1 Tuesday, 16 July 2024 2 (9.45 am) 3 MR BEER: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear us? 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 5 MR BEER: Sir, can I ask that Mr Dunks isn't sworn for the 6 moment. I know that his legal representative wants to 7 provide me with a piece of paper that sets out 8 a correction that Mr Dunks wants to make to his witness 9 statement and he hasn't given me that yet. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That's fine. 11 (Pause) 12 MR BEER: Can I call Andy Dunks, please. 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 14 ANDREW PAUL DUNKS (re-sworn) 15 Questioned by MR BEER 16 MR BEER: Good morning, Mr Dunks, my name is Jason Beer and 17 I ask questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Before I ask 18 you those questions there's a matter that the Chairman 19 will raise with you. 20 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Dunks, under our law, a witness at 21 a public inquiry has the right to decline to answer 22 a question put to him by Counsel to the Inquiry, by any 23 recognised legal representative or by me, if there is 24 a risk that the answer to that question would 25 incriminate the witness. This legal principle is known 1 1 in shorthand form as the privilege against 2 self-incrimination. 3 I take the view that fairness demands that I remind 4 you of that privilege before you give your evidence. If 5 at any stage you wish to rely upon that privilege, 6 however, it is for you to alert me of that fact. 7 If, therefore, any questions are put to you by any 8 of the lawyers who ask you questions, or by me, which 9 you do not wish to answer on the ground that to answer 10 such a question might incriminate you, you must tell me 11 immediately after the question is put to you. At that 12 point, I will consider your objection and thereafter 13 rule upon whether your objection to answering the 14 question should be upheld. 15 Now I think I understand correctly that you are 16 represented today by lawyers at the Inquiry; is that 17 right? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So if the issue relating to 20 self-discrimination arises and you wish them to assist 21 you, and if at any stage during the questioning you wish 22 to consult your lawyers about the privilege, you must 23 tell me so that I can consider whether that is 24 appropriate. Do you understand all that, Mr Dunks? 25 THE WITNESS: I do, yes. 2 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. 2 Over to you, Mr Beer. 3 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 4 Mr Dunks, can you, give us your full name, please? 5 A. Andrew Paul Dunks. 6 Q. You last gave evidence on 8 March 2023 for half a day 7 before the weather interrupted us in Phase 3 of the 8 Inquiry. Since then you have prepared a second witness 9 statement, the URN for which is WITN00300200. It's 10 69 pages long and it's dated 24 May 2024. I think there 11 are two corrections that you wish to make to it; is that 12 right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Can we deal with the first of them, which is more 15 substantial, by looking at page 23 of the witness 16 statement. If that could be brought up on the screen, 17 so second witness statement, page 23, and if you look in 18 the hard copy in front of you. Have you got that? 19 A. I've got it here, not (unclear) in front. 20 Q. Paragraph 77, if we scroll down, please. You say in 21 that paragraph: 22 "I do not know why system event logs were not 23 supplied as part of the ARQ process." 24 Is there a correction which you wish to make to 25 that? 3 1 A. Yes, there is. 2 Q. I'm going to read it out at dictation speed, it's quite 3 long. 4 Do you wish to make the following correction: 5 "I have now been shown records which indicate that, 6 as part of the ARQ process, the CSPOA Security Team, 7 including me, supplied the system events log to the SSC 8 to check them for any financial implications ..." 9 Then you give a reference, eg FUJ00186421. Then you 10 add: 11 "... though I now have no recollection of this." 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Is that the correction you wish to make? 14 A. It is, yes. 15 Q. So: 16 "I have now been shown records which indicate that, 17 as part of the ARQ process, the Security Team, including 18 me, supplied the system events log to the SSC to check 19 them for any financial implications, though I now have 20 no recollection of this." 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Then the second correction, please, much simpler, 23 page 52 of the witness statement, paragraph 167. In the 24 first line, you say: 25 "It appears that I was asked to provide Litigation 4 1 Support in respect of this prosecution in August 2006." 2 Do you wish to amend that to "May 2006"? 3 A. I do, yeah. 4 Q. Is that because you have now seen a document which has 5 got your name on it, which is dated from May 2006? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Thank you. Can you go to the last page, please, which 8 is page 69 of the witness statement; is that your 9 signature? 10 A. It is, yes. 11 Q. With those two corrections brought into account, are the 12 contents of the witness statement true to the best of 13 your knowledge and belief? 14 A. It is, yes. 15 Q. Thank you very much. That can come down, thank you, and 16 you can put the witness statement to one side. 17 I'm not going to address your background, your work 18 at Fujitsu or the organisation of the Customer Service 19 Post Office Account, the CSPOA, and, in particular, the 20 Security Team within it, as you addressed those issues 21 on the last occasion and you provide considerable detail 22 about them in your most recent witness statement. You 23 say in that recent witness statement that, as of 24 May 24 2024, you remained employed by Fujitsu as an IT Security 25 Analyst in the Security Team; does that remain the case? 5 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Can I begin with what might be described as some process 3 issues. You refer in your witness statement to the Post 4 Office Account's Prosecution Support Section, the PSS. 5 Yes? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Can you confirm that that entity, the Prosecution 8 Support Section, was not part of the Post Office; it was 9 part of Fujitsu? 10 A. Where -- I'm sorry. I believe so, yes. 11 Q. Okay. Was there anyone embedded from the Post Office in 12 it? 13 A. No, there wasn't. 14 Q. Can we look at a policy document, please, FUJ00152209. 15 It'll come up on the screen for you. Can you see this 16 is a document, the title of which is "Network Banking 17 Management of Prosecution Support"? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. The date of it in the top right, Version 2, is dated 20 29 February 2005. A summary of it, under the title, 21 "Abstract", is given: 22 "[It] outlines the end-to-end procedures required to 23 manage and deliver the Network Banking Prosecution 24 Support Service." 25 Can you see that? 6 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. This is a document you refer to in your witness 3 statement and, if we just pan out a little bit to look 4 at the whole of the front page, I don't think we see 5 your name on it; is that right? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Then if we look at the second page, I don't think we see 8 your name as a reviewer, either mandatory or optional, 9 or a person to whom it was issued for information; can 10 you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Would that reflect the fact that the level at which you 13 operated meant that you didn't contribute towards 14 documents of this kind? 15 A. Correct, yes. 16 Q. If we go back to page 1, please and if we scroll down 17 a little bit, thank you. You'll be familiar with 18 a number of the names of the contributors there; would 19 that be right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Of the contributors, can you tell us, as at 2005, what 22 they did and what their relationship to the work that 23 you did was? 24 A. Neneh Lowther was part of the same level as I was, 25 within the Security Team, and she carried out or looked 7 1 after, I believe at the time, ARQ requests along with 2 other jobs within our team. Bill Mitchell was the 3 Security Manager, which would have been our line 4 manager. Penny Thomas would have been the same level as 5 myself and Neneh, I'm not sure what her role then -- 6 whether she had become the litigation manager. 7 Jan Holmes and Alan Holmes -- this is where I get 8 confused because they've both got the same surname -- 9 I think one -- 10 Q. If we just go to page 2 to help you -- and scroll 11 down -- we can see Jan Holmes is described as the 12 Quality Assurance Manager and Alan Holmes is described 13 as Audit. Does that help? 14 A. Yes, one was like a -- I believe the role was around 15 a Service Delivery Manager, that would have been Jan, 16 and Alan Holmes was audit support. 17 Q. Thank you very much. 18 This document, which sets out the procedures 19 required to manage and deliver the Prosecution Support 20 Service, is this a document you would have been familiar 21 with back in the day, back in 2005? 22 A. Um, familiar with? I don't know. I would have probably 23 read it at one stage but I can't remember -- 24 Q. How were documents distributed to users of them at that 25 time? 8 1 A. I can't remember how they were distributed back then. 2 Q. Was there a centralised library, sort of an intranet, 3 that was a depository/repository of policies that you 4 were able to access or expected to access or were 5 documents physically passed to you? 6 A. Oh, no, yeah, I don't believe they were physically 7 passed to us but they would have been available if 8 needed. 9 Q. Okay, so this is the kind of document that would have 10 set out the procedures to be operated for -- 11 A. Mm-hm. 12 Q. -- the Prosecution Support Service in 2005. Just again, 13 looking at the reviewers and, if we go back to page 1, 14 the contributors, would you agree that this is 15 an internal Fujitsu document to which Post Office did 16 not apparently contribute? 17 A. It appears so, yes. 18 Q. All of the contributors and reviewers are Fujitsu 19 employees rather than Post Office employees -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you know the extent to which Post Office was given 24 the opportunity to comment on, or amend or provide 25 contributions to policies of this kind? 9 1 A. No, I've no idea what level or whether they -- what 2 documents they were aware of or saw, no. 3 Q. Okay. That was something that happened, if it happened, 4 above your level; is that right? 5 A. Correct, yes. 6 Q. Thank you. Can we go to page 22 of the document, 7 please. Can you see, if we just scroll down, please, 8 under 7.2.4, it provides "Complete witness statement of 9 fact": 10 "[The Prosecution Support Service] PSS will provide 11 a witness statement of fact in respect of 250 [ARQs] per 12 annum. This will as far as possible be undertaken by 13 the person responsible for the actioning of the work ... 14 so as to retain continuity of evidence and obviate the 15 need for additional statements." 16 Just on the point -- the provision of the witness 17 statement will be undertaken by the person, as far as is 18 possible, who is responsible for undertaking the ARQ 19 work described earlier in 7.1 -- that, I think, accords 20 with what you tell us in the witness statement: if you 21 did the extraction, then you were the provider of the 22 witness statement; is that right? 23 A. Yes, yes. 24 Q. Thank you. It continues, 7.2.4.1: 25 "Any material or otherwise pertinent information 10 1 shall be recorded and included in the relevant witness 2 statement of fact. 3 "Requirements for witness statements explaining the 4 extraction of audit data from Horizon in response to an 5 [ARQ] shall be completed by the individual from PSS who 6 completed the request." 7 That's the same point as is made in 7.2.4. It 8 continues: 9 "The statement shall follow the standard format and 10 layout for witness statements of fact provided in 11 evidence. Contents of witness statements of fact are 12 flexible depending on specific requirements of each case 13 and the knowledge of the witness giving the statement. 14 An example of a witness statement of fact is provided in 15 Appendix 2. For each request, Post Office and 16 [Prosecution Support] will agree relevant matters (such 17 as those listed below) which will be covered in the 18 witness statement of fact (based on the knowledge of the 19 witness)." 20 If we read on, we can see that those matters 21 include -- if you just read the first five there and, if 22 we go over the page, please, to the fourth bullet point 23 on that page. Matters which should be covered in the 24 witness statement of fact include, bullet point 4: 25 "The process for extracting information for [ARQs] 11 1 and the controls in place to ensure the integrity of 2 that data." 3 Then the fifth bullet point: 4 "An analysis of the [ARQ], when the [ARQ] form was 5 received and the dates when the audit data extraction 6 took place. This shall be taken from the Prosecution 7 Support Database and audit trail file." 8 Then, lastly: 9 "A summary of the evidence provided for the 10 request." 11 So was it right that the Post Office's only role was 12 in relation to ARQs, identifying the relevant matters, 13 ie which of these bullet points needed to be addressed 14 in a witness statement? 15 A. Sorry? 16 Q. If we just go back, please, and scroll up, please. You 17 see the third paragraph there. Four lines in it reads: 18 "For each request, Post Office and [the Prosecution 19 Support Service] will agree relevant matters (such as 20 those listed below) which should be covered in the 21 witness statement of fact ..." 22 So was it the Post Office's role to agree, with 23 Prosecution Support, which of the bullet points that are 24 listed needed to be addressed in a witness statement? 25 A. I don't know, at that level. I'm not quite sure. 12 1 Q. We know that you made many, many witness statements -- 2 A. Mm-hm. 3 Q. -- what did you take as your guide, if any, as to what 4 to include? 5 A. In the data that we supplied or in the witness 6 statement? 7 Q. No, in the witness statement. 8 A. From our witness template that would have been given to 9 use. 10 Q. Okay, the witness template, we're going to come on to 11 look at it in a number, has a number of paragraphs in it 12 that have a capital letter, A through Q, I think, some 13 of which are optional? 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. It's your evidence, not mine, that is important. 16 I don't give any evidence at all. The witness 17 statement, the template, appears to include a number of 18 paragraphs that are optional. Does that reflect your 19 understanding? 20 A. Um ... optional? No, I don't recall that. 21 Q. We in the Inquiry have seen a number of emails from 22 either within Fujitsu or from Post Office to Fujitsu, 23 where they say "include paragraphs D, F and Q. No need 24 to address K and L". 25 A. No, I'm not aware of that taking place, no. 13 1 Q. If we go forwards to page 29 and scroll down, I'm 2 actually going to look at this in an earlier iteration 3 of the policy in a moment but, if we scroll down, 4 please, this is the template, you remember that the body 5 of the policy said that there's an example witness 6 statement in Appendix 2 and this is Appendix 2. Can you 7 see that each paragraph is starting above the body of 8 the paragraph with a capital letter -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- can you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. If we go over the page, can we see some more, yes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If we scroll on, and keep scrolling, you'll see that 15 there's some more paragraphs, each with a capital letter 16 above them. What did you understand the capital letters 17 were for? 18 A. It's difficult. I don't -- I don't remember whether 19 I read this document or if I ever used it to reference. 20 So I wasn't aware how the witness statements were 21 generated, who drafted them and how they were drafted. 22 Q. But you drafted them, didn't you, the witness 23 statements? 24 A. Not the template, no. 25 Q. Okay, the witness statements that you eventually put 14 1 your name to and signed -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- you decided what went into those, did you? 4 A. No, we used the -- a template that we were told to use, 5 within the team. 6 Q. Right? 7 A. The Litigation Support said this is the template to use, 8 fill in the appropriate information to accompany the ARQ 9 data and that's what we did. 10 Q. Where was the template kept? 11 A. Um ... I believe in a shared fold. 12 Q. Was that a Prosecution Service Support shared folder 13 within your Security Team? 14 A. Yeah, I believe so, yes. 15 Q. So I don't suppose now you can help us as to whether it 16 looked like this document or not? 17 A. No, I'm afraid not, sir. 18 Q. Okay, if we go back, please, to page 22, and scroll 19 down. The highlighted part at the bottom: 20 "For each request, Post Office and [Prosecution 21 Support] will agree relevant matters (such as those 22 listed below) which should be covered in the witness 23 statement of fact ..." 24 I think, Mr Dunks, but maybe you can confirm if this 25 is correct, that did not accord with what happened in 15 1 practice? You included what was in the template, rather 2 than what the Post Office and Fujitsu would agree should 3 be covered in the witness statement. 4 A. Yes, yeah. 5 Q. Would you always use the whole of the template or would 6 you ever say, "That paragraph isn't relevant to the 7 thing that I'm speaking about on this case, I'll cut 8 that paragraph out"? 9 A. I don't believe that happened no. I'm basing -- would 10 use a template that had been agreed within the team or 11 Litigation Support advised us to use. 12 Q. So you don't remember a stage of the process where Post 13 Office and Fujitsu came to an agreement on what needed 14 to be covered off in a witness statement; you just 15 pulled the template from the shared drive, populated it 16 with the data that applied to the ARQs that you were 17 talking about and then signed it; is that right? 18 A. Basically, yes. 19 Q. Okay. Can we move forwards, please, to page 25 and look 20 at paragraph 8.2. "Expert Witness Statement" is the 21 heading. In the second paragraph there, the policy 22 says: 23 "It is ... conceivable that, given the size and 24 complexity of the Horizon system, the integrity of the 25 witness statements of fact may be challenged by defence 16 1 counsel in order to discredit a prosecution. In these 2 cases additional, granular detail about the technical 3 working and integrity of various systems that constitute 4 the Horizon system may be required if only for 'unused 5 material'. 6 "Expert witnesses could comprise anyone within the 7 Post Office Account or its approved contractors who 8 could be called upon to provide and testify to this 9 additional evidence. 10 "Expert witnesses could be called upon to provide, 11 for example ..." 12 Then the first one is "Operational logs" and the 13 last one is "Subsequent analysis of this data". 14 Were you aware of, never mind the detail of what 15 this says, but the sense of what these paragraphs say, 16 that, as well as what are described as witness 17 statements of fact, there was the facility for expert 18 witness statements to be provided. 19 A. No, no, I don't think I was ever made aware of anything 20 like that, no. 21 Q. Was that language in use at the time in Fujitsu in the 22 Support Service, "Mr X or Ms Y" -- probably by their 23 first name -- "is providing a witness statement of fact" 24 or, "In this case, because there's been a challenge, we 25 need an expert witness statement"? 17 1 A. No, not that I'm aware of. I don't recall anything like 2 that taking place within the team at any time, no. 3 Q. You'll see that it says, "Expert witnesses could 4 comprise anyone within the Post Office Account"; can you 5 see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Were you ever told that you were a person that could 8 provide evidence that would be classed as expert 9 witness? 10 A. No. No one did, as far as I'm aware, describe me as 11 an expert witness. 12 Q. That can come down, thank you. Can we go to your 13 witness statement, please, your second witness 14 statement, it'll come up on the screen at page 17, 15 paragraph 53. You say: 16 "I and the other ... Security Analysts assisted the 17 Litigation Support Manager as and when required, in 18 addition to performing the other tasks assigned to us by 19 the Operational Security Manager. We were very process 20 driven and followed local work instruction documents 21 ..." 22 That's what I'm going to be concentrating on in 23 a moment, Mr Dunks: 24 "... for many of the tasks that we performed, rather 25 than consulting the Fujitsu policies and service 18 1 descriptions. The local work instructions were informal 2 documents, which at some stage had been written by those 3 actually performing the tasks, and which focused on the 4 practicalities of how to do each task. I believe Penny 5 Thomas drafted local work instructions in respect of ARQ 6 extractions, and I wrote the local work instruction in 7 respect of how to extract the HSD call records, though 8 both documents may have been updated by different people 9 over the years. None of these local work instructions, 10 that I used-on a day-to-day basis, have been disclosed 11 to me by the Inquiry." 12 I should say that's because we haven't got them. 13 So you tell us here that there were things that you 14 call local work instructions and that they were used, 15 rather than Fujitsu policies and service descriptions; 16 is that right? 17 A. Yes, correct. 18 Q. In the drafting of them, were they based on the Fujitsu 19 policy or service descriptions? 20 A. I don't know. That I don't know. 21 Q. Did you create these documents, you within the Security 22 Team, of your own initiative? 23 A. On the HSD calls, because that's the ones I would have 24 done, I can't remember whether it was off my own 25 initiative or I was asked by the manager to create that 19 1 work instruction, so other people within the team could 2 perform the same task. 3 Q. So if there had been a tasking, it would have been by 4 your manager; is that right? 5 A. Yes, yes. 6 Q. Did any managers approve the local work instructions? 7 A. I don't remember that happening, no. 8 Q. Can you help us as to why a manager may not have 9 approved the local work instructions? 10 A. No, I don't know why. 11 Q. You see, we've got a suite of documents, and there are 12 a lot of them, which are Fujitsu policies, which say how 13 your work is to be undertaken, yes? I've just shown you 14 one of them. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You tell us here that, instead of using those, you were 17 relying on some local work instructions? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I'm trying to find out who signed those off, rather than 20 the formal policy documents that all sorts of people had 21 reviewed, contributed to and quality assured? 22 A. Well, I can only say my experience of the -- I created 23 many, many work instructions to do with my main role, 24 which is the key management because, again, there were 25 vast documents explaining things and how things worked 20 1 within the key management arena. And for -- instead of 2 keep referring to that, we'd take the instructions and 3 create the local work instructions for somebody who 4 could come along and perform that task, in an easier, 5 step by step, and that's what we classed as local work 6 instructions. 7 Q. To what extent were they based on the requirements of 8 Fujitsu policies like the one I've just shown you? 9 A. I've no idea, actually. They would have taken 10 information from that. 11 Q. Was any consideration given to, "We're drafting up 12 a local work instruction on how to extract and put into 13 a witness statement information about Helpdesk calls", 14 any consideration given to "What does our policy, our 15 company policy, say about that"? 16 A. I can't say for the ARQ local work instructions but, no, 17 I don't believe, from my point of view, from the HSD 18 call extraction, no. 19 Q. On your document, the one that you tell us here that you 20 drafted, can you help us: did it say anything about 21 whether the Helpdesk calls that you were obtaining 22 should be summarised in the witness statement to which 23 the case related? 24 A. No, no. It was purely the actions of requesting and 25 downloading the Helpdesk calls. 21 1 Q. So it was quite practical about how to go about, is this 2 right, the extraction of the Helpdesk calls? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. It didn't say what you then did with that data? 5 A. No. 6 Q. So it didn't say you must exhibit it to a witness 7 statement, the download? 8 A. Yeah. No, it didn't. 9 Q. It didn't say you must summarise it in your witness 10 statement? 11 A. No, it didn't. 12 Q. It didn't say you should or you should not seek to 13 analyse what the data means? 14 A. No, it didn't. 15 Q. Is this right: it didn't say if you're unsure about what 16 an entry on the HSD log means, it's permissible or not 17 permissible to go and speak to the SSC about that to get 18 an explanation -- 19 A. No, it didn't, no. 20 Q. -- and that if you get an explanation you should record 21 that fact in the witness statement? 22 A. No, it didn't. 23 Q. So it didn't speak about any of, from our perspective, 24 the important things of what because into the witness 25 statement? 22 1 A. No, it didn't, no. 2 Q. Was there any document that regulated or regularised 3 what went into a witness statement, and let's stick with 4 HSD calls. 5 A. I don't believe so, no. 6 Q. You understand that you could do it in different ways, 7 couldn't you? You could say, "I am Andrew Dunks. On 8 Monday, 1 January, I extracted 120 calls in relation to 9 this branch between these two date parameters from the 10 HSD. I exhibit them as my exhibit AD1". That's one way 11 of doing it, isn't it? 12 A. Sorry, are you saying would that have been part of the 13 instructions? 14 Q. No, that could be a way of doing it? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Another way could be making a witness statement which 17 said, "I'm Andrew Dunks and I accessed and read the 18 calls and I've cut and paste a summary of them into my 19 witness statement"? That would be another way of doing 20 it, wouldn't it? 21 A. Yes, it would have been. 22 Q. Another way of doing it would be to add on the end of 23 either of those two some analysis of what those calls 24 meant? 25 A. Yes. 23 1 Q. By "analysis", I mean offer an opinion on what they 2 mean -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- what the entries mean, and offer an opinion over 5 whether the content of any of the calls related to the 6 integrity of the data being processed by Horizon? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was there any instruction at all, that you were aware 9 of, that told you which of those things you should do, 10 or which of those things you shouldn't do? 11 A. Written instruction? No. 12 Q. To start with, yes, written instruction? 13 A. Yes. No. 14 Q. Because, in a moment, we're going to see that, over 15 time, you did all three of those things, in different 16 cases. Was there any oral instruction that told you 17 when you're summarising -- sorry, when you're dealing 18 with HSD data, this is the way to do it in a witness 19 statement? 20 A. I don't recall instructions. 21 Q. How about advice or guidance? 22 A. No, not advice and guidance, no. 23 Q. Thank you. Okay, that can come down. 24 Can I turn to the issue of the extent to which you 25 extracted ARQ data and the extent to which you gave 24 1 evidence, ie the scale of the enterprise that you were 2 engaged in. You tell us in your witness statement, and 3 I'm summarising here, that, firstly, you held limited 4 technical knowledge of the operation of Horizon; is that 5 correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Secondly, that you had limited knowledge of bugs, errors 8 and defects in the Horizon system; is that correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Thirdly, that you had no role, and you did not and never 11 had worked, in HSD, the Helpdesk? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Is that correct? 14 Can we look at paragraph 20 of your first witness 15 statement, please, which is WITN00300100, and can we 16 look, please, on page 6 at paragraph 20. Can you see 17 that on the screen? 18 A. I can. 19 Q. You say "On occasion", and it's going to be those words 20 that I'm going to be focusing on in a moment, Mr Dunks: 21 "On occasion, I was requested to provide the Post 22 Office with records of calls made to the HSD by 23 a particular Post Office branch and (if requested) to 24 summarise these in witness statements. While 25 I therefore did have access to the historic HSD call 25 1 records, I would only be looking at them when requested 2 to do so as part of this task. I was not party to the 3 calls themselves and had no role in investigating any 4 errors ... or communicating with the system users about 5 them." 6 Can you confirm that that accurately records the 7 extent of your role in the provision of witness 8 statements concerning calls to the Helpdesk? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Would you agree that what you're describing there is 11 a purely procedural, administrative or mechanical one, 12 ie extracting the data but also then summarising them in 13 the witness statements? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Would you describe the function that you were performing 16 as a limited function? 17 A. Limited, yes. 18 Q. Would it be right that you didn't have the technical 19 expertise to interrogate whether the Horizon system was 20 operating as it should at the relevant time? 21 A. Sorry, say that again. 22 Q. Yes. Would it be right that you didn't have the 23 technical expertise to interrogate whether the Horizon 24 system was operating as it should at the relevant time? 25 A. In respect of the Helpdesk calls, I believe I had enough 26 1 knowledge to be able to do that, yes. 2 Q. Enough knowledge to what, say that what was recorded on 3 the calls meant that either the Horizon system was or 4 was not operating as it should? 5 A. I had enough knowledge to understand -- well, during my 6 looking at the calls and investigating the calls, 7 I believe I gained enough knowledge to satisfy myself to 8 make that sort of statement, yes. 9 Q. When you made that kind of statement, whether the 10 Horizon system was operating as it should or not, by 11 reference to the Helpdesk calls, you were offering an 12 opinion, weren't you? 13 A. Yes, I was. 14 Q. You weren't making a statement of fact? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Can we go, please, to POL00003219. This is 17 a spreadsheet. Thank you. 18 This is a spreadsheet disclosed to the Inquiry by 19 the Post Office. It appears to be a record prepared by 20 Fujitsu of the dates that requests for work were 21 received, whether a statement was required in relation 22 to each case and, if so, who prepared it, and whether 23 the statement had been posted out or not. The document, 24 runs from 5 April 2004 to 22 March 2005, so just under 25 a year. 27 1 If we look at the column F, can you see that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. If we just go to the dropdown. Thank you. You'll see 4 that in, a number of rows, for example 10 and 11 and 24 5 onwards, something has been redacted -- can you see 6 that -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- I think before we got the document. We understand 9 that to indicate whether or not a witness statement was 10 required and, therefore, I can't say one way or the 11 other what was populated in column F. But if we go 12 further to the right to column N, and then if we scroll 13 down, you see, for example, there Penny Thomas' name 14 under a "checked by" box appears, and if we just look at 15 the dropdown -- just look at the dropdown once more, 16 thank you -- you'll see that you're one of the people 17 who can be ticked; can you see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Was that essentially the team there? 20 A. Yes, it was. 21 Q. Your name, we counted them up, appears in 98 different 22 lines in this column between 17 August 2004 and 9 March 23 2005. So in a six or seven-month period, you have had 24 input on 98 requests from the Post Office? 25 A. Yes. 28 1 Q. The "checked by", was there a process of checking 2 something? 3 A. These checks were, if I remember correctly, for the ARQ 4 data and once someone had extracted the data, they'd 5 performed their checks at the dates, and the data looked 6 okay, and before it was sent to Post Office, a member of 7 the team, whoever was available -- so there was no 8 formal -- would run -- get asked to run their eyes over 9 it to double check before it was sent to the Post 10 Office, and that's who would have been put in there. 11 Q. So would the "checked by" be the same person who had 12 done the extraction? 13 A. No. 14 Q. It would be a different person? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. So over this six or seven-month period you have 17 checked 89 requests from Post Office. Would that sound 18 about right to you, about 100 over a six or seven-month 19 period? 20 A. I don't know. It varied. It could have been more it 21 could have been less over the years. I can't say that 22 that. That sounds about right but ... 23 Q. What proportion of ARQ requests resulted in the requests 24 for the production of a witness statement? 25 A. I've no idea. 29 1 Q. Can you help us whether it was always or -- 2 A. Oh, no, no, no -- 3 Q. -- infrequently -- 4 A. -- as far as -- sorry. Sorry to interrupt. 5 Q. It's all right. 6 A. As far as I'm aware it was quite infrequent. 7 Q. If we just go to the top of the page and look at column 8 O, again on "Witness Statement Required", look at the 9 dropdown. We can see that's been redacted in each 10 column. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I don't think we can tell the proportion of cases in 13 which a witness statement was required. How regularly 14 were you providing witness statements? 15 A. Again, quite -- I don't know, again -- for -- this is to 16 do with ARQs. Quite infrequently. 17 Q. So, over a year, how many would you provide? 18 A. From memory, I have no idea. It could be half a dozen. 19 It could -- I don't -- I honestly can't remember -- 20 Q. Would you always do it the same way: by pulling up the 21 template from the shared drive? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You remember in your witness statement you said, "On 24 occasion I was requested to provide the Post Office with 25 records of calls made to HSD". Is that right, it was 30 1 only on occasion that you were asked to provide call 2 records? 3 A. Yes, it wasn't -- yeah. 4 Q. Again, how many times a year? 5 A. Again, I don't know. It would have varied from year to 6 year but it wasn't large -- from what I remember, it 7 wasn't that many. 8 Q. So once a month? 9 A. I can't say. I don't know. No. It could have been one 10 a month, it could have been none for the period of 11 a couple of months, it could have been a couple -- 12 I don't know, I'd be guessing. 13 Q. Okay, we can take that down, then. Can we go to your 14 second witness statement and turn to the issue of the 15 approach that you took to the provision of witness 16 statements provided by Fujitsu to support Post Office 17 prosecutions. I want to start with the question of 18 whether you were happy to provide such witness 19 statements, whether you were content to do so. Can we 20 look at your second witness statement, please, at 21 page 16, and read paragraph 48, please. 22 You say: 23 "I recall that Ms Bains was the main person 24 responsible for performing ARQ data extractions for 25 a time." 31 1 Can you help us with who Ms Bains was. 2 A. That was Raj Bains. 3 Q. That's Rajbinder Bains, is that right, to give her her 4 full name? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You tell us she was the main person responsible for 7 performing the ARQ extractions for a time? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. But then did that change? 10 A. Yes, it did, I mean there were a number of people who 11 took that main responsibility. 12 Q. You continue: 13 "However, she did not want to be a witness in any 14 court proceedings so I do not believe she prepared any 15 witness statements. I got the impression she was 16 nervous because it was something unknown to her, and the 17 idea of going to court and being questioned was a bit 18 daunting." 19 Just stopping there, were they the only reasons that 20 Ms Bains did not wish to provide witness statements? 21 A. I don't know. I'm not sure I ever had a proper 22 conversation about it but I do remember her being 23 nervous. She's not that type of outward person to want 24 to do that. 25 Q. You continue: 32 1 "Where [Post Office] requested a witness statement 2 at the time of the ARQ request, I or someone else would 3 therefore perform the data extraction and supply the 4 statement. If Ms Bains had performed the data 5 extraction and [the Post Office] later requested 6 a witness statement, then I or someone else would 7 re-extract the data." 8 So you, is this right, were not apparently afflicted 9 with the same concerns that Ms Bains was about making 10 witness statements and giving evidence and appearing in 11 court. 12 A. Sorry, afflicted? 13 Q. Yes, she didn't want to be a witness. She was, 14 according to you, nervous and didn't like the idea of 15 going to court. You didn't suffer from any of those 16 afflictions? 17 A. I wouldn't say I didn't but I think I was probably a bit 18 more confident than Raj was at the time. 19 Q. Okay, you were happy to go to court, firstly happy to 20 provide witness statements and then content to go to 21 court; is that right? 22 A. Yes, yes. 23 Q. Were you provided with any training by Fujitsu, or 24 otherwise, about the tasks that you were performing in 25 extracting ARQ data, obtaining HSD call records and then 33 1 writing witness statements and then appearing in court? 2 A. We would have had training on the extraction process for 3 ARQs, and HSD calls, I'm not sure I had trading on that 4 because that's my responsibility and I sort of managed 5 that process. 6 Q. So, if there was training, you'd be the trainer not the 7 trainee? 8 A. Quite possibly, yes. 9 Q. What about the other bits, the writing of witness 10 statements and appearing in court; any training from 11 Fujitsu or otherwise on those? 12 A. No, none at all. 13 Q. What thought, if any, did you give to the role that you 14 were performing and the fact that the evidence that you 15 gave may have had a significant impact on people's 16 lives? 17 A. I don't recall my thought process at the time of 18 generating those but I took that responsibility quite 19 seriously. I mean, I was supplying data and had to be 20 happy with that witness statement. 21 Q. You said that you took the role quite seriously. 22 A. Mm-hm. 23 Q. What did you do in carrying into effect that state of 24 mind: if you take something seriously, you sometimes do 25 things accordingly? 34 1 A. I -- 2 Q. What did you do accordingly? 3 A. I would have done that task to the best of my ability 4 and as thoroughly as I could. 5 Q. What about the provision of evidence part of it, rather 6 than being professional over the extraction of the ARQ 7 data or the HSD call records? Was there anything in 8 particular that you did when you were providing the 9 evidence part of the function? 10 A. What do you mean by providing the evidence part? I'm 11 sorry? 12 Q. Well, you were writing witness statements -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- and then you were going to court to give evidence. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You said that you took your role seriously. Was there 17 anything that you did, because you took your role 18 seriously, in the provision of the witness statements or 19 the going to court to give evidence bits? 20 A. I can't think that I did anything differently, no. 21 I just performed the task that I did to the best of my 22 ability, yeah. 23 Q. Okay, can we look at some documents, please, and start 24 by looking at FUJ00225644, and look at page 2, please. 25 If we scroll down, we've got the bottom part of the 35 1 email. Can you see an email here from Lisa Allen to 2 Phil Budd of 29 July 2009, concerning the Porters Avenue 3 Post Office and the provision of a statement, yes? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now, the Porters Avenue Post Office, I think you know 6 that was run by the subpostmaster Mr Jerry Hosi, yes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Before we get into the detail, because it's not a case 9 we've looked at in any substance before, I think it 10 would be helpful to remind ourselves as to what happened 11 in Mr Hosi's case, so can we temporarily go away from 12 this email and look at RLIT0000130. I think you'll 13 recognise this as a judgment from the Court of Appeal 14 and, if we just scroll down, it's dated 7 October 2021 15 and it's in the case of Ambrose & Others, and one of the 16 others was Mr Hosi. 17 If we can look, please, at page 7, and scroll down 18 to paragraph 33. I'm just going to read, to get us all 19 in mind of what happened in Mr Hosi's case, because it's 20 not a case we've looked at much. The Court of Appeal 21 records that: 22 "On 12 November 2010, in the Crown Court at 23 [Southwark], [Mr] Hosi was convicted of one count theft 24 and three counts of false accounting. On the same day, 25 he was sentenced to a total of 21 months' imprisonment. 36 1 On 5 August 2011, a confiscation order was made in the 2 sum of £3,500." 3 And then 34: 4 "An audit of Mr Hosi's branch identified a shortfall 5 of [£72,000, or so]. As a result, [he] and his son, 6 Edem Hosi, who worked in the branch with his father, 7 were interviewed under caution by [Post Office] 8 Investigators. Edem Hosi told the Investigators that 9 his father had four or five months earlier (before Edem 10 started work at the branch), told him that there were 11 unexplained shortages. He said his father was very 12 careful about money as he had worked hard to make 13 a success of the business. 14 "35. In his own interview, Mr Hosi said that he had 15 experienced discrepancies at the branch since he had 16 become the [subpostmaster]. He could not understand how 17 the losses were occurring. He complained about the lack 18 of support from the Horizon Helpline to which he had 19 reported the apparent losses. He said that he had 20 inflated the figures for cash on hand because he did not 21 have sufficient cash to cover the apparent losses. He 22 denied stealing money and blamed the losses on the 23 Horizon system." 24 Over the page. 25 "As Mr Hosi had blamed Horizon, the Post Office 37 1 Investigators arranged for Fujitsu ... to undertake hard 2 drive analysis ... [The court] have been provided with 3 an extract of the report of the analysis (by Phil Budd 4 of Fujitsu) from which we infer that the results were 5 inconclusive. The extract does not strike us as 6 supporting a prosecution. ARQ data was obtained for the 7 period 10 August 2006 to 29 November 2006 and disclosed 8 to the defence. 9 "Emails going back to May 2005 (five months before 10 the indictment period) indicate that Mr Hosi had told 11 Post Office about 'major problems balancing' such that 12 he needed 'urgent face-to-face help'. [Post Office] 13 accepts that it is not clear whether this material was 14 disclosed. Logs from [the Post Office's NBSC] show that 15 Mr Hosi made numerous calls categorised 'Horizon 16 balancing'. 17 "The defence obtained expert evidence to challenge 18 the Horizon evidence. An accountant's report ... 19 stated: 20 "'In the interviews it is clear that the Post Office 21 proceeded with a pre-determined view that Mr Hosi had 22 stolen the allegedly missing money. Other possibilities 23 have been ignored ... 24 "In particular, it has not been explored whether 25 there was any missing money in the first place. In 38 1 other words, no work has been done to ascertain whether 2 the cash imbalance was because of the amount physically 3 to hand was too low (ie as the Post Office allege) or 4 because the amount shown on the IT system was too high'. 5 "The defence also instructed an IT expert. Although 6 there was correspondence complaining about disclosure, 7 it appears that the defence were able to view the 8 material they wanted, though we note that the defence 9 complained about the amount of time they were afforded 10 to do so. Gareth Jenkins was instructed by [Post 11 Office] to respond to the expert evidence but no formal 12 report or witness statement appears to have been 13 prepared by him. He was not called as a witness at 14 trial. In the event, [Post Office] relied at trial on 15 evidence from Phil Budd and others. 16 "[Post Office] accepts that this was an unexplained 17 shortfall case and that evidence from Horizon was 18 essential to the prosecution case. [Post Office] 19 accepts ... that the prosecution of Mr Hosi was both 20 unfair and an affront to justice." 21 Conviction was quashed on all four counts. 22 So that's a reminder of what Mr Hosi's case was 23 about. Can we go back to the email, please, 24 FUJ00225644. Page 2, bottom email, Lisa Allen to Phil 25 Budd. Lisa Allen, is this right, she was 39 1 an Investigation Manager in the Post Office? 2 A. I don't know what her role was, no. Sorry, I can't 3 remember what her role was. 4 Q. Okay, she gave evidence to this Inquiry back on 5 20 December 2023 and told us she was, at this time, 6 an Investigation Manager in the Post Office. Phil Budd, 7 he was a colleague of yours, is that right, at Fujitsu? 8 A. Yes. Say colleague. He worked on the account but 9 I didn't have day-to-day dealings with him. 10 Q. If we scroll up, I think we can see his signature block, 11 that he was an RMGA Development, Systems Engineer. Was 12 that somebody who didn't work in the same team as you, 13 then? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. Anyway, Ms Allen says, let's read her email: 16 "Phil, 17 "Sorry for not getting back to you -- we had another 18 hearing and the trial has been adjourned for further 19 enquiries as the defence want an expert to analyse the 20 equipment and they need to get funding. 21 "Thanks for the statement I will forward it to our 22 Legal Team." 23 So it seems Ms Allan was saying there had been 24 another hearing, an adjournment of the trial, for the 25 defence expert report and a thanks for the witness 40 1 statement. 2 If we go back to page 1, please, foot of the page. 3 You'll see, at the foot of the page, that exchange is 4 forwarded to you. 5 "Morning Andy, 6 "That court case reared its head against a few weeks 7 ago. You remember I analysed a couple of counters back 8 in July '07 then you got me to sign a new witness 9 statement in June '08, well, they came back again and 10 wanted me to sign another one -- just a single paragraph 11 to say that the counters were in 'full working order and 12 would not cause a discrepancy'. I was not happy with 13 the implications of 'full working order' since I did not 14 perform test transactions on the counters so I provided 15 a new paragraph to reiterate my previous statement -- 16 that the files thereon were correct and the counters 17 should be expected to perform as required. 18 "The reason for my email, now the defence are hiring 19 an expert to analyse the equipment I just wanted to make 20 sure [Post Office Account] are not solely relying on my 21 analysis -- I assume we have supplied evidence of the 22 transactions going through and the systems working 23 correctly? I'm just trying to reduce the stress I feel 24 whenever this pops back into my head!" 25 Do you know why Mr Budd was not happy with signing 41 1 a witness statement which said that the counters were in 2 full working order and would not cause a discrepancy? 3 A. No, I mean, I can't remember this email but I would only 4 have taken my understanding from reading the email. 5 Q. You wouldn't have had a discussion with him about, "Come 6 on, Phil, why don't you just sign the witness statement? 7 What's all this worry about, saying that the counters 8 are in full working order and wouldn't cause 9 a discrepancy"? 10 A. A conversation on -- well, I don't remember having 11 conversations with him, but I would certainly not have 12 had a conversation along those lines, no. 13 Q. If we just scroll up, please. You forward this to Peter 14 Sewell saying: 15 "I think you need to be made aware of what Phil has 16 been asked for." 17 He was your manager; is that right? 18 A. I think ... yes. 19 Q. He replies at the top: 20 "Phil 21 "Your statement is fine and is all you can actually 22 say. If they stump up the cash the counter equipment 23 can won't be of much use as the 42 days retainer of the 24 message store is long gone, and will be endorsed by 25 Gareth." 42 1 Do you know what that means? Can you decode what's 2 being said there, please, by Mr Sewell? 3 A. The only thing I can deduce from that is that, after his 4 42 days, the message store is no longer available. The 5 other parts I probably wouldn't have been involved in. 6 Q. Just go back down to what Mr Budd's worry was, if we 7 keep going, thank you. He says he was "not happy with 8 the implications of saying in a witness statement that 9 the counters were in full working order", and he says 10 that he felt stress whenever this popped back into his 11 head and seemingly was stressed again because the 12 defence were now instructing an expert. 13 Would you agree that, overall, this wasn't 14 a complete refusal to provide a witness statement, like 15 Ms Bains, but that Mr Budd was anxious to make sure, 16 firstly, that the witness statement he signed did not go 17 beyond what he actually could say -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- and, secondly, that other people with knowledge of 20 other areas of the system should carry out their 21 investigations properly and not put the burden on him to 22 say something that he could not himself say? 23 A. I'm not -- well, no, I don't believe it says that -- 24 he's stating that other people should carry out their 25 work properly but there are other areas that can be 43 1 looked at, or used -- 2 Q. So, if the expert report is going to be commissioned by 3 the defence, other people in the Post Office Account 4 should not rely solely on his analysis, Post Office 5 Account should supply evidence of the transactions going 6 through? 7 A. I don't know. I'm not sure -- I don't know what he was 8 thinking, whether he thought he was the only person. 9 I can't -- 10 Q. At the very least, would you agree that this kind of 11 email of Mr Budd being careful, should have alerted you 12 to the need for yourself to be careful about what you 13 could and could not say for yourself in a witness 14 statement? 15 A. No, I don't know. I can't remember what I took from 16 that, I'm sorry. 17 Q. But this is, on the face of it, a systems engineer 18 saying, "I'm only going to be prepared to speak to the 19 matters about which I have personal knowledge"? 20 A. Of the testing that he carried out, yes. 21 Q. And that "I'm not prepared to say that the counters were 22 in full working order and couldn't or would not cause 23 a discrepancy", ie give some master opinion about the 24 counters and their working? 25 A. Well, no, he's saying that he couldn't do that because 44 1 he hadn't put, from a testing perspective, he hadn't 2 carried out those particular tests. 3 Q. In fact, as we're going to see, you gave witness 4 statements that were, in part, based on conversations 5 which you had with other people, in the SSC in 6 particular, weren't they -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- and your witness statements were based on what you 9 say people in the SSC had told you, weren't they? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. But what they told you was not attributed to them in 12 your witness statements, was it? 13 A. No, it wasn't. 14 Q. Instead, it was presented in your witness statement as 15 if you were speaking from your own knowledge and 16 expertise, wasn't it? 17 A. Yes, it was. 18 Q. Did you realise, when you were undertaking that task, 19 going off to speak to or speaking down the phone to 20 people in the SSC, writing things in your witness 21 statements that were based on things they were telling 22 you, about which you had no clue yourself, that you were 23 blurring lines? 24 A. Sorry, what was the question? 25 Q. When you were doing this, writing witness statements 45 1 that were, in part, based on what other people had told 2 you, the facts themselves, you yourself could not speak 3 to, from your own personal knowledge, did it occur to 4 you that you were blurring lines? 5 A. No. No. 6 Q. Had anyone told you, or given you guidance, that it was 7 acceptable to essentially speak on behalf of SSC staff 8 without revealing that that was what was going on in 9 your witness statement? 10 A. No, no. No one had explained that I had to -- well, as 11 I say, it wasn't just SSC. No one explained to me that 12 I had to state where I gained that knowledge from. 13 Q. Can we go back to your witness statement, please, 14 page 19. This is second witness statement, page 19, 15 paragraph 60. You tell us that: 16 "One person from the SSC who I do recall interacting 17 with concerning litigation support was Anne Chambers. 18 I recall sitting a witness waiting room with Anne 19 Chambers for a couple of days prior to us both giving 20 evidence (which I thought was the Old Bailey but now 21 understand would more likely have been the Lee Castleton 22 proceedings at the High Court). My recollection is that 23 after that case Ms Chambers did not give evidence in 24 court again, and that Mik Peach did not want any of his 25 team to go to court. The Inquiry has provided me with 46 1 a copy of an email from Mik Peach dated 7 August 2007 2 with the subject 'Requests for data and calls' in which 3 he describes an 'incident' the previous year 'in which 4 an SSC staff member ended up in court' and says that 5 'the SSC is NOT in a position to undertake this role'." 6 In fact, the whole email -- I'm just going to quote 7 it without reading it -- went on to say: 8 "It may be that the underlying issue is a lack of 9 resource of a particular kind of in the Security Team, 10 someone who has both the technical knowledge to retrieve 11 and understand the data and who is capable of supplying 12 the analysis in the correct legal terminology to the 13 Post Office." 14 Was Mr Peach right in that respect, that within the 15 Security Team, there was a lack of resource of a person, 16 or people, who had the technical knowledge to extract 17 the data, on the one hand, but were also capable of 18 supplying analysis of the data in court proceedings? 19 A. No, I don't -- at that time, no, I don't believe that 20 there was. In my role within supplying those witness 21 statements and the calls, the call log data, no, I don't 22 believe I did. 23 Q. In that email, the one that is cited on that page there, 24 Mr Peach suggested that Gareth Jenkins could fill the 25 gap. Do you remember, however, that when it came to the 47 1 Seema Misra trial, Mr Jenkins deferred to you over the 2 reading of the Helpdesk logs? 3 A. What, during the Misra trial? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. No, I don't remember that, no. 6 Q. You don't remember that, okay. In any event, you've 7 told us in your witness statement that you passed on 8 what people told you in the SSC, in terms of analysis of 9 HSD calls; is that right? 10 A. Sorry, I'm trying to listen to the question. Can you -- 11 Q. Yes, in your witness statement generally you tell us 12 that you went to the SSC and spoke to them, or called 13 them -- 14 A. Yes, I -- 15 Q. -- and asked them for assistance -- 16 A. At times, yes. 17 Q. -- on what entries in HSD logs meant, and whether or not 18 what was recorded there would have had an effect on the 19 operation of the Horizon system? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You presented that in witness statements as if that was 22 from your knowledge and understanding, and your own 23 analysis. In the light of that, did you think that it 24 was appropriate, given the SSC's reluctance to undertake 25 that function themselves -- 48 1 A. No. 2 Q. -- ie they don't want to go to court either, and explain 3 their own entries on records and, instead, what's 4 happening is you're phoning them up asking what entries 5 mean, presenting it as if it's your analysis but without 6 saying so? 7 A. No, I don't believe I saw it along those lines. I saw 8 it along the lines -- through any investigation or any 9 reading of any literature or documents or speaking to 10 people, once I've spoken to those people, or asked 11 questions about this, that and the other, I had that 12 understanding. So it was within my -- at that time, it 13 was within my own knowledge. 14 Q. So because somebody tells you something, you're allowed 15 to repurpose it as your own knowledge in a witness 16 statement and evidence in court, is that what you're 17 saying? 18 A. Repurpose? 19 Q. Yes. As if it's your own knowledge. 20 A. Well, no, I then understood it, and then I considered 21 it, that I knew then, that. 22 Q. Did it ever occur to you or did you ever think, "Why is 23 it that I'm speaking to what the SSC are saying, and yet 24 the SSC don't want to go to court themselves"? 25 A. No, I didn't see it like that, no. 49 1 Q. Did you think at all as to why the SSC don't want to go 2 to court any more? 3 A. I can't remember my thought process but I do remember 4 that Mik Peach was quite protective of his team in all 5 respects of doing things. 6 Q. Did anyone decide that it was acceptable for you to 7 essentially provide SSC evidence in court so that they 8 no longer had to answer for their work, their own work, 9 in witness statements or in oral evidence? 10 A. I -- 11 Q. Did a manager sign it off and say, "Look, Mik Peach is 12 being protective over his team, he's not letting them go 13 to court. I'm being put up instead. I chat to the SSC 14 and I say what they would have said if they had gone to 15 court". Did anyone sign that off? 16 A. Well, sign off ... um -- 17 Q. But -- 18 A. If you're saying sign off as they were aware that that's 19 what I was doing and so they accepted that I was able to 20 do that, well, yes, because -- I mean, I would have had 21 discussions with that and I think some of the 22 documentation, that they were aware. That that's what 23 I would be doing. 24 Q. When I say "sign it off", I mean give explicit approval 25 to it, rather than being aware that it goes on. I know 50 1 that many mobile phones are stolen on the streets of 2 London every day, that doesn't mean I approve of it. 3 A. Well, I would have taken approval of signing off that 4 they were aware that I was doing that. So, I mean, if 5 they didn't think I should be doing it, they would have 6 said I shouldn't be doing it. 7 Q. Was there a relationship between Mr Peach being 8 protective of his team, saying that they aren't to go to 9 court any more, and you taking a greater role and 10 effectively giving some of the evidence that they would 11 have given? 12 A. I don't think so, no. I don't believe so. I can't 13 remember that. 14 MR BEER: Thank you. Sir, we're about to turn to 15 a different topic. Might we take the break until 11.25, 16 please? 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, of course. 18 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 19 (11.13 am) 20 (A short break) 21 (11.25 am) 22 MR BEER: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear us? 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 24 MR BEER: Thank you. 25 Mr Dunks, can I turn to the issue of the extent of 51 1 the analysis that went into the HSD logs. Can we look 2 at how you described this in your second witness 3 statement at page 18, paragraph 57. Thank you. You 4 say: 5 "In respect of the HSD calls, as part of my due 6 diligence when analysing whether there could have been 7 an impact on the integrity of the data, I would consult 8 with colleagues who had come across the issues before or 9 who had [a] greater technical knowledge than me, such as 10 the Software Support Centre (SSC), to better understand 11 the nature of the issues being raised and how they were 12 resolved." 13 Can you please explain your approach to what you 14 describe as "due diligence" in providing evidence about 15 whether phone calls to the HSD might demonstrate 16 an issue that went to system integrity? 17 A. Sorry, what was the last bit of that? 18 Q. Yes. Can you explain the approach that you took, 19 ie what prompted you to make a call to the SSC; what 20 level of concern in what you read on a call log would 21 cause you to go to the SSC? 22 A. Um -- 23 Q. You call it due diligence, here. 24 A. Yeah, due diligence. I would have carried investigation 25 and look at through each of the calls. 52 1 Q. Stop there. You say you would have carried out 2 an investigation. What did your investigation consist 3 of? 4 A. Right, I'd have printed out all the calls in detail, or 5 printed them out. I'd have read through the calls -- 6 Q. So printing and reading them? 7 A. Yes, step by step, and looking at the calls. If there 8 was an area within there that I didn't quite understand 9 what was going on, or what was -- how it was being 10 resolved, I would consult whoever I believed at the time 11 would have been able to help me understand what was 12 going on. 13 Q. How did you identify that person? 14 A. Just through knowledge of who within the account could 15 help me with that information. 16 Q. What does that mean? Did you go back to the person in 17 the SSC that was mentioned in the call log? 18 A. Er, I can't remember if that's what I did, because the 19 SSC team changed. I may have done. I may have done at 20 times but that wasn't always the case, no. 21 Q. Would you phone them? 22 A. I'd phone them, or -- no, not really. I didn't do a lot 23 of over the phone. A lot of the time I would go up to 24 the sixth floor where the SSC were based and speak to 25 them personally because I had a lot of dealings with 53 1 them on lots of other issues to do with other roles 2 within our Security Team. 3 Q. And so you would go and speak to somebody, you can't 4 remember how you identified who the somebody was? 5 A. No, I don't, no. 6 Q. Would it be whoever happened to be on shift, on duty at 7 that time? 8 A. More than likely, yes. 9 Q. Did you make a record of the conversation that you had 10 with that person? 11 A. No. I may have -- sorry, I may have made notes of 12 what -- on the resolution or what I needed, yeah, but 13 I didn't make a record of the conversations, no. 14 Q. Did you know whether you were required to make a record 15 of your conversation with the person to whom you spoke 16 where what they told you was essentially going to form 17 part of your witness statement? 18 A. No, I wasn't aware, no. 19 Q. I take it that you didn't think that you needed to do 20 so, even though your witness statement was going to be 21 placed before a criminal court? 22 A. No, I didn't -- I wasn't aware I needed to, no. 23 Q. You personally, would you agree, couldn't say whether 24 the thing that you were being told was actually right or 25 wrong? 54 1 A. I don't know. I had -- 2 Q. Would you agree, Mr Dunks, that you, from your own 3 perspective, could not say that what you were being told 4 was right or wrong? 5 A. I don't know, because I -- these were the people who 6 dealt with these calls, so I would have had to rely on 7 their own knowledge. I mean, if they didn't know -- 8 Q. Isn't that the answer then? 9 A. Sorry? 10 Q. You yourself couldn't know whether what they were 11 telling you was right or wrong? 12 A. Um -- 13 Q. You just said, "I would have to rely on them"? 14 A. Yes, I suppose so, yes. 15 Q. That's why you were actually speaking to them -- because 16 you didn't know the answer yourself? 17 A. I didn't know the answer prior to the investigation, no, 18 I didn't. 19 Q. Prior to speaking to them, you didn't know the answer. 20 A. Yes -- no, correct. 21 Q. So I think we've agreed that you couldn't yourself say 22 whether what the SSC were telling you was true or false? 23 A. I suppose so, yes. 24 Q. Why did you want to speak to colleagues about whether 25 a record of a call might suggest a system issue with 55 1 Horizon? 2 A. Because I'd have had to defer to someone who's got a far 3 greater technical knowledge than I did. 4 Q. We've addressed whether you thought that you needed to 5 make a record of what they were telling you. Did you 6 know, one way or the other, whether you had to explain 7 in your witness statement that what you were telling the 8 court was, in fact, not based on your own knowledge but 9 was what somebody had told you? 10 A. Two things there: firstly, I wasn't aware and had never 11 been made aware that, if I'd spoken to somebody to gain 12 that knowledge, that I had to state that; and, secondly, 13 as I said before, I read that part of the witness 14 statement as within my own knowledge and, if I'd done 15 research or investigated something, at that time, 16 I would have had that knowledge. That was from -- 17 I knew about it. 18 Q. Who did you depend upon, if anyone, to give you advice 19 on those sorts of issues, ie whether it was permissible 20 to speak to somebody in the SSC; if you did speak to 21 somebody in the SSC, whether you had to make a record of 22 the conversation; and that if you did speak to somebody 23 in the SSC, you should disclose that transparently on 24 your witness statement? 25 A. I don't know. I would have relied on management. My 56 1 line management, they were aware of what I was doing. 2 Q. Can you name names, please? 3 A. I would have said any of my -- the Security Managers at 4 the time. I mean, I think I've listed the ones that 5 I remember. Brian Pinder, Pete Sewell, Donna Munro, off 6 the top of my head, right at this moment. 7 Q. Did you have access to legal advice within Fujitsu? 8 A. I'm not sure. I wasn't made aware that I did, so -- but 9 if I did, I'm sure -- no, I wasn't aware. 10 Q. Were you aware that there were lawyers within Fujitsu? 11 A. I think so. I can't say when or I was aware or did 12 know, no. I don't ... 13 Q. Did you ever seek advice from lawyers within Fujitsu 14 over any of the matters that I've asked you about? 15 A. No, I didn't. 16 Q. Did, to your knowledge, any of your managers ever seek 17 such advice over people in your Security team providing 18 evidence that was based in part on what other people had 19 said, who themselves were refusing to go to court? 20 A. No, I'm not aware that anybody did. 21 Q. Can we look at something else you did, as part of the 22 process in satisfying yourself that calls either did or 23 did not have an impact on the integrity of data, and 24 look at page 38, please. It's paragraph 115, which is 25 towards the bottom of the page. You say: 57 1 "Where there was a possibility that the issue being 2 raised could have affected the data, I examined the 3 records of the investigations carried out by the 4 engineers assigned to deal within the call to confirm 5 that they had either determined there was no impact ... 6 or that a fix had been deployed to remedy any fault. 7 Where I was unsure of anything, I would consult with 8 colleagues who had come across the issues before or who 9 had greater technical knowledge than me, such as the 10 SSC, to better understand the nature of the issues being 11 raised and how they were resolved, to satisfy myself 12 that it had had no impact on the integrity of the data." 13 You describe here the way that you went about 14 satisfying yourself that what was recorded in call data 15 did not have an impact on the integrity of Horizon data. 16 Yes? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Who told you that you were supposed to satisfy yourself 19 that call data did not have an impact on the integrity 20 of Horizon data, ie what was recorded in the Helpdesk 21 records? 22 A. I don't think anybody said that I had to satisfy myself. 23 I don't think anybody has used those words to me, no. 24 Q. Did you see it as your role in the Security Department 25 to give such an assurance: no impact on integrity of 58 1 Horizon data? 2 A. In supplying the witness statements, I would have had to 3 have satisfied myself -- because of the wording within 4 the witness statement, I'd have had to satisfy myself 5 that there wasn't any impact. 6 Q. I'm asking, did you, therefore, see it as your role in 7 the Security Department to give assurances that what 8 you'd read in the call logs could have had no impact on 9 the integrity of Horizon data? 10 A. I didn't see it as -- well, yes, I saw it as my role 11 because I was supplying the witness statements. So yes. 12 Q. Did you ever provide a witness statement in all of your 13 years in which you said that a call record did challenge 14 the integrity of Horizon data? 15 A. I don't believe I did no. 16 Q. Did you ever provide a witness statement, in all of your 17 years, in which you said that what was recorded in 18 an HSD call record even possibly challenged the 19 integrity of Horizon data? 20 A. No, I didn't. No. 21 Q. So it was all one way? Nothing you ever read over 22 decades ever, even possibly, called into question the 23 integrity of Horizon data? 24 A. Through my -- no, I didn't, through my investigation, 25 no, I didn't. I satisfied myself that it didn't, no. 59 1 Q. Can I look at a third aspect of your approach, please. 2 Page 59 of your witness statement, paragraph 196. You 3 say: 4 "When I stated that 'All of the calls were of 5 a routine nature' ..." 6 Just stopping there, that's a phrase that you used 7 in, I think, all of the witness statements that you 8 produced, ie every call that you ever read about was of 9 a routine nature. Yes? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So: 12 "When I stated that 'All the calls are of a routine 13 nature', I meant that these were the type of calls which 14 were frequently made to the HSD, and which I would 15 regularly see when reviewing the call records. I note 16 that some of the calls made to the HSD in respect of 17 this branch ... related to balance discrepancies that 18 the [subpostmaster] was stating were repeatedly shown on 19 the system", et cetera. 20 You say: 21 "... I note that the calls were repeatedly referred 22 by the HSD to the NBSC. I would therefore likely have 23 understood this to be a commercial or user issue rather 24 than a technical error. I would often see commercial 25 issues such as this being raised by the [subpostmasters] 60 1 and then referred to the NBSC, and therefore would have 2 considered these calls to be of a routine nature." 3 So can I summarise it that whenever you saw, in 4 an HSD record, that the call had been referred to the 5 NBSC, you believed that that was (a) a call of a routine 6 nature, and (b) did not raise a technical error, 7 a system error? 8 A. Correct, yes. 9 Q. So that involved, would you agree, an assumption that 10 the HSD were always right to refer the call to the NBSC? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. It involved an assumption that if the subpostmaster 13 thought that the discrepancy about which they were 14 complaining was a result of a technical error, a system 15 error, then they were wrong? 16 A. If the call had been referred to the NBSC, yes, I would 17 have seen that as a business commercial or a user error. 18 Q. Yes, and what I'm asking, Mr Dunks, is that you're 19 assuming that the person in the HSD has got it right, 20 and that the subpostmaster has got it wrong. 21 A. No, I would assume that it had been referred to there 22 because they're assuming that, at first glance or 23 whatever, that it could have been a business issue. If 24 it turned out that further investigation would have been 25 needed, that call -- and I think I've seen it before -- 61 1 a call would have been passed back for further 2 investigation to see if it was a technical issue. 3 Q. You were working on the basis that Fujitsu, in its HSD, 4 was correct in its categorisation of issues as being 5 commercial or business, on the one hand, and therefore 6 referred to NBSC, weren't you? 7 A. Yes, in a way, yes. 8 Q. Did you have access to, and therefore the facility to 9 examine, when a call was referred to the NBSC? 10 A. Sorry, say that again? Did I ... 11 Q. Did you have access to, and the facility, therefore, to 12 examine, what happened when a call was referred to the 13 NBSC? 14 A. No, we didn't. We didn't have access to the NBSC. 15 Q. So you don't know what happened after it had left the 16 HSD? 17 A. I -- what they did and what they carried out, no, 18 I don't. 19 Q. So if they, for example, just kept telling the person 20 "Turn your machine on and off again", you wouldn't know 21 if that was the advice -- 22 A. No, I wouldn't, no. 23 Q. -- that was given. If they said to the person under the 24 contract that "You've got to pay up this discrepancy, 25 irrespective of you claiming that it's a system fault", 62 1 you wouldn't know if that happened, when it got into the 2 NBSC? 3 A. No. 4 Q. You wouldn't know if they were told in the NBSC that 5 "Clause 12 of the contract says that you must pay, 6 irrespective of fault, for all losses" -- 7 A. No. 8 Q. -- and many subpostmasters did, and that the technical 9 issue that they were complaining of therefore never 10 reached the surface. You wouldn't know if that 11 happened? 12 A. I would have known if it needed further investigation, 13 as in the fact that it may have been a technical issue, 14 that that call would have been passed back. 15 Q. What about if they, in the NBSC, were told "You just 16 need to pay up"? 17 A. No, I -- no -- I wouldn't know. 18 Q. You would write all of these up as being calls of 19 a routine nature, which didn't involve the integrity of 20 the Horizon data, wouldn't you, in your witness 21 statements? 22 A. It was a routine nature that those calls were passed to 23 the NBSC, and we have seen those calls routinely. 24 Q. Isn't what you were conveying, by "All of the calls are 25 of a routine nature" was not about the frequency with 63 1 which the calls were being made but rather about the 2 substance of the issues, ie "These calls, you can be 3 assured Mr Defendant, Mrs Defendant or court, that these 4 calls do not involve a system issue"? 5 A. Repeat the question, sorry. 6 Q. Yes. You weren't talking about the frequency with which 7 the calls were being made by saying "All of these calls 8 are of a routine nature"; you were implying that these 9 calls did not involve any system issue with Horizon, 10 weren't you? 11 A. No, not when saying they were of a routine nature, no. 12 They would, as I've said -- as stated in there -- that 13 the contents or the type of calls were seen frequently. 14 Q. Might not that mean that there was a big system issue, 15 if you were frequently seeing calls of the same nature? 16 A. No, I don't believe so, no. 17 Q. Why? 18 A. Because the types of the calls that I'd looked at and 19 seen. 20 Q. Sorry, the types of calls -- 21 A. The types -- the contents of the calls. I mean, that's 22 what I'd have based that on. 23 Q. Can I turn to your approach to HSD call logs and, in 24 particular, whether you summarised them or exhibited 25 them. Did you always exhibit HSD call logs to your 64 1 witness statements so that the raw materials were 2 disclosed to the defence and to the court, or did you 3 sometimes just summarise them in your witness 4 statements? 5 A. Sometimes just summarised them. 6 Q. Why did sometimes you give disclosure of the raw 7 materials, so that the court and the defence could 8 actually look at them, and other times you didn't? 9 A. That would have been dependent on what was requested by 10 the Post Office. 11 Q. So sometimes they would just ask for a summary and 12 sometimes they would ask for the call logs to be 13 exhibited? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Do you know what determined, in their mind, whether it 16 was a summary case or an exhibiting of raw material 17 case? 18 A. No, no idea. 19 Q. Was it chance -- 20 A. No, I -- 21 Q. -- for the defendant which level of service they might 22 have got? 23 A. I've no idea. I don't know, I was just basing that on 24 what they requested. I don't know why they would 25 request one or the other. That's -- 65 1 Q. Did it ever occur to you, "Hold on, in some cases I'm 2 actually handing over the raw product here as an exhibit 3 and, in other cases, I'm just summarising it"? 4 A. Um -- 5 Q. Why is that? 6 A. No, I don't think it did. I knew full well that if -- 7 the raw data, as in the complete call, was there and was 8 available if requested. At any time that they requested 9 any data, it was supplied. 10 Q. Okay. Can we look, please, at POL00073280. This is 11 an exhibit sheet to your witness statement dated 12 27 September 2006 in Post Office's claim against Lee 13 Castleton; can you see that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. We can see that it's your exhibit APD1, Andrew Paul 16 Dunks, I think that is? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. If we go over the page, please, can we see that you're 19 exhibiting here HSD call records, yes? If we just 20 scroll down, and just keep going. It can be done 21 relatively quickly. Keep going. 22 A series of HSD call records, yes? So here you are 23 in a civil case, in a civil context, exhibiting the call 24 logs themselves. Yes? 25 A. Yes. 66 1 Q. Do you agree that gives the reader the facility to 2 record everything that is recorded on the call log 3 itself? 4 A. Absolutely, yes. 5 Q. Were there any hidden screens or hidden dropdowns, or 6 were they all available if you did a print to see? 7 A. No, that is the full contents of a call at the time. 8 Q. Thank you. Can we look, please, at FUJ00083702. Just 9 look at the email first and then we're going to look at 10 the attachment. An email from Lisa Allen, I should say 11 this is about Jerry Hosi's case again. You will see the 12 email at the bottom, "Porters Avenue Post Office": 13 "Andy 14 "As discussed. 15 "Can you please provide another full statement for 16 the above office including in the outcome of the faults 17 reported that it would have had 'no effect on any 18 counter discrepancy'. I appear to have mislaid the 19 original statement and so will use the copy that I have 20 as unused. 21 "Additionally can you exhibit the disk detailing the 22 call logs ..." 23 Yes? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Just remember, for future purposes, the request at the 67 1 end of the first line to include that it would have had 2 no effect on any counter discrepancy. Okay? 3 A. Mm-hm. 4 Q. You replied at the top, attaching a document; can you 5 see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. "Please take a look and let me know if [it's] okay ..." 8 Can we look at that attachment, FUJ00083703. Then 9 if we scroll down, please, and go to page 2, you say, in 10 the fifth line: 11 "I've been asked to provide details and information 12 on the calls for advice and guidance logged by HSH ..." 13 That's the same as HSD, essentially, is it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. "... recorded during the period 01/09/05 to 29/11/06 for 16 Porters Avenue", then you give the FAD code. 17 "A report outlining each call was created and 18 I produce the resultant CD as [your] Exhibit APD/01." 19 You say that was sent to the Post Office. 20 So you, in the Porters Avenue prosecution, seem to 21 have been asked by the email to exhibit a CD with the 22 full call logs on it and, in this witness statement, you 23 do exactly that: you exhibit the CD, yes? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Then, if we scroll down: 68 1 "I have reviewed the HSH calls pertaining to [that 2 branch in that period] there were 33 calls", and there's 3 the phrase: 4 "... all the calls are of a routine nature and do 5 not fall outside the normal working parameters of the 6 system. And in my opinion would have had no affect on 7 any counter discrepancies." 8 I'm going to examine as to how that came about later 9 on but you'll see that that's essentially the line that 10 Ms Allen asked you to insert, yes? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So, in this case, if we carry on scrolling, you then 13 give a summary of each of the 33 calls, by putting the 14 date and time, a reference number, what the problem was, 15 what the resolution in summary terms is recorded on the 16 call log to be and then the outcome. This first one was 17 passed to the NBSC, yes? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. That one does seem maybe routine, "check foreign 20 currency rates", but the second one, problem of "failing 21 to rollover", "passed to the NBSC for resolution". 22 So on that one, for example, would that fall within 23 your category of, because it was passed to the NBSC, 24 that must have been a business or commercial issue, it 25 can't have been a fault with Horizon because it was 69 1 passed to the NBSC? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Thank you. So that's one way of doing it. Here you've 4 summarised all that -- firstly, in the civil case you 5 exhibit a printout of all of the call records; do you 6 remember, in Mr Castleton's case? In the second 7 example, you exhibit a CD of the call records and you've 8 summarised them in very summary terms, yes? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Can we turn, please, to what happened in the Seema Misra 11 case and look at your witness statement, please. Second 12 witness statement, page 57, paragraph 192 at the foot of 13 the page. You describe in this paragraph essentially 14 how, in each statement in the Misra case, you gave more 15 and more detail of the HSD calls and that that was done 16 at the request of the lawyers and the Post Office? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So this was more of an unfolding picture in the Misra 19 case? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Again, can you help us, what determined which approach 22 you took, whether you did the first thing, gave them the 23 printouts as part of an exhibit, whether you provided 24 a CD with all of the call logs on it or whether you 25 summarised? 70 1 A. It all would have depended on conversations and 2 discussions with Post Office, either Investigator or 3 lawyer. This would have always been probably the 4 starting point as in a high-level overview of the calls 5 and then it would have progressed from there. But if, 6 at the very first instance of discussions, they wanted 7 the calls submitted and an in-depth overview, that's 8 what would have been given at the starting point. 9 Q. Do you know how the person that you were speaking to or 10 engaging with on email from the Post Office knew what to 11 request; would they explain what prompted them to 12 request more information from you -- 13 A. No, I don't think I remember having a conversation like 14 that at all, no. 15 Q. -- ie whether it was because of what they'd read in what 16 you had provided them, whether it was because the court 17 was ordering them to provide more information, whether 18 it was the defence asking for more information: what 19 prompted the unfolding of the disclosure of more data? 20 A. It could have been either of what you've just said. It 21 could have been where the first -- me first supplying 22 a witness statement to them, they would have looked at 23 it and reviewed it and come back and said, "Oh, we 24 possibly need to expand here or there", or -- and also, 25 depending -- because I don't know what communications 71 1 they were having with lawyers or whatever -- defence -- 2 if somebody had asked for the full disclosure of the 3 call details, they'd have come back to us and said, "Oh 4 can we have those call details?" 5 No, I'm not aware of the process they went through. 6 Q. Who did you take your orders from? 7 A. On the witness statements? 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. Well, orders -- first, it would have been the request of 10 the Post Office, of what they wanted, any changes. 11 Q. Can we go back to Mr Hosi's witness statement, please, 12 FUJ00083703, and look at page 2, please, and look at the 13 second paragraph down that we'd looked at. Thank you: 14 "I have reviewed the ... calls pertaining to Porters 15 Avenue [between those dates] there were 33 ... and all 16 the calls are of a routine nature do not fall outside 17 the normal parameters of the system. And in my opinion 18 would have had no effect on any counter discrepancies." 19 In order to provide that opinion, had you spoken to 20 anyone in the SSC in relation to any particular call or 21 calls? 22 A. Would have gone through the same process that I would 23 have done every single time, and got as much information 24 as I possibly could. 25 Q. Had you in fact spoken on this occasion in relation to 72 1 any of these 33 calls to anyone in the SSC? 2 A. No, I can't remember if I did. I honestly can't 3 remember. 4 Q. You can't remember in part because it's not recorded on 5 the face of the witness statement whether you did or 6 didn't -- 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. -- and there's no other record of whether you did or you 9 didn't -- 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. -- and so you can't tell us the extent to which the 12 opinion that you formed there was or was not affected, 13 or was influenced, by the views of others? 14 A. No, no. 15 Q. Can we go to page 13, please, of the witness statement. 16 You refer in page 13 to two particular calls, one ending 17 in 970 -- if we just scroll down a little bit, thank 18 you -- and one ending 008. You say, those two calls: 19 "... referred to a 'critical event', 'Critical 20 NT_Error'. The term critical is the comparative level 21 of attention required to generate remedial action. It 22 refers to the level of attention required on a grading 23 system for example critical high level of attention or 24 warning would be medium level of attention. These 25 critical events occurred outside the post office opening 73 1 times and a standard action of a reboot of the systems, 2 which would also highlight any further issues, was 3 undertaken and repaired the problem and confirmed 4 stability of the system. I should add that this is not 5 my particular area of expertise. I have a general 6 knowledge of these procedures and have made the comments 7 above to aid the court." 8 Where did you get that information from? 9 A. I can't remember specifically where I got that 10 information from. No, I can't say exactly where I got 11 it from. 12 Q. Do you agree you would have got the information from 13 somewhere else? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. That wasn't your own personal knowledge? 16 A. Part of that, yes. Yes, I agree. 17 Q. So you're providing an opinion there, acknowledging that 18 this isn't your particular area of expertise, based on 19 somebody else's opinion? 20 A. No -- oh, what you mean generally or those particular 21 calls? 22 Q. Well, you say, amongst the things that are included in 23 that paragraph, that the reboot of the system repaired 24 the problem? 25 A. Yes, yeah. I mean, that's -- yeah -- trying to explain 74 1 what took place for that call. 2 Q. Okay, I'll move on. Can we look at POL00052220. This 3 is an email chain in mid-2009 concerning your first 4 witness statement in the Seema Misra case. Can we start 5 with page 4, please. Just scroll down, I think this is 6 the first email in the chain. You're emailing Dave 7 Posnett; do you remember who Dave Posnett was? 8 A. I believe he was an Investigator or part of the Security 9 Team within Post Office. 10 Q. Thank you. It's 22 June 2009. I should say that your 11 witness statement eventually -- your first witness 12 statement in Misra -- came to be signed on 30 June 2009. 13 You say to Mr Posnett: 14 "Hi Dave, 15 "Please have a look at the attached Witness 16 Statement for West Byfleet HSH calls logged. Can you 17 let me know if this is okay and I'll print/sign and post 18 it to you." 19 If we go to page 3, please, and if we scroll down, 20 please, we'll see his reply on the 22nd; can you see 21 that? 22 A. Mm-hm, yes. 23 Q. "Andy, 24 "Statement looks fine to me, though I've copied Jon 25 Longman (Officer in Case) for his [information]. My 75 1 only query would be that the log of 107 calls may need 2 to be produced as evidence or be disclosed as unused 3 material. If produced as evidence then it could be 4 incorporated in your statement now or produced in 5 a 'further to' statement later. I'll let Jon comment on 6 this though, as the court may be happy as it is. 7 "Jon, 8 "Can you give Andy the green light and/or comment on 9 my thoughts above." 10 So it seems that your statement mentioned 107 calls. 11 You were picked up on this and, if we scroll up, please, 12 we can see Mr Longman's reply: 13 "The statement is fine but the mention of 107 calls 14 will no doubt interest the defence barrister. If 15 possible could you include in the statement a breakdown 16 of the calls to cover time/date/nature of call. If we 17 don't include it now the defence will only request this 18 information later." 19 Then scroll up, please. Your reply: 20 "107 calls may seem a lot but that only equates to 21 approximately 3-4 calls a month over the time frame." 22 Just stopping there, is it right that you saw it as 23 routine for branches to have to call the Fujitsu 24 Helpdesk three to four times a month, ie nearly every 25 week? 76 1 A. Routine? Well, I would have said so. At the time, 2 I would have looked at the number of calls, I've done -- 3 I would have done the maths and looked -- and through my 4 knowledge of dealing with Helpdesk calls, one call 5 a week, in my opinion, didn't seem that much. 6 Q. Did you use the frequency of the calls as a proxy for 7 whether or not the substance of the calls was routine? 8 A. The frequency, at that time, I was just trying to 9 explain. 10 Q. Overall, did you use the frequency of calls as a proxy 11 for whether the substance of the calls was routine? 12 A. No, I don't believe I did. 13 Q. So the frequency, to you, wasn't a relevant issue? 14 A. Um ... I don't know whether I'd have taken that into 15 consideration. I was just talking about that -- he'd 16 made a statement about 107 calls seems a lot, so I just 17 did the maths and sort of went back to him and gave my 18 opinion that I didn't think it -- 19 Q. Okay, you carry on: 20 "To add the information you want is going to take 21 1 to 2 days of uninterrupted work to complete. So to 22 get it [done] is not impossible it would be cutting it 23 fine ... 24 "If you need the extra detail I will enquire about 25 when we can get this to you ..." 77 1 Then if we scroll up to page 2, please, Jon Longman 2 says: 3 "Let's run with the statement as it is. If the 4 defence do want details of the 107 calls then a further 5 statement will be needed at a later stage. Maybe you 6 could add into your statement that the total calls only 7 work out at 3-4 a month over the time period and that is 8 not a high amount for a [post office]." 9 Again, would the substance of the calls make 10 a difference as to whether the number was significant? 11 A. At that time, I believe I was just giving an opinion 12 that I didn't think that the frequency or the number -- 13 I don't believe at the time that's to do with the 14 substance. It was the frequency -- because he'd asked 15 that there were -- seemed a lot of calls there but, in 16 my opinion, I didn't think that there was. 17 Q. So I think you were content to provide a statement with 18 the addition proposed by Mr Longman, because you reply 19 "Okay [I'll] add this to the statement and get it 20 posted", agreed? 21 A. Yes, yeah. 22 Q. So, in summary, at this stage, you're not providing the 23 substance of the calls, you're providing a witness 24 statement that says how many there are and that that is 25 not a high number? 78 1 A. I don't -- no, I think that was an add-on, because we 2 got the -- I can't remember the details of what the 3 first -- that witness statement I supplied him with. 4 Q. Okay. I can maybe check that to see what was -- 5 A. Yeah, I don't know the progress and how that -- I can't 6 remember how that worked. I don't believe it was just 7 a statement saying "Oh, there was 107 calls". 8 Q. Can we look at what happened after you signed the 9 witness statement off on 30 June. Scroll up, please. 10 Keep going to page 1, please. We see a chain that 11 I don't think includes you, between Penny Thomas, Dave 12 Posnett and Jon Longman. So Fujitsu to two Post Office 13 men: 14 "Dave 15 "An approximate estimate for this work is: 16 "ARQs [£13,000-odd] 17 "Helpdesk Calls -- individual breakdown £1,800. 18 "Call-type breakdown £630. 19 "Do you want me to arrange a formal estimate?" 20 Was the level of information that you provided in 21 the witness statement affected by the cost of the 22 provision of it? 23 A. Well, I never knew there was an individual cost. 24 I don't believe I ever knew there was an individual cost 25 of the work I was doing. I understood that the whole 79 1 ARQ process was covered under an agreement on -- 2 based -- and payment on a number of ARQs we supplied. 3 I mean, I never -- I've never seen this. I don't 4 believe I ever knew that someone was giving this -- 5 an estimate of cost or charging on the work I carried 6 out. 7 Q. So if there was an effect on the level of service 8 provided, by reference to the amount that it costed, 9 that information never found its way to you? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. If we just scroll to the top of the page, thank you, you 12 can see that that chain doesn't then find its way on to 13 you. So, in summary, on this aspect of the story, you 14 just did what you were asked to do by Post Office, is 15 that right, and didn't know the extent to which 16 financial considerations affected the choices that they 17 made? 18 A. Absolutely, no. 19 Q. Thank you. Can we go on, please, to FUJ00122673. This 20 is still in the context of the Seema Misra case and can 21 we look, please, at the bottom of page 1, and the top of 22 page 2. Just to scroll up a little bit more, please. 23 Thank you. We can see we're December 2009 from you to 24 Jon Longman. You say: 25 "Hi Jon, 80 1 "Please find below answers to the questions you 2 asked. 3 "Can you confirm how you want the complete call 4 information, do you want the whole call transferred to 5 a CD in its raw state. There are over 100 of these." 6 Then if we scroll up, please, and keep going. No 7 more relevant information there. You appear to be 8 querying, in this chain, in relation to what would be 9 your second witness statement, which you were to sign 10 off on the 29 January 2010, whether you should 11 essentially exhibit the CD; is that right? 12 A. Can you just scroll down, please? 13 Q. Yes, and again, please. Maybe we should see the below 14 questions. If we scroll a bit further. The answers 15 haven't come out in red. If we just scroll back up, 16 please. Thank you. You say: 17 "Please find below answers to the questions you 18 asked. 19 "... confirm how you want the complete call 20 information, do you want the whole call transferred to 21 a CD in its raw state. There are over 100 of these." 22 Can you help us with what you were asking? 23 A. I think that the "Please find below answers to your 24 questions", now seeing the contents, they were to do 25 with the answers about the counters which are passed on 81 1 to Leighton Machin, and I then forwarded them those. 2 "Can you confirm how you want to complete", that's 3 probably through a discussion of supplying the call 4 data. Does he want them printed out or -- I'm guessing 5 there, sorry. That may have been to do with did he want 6 them all printed out and sent or does he want them all 7 on a CD? It's just over how he wanted them. 8 Q. It's not whether or not the raw data should be provided? 9 A. Absolutely not, no. 10 Q. Do you know why you wouldn't provide the raw data at 11 this stage in one form or another? 12 A. Depending on the request that they, the Post Office, 13 wanted. 14 Q. Okay, can we move forwards, then, to FUJ00153059. If we 15 look, thank you, scroll down, please. That's it. Just 16 there, bottom of that last email. Can you see, if we 17 scroll up a little further, an email between Mr Longman 18 and Penny Thomas, we're now on 16 March, third 19 paragraph: 20 "... we will need Andy to produce the disk 21 containing the raw data of Helpdesk calls from 1 January 22 2005 to 31 December 2009 ..." 23 Then if we go forwards, please, to POL00058443, and 24 page 7, please -- scroll down -- we can see a witness 25 statement of yours, dated 30 March 2010, and you say: 82 1 "Further to [a previous witness statement] I provide 2 a CD AD/01 containing details of all calls logged from 3 West Byfleet ... between [those two dates]." 4 So would this have been in response, essentially, to 5 that email we saw of 16 March? 6 A. Exactly, yes. Well, I'm assuming, yes. 7 Q. That worked its way through to you somehow? 8 A. Mm-hm. 9 Q. Does it follow from, at least at this date, Mrs Misra's 10 defence team had available to them the underlying call 11 data upon which your earlier summaries were based? 12 A. Yes, I think so, yes. 13 Q. Can you help us with what would have been on the CD as 14 AD/01? 15 A. I'm guessing -- I'm assuming it would have been as we 16 saw before, the call logs in their entirety. 17 Q. Okay, so a series, one after the other, of 107 call logs 18 between those two dates? 19 A. Correct. 20 MR BEER: Thank you. 21 Sir, that is an appropriate moment for the second 22 break. I wonder if we can break until 12.35 to? 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, before we do, in case we've missed 24 it, and it's in my head, Mr Dunks did you give oral 25 evidence in Mr Hosi's case? 83 1 A. In which case, sorry? 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Jerry Hosi? 3 A. That's Porters Avenue, is it? 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 5 A. I don't believe I did, no. 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. Thank you. Yes, fine. Yes, 7 12.25 -- sorry, what time did you say? 8 MR BEER: 12.35, please. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: 12.35, yes. 10 MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir. 11 (12.24 pm) 12 (A short break) 13 (12.35 pm) 14 MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear us? 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 16 MR BEER: Good. 17 Mr Dunks, you remember that I asked you about that 18 email exchange in mid-2009, concerning Seema Misra's 19 case, in which you had provided a witness statement 20 saying that there had been 107 calls to the Helpdesk, 21 and this was picked up and you were asked for more 22 information because otherwise the defence barrister will 23 only ask for it, and there was a question over how 24 detailed your first witness statement had been, the 25 witness statement that had been served on 30 June 2009, 84 1 you said you don't think you would have just included 2 the number in the witness statement, or words to that 3 effect. 4 Can we look at that witness statement, please, 5 POL00051960. This is your witness statement of 24 June 6 2009, which was served under a notice of additional 7 evidence on 30 June 2009. If we just scroll down, we 8 can see some standard paragraphs. No need to read all 9 of those. We're going to come back to the detail of 10 these boilerplate paragraphs later. Then at the bottom 11 of the page, you say: 12 "An important element of the support provided to 13 subpostmasters and counter clerks is the Horizon 14 Helpdesk [It] is the Horizon user's first 'port of 15 call'," et cetera. 16 Then five or six lines in, you say: 17 "I have been asked to provide information pertaining 18 the working condition of the Horizon system." 19 I think that must mean: 20 "I have been asked to provide information pertaining 21 [to] the working condition of the Horizon system. The 22 following information constitutes the calls logged by 23 HSH [for West Byfleet between 30 June '05 to 14 January 24 '08]. I have the reviewed the calls [between that 25 period]. There were 107 calls ... this equates to 85 1 between 3 and 4 calls a month which is average for this 2 size post office. All the calls are of a routine nature 3 and do not fall outside the normal working parameters of 4 the system or would affect the working order of the 5 counters." 6 I think that must mean "nor would they affect the 7 working order of the counters". 8 So, I think, in fact, you did provide a very short 9 witness statement that just gave the number and the 10 opinion, rather than any more information; is that 11 right? 12 A. It appears so, yes. Yeah. 13 Q. Thank you. Was that a standard approach to provide 14 a summary of the number and an explanation of what HSH 15 was and then put the opinion at the bottom, and then 16 wait to see what happened? 17 A. There was no standard approach. I mean, once we had 18 received a request from the Post Office for Helpdesk 19 calls, there would have been a discussion or a request 20 of what they wanted at the time. So it would have been 21 on their request of what was supplied. 22 Q. We saw earlier, in Mr Hosi's case, you provided 23 a summary -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- that ended up being a 13-page witness statement and 86 1 you cut into the witness statement bits of the call 2 logs. Again, just one last time, what determined what 3 the entry-level point was, ie first statement you 4 provided? 5 A. The -- on the request of the Post Office, what they 6 wanted. 7 Q. Did you have any clue as to what was motivating them or 8 what was influencing them as to what to ask for? 9 A. None whatsoever, no. 10 Q. Okay. Can we turn to a separate issue, then, namely 11 what the standard paragraphs in the witness statement -- 12 what I've described as boilerplate paragraphs -- meant 13 or were intended by you to mean. Can we look, please, 14 to start with at FUJ00155555. 15 If we scroll down, please -- and again, that's the 16 bottom of the chain, just scroll up, thank you -- 17 an email at this point, not copied to you, it's about 18 a witness statement, it's between Mr Posnett, Mr Hooper 19 and Mr Ward; do you remember who Graham Hooper was? 20 A. Graham Hooper was the Security Manager, I believe, at 21 the time. 22 Q. We see him described as CS Security Manager. Would that 23 be Customer Support Security Manager? 24 A. Yes, Security came under Customer Support. 25 Q. Okay. So would he have been a manager of you at the 87 1 time? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Thank you. We know who Graham Ward is in the Post 4 Office: 5 "Graham [I think that's Graham Hooper], 6 "Just a quick note to thank you for the above in 7 relation to the Horizon system ... This evidence was 8 allowed to form part of the case and the defendant was 9 ultimately found guilty of 8 false accounting charges 10 and 1 theft charge. I appreciate the fact you supplied 11 the statement, especially given the short notice you 12 received." 13 Then scroll up, please. Mr Hooper forwards that on 14 to Martin Riddell; who was he? 15 A. Not sure. 16 Q. Was he in Fujitsu? 17 A. Yes, I believe so, yes. 18 Q. Are all the other people on the copy list there in 19 Fujitsu? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. He, Graham Hooper, says: 22 "... another good result supported by Horizon 23 evidence." 24 You're included. 25 A. Mm-hm. 88 1 Q. Then if we scroll up, Martin Riddell replies to everyone 2 saying: 3 "Well done to everyone involved. If I was a caring, 4 sharing manager I would buy a drink for everyone 5 involved. 6 "But I'm not. 7 "So I won't." 8 Were you involved at this early stage, 2002 -- 9 September 2002 -- in the provision of witness statements 10 for the purposes of Horizon-based prosecutions? 11 A. I don't know. I know I started on the Post Office 12 Account in 2002. I don't know when or how long I'd been 13 working on the account at that time, and I can't -- 14 Q. This -- I'm so sorry. 15 A. No, I can't recall if I was involved in that. 16 Q. At this stage, September 2002, was there a standard form 17 witness statement in use within the Security Team? 18 A. I can't remember. I believe so but I can't remember. 19 Q. Do you always, throughout your time over the years, 20 remember using standard form witness statements? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can we turn, please, to FUJ00152205. 23 Thank you. We can see, on the top right, this is 24 an earlier copy of the Fujitsu policy concerning 25 Prosecution Support for Network Banking; can you see 89 1 that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. It's dated 26 November 2002. Remember, the other one we 4 looked at was dated 29 February 2005, earlier on. 5 Incidentally on that, there is no need for people to 6 write in to the Inquiry to say that the 29 February 2005 7 didn't exist because it wasn't a leap year. We've had 8 lots of emails over the course of the Inquiry pointing 9 that out. Thank you to everyone! 10 You can see that the abstract is again of a similar 11 type: 12 "This document outlines the end-to-end procedures 13 required to manage and deliver Network Banking 14 Prosecution Support ..." 15 We can see who the contributors were: this time your 16 manager, Mr Hooper; Jan Holmes; and Richard Laking. Can 17 you help -- 18 A. No, I don't recall. 19 Q. If we look, please, at the approval authorities on 20 page 2, and scroll down, please. I think we can see 21 that, in the box in the middle of the page there, under 22 "Optional Review", one of the options was Graham Ward; 23 can you see that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. He being a Post Office manager, yes? 90 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. It's asterisked, which suggests that Mr Ward did indeed 3 return a comment as a reviewer; can you see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Again, there's a passage in the body of the document 6 which refers to a template witness statement of fact 7 being annexed as an Appendix 2. Can we turn to that 8 Appendix 2, please, which on page 27. Can we see that, 9 over that page, Appendix 2, "Witness Statement of Fact", 10 and if we just scroll on, quite quickly if we can. 11 Thank you. Just on that page and then the next page. 12 It goes right up until page 32. Can you see, again, 13 each paragraph is headed by a capital letter? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Yes. Thank you very much. If we just quickly go back 16 to page 21. If we look, please, at paragraph 7.2.4.1, 17 third paragraph: 18 "The statement shall follow the standard format and 19 layout for witness statements of fact provided in 20 evidence. Contents of witness statements of fact are 21 flexible depending on the specific requirements of each 22 case and the knowledge of the witness giving the 23 statement. An example of a witness statement of fact is 24 provided in Appendix 2." 25 Did you know about this policy, that the company had 91 1 produced a policy saying an example of a witness 2 statement of fact is provided in Appendix 2 and 3 a template witness statement was provided in Appendix 2? 4 A. This was in the year that joined. I don't know whether 5 I was actually given this document to read. I don't 6 remember seeing this, no. 7 Q. Can we go back, please, to page 31 within the template 8 witness statement. Page 31, the foot of the page, 9 paragraph Q. You'll see that the boilerplate paragraph 10 Q is: 11 "There is no reason to believe that the information 12 in this statement is inaccurate because of the improper 13 use of the computer. To the best of my knowledge and 14 belief at all material times the computer was operating 15 properly, or if not, any respect in which it was not 16 operating properly, or was out of operation was not such 17 as to effect the information held on it. I hold 18 a responsible position in relation to the working of the 19 computer." 20 Were you required to say that -- what's in that 21 paragraph Q -- in each and every case? 22 A. Was I required? I don't know what the requirements 23 were. 24 Q. In all of your witness statements we see that paragraph? 25 A. Yes. 92 1 Q. Why did you include it? 2 A. Because it was in the witness statement template that we 3 had been told to use. 4 Q. How did you know whether it was true or false? 5 A. These -- actually, I don't -- are these -- are you 6 talking about ARQ witness statements? 7 Q. This appears in both species of witness statement, ARQ 8 and HSH. 9 A. Yeah, I mean the overall of that is to the best of my 10 knowledge at the time. So I believed that everything 11 was working as it should. 12 Q. How did you know it was? 13 A. Well, in respect of ARQs, I knew that there was checks 14 being made every time we extracted data and, in respect 15 of the HSD calls, it would have been looking in the 16 calls and I believe it is operating as it should and as 17 it's expected. 18 Q. What's the "it" in that sentence? 19 A. The counters and -- 20 Q. Stop there. You believe, when you signed a witness 21 statement that included that paragraph, that it was 22 testifying to your belief that the counters were working 23 properly? 24 A. Were working as expected, yes. 25 Q. Sorry, I interrupted you. You said, "The counters and"? 93 1 A. Um ... well, it's trying to explain that the post -- the 2 branch and the counters were working as expected, as to 3 not to affect the integrity of the data. 4 Q. So this is providing a view, an opinion, an assessment, 5 on Horizon itself, in your mind? 6 A. In respect of the branches and the integrity of the 7 data, yes, my opinion. 8 Q. I'll ask again: how would you know whether that was true 9 or false? 10 A. I would have made that my opinion based on the 11 investigation that I carried out. 12 Q. How could you tell, how could you say, that there was no 13 reason to believe that the information is inaccurate 14 because of improper use of the computer? 15 A. Again, I mean, I made my -- that assumption, my opinion, 16 on an individual basis of every call that I looked at, 17 and I was being asked for an opinion, and that was my 18 opinion. 19 Q. Can we turn to your Inquiry witness statement, please, 20 your second Inquiry witness statement, at page 33 at 21 paragraph 96. Page 33, paragraph 96, foot of the page, 22 you say: 23 "The witness statements I supplied in respect of the 24 production of ARQ records contained the following (or 25 very similar) wording ..." 94 1 Then you set it out. I'm not going to re-read it. 2 Over the page, please, you say in 97: 3 "I note that this paragraph is included in the 4 template witness statement appended", the document we've 5 just looked at, yes? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What was the purpose of noting that there in 8 paragraph 97; can you help us? 9 A. I think an example of when it was used. 10 Q. You weren't saying by that paragraph that you drew that 11 part of the witness statement from that policy? 12 A. No, I didn't, no. I didn't. 13 Q. You just took it off the template that was on the 14 system? 15 A. It was -- yes, it was included in the template, yes. 16 Q. Thank you. At 98, you say: 17 "My understanding at the time was that I was 18 confirming that I had not improperly used the audit 19 extraction software to manipulate the data that was 20 exhibiting, and that as far as I was aware the software 21 had run properly when extracting the data." 22 You see here in this witness statement you're saying 23 that you believed that the boilerplate paragraph was 24 referring to the audit extraction software. 25 A. Yes. 95 1 Q. If we scroll down to paragraph 100, you say: 2 "I did not believe I was verifying that the Horizon 3 system as a whole was operating properly at all times, 4 or that there could not have been any software errors 5 that affected any of the information held within it." 6 So you're here saying, firstly, do you agree, that 7 when you wrote or included the paragraph in each of your 8 witness statements, you had a positive understanding of 9 what it meant and what it did not mean? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And is that true, that you can remember that standard 12 paragraph Q was one that you held a belief at the 13 relevant time as to what it did mean and what it didn't 14 mean? 15 A. At the time of writing these statements, yeah, I would 16 have had a -- yes. 17 Q. And that it was only limited to the reliability or 18 improper use of the audit extraction software and not 19 relating to Horizon as a whole? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Are you sure that that was your contemporaneous belief 22 over each of the years when you were signing this 23 template statement in prosecutions? 24 A. Yeah, I would have held that position. Yes, I would 25 have done. 96 1 Q. Can we look, please, at FUJ00201401. This is 2 a transcript of your evidence to the High Court in the 3 Group Litigation. It's dated 20 March 2019. Can we go 4 to page 28, please -- oh, I see, we're on 28. At the 5 foot of the page. 28, at the foot of the page. 6 We can see where the transcript of your evidence 7 begins. You're sworn? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Can we go forward to page 41, please. You're being 10 cross-examined here by Mr Miletic, and can you see in 11 the second question, third line, he says: 12 "And then paragraph 8, again, I just want to be very 13 precise, I want to make sure I understand exactly what 14 is being said in this statement, paragraph 8 begins: 15 "'There is no reason to believe that the information 16 in this statement is inaccurate ...' 17 "Pausing here, what is 'this statement'? Do you 18 mean your witness statement? 19 "Answer: Yes. 20 "Question: Okay: 21 "'There is no reason to believe that the information 22 in this [witness] statement is inaccurate because of the 23 improper use of the system.' 24 "What is the 'system' there? Is that the system of 25 the process of strategy thing audit data, or is it 97 1 something else?" 2 Just stopping there, you can see that you're being 3 asked very similar questions to the ones I've asked 4 already, albeit this is a different witness statement 5 that contains the same boilerplate paragraph. So you're 6 asked: 7 "What's the 'system' there? Is that the system of 8 the process of extracting out data, or is it something 9 else? 10 "Answer: Good question. There's no -- I'm not sure 11 what I was meaning by that, 'There is no reason to 12 believe ...' 13 "Question: We will take this step by step ..." 14 Then it continues. Just stopping there, you were 15 saying to the court that you didn't know what you meant. 16 You say, "I'm not sure what I was meaning by the 17 'system' and that there is no reason to believe". How 18 is it had in 2019 you were saying on oath that you were 19 not sure what you meant by the boilerplate paragraph but 20 now, in your witness statement five years later, you 21 tell us that you knew that it meant only the audit 22 extraction software and not Horizon more generally? 23 A. Looking at this now and going over it, I am not sure 24 what I was thinking at the time or what I was trying to 25 remember. 98 1 Q. The questioning does continue: 2 "Answer: I think I was meaning about the improper 3 use of the audit data extraction system. 4 "Question: So when you say 'system', you mean the 5 process of extracting audit data? 6 "Answer: Yes, I do." 7 Then it continues: 8 "Question: I see, so", and then there's the quote. 9 Then it goes on to deal with a separate issue, 10 namely what "at all material times" meant. 11 So when you told the court that you weren't sure 12 what you were meaning by the boilerplate paragraph, how 13 is it that your memory seems to have improved five years 14 later, that you were definitely meaning, throughout 15 time, only the system used to extract audit data? 16 A. I don't know. I mean, being on -- put on the spot at 17 the time, I'm not sure I fully understood the question, 18 or whatever, but I am not sure and I can't remember what 19 my thought process was at the time. 20 Q. Thank you. Can we turn to a separate topic, please, 21 South Warnborough and Mrs Josephine Hamilton's case. 22 This is dealt with in your second witness statement in 23 paragraphs 183 to 189 on pages 56 onwards. I'm not 24 going to read what you say there though, they're for the 25 record but, instead, can I take you to some email 99 1 exchanges, please, starting please with FUJ00225544. 2 Can we look at the bottom email first, please, we're 3 on 13 January 2007 -- if we just scroll up, thank you -- 4 from Mr Ward to you, about a witness statement that you 5 had made in Josephine Hamilton's case. Mr Ward says: 6 "Andy 7 "I've made one or two minor amendments ... put all 8 the text into the same font, spelling of South 9 Warnborough and also put (???) followed some acronyms so 10 you can explain in full ... (I know some are explained 11 later in the statement but to make things easier for 12 a barrister and jury any acronyms should be explained 13 the 1st time they appear in a statement). Most of the 14 explanations of the calls make sense to me aside from 15 the one below and which appears to suggest a fault ... 16 can you simplify what this one means?" 17 You'll see that he identifies a call ending 1106; 18 can you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. If we scroll up, please. You reply later that day on 21 the Saturday: 22 "I will make the amendments on Monday, but I had 23 posted a copy of the statement on Friday just in case it 24 was okay so please ignore." 25 Can we look at the statement, please, the one that 100 1 you signed off on 14 January 2007, POL00044482. This is 2 your witness statement of 14 January 2007 in Josephine 3 Hamilton's case. Can we look at page 3, please. If we 4 scroll down to look for the call ending in 1106, it's in 5 the middle of the page there, it's got an asterisk on 6 it: 7 "New call [this is 21 April 2004] taken by Richard 8 Postance: Critical NT_error occurred at ... 'the device 9 ... did not respond within the timeout period' ... 10 "Resolution: An automatic error event was picked up 11 by the [System Management Centre] (2nd line support) and 12 a call was logged. The [System Management Centre] 13 referred to KEL (Known Error Log) ... A remote reboot of 14 the counter was carried out, which did not resolve the 15 problem. [A priority call] was raised [you give the 16 number] to contact and advise the [postmaster] for 17 a manual reboot. Call closed by Kevin Pearson ..." 18 So that's the one that Mr Ward was saying that that 19 tended to indicate a fault, yes? 20 A. Yes, that's what he was saying. 21 Q. He was asking for clarification? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You don't, I think, provide clarification here, do you? 24 A. I don't -- well, I haven't got an email with it on. 25 I don't know whether I spoke to him regarding that. 101 1 Q. Well, in the witness statement you don't, do you? If we 2 just carry on scrolling through to the end because 3 sometimes you, at the end of the witness statement, have 4 a mop-up paragraph dealing with any possible faults, and 5 so it ends. So he was saying this entry on the HSD log 6 is suggestive of a fault and asking whether that call 7 did describe a fault, and you don't address it do you? 8 A. No, not in the final witness statement, no. 9 Q. Not in your email either, did you? 10 A. Not by email, I didn't -- well, it doesn't appear that 11 I was -- I responded back to him with it, no. 12 Q. If we go back to page 3 and look at the entry, it says 13 that a remote reboot was carried out which didn't 14 resolve the problem. A priority was raised, priority 15 call was raised, and advice for the postmaster for 16 a manual reboot and then the call was closed. So, on 17 its face, it doesn't record that there was any 18 resolution to the problem, does it? Just that the call 19 was closed? 20 A. No, the advice was to contact -- raise another call to 21 get the postmaster to do a manual reboot. 22 Q. Yes, and it doesn't record whether that was successful, 23 does it? 24 A. Not on that particular call, no. 25 Q. On any other call? 102 1 A. Well, the following call was raised, an A priority, 2 which was the next call in line, and it appears that the 3 reboot didn't solve the issue, so an engineer was sent 4 to swap over the base unit. 5 Q. So you're looking at the call ending in 0123? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So the question that was asked of you by the 8 Investigator was whether it disclosed a fault, and you 9 didn't answer it, did you? 10 A. Well, not by email, no. 11 Q. Or in your witness statement? 12 A. No, because, at the time, I would have done an 13 investigation. The work I'd done on that -- looking 14 into the -- 15 Q. Sorry, you said you'd have done an investigation. What 16 investigation would you have done? 17 A. I'd have carried out the same investigation that I would 18 have done for any witness statement at any cause; I'd 19 have spoken to people, I'd have looked at things to 20 clarify that I was happy to make that statement. 21 Q. What would you have looked at? 22 A. Anything available for me. 23 Q. Such as? 24 A. I mean, that's got -- KELs -- I'd have looked in there. 25 Q. You'd have looked at KELs, would you? 103 1 A. I would have done, yes. 2 Q. There are two KELs mentioned there, aren't there? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. One "rcoleman", ending in "3J", and one "pcarroll", 5 ending in "9Z", aren't there? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So you would have gone off and searched up those two 8 Known Error Logs, would you? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And, what, been satisfied that what was disclosed on 11 those Known Error Logs itself didn't assist in saying 12 that there either was or was not a fault in Josephine 13 Hamilton's branch being reported on this occasion? 14 A. I would -- yeah, I would have looked at each of -- both 15 of those KELs and, again, the same as I would have done 16 with the Helpdesk calls. If I didn't understand the 17 clarity -- I'd have got some clarity from the SSC 18 because the KELs are written by the SSC, to understand 19 what's the wording and the steps and what it's trying to 20 explain. 21 Q. So looking at the first KEL, "rcoleman", ending in "3J", 22 can we look at that, please. FUJ00059070. Can we see 23 that's the KEL, "rcoleman", ending "3J"? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can you see if we scroll down, the problem: 104 1 "NT has detected a fault on disk-drive or IDE 2 controller", and then there's some code. 3 Can you tell us what all that code means, please? 4 A. Now, no. I can't recall what everything there says or 5 means, no. 6 Q. Would you have been able to understand all of that code 7 at the time? 8 A. Well, yes, I would have done. Well, I say understand, 9 I'd have got a knowledge of what that all meant, yes. 10 Q. How would you have got a knowledge of it? 11 A. By, as I said, speaking to the -- someone within the 12 SSC. These are their words and there their Known Error 13 Logs, so they would have written them. 14 Q. They're the experts, not you -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- and they were the experts that didn't want to give 17 evidence? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. "Solution -- Helpdesk 20 "First check for other events which may have lead to 21 this error, such as a bad block or corrupt storage unit 22 events. If such events exist follow the appropriate 23 KELs for those ... To test if the error is simply 24 a result of processor delay due to intensive processing 25 by the counter at the time of the event, reboot [the] 105 1 counter. If the error recurs this is indication of 2 a more serious fault either with the computers mother 3 board or the affected drive. Therefore, if the message 4 reappears then send an engineer to replace the part at 5 fault." 6 So you can see it continues. Then if we look at the 7 second KEL that's referred to, FUJ00059107, the one 8 ending in "pcarroll ... 9Z". "Problem" -- scroll down, 9 please: 10 "Corruption on message store. Likely to be a bad 11 disk ... or more likely Riposte has been subjected to 12 an interruption whilst an indexing operation has been 13 taking place; if a power outage occurs during this 14 process it is possible for a corruption of the data 15 structures within Riposte ..." 16 "Solution ... 17 "A reboot can fix some of these problems so that 18 should be tried in the first instance, if the events 19 occur out of hours then ClearDesk may clear the problem. 20 If they persist or re-occur and the [Post Office] are 21 having problems, then [do something]." 22 Then further down, about eight lines in: 23 "MULTI-COUNTER SITE -- SMC must check all counters 24 are working okay, apart from target counter, there must 25 be at least one other unit with a fully functioning 106 1 Riposte present ... IF NOT passed to SSC", et cetera. 2 So reading the entry on the Helpdesk and reading 3 these two KELs, which you say you would have done, how 4 were you able to say that what you read did not disclose 5 anything other than the system operating properly? 6 A. Again, from my understanding of discussing -- I mean 7 I would have asked -- I would that have had discussions 8 with someone within the SSC to explain what was going 9 on, we'd have looked at the call to see what the steps 10 were, and -- I mean, this is a Known Error Log so these 11 errors have been seen before. 12 Q. Is that a good thing? 13 A. Well, there's always going to be certain errors and it's 14 how they're dealt with. It's how they're dealt with 15 that's the process. 16 Q. How were you able to say that this had no affect on the 17 operation of Horizon? 18 A. No, proper affect on the counters. It's still working 19 as expected, there may have been faults at the counter 20 but, again, that's within the boundaries and integrity 21 of the Horizon system. I believed -- my opinion at the 22 time -- it was working as it should do, and there 23 wouldn't have been any integrity issues with the data 24 between the branch and Horizon. 25 Q. Did you look at the data to see whether there were any 107 1 integrity issues? 2 A. At the data? 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. No. 5 MR BEER: Thank you. 6 Sir, that would be an appropriate moment for lunch, 7 if it is acceptable to you. I wonder whether we could 8 break until 2.10. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, certainly. 10 MR BEER: Thank you very much. 11 (1.19 pm) 12 (The Short Adjournment) 13 (2.10 pm) 14 MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear us? 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 16 MR BEER: Good afternoon, Mr Dunks. 17 Can we move on from looking at the themes we looked 18 at this morning to looking at a couple of particular 19 prosecution cases that we've already dipped into this 20 morning, those of Jerry Hosi and Seema Misra, in 21 slightly more detail. Can we look, please, to begin 22 with at FUJ00083703. Can we see this is a witness 23 statement by you, dated 3 June 2008. If we scroll down 24 a little bit, please, and a little bit further, and then 25 go over the page. We can see about five or six lines 108 1 in, you say: 2 "I have been asked to provide details on the calls 3 for advice and guidance ... at Porters Avenue", 4 ie Mr Hosi's branch. 5 So this is a Jerry Hosi, Porters Avenue witness 6 statement; do you see that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. As we have seen you say: 9 "I have reviewed the HSH calls [during the period 10 there set out] there were 33 calls from the branch to 11 HSH and all of the calls are of a routine nature and do 12 not fall out side the normal working parameters of the 13 system. And in my opinion would have had no affect on 14 any counter discrepancies." 15 If we just go back to page 1, please, and scroll 16 down to some of the boilerplate paragraphs. Can you see 17 the second one, you say: 18 "I make this witness statement from facts within my 19 own knowledge unless otherwise stated." 20 There is then something about records. You say, 21 four lines from the bottom, you have access to the 22 records, you weren't involved in any of the technical 23 aspects and you say, "This area is not my particular 24 area of expertise", and you make the witness statement 25 simply to clarify the call logs for the benefit of the 109 1 court. 2 Do you see there that the boilerplate paragraph Q, 3 in the policy documents we looked at this morning, the 4 one that says, "There is no reason to believe that the 5 information contained in this statement is inaccurate 6 because of improper use of the computer", et cetera, 7 isn't present in this witness statement? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. It's not present if we look elsewhere in the witness 10 statement either? 11 I think I put this morning that we see that 12 boilerplate paragraph in all of your witness statements, 13 and I think you agreed with me, and I was asking you 14 where you got it from and why you included it in all 15 witness statements. I think it's right that it's in all 16 of the witness statements that address extraction and 17 explanation of ARQ data but not in witness statements 18 that address extraction and explanation of HSH call 19 logs. Why is that? 20 A. I don't know why that form of the witness statement 21 didn't include that. 22 Q. So why was it included in the ARQ statements but not the 23 HSH statements? 24 A. I don't know why the two were different. They were -- 25 the statements weren't fixed because I could add things, 110 1 or Post Office would request things to be taken out and 2 put in under discussion, so most of the time it would 3 have been a compromise -- I say a compromise -- under 4 discussion of what was put in and taken out. I can't 5 recall what the process was or what discussions were or 6 reasons why that was left out. 7 Q. Okay. The first line of that paragraph, which is 8 included, "I make this witness statement from facts 9 within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated", what 10 did you understand that to mean? 11 A. I think I said earlier that that's within my own 12 knowledge. I mean, "otherwise stated" -- I know you 13 said that I hadn't stated that I spoke to the SSC, but 14 I believe that I knew those facts or those -- the 15 knowledge was within my arena or I knew when I made the 16 statement. 17 Q. Can you not see that, in order to make a witness 18 statement that includes that line "from facts within my 19 own knowledge", there could never be a case where you 20 would include the words "unless otherwise stated"? 21 A. Sorry, say again? 22 Q. Yes, in order for you to make a witness statement about 23 something, the something has to be within your own 24 knowledge, otherwise you wouldn't be able to write it 25 down, would you? 111 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Given that is the case, what is the purpose of that 3 line? If everything is always going to be within your 4 knowledge, on your account, to put it in a witness 5 statement, what's the purpose of that line? 6 A. I don't know, to be honest with you, that's part of the 7 standard witness statement, I said before, that we were 8 told to use. 9 Q. Did you not understand it to mean that, "If I don't say 10 anything, the things I'm speaking about are in fact 11 within my own knowledge, but if I identify in the 12 witness statement things that I've learnt from somebody 13 else, I'll say so" -- 14 A. No, I -- 15 Q. -- ie unless otherwise stated? 16 A. No, that was never my understanding at the time. 17 Q. Did you in fact have an understanding or did you just 18 include this because it was another one of the 19 boilerplate paragraphs? 20 A. No. Sorry, no, I had an understanding. I believed it 21 was within my knowledge base at the time of writing the 22 statement. 23 Q. Okay, if that's the case, when could you ever otherwise 24 state? 25 A. I don't know. 112 1 Q. On your explanation, that statement makes no sense, does 2 it? If everything is within your knowledge because 3 you've been told about it, you could never state 4 otherwise? 5 A. You could read it that way, yes but these are statements 6 which were written and agreed to be used. 7 Q. Can we go back to page 2, please, and look at the second 8 paragraph down: 9 "I have reviewed the HSH calls ... there are 33 ... 10 all of the calls are of a routine nature and do not fall 11 outside the normal working parameters of the system. 12 And in my opinion would have had no affect on any 13 counter discrepancies." 14 If you had no technical expertise in Horizon, what 15 qualified you to make that statement? 16 A. I'm being asked my opinion and, based on the knowledge 17 that I had at the time, that I am making that statement 18 based on my opinion at the time, and that's -- that's 19 what it says. 20 Q. Can we move on, please, to FUJ00083704. This appears to 21 be substantially the same statement, dated two days 22 later, 5 June 2008. If we go to the second page and 23 look at the second paragraph, that appears to be exactly 24 the same, except that, in the previous edition, 3 June, 25 the last sentence of the second paragraph said "would 113 1 have had no effect", E-F-F-E-C-T, and now that's been 2 changed to "affect", A-F-F-E-C-T; can you see that? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So the overall opinion is still included in this 5 version, correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Can we look at the substantive comments that you make 8 about the calls and look at page 3, please, and look at 9 call number 3. Thursday, 10 November 2005, a call 10 ending in 152: 11 "New call taken ... [postmaster] is not in the right 12 CA (Cash Account) period and has not rolled over this 13 morning." 14 "Resolution" over the page: referred to NBSC; call 15 closed." 16 So there was a report that the subpostmaster had 17 a problem with his cash account, yes -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- and that's passed to the NBSC? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You said that what is reported there would have had no 22 affect on any counter discrepancies. This was the 23 system operating as intended and does not fall outside 24 the normal working parameters of the system. How were 25 you able to say that? 114 1 A. Because I'm aware or was under the opinion that, if 2 a call was passed to the NBSC for a business issue or 3 user guide -- or user error, that it was resolved to 4 a satisfactory resolution and -- 5 Q. Satisfactory to who? 6 A. To all parties. 7 Q. So the postmasters were always happy, were they, in your 8 opinion, when things got referred to the NBSC? 9 A. I have to believe that, yes. 10 Q. Where did you get that information from, the postmasters 11 were always happy when they got referred to the NBSC? 12 A. Well, we never saw the call come back, so I have to make 13 an assumption that the calls were resolved. 14 Q. Is that the foundation on which you built your evidence 15 to a criminal court: assumption? 16 A. That the calls had been resolved, yes. 17 Q. You didn't know one way or the other, did you? 18 A. That the -- it was a Helpdesk to deal with those issues, 19 yes. 20 Q. But I think you told us in the morning session that you 21 had no access to NBSC records and didn't know what 22 happened once a case had been referred to the NBSC? 23 A. Mm-hm, yes. 24 Q. So why did you write a witness statement including 25 reference to this call -- and there are lots and lots of 115 1 these, let me tell you, that are referred to the NBSC -- 2 saying that this was of a routine nature, it doesn't 3 fall outside the normal parameters of the system and 4 wouldn't have had an effect on any counter 5 discrepancies; how can you say that? 6 A. Because if it's passed to the NBSC, it was a business 7 issue. 8 Q. Firstly, do you agree that involves a significant 9 assumption, that the person in the HSH has rightly 10 categorised it as a business issue? 11 A. The first port of call, yes. 12 Q. That it involves an assumption by you that the HSH 13 person has got it right? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Even if the postmaster was saying it's a system issue, 16 you took from the fact that it was in fact passed to the 17 NBSC that it was a business or user issue? 18 A. Yes, because if it was then thought to be -- or needed 19 further investigation to see if it was a technical 20 issue, or software issue, that call would have been 21 passed back to Horizon to investigate it. 22 Q. Are you therefore making the second assumption that, 23 because the call was not passed back to HSH by NBSC, 24 that it must have been a business or user issue? 25 A. Yes. 116 1 Q. Can we look, please, at call number 8 on page 5, thank 2 you. If we scroll down, 5 January, ending in 008: 3 "New call ... Critical event ... 'An unexpected 4 error occurred whilst attempting to insert a message. 5 Timeout occurred waiting for lock ... 6 "Outcome 7 "An automatic error was picked up by the SMC ... 8 a call was logged. The SMC referred to [Known Error 9 Log]", and it's the JSimpkins338Q one. 10 "The KEL recommends a remote counter reboot which 11 fixed the problem and no further events were seen." 12 If we carry on and look at 9 and then over the page 13 to 10, please, and then down to Number 10 and then 14 quickly read 11, screen freeze: 15 "[Postmaster] contacted the Helpdesk as the screen 16 had frozen ... advised to reboot ... then continued to 17 operate as normal." 18 12, over the page, please. 19 13, barcode reader not working. 20 14, barcode reader not working. 21 15, keyboard not accepting swipe cards. 22 16, PIN pad not working. 23 Over the page, 17, flooding and rewiring needed. 24 18, more flooding. 25 19, no online services. 117 1 Then 20, please, if we come to 20: 2 "Critical NT_Error occurred ... remote procedure 3 call failed ... 4 "An automatic error event was picked up by the SMC 5 ... a call was logged. The SMC referred to ... 6 MWright1245K. The KEL recommends a remote counter 7 reboot which fixed the problem and no further events 8 were seen. This was due to the KMRX service ... failing 9 to respond." 10 If we go forward, please, to page 13 and scroll 11 down, you say in relation to those two that I've 12 highlighted, the calls ending 970, and 008: 13 "The term 'critical' is the comparative level of 14 attention required", et cetera. 15 Reading on: 16 "These critical events occurred outside the post 17 office opening times and a standard action of a reboot 18 ... was undertaken and repaired the problem and 19 confirmed stability of the system ... this is not my 20 particular area of expertise. I have a general 21 knowledge of the procedures and have made comments to 22 aid the court." 23 How would a reboot confirm the stability of the 24 system? 25 A. Confirmed that -- well, it confirmed that the counters 118 1 were back working again. 2 Q. Did the calls record how long the call handler waited to 3 review whether there were any problems, ie whether 4 further issues were seen? 5 A. I'm not sure. I don't know. 6 Q. Do the call records record whether there was any later 7 impact on balancing of the NT events which occurred, 8 irrespective of the system being back up and running and 9 stable, whether it had an impact on balancing; do the 10 call records record that? 11 A. Well, it doesn't -- no, it doesn't state that, no. 12 Q. So you wouldn't know one way or the other? 13 A. Well, if there were no calls or -- raised about that 14 issue, I don't know how long they looked at the events. 15 Q. So are you saying that because the subpostmaster didn't 16 call back in and say, "I've got an existing or 17 continuing balancing problem", you assumed that there 18 had been a solution -- 19 A. Um -- 20 Q. -- that had been effective? 21 A. Well, yes, I mean the fault had been fixed at that time, 22 so yes, I do. 23 Q. Do you know what the NBSC habitually advised the 24 subpostmasters as to their responsibility for settling 25 discrepancies, irrespective of the cause of them? 119 1 A. I had no knowledge of that, no. 2 Q. When you compiled summaries like this, would you 3 habitually interrogate the KELs? 4 A. Yes, I would have looked at KELs. I'd have looked at 5 anything available. 6 Q. Why would you look for the KELs? 7 A. Because it's mentioned in the call logs, within the 8 details of the call. 9 Q. Do you ever set out what the KEL says in your witness 10 statements, concerning HSH? 11 A. No. I don't believe I did no. 12 Q. Did you ever find anything relevant in the KELs then? 13 A. I can't remember. 14 Q. If you had have found something relevant in a KEL, would 15 you have included it in the witness statement? 16 A. I don't know. I was trying to give an overview -- as my 17 statement says an overview of the call, of what -- it 18 was opened, what was happened and what the outcome was. 19 Q. Did you have firsthand technical knowledge that would 20 enable you to dissect or to understand the impact of any 21 particular critical error or the implications of 22 a reboot? 23 A. As I said, no but, at the time, by the time I'd done my 24 work and written the witness statement, I believe 25 I understood and had a better picture, and understood 120 1 that. 2 Q. Did you ask anyone else within Fujitsu about the KELs 3 referred to in these call logs? 4 A. If I didn't understand them, yes, I would have done. 5 I'd have spoken to whoever -- well, the SSC someone 6 within the SSC. Someone who had better technical 7 knowledge than I did at the time. 8 Q. The Inquiry has heard evidence for example, about the 9 Riposte lock problem and the Callendar Square problem, 10 and has heard evidence about problems arising because 11 counters were told reboot the system, or were rebooting 12 the system in the face of errors that were in fact 13 unresolved; do you know about any of that? 14 A. No, I wasn't aware of -- you mention the Callendar 15 Square -- no, I wasn't aware of that particular problem. 16 Q. So you weren't told by anyone in the SSC that the act of 17 being told to reboot a system in the face of a critical 18 NT error might itself be the cause of yet further 19 problems? 20 A. I don't believe that was ever mentioned, otherwise 21 I would have known about a bug or an issue that may have 22 caused some of these problems. No, I don't believe 23 I did. 24 Q. So we've seen that the call log mentioned the 25 JSimpkins338Q KEL, yes; we saw that earlier? 121 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. You said you would have gone off and looked at that? 3 A. I believe I would have done, yes. 4 Q. Can we look, please, at the JSimpkins KEL. FUJ00083720. 5 It's quite a short KEL, restricted to a page. 6 "Problem": 7 "The events started ... on 1 May after the counter 8 was rebooted. The counter produced one of these 9 messages every 10 seconds throughout the night until 10 ClearDesk restarted Riposte ... This cleared the lock 11 and the system has been fine since. We are seeing a few 12 of these each week, on Wednesdays during balancing. 13 This can lead to problems if the [postmaster] is 14 balancing on the counter creating events, as it may not 15 have a full view of transactions done on other counters 16 ... This event can also give rise to Transfer problems, 17 where the eventing Node was not replicated and so 18 allowed Clerk to Transfer In of a [transaction] which 19 had already been TI on another Node for the second time 20 ... This problem is still occurring every week, in one 21 case on the same site on 2 consecutive weeks ... Sent to 22 development." 23 Then "Solution": 24 "This problem seems to be cleared by either 25 rebooting the effective counter or ClearDesk running in 122 1 the morning. If the event is seen at a multi-counter to 2 is during the working hours of the [post office], or up 3 to 6.00 on a weekday (in case they are balancing out of 4 hours), RING THE OFFICE AND GET THEM TO REBOOT the 5 eventing counter. If they are in the process of 6 balancing, it is strongly advised that they reboot 7 before continuing with balancing as they are at risk of 8 producing an incorrect balance. Warn the [postmaster] 9 that if transactions appear to be missing, they should 10 not be reentered -- they will become visible after the 11 counter has been rebooted. If a reboot/ClearDesk does 12 not resolve the problem, send the call over for further 13 investigation -- SSC can rebuild the messagestore on the 14 affected counter ... If the message was seen on 15 a Correspondence server and the source of the message is 16 Riposte then raise a PEAK call and route it to SSC to 17 stop and restart the Riposte under Operational Change 18 Procedure. If the errors are seen on more than one 19 Correspondence server at the same time then further 20 investigations should be carried out." 21 There is nothing in your witness statement, in 22 particular your summary of the call logs, that 23 acknowledges that an imbalance could result from this 24 event, is there? 25 A. No, there isn't, no. 123 1 Q. Or that this is something that had been happening for 2 years, since at least May 2002, is there? 3 A. But it's seen as a -- I see that as part of the routine 4 handling of calls, and it's a known error that's 5 being -- and has got a resolution to it and how to deal 6 with that type of call. 7 Q. How could you tell which of the multiple different 8 resolutions in the solution applied in this case? 9 A. On this one, "If the event is seen as ... during working 10 hours", I don't believe this one was during working 11 hours the call was raised. So that would have been my 12 first port of call. 13 Q. I'm thinking, for example, "If reboot does not resolve 14 the problem, send the call over for further information. 15 SSC can rebuild the message store"? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. "If the message was seen on the Correspondence server 18 then raise a PEAK call, route it to SSC. If the errors 19 are seen on more than one correspondence server ..." 20 What you don't seem to have done, is this right, 21 Mr Dunks, is looked at the possible different 22 manifestations of this problem and seen which applied in 23 this branch on this occasion. 24 A. I can't remember how -- what I can see is there's a set 25 of instructions to check and what the resolution was 124 1 each time. I can't remember what I did and how 2 I balanced the two up, but "... if the event is seen 3 during working hours". I believe this one wasn't during 4 working hours. 5 Q. It was at 01.15, I think. 6 A. In the morning? Yes. 7 Q. In the morning. 8 A. So it's an automated event being picked up by the SMC. 9 Q. That's the first part of the solution. I'm looking at 10 the later parts of the solution? 11 A. Yes, but there's a resolution for each step. I can't 12 remember what -- how far it got, or what the -- that 13 type -- those steps were and, like I say, how I balanced 14 that up to come to my solution but -- 15 Q. Putting it frankly, Mr Dunks, did you carry out 16 an investigation, come to a resolution, balance things 17 up, or did you cut and paste extracts from call logs and 18 add a generalised opinion in each and every one of these 19 Horizon Helpdesk witness statements? 20 A. No, not at all. That wasn't my way of working. 21 Q. You carried out proper investigations -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- in every case to see whether there was any 24 possibility of an effect on balancing for all of the 25 multiple calls in question, did you? 125 1 A. And to give my opinion, I had to do that to satisfy 2 myself that I was happy to put that statement down in 3 a witness statement, yes. 4 Q. That's a lot of work in each case, isn't it? 5 A. Absolutely, yes. 6 Q. Hours and hours? 7 A. It could be, yes. 8 Q. Can we look, please, at FUJ00083702. You remember this 9 email, 3 June 2008; can you see that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. The bottom email, in fact, 9.29, in which Lisa Allen 12 asks you to provide another statement, including the 13 outcome of faults reported and that it would have had no 14 effect on counter discrepancy; can you see that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So she's asking you to provide a new statement with 17 a phrase "This had no effect on counter discrepancy" 18 added, yes? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Can you see that you appear to have replied -- the date 21 has been Americanised -- on the 3 June at 10.23? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can you see that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Can we look at an early draft of your witness statement, 126 1 please, FUJ00083683, and put alongside it the June 2008 2 one, FUJ00083703. Thank you. 3 So the witness statement on the right in Mr Hosi's 4 case, 24 July 2007, which I believe is the witness 5 statement that Lisa Allen was referring to, and then the 6 revised witness statement of 3 June, the date of the 7 email on the left-hand side. Can we go to page 2 on 8 each statement, please, and look at the second paragraph 9 on each statement. Thank you. You see on the 10 right-hand side, the July '07 witness statement is three 11 lines long: 12 "I have reviewed the calls ... [they were all] of 13 a routine nature and do not fall outside the normal 14 working parameters of system". 15 Then the 3 June witness statement, on the left-hand 16 side adds: 17 "And in my opinion, would have had no affect [sic] 18 on any counter discrepancies." 19 Can you see that's been added? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So, in short, Ms Allen has asked you to provide a new 22 witness statement that adds in a line that, in your 23 opinion it would have had no effect on any counter 24 discrepancy and, within an hour, you do so. Correct? 25 A. On that email, yes. But I think the email states "As 127 1 discussed". So you're trying to say that there wasn't 2 a lot of time in between the two. I think a lot of the 3 time any changes that needed or were requested would 4 have been via an email or had to have an email, as 5 a form of audit trail. So we'd have discussed this 6 already, so I'd probably have done that work previously 7 on that. 8 Q. You replied within an hour with a revised statement, 9 adding the words "in my opinion, the calls would have 10 had no affect on any counter discrepancies" or the 11 matters mentioned in the calls -- 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. -- "would have had no effect on any counter 14 discrepancies". Was that an opinion you formed quickly 15 and with ease? 16 A. It wouldn't have been quickly, no. That's something 17 that would have been discussed previously and it says 18 discussed in the email. It's something we would have 19 spoken about and I don't know when that discussion took 20 place. So I'd have already done the work and she was 21 just confirming what she'd requested. 22 Q. You remember that, do you? 23 A. No, I don't remember the jumping around and what -- how 24 the sequences worked but any changes would have been 25 discussed and agreed before they were put in. 128 1 Q. What additional work would you have had to carry out in 2 relation to the 33 calls logged from Porters Avenue to 3 form the opinion that none of them would have had any 4 effect on counter discrepancies? 5 A. I can't remember the work I put in. I mean, looking at 6 that, again, I see that as a further to, to describe 7 that the system was -- well, the counters and everything 8 that I -- was working as expected. And it's a further 9 explanation to that. 10 Q. It's an additional point, isn't it, it's rather more 11 than saying that the calls themselves are of a routine 12 nature. I mean, something can be very serious -- 13 A. Sorry? 14 Q. Something can be very serious but be of a routine nature 15 because it happens frequently, can't it? 16 A. Sorry, say that again? 17 Q. Something can be very serious but can be of a routine 18 nature because it happens frequently? 19 A. Yes, well, I think so, yes. Yes. 20 Q. You say that they do not fall outside the normal working 21 parameters of the system. That itself does not say, 22 does it, whether the subject matter of the calls caused 23 counter discrepancies, does it? 24 A. I'm sorry can you repeat the question? 25 Q. Yes, it's saying that the subject matter of these 129 1 33 calls does not fall outside the normal working 2 parameters of the system? 3 A. Mm-hm. 4 Q. It does not say one way or the other whether the subject 5 matter of the calls had any effect on counter 6 discrepancies? 7 A. That would have been my opinion at the time, if asked. 8 It's trying to describe that the system was working as 9 expected. 10 Q. But what you've added is an opinion that the subject 11 matter of the calls would, in fact have had no effect on 12 counter discrepancies. So it's a material addition, 13 isn't it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can we go back to the email, FUJ00083702. You're 16 referring in the bottom message to the "As discussed"? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So are you telling us that the subject matter of the 19 entirety of that bottom email had been discussed, you 20 had carried out the work before the email of 3 June had 21 been received and that's why you were able to turn it 22 around so quickly on that Tuesday morning? 23 A. I would like to think so, yes. 24 Q. Can we move forwards, please, to FUJ00083729. We're now 25 in 2010 -- 6 May 2010 -- still concerning Porters 130 1 Avenue. The top email, the date has again been 2 Americanised, I think, printed as 5 June, in fact 6 May. 3 If we look at the bottom email first, 6 May: 4 "... please provide me with a further statement 5 exhibiting the 33 calls logged and can you send a copy 6 of the exhibit with a ... label. I apologise for the 7 short notice ... 8 "There's a mention at court tomorrow ..." 9 Can you see that? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then, at the top of the page, again, you reply quite 12 quickly, 11.07 through to 12.41: 13 "Let me know if this is okay." 14 Can you see that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. When you produced that statement, did you go back and 17 look at the KELs? 18 A. I think that is a request -- "As discussed, can you 19 please provide me with a further statement exhibiting 20 those 33 calls". I think that was to supply the full 21 call details. 22 Q. Okay, so this is a bit like in Misra, where you started 23 off with a summary, and then were asked to produce 24 a witness statement simply exhibiting the calls, the 25 call logs? 131 1 A. It appears to be that type of thing, yes. 2 Q. So you wouldn't have to conduct any extra analysis, is 3 that right, in order simply to exhibit? 4 A. If I'm just supplying the call data, no. 5 Q. Thank you. Can we move on, please, to look at Seema 6 Misra's case. That can come down, thank you. 7 You made, I think, three witness statements in the 8 case of Seema Misra. Can we look at one of them, 9 please, the one dated 29 January 2010. POL00058448. 10 It's obviously a rogue reference. It's attaching 11 a witness statement by email, dated 29 January 2010, 12 from Mr Longman to Phil Taylor in the Post Office and 13 two lawyers -- one solicitor, one counsel -- attaching 14 your witness statement, "which deals with all the 15 Helpline calls regarding the Horizon system", and asking 16 for it to be served on the defence. 17 Can we look at what happened after that, please. 18 FUJ00152990. This is an email exchange between Anne 19 Chambers and Gareth Jenkins and, just staying on the top 20 part of it first, we can see that this email exchange is 21 sent to you by Penny Thomas. Okay? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. If we scroll down, please, to page 2, and scroll on 24 a little further. Thank you. So this is 25 January, 25 after you'd signed off your first witness statement -- 132 1 Sorry, 25 February, after you'd signed off your 2 first witness statement at the ending of January. It's 3 about witness statement support for West Byfleet and 4 Ms Chambers says to Mr Jenkins: 5 "... sending just to you initially. 6 "... my involvement has always been unofficial and 7 on the basis that I had time to do it. If I need to do 8 more detailed analysis on this (and I'm not sure what 9 I would be able to find, without knowing what their 10 specific problem was) it will have to be agreed 11 officially with my manager ... I don't think I can keep 12 volunteering. 13 "There are several entries on the 1 SYSMAN2 tab 14 which require some further investigation. I've added 15 some highlighting. 16 "Counter 1 [the dates in May '06 and February '08] 17 I don't know whether the counter was replaced, or 18 whether the message store was deleted. The PowerHelp/ 19 TfS calls may illuminate this. 20 "I don't know if the counter was used whilst these 21 errors were occurring -- it may have been. If they have 22 complaints specific to these [items], perhaps they 23 should be checked out??? 24 "There are some isolated timeout waiting for lock 25 messages, but in general these appear to be associated 133 1 with checksums being written. To be on the safe side, 2 it could be checked whether anyone was logged on [on 3 certain dates and times by reference to those two 4 counters]. 5 "It is notable that the branch does not have the 6 repeated lock messages which were a feature of the 7 Callendar Square problem." 8 Over the page: 9 "... as far as I know [that error message] hasn't 10 been investigated but ... no one has complained of 11 a problem linked to it. I'll try to check it out." 12 If we scroll up, please, and keep going, Gareth 13 Jenkins says: 14 "Anne has looked at the events logs. 15 "She's identified number of things below to check 16 out. 17 "Are you able to check out the specific times she 18 has indicated, firstly to see if anyone was Logged on 19 and secondly against Andy Dunk's call logs." 20 Then up the page, Penny says to you: 21 "I requested the events to be checked to support 22 your witness statement; I've had a chat with Gareth this 23 morning and as no transaction date has been requested, 24 it is pointless going further ... 25 "However, you might like to check Anne's comments 134 1 against the calls in your witness statement." 2 Did you do so? 3 A. I'd like to think I did. I wouldn't have just ignored 4 that email. 5 Q. You tell us in your witness statement, I'm not going to 6 turn it up, paragraph 204 on page 61: "I've no 7 recollection of this email or what precisely I did in 8 relation to it." 9 Does that remain the case? You don't know whether 10 you did anything as a result of -- 11 A. No, I can't remember what I did. 12 Q. Can you remember whether you did anything? 13 A. Again, it's that long ago, I can't remember what I did. 14 I'd like to think I didn't ignore that, so I would have 15 done something but I can't remember. 16 Q. You say, in your witness statement: 17 "I would have satisfied myself at the time that the 18 system events did not affect the integrity of data." 19 What did you do to satisfy yourself that the system 20 events did not affect the integrity of the data? 21 A. Again, based around what I learned from my 22 investigations. 23 Q. A bit more specific than that, Mr Dunks? 24 A. Well, I don't know. I can't remember what I did. 25 Q. What could you have done, in the light of the three 135 1 suggestions that Anne Chambers was making, to satisfy 2 yourself that the system events did not affect the 3 integrity of the data? 4 A. Well, the system events are the ones that are picked up 5 by the SMC. So I would have looked at those -- those 6 calls. I'd like to think I did. 7 Q. Did you understand what she was referring to or what she 8 would have been looking for in PowerHelp? 9 A. Sorry, whereabouts? No, I can't remember what -- as 10 I said, I can't remember the details of this specific -- 11 Q. Did you have access to PowerHelp? 12 A. Yes, I did. 13 Q. Do you understand what she would have been looking for 14 in order to look in TfS call records? 15 A. Well, PowerHelp and TfS were different versions of the 16 Helpdesk calls. 17 Q. You don't record in your witness statements that 18 followed this that you did anything in particular in 19 your subsequent witness statements in the Seema Misra 20 case? 21 A. No, because I -- no, I didn't, no. 22 Q. And why not? 23 A. Well, what investigations took place? No, I didn't, 24 because I was looking at the calls as a whole. 25 Q. But here you had somebody from SSC, who you've told us 136 1 earlier that you relied on as a technical expert, 2 suggesting that three things need to be done. 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. So this isn't one of those conversations over the phone 5 or where you went up to the sixth floor and we've got no 6 record of it. This is one of those occasions where we 7 have got a record of what the person in the SSC said 8 needs to be done and I'm asking, in your following 9 witness statements, there is no record of you doing 10 anything in response to Anne Chambers' suggestions; why 11 is that? 12 A. Well, I wouldn't have thought that it would have been -- 13 after I'd looked at these, if my opinion hadn't changed, 14 after looking at these, there wouldn't have been any 15 need to add that statement, as you're saying. 16 Q. Is that the basis on which you operated consistently 17 when working for Fujitsu, that if you investigate 18 something but in your own mind it doesn't alter your 19 opinion, there's no need to record that you had 20 conducted that investigation, whether in a witness 21 statement or otherwise? 22 A. I don't think at any stage I was required or asked to 23 put down what investigative work that I carried out. 24 These were an overview of the calls and then I was asked 25 for my opinion, based on that. 137 1 Q. Can we look, please, at the call records. POL00061793. 2 These are the call records that you exhibited. Can we 3 look at page 22, please, and we should see an entry -- 4 if we scroll down, please, thank you, and a bit 5 further -- an entry of 20 February -- can you see 6 that -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- 2006, Mrs Misra, the postmaster saying, under "Call 9 problem": 10 "[Postmaster] states that she is showing £6,000 down 11 from balance." 12 Yes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Then the call was closed within two minutes of it being 15 opened. The call handler said it's an NBSC issue; can 16 you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So, in your world, this is good evidence that this is 19 nothing to do with the system, it's a business or user 20 error? 21 A. At first, to be investigated, yes. 22 Q. Well, where does it say it's to be investigated? 23 A. Well, it's being -- it's passed for the NBSC for them to 24 look into and deal with that issue. 25 Q. Is it passed to the NBSC or is Mrs Misra told "This is 138 1 an NBSC issue"? 2 A. Looking at that now, I don't know, I would assume it's 3 been passed to the NBSC and advised it's an NBSC issue. 4 It's either passed to the NBSC or advised that -- for 5 the user to speak to the NBSC. 6 Q. But you reading this on its face without more, you'd say 7 this is down to the postmaster and the way she operates 8 her branch, nothing to do with the system? 9 A. At that point in time, yes -- 10 Q. How can you tell that -- 11 A. -- because it has to be -- 12 Q. -- from that record? 13 A. Sorry? 14 Q. How can you tell that from that record: this is down to 15 the postmaster or postmistress and the way she runs her 16 branch; this doesn't indicate that there was anything 17 wrong with the system; it was operating as intended? 18 A. It's a business or a user issue. It has to be -- that 19 has to be investigated first by the NBSC, because it 20 looks like it's a balancing issue or advice -- for them 21 to sort out or look into or offer advice and guidance. 22 Q. Okay, over the page, please. Then scroll down to the 23 second call, 10.45, Seema Misra again, three minutes 24 later: 25 "[Postmaster] states that showing £6,000 down from 139 1 balance. Advised NBSC issue. [Postmaster] stated she 2 was talking to the NBSC and got cut off." 3 Then under "Call closure": 4 "I advised [postmaster] I would put her through 5 [postmaster] was happy with this." 6 Then scroll down, and over the page, 3.40 the same 7 day, Seema Misra calling: 8 "[Postmaster] stating in that her system is showing 9 different values for certain products." 10 Then this one says, "Postmaster transferred", scroll 11 down a little bit -- again, within two minutes. 12 Then next call, please. Next day: 13 "[Postmaster] states that the last couple of weeks 14 they have had problems with the Horizon kit and it is 15 always showing they're down in money." 16 Over the page, "Call closed": 17 "She has been advised by the NBSC, advised 18 [postmaster] to follow this, [reference] offered." 19 Then scroll down, 23 February: 20 "[Postmaster] states that she has losses every week 21 in two stock units. 22 "Call closed ... advised that the NBSC take a 2nd 23 look as [the] stock units appear to be in a mess." 24 Over the page. Keep going, please. Then Anne 25 Chambers gets a hold of it. Just stop there. 140 1 So a postmistress repeatedly calling in to the 2 Helpdesk, being directed to the NBSC and, on the basis 3 of those call records, you say this is the system 4 operating as intended, this is all routine, and this is 5 down to the postmistress not the system. Correct? 6 A. If it's passed to the NBSC to be investigated, yes. 7 Q. Can we look at page 26, please, and this is the third 8 entry: 9 "NBSC states that on the CC stock unit postmasters 10 rolled over with a £1,500 loss. JSA stock unit 11 postmaster has rolled over with a £200 loss. NBSC 12 states that on 18 February postmaster declared her cash 13 and she has a £900 loss up until Saturday and then when 14 the postmaster declared her overnight cash on Saturday 15 at 1.00 pm, went back to £200 loss. NBSC also states 16 that her AA stock unit has a £6,000 loss. Postmaster 17 has rolled this over as well." 18 Then if we scroll down, please, and then scroll over 19 and keep going: 20 "Anne Chambers says she has checked very carefully 21 and can see no indication that the continuing 22 discrepancies are due to a system problem." 23 Then over the page, and just stop there. The last 24 five lines, she says: 25 "This may be to do with how the discrepancies have 141 1 been accounted for. I do not really understand this ... 2 I recommend that this call is passed back to NBSC Tier 2 3 for further investigation, since there is no evidence 4 that the discrepancies are being caused by a system 5 problem. If you want the above information in an email, 6 let me know." 7 So when you were providing a witness statement 8 saying that all of the calls are of a routine nature and 9 do not fall outside the normal working parameters of the 10 system, were you relying on the accuracy and truth of 11 what's written, for example, here? 12 A. I believe so. Well, not just the written word. I'd 13 have probably spoken to somebody about what was going on 14 there as I would do normally. But -- 15 Q. Who would you have spoken to? 16 A. I could quite easily have spoken to Anne herself. 17 I don't recall. 18 Q. All of this entry here, leading up to this point, if we 19 go to your witness statement, please, at POL00167135. 20 This is your witness statement of 29 January 2010. Can 21 we look, please, at page 8 and, if we scroll down, 22 please, and a little further -- thank you -- that call 23 that we've just looked at is number 29. You summarise 24 that episode by saying: 25 "Annetee NBSC -- [postmaster] states every week that 142 1 she has losses every week in two stock units. 2 "Resolution: 3 March ... 3 "Call closed ... [postmaster] was getting 4 discrepancies, SSC have investigated and advised that 5 the NBSC take a 2nd look as the office stock units 6 appear to be in a mess. 7 "Outcome 8 "SSC ... advice that call be passed back to NBSC for 9 further investigation." 10 So that entire call you've summarised in this way. 11 How were you able to say that this call was of a routine 12 nature and the contents of the call would not affect the 13 working order of the counter? 14 A. Through -- well, again, through my investigation. 15 I mean, the call -- I would have said routine nature, 16 there were calls where postmasters had a discrepancy of 17 some sort and they were investigated routinely, as they 18 would be, and resolved. So these are routine calls. 19 Q. Was everything that happened in the decades of you 20 working for Fujitsu routine? Nothing ever happened out 21 of the routine? 22 A. I don't know but I'm basing this witness statement on my 23 knowledge at the time that -- I'd seen numbers of these 24 type of calls and they're dealt with routinely. 25 Q. But what was the outcome; what happened? 143 1 A. Sorry? 2 Q. What was the outcome? 3 A. The NBSC investigated so I have to believe that the NBSC 4 had resolved the issue. 5 Q. How did you believe that the NBSC had resolved the 6 issue? 7 A. Because the call didn't come back to Fujitsu for further 8 investigation. 9 Q. What about if the NBSC were telling the postmasters, 10 "We've taken it as far as we can go, it's now your job 11 to pay up. You owe that £6,000. It says so in your 12 contract"? 13 A. I know nothing about that. 14 MR BEER: No. 15 Thank you very much, Mr Dunks. You've been very 16 helpful indeed. 17 Sir, those are the only questions that I ask. There 18 are some questions from Core Participants. I wonder 19 whether we might have a ten-minute break so that they 20 can organise themselves. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. What time shall we 22 resume? 23 MR BEER: 3.25, I think, sir. 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Okay, fine. 25 (3.13 pm) 144 1 (A short break) 2 (3.25 pm) 3 MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir, can you still see and hear 4 us? 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 6 MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir. There are two sets of 7 questions from Core Participants: about 15 to 20 minutes 8 from Ms Page and about five minutes or so from Mr Stein, 9 in that order. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, fine. 11 Questioned by MS PAGE 12 MS PAGE: Mr Dunks, I ask questions on behalf of some of the 13 subpostmasters in this Inquiry, including both 14 Mr Castleton and Mrs Misra. 15 Mr Dunks, you were very loyal to Fujitsu, weren't 16 you? 17 A. Loyal? 18 Q. You'd been with the business, man and boy, yes? 19 A. Man -- for, yes, almost 30 years, now, yes. 20 Q. You would do or say pretty much anything to protect the 21 Fujitsu name; is that right? 22 A. No, that's not true. 23 Q. Let's have a look at FUJ00154750. This is an email 24 chain that the Inquiry has seen before, between you and 25 your boss, Peter Sewell, and it was before you were due 145 1 to give evidence against Lee Castleton. If we scroll 2 down to Mr Sewell's email, thank you: 3 "See you in court then. Fetter Lane is where they 4 used to hang people out to dry. I don't suppose that 5 type of thing happens any more though. 6 "That Castleton is a nasty chap and will be out to 7 rubbish the FJ name, it's up to you to maintain absolute 8 strength and integrity no matter what the prosecution 9 throw at you. WE will all be behind you, hoping you 10 come through unscathed. Bless you." 11 You were going to be loyal to Fujitsu, weren't you, 12 no matter what? 13 A. Mmm, that's not what that says, no. 14 Q. That's the culture; that's the mindset, isn't it, 15 Mr Dunks? 16 A. No, I read that as trying to give me support and 17 confidence to go in because I think that was the first 18 time I was being called to court as a witness. 19 Q. The way that he chose to give you confidence was by 20 describing the person whose trial it was as a "nasty 21 chap"; do you see that? 22 A. I do, yes. 23 Q. He was going to be out to rubbish the Fujitsu name, and 24 it was up to you to stop that, wasn't it, Mr Dunks? 25 A. No, it was up to me to be strong and deal with that with 146 1 integrity. 2 Q. Let's look at your reply, if we go up, please. 3 "Thank you for those very kind and encouraging 4 words, I had to pause halfway through reading it to wipe 5 away a small tear ... 6 "Bless you all. 7 "Andy." 8 What did that mean, Mr Dunks? 9 A. I got on very well with Pete at the time, Mr Sewell. He 10 was trying to put me at ease, so I'm just saying thank 11 you for that, I believe in their support. 12 Q. Are you honestly trying to suggest that that was 13 a genuine reply, rather than an obviously sarcastic 14 response? 15 A. Sorry, say that again? 16 Q. Well, are you suggesting that you really did have to 17 pause halfway through reading that email to wipe away 18 a small tear? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Is that what you're saying, Mr Dunks? 21 A. No. 22 Q. No. It was sarcasm, wasn't it, Mr Dunks? 23 A. It was between myself and Pete -- you say sarcasm, 24 possibly. But that was -- yeah, there was no real bad 25 intention about that. It was just the type of 147 1 relationship Pete and I had at the time. 2 Q. The sort of relationship where you and your manager, in 3 Litigation Support, joke about the fact that you're 4 going to give evidence against a man whose future was on 5 the line? 6 A. No, we weren't joking. No. I don't see that as that 7 and I don't see that we were joking about what we were 8 doing and, as you said, some -- a person's reputation 9 and that, were on the line. That's not something to 10 joke about. I don't read it as that. I can't remember 11 how -- 12 Q. Banter, isn't it, Mr Dunks? 13 A. It could have been. 14 Q. "They used to hang people out to dry. Oh, I don't 15 suppose they do that sort of thing any more." 16 "Oh, I had to wipe away a small tear." 17 Banter, wasn't it? 18 A. Possibly it was, yes. It was trying to put me at ease 19 because I knew what -- it was the first time. 20 Q. This was copied in to Penny Thomas and Neneh Lowther? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. This was a team email; is that fair? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. This was the culture you all worked in, wasn't it, 25 deeply, deeply partisan? You were all there to make 148 1 sure that the nasty postmasters did not rubbish the 2 Fujitsu name. That's what your team was doing, wasn't 3 it -- 4 A. No -- 5 Q. -- as led by the man you got along with very well, 6 Mr Sewell? 7 A. No, that wasn't the culture at all. I don't know why he 8 used those words down the bottom. I've got no idea but 9 it was more, as I said, trying to put me at ease, to try 10 and relax and tell me that they'd got my support and my 11 backing. 12 Q. Thank you. Let's turn to Mrs Misra and an email that 13 you were looking at with Mr Beer earlier on but which 14 I'd like to ask some different questions on. 15 FUJ00152990, please. This is the set of emails which 16 were forwarded to you. They were originally between 17 Anne Chambers and Gareth Jenkins, and they were 18 forwarded to you, as we can see at the top there, by 19 Penny Thomas. 20 Now, if we just look at this top right-hand corner 21 of the page, we see page 1 of 4. As we scroll down -- 22 oh, actually, before we scroll down we can see there 23 that it's got Penny Thomas above the fact that it's from 24 her. Do you see that in -- there we are, highlighted. 25 It's got that line, and "Penny Thomas" above it, and 149 1 then "Page 1 of 4." 2 As we look through the email, so as we scroll down 3 to page 2, we see "Page 2 of 4", and then it continues 4 "Page 3 of 4" and "Page 4 of 4". 5 Now, would you agree that that suggests that Penny 6 Thomas printed off that email chain? That's often the 7 format we see, isn't it, when people print off an email 8 and it comes out with their name at the top? 9 A. To be honest with you, I don't know. If that's the 10 format, I'll take your word for it. I'm not 100 per 11 cent sure on that. 12 Q. All right. Well, the final page that is part of this 13 document is a short statement from you and, if we can go 14 to that, please, page 5. So there we have "Page 4 of 15 4", that's the email and then we have this witness 16 statement from you, and it's really just that, it's that 17 one liner, and it's dated and apparently signed, the 18 signature has got the marker over it saying, "GRO" which 19 means that it has been signed but it doesn't show. 20 The statement really simply says: 21 "Further to my statement dated 29 January 2010, 22 I can confirm that all the calls mentioned from West 23 Byfleet Post Office to the Horizon System Helpdesk are 24 of a routine nature." 25 That's all there is to it. We can scroll down if 150 1 you'd like to be sure of that. So it looks rather like, 2 doesn't it, that Ms Thomas has printed out the email 3 chain alongside your witness statement, claiming that 4 all the calls were of a routine nature. Do you see 5 that; do you accept that? 6 A. That hasn't got her name on the top of this one so is 7 that part of the printed -- 8 Q. No, that's -- it seems to be separate because the 9 printed email seems to be pages 1 to 4 of this whole 10 five-page bundle of documents. So it looks as if we've 11 got a four-page email chain printed out and then, 12 alongside that, your one-page witness statement. Do you 13 see that? Does that make sense? 14 A. No, it doesn't. If you've got pages 1 to 4, that hasn't 15 got a number on that witness statement. 16 Q. So that's right. So what I'm suggesting is it looks as 17 if the four-page email change has been printed out -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- and filed with the one-page statement from you, or 20 rather at least they've been put together and then 21 scanned and provided to the Inquiry in that way? 22 A. Okay, yes. 23 Q. So your statement sits alongside the four pages of email 24 chain. 25 A. Okay. 151 1 Q. On the one hand, your statement is saying that all the 2 calls are of a routine nature, but the heart of the 3 email chain is the Anne Chambers email in which, by 4 contrast, she makes it absolutely clear that the calls 5 required some technical investigation and some 6 cross-checking to find out what lay behind them and 7 whether they were indeed quotes "routine". Do you 8 accept that? 9 A. Can we go up -- 10 Q. It was read out to you earlier, we can go up to the 11 email from Anne Chambers. 12 A. Oh, yes, yes, I remember -- 13 Q. Yes? 14 A. Mm-hm. 15 Q. So she's basically saying that there needs to be further 16 investigation into these calls? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Yeah? That's been filed alongside your statement saying 19 "No, no, they're all routine", yeah? You're nodding so 20 I'm taking that as a yes for the transcript. 21 A. Yes, sorry. Yes. 22 Q. Now, would you accept that when you were sent this email 23 chain, it put a burden on you to check your witness 24 statements and make sure that what you'd said in them 25 was correct and not misleading? 152 1 A. Well, that would have been my process throughout. 2 Q. So when you received an email from Anne Chambers saying 3 there's a whole number of technical things that need 4 checking, you should have done that, shouldn't you, 5 given that you had already signed a witness statement 6 that claimed that these calls were all just routine? 7 A. Well, yes, yeah. I would have done the work, yes. 8 Q. So you say now, do you, that you did all the work that 9 was set out in Anne Chambers' email here? 10 A. I hope to think I did. I don't remember what that 11 involved and what I did specifically. 12 Q. Let's look at what she says needs to be done. She says, 13 first of all, that "The PowerHelp/TfS calls may 14 illuminate this". That's the middle of the page there. 15 Then she says: 16 "I don't know if the counter was used while these 17 errors were occurring -- it may have been. If they have 18 any complaints specific to these times, perhaps they 19 should be checked out???" 20 Are you saying that you did that? 21 A. I'd like to think I did, yes. 22 Q. At this time, there was no ARQ data. How would you have 23 done it? 24 A. Well, what do you mean at this time? No, this time 25 I hadn't supplied the data. I'd have had the data to 153 1 carry out and to be able to make that statement, so 2 I had the data. 3 Q. You had the call records but you didn't have the ARQ 4 data. It hadn't yet been produced. That's actually in 5 the first email in this chain. We can go up to it if 6 you like. 7 A. But this is referring to the Helpdesk. 8 Q. Yes, but how would you have known whether counters were 9 being used while these errors were occurring without the 10 ARQ data? 11 A. I don't know what the -- how I'd come to that conclusion 12 but it's asking me to have a look and I'd like to think 13 that I did. 14 Q. What I'm saying to you, Mr Dunks, is that you didn't yet 15 have the information you needed to have a look, and yet 16 you had produced a witness statement in which you said 17 that all the calls were routine, and you did nothing to 18 change that, did you? 19 A. Because of what I had done to investigate it, there 20 wouldn't have been anything -- if I believed that there 21 was no more information that's needed, and my witness 22 statement was accurate to what I believed at the time, 23 there wouldn't have been needed any further changes. 24 Q. Let's go down to the bottom of the email: 25 "Error Message: Error in node retrieval for node(s) 154 1 1010 -- as far as I know this hasn't been investigated, 2 but on the other hand no one has complained of a problem 3 linked to it. I'll try to check it out." 4 What did you do about that? 5 A. I can't remember what I did on that. I mean, that reads 6 that Anne was going to try and check it out. I may have 7 spoken to Anne, she may have spoken to me. I can't 8 remember what took place. 9 Q. Well, let's go up to the top of the email chain and 10 remind ourselves of what took place: 11 "I requested the events to be checked to support 12 your witness statement; I've had a chat with Gareth this 13 morning and as no transaction data has been requested 14 it's pointless going further with this exercise. 15 "... you may like to check Anne's comments against 16 the calls in your witness statement." 17 So all you had, Mr Dunks, was the call records, and 18 you had nothing else. You could not check out what 19 Mrs Chambers was saying needed to be checked out, could 20 you? And yet you had provided a witness statement which 21 claimed that all calls were routine. 22 A. I can't remember how I came to that conclusion but 23 I would have been happy at the time. I don't know how 24 I came to that conclusion. The calls may -- maybe -- 25 that may be in the information of the calls and when the 155 1 calls were logged. I -- again, I can't remember what 2 I would have done but I would have done something. 3 Q. At the very least, your statement that had already been 4 signed required a qualification, did it not, saying 5 there are some further matters which need to be 6 investigated when the ARQ data has been requested and 7 supplied? 8 A. Clarification that I still believed that that statement 9 was true, yes. 10 Q. You did nothing, Mr Dunks? 11 A. What do you mean, I didn't -- 12 Q. Well, we do not see, do we, a further witness statement 13 in which you qualify or say anything at all about the 14 statement that we've just had a look at, in which you 15 claimed that all the calls were routine. 16 A. If the statement didn't need updating, because that 17 statement was, in my opinion, still true, there was no 18 update needed. 19 Q. How was it still true, Mr Dunks, when Mrs Chambers had 20 just set out all the ways in which the calls needed to 21 be investigated, to find out whether they were routine? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. How could it still be true when those investigations had 24 not been carried out and could not be carried out? 25 A. Well, I'm sorry, but I would've done checks. I don't 156 1 know how or what the process I did -- 2 Q. No, all right -- 3 A. So if nothing needed changing and I still -- that didn't 4 affect my opinion on the calls, I wasn't going to change 5 the statement. 6 Q. No indeed. You told us that there was no relationship 7 between the fact that the SSC were protected from giving 8 evidence by Mik Peach and the fact that you routinely 9 provided witness statements based on what they told you 10 without revealing that they had told you what you were 11 saying. You said there was no relationship between 12 those two things earlier on, didn't you? 13 A. Did I? Yeah. I -- 14 Q. On the one hand, Mik Peach is over here protecting his 15 team, saying they're not to give any witness statements, 16 and, on the other hand, there's you providing witness 17 statements which say things that the SSC have told you 18 without revealing that the SSC have told you that; you 19 remember, you told us there was no relationship between 20 those two things? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. We can see the relationship in action here, can't we, 23 Mr Dunks? Let's go back to Mrs Chambers' email, and 24 that first paragraph: 25 "Gareth, sending just to you initially. 157 1 "I know you have even more on your plate than I do, 2 but my involvement has always been unofficial and on the 3 basis that I had time to do it." 4 Then at the very ending, she says: 5 "[If I am to do anything] it will have to be 6 officially agreed with my manager -- you can instigate 7 that, if you like, but I don't think I can keep 8 volunteering." 9 That was apparently accepted by you and your team 10 member, Penny Thomas. You didn't press her, did you, to 11 give an official witness statement. You didn't press 12 her. You allowed her to just keep volunteering in this 13 unofficial way, didn't you? 14 A. Well, volunteering, yes. The same as I would speak to 15 anybody within the SSC or anybody who was supplying me 16 with information for me to do my role. 17 Q. In effect, you were covering for Mrs Chambers, weren't 18 you? 19 A. Sorry, no. Covering for her? Covering for what? 20 Q. Covering with the fact that she did not want to give 21 evidence, she did not want to stand up and defend 22 Horizon in court but you were perfectly happy to? 23 A. I wouldn't say that was covering. I was happy with the 24 role that I was tasked to and asked to do. 25 Q. Neither you nor Ms Thomas thought to say to him -- 158 1 Mr Peach that is, "Actually, you know what, Mrs Chambers 2 would be better placed to look into these technical 3 matters that she says need to be investigated. 4 Mrs Chambers ought to look into them and she ought to 5 provide a witness statement". You didn't say that, did 6 you? 7 A. No, I didn't. No. 8 Q. You were covering for SSC because they were not prepared 9 to stand up and defend Horizon in court, weren't you? 10 A. No. That's not how it worked, I'm sorry. It wasn't. 11 Q. Just some further questions on a different topic, 12 Mr Dunks. You remember in the Bates litigation, when 13 the boilerplate wording in your statement was put to 14 you, you originally claimed that you were not following 15 the Fujitsu "party line". Do you remember that -- 16 A. Yes, I do. 17 Q. -- that questioning? Later you did admit, of course, 18 that there was a template that you all used with the 19 boilerplates in it and that was something that you only 20 admitted when the statement from Mr Jenkins which was 21 identical to yours was put to you, yes; do you remember 22 that? 23 A. What's the word -- did you say boilerplates? 24 Q. Yes, that's a word that's often used when speaking of 25 legal wording that's been put into cover off all 159 1 eventualities; standard wording, if you like. 2 A. Is it? I've never heard of it before. 3 Q. Well, it was put to you in the Bates litigation but 4 never mind. We don't need to worry about that. You 5 finally admitted that there was a Fujitsu party line, 6 didn't you? 7 A. I've finally admitted -- yes, I've gone over that and 8 I misinterpreted what he meant by a party line. I had 9 an understanding of what I thought he meant by a party 10 line. 11 Q. Yes. Well, now, of course, you are clinging to the fact 12 that there was a party line because what you're really 13 saying is, "It's not my fault that the party line was 14 misleading. It's not my fault I took the party line. 15 I was just following orders. That's what I was told to 16 put in witness statements and that's what I did". Yes? 17 A. That's my understanding when I first answered that 18 question, when I said no because that wasn't the case. 19 Q. I see. So you're now saying, are you, that your process 20 driven witness statements which were misleading were 21 entirely your own work? 22 A. No, what I was saying was, when he first asked me the 23 question I was following the party line, I understood 24 that to be that -- what you just said: that we were to 25 all told to stick by a story and follow the party line, 160 1 and don't waiver from it, and we've been told what say. 2 That's what I, in my understanding at the time, was 3 answering and the answer was no. Later on in the 4 questioning, he mentioned or stated that, following the 5 party line was the use of templates. So I agreed, well, 6 if that was his understanding, yes, I agree with them: 7 we did use templates. 8 I wasn't trying to cover or hide anything. I just 9 was answering the question how I understood it. 10 Q. Well, you haven't been prepared to reveal who drafted 11 those templates, who was in charge of what was used from 12 those templates, how it came about that you used this 13 bit or that bit and so did Mr Jenkins. 14 A. Sorry, I don't understand that. 15 Q. Well, you haven't revealed anything to do with how those 16 templates were actually used and who was in charge of 17 them, have you? 18 A. How they were used? They were used by -- what do you 19 mean how they were used? They were used by us. 20 Q. Who drafted them? 21 A. Someone within Fujitsu. 22 Q. Someone. Well, let's look at some of the standard 23 paragraphs and just identify this: when Mr Jenkins was 24 recently asked about the standard paragraphs from the 25 templates and Mr Beer asked him about this paragraph, 161 1 which you will no doubt recognise: 2 "There is no reason to believe that the information 3 in this statement is inaccurate, because of the improper 4 use of the computer. To the best of my knowledge and 5 belief at all material times the computer was operating 6 properly or, if not, any respect in which it was not 7 operating properly or was out of operation was not such 8 as to affect the information held on it." 9 Now, you know that wording, don't you? You use it 10 yourself or have used it many times? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But you've also used that exact same wording replacing 13 the words "the computer" with "the system". That also 14 is something you have said in many, many witness 15 statements. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. What was the difference between "the computer" and "the 18 system"? 19 A. I'm not sure there -- what the difference was. It was 20 still trying to convey the same opinion. 21 Q. What is that opinion, then, Mr Dunks? 22 A. What the statement says. I don't remember why those two 23 words were changed, or -- 24 Q. Who instigated that change? 25 A. Pardon? 162 1 Q. Who instigated that change? 2 A. I've no recollection of who instigated that change. 3 I can't remember. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, did you? 5 MS PAGE: I'm so sorry? 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I said: did you, Mr Dunks? In other 7 words did you quite deliberately, on some occasions, use 8 the words "the computer" and on other times "the 9 system", or was there a different template which you 10 used from time to time? 11 A. No, I don't believe there was a different template. 12 I don't remember why -- 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: If there wasn't a different template, you 14 personally must have decided to substitute "the system" 15 for "the computer" on occasions; so I think what Ms Page 16 wants to know is why you did that? 17 A. That may have been on the request of the -- someone 18 within the Post Office or one of their lawyers. 19 I don't -- every time there was a change within 20 a witness statement, it was spoken about and discussed, 21 and then agreed on the wording. So there were many 22 changes. The witness statement evolved through the 23 years, and changes. How that was changed and the 24 process, and when things were changed and things taken 25 out, I can't remember that process and who instigated 163 1 what changes. 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So you have no recollection of any kind 3 as to any conversation between you and anyone which 4 resulted in the phrase "the computer" being changed to 5 the phrase "the system"; is that your evidence? 6 A. No, no. Even now, I would regard that meaning the 7 same -- trying to convey the same thing. I don't know 8 why those two words were changed. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So there's your answer, Ms Page. The 10 computer and the system are the same thing. 11 MS PAGE: Well, I wonder if I might just ask a little more 12 on that, just by putting to you what Mr Jenkins said he 13 thought "the computer" meant. 14 He said that he thought "the computer" meant the 15 computer that he was typing his witness statement on. 16 That his desktop computer that he was typing it on was 17 working properly. Does that make any sense to you, 18 Mr Dunks? 19 A. I don't know how or why -- how he came to that 20 conclusion, I don't know. No. 21 Q. Do you know how or why it was that he came to have that 22 wording at all? 23 A. In what -- sorry, in what -- 24 Q. How would he have come to have the template wording that 25 your team used? 164 1 A. Because -- actually, I'm not sure I ever saw any of 2 Gareth's witness statements. I'm assuming that they 3 were being -- used the same sort of templates to start 4 off with, the witness statement templates. 5 Q. Was that dealt with at a level above you, Mr Dunks? Was 6 someone in charge of the template and how it was used? 7 A. If someone had -- if you're saying someone had -- if 8 some had more authority to me, and about those things, 9 yeah, I believe so, yes. 10 Q. Who? (Pause) 11 Is your loyalty getting in the way here, Mr Dunks? 12 A. My loyalty? 13 Q. Is that why you're being so cagey about who was in 14 charge of the standard wording in the witness 15 statements? 16 A. No, because I don't know who wrote the witness 17 statement. I don't know who drafted the original 18 witness statement. 19 Q. You don't know who changed the wording -- 20 A. Um -- 21 Q. -- from one thing to another? 22 A. Well, that would have been -- I mean, someone like -- 23 through discussions within the Post Office. I mean, 24 I know that the wording at times of the ARQ witness 25 statements were changed, because -- and that would have 165 1 been -- I'd have been involved -- I say involved, 2 sorry -- I'd have been informed by someone like Penny 3 because she ran -- she was managing the litigation so we 4 were told that if there were any changes, we were then 5 being told to use the new format. 6 Q. Who chose the templates for you, Mr Dunks? 7 A. Who chose the templates? We were told which templates 8 to use. 9 Q. By who? 10 A. Management or the -- yeah, management. Either our line 11 manager or the Litigation Support Manager. 12 Q. Going back to your loyalty, Mr Dunks, was it your 13 loyalty that led you not to reveal the existence or the 14 content of the Known Error Logs in your witness 15 statements? 16 A. No, not at all, no, because I -- every witness statement 17 that I supplied, I was aware that, if needed -- and 18 which we did on many occasion -- supplied all the call 19 data to be seen and -- so they could see within, if they 20 investigated or looked at -- anybody who looked at that 21 would see that there were KELs and they would have been 22 able to request or -- that information as well. At no 23 time was I hiding anything because I knew that 24 information was available. 25 Q. Did anyone ever tell you not to refer to the KELs? Did 166 1 anyone ever tell you that it would be better not to make 2 sure anyone knew what "KEL" stood for? 3 A. Not at all. I was never told -- I honestly believed 4 that I -- I was never told, "Don't put this in, you 5 mustn't say that", and that's going back to you -- 6 people implying that we were following a party line. 7 I was never under pressure to put in something that 8 I didn't want to put in. 9 MS PAGE: Thank you, sir. Those are my questions. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms Page. 11 Mr Stein? 12 Questioned by MR STEIN 13 MR STEIN: Mr Dunks, I've got two areas to ask you questions 14 about. I ask questions on behalf of a firm called 15 Howe+Co, who have instructed me on behalf of a large 16 number of subpostmasters. One of our clients with 17 an eye for detail wants to see if you can help regarding 18 the development of Horizon Online and its operating 19 system. Okay? 20 So this goes back to around what, 2010, and the 21 evidence that the Inquiry has is that whilst that was 22 under development, that the new operating system -- or, 23 sorry, the new Horizon Online system -- was using 24 Microsoft NT 4.0 operating system, and the reason why 25 was that it was regarded as being too expensive to 167 1 upgrade to a more current technology. So our question 2 is this: can you help us with when Horizon Online was 3 updated to a newer version of an operating system? 4 A. No, I can't remember the dates when we moved from one to 5 another. No, I don't. I can't recall. 6 Q. Was it ever updated? 7 A. Well, Horizon was updated to Horizon Online, yes. 8 Q. Yes, but the operating system, being Microsoft NT 4.0, 9 did it move on from that point? 10 A. Oh, right. Do you know, I can't remember. I can't 11 remember. I believe it was changed when the new 12 counters were run out for HNG-X, I think, but I can't be 13 certain. I wasn't involved in the rollouts or updates 14 and things like that. 15 Q. All right. If you're right about it being changed 16 around the time of the new counters, roughly when would 17 that be? So if we refer back to 2010, into the new 18 Horizon Online system -- 19 A. No, I'm sorry. The dates of all the updates I don't 20 recall, sorry. 21 Q. The second point is this: we know that the Post Office 22 is hoping to move on from the Horizon system by April 23 2025, and moving on from, therefore, and away from the 24 Horizon system. We're told by press releases from the 25 Post Office that the new system is going to be called 168 1 "New Branch IT". Now, you still work for Fujitsu. You 2 work within the Customer Service Post Office Account 3 Security team. Can you help us with how that's going? 4 Is the suggestion to move on from the Horizon system and 5 finish, therefore, the contractual relationship with 6 Fujitsu going to make it by April '25? 7 A. I'm sorry, you're asking the wrong person. I have no 8 idea of that level of information. 9 Q. None at all? You've not been given any updates to say 10 that the Post Office Account is going to finish at any 11 time this year or it's coming to an end and there may 12 therefore be a change in your workplace? 13 A. I don't recall that I've seen that because -- all I know 14 is that the dates for the end of the contract have moved 15 from the original date and has been pushed back. 16 I don't know -- 17 Q. It keeps on moving and more money keeps on being paid. 18 We're just trying to work out when the Horizon system is 19 coming to an end. 20 A. As I said, you're asking the wrong person. I can't 21 answer that. I've got no idea. 22 MR STEIN: All right. Thank you, Mr Dunks. 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Is that it, Mr Beer? 24 MR BEER: Yes, it is. Thank you, sir. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, thank you, Mr Dunks, for making 169 1 a second witness statement and for giving evidence 2 during the course of the day. I'm grateful to you for 3 doing that. 4 So I understand, Mr Beer, that we're going to start 5 a little later tomorrow, at 10.05, with Mr McCall; is 6 that correct? 7 MR BEER: That's right, sir, to allow the fire alarm to 8 occur, in particular. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. All right, then. 10.05 tomorrow. 10 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 11 (4.04 pm) 12 (The hearing adjourned until 10.05 am the following day) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 170 I N D E X ANDREW PAUL DUNKS (re-sworn) ..................1 Questioned by MR BEER .........................1 Questioned by MS PAGE .......................145 Questioned by MR STEIN ......................167 171