FUJ00122204. Can we scroll down please. He says: 10 "'There are three main reasons why a zero value 11 transaction may be generated ...' 12 "System failure is the third of them: 13 "'Such failures are normal occurrences.' 14 "He then sets out in summary terms in substance the 15 same thing in the email we looked at, about response 16 codes; can you see that? 17 "Answer: Yeah. Yes, I can, yeah. 18 "Question: Would you agree that this is important 19 information that a zero value transaction may be shown 20 or may be generated, including by reason of a system 21 failure -- 22 "Answer: Yes. It is important, yeah. 23 "Question: -- and that he is saying that such 24 failures are normal occurrences -- 25 "Answer: Yeah. 9 1 "Question: -- and he's saying that there's a system 2 code that may identify them? 3 "Answer: Yeah, I don't know that I was tying in the 4 paragraphs beneath that with system failures. Maybe 5 that's just my ignorance of not knowing exactly what nil 6 transactions were. 7 "Question: Doesn't this explain it? His numbered 8 paragraph 3, some sort of system failure is linked to 9 the third bullet [attached] to this email?" 10 "Answer: I would like to think ..." 11 Sorry, if we just go back, please, to the previous 12 page: 13 "... linked to the third bullet at the bottom of 14 this page: response code with a value greater than 10 15 implies some sort of system failure. 16 "Answer: Yeah -- 17 "Question: They're speaking about the same thing, 18 aren't they? 19 "Answer: Yeah, I can see that now, yeah. 20 "Question: Then if we go forward to page 3, please 21 those last two paragraphs, can you see the one beginning 22 'No reason to believe that' and -- 23 "Answer: Yeah. 24 "Question: -- 'any records to which I refer'? 25 "Answer: Yeah. 10 1 "Question: You remember he said he didn't feel he 2 was able to include those -- 3 "Answer: Yes, I do, yeah. 4 "Question: -- and that they may make the statement 5 useless? 6 "Answer: Yes. 7 "Question: What did you think the purpose of the 8 inclusion of those two paragraphs was? 9 "Answer: Well, these were two general paragraphs 10 that the Criminal Law Team had asked to be included on 11 statements that produced computer evidence. So it was, 12 to my mind, important to have them in there to say that 13 the system was operating properly and didn't affect the 14 information held on it." 15 "Question: What did you take from the fact that he 16 thought that these bits, which I think on the original 17 were highlighted in yellow weren't true, or he wasn't 18 sure were true? 19 "Answer: Well, that would have been a concern, 20 obviously. 21 "Question: Sorry? 22 "Answer: That would have been a huge concern, if 23 he -- 24 "Question: Why would it have been a huge concern? 25 "Answer: Because if he can't say that the system is 11 1 operating properly, then, you know, there's a problem 2 isn't there? If this -- this wasn't the final statement 3 was it? 4 "Question: No. 5 "Answer: Oh, right. 6 "Question: What we'll see happens is that he 7 requests for them to be removed. They are removed and 8 then, in the end draft, they come back in. 9 "Answer: What the statement that was produced in 10 evidence? 11 "Question: Yes. 12 "Answer: I don't know anything about that. 13 "Question: He says: 14 "'Can this be deleted? All I've done is interpret 15 the data ...' 16 "Answer: Yeah. 17 "Question: '... in the spreadsheets you've emailed 18 to me.' 19 "Would you have read this at the time, ie the 20 attachment to this email? 21 "Answer: I would like to think I would, yeah. 22 "Question: This being the attachment to the email 23 you got? 24 "Answer: Yeah, I would have thought so, yeah. 25 "Question: Do you understand these or did you 12 1 understand these two paragraphs to be statements 2 speaking to the accuracy and reliability of Horizon 3 generally or about a system that had been used to 4 extract ARQ data? 5 "Answer: Horizon generally. 6 "Question: Hence your belief that these were 7 significant omissions -- 8 "Answer: Yeah. 9 "Question: -- or they would have been significant 10 omissions? 11 "Answer: Yeah. 12 "Question: Can we look, please, at FUJ00122210. If 13 we scroll down, on the 24th, ie the next day -- sorry, 14 scroll up, please: 15 "'This statement needs more work ...' 16 "You're emailing Neneh Lowther, Brian Pinder, Keith 17 Baines, Paul Dawkins and Diane Matthews: 18 "'This statement needs more work. I've attached 19 a suggested draft with a number of comments (as 20 mentioned previously I think the "system failure normal 21 occurrence" line is potentially very damaging).' 22 "Firstly, why did you think the 'system failure 23 normal occurrence' line was potentially very damaging? 24 "Answer: Well, just for the reason that I've said 25 previously. I think I was just looking for a little 13 1 bit -- it just wasn't clear to me exactly what he meant 2 by it and that may just be my ignorance of not knowing 3 about banking transactions and nil transactions but, you 4 know, I'm just offering a comment. I'm not trying to 5 lead him into saying anything in his statement, or 6 anything like that, I was trying to be helpful but 7 clearly I wasn't being. As I say, I can see here it 8 says it may be worth someone from our team taking 9 a statement directly from him. 10 "Question: Why did you think that was a good idea? 11 "Answer: I just thought it was getting a bit 12 confusing with his statement and I just thought maybe it 13 would be best for the Investigator dealing with the 14 investigation to actually, you know, deal with it 15 themselves. 16 "Question: Why would you be concerned if a person 17 with expertise from Fujitsu is giving technical 18 evidence, the effect of which was damaging? Wouldn't 19 you be pleased with that, as an Investigator or somebody 20 associated with an investigation, the true position was 21 being revealed? 22 "Answer: Well, yeah, when you word it like that, 23 yes, and I really wasn't trying to alter his statement 24 or make him say anything; I was just wanting, you know, 25 clarity on what he meant by 'system failures'. 14 1 "Question: That's not how it reads, is it? 2 "Answer: No, it's not. 3 "Question: You've gone straight to the effect of 4 what he says, ie it causes us, the Post Office, damage. 5 "Answer: Yeah, I can see how it looks now. 6 "Question: Again, is this one of those examples of 7 the way that you were thinking at the time: the 8 importance thing is to maintain, even in our 9 prosecutions, the line that Horizon has integrity and 10 produces reliable data? 11 "Answer: I wasn't trying to do that, no. I just 12 obviously had a closed mind to the way I put things 13 across but I really wasn't trying to -- you know, at the 14 end of the day, the truth is more important, and -- 15 "Question: We don't see that kind of sentiment in 16 any of your email exchanges, do we? 17 "Answer: Well, no, maybe not, but I know the person 18 that I am. 19 "Question: I think we can delete 'maybe' from that 20 sentence and replace it with 'definitely'. 21 "Answer: Okay. 22 "Question: Can we look, please, at POL00047895. 23 This is a copy of the marked-up witness statement, 24 marked up by you, forwarded by Ms Lowther to Mr Jenkins. 25 If we scroll down, please, and we keep reading -- sorry, 15 1 if we just go back to the top, please. Then scroll down 2 slowly, please. 3 Remaining in the statement, in the second paragraph, 4 second line: 5 "'I was asked to produce information relating to 6 "nil" transactions'. 7 "Then if we go to the second page, please. Then the 8 paragraph beginning 'There are three', we see your 9 comments: 10 "'There are three ...' 11 "Then you've added: 12 "'If these are the main three reasons, what are the 13 rest?'. 14 "That's in the nature of a question both in terms of 15 the words used and the used of the question mark. So 16 that's clarificatory, isn't it? 17 "Answer: Yeah. 18 "Question: Yes? 19 "Answer: Yes, sorry. 20 "Question: So you're genuinely trying to find 21 something out, by the look of it there -- 22 "Answer: Yeah. 23 "Question: -- why a zero transaction may be 24 generated as part of the banking system. Then we see 25 Mr Jenkins' own words: 16 1 "'Transaction has no financial effect. Transaction 2 has been declined by the bank.' 3 "Then we see system failure reason missing, don't 4 we; you've delete it, haven't you? 5 "Answer: No, I would not have deleted anything at 6 all. 7 "Question: Well, why doesn't it appear here? 8 "Answer: I don't know. 9 "Question: You've typed over it: 10 "'This is a really poor choice of words which seems 11 to accept that failures in the system are normal and 12 therefore may well support the postmaster's claim that 13 the system is to blame for losses!!!!' 14 "Answer: No, I would not have typed over anything 15 or deleted anything at all. I just know the person that 16 I am and I wouldn't have done that. 17 "Question: Well, you were concerned, we've seen, at 18 the emails that preceded this, with what Mr Jenkins was 19 proposing to say about system failures, weren't you? 20 "Answer: Yeah, I was concerned, yeah. I just 21 wanted clarity on it, as I said, but I would not have 22 typed over or deleted it. 23 "Question: This is the attachment to an email that 24 you sent to Neneh Lowther, who, in turn send it on to 25 Mr Jenkins? 17 1 "Answer: Right. 2 "Question: Do you know where these words have come 3 from, then? 4 "Answer: Well, I'm sure I've -- I must have typed 5 the words, yeah. But I wouldn't have typed over 'system 6 failure'. 7 "Question: Okay, if we move on. Next page, please. 8 We see that the paragraphs that were previously in 9 yellow, which Mr Jenkins said he didn't feel he could 10 say, have been deleted. Did you delete those then? 11 "Answer: No. I can't explain it at all. I would 12 not have written over or deleted anything from anybody's 13 statement. Absolutely not. 14 "Question: Can we move to FUJ00122217." 15 Then the Chairman intervenes: 16 "Well, before we do, since I think you've just 17 accepted that you attached this witness statement to 18 an email you sent, can you explain where there is 19 witness statement came from, so as to enable you to 20 attach it to an email?" 21 "Answer: No, I'm sorry, sir. I just cannot 22 remember, you know, this at all. 23 "The Chairman: Well, people's memory, of course, is 24 for them to tell me about, but this is a pretty 25 memorable event, is it not? This is you really becoming 18 1 involved in an important statement in relation to the 2 prosecution of someone in a way that you'd ever done 3 before, as I've understood it. So can you try and rack 4 your memory, please, as to how this statement came to be 5 attached to an email you sent. 6 "Answer: Honestly, I just can't explain it at all, 7 no. I really can't." 8 We can take that transcript down. That's where the 9 relevant exchanges end. So that's the entirety of the 10 evidence that you gave on the last occasion about the 11 issue of suggesting changes or actually making changes 12 to the witness statement of Gareth Jenkins in the case 13 of the prosecution of Noel Thomas. 14 Mr Ward, do you accept that, on the last occasion, 15 you, firstly, agreed that you sent an email on 24 March 16 2006 to Fujitsu that had, as an attachment to it, 17 a marked-up copy of Gareth Jenkins' witness statement? 18 A. Yes, I do, yeah. 19 Q. Do you agree that, on the last occasion, you denied 20 deleting or typing over the "system failure" reason, the 21 third reason for nil transactions that Mr Jenkins had 22 given? 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. Do you agree that, on the last occasion, you said that 25 you didn't know why that line had disappeared from the 19 1 draft witness statement but that you knew that it wasn't 2 you that had deleted it because that just wasn't you? 3 A. Yes, I agree. 4 Q. Now, the Inquiry is in possession of material that may 5 assist us in where the truth lies here and I want to 6 show you that material in a moment. Can we start, 7 please, however, with what I showed you on the last 8 occasion, the email. FUJ00122210. Thank you. 9 If we scroll down, please -- thank you. 10 So this is your email of 24 March 2006 at 11.37 in 11 the morning. So this is exactly the same one, exactly 12 the same copy that I showed you on the last occasion? 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. Now, if we just read the two paragraphs of the witness 15 statement: 16 "This statement [Mr Jenkins' statement] needs more 17 work ... I've attached a suggested draft with a number 18 of comments (as previously mentioned I think the 'system 19 failure ... normal occurrence' line is potentially very 20 damaging). It may be worth considering someone from our 21 team taking a statement directly from Gareth Jenkins 22 (where is he based?) 23 "Whilst there is some urgency with this, it is more 24 important to get it right and ensure we are not 25 embarrassed at court, which we certainly could be if we 20 1 produced a statement accepting 'system failures are 2 normal occurrences'." 3 Then the attached file, which you can see described 4 there, and then: 5 "Let me know what you think of the draft." 6 If we just scroll up, please, we can see Neneh 7 Lowther forwards that email on to Gareth Jenkins 8 directly, with the attachment that you had included, 9 yes? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Now, on the last occasion, we looked at that attachment 12 as a separate document. I then went to another 13 document, I gave it the name POL00047895, another 14 version of it is FUJ00122211 -- neither of those need be 15 displayed at the moment -- and we looked at that in 16 an imaged copy, which is what this is here, it's 17 an image of an email? 18 Can we now, please, switch on our system at this end 19 to the original of this email. 20 We've got the original email. Can you see that on 21 your screen? 22 A. Yes, I can, yeah. 23 Q. Can you see the email that we've just looked at, at the 24 foot of the page there, that's being displayed, 25 24 March, 11.37: exactly the same email. Yes? 21 1 A. Yes, I can, yeah. 2 Q. We can see Neneh Lowther forwarding it at the top, just 3 as we've seen in the image of this email that we've 4 looked at. But, on this occasion, we can actually see 5 the attachment in the email, can't we -- 6 A. Yes, we can, yeah. 7 Q. -- just like when you're sitting at your computer? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. This is a more conventional format of an email which is 10 attaching a Word document and the difference is we can 11 now open the email attachment. So let's open that. 12 Thank you. 13 If we just scroll down to look at it. Thank you. 14 I think this will be the more conventional format of 15 a Word document that you, in your working life, would 16 have been used to seeing; would that be right? 17 A. Yes, it would, yeah. 18 Q. Where amendments have been made to a Word document, 19 I think we can see three things: firstly, if it's 20 enabled -- and here it was -- the changes are tracked by 21 being put in red and underlined, yes? That's the first 22 thing we can see. 23 A. Yes, I can see that. 24 Q. Then the second thing is, if we hover, as the operator 25 kindly has, above an amendment, we can see who made the 22 1 amendment and the time at which they made it and the 2 date on which they made it, yes; can you see that? 3 A. Yes, I can. 4 Q. So, looking here -- that's it, if we hover above that 5 one -- we can see that that first amendment was made at 6 10.28 in the morning on 24 March 2006 and, would this be 7 right, by you? Nobody else that access to your account? 8 A. No, that would be me. 9 Q. Then the third thing we can see is, on the right-hand 10 side, if there are any formatting changes, those appear 11 in comment boxes on the right-hand side, yes? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now, we can see, if we hovered above each amendment and 14 wrote down the times of them, take it from me the first 15 amendment was made at 10.21 in the morning, I think that 16 was the first one we were actually hovering over 17 there -- that's it -- at 10.21, and the last amendment, 18 if we hovered over it, was made at 11.13 am, so over the 19 course of 52 minutes. 20 If we just scroll down and hover again over each 21 amendment, we can see that they're all made by you. 22 Okay? 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. If we scroll to the second page and just pick any 25 amendment, please, operator, at random, and then the one 23 1 in the middle, thank you; then the middle of the page; 2 then do one at the bottom of the page; then over the 3 page, yes? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. All of the amendments made by you. So these were all 6 made by you, Graham C Ward. This isn't a case of 7 somebody else surreptitiously logging in to your system 8 and pretending to be you; these are amendments made by 9 you? 10 A. That's correct, yes. 11 Q. Can we go back to page 1 and look at the substance, 12 then. The first thing you do in that second paragraph 13 is you're effectively writing in, to Mr Jenkins' witness 14 statement, him exhibiting three ARQs; is that right? So 15 it says: 16 "Audit Record Queries (ARQs) 401, 459 and 460 ... 17 I was asked to produce information relating to 'Nil' 18 transactions during the period specified. I have 19 produced three spreadsheets which I now produce as 20 exhibits GIJ01, GIJ02 and GIJ03." 21 Yes? So that's you writing into Mr Jenkins' 22 statement the exhibiting by him of the responses to 23 three ARQs, yes? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Then scrolling down. Is this right: you effectively 24 1 explain the format of those three ARQs? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay, I've got no questions about that but, if we go to 4 the second page, please, and look at the second big 5 paragraph down. The one beginning "There are three 6 main". Originally the statement read: 7 "There are three main reasons why a zero value 8 transaction may be generated as part of the banking 9 system." 10 If we hover above the word "main", you deleted that, 11 didn't you? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. Then you added in the words "if these are the main 14 reasons, what are the rest?" As we established on the 15 last occasion, that was you asking a clarificatory 16 question, correct? 17 A. That's correct, yeah. 18 Q. Then the three reasons were set out in the witness 19 statement: 20 "[1] The transaction has no financial effect 21 (ie a balance enquiry or a PIN change). 22 "[2] The transaction has been declined by the Bank. 23 "[3] There has been some sort of System Failure. 24 Such failures are normal occurrences." 25 If we hover above those, you deleted those words, 25 1 didn't you? 2 A. Well, yeah, I mean, I've obviously put a line through it 3 but, as I said at the outset, what I was doing here was 4 reviewing this statement. My intention was not to 5 insist on anything being put in or removed. I'm just 6 reviewing it as I was asked to do. 7 Q. In what way is reviewing a statement consistent with 8 putting a line through something and deleting it? 9 A. Well, it was -- I can't explain that. I really can't. 10 Q. You agree that you deleted the words -- the third reason 11 that Mr Jenkins had given for a nil transaction value 12 appearing -- "There has been some sort of System 13 Failure, such failures are normal occurrences"; you 14 agree that you deleted those words? 15 A. I've put a line through it, yes, I can see, and it's 16 deleted, and that's what it says on there. But my 17 intention was absolutely not to have anything deleted 18 from that statement that Mr Jenkins wasn't happy with at 19 all. I was just trying to help him and to review 20 a statement. 21 Q. Do you agree with this, Mr Ward: that, contrary to your 22 denial on the last occasion, both in answer to questions 23 from me and from the Chairman, you did delete the third 24 explanation? 25 A. I can see that I've deleted it, yes, but it was not my 26 1 intention for it to be removed from that statement -- 2 Q. Let's put aside the intention issue for the moment, 3 Mr Ward. On the last occasion you denied deleting the 4 third reason: you said, "It's just not me. I know the 5 type of person I am". Do you agree that, in fact, you 6 did delete that third explanation from Mr Jenkins' 7 witness statement? 8 A. I can see that now, yes. 9 Q. Can we turn to what you wrote after your deletion: 10 "This a really poor choice of words which seems to 11 accept that failures in the system are normal and 12 therefore me well support the postmaster's claim that 13 the system is to blame for the losses!!!!" 14 Do you agree that discloses your motive for deleting 15 the third explanation? 16 A. No, I don't agree with that. I'm just reviewing 17 a statement. You know, I can see how it looks now, 18 I really can. 19 Q. Never mind how it looks now. Do you agree that the 20 connection between the deletion of the words and what 21 was in your mind is shown by the explanation that you've 22 added in round brackets? 23 A. Yeah, well, I can agree that there's a connection, yes. 24 Q. And that connection is: it needs to be deleted because 25 if it's left there, it might support the postmaster, 27 1 Mr Thomas', defence, agreed? 2 A. As I've said, you know, my intention was not for 3 anything to be deleted but I can see that, yes, that's 4 how it looks. 5 Q. Do you agree that the information that you deleted was 6 material to the prosecution of Mr Jenkins (sic)? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you agree that, by the time that you deleted it, you 9 knew that a prosecution had been commenced against him? 10 A. Yes, I do -- 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: There may be some confusion. You said, 12 "Mr Jenkins", Mr Beer -- 13 MR BEER: I'm so sorry. 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: -- but we all know Mr Thomas -- 15 MR BEER: Mr Thomas, I'm so sorry. 16 I'll ask the question again: did you know that, by 17 the time of your deletion, a prosecution had been 18 commenced by Mr Thomas? 19 A. Yes, I knew there was a prosecution against Mr Thomas. 20 Q. Do you accept that, by your conduct, you caused to be 21 removed material information from Mr Jenkins' witness 22 statement at the time that a prosecution was afoot 23 against Mr Thomas? 24 A. No, I don't. I think the decision to remove that had to 25 have been Mr Jenkins' decision. I've made a comment and 28 1 I've made a review and I accept that I shouldn't have 2 been doing that, but the final decision to make that 3 statement and for the -- you know, for what went in 4 there, that was for Mr Jenkins to decide. 5 Q. You've agreed, I think, that your reason for deleting 6 that line from the statement was that it might support 7 the defendant's case that Horizon was to blame for the 8 losses that were being attributed to him, agreed? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. If we read on, as per the original witness statement, it 11 said: 12 "Each transaction has ... with it a response code 13 field, which identifies what has happened. Those values 14 are included (together with their descriptions) in the 15 ..." 16 Originally it said "ARQs" and you've added 17 "Spreadsheets produced". 18 Then "In summary". I'm going to skip over the next 19 two paragraphs which deal with values of 1 or between 2 20 and 10, but the third one, which you do amend is: 21 "[A response code] RespCd with a value greater than 22 10 implies some sort of system failure -- The actual 23 value provides further information as to the nature of 24 the failure within the overall system." 25 So, rather oddly, you've left that in the witness 29 1 statement, haven't you? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Was that just a mistake by you, that it ought to have 4 been, if you were acting consistently with your earlier 5 deletion, to have been deleted as well, ie the mention 6 of a system failure? 7 A. No, not at all. It's not a mistake. I mean, there's 8 just a bit more context. 9 Q. What does that mean, Mr Ward? You deleted the system 10 failure reason why zero transactions may be generated, 11 but left in an explanation of the response code values 12 relating to system failure? 13 A. Well, as I say, you know, going back 18 years, or 14 whatever it is now, I can't really remember what I would 15 have been thinking then but the fact that that paragraph 16 there has a little bit more information in it, you know, 17 made sense to me then. 18 Q. What do you mean, that paragraph had a bit more 19 information, made sense to you? 20 A. Because it's got a value greater than 10 implies some 21 sort of system failure. There's a bit more information 22 than just saying "system failure". That is all I can 23 think that I would have been thinking at that time. 24 Q. But you wanted the system failure reason deleted? 25 A. I didn't want it deleted, no. 30 1 Q. Why did you delete it? 2 A. As I've said, yes, it looks -- I've put a line through 3 it and I've put, you know, in brackets that I think it's 4 a poor choice of words but that is just me reviewing it. 5 I'm not, for one second, suggesting anything needs to be 6 removed from the finalised statement. 7 Q. You didn't just say it was a poor choice of words. In 8 the brackets, you said that, if we leave those words in, 9 it "may well support the subpostmaster's claim that the 10 system is to blame for the losses". That's what was 11 motivating you, wasn't it? 12 A. No, I don't believe it was, no. I mean it's just a poor 13 choice of words. 14 Q. Poor choice of words by who? 15 A. Well, by me, obviously. 16 Q. Why, when you spent 52 minutes amending this witness 17 statement, did you select "a poor choice of words"? 18 A. Well, I don't know. I really don't know. I'm just 19 going to repeat what I've said. I mean, I haven't got 20 anything else I can add to it. I was trying to 21 genuinely help put a statement together for him. 22 This -- you know, back in 2006, Horizon integrity just 23 wasn't an issue for us at all and this was a fairly new 24 statement, as I said on my previous evidence, I think, 25 a banking transaction witness statement. So I was just 31 1 trying to get the statement correct. That was my 2 intention and I'm really sorry for the way it comes 3 across, I really am, but I was trying to just do my job. 4 Q. That last paragraph there, the one that says, "[Response 5 code] with a value greater than 10", you're not saying 6 to us that you left that in the witness statement 7 because you thought that that was a sufficient 8 explanation to a court and gave adequate disclosure to 9 a defendant and that that was, therefore, justification 10 for deleting the third reason from Mr Jenkins' list? 11 A. Well, I really don't know. But I just think there's 12 more context to it there. That's all I can say. I'm 13 sorry, it's such a long time ago. I just really just do 14 not remember this at all. 15 Q. Can I suggest one explanation: that this was a rather 16 sloppy attempt at covering up, in criminal proceedings, 17 evidence of system faults within Horizon and that, if 18 you'd been pursuing your motive properly, you would have 19 also deleted that last paragraph that we've just read. 20 It's just a mistake by you that you haven't seen through 21 the task that you were setting for yourself. 22 A. No, that's absolutely not. I wouldn't agree there. I'm 23 not trying to cover anything up at all. I'm just trying 24 to get a statement correct. 25 Q. Your motive was that you didn't want to disclose, in the 32 1 prosecution of Noel Thomas, information that suggested 2 that a fault in Horizon could have caused nil 3 transactions, agreed? 4 A. No, I don't agree. 5 Q. Can we look, please, lastly, at the original email. 6 FUJ00122210. Look at your email if we just scroll down. 7 Thank you. You say: 8 "This statement needs more work ..." 9 That's the statement we've just read. 10 "... I've attached a suggested draft with a number 11 of comments ..." 12 Then you say: 13 "... (as previously mentioned, I think the 'system 14 failure ... normal occurrence' line is potentially very 15 damaging)." 16 So the very line that you deleted, you recognised to 17 be "potentially very damaging", agreed? 18 A. Yes, but I just wanted more context on it, as I've said. 19 Q. You say that that line that you deleted was "potentially 20 very damaging". That, again, draws a direct line 21 between the reason for the deletion of the line and the 22 deletion of the line, doesn't it? 23 A. I can see that it looks that way, yes. 24 Q. Well, it is that way, isn't it? That's the motive, 25 right there, in black and white: "I'm deleting it 33 1 because it's potentially very damaging"? 2 A. There is no motive from me to remove anything because, 3 at the time, there was absolutely, in my head, no issues 4 with Horizon at all. 5 Q. If we look at the second paragraph: 6 "Whilst there is some urgency with this, it is more 7 important to get it right and ensure we are not 8 embarrassed at court, which we certainly could be if we 9 produced a statement accepting 'system failures are 10 normal occurrences'." 11 Again, that's the third occasion, one in the witness 12 statement itself, in your comment, and the other two in 13 the covering email, this email, that reveals what was 14 operating on your mind, agreed? 15 A. I think what I take from that is, it's more important to 16 get it right because I want to get the statement right. 17 I didn't think there were any issues with Horizon. We 18 weren't told there were any issues with Horizon. So the 19 idea that I'd be covering anything up just wouldn't have 20 been in my head at all. 21 Q. Why did you say, "we need to ensure we're not 22 embarrassed at court, which we could be if we produced 23 a statement accepting 'system failures are normal 24 occurrences'"? 25 A. Because I wanted more context on what system failures 34 1 there were, rather -- 2 Q. In which case, you would have typed, Mr Ward, "Can 3 I have some more context, please, on what system 4 failures are?", rather than deleting "system failures" 5 from the witness statement and saying, three times, "We 6 need to delete this because it's damaging, it's 7 potentially embarrassing, and it would assist the 8 subpostmaster's defence". 9 A. I can see how you would say that, yes. I do understand 10 that but, as I've said, I don't recall finalising the 11 final statement either and that's why I'm suggesting 12 that somebody from the team should go and take the 13 statement directly. 14 Q. Your motive was a desire that the Post Office was not 15 embarrassed at court by revealing that Horizon had 16 defects, system errors, wasn't it? 17 A. No, not at all. My desire was that the statement was 18 produced correctly. I was unaware that there were bugs, 19 errors and defects in the Horizon system. 20 Q. Mr Jenkins was saying that there are defects in the 21 system, in his witness statement, and you were deleting 22 that information? 23 A. He said there were system failures. 24 Q. And you wanted that deleted? 25 A. I didn't want it deleted, no. 35 1 Q. Why did you delete it? 2 A. I didn't delete it, as I've said to you. 3 Q. In what sense is striking through -- 4 A. I can see -- 5 Q. -- a sentence in tracked changes and providing three 6 explanations why that should be removed not a case of 7 deletion? 8 A. I can see how it looks, I really can, and I'm sorry it 9 looks that way but I can assure you, my intention was 10 not for that to be deleted. 11 MR BEER: Mr Ward, they are the only questions that I ask 12 you. 13 Sir, do you have any questions? 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No. Thank you very much. 15 MR BEER: Sir, that's all of the evidence from Mr Ward this 16 morning. Because he's remote, we need to take a break 17 now until we move to our next witness, who is live. 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. All right. 19 Well, thank you for returning to give evidence, 20 Mr Ward. That completes your evidence to the Inquiry. 21 So we'll now have a ten-minute break, Mr Beer? 22 MR BEER: Yes, I think probably 15, actually, to get the 23 screens out. 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, fine. 15-minute break before 25 we resume. So that will be -- well -- 36 1 MR BEER: 10.50? 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: 10.50, yes. 3 (10.37 am) 4 (A short break) 5 (10.52 am) 6 MS HODGE: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear us? 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much. 8 MS HODGE: Our next witness is Anthony Kearns. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 10 MS HODGE: Please can the witness be sworn. 11 ANTHONY PAUL KEARNS (sworn) 12 Questioned by MS HODGE 13 MS HODGE: Mr Kearns, as you know, my name is Ms Hodge and 14 I ask questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Please give 15 your full name. 16 A. Anthony Paul Kearns. 17 Q. You should have in front of you a witness statement 18 dated 9 May this year. Have you got that there, please? 19 A. I have. 20 Q. This is the second statement which you've provided to 21 the Inquiry; is that correct? 22 A. It is. 23 Q. It runs to 15 pages. Can I ask you, please, to turn to 24 page 14 of that statement. 25 A. Yes. 37 1 Q. Do you see your signature there at the end of the 2 statement? 3 A. It's actually not on this hard copy that I've got. 4 Q. If you could just bear with us. We'll ensure that you 5 have a copy with your signature. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Thank you. You can see you signature there at the end 8 of the statement dated 9 May this year? 9 A. (The witness nodded) 10 Q. That's right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Thank you. Is the content of that statement true to the 13 best of your knowledge and belief? 14 A. It is. 15 Q. Thank you. That statement will stand as your evidence 16 to the Inquiry in Phases 5 and 6. I shall be asking you 17 some questions that seek to expand upon and clarify some 18 aspects of your evidence. 19 You first appeared before the Inquiry on 29 November 20 2022, when we were examining issues of relevance to 21 Phase 2; is that correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. I don't intend to revisit those issues with you, save to 24 the extent that they are relevant to the issues that 25 we're examining in Phases 5 and 6; is that clear? 38 1 A. It is. 2 Q. Thank you. Now, in terms of your roles and 3 responsibilities, you were previously employed as 4 an Assistant Secretary of the Communication Workers 5 Union between 1997 and 2002; is that right? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Whilst employed in that role, your primary 8 responsibility was to promote the interests of CWU 9 members who were employed by Post Office Limited; is 10 that right? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. This would have included post office counter clerks who 13 were employed at Crown Office branches, staff working in 14 cash centres and administration staff working in the 15 Post Office's back offices; is that right? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. You say that, since 2002, you've been employed as the 18 Senior Deputy General Secretary of the Communication 19 Workers Union; is that right? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. You were elected to perform that role by the members of 22 the union; is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. In your statement, you say you've not had any direct 25 responsibility for Post Office matters since your 39 1 appointment as Senior Deputy General Secretary; is that 2 right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Who within the senior leadership of the Communication 5 Workers Union has direct had direct responsibility for 6 postal matters since 2002? 7 A. Andy Furey. 8 Q. Thank you. I'd like, very briefly, to revisit some of 9 the evidence which you gave on the last occasion about 10 your role as a member of the Horizon Working Group 11 during 1999 to 2000. This was at a time when you were 12 employed as Assistant Secretary with responsibility for 13 Post Office employees; is that right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. The Horizon Working Group had been established to 16 oversee the operational live trial and later the 17 national rollout of the Horizon system to the Post 18 Office Network; is that correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. You confirmed on the last occasion that you gave 21 evidence to the Inquiry that you were made aware of 22 technical issues being raised during the live trial; is 23 that right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. You understood these to relate to balancing; is that 40 1 right? 2 A. I was informed by Crown Office staff on visits that 3 I would make to local branches that some individuals 4 were experiencing difficulties with balancing, following 5 the introduction of the Horizon project. 6 Q. Just to confirm, by "balancing", you mean whether the 7 money received in and paid out by the branch was 8 accurately recorded in the weekly financial accounts; is 9 that right? 10 A. Each counter clerk employed at a Crown Office is 11 responsibility for their own individual balance on 12 a Wednesday, the end of the balancing week, and that's 13 when that balance takes place. 14 Q. I think you said on the last occasion that problems with 15 balancing had been reported to you before Horizon was 16 implemented; that's correct, is it not? 17 A. Yeah, we regularly had staff who reported difficulties 18 with balancing prior to, and subsequent to, the 19 introduction of Horizon. 20 Q. But you said that, after the introduction of Horizon, it 21 was your perception at the time that the number of 22 people reporting problems had increased? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Is that right? I think you've just confirmed that that 25 was information you obtained during your visits to local 41 1 branches? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Were these problems with balancing an issue that you 4 were recording or tracking at a national level within 5 the Communication Workers Union at the time? 6 A. No, we had a process, which I think I outline in my 7 witness statement, for how losses and gains or incorrect 8 balances were dealt with through a system losses and 9 gains procedure that was in place at the time and 10 subsequent to the Horizon project. 11 Q. We'll come on shortly to that but just dealing firstly 12 with the issue of how the issue was being, let's say, 13 monitored, I think your evidence is it wasn't, at 14 a national level; is that fair? That is to say that you 15 weren't keeping records or you weren't tracking the 16 number of branches or the number of staff who were 17 having difficulties with balancing? 18 A. No, there was no facility or process for that. 19 Q. Would it be fair to say that you were relying on those 20 local procedures to identify whether balancing problems 21 were caused by the system or by the performance of the 22 employee? 23 A. Yes, that would be dealt with through that losses and 24 gains procedure, at various levels. 25 Q. Do you think that local representatives and branch 42 1 managers would have had sufficient knowledge or 2 understanding to identify whether a balancing problem 3 was caused by the system or by the employee's 4 performance? 5 A. I couldn't say whether they were able to identify 6 specifically whether a misbalance, a loss or a gain, was 7 directly attributable to the system. 8 Q. If you were not tracking the issue at a national level, 9 how would your local reps know whether they were dealing 10 with an isolated incident or an issue affecting several 11 branches or employees? 12 A. I think I made in my last -- in one of my statements or 13 the last time I gave evidence -- so we have a network of 14 representatives who operate at local branch level, sort 15 of area level, regional level, and then a national 16 executive, and what would happen if somebody was -- so 17 there was a process in place, a losses and gains 18 procedure, and what would happen is, if somebody was 19 considered by the Post Office to be falling foul of that 20 procedure, they would be called for interview. 21 They would talk to their local rep or their area rep 22 or their regional rep and ask for representation. So 23 dealing with those -- the idea of that system as the 24 idea all of the agreements and so the industrial 25 relations framework we had with the Post Office at the 43 1 time, and still through to today, is to get these 2 matters dealt with, for want of a better phrase, at the 3 coalface, at the lowest common place you can deal with. 4 So people having local firsthand knowledge would be the 5 office rep; subsequent to that would be the area rep. 6 So if someone found themselves in difficulties over the 7 losses and gains procedure and was going to be called 8 for interview, they would contact their local rep or 9 their union branch and they would deal with the issue. 10 So those issues were dealt with predominantly by -- 11 at a local level. 12 Q. I understand the point you're making but I think that 13 the gist of my point is this: if it's not being looked 14 at at a national level, would those local reps and those 15 local branches would they be able to know that this is 16 something that was affecting more than one area, do you 17 think? 18 A. Yeah, we would have regular meetings of -- local reps 19 would meet regularly at branch level. Area reps, 20 regional reps, would get together and discuss the 21 problems that they were facing, how best to deal with 22 them. 23 Q. So you would have expected that to have been discussed 24 at those -- at the branch level at the regional level, 25 if it had been something that was causing significant 44 1 difficulties. Is that -- 2 A. If those reps had a wide scale concern, yeah, I'd expect 3 them to discuss it with each other. Standard practice, 4 is sort of sharing, you know, "I've got this problem, 5 how have you dealt with that? I've got a new problem, 6 how have you dealt with that?" That's how reps sort of 7 interact and build up their knowledge. 8 Q. Now, when you finished in your role as assistant 9 secretary, to whom did you hand over responsibility in 10 2002? 11 A. Andy Furey was elected, so it wasn't me handing over 12 responsibility. He was elected by the relationship -- 13 Q. Into the role of Assistant Secretary? 14 A. Into the role of Assistant Secretary. 15 Q. Did you brief him on the knowledge you'd obtained during 16 your time as a member of the Horizon Working Group? 17 A. Andy Furey was an elected member of our national 18 executive, prior to being elected to that position, and, 19 given that his background was a -- he was directly 20 employed by the Post Office as a counter clerk, Crown 21 Office staff. He worked closely with me and would 22 attend a lot of national negotiations -- so, in reality, 23 there was no formal handover, insofar as he'd worked in 24 my department with me, for the previous five years. So 25 he was more than well aware and was involved in a lot of 45 1 discussions about these matters up to that point. 2 Q. So your evidence is you wouldn't have done a formal 3 handover; is that right? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. But you think you would have discussed issues, including 6 issues with the balancing, with him, before he took over 7 that role? 8 A. Myself and Andy worked almost together on a daily basis 9 over number of years and anything I was aware of in my 10 role, he was aware of. 11 Q. I'd like to move on, please, to a new topic, another 12 topic which concerns the support and the representation 13 which was available to members of the Communication 14 Workers Union if they were held accountable for 15 shortfalls shown by Horizon. Now, you address this at 16 paragraph 33 of your second witness statement, please, 17 if that could be shown on the screen. WITN06370200, at 18 page 7. 19 Paragraph 33, please. Thank you. This reads: 20 "The CWU has always provided strong and effective 21 representation for members accused of accounting 22 discrepancies." 23 Just pausing there, please. Is that assertion based 24 upon your personal experience of representing members of 25 the CWU? 46 1 A. It is. 2 Q. Are you referring here to cases where the accounting 3 discrepancies were shown by Horizon? 4 A. I'm referring to cases that our members would be called 5 for interview under the losses and gains procedure. 6 Q. You said you were talking about your own personal 7 experience. Is that before Horizon was implemented or 8 after Horizon or both? 9 A. Both the losses and gains procedure is what was used to, 10 for want of a better phrase, measure the ability of 11 counter clerks to do their job. I was a counter clerk 12 before I was an elected representative and the losses 13 and gains procedure, in various formats -- it's been 14 rewritten a number of times -- is the measure that 15 individual counter clerks are held to see whether or not 16 they can do their job. Each individual counter clerk, 17 as I explained earlier, balances their stock on 18 a Wednesday evening, that would either balance, or it 19 would produce a loss or a gain, either of which, in the 20 eyes of the Post Office, losses and gains are considered 21 to be evidence of an inability to do the job to varying 22 degrees, and there can be a variety of reasons why 23 people record losses and gains, and then there was 24 a process to take people through to investigate why 25 those losses and gains have occurred, mostly designed to 47 1 be corrective. 2 Q. Mr Kearns, I wonder if I could please ask you if you can 3 try to slow down in your answers, please, just to assist 4 our stenographer who is making a verbatim record of what 5 you're saying. 6 A. Apologies. 7 Q. Thank you. Forgive me, coming back to the question, 8 please: 9 Is it your evidence that you have personal 10 experience of representing members of the Communication 11 Workers Union who were accused of accounting 12 discrepancies after Horizon was rolled out? 13 A. Me personally? No. 14 Q. No. Are you aware of any specific cases in which 15 members were asked to account for shortfalls shown by 16 Horizon? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Now, you have stated that your responsibilities relating 19 to the Post Office ceased in 2002. From where have you 20 obtained your knowledge of cases after that date? 21 A. I don't really have any detailed knowledge of cases 22 after that date because it wasn't my responsibility. It 23 wasn't my day job. I've paid a general interest to the 24 union structures and how it represents its members since 25 then because that's my job to sort of oversee partly how 48 1 the union functions, but I don't have any firsthand 2 experience since I left that role in 2002 of individual 3 cases. 4 Q. So would it be right to say that, as a general assertion 5 that you're making there, it's not one based on any 6 personal experience after 2002? 7 A. Apologies. General assertion, what? 8 Q. Sorry, you're making a general assertion that the CWU 9 has always provided strong and effective representation 10 for members accused of accounting discrepancies. What 11 I've been trying to explore with you is the basis of 12 that assertion and I think what you accept is that, 13 after 2002, you had no personal experience of those 14 matters, and you don't have any information about any 15 individual cases; is that right? 16 A. I don't have any personal experience and I didn't deal 17 with any individual cases. My assertion about the CWU 18 dealing with them is that the rep structures that we had 19 in place to deal with those issues, it's changed but it 20 remains broadly the same, as in we have local reps, 21 branch reps, what used to be called regional reps are 22 now called territorial reps, who deal with those issues 23 on a day-to-day basis and that procedure remains largely 24 in place as does a losses and gains procedure that they 25 would work with. 49 1 Q. Now, before we come to the losses and gains procedure, 2 do you know what type of training union representatives 3 received to enable them to provide support to staff who 4 found themselves in this situation, where they're being 5 asked to account for discrepancies? 6 A. Yes. We would run what we would call schools, 7 educational classes every time -- more or less every 8 time a major agreement would change and we would get 9 reps together at varying levels, explain to them any 10 changes we'd negotiated in policies and procedures and 11 train them through what we would call basic skills -- we 12 now call them skills 1, skills 2 -- on how to be 13 an effective rep, how to engage with an individual who 14 might be having problems, how to represent that to the 15 employer. Yeah, we had an education and training 16 programme, designed to do just that. 17 Q. Now, you go on to say at paragraph 33, that the: 18 "CWU collective agreements including the 'Losses and 19 Gains Procedure' have been significant ensuring a fair 20 hearing for directly employed members." 21 You referred to that procedure in your evidence 22 before the Inquiry on the last occasion. I think you 23 recall it being in place at the time when you were 24 assistant secretary and you've said, just now, it's 25 something which has been updated over the years; is that 50 1 correct? 2 A. That's correct. I was employed by the Post Office in 3 1978 and there was a losses and gains procedure in place 4 then and some of the papers sent to me show a losses and 5 gains procedure from -- I think it's 2013 and 2014. 6 A losses and gains procedure for directly employed 7 counter clerks, as we used to call them, by the Post 8 Office, has been in place for that length of time. 9 Q. Would it be a fair summary to say that that policy 10 applied a threshold or number of thresholds below which 11 an accounting discrepancy would be treated as 12 a performance issue but above which it might be treated 13 as suspected theft; is that a fair summary? 14 A. No, that's not how the losses and gains procedure was 15 applied. The losses and gains procedure, if people fell 16 foul -- if individuals fell foul of that procedure, they 17 were given the opportunity to explain why they thought 18 that the Post Office would be saying to them "Your 19 performance is unacceptable, we need improvements," 20 they'd be given deadlines, or a number of specific 21 occasions where they were allowed to misbalance before 22 more serious disciplinary action would ensue. 23 My experience is that mostly people would understand 24 the seriousness of the situation, for want of a better 25 phrase, apply themselves wore diligently to their job 51 1 and were very unlikely to fall foul of that procedure to 2 the point of dismissal. 3 Q. I think if we put to one side what might be 4 characterised as small discrepancies, in the order of £5 5 or £6, which would ordinarily be treated as 6 a performance matter -- is that fair -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- and if we consider a more substantial discrepancy, in 9 the order of several hundred pounds or possibly even 10 several thousand pounds, a discrepancy of that type, 11 would it not be referred to the Post Office to be 12 investigated as suspected criminal activity? 13 A. My experience was single large losses like that would be 14 dealt with outside of this process and would usually be 15 subject to a specific investigation. 16 Q. So if Horizon was showing a substantial shortfall, which 17 a Post Office staff member could not explain, they would 18 not be helped by this procedure, would they? That is to 19 say that they would be in exactly the same position as 20 a subpostmaster who had a substantial shortfall which 21 they couldn't explain, would they not? 22 A. If, at the end of the week, an individual counter 23 clerk's balance, either or pre or post-Horizon, showed 24 up a significant amount of the amounts that you've 25 referred to, my experience is that that would be 52 1 investigated by the Post Office Investigation Branch, as 2 it was then, or whatever its title is now. 3 Q. Essentially, you, as the CWU, and that staff member, 4 would be reliant upon the Post Office investigating the 5 cause of the shortfall, would you not, and establishing 6 whether any fault lay within the system? 7 A. Yeah, the Post Office -- they would interview the 8 individual for their view of why such a loss occurred, 9 and then the Post Office would make its own 10 investigations. 11 Q. Now, if we go back, please, to your statement at 12 paragraph 33, you go on to say that: 13 "The CWU has no record of any of our directly 14 employed members losing their jobs or being prosecuted 15 due to problems with Horizon." 16 What I want to ask you is this: does the CWU make 17 and retain records relating to the dismissal or the 18 prosecution of its employees -- of its members, forgive 19 me. 20 A. No. 21 Q. If you don't have any record, or if you don't make and 22 retain such records, does it not follow that there might 23 well be directly employed members who have lost their 24 jobs or been prosecuted due to problems with Horizon, of 25 which you're not aware? 53 1 A. That's possible. 2 Q. So would it not be more accurate to say that you don't 3 know whether, and, if so, how many, of your members have 4 lost their jobs or been prosecuted due to problems with 5 Horizon because this isn't something which you've 6 actively monitored? 7 A. So the statements I make, which is the CWU has no direct 8 record of any of our directly employed members losing 9 their jobs or being prosecuted due to problems with 10 Horizon is a statement of fact for -- as far as I'm 11 concerned. We don't have that record. 12 Because of the extensive network we have of reps and 13 the relationship we have between the national officials 14 and our local reps and regional reps, my belief is that 15 we would be made aware if individuals had come to our 16 reps at local level and said to us "We're losing our 17 jobs" or "We're being" -- let's take the issue of 18 prosecution. If any of our members were to be 19 prosecuted over that, we're fairly certain that they 20 would come to our reps through the process I've outlined 21 and, if -- if our reps thought that was a problem, they 22 would come to us but we don't have any record of that. 23 Q. Now, I think what you've just said really is that you 24 make an assumption that that information would have 25 filtered its way up to national headquarters if that had 54 1 been the case; is that fair? 2 A. Yeah, we would assume our reps would tell us if they 3 were being asked by our members to assist them in such 4 cases. 5 Q. You've also said earlier that you would have expected 6 these issues, accounting discrepancies, to be resolved 7 at a local level and that you didn't expect that to be 8 something that would be escalated to national level? 9 A. There are two separate things. 10 Q. In what sense? 11 A. So I work at a Crown Office. I used to work at a Crown 12 Office and I work alongside people who on a Wednesday 13 night would do their balance and would misbalance more 14 regularly than the losses and gains procedure at the 15 time allowed for. So they would be interviewed by the 16 Post Office with their union rep or their local area 17 union rep and they would go through the losses and gains 18 process with the intention of rectifying their 19 performance on the job, so to speak. 20 There were regular occurrences. When I was a local 21 rep I used to deal with those cases on behalf of the 22 members, one or two a month. They're just dealt with at 23 local level and that's where it ends, and that's the 24 idea of that procedure, is to rectify those problems, 25 for want of a better phrase, at the coalface, so that 55 1 the individual counter clerk can prove that their doing 2 their job properly. 3 It's also true to say that, if our members were 4 being dismissed or prosecuted and our reps felt that 5 was, for want of a better phrase, unfair and wanted to 6 defend them and wanted our assistance in helping them do 7 that, they would come to us. 8 Q. Are you saying that, at that stage, there would be some 9 record held centrally of a request for assistance or 10 that, effectively, you would have some records showing 11 that that request had been made? 12 A. Yeah, if they -- if somebody wanted us to help assist 13 them in representing a member, they would email -- back 14 to '99, write to us -- with details of the case, asking 15 us could we assist or was it possible to assist, 16 depending on the nature of the individual case. 17 Q. But any record of that would have been in emails at the 18 time, which presumably you haven't gone back and checked 19 over, have you? 20 A. Yeah, we asked our research department what documents 21 and I think our research department and Andy Furey's 22 department -- my successor in that previous role -- 23 provided a number of documents to the Inquiry over the 24 last couple of years, with regards to what information 25 we have around Horizon. And we haven't come across -- 56 1 to my knowledge, we've not come across any 2 correspondence, emails or letters of that type. 3 Q. Now, the final thing you say in paragraph 33 is this: 4 "There have been cases of actual theft amongst CWU 5 represented grades, but invariably when people are 6 caught out they are quick to admit to theft. In these 7 cases, the CWU is generally not involved as people 8 resign before being dismissed." 9 Now, again, are you speaking here from your personal 10 experience of dealing with cases of theft? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. On how many occasions were you called upon to deal with 13 cases of theft by CWU staff members while you worked as 14 the assistant secretary? 15 A. Not when I worked as assistant secretary but when 16 I worked as a local rep -- when I was a local rep -- 17 back in Liverpool. When I worked as a local rep back in 18 Liverpool, I dealt with -- from memory, it's 30 years 19 ago -- from memory, three cases of individuals accused 20 of theft. 21 Q. Was it your experience that members who were accused of 22 theft by the Post Office always admitted their guilt? 23 A. Of the three cases I remember dealing with, one didn't, 24 and we subsequently won that case in Employment 25 Tribunal. The Post Office had no evidence. One 57 1 individual -- I think I made this in my earlier 2 submission, one individual was accused of stealing £500, 3 who denied it, right up until the final interview and 4 then admitted it, and then resigned, and then was 5 subsequently prosecuted. 6 Q. Were you involved in any cases of alleged theft after 7 Horizon was rolled out? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Therefore, insofar as you make a general statement about 10 cases of theft, is it right to say that that wouldn't 11 apply to the period after 2002, of which you didn't have 12 any personal experience? 13 A. I have no experience after 2002. Sorry, maybe I'm 14 misunderstanding the question, sorry. 15 Q. Sorry, it was badly phrased, so that's my fault. I'm 16 saying, insofar as you make a general statement about 17 cases of theft, it's right to say that that applies 18 prior to 2002 but not afterwards; is that fair? 19 A. I wasn't dealing with them after 2002 but, generally -- 20 what I say in my statement, generally, is the CWU 21 generally is not involved, as my experience is, if 22 people are guilty, then they resign rather than wait to 23 be dismissed. I've seen that, prior to 2002. 24 Q. Thank you. Now, when you previously gave evidence you 25 said that you were aware of the Post Office practice of 58 1 prosecuting staff members and you've just referred now 2 to an incidence of that. You also stated that, prior to 3 Horizon, I think you'd represented a member of the CWU 4 who'd gone on to be prosecuted by the Post Office. In 5 which type of hearings would you be representing 6 individuals at that stage? 7 A. So the individual concerned showed to a £500 loss in 8 their weekly balance. They were then called to 9 interview by the Post Office investigation branch and 10 then allowed to have friend/witness in and the Post 11 Office investigation branch put it to them that a loss 12 of that figure, around 500, couldn't possibly have been 13 a discrepancy; it was theft. And the individual denied 14 it and we went through the process of them being 15 dismissed, me doing the appeal, and it was at the appeal 16 stage that the individual changed their position and 17 said that, in fact, they did steal the money. 18 So yeah, that's how that process is dealt with. 19 So, under the investigation process, the 20 individual's allowed to have a witness/friend, whatever 21 you want to call it, in the room with them, 22 predominantly to make sure that that interview is 23 conduct correctly, fair play, in line with rules. Yeah, 24 and so I've dealt with that case. 25 Q. So you would have dealt with it and others in your 59 1 position would have dealt with it at this stage of the 2 internal disciplinary hearing; is that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And any appeal hearing -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- which followed. Did the CWU offer legal 7 representation to members against whom criminal 8 proceedings were brought by the Post Office? 9 A. CWU does not offer legal assistance to members for 10 criminal cases. 11 Q. That's in any circumstances? 12 A. To the best of my knowledge and experience, yes. 13 Q. You've been shown some statistics relating to the number 14 of prosecutions brought against subpostmasters, 15 assistants and Post Office employees in the decade 16 before and in the decade after Horizon was introduced; 17 is that right? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Now, it's right to acknowledge that the records on which 20 these statistics are based are incomplete, particularly 21 insofar as they relate to the decade before Horizon was 22 implemented. But I think you accept, do you not, that, 23 on the basis of the data we do have, it tends to show 24 a substantial increase in the number of prosecutions 25 bought against Post Office employees after Horizon was 60 1 rolled out; is that fair? 2 A. They appear to double: 2002 over 2001; 2003 over 2001; 3 drop back down again, 2004. So they fluctuate but it's 4 certainly true to say in -- so assuming we're (unclear) 5 enough to say the same thing, it says in 1999 for 6 employees, which are the people we were responsible for, 7 there were five, in 2001 there were six and then in 2002 8 there were 13, in 2003 there were 13, in 2004 that 9 dropped back down to seven, and then up to 11 in 2006 10 and so it fluctuates. But it is correct to say that, in 11 2002/2003, there were more than there were in 2001 and 12 1999. 13 Q. Now, in your most recent statement, you say that you 14 were not aware at the time of the rise in prosecutions 15 and convictions of Post Office employees; is that right? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Do you think you should have been aware or that you 18 should have known about this in your role as assistant 19 secretary and subsequently as Senior Deputy General 20 Secretary of the union? 21 A. No, because, as I said earlier, they wouldn't get 22 reported to us -- 23 Q. Well -- 24 A. -- at national level, sorry. 25 Q. But I think you said the opposite. I think you said you 61 1 would have expected -- had members been prosecuted, you 2 would have expected that to have reached you at national 3 level because you would have been told that? 4 A. No, I would have expected, if our local reps thought 5 that they should have been involved, they thought 6 something wasn't right, I would have expected them to 7 have raised it with us at national level. 8 Q. So your expectation -- 9 A. So I've referred -- sorry, so I referred earlier to they 10 would email us or they would write us to saying "We've 11 got a problem here, can you assist?" and so I would say 12 "We have no record of that", that's why we wouldn't have 13 been aware of, what, 1999, five prosecutions, if I'm 14 reading this correctly; 2001, six prosecutions, if I'm 15 reading it correctly. We would only have been aware or 16 we would have been made aware if representatives who had 17 been dealing with those cases had contacted us, 18 basically to say, "I've been dealing with this case its 19 looks like they're going to dismiss them, it looks like 20 they're going to prosecute them, we don't think that's 21 fair, we don't think that's right, is there something we 22 can do can we talk about this?", so on and so forth. 23 I've no recollection of people coming to me in my 24 role as the Assistant Secretary at national level and 25 raising that type of complaint, if you like, or concern. 62 1 Q. What you seem to be saying, essentially, is that you 2 were relying upon your local rep effectively to identify 3 if there was a system fault, were you not? 4 A. That is the system we have in place. As I explained 5 earlier, the idea of dealing with discrepancies or 6 even -- not just discrepancies in balancing, if you 7 like, on the counter but any discipline cases for any 8 reason -- insubordination, failure to attend for duty -- 9 the whole system was set up to deal with those issues 10 quickly, at the point they occurred, and then there 11 would be a process you would go through where, in more 12 serious cases, there would be escalated up, in terms of 13 the Post Office, their managerial structure and, in the 14 case of the union, our representative structure. And 15 that's how the issues would be dealt with. 16 So, insofar as we would have no record of, let's say 17 in 1999, exactly how many individual members of the CWU 18 were interviewed under the losses and gains procedure, 19 we wouldn't have that record because they were dealt 20 with locally. So, in the same way, if somebody was 21 prosecuted, unless those individuals contacted us, 22 unless representatives contacted us, we would have no 23 record of that. 24 Q. Okay, so, unless either the member themselves or the 25 local rep came to you and said, "I'm being prosecuted 63 1 because of a shortfall in Horizon which isn't my fault 2 it's the system at fault", you're saying that there 3 would be no record and you would have no awareness of 4 the fact of prosecutions being brought? 5 A. We would have no awareness at national level, no. 6 Q. Now, given what you knew about problems with balancing 7 during the rollout of Horizon, do you think that the 8 bringing of prosecutions by the Post Office is something 9 which you ought to have been monitoring at a national 10 level? 11 A. We weren't aware of the prosecutions at national level, 12 so we wouldn't have been monitoring it. 13 Q. But my point is you knew that the Post Office brought 14 prosecutions; is that not something which you should 15 have proactively been monitoring? 16 A. So let me just step back on we were aware of the Post 17 Office bringing prosecutions. At national level, we 18 don't have a record, we don't keep a record of the 19 prosecutions that the Post Office carries out. I think 20 the point I made in my statement is, usually, by the 21 time -- historically, by the time it got to that point, 22 we'd have individuals resigning, so we wouldn't have 23 a record of the prosecutions that the Post Office took 24 out against direct employees. 25 Q. I understand what you're saying, which is you didn't 64 1 have one. My question was: do you think you should have 2 had one, bearing in mind that you knew that there were 3 increased numbers of Post Office staff who were 4 complaining about problems with balancing? 5 A. No, because they were dealt with under the balancing 6 procedure. 7 Q. I'd like to move on to another topic, please, which 8 concerns the CWU's representation of subpostmasters. 9 When you worked as an assistant secretary, the CWU did 10 not represent the interests of subpostmasters; is that 11 right? 12 A. No, that's correct. 13 Q. Do you know why it was that subpostmasters were not 14 admitted as members of the CWU at that stage? 15 A. Because they were members of the National Federation of 16 SubPostmasters and that was -- so, within the Post 17 Office at the time, there were number of different 18 unions. There was the Post Office Engineering Union, 19 who were responsible for light and heat and vans; there 20 was the Communication Workers Union who were responsible 21 for directly employed Post Office staff working on Post 22 Office -- now Royal Mail -- issues as well; there was 23 the Communication Managers Association, who were 24 responsible for representing managers; and there was the 25 National Federation of SubPostmasters who were 65 1 responsible for representing subpostmasters. 2 And so, if you fell into one of those categories, 3 the recognition of the employer for anybody employed in 4 those categories were to -- within those unions. So the 5 reason we didn't represent them is because we didn't 6 have recognition agreements and they joined the National 7 Federation of SubPostmasters. 8 Q. In your statement you say that you don't consider the 9 interests of subpostmasters and Post Office employees 10 necessarily to be aligned; is that right? 11 A. I did say that, yeah. 12 Q. What do you mean by that? 13 A. Well, because subpostmasters -- so -- Crown Office 14 staff, Post Office staff, were directly employed 15 employees, of the Post Office. Subpostmasters, to my 16 knowledge/recollection, worked on a contractual basis as 17 private business people, for want of a better phrase, 18 and had a private contract with the Post Office. So 19 there were two distinct, different groups: one were 20 directly employed workers and the other were privately 21 employed -- private businesses, and directly engaged, if 22 you like, as agents by the Post Office. So two separate 23 interests. 24 So we would negotiate and argue, for example, for 25 increased wages and terms and conditions for directly 66 1 employed staff, whereas my understanding at the time is 2 the contracts between the Post Office and subpostmasters 3 would remunerate subpostmasters based on the 4 transactions they did, which are two distinctly 5 different things. They're not aligned. 6 Q. Now, there came a time when the CWU started to recruit 7 subpostmasters as members of the union. Do you recall 8 when efforts were first made to recruit subpostmasters? 9 A. Only from evidence that's been given to me in this and 10 from my involvement on the National Executive Council 11 for the union. I think that was around the 2014/2015. 12 Q. Now, you've been shown a printout from the CWU website 13 which tends to indicate that the union were actively 14 recruiting subpostmasters in October 2011. That's 15 NFSP00001463, please. 16 Thank you very much. If you look at the very bottom 17 of the page, please, you can see this is from where it's 18 drawn, so www.cwu.org/postmasters, and the date is 19 3 October 2011. If we could just scroll down, please, 20 thank you. So, in that first box, it identifies the 21 Chairman of what was called the CWU Postmasters & Agents 22 section, and that's Mr Nippi Singh. 23 A. Mm. 24 Q. A little further down, please. Thank you. There's 25 a further box which identifies Mark Baker as the Vice 67 1 Chairman of the same section. So it appears that, by 2 this time in October 2011, the CWU had established 3 a separate section to represent the interests of 4 postmasters and agents. Do you think that's a fair -- 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. -- inference from what we can see here? Do you recall 7 the circumstances in which these two individuals, 8 Mr Baker and Mr Singh, joined the Communication Workers 9 Union? 10 A. No, I wasn't involved in that but, from discussions, 11 I was -- so the final decision on allowing them -- or 12 setting up a subpostmaster section and actively trying 13 to recruit them was a decision of the National Executive 14 Council, of which I was a member. And my understanding 15 from memory, although I'm talking about nine, ten years 16 ago now, is that they had a sort of dissatisfaction with 17 the National Federation of SubPostmasters, then 18 a dissatisfaction with the direction that Post Office 19 was going, in a general sense, and my understanding was 20 they didn't have much faith in the National Federation 21 of SubPostmasters representing them, which is why they 22 approached us, and then we went "Well, if you're going 23 to approach us, then we're set up a section, we're going 24 to try to recruit more people from that cohort into the 25 union". 68 1 Q. Now, in your statement, you say that within of the roles 2 of the union is to regulate tension between its members; 3 is that right? 4 A. Between its members and the employer. 5 Q. Well, between members and employer but between -- but 6 internally between members, as well; is that not right? 7 A. Do I say that in my statement? 8 Q. If we go, please, to page 3, paragraph 8b. Thank you. 9 So in the preceding paragraph you describe the 10 objectives of the union and you go on to say here at 11 (b): 12 "[They are] To regulate the tensions between members 13 and their employers, and between members." 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Do you consider that tensions existed or exist between 16 subpostmasters and Post Office employees, bearing in 17 mind what you said about their interests not necessarily 18 being aligned? 19 A. No. No, I don't think there's a tension. We can 20 represent and do represent separate groups of workers to 21 the employers who are not necessarily in the same 22 workplace, not necessarily in the same, if you like, 23 industry. So no, it's -- I don't believe that, no. 24 Q. Thank you. Another related topic, please, which 25 concerns the relationship between the Communication 69 1 Workers Union and the National Federation of 2 SubPostmasters. In your statement, you say, at the time 3 when you worked as assistant secretary, the two 4 organisations held equal status; is that fair? 5 A. They were both recognised by the employer, by the Post 6 Office, as having negotiating rights. So, yeah, equal 7 status insofar as they could both directly represent to 8 the Post Office the concerns of their members. 9 Q. You said you would occasionally communicate on key 10 issues and priorities but you did not collaborate on 11 projects or member representation; is that right? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Now, there came a time when the Federation and the union 14 discussed a possible merger; do you recall that? 15 A. I don't. 16 Q. It may assist you, please, if we -- 17 A. Sorry, generally, yes. I think we were approached by 18 the then General Secretary, I think at the time was -- 19 I think at the time was George Thomson, but it wasn't my 20 day job so that approach would have been through Andy 21 Furey and the then General Secretary, I think, Billy 22 Hayes. So only in the sense that we were also 23 approached once by the Society of Telecom Executives, 24 which was the managers in the -- in BT, where we also 25 have members and, over the years -- excuse me -- over 70 1 the years, we had -- we do have general discussions with 2 other unions and representative bodies about whether or 3 not there is common ground or there is the possibility 4 of us merging or are there any common interests. 5 So yeah, that approach -- or whether they approached 6 us or we approached them, I don't know because I was not 7 involved but I'm generally aware that a discussion took 8 place. 9 Q. Thank you. Could we please bring up CWU00000076. Thank 10 you. As you can see, this is a report to the National 11 Executive Council on 18 June 2015, for consideration at 12 a meeting scheduled for 25 June. Were a member of the 13 NEC at this time? 14 A. Correct, I was. 15 Q. Did you receive a copy of this report? 16 A. I would have done. 17 Q. You would have read it, presumably, at the time? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Now, to place this in context, can we please take a look 20 at the heading and introduction. So this report relates 21 to the NFSP, Post Office Limited and CWU. Under 22 "Introduction", it reads: 23 "It is prudent for us to consider the challenges, 24 opportunities and options for the CWU given the 25 likelihood that the NFSP special conference next month 71 1 decides not to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding 2 with the Post Office in preference to a transfer of 3 engagements to us or the National Federation of Retail 4 Newsagents." 5 This is a reference, is it not, to what later became 6 known as the Grant Framework Agreement, that was 7 concluded between the NFSP and the Post Office in July 8 of that year; are you aware of that? 9 A. I am not. I'm not aware of that last point. As I say, 10 my understanding was, along with other unions over 11 a period of time, the NFSP had approached us, as well as 12 others, including the National Federation of Retail 13 Newsagents here, to understand or identify what scope 14 there was for the two organisations to come together, 15 but I wasn't aware of that -- of that other point, as 16 I say because that was no longer my area of 17 responsibility. 18 Q. What this appears to suggest is that that approach, that 19 you say you received from the NFSP, seems to have come 20 at a time when they were also in negotiations with the 21 Post Office over a possible long-term partnership and 22 a funding arrangement; is that fair? 23 A. Yeah, I think that's fair. I mean, I referenced 24 discussions we'd had with other unions about potentially 25 merging with the CWU. But what happens is, if 72 1 an organisation thinks there's a need to merge, for want 2 of a better phrase, they'll keep a number of options 3 open, they'll have discussions with a number of 4 partners, if you like, and then to a decision about 5 which they think is the possession, fit for them. So, 6 yeah, they were talking to us, talking to the National 7 Federation of Retail Newsagents and talking with the 8 Post Office, as I understand it, new arrangements which 9 led to the contract that you just referred to. 10 Q. Now, it appears that it was the expectation of the CWU 11 that the NFSP would not enter into that agreement. Do 12 you know why that was their expectation at the time? 13 A. No, my sense for that, having been involved in 14 discussions with other unions over a period of time, is 15 you get a feel whether you're just, for want of a better 16 phase, as a bargaining chip for them to go somewhere 17 else, so they will say to whoever their preferred 18 partner is "These are offering us a better deal, we're 19 in discussions with this other group as well, so the 20 deal had better be good from you", whoever you are, 21 "because we've got other options". 22 Once you go through the sort of negotiation process 23 on that, which I have been involved in but not the 24 Federation, you start to get a feel about whether 25 they're serious about merging with you, or actually, 73 1 they're keeping their options open in case what they 2 really want falls apart, and then they've got you as 3 a back-up. 4 Q. Now, if we could move on, please, to page 3 and we see 5 this issue addressed in some more detail under the 6 heading "Relationship issues". Firstly, "With POL", the 7 first issue dealt with. That reads: 8 "There was an exchange of correspondence with POL in 9 October 2014. This followed receipt by us of legal 10 advice on the nature of POL's relationship with the NFSP 11 following the removal of the Federation from the list of 12 accredited trade unions." 13 Just pausing there, do you know why it was that the 14 NFSP had been removed from the list of accredited trade 15 unions? 16 A. I don't know the specific reason that would have been 17 given by the CEO, no. 18 Q. If we go on, please, to the second paragraph, it reads: 19 "We ... need to return to that correspondence in the 20 event of the merger process being terminated." 21 So that's presumably a reference to the possible 22 merger between the CWU and the NFSP. 23 A. I assume that -- I'm assuming that's what that refers 24 to. 25 Q. The: 74 1 "The exclusivity accorded to the NFSP does not 2 appear to be consistent with particular legal 3 obligations, especially as it necessarily means that CWU 4 represented postmasters are excluded from arrangements 5 which determine their contractual undertakings." 6 Do you consider that the CWU was hampered in its 7 ability effectively to represent the interests of 8 subpostmasters by reason of the fact that they were not 9 formally recognised by the Post Office for collective 10 bargaining purposes? 11 A. Yeah, I think -- so, in reaching out to anybody who 12 wants to be a member of any union or the CWU this say to 13 them "This is what we can do on your behalf", so we can 14 say to directly employed staff, "What we can do on your 15 behalf is go direct to the employer on pay, terms, 16 conditions, that directly affect you. We are recognised 17 by the employer to bargain on your behalf". 18 I believe -- my understanding, as of today, we still 19 don't have a recognition agreement with the Post Office 20 for our subpostmasters' section and, therefore, the 21 offer that you make to potential members, one of the 22 first questions they would ask is "What can you do on 23 our behalf", and we have to say to them "We're not 24 recognised by the Post Office to directly represent your 25 interests". 75 1 So, in answer, not being recognised by the Post 2 Office to directly represent their interests is 3 a hindrance to recruitment of that cohort, in my view. 4 Sorry. 5 Q. Well, it may be a hindrance to recruitment, is it also 6 a hindrance to effective representation? 7 A. Insofar as you cannot directly go to the Post Office, 8 yes, it is. 9 Q. Do you know the reasons which were given by the Post 10 Office for refusing to recognise the CWU -- 11 A. No. 12 Q. -- as representative? 13 A. I don't. 14 Q. What, if any, steps has the union taken to address this? 15 A. I don't know. As I think I've said in my statements, 16 since 2002, not my day job. Andy Furey would be in the 17 frontline of making that representation to the Post 18 Office. 19 Q. Now, in the second half of this page we can see the 20 heading "Relationship issues ... With the NFSP as 21 reconstituted under an MoU". It reads: 22 "We have received a copy of the much-discussed 23 proposed Memorandum of Understanding between [Post 24 Office Limited] and the NFSP. This is attached. 25 "The most salient points of this document can be 76 1 summarised as follows ..." 2 We'll look at some of them now, please. The first 3 one summarising paragraph 2 of the draft MOU: 4 "The NFSP will reconstitute itself as a trade 5 association or similar organisation." 6 Are you able to explain, please, the distinction 7 between a trade union and a trade association? 8 A. Um -- 9 Q. What the significance of that would be in -- 10 A. I understand what I know and believe a trade union to be 11 and what its purpose is, and a trade association or 12 similar organisation is there to protect the interests, 13 as I understand it, of the business or the business 14 owners, as opposed to all the workers who work in any 15 particular trade or business, which is why I suspect the 16 Certification Officer no longer includes the National 17 Federation of SubPostmasters as an accredited trade 18 union, because the Trade Union Certification Officer has 19 a strict set of criteria about what a trade union is, 20 and them not being listed as a trade union means that 21 they fall outside of that remit. So there is 22 a fundamental difference in protecting a business or 23 protecting a trade, than there is protecting directly 24 employed workers. 25 Q. The second bullet point, please, states that: 77 1 "Under the MOU the, the [Post Office] (not [Post 2 Office Limited]) will provide funding of 'up to 3 £1.5 million' per annum from 2015/16'." 4 It goes on to explain that the actual amount would 5 depend on the difference between the revenues derived 6 from the current membership model and the income stream 7 and what they actually received, but it goes on to state 8 at the bottom: 9 "In discussion, CWU representatives have described 10 adoption of the MOU as meaning an inevitable cessation 11 of subscription income -- and no one [perhaps it should 12 read 'from', rather than 'form'] the NFSP has 13 disagreed." 14 So, essentially, a proposal to provide funding of up 15 to £1.5 million. 16 If we could go over the page, please, the second 17 bullet point there reads: 18 "'PO will provide additional funding of no less than 19 £1 million per annum as a budget for grants to the 20 NFSP'. Thus the annual gross value of the MOU is up to 21 £2.5 million per annum." 22 Was a funding arrangement of this nature usual for 23 a trade union or trade organisation to your knowledge? 24 A. It's not usual for a trade union. Absolutely not. 25 Trade unions are almost predominantly funded by 78 1 subscription income paid by their members. This 2 document shows that had position for the Federation was 3 to cease and they were to be funded directly by 4 a payment from the employer or the Post Office. 5 Q. Now, the document goes on to suggest that there were 6 likely to be some conditions attached to the grant of 7 this funding. If we can scroll down, please. Thank 8 you. So these are referenced as part of paragraph 6, 9 the first bullet point identifies paragraph 6 as 10 a review mechanism for the agreement and states: 11 "At paragraph 6c it says that the 'NFSP has not 12 engaged in activities which are actively detrimental to 13 the [Post Office]' -- but does not define what these 14 are." 15 The paragraph goes on to state that: 16 "... 'the Post Office acknowledges that the NFSP ... 17 must have freedom to undertake activities that protect 18 and represent their members' views. In undertaking 19 these activities, the NFSP agree that it will not 20 introduce commercial risk to the [Post Office]'." 21 The author observes this a "very wide potential 22 prohibition". Then: 23 "... while [Post Office] remains publicly owned, the 24 proposed TTIP treaty ..." 25 Do you know what that is a reference to: the TTIP 79 1 treaty? 2 A. I think that was an international agreement around how 3 businesses transact standards that they had to operate 4 under, from memory. 5 Q. "... [that] could be prayed in aid as the arbiter of 6 'commercial risk' were the treaty to be ratified", it 7 suggests. 8 It goes on to say there are dispute management 9 procedures, which are reasonably transparent and have 10 a degree of independence but, in the final bullet point, 11 please: 12 "Paragraph 6's final subparagraph says 'should the 13 NFSP disclose [Post Office] information that is 14 confidential or commercially sensitive (as defined in 15 the confidentiality agreement) or encouragement 16 [presumably was meant to read 'encourage'] 17 subpostmasters to take action which conflicts with their 18 contractual obligations, except where all other avenues 19 of dispute resolution have been exhausted, this will be 20 deemed a material breach of this agreement." 21 So, essentially, the NEC being notified there that 22 there's a new arrangement for funding to be made but 23 that funding will come with certain conditions; is that 24 fair? 25 A. That's my understanding of -- 80 1 Q. Now, if we could turn to the following page, please, we 2 can see the overall conclusion reached by the CWU -- 3 forgive me, if you scroll up a little bit, thank you. 4 So, as to the effect of these provisions, the report 5 provided: 6 "There can be no doubt that the MOU represents the 7 abandonment by the Federation of any meaningful 8 independence. Our relationship with them and the 9 employer would necessarily change as a consequence, as 10 the CWU would be the only organisation of standing able 11 to offer postmasters effective representation." 12 Now, reading that, it rather suggests that the CWU 13 believed at that time that the NFSP had compromised or 14 was going to compromise its independence in reaching 15 this agreement; is that fair? 16 A. That's fair. 17 Q. And that the CWU believed that it was the only 18 organisation which could offer effective representation 19 to subpostmasters? 20 A. That was our view, yes. 21 Q. Now, it's a related issue but I'd like to deal now, 22 please, with how the CWU responded to the emerging 23 scandal. If we can please bring up your witness 24 statement at page, that's WITN06370200. 25 Thank you. Page 10, please, paragraph 43, you say 81 1 this: 2 "I did not take any steps between 2009 and 2019 3 (inclusive) in raising any concerns regarding the 4 integrity of the Horizon IT System with [Post Office 5 Limited], the Government, the Shareholder 6 Executive/UKGI, MPs, and peers or journalists as this 7 issue no longer formed part of my remit to do so." 8 Now, just pausing there, for a minute, you've just 9 told us that, as a member of the NEC, you received 10 a report saying that the NFSP was compromised or was 11 compromising its independence; is that correct? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Do you not think that you had a duty to take forward 14 these issues on behalf of subpostmasters who were not 15 being effectively represented, in your view, by their 16 trade association? 17 A. So the question was: did I take any steps? The answer 18 was I didn't because it was not my job to do so. The 19 CWU structure, at national level, is we have a National 20 Executive Council, which I sit on, which is responsible 21 for finance, admin functions, things like whether or not 22 we agree to merge with another union to form a union, 23 industrial issues, day-to-day industrial issues, which 24 the Post Office and counter clerks are dealt with by 25 a separate executive called the Postal Executive, of 82 1 which Andy Furey is a national officer -- I used to be 2 a national officer of the Postal Executive from '97 to 3 2002. 4 So those issues are dealt with not by the National 5 Executive Council but are dealt with by the industrial 6 executive that I don't sit on and is not part of my 7 responsibilities. So my statement was in response to 8 the specific question that I was asked by the Inquiry 9 Team: did I take any steps between 2009 and 2019 in 10 raising any concerns on the issue with those? And the 11 answer is no because, as I've just explained, the remit 12 for those was the then-Assistant Secretary couldn't -- 13 Assistant Secretary, Andy Furey, and the postal 14 executive. 15 Q. The role of Assistant Secretary was not as senior as 16 Deputy General Secretary, was it, in terms of hierarchy? 17 A. In terms of the internal hierarchy of the union, 18 correct. 19 Q. Do you not think this was an issue which required the 20 involvement of more senior leadership? 21 A. No, because that isn't the structure. So the 22 responsibilities of the national officials are laid out 23 within the rule book. Mine is to assist the General 24 Secretary, and the Postal Assistant Secretaries and the 25 Postal Executive have sole authority over the industrial 83 1 issues with the employers, Royal Mail, Post Office, et 2 cetera. 3 MS HODGE: Thank you, sir. I think the stenographer would 4 like a short break, please. I have very few further 5 questions for this witness but I think there may be 6 a couple of questions from the recognised legal 7 representatives. 8 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, that's fine. We will take a break 9 until 12.10. 10 MS HODGE: Thank you. 11 (12.00 noon) 12 (A short break) 13 (12.10 pm) 14 MS HODGE: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear us? 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 16 MS HODGE: Thank you, sir. 17 Mr Kearns, you've said in your statement and in your 18 evidence that you simply weren't aware that 19 subpostmasters and Post Office employees were being 20 prosecuted in reliance on data shown by Horizon; is that 21 right, at least for a substantial period of time with 22 which we're concerned? 23 A. Apart from when it became public, yes. 24 Q. Do you recall when you first did become aware? 25 A. I don't recall, no. 84 1 Q. I wonder, please, if we could look, again, at that 2 report to the NEC dated 18 June 2015, that's 3 CWU00000076. This was the report we were looking at 4 just shortly before the break, insofar as it related to 5 the changes to the constitution of the National 6 Federation of SubPostmasters and its funding arrangement 7 with the Post Office. It also contained an update on 8 Horizon. We can see that, please, on the first page., 9 under the heading "Horizon". It said this: 10 "As reported in LTB 269/15 ..." 11 Is that a reference to letter to branch, "LTB"? 12 A. "LTB", letter to branch. 13 Q. "... issued on 21 April, concern about the approach 14 adopted by [Post Office Limited] to the alleged problems 15 caused to postmasters by the Horizon operating system 16 has now been raised directly with the Prime Minister. 17 "There has been a pause in political activity on 18 this during the General Election period, but POL's lack 19 of engagement with the mediation process, the attempt to 20 suppress a report by Second Sight -- the company engaged 21 to investigate alleged shortcomings of Horizon -- and 22 continuing concerns of both CWU and NFSP postmasters 23 mean that the issue will not subside." 24 Now, it goes on to read, please, over the page: 25 "The 'Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance' 85 1 organisation has been set up by mostly ex-postmasters 2 who believe that they have been unfairly treated. 3 However, the key individual in JFSA, Alan Bates, is not 4 currently in contact with the CWU parties' branch." 5 This suggests at least that, at this stage, Mr Bates 6 hadn't approached the CWU directly for support for his 7 campaign; is that correct? 8 A. Yes, that's what it says, yes -- 9 Q. On the face of it, of what we have before us. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. The second paragraph goes on to read: 12 "[Post Office Limited's] position has essentially 13 been based on the principle that the Horizon system 14 cannot go wrong. However, this is not what we, NFSP and 15 JFSA are saying. Our position is that however robust 16 a computer system there can be and have been problems." 17 What this appears to be is an acknowledgement by the 18 CWU that there have been problems with the Horizon 19 system; is that fair? 20 A. That's what that suggests, yes. 21 Q. Now, the final paragraph reads: 22 "Due to the collapse of the Mediation Scheme at 23 least two of our members will almost certainly now have 24 normal [Post Office] disciplinary action taken against 25 them (because they are still serving), which will 86 1 quickly culminate in [Post Office Limited] terminating 2 the contract of one member and forcibly making the other 3 pay back his losses by deduction to pay." 4 Now, if we just step back for a minute, this is 5 obviously in a report to you as a member of the NEC -- 6 that's correct -- bringing to your attention concerns 7 about Horizon; is that fair? 8 A. Yes, it references -- 9 Q. Concerns which the CWU shared at that stage, or by that 10 stage. These were concerns that affected both former 11 subpostmasters and current subpostmasters, some of whom 12 were members of the CWU at that time; isn't that right? 13 A. Yes, I mean -- well, we had a subpostmaster section. So 14 yes. 15 Q. Given what you were being told in a report such as this, 16 should you have done more, do you think, to raise 17 awareness within Government and to lend your support to 18 the campaign to expose the failings of Horizon? 19 A. As I said before the break, that was not my area of 20 responsibility. Our rule book, which is -- under which 21 the CWU operates, that responsibility is the 22 responsibility of the Postal Executive and the officers 23 of the Postal Executive, in this case Andy Furey, to 24 deal with. 25 Q. Would it be fair, do you think, to say that, in essence, 87 1 the CWU left the group litigants to bear the burden of 2 challenging the integrity of Horizon? 3 A. Given that I had no involvement with that issue at that 4 time, I couldn't say I could agree with that statement. 5 I'm not in a position to agree with that statement 6 because I don't know what the executive and the officer 7 concerned were doing on a daily basis on this issue. 8 MS HODGE: Thank you. 9 Sir, I've no further questions for this witness. 10 Before the recognised legal representatives ask 11 their questions, is there anything you wish to ask, sir? 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, thank you. No. 13 MS HODGE: Forgive me, sir. If we just pause for one 14 minute. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. (Pause) 16 MS HODGE: Sorry, sir, we've had a late request for 17 a further document to be put to the witness. It may be 18 that the way we can approach it is to let Mr Stein, if 19 you have questions, to go first. 20 I think the other representative is Ms Watt. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 22 MS HODGE: We can review the position in relation to that 23 document to ensure that the witness is given a fair 24 opportunity to review it before he is asked any 25 questions. 88 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Sorry, we're going to hear from Mr Stein 2 and then Ms Watt, and then review whether we need to ask 3 any more questions; is that it? 4 MS HODGE: Well, sir, yes. I mean, my proposal is that we 5 proceed with questions now whilst we review in the 6 background what the effect of this document is and then 7 we will perhaps see where we are in the next 15 minutes. 8 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, that's fine. 9 MS HODGE: Thank you. 10 MR STEIN: Sir, I've no objection, of course, to us 11 proceeding in that way. The difficulty though is, if 12 the document is released and I need to see and it and 13 consider it, for the purpose of any further questions, 14 then I may beg an indulgence, which is to return to any 15 questions we may have arising out of that document. 16 But on that basis, sir, would you mind if I then go 17 ahead with our questions for Mr Kearns? 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, no, carry on. 19 MR STEIN: I'm very grateful. 20 Questioned by MR STEIN 21 MR STEIN: Mr Kearns, you're a longstanding employee of the 22 CWU, the Communication Workers Union, you're employed in 23 an elected position as the Senior Deputy General 24 Secretary of the CWU; is that correct? 25 A. That's correct. 89 1 Q. You may or may not know my name is Sam Stein, 2 I represent a large number of subpostmasters/mistresses 3 and employees working in branch offices of the Post 4 Office. 5 I've just got a couple of questions, using, first of 6 all, your experience, if may, as part of the trade union 7 movement. In the judgment, judgment number 3 in the 8 High Court -- I'm not sure if you have this but I'll 9 read out the relevant part -- a judgment by Mr Justice 10 Fraser, now Lord Justice Fraser, he said this at 11 paragraph 1120 of judgment 3 that: 12 "The National Federation of SubPostmasters is not 13 independent of the Post Office." 14 He went on to say: 15 "The Post Office also has a highly detailed funding 16 agreement with the NFSP that would entitle the Post 17 Office to claw back funds already paid to the NFSP if it 18 does anything that would damage the Post Office's 19 reputation, including supporting the subpostmasters in 20 this litigation." 21 So he was making the points, which is the NFSP is 22 not independent of the Post Office, there's a funding 23 agreement with the NFSP, allowing the Post Office to 24 claw back funds paid to the NFSP if the NFSP anything 25 that would damage the Post Office's reputation. 90 1 Help us understand, with your own work within the 2 trade union movement, is that a normal arrangement with 3 a representative body working on behalf of, in this 4 case, subpostmasters? 5 A. No. I wasn't aware of that specific but, having 6 listened to what you said, I've never come across 7 a representative body/trade union, that has such clauses 8 in it. That doesn't sit comfortably people with me as 9 a trade unionist, that you could enter into that and 10 claim to be a representative body. 11 Q. It may be, in some ways, obvious but what's the problem 12 with entering into an agreement to not criticise the 13 employer of the people you represent; what's the 14 difficulty? 15 A. Well, you would take away your independence, you take 16 away your ability to challenge the direction that the 17 employer or the company is going in, because you think 18 it's detrimental to both the members you represent. In 19 the case of ourselves as the CWU, with recent examples 20 of Royal Mail, the service they're providing to the 21 customer, to the public. If you're unable to challenge 22 that, it strikes me that it's more like a business 23 partnership than it is a representative body for the 24 individuals that make up the organisation. 25 Q. Can I then elide that to a question that was asked by 91 1 Ms Hodge that concerned and touched on collective 2 bargaining. Now, you refer to collective bargaining at 3 paragraph 7 of your statement, where you say you must 4 add that: 5 "The CWU has long called for union recognition, for 6 collective bargaining purposes, for subpostmasters but 7 POL has consistently refused to grant this." 8 You've added in your evidence you still believe 9 that's the position today; is that correct? 10 A. That's my understanding of it. 11 Q. Now, paragraph 11 says this: 12 "We engage in collective bargaining processes with 13 several employers on issues such as pay, terms and 14 conditions of employment." 15 So Ms Hodge was seeking to establish with you what, 16 if you like, are the advantages of collective bargaining 17 on behalf of members of the CWU. You refer to it there 18 as being discussions with employers on issues such as 19 pay, terms and conditions of employment. What would be 20 the effect of having what I am going to call a shackle 21 on a representative body to not criticise the employer, 22 in relation to collective bargaining? 23 A. My view is that the shackle would be that you're not 24 able to effectively represent the members of that 25 organisation and because -- well, if you're restricted, 92 1 for want of a better phrase, in criticism, such -- 2 I give an example. You take the -- we had a major 3 industrial dispute with Royal Mail some years ago -- 4 I understand not everybody likes this but we took major 5 industrial action which disrupted the service, partly 6 because we didn't think our members were being treated 7 with due respect, partly because -- the reason for that 8 was because the direction that Royal Mail was setting 9 out as a business, and therefore the industrial action 10 that we eventually took was, if you like, for want of 11 a better phrase, a protest against that, to defend our 12 members against job losses, so on and so forth. 13 If you're restricted from being able to make that 14 criticism then, well, you're not able to effectively 15 represent those individuals who make up that 16 organisation, is how I would see it. 17 Q. Now you've mentioned to Ms Hodge that the position of 18 Mr Furey. Mr Furey, if I've got it right, is the 19 Secretary to the CWU but also is the CWU's national 20 officer for postmasters, CWU members who are working in 21 Post Office branches and working in the wider Post 22 Office; is that correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Right. So Mr Furey's title is, essentially, to deal 25 with all such matters in relation to CWU membership, 93 1 subpostmasters, people employed in branches and working 2 within the Post Office itself; is that right? 3 A. Correct, his title is the Assistant Secretary, Clerical 4 Cash Handling so all those issues which includes Crown 5 Post Office staff and administrative staff in 6 employment -- 7 Q. Which is why, in your evidence, you've made it clear 8 that, since, I think, around 2002, that's not been your 9 direct area of responsibility, it's been Mr Furey's; is 10 that correct? 11 A. March 2002, to be specific. 12 Q. I'm grateful. Then turning to Mr Furey, are you aware 13 that he has given evidence before select committees in 14 relation to the CWU subpostmaster branch employee 15 membership? 16 A. I am. 17 Q. Given evidence at least on two occasions that I can find 18 on a quick search, is that right, and been interviewed 19 generally in regards the Post Office and actions taken 20 by the management of the Post Office and is quoted often 21 in the press? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Fairly obviously, Mr Furey would be someone who could 24 take any other matters further if there were any other 25 questions to be asked by the Inquiry? 94 1 A. Correct. 2 MR STEIN: Thank you, Mr Kearns. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Ms Watt? 4 Questioned by MS WATT 5 MS WATT: Good afternoon, can you hear and see me? 6 Thank you, Mr Kearns. I'm just diagonally behind 7 Mr Stein there. Yes, we have this problem every time 8 I speak. Thank you. 9 I have some questions for you on behalf of the 10 National Federation of SubPostmasters and I think we 11 actually spoke before when you were here the last time. 12 Your union would have had hundreds, perhaps, if not 13 thousands, of members working in what was then hundreds 14 of Crown Office branches using Horizon during the 2000s 15 when the scandal was emerging; that's correct, isn't it? 16 A. Yes, my recollection, from around 2000, I think we have 17 maybe 9,000/9,500 members. That's severely diminished 18 through the 2000s and to today because of -- 19 Q. So A lot of members -- 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. -- many, many members -- 22 A. Yeah, thousands. 23 Q. -- working in these Crown Office post offices? 24 A. Correct, yeah. 25 Q. So you've accepted earlier this morning that there would 95 1 have been prosecutions of Crown Office employees, you 2 said the CWU didn't know anything about these 3 prosecutions because you didn't provide legal funding 4 for criminal representation and you've said, as 5 I understand it, you don't think you could would or 6 should have known about these prosecutions at the time; 7 is that correct? 8 A. Yeah, they were not raised with us at national level. 9 We were not aware of them. I mean, in terms of me 10 saying I was aware of them, I was aware of them because 11 I was handed a piece of paper that details prosecutions. 12 That's how I'm aware of them. I think also, in some of 13 the questions I was given in preparing my statement was 14 a question about what Legal Services the union offers to 15 its members, and we don't offer Legal Services for 16 criminal prosecutions. 17 Q. But, as a generality, and this is over time -- and 18 I think Sir Alan Bates first raising of the point is 19 around 2003/2004, and then everything gathers momentum 20 over the years -- there were these increasing voices 21 about problems with Horizon and prosecutions and this 22 was being reporting in the media, so my question is how 23 or why could the CWU, even if you yourself in your role, 24 not understand that issues with Horizon and 25 prosecutions, given they were being talked about in the 96 1 context of subpostmasters, might be able well be 2 involving your members, could also be affecting them? 3 A. As I say, from March 2002 -- so the period you refer to, 4 2003/2004 -- from March 2002, if such incidents 5 occurred, they would go to Andy Furey and his department 6 to deal with. 7 Q. I mean, I understand it wasn't you personally. I'm 8 talking about the union as a whole, looking at its 9 members and issues that were coming into the public 10 domain, were in the public domain. How is it that the 11 union itself couldn't understand that those issues might 12 be affecting their own members, even if they weren't 13 hearing about actual criminal prosecutions of their own 14 members? 15 A. I mean, I think the point I've made and tried to make is 16 that the union is made up of a number of sections and 17 those elected to the top of the union have completely 18 different responsibilities. So the responsibilities for 19 dealing with any issues that would arise for our members 20 directly employed by Crown Offices would go to and rest 21 with what I would call the Postal Executive, which is -- 22 under our rule book, which has the sole responsibility 23 for dealing with those issues. So it's not that the 24 union in total would be aware of all of those issues 25 because it's not why -- everyone employed by the union 97 1 is not employed to deal with everything that the union 2 faces. 3 So individuals and elected groups are responsible 4 for specific, different aspects of the work we 5 undertake. So we have a nationally elected executive 6 that deals with all issues relating to our members 7 employed within the postal industry, which includes the 8 Post Office, and we have a Lead Assistant Secretary who 9 deal with various businesses, in this case my 10 responsibility up until March 2002, and then Andy 11 Furey's responsibility. 12 Q. So would it be fair to say that the CWU, whether it was 13 you or whether it was Andy Furey, but the CWU is joining 14 the list of a rather long line of people and 15 organisations who were simply incurious about Horizon? 16 A. No, I don't think that's fair to say. 17 Q. Well, you've said that you didn't know anything about it 18 and that, despite media coverage, no one was prompted to 19 look at the issue for CWU members. So I'm suggesting to 20 you that that is indeed being incurious? 21 A. Well, I don't think I said I didn't know anything about 22 it. I also, on a number of occasions, I've been quite 23 specific about where the responsibility lies in a large 24 trade union like ours to deal with these issues on 25 a day-to-day basis. 98 1 Q. Just to -- 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Let me just ask you, Mr Kearns. Clearly, 3 I understand what you're telling me about the 4 demarcation of responsibility but would you expect that 5 the relevant heads of the section which deals with Post 6 Office employees and subpostmasters would have had 7 information about the numbers of people who were either 8 been prosecuted or dismissed on the strength of 9 information from Horizon? 10 A. If that information somehow was given to them, either by 11 the Post Office or by our reps or members. 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, when you say "somehow", were there 13 any processes in place, so far as you know -- perhaps 14 you don't know -- which would allow information such as 15 I've just suggested to you to go up the ladder, from the 16 local reps, where no doubt it will have started, to the 17 senior people at the head of the relevant section? 18 A. If those were issues of concern to our representatives 19 at local level, area level, regional level, they would 20 be passed up through briefings and meetings that our 21 executive and national officers would have with those 22 representatives on a regular basis. So, if those were 23 issues of concern, then, yes, that would be the process 24 through the procedure -- 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Without wishing to put words in your 99 1 mouth, is this a fair summary: that you would expect 2 that, if local representatives were concerned about 3 issues such as prosecutions or dismissal on the strength 4 of Horizon, they would have ensured that it went up the 5 ladder to more senior people? 6 A. That's a fair summary, yes. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. All right. 8 Sorry, Ms Watt. 9 MS WATT: Thank you, sir. 10 Just picking up and following on from that and 11 earlier questions, you were referring in some evidence 12 with Ms Hodge to the former NFSP members, such as Mark 13 Baker, coming over to the CWU because they were 14 dissatisfied with the NFSP. I think it's fair to say 15 it's a matter of public record on their part -- 16 certainly, at least, Mark Baker's part -- that this was 17 largely to do with the satisfaction about the way in 18 which the issues on Horizon were being dealt with by the 19 NFSP. 20 Now, even if it was the case, for instance, that the 21 Post Office wouldn't talk to the CWU about 22 subpostmasters at the time -- this is around 2011 -- 23 because they only wanted to deal with the NFSP on 24 subpostmasters, surely any concerns being brought to the 25 CWU by Mark Baker and others about Horizon would have 100 1 been another way that your union was alerted to problems 2 with Horizon that could be affecting your own Crown 3 Office members, and you could have raised it with the 4 Post Office then; would you accept that? 5 A. That would be the -- as I said earlier, that would -- if 6 Mark Baker has represented those to Andy Furey, who was 7 dealing with those issues in 2011, that would have been 8 a way of raising them with the Post Office, yes. 9 Q. But it just never bubbled up to the relevant surface of 10 the CWU; is that where we're -- 11 A. Sorry, it didn't bubble up? 12 Q. Yeah, it didn't reach/go through those layers that you 13 described to the Chair there of how matters come up 14 through to the top of the CWU and perhaps then go to the 15 Post Office? 16 A. Well, again, I'm -- I know people might get fed up with 17 me repeating this but, after 2002, it wasn't my 18 responsibility, so I'm not aware of which issues bubbled 19 up, as you describe it, through that rep structure to 20 Andy Furey, and what then transpired after that. 21 Q. Did the Postal Executive or the CWU ever bring issues 22 about Horizon concerns and Crown Office employees to the 23 Executive Council of the CWU, that you can recall? 24 A. Not that I can recall. 25 Q. I've just got a couple more questions. I think you were 101 1 just discussing there, towards the end of your evidence, 2 about self-employed subpostmasters and collective 3 bargaining. I think you've been discussing and you'd 4 agree that self-employed subpostmasters running small 5 businesses are quite a different beast to large-scale 6 groups of employees such as postal workers on collective 7 bargaining; would you agree with that? 8 A. Yeah, they are different groups. 9 Q. One final question. When I asked you questions on the 10 last time you appeared, you agreed it was likely that 11 Post Office employees, such as Auditors and others, were 12 or could have been members of the CWU. I think you'd 13 agree that would likely also include Investigators, as 14 well; would that be right? 15 A. When you say Investigators, you mean -- 16 Q. Those who carried out an investigation function. People 17 who were formerly counter clerks and then investigated 18 shortfalls and discrepancies and -- 19 A. The Audit Team, you mean? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Yes, a number of those were -- yeah -- 22 Q. Yeah, members? 23 A. -- members -- certain members of the Audit Team were 24 members of the CWU. Managers of the Audit Team were 25 not -- 102 1 Q. We heard that. 2 A. -- members of the CWU. They were the Communication 3 Managers Association. 4 Q. Yes, we heard that. We have also heard much evidence 5 about the aggressive bullying and intimidating tactics 6 used by Investigators and Auditors and I just wanted to 7 ask what you have to say about that behaviour and what 8 the Inquiry has heard about the way in which Auditors 9 and Investigators operated? 10 A. So I only saw a snippet of one of the Post Office 11 investigation branches giving evidence. I've had 12 experience of the Post Office Investigation Branch, as 13 it was then in my day job, when I was a local rep. 14 Having represented people who have been accused of 15 theft, I do find their methods to be aggressive, I do 16 find their methods to be almost -- well, natural justice 17 is innocence until proven guilty; my experience of 18 sitting down alongside our members, facing the Post 19 Office Investigation Branch, is there's a strong belief 20 in the Post Office Investigation Branch where people are 21 guilty and they're there to ensure that there are 22 consequences to that. 23 I don't find it -- generally, my experience in the 24 past -- it's a long time since I've had any dealings 25 with Post Office Investigation Branch -- is I found them 103 1 to be aggressive, not always -- I wouldn't trust them. 2 Q. So, to the extent that any of those were your members, 3 is it something that you could or should or would now 4 provide training to your members in how to conduct 5 themselves? 6 A. Training to our members? 7 Q. Well, members who are conducting those kind of 8 functions -- 9 A. Our reps? 10 Q. Yeah. 11 A. We -- as I said earlier, we provide training for our 12 reps. 13 Q. Sorry, not your reps. The members who are actually 14 conducting themselves in this way. Do you consider the 15 CWU has an obligation to perhaps remind its members of 16 how to conduct themselves when carrying out their 17 functions? 18 A. Sorry, members of the investigation branch were not 19 members of the CWU, members of the Audit Team were. 20 Q. Audit Team, yes. 21 A. I'm talking about -- we're talking about two different 22 things. 23 Q. Two different things? 24 A. We had the investigation branch who sit down and accuse 25 people of theft or wrong doing. The Audit Team -- so 104 1 the Audit Team -- predominantly in Crown Offices, 2 individual stocks and the office balance is conducted on 3 a Wednesday evening. Predominantly, Audit Teams would 4 arrive before the opening of business on a Thursday 5 morning and do a full audit. So they would audit all 6 the individual stocks and the whole office balance to 7 check that the closing balance that the office and the 8 individuals declared on a Wednesday night was, in fact, 9 accurate. 10 The staff who carried that out were CWU members but 11 they were not the ones who would be interviewing 12 individual members of staff and accusing them of, for 13 example, theft. That was the Post Office Investigation 14 Branch. Two separate bodies within the Post Office. 15 Q. But those individuals might have been the ones out in 16 the field dealing with subpostmasters. That's what the 17 evidence has heard; would you accept that? 18 A. The Audit Team? 19 Q. Yes, members of the Audit Team. 20 A. Yes. 21 MS WATT: Thank you. Those are all my questions. Thanks. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right, Ms Hodge where are we with this 23 document? 24 MS HODGE: Sir, I don't think there's any need to share it 25 in the end. I think the questions were posed in a more 105 1 general way. 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. 3 MS HODGE: So that concludes the questions from the 4 recognised legal representatives and the witness may be 5 released. 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you, Mr Kearns, for 7 reappearing at the Inquiry and answering further 8 questions. I'm grateful to you. 9 So, is it sensible to break for lunch now? 10 MS HODGE: Sir, I think so, yes. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So we'll resume at 1.40? 12 MS HODGE: Yes, thank you. 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, fine. 14 (12.41 pm) 15 (The Short Adjournment) 16 (1.40 pm) 17 MR STEVENS: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear me? 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I can indeed. 19 MR STEVENS: Thank you, we are going to hear from Kay 20 Linnell. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 22 DR KAY CATHERINE SHEILA HILARY LINNELL (sworn) 23 Questioned by MR STEVENS 24 MR STEVENS: Please could you state your full name? 25 A. Kay Catherine Sheila Hilary Linnell. 106 1 Q. Thank you for attending the Inquiry to give evidence 2 today. You have produced a written witness statement, 3 could I ask you to turn that up, please. That's in 4 front of you. Excellent. It should have the date in 5 the top right of 16 May 2024. 6 A. Yes, it does. 7 Q. Thank you. For the record, that Unique Reference Number 8 is WITN00550100. Now, before I go to your signature, 9 could I ask you to turn to page 24, please, 10 paragraph 91. It doesn't need to be shown on screen 11 you, on the first line, refer to "Jo Swenson's" -- well, 12 spelt with an "E", I understand you wish to correct that 13 to "Swinson", spelt with an "I"? 14 A. Yes, please. Spelling mistake, and it's the first of 15 two paragraphs 91, which is a numerical mistake. 16 Q. Can I ask you to turn to page 41, please. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You should see paragraph 157 and then below that 19 a statement of truth with your signature? 20 A. That's my signature. Thank you. 21 Q. Can I ask, are the facts in that statement true to the 22 best of your knowledge and belief? 23 A. They are. 24 Q. That will stand as your evidence in the Inquiry and it 25 will be published shortly on the website. I'm going to 107 1 ask you some questions about it but, before I do, 2 I understand that you'd like to make a statement? 3 A. Yes, please. Thank you. 4 Before I start, I'd like to say this is a good 5 opportunity to pay tribute to those who have worked very 6 hard behind the scenes to help the SPMs to right the 7 miscarriage of justice that has been brought to light. 8 There are many unsung and unseen heroes and I have been 9 personally supported very strongly by Howe+Co in this 10 matter and, before that, by Freeths in the High Court 11 litigation, and by other firms, such as Hudgells. 12 I would like to pay my respect and thanks to them, 13 because a lot of what they've done is unpaid and 14 unnoticed. Their support continues. 15 One other person I'd like to nominate for a special 16 vote of thanks, so to speak, on behalf of the SPMs and 17 myself is Barbara Jeremiah, my business partner. 18 I slightly blame her for becoming involved in this, 19 because Barbara believed in Jo Hamilton's innocence and 20 would not believe me until we got involved. Jo is our 21 local subpostmistress, or was, and Barbara has worked 22 tirelessly providing support, guidance and encouragement 23 to many subpostmasters in the very many years we've been 24 involved. 25 Barbara has been involved in almost 20 years and has 108 1 never once wavered from her steadfast belief against 2 impossible odds. Barbara has never refused a request 3 for help from any SPM and has always been mindful of the 4 damage inflicted on them and their families by the 5 malicious, incompetent, coercive, controlling behaviour 6 of the shape-shifting Post Office. 7 We will continue to give support to SPMs in every 8 way we can, through accountancy, taxation, counselling 9 and advice, and any SPM who needs advice should contact 10 us until the money wrongly extracted from them, and the 11 damages to compensate them, have been paid in full. 12 The new Post Office team appear to be no better 13 organised than the old one through recent events but 14 I will not mention that. Thank you. 15 Q. We are not going to cover any recent events, we'll look 16 at matters in the Inquiry's terms of reference. I'm 17 going to start with your background, please. 18 You qualified as a chartered accountant in 1979? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. You now work as forensic accountant? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. When did you first start to act as a forensic 23 accountant? 24 A. Possibly in the late '80s/early '90s. 25 Q. From that point the late '80s/early '90s, did you work 109 1 for a firm or on a self-employed basis? 2 A. I began engagement with fraud when I was a partner in 3 a small firm of chartered accountants in Derby and, 4 having discovered fraud, I applied to and joined the 5 Inland Revenue and ultimately became the board of Inland 6 Revenue's Chief Investigating and Prosecuting Accountant 7 and Head of Accounting Profession, prosecuting several 8 well-known figures. I then left HMRC, as it became, and 9 I set up the Joint Insolvency Monitoring Unit to monitor 10 insolvency practitioners. 11 I've also worked in the industry for Forte Plc as 12 Head of UK Taxation and then went back into the 13 profession with a small London firm of accountants and 14 I was then headhunted by Smith & Williamson to set up 15 a Southampton branch as a forensic accountant and 16 latterly by BDO. In about 2010, I set up my own 17 practice. 18 Q. So when you were first engaged in or involved in matters 19 relating to subpostmasters, for whom were you working at 20 that stage. 21 A. I was working for myself. It was about 2012. 22 Q. I think you mentioned BDO, you were employed by BDO? 23 A. Yes, I was the Forensic Director in Southampton. 24 Q. What was the full name of BDO, sorry? 25 A. I think, at that stage, it was BDO LLP, I forget. 110 1 Q. Could I start with your initial interaction, then, with 2 subpostmasters and the subpostmasters' cause. Could we, 3 please, bring up the witness statement at page 2, 4 paragraph 5. If we could have paragraph 5 at the top. 5 You say: 6 "I became involved in the Post Office treatment of 7 its subpostmasters in 2009 because of my local 8 postmistress, Jo Hamilton." 9 You then refer to your business partner, saying she 10 used to drop into Jo's shop in South Warnborough to buy 11 her lunch on the way to court: 12 "One day in 2005, she found Jo in tears because of 13 ever increasing unexplained shortfalls in her business 14 accounts." 15 You go on to describe some aspects of the criminal 16 trial. 17 Can I just clarify, were you first made aware of Jo 18 Hamilton's case in 2009? 19 A. No, earlier than that, and I did try and get involved in 20 2009 but my real first involvement with Sir Alan was in 21 2012. 22 Q. Thank you. So is it fair to say that you were aware of 23 some facts of the issues, you were aware of 24 Ms Hamilton's case before -- well, before you became 25 involved with Sir Alan but it's only at that later stage 111 1 in 2012 when you became involved. 2 A. Yes. You could almost say I got my hands dirty from 3 2012 onwards but I was well aware of it much earlier 4 than that. 5 Q. That can come down. Thank you. 6 You go on to say that your business partner 7 suggested that you spoke to Jo Hamilton in June 2012. 8 A. Yes, that's right. 9 Q. At that point, I think, Ms Hamilton suggested that you 10 spoke to Sir Alan? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Now, had you heard of Sir Alan before that, before you 13 spoke to him? 14 A. Yes, indeed. Mrs Hamilton told me all about him, 15 regularly. 16 Q. Can you recall your initial meeting with him? 17 A. I met Sir Alan outside James Arbuthnot's office in 18 a first meeting which we were going to have with James 19 Arbuthnot, and Ron Warmington and Ian Henderson of 20 Second Sight. 21 Q. So I'm going to come to that meeting shortly but that's, 22 effectively, the first -- 23 A. That was my first physical meeting. I had had a couple 24 of telephone calls with him. 25 Q. I just want to ask a few points about representation 112 1 generally, starting with the JFSA. At paragraph 9 of 2 your statement, you say that JFSA is an unincorporated 3 affiliation with no constitution, rules or hierarchy, 4 but simply united by a common problem, which is to get 5 back the money wrongly taken by Post Office and attempt 6 to recover losses and damages caused by the Post Office 7 operation of the Horizon computer and support system in 8 the subpostmaster Post Office Network. 9 You say no hierarchy; was Sir Alan the chairman of 10 the JFSA? 11 A. In one way. He was effectively the person driving 12 a campaign and the SPMs that I met preferred that he led 13 the way for them. I don't think there's an officially 14 recognised hierarchy or structure where there's chairman 15 or secretary or treasurer, or anything like that. 16 Q. How was decision making on behalf of the JFSA as 17 a whole, how did that decision making happen? 18 A. It happened at group meetings by show of hands. 19 Q. When you first met Sir Alan in 2012, can you recall 20 roughly how many subpostmasters or former subpostmasters 21 formed part of the JFSA? 22 A. I don't know that information. 23 Q. Do you know how the JFSA was funded at that time? 24 A. My understanding is it had no funding. 25 Q. At that time, had you had any contact with the NFSP? 113 1 A. None whatsoever. 2 Q. Let's go, then, to the meeting in July 2012, and I think 3 you say that that was with Sir Alan, Ron Warmington, Ian 4 Henderson and Lord Arbuthnot? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Before that meeting, what had you been told about the 7 purpose of it -- sorry, the purpose of the meeting? 8 A. I was told the purpose of the meeting was to consider 9 a mediation proposal put forward by the Post Office. 10 Q. So did you say mediation proposal? 11 A. A mediation proposal put forward by the Post Office to 12 James Arbuthnot which he wanted JFSA to sign up to, to 13 try to resolve the -- I think it was 47 MP complaints 14 about SPMs. 15 Q. Pausing there, there was obviously the Mediation Scheme, 16 which we'll come to after the Interim Report in 2013. 17 This in July 2012, prior to the Second Sight Interim 18 Report, was this still described to you as a mediation 19 proposal? 20 A. My recollection, which may not be that accurate at this 21 remove of time, but my recollection was there was 22 looking to be a mechanism to resolve the disputes, 23 effectively raised by the 47 SPMs complainants thorough 24 their MPs, and they wanted an initial external 25 independent forensic firm of accountants to look at it. 114 1 Q. Prior to that meeting, had you had any experience or 2 dealing with either Ron Warmington or Ian Henderson? 3 A. None whatsoever. I looked them up before meeting them 4 but I wasn't certain that they weren't people put up to 5 do a whitewash burial job by the Post Office. 6 Q. So we can actually bring up your witness statement, 7 please, page 4. There you say: 8 "I was extremely suspicious of Second Sight, as they 9 had been nominated by [Post Office] as independent 10 forensic accountants, and I was concerned that their 11 access to documents and review of [Post Office's] 12 Horizon system might be a whitewash. I challenged them 13 at our meeting in 2012 but was satisfied with their 14 responses." 15 Can I ask your recollection of how you challenged 16 them at that meeting? 17 A. I recall I asked them various questions about their 18 background and approach to what ended up being the spot 19 reviews of the cases. 20 Q. Do you recall what they said to satisfy you? 21 A. Not precisely but I wanted to know what documents they 22 were going to look at, what level they were going to 23 look at in the IT support and whether they were going to 24 meet the complainants. 25 Q. You said in your evidence then what ended up being the 115 1 spot reviews. From your recollection, was the concept 2 of spot reviews discussed at that meeting? 3 A. Not to my recollection, no. 4 Q. Do you recall, broadly, what the proposal from Second 5 Sight was? 6 A. I think the initial proposal was to pick several of the 7 47 cases and do an in-depth review of each of them to 8 try to find out what had gone wrong and whether the 9 complainant had any substance in what they were saying. 10 Q. So, at that stage, a focus looking to specific cases 11 raised by MPs? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Lord Arbuthnot produced a witness statement and gave 14 oral evidence to this Inquiry, the witness statement was 15 dated 12 March, and he recalls this meeting taking place 16 on 12 July 2012, and his evidence was that you and Alan 17 were satisfied and agreed to the appointment of Second 18 Sight at that meeting, with the caveat that you would be 19 able to double check that Second Sight were acting 20 independently; would you agree with that? 21 A. Yes, that's correct. 22 Q. At that point, how did you envisage checking on Second 23 Sight's independence? 24 A. At that stage, I thought I would be acting as 25 an independent forensic accountant for JFSA and, 116 1 I believe at the time, I prepared a letter of engagement 2 and it was agreed I'd be paid a small fee for checking 3 their work and going round with them, just to see what 4 they were doing. 5 Q. Let's look at that letter of engagement now. It's 6 exhibited to your witness statement at WITN00550101. Is 7 this the letter to which you were referring? 8 A. Yes, it is. 9 Q. It's dated 6 July 2012, so shortly after the meeting 10 with Lord Arbuthnot and Second Sight? 11 A. 16 July 2012. 12 Q. 16th, sorry, did I say the 6th? I do apologise. 16th. 13 If we could go down, please. We see "Scope of Our 14 Work", it says, well, firstly a sentence about acting as 15 expert accountant and -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. -- refers to Second Sight. The second sentence says: 18 "The initial investigation would be in two parts, 19 the first being into current errors, the second to 20 investigate the historic cases which have been raised by 21 MPs and a number of cases you will recommend." 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. So is that broadly what Second Sight were suggesting at 24 this time, or at least your understanding of it, a look 25 at, in the first tranche, current cases and then more 117 1 historic ones in a second tranche? 2 A. That was my understanding. 3 Q. At this stage, was there any discussion, from your 4 recollection, of systemic errors or looking for systemic 5 errors? 6 A. No, not at all. 7 Q. That document can come down. Thank you. 8 If we could bring up the witness statement, please, 9 page 4, paragraph 15. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Before that comes up, Mr Stevens, can you 11 remind me to whom that letter was addressed? I saw that 12 it was on Ms Linnell's notepaper but it's "Dear sirs"; 13 is there a -- 14 MR STEVENS: Yes, the addressee is Justice for 15 Subpostmasters Alliance but, actually, sir, you are 16 quite right, the question I should ask, if it's 17 an unincorporated association, was to whom was that 18 letter sent? 19 A. It was sent to Alan Bates. 20 Q. There we are on the witness statement. So paragraph 15, 21 you refer to attending a meeting at Post Office with 22 Alwen Lyons and Paula Vennells. You say "I think in 23 around June or July 2013". 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. Had you met with Alwen Lyons and/or Paula Vennells 118 1 before then? 2 A. I don't think I'd met Alwen Lyons before then and 3 I think I had seen rather than spoken to Paula Vennells. 4 There was a briefing day in the September of that year 5 when I definitely met them but I don't recall meeting 6 them before then. 7 Q. The Interim Report is produced on 8 July 2013. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Was this meeting before or after the Interim Report? 10 A. Unfortunately, I can't find the date but I believe it 11 was before the Interim Report was released. 12 Q. But you're confident that it was 2013 and not 2012? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. We'll come back to that meeting, then, in due course. 15 Can I please ask for us to look at POL00091028. If we 16 could go down, please, thank you. So we have an email 17 from Ronald Warmington to Mike Wood MP. You're not in 18 copy to this, so you wouldn't have seen it at the time, 19 presumably? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Have you seen it for the first time when preparing for 22 the Inquiry? 23 A. That's correct, yes. 24 Q. The second paragraph of that email says: 25 "The idea of carrying out a deep dive into Horizon 119 1 is on hold until we have completed the Case Reviews. 2 Few of us think that sort of review will work well. 3 Some of us think it would probably turn out to be 4 a colossal and expensive disappointment (for those 5 seeking evidence of anomalies in Horizon). Those 6 pressing for such a Review now seem happy to wait to see 7 what the Case Reviews throw up." 8 Do you have any recollection, between the meeting 9 you had with Second Sight on 12 July and this meeting on 10 18 July, of any discussion about a deep dive review or 11 specific case reviews? 12 A. No, we only had the one meeting to start the process 13 off. I think it's referring to our first meeting. 14 Q. At this stage, you were happy with the case reviews 15 approach? 16 A. I think if you didn't approach it through case reviews, 17 you wouldn't know what anomalies you would be looking 18 for. You'd be checking 100 per cent of the system at 19 vast cost and it would take an enormous amount of time, 20 so I do agree with starting with the problems and then 21 working back to see what went wrong. 22 Q. Thank you, that document can come down. 23 Please can we bring up your witness statement at 24 page 11, paragraph 47. Thank you. Now, this is 25 something I've already touched on. You say here about 120 1 the distinction between systems error and systemic 2 error. You say: 3 "It's worth noticing the difference between 4 a 'systems error', (that is an IT coding error that will 5 replicate an error of the entry of the same data and 6 processing of the transactions in the IT system) and 7 a 'systemic error'), that is one caused by incorrect 8 implementation and management of the subpostmaster 9 network using the Horizon computer accountancy system)." 10 Were those concepts, as you describe them there, 11 discussed with Second Sight in 2012? 12 A. I think the first time the words "systemic error" was 13 used was in a letter from Sir Alan to, I think, James 14 Arbuthnot, and the difference between Ron and Ian's 15 definition of systemic errors and ours is theirs was 16 restricted solely to the computer system, whereas ours 17 saw it to be a complete system of administration, 18 training, implementation and management, using the 19 computer Horizon. 20 Q. Do I take it from that, then, that there wasn't 21 a discussion with Horizon on the difference between 22 "systems error" and "systemic error" in 2012? 23 A. Not that I recall. 24 Q. Could we look, please, at the Interim Report. It's 25 POL00099063. If we could go to page 22, please, so this 121 1 is an appendix to the Interim Report which sets out, it 2 says, the remit of the inquiry. It says: 3 "The remit of the Inquiry will be to consider and to 4 advise on whether there are any systemic issues and/or 5 concerns with the 'Horizon' system, including training 6 and support processes, giving evidence and reasons for 7 the conclusions reached." 8 Do you recall the first time you heard the inquiry 9 expressed in those terms was? 10 A. I think it was on the publishing of this report which 11 I didn't see in draft before it was published. I just 12 saw the final version. 13 Q. Keeping at the time when the Second Sight review was 14 commissioned, so July 2012, what at that time was your 15 view of the Post Office's motivations for commissioning 16 that review? 17 A. Personal opinion is that they wanted to settle the MPs' 18 complaints and make it quiet. 19 Q. What was that based on? 20 A. It was based on the attitude of the Post Office in 21 falling over themselves to provide information about 22 those particular cases and nothing else. 23 Q. In your view at the time, what, if any, other options 24 were open to the JFSA to push forward with the 25 subpostmasters' concerns? 122 1 A. The JFSA were an alliance of people who had similar 2 problems with the Horizon system, who'd suffered 3 personal damage but had no information whatsoever. If 4 it could be taken to the next stage of taking it to the 5 court, the SPMs, JFSA, required evidence, and there was 6 no way of getting evidence from the Post Office, except 7 through MP complaints. So there was no other course of 8 action they could have taken at that stage, in my 9 personal opinion. 10 Q. Just to be clear, that was your opinion at the time? 11 A. It was my opinion at the time and remains so. 12 Q. In 2011, the Inquiry has seen letters of claim from 13 Shoosmiths starting or intimating actions and the 14 Inquiry has heard evidence of, in 2005, Post Office 15 considering that a group action may be on the horizon at 16 some stage. Why was that not a viable option for the 17 JFSA at the time? You've mentioned the evidential 18 concerns; were there any others? 19 A. There are two problems that JFSA faced: one is no 20 evidence or information; and the second is no funding. 21 So to get funding, you'd have to put a case together to 22 take to a litigation funder and, without any information 23 being extracted from the Post Office, it would be 24 impossible. It had already been tried and kept being 25 tried to get Freedom of Information requests, and the 123 1 one I am familiar with is Jo Hamilton's, which came 2 about an inch thick with nearly every page redacted but 3 for one or two words. It was a document that must have 4 cost a lot of ink but it couldn't be used for litigation 5 because there was no information worth using. 6 Q. So is it fair to say that the access to information 7 about the cases and the system, was absolutely 8 imperative to pursuing the subpostmasters' campaign? 9 A. It was critical because, without such information, it 10 would not have been possible to convince any lawyer 11 there was a case to be answered. 12 Q. At this stage, to what extent had the JFSA sought out 13 assistance from other bodies, such as the NFSP? 14 A. I'm not aware of that, I'm afraid. 15 Q. I'd like to now, look, at the Second Sight investigation 16 itself. Please could we bring up POL00097402. This is 17 an email on 25 January 2013 from Ian Henderson to Janet 18 Walker. Now, Janet Walker worked for Lord Arbuthnot, 19 then James Arbuthnot MP. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. It says: 22 "Ron and I have discussed this. 23 "We both think it's an excellent idea for Alan and 24 Kay to be invited [referring to a meeting]. We are now 25 working quite closely with them and have almost daily 124 1 contact." 2 Would you agree with that about the state of your 3 working relationship at January 2013? 4 A. Yes, I was going out to various meetings with SPMs with 5 Ron, and Alan and Ian were also talking quite a lot so, 6 yes, I would agree with that. 7 Q. At that stage did either Mr Henderson or Mr Warmington 8 communicate to you any of their views on what they'd 9 heard about the Horizon IT System? 10 A. As you've heard from them on Tuesday, you'll know that 11 they're not backward at telling their views about 12 things, so yes, they had. 13 Q. What's your recollection of what they said? 14 A. My recollection was they found sufficient errors, 15 defects and problems that the complaints by the 16 subpostmasters through their MPs were generally being 17 found to be based on errors in the Horizon system. 18 Q. At that stage, how satisfied were you with the work that 19 they had and were carrying out? 20 A. I was very satisfied that they were trying to do their 21 best to get information from Post Office to answer the 22 question we'd all been asking: why had these differences 23 occurred? 24 Q. At that stage, January 2013, had either Mr Warmington or 25 Mr Henderson mentioned concern that there may have been 125 1 miscarriages of justice? 2 A. No, we didn't discuss criminal prosecutions or 3 miscarriage of justice. We were simply looking to try 4 to find out why the errors had occurred. 5 Q. Please could we bring up POL00098315. If we can move 6 down the page, please. Thank you. We have an email 7 from Sir Alan to Ron Warmington on 12 May 2013. 8 I believe that data protection has covered up the email 9 address but I believe that's you in copy; is that right? 10 A. Yes, I was copied. 11 Q. It's responding to quite a lengthy email from 12 Mr Warmington, which I don't need to take you to. As 13 you may expect, it's the "System Errors vs Systemic 14 Failures" that I want to deal with. It says: 15 "I think there may be, at times, confusion by others 16 over the referring of these two points. At its most 17 basic, system errors would to me be something like 18 an extra loop in the software code causing the false 19 result of a transaction, but as you rightly say, that 20 would affect every one of the 11,500 offices. Then at 21 the other end of the scale it might be something far 22 more complex resulting from a network communication 23 failure and an incomplete recovery of a transaction at 24 a particular office ..." 25 It goes on, and Sir Alan goes on to say: 126 1 "Now systemic failures on the other hand are 2 different, and in my letter to James Arbuthnot ..." 3 Now, pausing there, was that the letter to which you 4 referred earlier in your evidence as the first time you 5 recollect this issue arising? 6 A. Yes, that's my recollection. 7 Q. He says: 8 "... where I first use the phrase, I have qualified 9 its context. 10 "This occurs in the first sentence of paragraph 2, 11 where I say 'the weight that it adds to the systemic 12 failures with Post Office and the Horizon system'. It 13 is these systemic failures with Post Office and their 14 Horizon system that are the proven facts." 15 Now, do you agree with that definition of system 16 errors and systemic failures. 17 A. Yes, I do. 18 Q. Did you have any further discussion on that distinction 19 with any representatives of Second Sight following this 20 email? 21 A. No, I left this to Alan because he had some experience 22 in point of sales and software and, frankly, I'm too 23 old. I use pen and ink, really. 24 Q. Before we move to look at the Interim Report itself, to 25 what extent were you aware of Fujitsu's involvement 127 1 during the -- sorry, I'll rephrase that. 2 To what extent were you aware of Fujitsu being 3 consulted by Post Office during the Second Sight 4 investigation? 5 A. I assumed, at this time, that Fujitsu held some of the 6 electronic evidence and data and they would have to be 7 asked by Post Office to produce it. I'm not aware of 8 any consultations. 9 Q. So is it fair to say that was an assumption you made 10 because they operated the computer system but you had no 11 direct knowledge of Post Office contacting Fujitsu? 12 A. Not at that time, no. 13 Q. At that time, had you heard of Gareth Jenkins? 14 A. No, I had not. 15 Q. I said it would be before I move to the Interim Report 16 but, of course, I put off the question I was going to 17 ask earlier about a meeting with Paula Vennells and 18 Alwen Lyons. Could we please bring up your statement at 19 page 4, paragraph 15. Thank you. 20 So you refer to, again, this meeting in either June 21 or July 2013 and my understanding is that this was 22 before the Interim Report came out. That was your 23 evidence earlier. 24 A. Yes, that's correct, and I believe it was requested by 25 Post Office. We'd written and asked for a meeting 128 1 I think on around the beginning of June 2013, and the 2 date was suggested by, I think, Paula Vennells. 3 Q. Well, let's see if we're thinking about the same email. 4 Could we bring up POL00098418, please, and if we could 5 go to the bottom of the page, please. This is an email 6 from Sir Alan on 21 May 2013, and the last paragraph on 7 the page says: 8 "Would it be possible for Kay Linnell and I to meet 9 with you?" 10 Is that the email you were referring to? 11 A. Yes, and I think there's some subsequent emails where 12 she comes back and I think a date of 5 June was 13 suggested but that wasn't convenient. Yes, it's down 14 there at the bottom of the page. 15 Q. So looking at this email, Sir Alan refers to you and who 16 you are, as a reminder. If we go down, he says that: 17 "The main purpose of the meeting is to ensure that 18 you have been receiving the full details of what has 19 been occurring with the Second Sight investigation. 20 Bearing in mind what has been discovered so far, I for 21 one am surprised that we haven't yet met to discuss the 22 implications." 23 Now, pausing there, at that stage, what had been 24 discovered so far that prompted an email from Sir Alan? 25 I should ask, sorry, did you and Sir Alan discuss this 129 1 before sending it? 2 A. Yes, we regularly discussed things and swapped drafts 3 and, as I recall, what had been discovered is there had 4 been substantial and important errors in the operation 5 of the computer, which had caused differences in 6 shortfalls in SPMs' accounts, and it was, at this stage, 7 we had, from the spot reviews, evidence that Horizon did 8 not operate perfectly and left differences. 9 Q. It goes on to say, the final sentence of the paragraph: 10 "I have little doubt that it is now feasible to show 11 that many of the prosecutions that [Post Office] have 12 pressed home should never have taken place, and 13 I believe this is a view shared by Kay." 14 Was that a view shared by you? 15 A. Very much so. 16 Q. Again, so we're clear here, what was it at that stage 17 that led you to believe that it was feasible to show 18 that many prosecutions should not have taken place? 19 A. Bearing in mind I had personal knowledge of Jo 20 Hamilton's case and her case was taken to the doors of 21 the trial before a plea bargain, without any evidence 22 being given to Jo to check, as to how and why the errors 23 arose, when Second Sight started their spot reviews, 24 they also found that there were errors which hadn't been 25 disclosed to people who were prosecuted as part of the 130 1 spot cases. 2 Q. Just pausing there, when you say "errors", can you 3 remember, putting yourself back to the time, what those 4 errors were which led you to believe this? 5 A. I can't remember which names the bugs had but -- 6 Q. Is it bugs that you're referring to? 7 A. It's bugs and everyone has called them bugs but they're 8 actually errors in the computer software programming 9 that, when you put in a certain series of transactions, 10 always cause a difference. And as the Post Office read 11 the contract, that it was always the subpostmaster's 12 fault or liability, whatever the circumstances, it was 13 clear to me that money had been taken wrongly, and also, 14 as in Jo's case, they had relied on the computer figures 15 to mount a prosecution, and I therefore felt at that 16 stage prosecutions might or probably were unsafe. 17 Q. Was that, the prosecutions being unsafe -- 18 Let me rephrase it. Who did you discuss your 19 concern that prosecutions may have been unsafe, other 20 than Sir Alan and, by way of this email, Paula Vennells? 21 A. Nobody, because it's a suspicion, not evidence and, as 22 forensic accountant, I have prosecuted people while 23 I was at HMRC/Inland Revenue, and I am aware of the 24 standard beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence 25 required to show criminal intent, none of which appeared 131 1 to be present in Jo's case. But I was not aware of 2 sufficient evidence to take that anywhere else. It was 3 a suspicion. 4 Q. The last question I'd like to ask on this email is the 5 use of the words: 6 "The main purpose of the meeting is to ensure that 7 you have been receiving the full details of what has 8 been occurring ..." 9 Do you know why Sir Alan used that turn of phrase? 10 A. We actually discussed this. It's a question, we 11 thought, of the Post Office being a former Government 12 organisation which had silos where, for example, the 13 Legal Department appeared to be completely separate from 14 the Operation and Management Department of the Post 15 Office Network and there appeared to be management 16 layers between them and the Board and the CEO. So Alan 17 and I wanted to make sure the people at the top knew 18 exactly what had been found. 19 Q. If we then can go back to the meeting, which we had in 20 your witness statement, so if we could bring back page 4 21 of the witness statement, please, paragraph 15, it says 22 that: 23 "We asked to meet Paula Vennells as CEO to try to 24 get a reality check on the [Post Office] opposition to 25 recognising the plight that [Post Office] had caused 132 1 [subpostmasters], to admit Horizon was not 100 per cent 2 perfect (as no computer system can be) and to get money 3 paid back to [subpostmasters as soon as possible]." 4 You go on to say: 5 "At that stage, JFSA did not want a full public 6 exposure just proper care for SPMs in giving money back 7 wrongly taken and paying for losses and damages. We 8 were asking for substantial amounts but nothing compared 9 to their own bonuses published in great deal in the 10 [Post Office Limited] annual accounts." 11 There you don't refer to prosecutions. Did you not 12 discuss that with Paula Vennells at this meeting? 13 A. As far as I can recall, we discussed everything, and we 14 were slightly worried that they'd used no evidence at 15 all to mount criminal prosecutions without any idea of 16 whether there was a guilty mindset or not. But I didn't 17 refer to it there because I am not certain. I don't 18 have any notes of that meeting. I can't even find the 19 date of it, unfortunately. 20 Q. From your recollection, what do you think you said to 21 Paula Vennells and Alwen Lyons about your concerns as to 22 criminal prosecutions? 23 A. I believe Sir Alan and I have always been concerned 24 about giving money back to subpostmasters who were in 25 dire financial straits, having had money taken away from 133 1 them, and the thought about prosecutions was something 2 we suspected but couldn't prove or worry about. As in 3 2013, so many years ago, we wanted the money given back 4 to people it had been taken off, and that still is 5 a primary concern. And, you know, I'm sorry to expand 6 on the answer but I recall that all we got from Paula 7 Vennells was her main purpose was to learn from the past 8 and build the brand and make it profitable, which is not 9 an answer to our questions at all. 10 Q. Do you recall there being any discussion on, or proposal 11 put forward, by either Alwen Lyons or Paula Vennells 12 that went to concerns about either criminal prosecutions 13 or giving money back to subpostmasters as you requested? 14 A. No. None. 15 Q. Thank you. That document can come down. Thank you. 16 Please could we -- actually, before we go to that, 17 the Interim Report, we know, is published on 8 July 18 2013. What, if any, involvement, did you have with 19 looking at or discussing drafts of the Interim Report 20 with Second Sight? 21 A. None whatsoever. 22 Q. Did you have any discussion with representatives of 23 Second Sight more generally about the content of the -- 24 not specific drafting but the content, the general 25 content, of the Interim Report before it was published? 134 1 A. Not before it was published. 2 Q. What did you understand the purpose of Second Sight 3 releasing the Interim Report to be and, just to be 4 clear, my question is before it was released? 5 A. Before it was released, I believe there was some 6 pressure, particularly from -- James Arbuthnot was my 7 MP, as well as Jo's, and I think there was some pressure 8 from the MP committee, led by James, to actually give 9 some sort of Interim Report as to what the Second Sight 10 investigation was finding. So, I believe they selected 11 a few cases, four or five, and produced, effectively, 12 a distilled analysis of them. Before they produced it, 13 I expected it a full in-depth analysis of them. 14 Q. That purpose, so producing an interim distilled analysis 15 of four or a select number of the spot reviews, did you 16 think that was a -- what did you think of that as 17 an idea? 18 A. Not a bad idea because it might start the ball rolling 19 towards giving the money back, I thought, and as long as 20 it's only a stepping stone in their enquiries, it 21 wouldn't make any difference. 22 Q. Was there any discussion, before the Interim Report was 23 published, as to what would happen to Second Sight's 24 investigation after it was published? 25 A. No, I don't believe there was a discussion, I think 135 1 there was an understanding that the Second Sight 2 investigation would continue until they'd finished the 3 subpostmasters' complaint cases, the ones from the MPs. 4 Q. Sorry, I -- 5 A. I beg your pardon. 6 Q. I overcut you there. I was about to ask, you said 7 "until they'd finished the subpostmasters' complaint 8 cases", and then you say the ones from the MPs, as in 9 the cases referred by the MPs? 10 A. And I think they were augmented in some way by a few 11 added by Post Office as sample cases, from memory. 12 Q. You referred to an understanding that Second Sight's 13 work would continue. When you say that understanding, 14 was that just your understanding or one shared by 15 others? 16 A. The original engagement of Second Sight was by the MPs, 17 countersigned by JFSA and Post Office were used by the 18 MPs as a vehicle to implement the contract and pay, 19 because the MPs did not have a budget. So my 20 understanding was the MPs were instructing Second Sight, 21 nobody else, and the MPs wanted an answer to their 22 queries. 23 Q. Could we look now at the Interim Report, please. It's 24 POL00099063. If we could look at page 8. The 25 preliminary conclusions are very well known to the 136 1 Inquiry. We see there (a) "no evidence of system wide 2 (systemic) problems" and (b) referring to two incidents 3 of where "defects or 'bugs' in the Horizon system", and 4 it goes on to refer to two of the bugs that the Inquiry 5 has heard a lot about. 6 What do you think of, in particular, these two 7 preliminary conclusions at the time? 8 A. I was particularly disappointed by conclusion (a) 9 because I didn't think there was sufficient data for 10 Second Sight to reach that conclusion. I don't think 11 they should have opined at all on whether there were 12 systemic problems at that stage. I also found in my own 13 research, following them round, that they had found 14 problems across the system where one error would affect 15 many, many branches, and I was therefore disappointed. 16 Q. Just taking that in stages. Firstly, you say 17 disappointed because you didn't think they had the 18 evidence to say that, the fact they've said, "We have so 19 far found", so saying, "we haven't found evidence of 20 a systemic problem", did that not reassure you? 21 A. Quite the opposite. It made me think that Post Office 22 had interfered with the report. 23 Q. When you said that you felt you had seen evidence of 24 "system-wide (systemic) problems", do you recall, at the 25 time, what you thought those were? 137 1 A. No, I can't recall. There was something to do with ATMs 2 but I don't know whether that -- and it was the Bank of 3 Ireland, but I'm sorry, my memory of that is very hazy. 4 I just remember being quite cross about this because 5 they shouldn't have put anything in without the evidence 6 to support it and, from what I'd seen of Ron Warmington 7 and Ian Henderson, they were very thorough, so I don't 8 believe, on their own, they would have written that. 9 Q. Just to be clear, you weren't involved in the drafting 10 process, so you don't have any direct knowledge of how 11 this report was drafted? 12 A. None whatsoever. 13 Q. Can we turn to page 12, please. This is spot review 5, 14 which concerns the allegation that had been made by 15 Michael Rudkin, regarding what's now referred to in 16 shorthand as remote access. The Inquiry has seen this 17 a lot, I don't need to go through it in full. If we 18 could just look at the bottom of page 13, please, 19 saying: 20 "We are left with a conflict of evidence on this 21 issue and our enquiries are continuing, particularly in 22 light of the new information confirming that the meeting 23 on 19 August 2008 did in fact occur." 24 Were you told anything about Fujitsu's ability to 25 access data or insert data into branch accounts 138 1 remotely, prior to the issuing of the Interim Report? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What were you told? 4 A. I was told it was possible to enter the system through 5 a backdoor and it was a systemic error. 6 Q. Who told you that? 7 A. Well, believe it or not, I think it was Ron Warmington, 8 but I've certainly talked to Sir Alan about it and we 9 knew about the Bracknell and other parts of Fujitsu who 10 regularly made corrections to the live system. 11 Q. So you spoke about it with Sir Alan and I think you said 12 Ron Warmington discussed it with you. At this stage, so 13 when the Interim Report was released, were you aware of 14 Gareth Jenkins as a person? 15 A. No, I'm still not aware of Gareth Jenkins at this stage. 16 Q. You say in your statement -- we don't need to pull it 17 up -- that you thought the Interim Report could have 18 been much stronger with regard to the Post Office 19 Limited field of operation and systemic working errors, 20 and, in your oral evidence you've expressed frustration 21 about the report. 22 Did you discuss your feelings on the report with 23 either Mr Henderson or Mr Warmington at the time? 24 A. After the report was issued, yes. 25 Q. What did you say to them? 139 1 A. I was disappointed. 2 Q. What was their response? 3 A. I don't exactly recall what they said, except that, you 4 know, they'd had to discuss the draft with Post Office 5 and clear it, which I still don't understand. 6 Q. I want to now look, then, at what happens next in the 7 chronology. It's the Mediation Scheme. Were you 8 involved in any discussions with Post Office 9 representatives following the publication of the Interim 10 Report about what to do next, following its findings? 11 A. Yes, there were extensive discussions generally led 12 through James Arbuthnot and Alan Bates about how we 13 should go forward from the Interim Report because, 14 although I thought they'd carry on finishing the job, it 15 was clear they wanted to take a different line. 16 Q. When you say it was clear they wanted to take 17 a different line, how did you come to learn of that? 18 When you say "they" do you mean Post Office? 19 A. Post Office, I'm sorry, I should say. Post Office 20 wanted to be seen, in my view, as reacting to the 21 Interim Report in a positive way. 22 Q. Were you involved in the initial discussions as to the 23 establishment of what became the Mediation Scheme? 24 A. Yes, I was. 25 Q. Who else was involved in those discussions? 140 1 A. Sir Alan Bates, Ron Warmington, Susan Crichton, Ian 2 Henderson, James Arbuthnot; possibly some others. 3 Q. So, on behalf on the Post Office, it was Susan Crichton? 4 A. Susan Crichton led the discussions. 5 Q. And can you recall, in terms of dates, when those 6 discussions took place? 7 A. They were some time around August 2013. 8 Q. What was your view of Susan Crichton's approach to the 9 issues in the Mediation Scheme? 10 A. She struck me as somebody who was trying to get to the 11 bottom of what had gone on and to put forward some 12 redress or remediation for the people who'd been caught 13 up in it. 14 Q. The Working Group that oversaw the Mediation Scheme, do 15 you remember when that first became suggested as 16 an idea? 17 A. The Working Group was merely a part of the Mediation 18 Scheme, and I think it was called the Initial Complaints 19 and Interim Mediation Scheme, as it's supposed to be 20 a model where we tested whether complainants could get 21 redress, and I believe it started with a training 22 session in September 2013, which I attended with Julian 23 Wilson from the JFSA. 24 Q. If we look at that now, if you can bring up your witness 25 statement, please, page 18, paragraph 66. So, as you 141 1 rightly say, it was attended by Julian Wilson and you 2 say: 3 "The training day was also attended by Second Sight, 4 and presentations were given by Susan Crichton, Angela 5 van den Bogerd and Andy Parsons." 6 Is this the first time you'd met Andy Parsons or had 7 you met him before then? 8 A. No, I think this was my first meeting with him. 9 Q. Do you have any recollection of his approach to the 10 training session itself? 11 A. The training session was done in such a way to explain 12 the background to the way Post Office operated and its 13 structure and Andy Parsons gave some legal overview. 14 I forget the details precisely. 15 Q. Angela van den Bogerd, was that your first dealing with 16 her or had you met her before? 17 A. No, this was my first dealing with her. 18 Q. Again, the same question. What was her -- what was your 19 view of her -- sorry, I'll rephrase that. 20 What was your view of her approach to the training 21 day and the Mediation Scheme at that point? 22 A. Her approach was to tell us sufficient to understand how 23 the Network was managed by Post Office and the duties of 24 the subpostmaster. 25 Q. Please can we look at WITN00550103, and page 11, 142 1 please -- actually, no, sorry, if we start on page 1., 2 usually a good place to start. I think this is 3 exhibited to your witness statement as a presentation 4 given at this training day; is that correct? 5 A. That's correct. This is a copy of the slide deck. 6 Q. Can we turn to page 11, please. So we see Bond 7 Dickinson at the top. Can we infer from that that it 8 would be Andy Parsons giving this part of the 9 presentation? 10 A. This is Andy Parsons' presentation. 11 Q. We have "Possible remedies", I want to ask about two. 12 Can you recall what was said about compensation? 13 A. My recollection of this day is quite muddled, to be 14 honest. I have a feeling he said, if there is something 15 that's been done wrong, clearly the Post Office will 16 compensate you, or some wording like that. My notes are 17 also pretty fuzzy because I'm talking to people and 18 presenting as well. But I think it basically was that 19 they would pay compensation to people who had suffered, 20 if there was an error proved by Post Office. 21 Q. I appreciate you say your memory is -- I think the words 22 were "quite muddled" but do you recall what was said 23 about "Support a criminal appeal"? 24 A. Again, if the evidence -- I think my recollection is 25 that Andy Parsons said, if there was a proven 143 1 miscarriage of justice, they would support a criminal 2 appeal. Just as an aside, if I may, you would have 3 thought, if they'd known about Gareth Jenkins at this 4 stage, they would have actually told us in the briefing. 5 Q. Can we look, please, at POL00022120. This is a document 6 titled "Overview of the Initial Complaint Review and 7 Mediation Scheme". Was this a document to which the 8 JFSA had input? 9 A. Yes, we had a lot of input. 10 Q. Was it an agreed document? 11 A. In the end, yes. It was compromised in various parts 12 but it was generally agreed. 13 Q. Throughout my questions today, I'll come back to this, 14 and there may be points where I ask you where there's 15 been compromise but I'm not going to ask you for the 16 whole of the drafting by committee. Could I look, 17 please, at page 5. We have "Frequently Asked Questions 18 about the Scheme", and at the bottom, "What if my case 19 involves a completed criminal prosecution or 20 conviction?" It says: 21 "You may put your case through the Scheme even if 22 you have already receive a police caution or have been 23 subject to a criminal prosecution or conviction. 24 "However, Post Office does not have the power to 25 reverse or overturn any criminal conviction -- only the 144 1 criminal courts have this power. 2 "If at any stage during the scheme, new information 3 comes to light that might reasonably be considered 4 capable of undermining the case for a prosecution or 5 assisting for the defence, Post Office has a duty to 6 notify you and your defence lawyers. You may then 7 choose whether to use that new information to appeal 8 your conviction or sentence." 9 You may have already answered my question. At this 10 stage were you aware of the advice of Simon Clarke, 11 dated 15 July 2013, which raised allegations that Gareth 12 Jenkins had breached his expert duties to the court? 13 A. I believe the Clarke Advice was only disclosed in March 14 2021, after the criminal appeal trials. 15 Q. At this time, were you aware of the substance of the 16 allegations, namely that Gareth Jenkins had produced 17 expert evidence in breach of his duties to the court? 18 A. No, I wasn't aware. 19 Q. At this stage, were you aware that Post Office was 20 conducting an internal investigation into past 21 convictions? 22 A. No, I wasn't aware. 23 MR STEVENS: Sir, that might be a good time to stop for 24 an afternoon break. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, that's fine. What time shall we 145 1 resume? 2 MR STEVENS: Can we say 3.00, sir. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. 4 MR STEVENS: Thank you. 5 (2.47 pm) 6 (A short break) 7 (3.00 pm) 8 MR STEVENS: Sir, can you see and hear me? 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can. Thank you. 10 MR STEVENS: Thank you. I want to carry on with a few 11 points on the Mediation Scheme now. Can we please have 12 your witness statement on the screen, page 20. Go to 13 the page before, please. Thank you. At paragraph 76, 14 you refer to Belinda Crowe as being the appointed 15 administrator and acted as secretary to the Working 16 Group. 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. You say at 77: 19 "I was not aware at that time that [Post Office] had 20 a separate committee chaired by Belinda Crowe called 21 Project Sparrow which was only revealed after the High 22 Court trials. The fact that JFSA did not know about 23 this is typical of [Post Office Limited's] behind the 24 scenes obsession with secrecy and control." 25 At the time, at the time, did you have any concerns 146 1 as to the appropriateness of Belinda Crowe's appointment 2 as a person to provide secretarial support to the 3 Working Group. 4 A. I didn't know anything about Belinda Crowe, except she 5 was a Post Office employee. I'm not sure that anybody 6 else was able to afford the services of a secretariat to 7 manage the case flows and assist with the disclosure 8 exercise of Post Office, which was headed up by Angela 9 van den Bogerd's Investigation Team, and I just accepted 10 her as someone nominated to do a job. But what I wasn't 11 aware of, which is what those two paragraphs indicate, 12 that she was senior in Post Office and not just 13 a secretary or somebody, and that she seemed to be 14 chairing somebody -- well, some group of people who were 15 working against the disclosure and settlement of the 16 cases. It's disingenuous in terms of a mediation 17 scheme. 18 Q. With hindsight, with that knowledge now, do you have any 19 concerns as to whether or not it affected the Mediation 20 Scheme or disclosure within it? 21 A. I believe it affected the recording of the minutes and 22 the progress of cases through mediation, but nothing 23 else. 24 Q. You say recording of the minutes, is that because 25 Belinda Crowe took the minutes? 147 1 A. Belinda Crowe was responsible for the minutes the case 2 administration and producing bundles of documents for 3 the cases we looked at, at an early stage, to make sure 4 the system was working properly. 5 Q. I'm going to come back to the minutes later. So I won't 6 deal with it now. Could we look, please, at page 15 of 7 your statement. At paragraph 55, you referred to 8 minutes for the 30 January 2014 Working Group. You say: 9 "[Post Office] sought to narrow the terms of 10 reference and JFSA objected, Chris Aujard went away to 11 review the terms for [Post Office] and report back. He 12 did not report to any other Working Group meeting, and 13 to my recollection simply imposed the [Post Office] new 14 terms unilaterally to restrict the authority of the 15 Working Group that effectively further slowed up the 16 completion of cases and passing cases to mediation." 17 Can we bring up those minutes, please. That's 18 POL00026641. We see it's 30 January 2014. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. If we can just scroll down slightly, please. Thank you. 21 We see there's a discussion about the terms of 22 reference, and under "Action" it says: 23 "Alan Bates raised the issue of the scope of the 24 Working Group and whether the intention was that the 25 terms of reference would replace existing documentation 148 1 particularly but not limited to the 'raising concerns 2 about Horizon' documentation." 3 Secondly: 4 "Discussion then turned to the purpose set out for 5 the Working Group with the point being made that if the 6 terms of reference superseded previous documentation 7 then JFSA felt the terms of reference as drafted were 8 insufficiently broad." 9 Is that what you were referring to in your statement 10 as the challenge? 11 A. Yes, it was an attempt to narrow the terms of reference 12 that the Working Group could look at. 13 Q. In what way was the attempt to narrow the terms of 14 reference? 15 A. Preparing the two sets of documentation, the first set, 16 prepared under Susan Crichton, was to embrace the 17 reasons for the differences. 18 The set of documentation, as I recall the new terms 19 of reference prepared by Chris Aujard, or someone under 20 his direction, sought to limit anything the Working 21 Group looked at solely to the Horizon computer system. 22 Q. We see there it says: 23 "Responding for Post Office Chris Aujard explained 24 that the terms of reference accurately reflected the 25 purpose of the Working Group as explained to him when he 149 1 had taken over the General Counsel and that his 2 understanding was that the Working Group's purpose was 3 narrower than Alan Bates had set out." 4 Pausing there, just as a slight detour, in your 5 statement you refer to a change of tone and approach for 6 the mediation when Chris Aujard replaced Susan Crichton. 7 Can you explain what you mean by the change of tone? 8 A. Yes, Susan Crichton was a lawyer, counsel for the Post 9 Office, who was tying to find out why differences had 10 occurred and it was under her instigation we got two 11 excellent investigators, Ron Warmington and Ian 12 Henderson; it was under her instigation we had 13 a training day for people sitting on the Working Group 14 to understand the system. So it was kind of open 15 environment where access was given to documents to try 16 and find the true reason for things. 17 The second she disappeared without explanation and 18 Chris Aujard replaced her, we had someone who appeared 19 to be a litigation lawyer attempting to obstruct any 20 access to documentation, slow things down, narrow the 21 focus on to the narrowest of margins to limit damages 22 for the Post Office. That's how it appeared to me. 23 Q. You appearing to be suggesting that direction came from 24 Chris Aujard. Was that anything he said or did that 25 made you think that, or was it just a timing matter 150 1 that, once Susan Crichton left and Chris Aujard came, 2 there was this change of tone? 3 A. The change of tone was obvious. It's not always 4 reflected in the minutes by Belinda Crowe but, for 5 example, at the beginning of every meeting, Sir Anthony 6 Hooper would ask could the Post Office please explain 7 what has happened to this money, where are the suspense 8 account items, where has the money from subpostmasters 9 gone? And this is only referred to in two sets of 10 minutes, one in November 2014, and Chris Aujard says he 11 will ask his accounts team to answer what is a really 12 simple question, and it simply doesn't recur again. 13 But at the start of every Working Group meeting, 14 Sir Anthony Hooper asked that question and Chris Aujard 15 has simply blocked it and stopped anything happening 16 with regard to revealing it. It is clear to me that 17 he's there to close the scheme and close them down and 18 make sure that we don't see anything that damages the 19 Post Office brand. So, yes, it was a change of tone and 20 it came from Chris Aujard. 21 Q. I'm going to look at suspense accounts later. Sticking 22 with the terms of reference, can we bring up, please, 23 POL00026656. So this is the notes of the meeting of 24 7 March 2014. So we previously were at the January 25 2014, we are now 7 March 2014. If we look down, please, 151 1 to "Terms of Reference", it says: 2 "The Working Group discussed the revised terms of 3 reference. The reworked Clause 4.9 was agreed. 4 Clause 4.10.1 was agreed subject to the addition of the 5 phrase 'and any associated issues' after Horizon. It 6 was confirmed that the terms of reference allowed for 7 different lengths of mediation. It was agreed that the 8 Working Group should not have its own budget but would 9 use the process set at in Section 8 where funding was 10 required. The terms of reference were agreed." 11 Now, the inclusion there of the "and any associated 12 issues in Horizon", was that addressing the concern you 13 had about the narrowing of the terms of reference? 14 A. It was supposed to make sure the previous issues were 15 still included in the Working Group remit. 16 Q. Why did you say "supposed to"? 17 A. Well, I don't believe it did. I mean, for example, one 18 of the other things we discussed extensively was the 19 retention of documents required for the cases and, bear 20 in mind, we've got a lot more cases, we've got the 136 21 now, which is the 150 minus the ones the Post Office 22 objected to, and every time again we'd say, "Please 23 don't destroy any documents", and Chris Aujard would 24 say, "Well, if there are issues in those documents and 25 they're more than six years old, we'll probably have 152 1 destroyed the documents". He made no effort to retain 2 documents. 3 Q. Let's look at what you say on that in your witness 4 statement, please. It's page 16 of your witness 5 statement -- sorry, no, it's not. It's page 28. 6 Thank you. This is a section on concerns raised at 7 the Working Group meetings. We'll be coming back here 8 and I'm just going to deal with the paragraph 108 first, 9 and you say that: 10 "... Sir Anthony Hooper asked how the documents for 11 [subpostmasters] and other affected cases were being 12 preserved. He warned Chris Aujard not to destroy any 13 documents at all. Chris Aujard replied to Sir Anthony 14 Hooper that [Post Office Limited] would continue to 15 destroy documents following its usual six-year statute 16 of limitations document destruction policy." 17 Can we just look at some minutes on that, please, 18 starting with POL00026640. 19 Now, as happens with some of these meetings, we have 20 the standing agenda and attendees there. The date of 21 the document is on the second page, so 23 January. 22 Would that be 23rd January 2014? 23 A. Yes, it would. These were telephone calls. We only met 24 in person, I think, once a month. 25 Q. Can we look at page 8, please under "AOB". It says: 153 1 "ACTION Post Office to reinforce the point that 2 files not to be destroyed -- Note to issue in Chris 3 Aujard's name -- including letter to Royal Mail and 4 other relevant bodies." 5 Do you recall that being discussed? 6 A. Yes, it was discussed at every meeting. 7 Q. If we can go, please, to POL00026635, and if we can just 8 start at page 2, to date the document, Thursday, 9 6 February. If we go back to the front page, please, we 10 see that you're not in attendance at this meeting. 11 A. No. 12 Q. Would you have reviewed the minutes? 13 A. Yes. I always reviewed the minutes when they came out. 14 Q. Can we turn to page 5, please, and, if we can go to the 15 bottom of the page under 7. We have "Review of 16 outstanding actions", and reference number 28, it's the 17 point we went to earlier at AOB. 18 "Post Office to reinforce the point that files not 19 to be destroyed ..." 20 It says: 21 "Update 22 "Correspondence issue to Royal Mail and from Royal 23 Mail to Iron Mountain." 24 Was it not the case that Post Office were taking 25 steps or saying they were taking steps not to destroy 154 1 documentation? 2 A. Well, they said they'd corresponded with their previous 3 head, covering Royal Mail, which separated in 2012, and 4 Royal Mail had stored some documents at Iron Mountain, 5 so presumably they told Royal Mail since 2012 and 6 earlier not to destroy documents. It didn't affect 7 really what the Post Office were doing with their own 8 documents. A lot of the cases being reviewed were 9 pre-2012, so that was relevant, but whether it was 10 complete, I can't say. 11 Q. Can we bring up your witness statement, please, page 27, 12 paragraph 101. You discuss here a practice by JFSA of 13 retiring during discussion of individual cases, and by 14 "retiring", do you know what I mean: not participating 15 in the discussion? 16 A. We left the room. 17 Q. You left the room. It says: 18 "There was a development in the Working Group 19 meetings where the originally agreed terms for the 20 Mr Jenkins were unilaterally varied by [the Post Office] 21 when the Working Group attempted to discuss cases where 22 Second Sight had recommended mediation." 23 So this is Second Sight do the report, Second Sight 24 say, "We recommend mediation", and there were situations 25 where Post Office wanted to have a discussion as to 155 1 whether or not the Working Group actually recommended 2 mediation; is that a fair summary? 3 A. Yes, except Post Office had no authority to do that. 4 Q. No authority to do what, sorry? 5 A. Well, at the point that -- the original terms of 6 reference, before Chris Aujard's version, was that, if 7 Second Sight, having reviewed the claim, the Post Office 8 Inquiry report and the CRR by Second Sight, if Second 9 Sight said it's a case fit to mediate, it should go 10 straight to mediation. Post Office had no right or 11 authority to interrupt the flow to mediation and have 12 a discussion at this point. 13 Q. Can we look please at POL00022120. It's the same 14 document we went to earlier, just before the break about 15 criminal convictions. Can we turn to page 2. If we can 16 go down there, perfect, thank you. This is describing 17 the scheme, and the fourth paragraph down says: 18 "As a result of this investigation, Second Sight 19 will produce a Case Review summarising its findings and 20 a recommendation on whether the case is suitable for 21 mediation. A copy of this case review will be provided 22 to you." 23 Pausing there, this is aimed at an applicant 24 subpostmaster, is it, so the "you" is the applicant? 25 A. Yes, this briefing document is for the claimants to make 156 1 a claim, so it is to encourage them and explain how it 2 will work. 3 Q. It then says: 4 "The Working Group will, however, take the final 5 decision on any cases that may not be suitable for 6 mediation." 7 A. That's correct, so any case that Second Sight have 8 rejected or can't make a decision about, the Working 9 Group should review. Ergo, it means that any case where 10 Second Sight say it's suitable for mediation should go 11 straight thorough. 12 Q. Is it not the case that Second Sight would produce 13 a recommendation, which it was intended that the Working 14 Group would then consider and arrive at a final 15 decision? 16 A. No, it wasn't. The CRR, if it recommended mediation, 17 should go straight to mediation. It's only cases where 18 they didn't take a final decision. 19 Q. Where did you get that understanding from, that that was 20 the proper interpretation of what the Working Group's 21 role was? 22 A. The Working Group will take a decision, a final 23 decision, on any cases that may not be suitable for 24 mediation, not on cases that are suitable for mediation. 25 That's what it says. 157 1 Q. If we turn to page 8 as well, please, and "Will my case 2 definitely be referred to mediation?" I think this is 3 a paragraph to which Sir Alan referred in his evidence 4 to the Inquiry. It says: 5 "If your case is suitable and you provide accurate, 6 detailed information to Second Sight, then this is 7 likely in most circumstances. 8 "However, the Working Group may consider that some 9 cases are not suitable for mediation. For example, if 10 there is insufficient information about a case or the 11 case is not one requiring resolution." 12 How does that work with your interpretation of the 13 role of the Working Group, if it's only going to decide 14 cases for mediation where Second Sight haven't made 15 a recommendation? 16 A. The Working Group was intended to process cases and make 17 sure they had the relevant information and inquiries 18 made before going to mediation. My understanding, when 19 this document was issued, is only in exceptional or 20 strange circumstances, when Second Sight, as competent 21 investigators, couldn't make a decision, or there was 22 anyone sufficient evidence, would the Working Group 23 consider the case. So it meant that the majority of 24 cases should have rolled through to mediation, and Post 25 Office, nor any other party around that table had the 158 1 power to stop them. 2 Q. The Working Group was chaired by Sir Anthony Hooper, 3 a previous Court of Appeal judge, yes? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. I think Sir Anthony Hooper was your recommendation? 6 A. Sir Anthony Hooper was Chairman of the Expert Witness 7 Institute and I was his Vice Chairman. I knew him quite 8 well. 9 Q. Was the purpose of appointing someone like Sir Anthony 10 Hooper, with a legal background, to assist with 11 resolving issues such as to whether a case should go for 12 mediation or not? 13 A. No, that wasn't the main purpose, the main purpose was 14 to find someone of great integrity and knowledge of the 15 resolution of disputes, to make sure that the process 16 produced by this mediation processing scheme was run 17 fairly. I mean, it was an absolute bonus, he had 18 substantial knowledge of criminal cases because he was 19 able to review files where Post Office said this wasn't 20 fit to mediate because this person was going to be 21 prosecuted or had a criminal conviction; Sir Anthony and 22 went and reviewed the files and, in every case, he said 23 "That's not true, they can go through". 24 Q. I want to look at a few of the meetings where the issue 25 of whether or not to mediate came up. Can we start, 159 1 please, with POL00026673. This is hopefully dated on 2 the first page, it's 16 June 2014. Could we go to 3 page 3, please, sorry, page 2. And if we could go down 4 to point 3 at the top of the document: 5 "Case M054 was discussed to inform a decision as to 6 whether the Working Group should recommend the case for 7 mediation. Second Sight had, in their final report, 8 recommended mediation." 9 It says: 10 "The following points were considered during the 11 course of the discussion: 12 "Regardless of a decision to recommend mediation by 13 the Working Group, either party had the right to decline 14 to mediate." 15 Did you disagree with that? 16 A. No, I think mediation has to be a consensual process. 17 Q. It says: 18 "The extent to which case raises issues that had not 19 been previously explained to the satisfaction of the 20 applicant in the context of the benefit of mediation for 21 the applicant in terms of being able to 'move on' after 22 mediation from the events being mediated." 23 What does that mean? 24 A. This is a particularly difficult case because it 25 involves someone who'd suffered, I believe, criminal 160 1 conviction. I may be misremembering the number but 2 I think this is one where there was a criminal 3 conviction and there was strong opposition from Chris 4 Aujard in particular that you could mediate anything, 5 post a criminal conviction, but the financial loss was 6 still there, whether they were convicted of something 7 criminal or not, and if their conviction was based on 8 some misinterpretation or some plea bargain under false 9 circumstances with limited disclosure, we all felt that 10 they should still have the opportunity to go face to 11 face and discuss the financial issues. 12 Q. So was this a case where Second Sight had recommended 13 mediation, the JFSA were in favour of mediation but Post 14 Office were against mediation? 15 A. Yes, because there'd been a plea bargain in this case, 16 if I'm, again, interpreting the number correctly and 17 this individual had plea bargained to false accounting 18 to avoid a theft charge and going to prison. But 19 whether they'd actually done false accounting or not was 20 pretty dubious. 21 Q. If we go to the bottom of the page, it says: 22 "It being apparent that the matter of whether the 23 Working Group should recommend M054 for mediation might 24 proceed to a vote, the Working Group agreed the test the 25 Chair should consider if called upon to use his casting 161 1 vote as: 2 "'On the assumption that both parties approach 3 mediation in a genuine attempt to reconcile their 4 differences. Is it reasonably likely that the parties 5 will reach an agreed resolution of their issues'." 6 Then, over the page, it says: 7 "The Working Group moved on to a vote. Post Office 8 voted against ... JFSA voted for. 9 "... the Chair undertook to decide the matter and 10 provide the Working Group with his reasoned, written 11 decision." 12 So, at this point, were the JFSA engaging in 13 a position where the Working Group were going to 14 determine whether or not to recommend a mediation in 15 circumstances where Second Sight had recommended 16 mediation? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Why was that? 19 A. Because this is, I think, one of the first times this 20 occurs, and it was somewhat of a curveball because we'd 21 previously understood the scheme, if mediation was 22 recommended it would go through. Post Office strongly 23 objected and indicated they wouldn't take part in 24 a mediation. 25 Q. So is your evidence this was being caught off guard but 162 1 engaging in the debate and the vote at the time? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Can we look, please, to POL00026665. So we've got 4 a minute of the call on 26 June, which we see you're in 5 attendance at. Please can we go to page 8. So we have 6 M054, that's the case we were just discussing, and it 7 says: 8 "[The] Chair asked all parties to consider the steps 9 to be taken to inform applicant of the decision not to 10 mediate the case." 11 So it appears that that Sir Anthony Hooper had 12 decided against recommending mediation in this case; is 13 that correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. "KL", I assume that's you? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. "... raised a concern about sharing the Chair's decision 18 ... The Chair noted this concern ..." 19 Then it says "AB", presumably that's Sir Alan? 20 A. It is. 21 Q. "... voiced concern about the additional time delay this 22 would cause the applicant, but agreed that the [Working 23 Group] should take time to consider how to proceed in 24 this case." 25 Can we scroll down, please. We see at the bottom 163 1 "AB" again: 2 "AB queried the role of the [Working Group] in the 3 recommendation to mediate when [Second Sight] had 4 recommended mediation. It was noted that this was the 5 previously agreed process, and the one followed [in] 6 M054." 7 Do you recall the discussion that led to this 8 minute? 9 A. Yes. This is the point at which -- we objected, really, 10 to the intrusion of the Working Group committee into the 11 recommendations by Second Sight. It was clearly going 12 to cause delay and distress for the applicants when they 13 had cleared the hurdle of proving there was a dispute 14 that could be mediated. 15 Q. When it was said, "It was noted that this was the 16 previously agreed process, and the one followed for 17 M054", at that stage, were you in agreement that M054 18 had followed a previously agreed process? 19 A. No. That's the point. Belinda Crowe has written this 20 minute. The first half of -- the first half of the 21 second sentence belongs with the first: 22 "AB queried the role of the Working Group in 23 recommendation to mediate when [Second Sight] has 24 recommended mediation, which was noted [was the previous 25 agreed process. Stop. This was different for the 164 1 followed for M054]." 2 Q. That can come down, thank you. I don't propose to take 3 you to minutes of other Working Group meetings but 4 I can, if you like. They showed, as you said earlier, 5 that JFSA, from then on, would leave the room or not 6 participate in discussions when the Working Group were 7 deciding whether or not to recommend a case for 8 mediation. 9 A. That's correct. I mean, the latter meetings were held 10 at Matrix Chambers, rather than Bond Dickinson Womble's 11 (sic) office but we left the room, and sometimes the 12 building, until they'd finished dealing with their 13 interference in the Scheme because, frankly, it was 14 a power the Working Group did not that have, whatever 15 Chris Aujard's explanation was when he joined Post 16 Office. 17 Q. Was it a case that Sir Anthony tried to encourage the 18 JFSA to stay for that discussion? 19 A. He did but I don't criticise him for that. He simply 20 wanted a straightforward way forward for the claimants 21 who were being caught up in this battle. 22 Q. Could you explain the basis on which, or the reasons 23 for, not participating in those discussions, other 24 than -- you've given evidence that it wasn't the agreed 25 process. Were there any further reasons for not 165 1 participating in the discussion? 2 A. Not only was it not the agreed process; it was not what 3 had been advertised to the claimants when they made 4 an application to join the scheme. Once you joined 5 a scheme and the rules are set, you can't then do what 6 Post Office often did, which is slip change into some 7 other shape, so you do something different, you've got 8 the people on Board, so then suddenly they're not going 9 off to Clacton-on-Sea, they're off to Scarborough. 10 Q. I want to move on, still in the time of the Working 11 Group but could we bring up your statement, please, at 12 paragraph 91, which is page 24. 13 A. Is this the second 91? 14 Q. You're quite right; it is the second 91. 15 A. Apologies for that. 16 Q. None needed. When it arrives on the screen, it is the 17 meeting with Paula Vennells. 18 Sorry -- yes, if we can go to the bottom of the 19 page, please. 20 So this refers to a meeting you had -- I think it's 21 a coincidental meeting where you bumped into Paula 22 Vennells at Bonn airport in Germany on 17 September 23 2014. 24 A. Yes, I was waiting for my flight by the gate and she 25 hove into view with two other people from the Post 166 1 Office. 2 Q. You say in your statement -- and we'll come to the email 3 shortly -- that you've now seen an extremely inaccurate 4 file note of that conversation. When did you first see 5 what you describe as the inaccurate file note? 6 A. In the papers for this Inquiry. 7 Q. Before seeing what you describe as the filenote, would 8 you have recollected this conversation with Paula 9 Vennells? 10 A. Yes, I remember meeting her at the airport and bearding 11 her, if that's the correct phrase, with some sort of 12 encouragement for her to settle and at least face up to 13 the claimants and explain to them what had happened, and 14 pay them back their money. 15 Q. Let's look at the note, actually. We'll go straight 16 there. It's POL00101367. It's an email from Paula 17 Vennells to Chris Aujard. It's on 17 September, so this 18 is made on the day of the meeting; is that right? 19 A. It's -- 17 September is when I saw her at Bonn airport. 20 Q. Do you remember roughly what time the meeting was? 21 A. No, I can't. It was in the morning or around lunchtime, 22 at a guess. 23 Q. But you would accept that this is a contemporaneous 24 account? I appreciate you dispute the accuracy of it 25 but it was made on the day of the meeting? 167 1 A. Well, it appears Ms Vennells has sent an email on the 2 same day, yes. 3 Q. It refers to just bumping into you at Bonn airport: 4 "... had a chat together. Off the record but of 5 course not really." 6 Do you know what that means or what would lead to 7 that impression? 8 A. Well, I did say that, I said, you know, "Paula can 9 I have a word off the record because I do think you need 10 to settle this because the subpostmasters need their 11 money back, and they ought to have some sort of 12 face-to-face explanation to explain why they've been 13 treated so badly for so long, and if you don't settle 14 this, you'll regret it". 15 Q. It says -- I'm not going to go through all of the 16 document, I think it's the fourth bullet point down: 17 "Can we get Angela to lead on mediations? 18 Particularly if we think we are unlikely to move our 19 position. Kay's view is that she is credible, 20 understandable (v important) and stands the best chance 21 of getting people on side or at least to feel they have 22 been listened to, even if they still disagree." 23 Now, taking it in stages, is Angela, in that bullet 24 point, referring to Angela van den Bogerd? 25 A. Definitely Angela van den Bogerd. 168 1 Q. Did you discuss Angela van den Bogerd in your meeting 2 with Paula Vennells? 3 A. Yes, we did, because she was getting to the bottom of 4 an investigation, which seemed to have been carried out 5 for the first time on any of the applicants' cases, and 6 we were actually finding out why the differences had 7 occurred. So she was very thorough, easy to understand 8 in her explanations of how differences arose and, if you 9 cut her in half, she'd be Post Office through and 10 through. 11 Q. Did you say that, about being Post Office through and 12 through? 13 A. No, I did not say that to Paula Vennells. 14 Q. So the point that "Kay's view is she is credible, 15 understandable", is that a fair comment for Paula 16 Vennells to have made? 17 A. Concerning the investigation of differences in the 18 network, yes, but not generally. 19 Q. She said: 20 "We should consider being more open to mediation on 21 the cases where more money was at stake not less. 22 Because this had a greater impact on those affected 23 (lost jobs, homes, etc) and therefore, they are the ones 24 who need to vent more. And who will benefit from us 25 allowing them to 'yell' at us (she thinks we're big 169 1 enough to take that)." 2 A. Where on earth has that come from? 3 Q. That was about to be my question: from what was said -- 4 or do you recall anything being said at the meeting that 5 would lead to this note being made? 6 A. No. 7 Q. We then have, it says, "Jo Harrison (JA SPMR)". Now 8 that means presumably Jo Hamilton, James Arbuthnot, 9 subpostmaster? 10 A. Yes, I'm pretty certain it's Hamilton, not Harrison. 11 Q. "... Kay intends to go into mediation with her -- she 12 thinks she needs looking after. Kay indicated that Jo 13 had done something wrong but feels sorry for her ..." 14 Now, I'm going to pause there because I know you 15 dispute that. What is your recollection of what was 16 said about Jo Hamilton at this meeting? 17 A. My recollection is I said the system was such that Jo 18 had been muddled and concerned, very upset and had had 19 to roll over a difference which Angela had said, when we 20 discussed M035, that was a reason she couldn't get to 21 the bottom of the reasons for the difference because it 22 had been rolled forwards over so many periods. 23 I didn't feel sorry for Jo. I did say she might 24 have got out of her depth with the system but she didn't 25 have any documentation to check, which isn't in the 170 1 note, and I thought they could have been more 2 sympathetic than taking someone into her home and 3 interviewing her without anyone else present and 4 attempting to take her goods, which was prevented by her 5 mother. 6 I don't remember saying Jo had evidence that they 7 hadn't got at the time of prosecution. I probably did 8 say Jo should have had information disclosed by Post 9 Office that wasn't available at the time of prosecution. 10 This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. 11 Q. Would you have said, as part of the discussion 12 generally, about the fact of a guilty plea, whether or 13 not you agreed with that guilty plea? Would you have 14 mentioned that? 15 A. No, I don't believe we discussed prosecutions or guilty 16 pleas, as far as I recall. My notes of this 17 conversation have not been reduced to a file note at the 18 time. They were in passing at an airport. 19 Q. Thank you. That document can come down. 20 I want to go back to one of the two points you 21 raised, and one of them I said I'd come back to. It's 22 page 28 of your statement, please, paragraph 107, and, 23 if we could go to the bottom, please. Thank you. 24 These are two of the concerns that you raised here. 25 We looked at 108 earlier; 107 is the question, "Where 171 1 has the [subpostmasters'] money gone?" You say that 2 Sir Anthony Hooper asked that question regularly. 3 A. Yes, he did. 4 Q. Now, you say at the end of that paragraph: 5 "[Post Office] failed to provide any explanation or 6 figures at all." 7 That's in relation to "Where's the money gone?": 8 "Chris Aujard said he would get this information on 9 several occasions but [he] never did." 10 I just want to look at a few of the meetings on this 11 issue and could we start, please, with POL00026685. 12 This is a meeting on 16 September 2014. We see you're 13 in attendance. Could we look at page 6, please and, if 14 we go down to "Suspense account paper", thank you. 15 So "Suspense account paper". Now, you do say in 16 your witness statement that there are at least two types 17 of suspense account potentially relevant. What type of 18 suspense account was being discussed here? 19 A. We should be discussing what I would call the head 20 office suspense account, where differences were posted 21 in the main Post Office Limited accounting system, and 22 I would expect it to include things like the differences 23 on reconciling Camelot or Bank of Ireland control 24 accounts. But it must be that place where the 25 subpostmaster's money had gone and I know, talking to 172 1 Ron and Ian at the Working Group, they definitely 2 volunteered many times to go to Chesterfield, or 3 wherever the accounts were held, and have a look for 4 themselves to actually ascertain what had happened to 5 the money. 6 Chris Aujard, on many occasions, confirmed that 7 wasn't necessary, it was too complicated, they weren't 8 going to be paid for it, and he would produce a paper 9 from his accounts team asking the CFA. I've no idea 10 what this paper was but I don't believe it was 11 a substantial explanation. 12 Q. But this part here where Post Office explained they 13 provided with a paper, you say you don't know what that 14 was? 15 A. No, I've never seen it. 16 Q. "Post Office explained that this request was too broad 17 and they could not see how it linked to any case that 18 Second Sight investigating. Second Sight undertook to 19 provide their further specific question(s) in writing to 20 Post Office." 21 Could we look at the meeting on 17 October, which is 22 POL00040475. It is 18 October, as I say. Can we go to 23 page 2, please. This is referring back to the minutes 24 of 16 September meeting. This is: 25 "Referring to page 6, item 5 Second Sight had 173 1 written to Post Office with questions on the suspense 2 account but are yet to receive a response. The Chair 3 noted the complexity of the questions. He asked if 4 there was a surplus in the account would it be taken 5 into Post Office income. Post Office confirmed that it 6 would after 3 years. Post Office and Second Sight 7 agreed to clarify Second Sight's precise needs for 8 information. 9 "... The Chair asked Post Office for figures taken 10 into income from the suspense account to be broken down 11 year by year." 12 Now, firstly, do you recall this conversation beyond 13 what's recorded in the minutes? 14 A. I remember a November 2014 minute where Chris Aujard 15 gave a specific undertaking, I can't remember the 16 wording, and that information was never followed up. 17 But I know, to my own -- from my own investigations that 18 there were amounts of over £1 million pounds taken to 19 the Post Office profit and loss account over a five-year 20 period. 21 Q. I think you have answered the question I was about to 22 ask on what came next, and we're going to jump forward 23 to 14 January, please. POL00043633. We see 14 January 24 2015. Can we go, please, to page 3, and to the bottom 25 of the page. Thank you. It's "Additional Agenda Item: 174 1 Update on Part Two Report". So that's the Second Sight 2 Part Two Report. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. The Chair asks for an update on progress of various 5 matters and, at the bottom, we see: 6 "The Chair asked if Post Office was able to answer 7 the question on suspense accounts that had been posed 8 for several months. Ian reported that the information 9 had not yet been provided. The Chair asked that this be 10 addressed as a matter of urgency and suggested that Post 11 Office arrange a meeting between Second Sight and Post 12 Office Finance staff to do so." 13 Now, the Inquiry has heard evidence, and there's 14 documentary evidence, on matters that happened 15 thereafter. My question to you is: were you involved at 16 all in this investigation into suspense accounts? 17 A. No, I was not. 18 Q. Did Ron Warmington or Ian Henderson tell you anything 19 following this meeting about that investigation? 20 A. "In about 2015 [I brought the paper to remind me] I was 21 told by Ian Henderson that the amounts credited to the 22 profit and loss account of Post Office in 2010/11 was 23 £612,000; in 2011/12 was £207,000; in 2012/13 was 24 £234,000; and in 2013/14 was £104,000." 25 Q. Can I ask you're reading from a document, is that a note 175 1 of a conversation that -- 2 A. It's a note of a conversation I had and I highlighted it 3 in yellow so I could find it. 4 Q. So that's -- sorry, it's gone off my -- that was Ian 5 Henderson who told you that? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Did you have any further involvement in investigating 8 suspense accounts? 9 A. There was no opportunity because the Mediation Working 10 Scheme was cancelled unilaterally by Post Office without 11 that question ever being answered. 12 Q. I want to now turn to my final topic, what happened 13 thereafter, and the Group Litigation -- 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Before you do, am I right in thinking 15 that either Mr Henderson or Mr Warmington had in their 16 witness statement, when they gave evidence, figures 17 either identical to, or very similar to, the ones which 18 Ms Linnell has just referred to? 19 MR STEVENS: Sir, off the top of my head, I couldn't say 20 with confidence but, at the break, we'll double check 21 that point. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Okay, I don't think I'm imagining that, 23 that's all. 24 A. If it assists, they're in the published accounts. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. So there's a public record of 176 1 them somewhere, anyway? 2 MR STEVENS: Yes. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Well, you needn't go researching 4 then, Mr Stevens. 5 MR STEVENS: Thank you. It shows a confidence in my memory. 6 Turning, then, to the litigation, please. I asked 7 earlier about the prospect of litigation in 2012 and my 8 understanding of your answer was that you need funding 9 for litigation -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- and, in order to get funding, you needed to have 12 sufficient information to show a basis to put forward 13 your claim? 14 A. Yeah, and a reasonable chance of success or no sensible 15 lawyer would take it on. 16 Q. I'm now going to ask you some questions about the 17 process of litigation but, remember, I'm not asking you 18 anything which would require you to provide privileged 19 information, unless you were in a position to waive it 20 and you wanted to waive it. 21 A. Thank you. 22 Q. Once the Mediation Scheme had finished, so in 2015 -- 23 A. It was abruptly ended by Post Office in 2015 and I had 24 a letter from Jane MacLeod out of the blue. 25 Q. -- how easy or difficult was it for you to find legal 177 1 representation for the Group Litigation? 2 A. Sir Alan and I did several things at the end of the 3 Mediation Scheme. First of all, we had a look at the 4 evidence that had been produced by the Post Office and 5 Angela van den Bogerd. We also -- without wishing to 6 pierce privilege of mediation discussions -- had some 7 general feedback from those people who had been 8 fortunate enough to reach the mediation panel. And, 9 thirdly, we started putting together a panel of 10 potential lawyers who had experience in Group 11 Litigation. 12 We then went to several firms of lawyers and, as 13 happenstance would have it, we ended up with Freeths, 14 who also introduced us to litigation funders, 15 after-the-event insurers and counsel, Henderson 16 Chambers. 17 Q. It's well known that the litigation was funded by 18 a litigation funder, Therium? 19 A. Therium were the funders, yes. 20 Q. If you hadn't had funding by way of a funder such as 21 Therium, would the GLO claimants have been able to 22 pursue the litigation? 23 A. No, they wouldn't and if they hadn't had generous 24 solicitors and counsel, prepared to take a proportion on 25 a conditional fee/success arrangement, we wouldn't have 178 1 been able to process either, and the funders recognised 2 the importance of having after-the-event insurance for 3 people in our claimants' position. So we had to put all 4 those four pieces in place before proceeding to 5 litigation. 6 Q. Just for the benefit of the public, when you say 7 "after-the-event insurer", do you mean an insurer who 8 would indemnify the claimants if the litigation was 9 unsuccessful and a costs order was made against them? 10 A. If you look at the case of Lee Castleton, it's very 11 clear. If you lose in a court and the court has the 12 power to award costs against you, it can have severe 13 financial implications. The purpose of after-the-event 14 insurance is to put an insurance policy in place so, if 15 you lose, the insurance policy coughs up and pays the 16 costs. 17 Q. So, as I understand it, you say the sort of essential 18 ingredients were: (a) Therium or a litigation funder; 19 (b) the after-the-event insurer; and (c) solicitors and 20 barristers who were prepared to take a portion of their 21 fees on a conditional fee basis, or a no-win-no-fee 22 basis? 23 A. Yes, and bearing in mind all are essential, so you could 24 take them all as one. There is no priority in that 25 listing. And to get the solicitors and barristers 179 1 interested, you have to have sufficient evidence to 2 prove that something has been done wrong and there is 3 similarity across a group of claimants, so that there 4 are sufficient to actually put a force together to form 5 a group litigation group. Quite high hurdles to 6 overcome. 7 Q. Just rounding this off, the information that you were 8 able to obtain and put forward to the solicitors and 9 barristers to get them interested, did that come from 10 the Mediation Scheme? 11 A. Yes. One of the things about going into the Mediation 12 Scheme -- because, normally, anything discovered in the 13 mediation is privileged and within the bubble of 14 mediation, but one of the things JFSA managed to 15 negotiate is any document disclosed in the mediation 16 would be usable by the claimant person. So yes, that's 17 where the data came from to enable litigation to take 18 place. 19 Q. Before I ask you another question about the GLO, then, 20 to what extent, if at all, do you think the Mediation 21 Scheme fulfilled its purpose? 22 A. At least 85 or 90 per cent. Without the Mediation 23 Scheme, there wouldn't have been the volume and the 24 capacity of claimants to go forward because Post Office 25 has, throughout my involvement with them, deliberately 180 1 or otherwise withheld documents that are essential for 2 the defence of individuals or the prosecution of 3 a claim. 4 Q. Can we look at page 31 of your statement. 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So, again, Mr Stevens, sorry. But, if it 6 be the case that the Post Office was seeking to use the 7 Mediation Scheme as a sham, to use that word, in fact, 8 on your view of it, it had the opposite effect because 9 it provided you with the ammunition for the litigation 10 that followed? 11 A. Yes, that's exactly right. 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Okay. 13 MR STEVENS: At paragraph 119 and 120, you say: 14 "The Freeths legal team put in place all the 15 necessary mechanisms and steps to cope with and respond 16 to the aggressive [Post Office] litigation strategy, 17 which in my view and the view of others, was primarily 18 designed to run the [Group Litigation] claimants out of 19 funding. Mr Justice Fraser refers to this in his 20 judgment by implication." 21 You go on to specify what you saw as the aggressive 22 litigation tactics by saying: 23 "[They] included limited and sporadic late 24 disclosure, contested costs applications and other 25 litigation 'tricks' such as [Post Office's] recusal 181 1 application to derail the planned five trial 2 litigation." 3 I want to just focus on one aspect of that, and 4 that's the recusal application. Were you in court when 5 the recusal application was announced? 6 A. Yes, I was. 7 Q. What was your reaction to that? 8 A. It happened after lunch, in the middle of someone's 9 testimony. I think Mr de Garr Robinson stood up and 10 made the application. Fraser J insisted the witness was 11 completed before he dealt with it, which was kind, 12 because, otherwise, the witness would have been held 13 over indefinitely, and I think it was an absolutely 14 shocking result because it was the tactics of 15 a desperate, drowning man, as far as I could see, to 16 recuse a judge who had been no more than colourful in 17 his language and comparatives. 18 It was the handing down of this judgment that same 19 morning, and there were phrases in it which clearly the 20 Post Office and their Legal Team objected to, such as 21 "The Flat Earth Society", and things like that. And 22 I think it was absolutely disgraceful because there was 23 no bias that I could see in that judgment. However, I'm 24 not a lawyer, I'm a mere accountant. But I thought it 25 was a disgraceful tactic and designed to stop the trial 182 1 on the Horizon system, add huge legal costs to our side 2 and try and derail the whole process. 3 Q. Did you speak to other people in the claimant group 4 about the fact of the recusal application being made? 5 A. I certainly did because people wanted to understand what 6 it was. 7 Q. Can you summarise what the general feeling was within 8 the claimant group about the application having been 9 made? 10 A. I can only say this from my personal point of view. 11 I think there was some anger and frustration, as yet 12 another tactic by Post Office stopped the move slowly 13 towards redress, justice and some sort of conclusion as 14 to what had happened to them. 15 Q. The final question, or possibly questions, I ask is 16 about interaction with Government. Now, when Sir Alan 17 gave evidence, Mr Beer presented a series of letters 18 that he had sent to ministers and went through various 19 meetings. Did you have any interactions with Government 20 or Government Ministers in respect of the Horizon IT 21 System? 22 A. Sir Alan and I decided that he should write the letters. 23 We discussed the contents before they were sent. In 24 particular, I was a part of his issuing of a bill to, 25 I think, the Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, 183 1 concerning the litigation costs of 46 million plus 2 interest. 3 MR STEVENS: Thank you. 4 Sir, before I -- famous last words, saying it was my 5 last question. If I may just have a moment to check 6 a note. (Pause) 7 Thank you, sir. I do actually have one further 8 question and it's going right back to the start of your 9 evidence, when you referred to working for a firm called 10 BDO. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. We've heard evidence about Lee Castleton's civil case, 13 and an expert report being produced to Womble Bond 14 Dickinson, not disclosed in the hearing, by BDO Stoy 15 Hayward. Did you have any involvement in the Lee 16 Castleton case at all? 17 A. No, I really wasn't aware of Lee Castleton's case until 18 I met Alan Bates and we went into this process. 19 Q. I'm not suggesting it's necessarily the same firm. 20 I just wanted -- 21 A. It will be the same firm, because Stoy Hayward and BDO, 22 which was formerly BDO Binder Hamlyn, amalgamated at 23 some point but I wasn't involved in such high echelons 24 of the firm to know anything about that. 25 MR STEVENS: Thank you. 184 1 Sir, those are the questions I have. 2 Now, Ms Linnell is represented by Mr Stein and would 3 he like to ask questions in re-examination under Rule 4 10(2) which, subject to your approval, I think, is open 5 to them. I think if we are doing that, though, first, 6 I will check if there are other Core Participants who 7 wish to ask questions? 8 No, sir. I think Mr Stein has two questions. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Literally two, Mr Stein? 10 MR STEIN: Two topics, sir. 11 MR STEVENS: Sorry. 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, I'm just concerned about the 13 shorthand writer, that's all. If you're going to be 14 literally a few minutes, I'm sure she'd prefer to finish 15 but, if it's more than that, we'll ask her which she'd 16 prefer. 17 MR STEIN: Our shorthand-writer is confirming that if it's 18 a few minutes then to go ahead, and it will be, sir. 19 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. 20 Questioned by MR STEIN 21 MR STEIN: Sir, the reference in Mr Warmington's statement 22 to the suspense account monies is his statement 23 WITN01050200, page 7, paragraph 12, and the figure of 24 £612,000 is given. You'll recall I asked him questions 25 about that matter, and he referred to other sums. 185 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 2 MR STEIN: Ms Linnell, just two topics, as mentioned to 3 Sir Wyn. 4 You were asked a question by Mr Stevens about your 5 first joining meetings of the JFSA and we all know from 6 the ITV drama that the meetings were sometimes at 7 village halls -- Fenny Compton, famously, otherwise at 8 Kineton on occasions. 9 Now, regarding funding, which is what you were asked 10 by Mr Stevens, how broke were the subpostmasters that 11 you met at these meetings? 12 A. Very broke and in "minus red land", as my friend used to 13 call it, with lots of credit card and other debts 14 hanging around them. 15 Q. Sometimes, in relation to your support of 16 subpostmasters/mistresses working with Mrs Jeremiah, you 17 were helping them try and make their way through the 18 mess that had been made of their finances. That needed, 19 on occasions, to get things like bank statements, which 20 aren't necessarily free; how did you manage to do that? 21 A. Barbara and I paid for them. 22 Q. Another question asked by Mr Stevens was regarding the 23 JFSA and whether it engaged with the National Federation 24 of SubPostmasters. Was there any desire amongst the 25 people that you met at the JFSA to engage with the NFSP? 186 1 A. The feeling among people I spoke to who were SPMs is 2 that the National Federation of SubPostmasters were no 3 more than part of Post Office and not to be trusted. 4 MR STEIN: Sir, thank you. 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, first of all, should I be calling 6 you "Dr Linnell"? 7 THE WITNESS: You could, sir. 8 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, hidden amongst your witness 9 statement was a reference to you becoming a doctor in 10 2024. So, Dr Linnell, thank you very much for your 11 witness statement and thank you very much for giving 12 evidence before me this afternoon. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 14 MR STEVENS: Thank you, sir. 15 I apologise for repeatedly saying "Ms Linnell" all 16 the way through. 17 THE WITNESS: No, no, I'm happy. 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I'd just like everybody to know that I do 19 read the lines of the witness statement, Mr Stevens. 20 That's all. 21 Thank you very much, everyone. 22 9.45 tomorrow, yes? 23 MR STEVENS: Yes, sir. Thank you. 24 (4.06 pm) 25 (The hearing adjourned until 9.45 am the following day) 187 I N D E X GRAHAM WARD (re-sworn) ........................1 Questioned by MR BEER .........................1 ANTHONY PAUL KEARNS (sworn) ..................37 Questioned by MS HODGE .......................37 Questioned by MR STEIN .......................89 Questioned by MS WATT ........................95 DR KAY CATHERINE SHEILA HILARY LINNELL ......106 (sworn) Questioned by MR STEVENS ....................106 Questioned by MR STEIN ......................185 188