1 Friday, 18 October 2024 2 (9.00 am) 3 MR BLAKE: Good morning, sir. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Good morning, Mr Blake. Before you begin 5 today's evidence session, in my haste to publicly 6 announce the revised arrangements for today's hearing, 7 I inadvertently omitted to thank Mr Bartlett for 8 providing two detailed witness statements and giving 9 oral evidence during the course of the whole of 10 yesterday. So I'd like to repair that omission by 11 thanking him publicly now. 12 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 13 This morning we're going to hear from Mr Foat 14 remotely. (Pause) 15 Ah, either Mr Foat is on silent, or there is nothing 16 in the room. 17 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 18 MR BLAKE: Ah, there we go. 19 BENJAMIN ANDREW FOAT (affirmed) 20 Questioned by MR BLAKE 21 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much, can you state your full 22 name, please. 23 A. My full name is Benjamin Andrew Foat. 24 Q. Thank you very much, Mr Foat. You have produced a very 25 large number of witness statements throughout the course 1 1 of this Inquiry. I'm not going to take you to each one 2 individually but I'll just go through each of them to 3 confirm that they are all true to the best of your 4 knowledge and belief. 5 The first witness statement is POL00114188ds, that 6 is dated 23 March 2023. 7 The second is dated 21 June 2023 and has a URN of 8 POL00118164ds. That one, in fact, you have sworn on 9 your last appearance. 10 The third witness statement is WITN09980300, dated 11 22 August 2023. 12 The fourth is WITN09980400, dated 3 May 2024. 13 The sixth is dated 8 October 2024, and has a URN of 14 WITN09980600. 15 There are also a number of interim disclosure 16 statements. The first of those is POL00114170ds, dated 17 27 May 2022. 18 The second is POL00114173ds, dated 18 October 2022. 19 The third is POL00114176ds, dated 30 November 2022. 20 The fourth is POL00114177ds, dated 12 January 2023. 21 Are you able to confirm that your signature appears 22 on all of those statements? 23 A. It does. 24 Q. Can you confirm that all of those statements are true to 25 the best of your knowledge and belief? 2 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. Thank you very much. 3 Mr Foat, all of those statements will be uploaded to 4 the Inquiry's website in due course. You are 5 a qualified solicitor; is that correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Before joining the Post Office, you worked in a number 8 of different firms in Australia and also in England. 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. You joined the Post Office in August 2015 as Head of 11 Legal for Financial Services -- 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. -- and you became Legal Director in 2016 and worked in 14 that role until 2019? 15 A. Correct, in August 2016 I was appointed Legal Director. 16 Q. Thank you. During that period Jane MacLeod was General 17 Counsel? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. You then became General Counsel from May 2019? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. You have been on a leave of absence for health reasons 22 since April 2024; is that correct? 23 A. Well, a mixture of time to focus on the Inquiry, I was 24 due to give evidence in Phase 5 and 6 and, again, for 25 Phase 7. So it's a mixture. 3 1 Q. Thank you very much. 2 Today will be in two halves. The first will address 3 issues relating to Phases 5 and 6, and that deals with, 4 for example, the Group Litigation, the CCRC, et cetera. 5 The second half will address Phase 7, so the current 6 practice at the Post Office. Each of those will 7 probably last around an hour each and we will have 8 a break in between the two, and we will see how we go in 9 terms of timing. It may be that we take a third break 10 as well. 11 To start with, knowledge of Horizon issues. You 12 refer in your witness statement to being told that 13 Horizon was robust. I think you've said like an air 14 traffic control system. Can you assist us with who told 15 you that and how you were told? 16 A. So upon joining Post Office when I was working in the 17 Financial Service area of the business, I think the 18 Panorama episode had aired and there was a communication 19 that was issued to employees that set out Post Office's 20 position in relation to the matter, and over the -- and 21 that set out that Post Office thought that the system 22 was robust. 23 In terms of the comment about the air traffic 24 control, that was a statement that I heard on a number 25 of occasions from people. I don't recall specifically 4 1 the individual who said it but it was a phrase that was 2 used. I suspect it came from someone in the IT 3 Department, given the nature of it. But that was -- it 4 was a comment that I remembered that phrase, because it 5 seemed like an unusual comparison. 6 Q. You also say that you knew very little of the Post 7 Office's role in prosecuting subpostmasters when you 8 joined. Was the Panorama programme the first time that 9 you became aware of that role? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Was the prosecution of subpostmasters something that was 12 discussed in the Legal Team in the early years of your 13 time at the Post Office? 14 A. In 2015, not that I recall. At that point, I was very 15 much focused on coming up to speed of what was needed in 16 my Head of Legal Financial Services role, specifically 17 the establishment of the Banking Framework Agreement, 18 establishing the Post Office Insurance Intermediary 19 business. 20 So Post Office established, for the first time 21 an insurance intermediary that was regulated by the FCA, 22 and I sat on the Risk and Compliance Committee of that, 23 and the Executive Committee. So I don't really recall 24 much discussion about the Group Litigation. It was 25 clearly something that the organisation was involved and 5 1 there were general communications, but it wasn't my 2 focus at that point. 3 Q. In terms of the Head of Legal for Financial Services, 4 did any matters relating to prosecutions come up in that 5 particular role? 6 A. No. 7 Q. No. How about the Legal Director role? 8 A. No, when I was appointed to Legal Director, I had 9 a discussion with Jane MacLeod about what she wanted me 10 to do. It was a newly established role, so the role 11 didn't exist prior to me doing so. She said, in terms 12 of the division of labour, that she would focus on the 13 Board issues and the Executive, and what she wanted me 14 to focus on was managing the Legal Team of this circa 20 15 lawyers and that she wanted me to focus on improving the 16 legal operations of the business because there, to put 17 it frankly, there wasn't much by way of legal 18 operations. 19 So that was the division of labour. 20 Q. What do you mean by legal operations, briefly? 21 A. Legal operations is the controls and policies that 22 a Legal Department can put in place in order to not just 23 help the Legal Department but also help the business. 24 So that might include a central repository of contracts, 25 it would include contract framework agreements, it would 6 1 include legal manuals, so trying to make sure that the 2 company understood all of the legal matters that it 3 actually has, understand where they come from in the 4 business, so that the company can have a more mature 5 approach to the management of legal risk. 6 Q. Thank you. I'm going to take you to a document from 7 2017 that touches on matters relating to prosecutions. 8 Could we bring up on to screen POL00357840. For 9 your assistance that's at E41. It's an email chain 10 from, as I say, June 2017. If we scroll down to the 11 bottom of the first page, we can see it's an email that 12 begins from Alisdair Cameron to you and he says as 13 follows, says: 14 "The guidance yesterday was that we should not 15 attempt to prosecute any cases where the losses had 16 arisen from or were identified via trading and Horizon 17 rather than a straight theft, until two things happen. 18 Firstly we complete the Deloitte work on systems 19 reliance. Secondly the CCRC opine. The former is fine 20 and I gather we are close. The second I want us to make 21 as a formal judgment with Paula engaged because it is 22 a big deal, with an open timetable and a strong sense 23 that this is now costing us blood. 24 "My preference would be to do the Deloitte work and 25 then seek a prosecution relying on Horizon in a single 7 1 sympathetic case -- admission, good evidence, not too 2 sympathetic a postmaster, not part of the GLO etc. And 3 then we will know. 4 "In the meantime I have a specialist team setting up 5 prosecutions that will never happen. We can get them 6 doing other stuff for now but I need to lay them off if 7 the prospects aren't there?" 8 If we scroll up, we can see a response from Jane 9 MacLeod. Halfway through that second paragraph, she 10 says: 11 "Since security operations transferred out of LRG 12 ..." 13 Can you assist us, what does LRG mean? 14 A. LRG is Jane MacLeod's team, so the "L" stands for Legal, 15 "R" stands for Risk, and "G" stands for Governance, 16 which in effect is meant to be secretariat. 17 Q. Thank you: 18 "Since accurate operations transferred out of LRG 19 last September, we have discussed only one case that 20 could potentially be subject to prosecution. Most of 21 the prosecution team -- including the necessary legal 22 resource, left the business 2 years ago under the wave 1 23 redundancy programme. 24 "So one of the factors to be considered would be 25 whether we want to undertake our own prosecutions with 8 1 the likely increased cost, or whether we refer them to 2 the police and provide the necessary support." 3 Can you assist us with why, in June 2017, you were 4 sent emails or copied into emails relating to the 5 potential resumption of prosecutions? 6 A. Yes, certainly. So I sat on Al's property Board meeting 7 and so, in the course of that meeting, he happened to 8 speak to me -- well, it was actually after the 9 meeting -- and he expressed the desire to resume 10 agent -- what was referred to as agent debt recovery, 11 and I think you can see from his email that he 12 illustrates that. 13 And so, because he had spoken to me, he wrote the 14 email to me, but then you see, of course, that it's 15 actually Jane who responds to him because the way that 16 it was structured in terms of the Group Litigation is 17 that Jane and Rod Williams, who was the Head of Legal 18 for Dispute Resolution, was in a working group and 19 a programme to manage the Group Litigation. And that 20 had a SteerCo and obviously a Board subcommittee. So 21 that's why Al raised the question with me but it's why 22 Jane actually responds. 23 Q. Did you have a view in respect of Mr Cameron's proposal? 24 A. I didn't have a firm view. I felt I was a bit too 25 removed from the issue to be able to opine on it and 9 1 Jane had answered the question, had responded in the 2 email. 3 Q. Thank you. I think you do take some action following 4 this. If we could turn to POL00249526, that's your E70. 5 I think you forward this chain to Rodric Williams and 6 ask him to do some further work on it. You say: 7 "Can you do a [background] note on this area ... 8 "The questions that need to be answered including: 9 "The time limit on bringing a prosecution; 10 "The different reasons for not pursuing prosecutions 11 ... 12 "What categories of loss should be pursued ... 13 "Whether the prosecutions team help with the civil 14 investigations that need resource ..." 15 Can you assist us, at this point in time, where did 16 Rodric Williams fall within line management: were you 17 managing him? 18 A. Yes, so I managed Rod holistically in terms of all of 19 his remit. However, the way that it works at Post 20 Office is that, in this particular case, because the GLO 21 programme wasn't a BAU matter, Rod reported directly to 22 Jane MacLeod on the issue. So that's why, for instance, 23 I'm not involved in the working groups, I'm not involved 24 in instructing counsel, I'm not involved in the GLO 25 steering committees or attending the Board on the Group 10 1 Litigation. 2 I think what this email shows is that I obviously 3 don't know enough of the context of what's being 4 discussed and I'm trying to get up to speed. One of the 5 things I had asked Rod to do was, although I wasn't 6 involved -- and indeed, I had actually asked to be 7 involved, but if Rod could keep me up to date just on 8 the milestones of the GLO. 9 Q. Did you work in an office with Rodric Williams? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Did you meet regularly; did you have team discussions? 12 A. Yes, I had one-to-one discussions usually on a monthly 13 basis with all of my Heads of Legal. Rod predominantly 14 worked on the Group Litigation. However, he also was 15 responsible for a number of other matters, as well, and 16 so -- and importantly, given my focus was on legal 17 operations, I was keen to make sure that, for him as 18 Head of Legal for Dispute Resolution, that he was 19 looking at a claim protocol, for instance, so that if 20 claims are served on Post Office branches, how do we 21 make sure that we actually get to see those claims in 22 the Legal Department? 23 So there are a number of different operations that 24 I was requiring the Heads of Legal to undertake, for 25 instance making sure that all matters that they had 11 1 conduct of were set out, so that we had a central 2 repository, and also making sure we understood where the 3 accountable owners were in the business, and also giving 4 some estimate of time, so that we could better 5 understand where the risk -- the legal risk of the 6 business sat. 7 So Rod was heavily involved in the GLO but he did 8 have number of other obligations, which I was 9 particularly interested in making sure continued. 10 Q. Was one of his roles related to matters relating to 11 criminal matters? 12 A. Correct. Though I understand that Rod had a firm called 13 Cartwright King and that he would engage those matters. 14 I wasn't involved in those matters, but I understand he 15 reported to Jane on those. 16 Q. Would he have been your principal, go-to person within 17 the team for matters relating to criminal prosecutions? 18 A. During my tenure, yes, that's correct. 19 Q. Thank you. I'd like to take you to a document that you 20 will not have seen at the time it was produced. It's 21 POL00315631, that's your E45. This is a document that's 22 well familiar to the Inquiry. You may have seen it in 23 previous phases. It's an advice from Cartwright King, 24 dated 27 March 2015. It addresses what we know as 25 Project Zebra, the investigation relating to remote 12 1 access. I'd just like to read to you a few passages 2 from this note. They say, "Note: Deloitte Report -- 3 Questions for [the Post Office]". 4 I'll start at paragraph 2. They highlight at 5 paragraph 2 that, within the Deloitte report, it: 6 "... identifies a method of posting 'Balancing 7 Transactions', that is, the post of '... additional 8 transactions centrally without the requirement for the 9 transactions to be accepted by the subpostmasters ...' 10 The paragraphs goes on to indicate that, 'Whilst 11 an audit trail is asserted to be in place over these 12 functions, evidence of testing of these features is not 13 available ...'" 14 There are also later extracts in that report that 15 are reported to be of concern. The first is: 16 "'For balancing transactions ... we did not identify 17 controls to routinely monitor all centrally initiated 18 transactions to verify that they are all initiated and 19 actioned through known governed processes ...' 20 "'Controls that would detect when a person with 21 authorised privileged access used such access to send 22 a fake basket into the digital signing process could not 23 be evidenced to exist'." 24 Then Cartwright King say this: 25 "This material is potentially disclosable in cases 13 1 where a convicted defendant had raised, as a part of his 2 defence (either expressly or by implication), the 3 suggestion that: 4 "[The Post Office] or some other third party had 5 manipulated, interfered with or otherwise compromised 6 Horizon; or 7 "Horizon was created or was the victim of a system 8 generated but inexplicable loss/entry/transaction(s); or 9 "The defendant simply had no idea how the relevant 10 loss arose." 11 Reading this, the Zebra report had identified 12 a number of pieces of information relevant to the issue 13 of remote access and the discussion is as to the 14 disclosability of that to those who had been convicted. 15 Moving on to paragraph 6, it refers there to 16 a telephone conference with Rodric Williams of the Post 17 Office and Andrew Parsons of Bond Dickinson, who were: 18 "... informed that the Deloitte Report was correct 19 where it identifies a method of posting of 'Balancing 20 Transactions'." 21 It says: 22 "We were instructed that it was possible to 'inject' 23 a transaction unilaterally into a branch's accounting 24 records without the consent, approval or indeed 25 knowledge of the [subpostmaster] ..." 14 1 Was this issue, so remote access, potential 2 disclosure, in criminal cases, those who had been 3 convicted of criminal offences, was that ever brought to 4 your attention by Rodric Williams? 5 A. No, and I think this document is a document before I was 6 employed at -- 7 Q. Absolutely, yes. During your time though, I mean, you 8 had some involvement in the Group Litigation, for 9 example, and we'll get to that in due course. Did 10 Rodric Williams ever bring up this knowledge that we see 11 in this document? 12 A. No. 13 Q. No. Looking back, what is your view of Mr Williams' 14 competence and credibility? 15 A. My observation that I had was he was a very experienced 16 litigation lawyer. I recall that I think he commenced 17 his legal career in New Zealand. He was also admitted 18 to the New York Bar. He had also practised in the 19 United States, and he had also practised here for number 20 of years, all specialising in commercial litigation. 21 I found him to be a very diligent and passionate lawyer. 22 I didn't have issues around his technical competence; in 23 fact, I found his technical competence to be sound. 24 Q. Do you have any reflections on that now or is that still 25 your view? 15 1 A. Well, I understand that Mr Williams has identified that 2 there are areas that were missed and, of course, with 3 that in mind, obviously any lawyer, you know, would be 4 incredibly mindful of missing such pertinent 5 information, which particularly in the circumstances of 6 where it can lead to such devastation, and I know that 7 that has played on Mr Williams. 8 But my genuine observation of working with him is 9 that he is a person of integrity and he's tried to do 10 his best in the circumstances, but I acknowledge that 11 clearly issues have been missed. 12 Q. I'm going to take you to a number of emails regarding 13 document retention that were sent by Mr Williams. Can 14 we start, please, with POL00255859. That's your E47. 15 A. Thank you, sir. 16 Q. This is an email of 20 April 2016. We can see near the 17 bottom of the distribution list you were a recipient of 18 this email. 19 If we scroll down, please, it says: 20 "As you may be aware, 91 mostly former postmasters 21 have issued a High Court claim against Post Office 22 Limited advancing allegations about the Horizon IT 23 system and the Post Office's engagement with them. 24 A list of the 91 claimants is attached, and we have been 25 told that others may join the claim in due course." 16 1 This email is 20 April 2016. Were you aware of the 2 Group Litigation before this email? 3 A. Yes, I would have been. At this point of time, I was 4 Head of Legal for Financial Services but I -- even upon 5 joining Post Office, I was made aware that there was 6 this matter. Indeed, I think I received communications 7 from the business in a relatively short time, having 8 commenced at Post Office. During this period, though, 9 for the reasons I've given before, I wasn't particularly 10 focused on this and I didn't supervise Rod at this 11 juncture. 12 Q. Thank you. A number of instructions. The first is: 13 "You must not destroy or delete any documents which 14 may be relevant to the claim ..." 15 The second: 16 "You must not meant any existing documents that may 17 be relevant to the claim." 18 It's the third that I'd like to focus on, which is: 19 "You must recognise that any documents that you 20 create from now on may have to be disclosed to the other 21 side in the case. If in any doubt, think about whether 22 you would be happy for the email or document to be read 23 out loud in court." 24 To what extent, at this point in time, were you live 25 to that third issue? 17 1 A. I mean, I would clearly have received the email. 2 I don't particularly recall reading the email, but 3 I understand -- I mean, in some respects, this is 4 a general email that would be sent to make sure that 5 the -- any organisation, when it's in receipt of legal 6 proceedings, that it makes sure it tells the business 7 that it needs to retain its documentation. 8 Q. Do you see any issue with the third point or, in your 9 view, is that standard wording? 10 A. I think what Rod is -- and it's perhaps an informal 11 expression, but what he's articulating to the business 12 here is for them to be mindful that obviously when you 13 commit information to writing, of course that is -- that 14 can be disclosable and it's just reminding people of 15 email usage. 16 Q. Was legal professional privilege more broadly something 17 that was well understood within the Post Office at this 18 time? 19 A. I don't think it was well understood -- and, forgive me, 20 this is going back several years. Legal professional 21 privilege was an area that I think training was actually 22 provided to certainly the Legal Department, to make sure 23 the lawyers understood, and I think -- there was 24 training and particularly when we had what we referred 25 to internally as the "legal academy", we issued I think 18 1 an advice or guidance note on what is legal professional 2 privilege. 3 I don't really recall specifics about it, other 4 than, I mean, generally the maturity of -- or the 5 business's knowledge about such legal matters would have 6 been very limited. 7 Q. From your interactions with, for example, the Executive 8 and the Board level, as you progressed through your 9 career, what was your view of their appreciation and 10 understanding of legal professional privilege? 11 A. I think they perhaps had a misguided understanding. So, 12 for instance, I think people thought that the mere fact 13 that you include a lawyer in correspondence, that that 14 may make a document become privileged. That's not 15 correct. Legal professional privilege is set out in the 16 Three Rivers decision under English law, and so, you 17 know, basically it's twofold: one, it arises under 18 litigation; and/or the provision of legal advice. And 19 that's the only two bases upon which -- and I'm 20 over-simplifying the topic area, of course, but that is 21 the two bases upon which legal professional privilege 22 applies. 23 Q. Jane MacLeod has provided a witness statement to the 24 Inquiry where she says that often documents were marked 25 as privileged when they weren't, in fact, privileged; 19 1 was that your experience? 2 A. I don't think I was involved, in terms of the disclosure 3 parts of the Group Litigation, because it was 4 essentially before my time. But as a general point, 5 I could imagine that that is the case: that people -- 6 certainly if it's done by business colleagues -- though 7 query why business colleagues would be writing the word 8 "Privileged", that is something that a lawyer would 9 write. 10 Q. Ms MacLeod has also highlighted that from April 2016, 11 when the business was informed that Freeths had filed 12 a claim, she was more sensitive about confidentiality 13 and privilege issues, given the risk that the litigation 14 was imminent, and some updates were therefore given 15 verbally only from that point. Is that something that 16 you experienced? 17 A. Well, I -- as said, as Legal Director, I really wasn't 18 involved in the Group Litigation programme but I was 19 aware of the fact that Jane would give verbal updates to 20 the Board. I think -- and this is probably some time 21 later, probably in, I think, 2018, but she was 22 particularly concerned around the disclosure of 23 information between Post Office and the shareholder 24 and/or UKGI. And so one of the areas that she had 25 highlighted to Rod -- and I think I was included in 20 1 that -- was the need for a litigation protocol or 2 a document protocol between the respective 3 organisations, so that, if there was what's called 4 common interest privilege, that that could be 5 maintained. 6 Q. Do you think that that impacted in the level of 7 information that was shared with UKGI? 8 A. I really don't think I could comment because I simply 9 wasn't there. 10 Q. I'm going to return to the circular email from Rodric 11 Williams, I'll take you to another version of the same 12 email. It's POL00245909. That's your E49. We're now 13 on 23 November 2016. 14 If we scroll down or zoom out, we can see it's 15 exactly the same email that we've already looked at, in 16 terms of the 1, 2 and 3. If we scroll up we can see 17 it's sent by Rodric Williams to Rob Houghton and Jeff 18 Smyth; do you know who they were? 19 A. Yes, so Rob Houghton was the Chief Information IT 20 Officer of the company between -- and forgive me if the 21 dates aren't quite precise -- but I think between 2015 22 or 2016 and 2019, and Jeff Smyth became the Chief 23 Information Officer in or about 2022 onwards. 24 Q. Thank you. He highlights there: 25 "Point number 3 in the email highlights the need for 21 1 care when creating documents." 2 Are you aware of a concern within the Legal Team 3 focusing in particular on the creation of documents and 4 the need, for example, for things not necessarily to be 5 written down? 6 A. No, I was not. 7 Q. The same email chain is sent in May 2017. We can have 8 a look at POL00415520, that's your E50. There are other 9 examples that I could take you to but I don't think we 10 need to because what's relevant really is just the point 11 in time. If we scroll down to page 2, we see there the 12 same email sent in May 2017. By this stage, were you 13 supervising Mr Williams? 14 A. In May 2017, yes, I -- Rod reported into me generally 15 but not in relation to this matter. 16 Q. No, but generally, and from your observations of 17 Mr Williams -- because we'll see there were a number of 18 other occasions where the same email is forwarded -- was 19 he somebody who struck you as particularly concerned 20 about the recording or not recording of particular 21 information in light of legal professional privilege 22 concerns and in light of the litigation? 23 A. I wasn't aware of that concern. I'm not disputing what 24 you're saying but I personally wasn't aware of that 25 concern. 22 1 Q. If we could please turn to POL00293080, that's your E57. 2 Moving on in time slightly in the summer of 2017, we're 3 now in August 2017, this is a letter to the registrar of 4 the Criminal Appeals Office on Post Office headed paper 5 sent by Mr Williams. If we scroll down, we can see he's 6 the author of this letter. That middle paragraph says: 7 "Royal Mail Group and Post Office became separate 8 organisations on 1 April 2012 ... and we are currently 9 establishing whether Royal Mail Group or Post Office 10 hold material in relation to this case." 11 So there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal in the 12 case of Mr Butoy, and Mr Williams appears to be dealing 13 with that matter. You were, by this stage, his line 14 manager; is that correct? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Did you see or were you kept informed of these kinds of 17 developments? 18 A. No, as I said, matters that were pertaining to the Group 19 Litigation, that was something that he would have 20 separate conversations with Jane MacLeod directly on. 21 She would quite regularly come down to the floor, take 22 him into a meeting room, have conversations with him on 23 the matters that related to the Group Litigation. 24 I think, subsequently, I had seen that there -- as 25 part of trying to make sure that there's good legal 23 1 operations in the company, that it was noted -- in a -- 2 I used to try to get the team to get monthly reports up 3 to Jane MacLeod, and I have subsequently seen that there 4 was a reference -- I think there's a sentence in 5 relation to this matter -- but I was not involved in 6 this appeal at all and I didn't give any advice or any 7 decisions in respect of it. 8 Q. Your references to the Group Litigation -- this is 9 obviously separate, this is an appeal to the Criminal 10 Court of Appeal -- was that also being kept separate 11 from your role and responsibilities? 12 A. Correct, because they were inherently linked and so 13 I did not have any involvement in that. 14 Q. At this point in time, was there any consideration given 15 in your department to expertise in criminal law, 16 somebody who is well familiar with criminal disclosure, 17 for example? 18 A. At this point, my understanding was that Rod would 19 interact with Womble Bond Dickinson, Cartwright King and 20 I think there were counsel that were involved. But we 21 did not have a criminal lawyer and I think that part of 22 the reason was that, at this point, and since I had been 23 Legal Director, Post Office did not undertake criminal 24 prosecutions. But I accept your -- I accept your point. 25 I think you may be suggesting that it ought to have had 24 1 its own criminal lawyer but my understanding was that, 2 because Post Office wasn't undertaking criminal 3 prosecutions, it therefore didn't have a criminal 4 lawyer, and we had a fairly tight inhouse Legal Team. 5 Q. Do you think you had sufficient expertise within the 6 department to be able to be dealing with, for example, 7 the Criminal Cases Review Commission? 8 A. As I said, I mean, that is a matter again that Rod 9 worked with Jane on. I understand he did have support 10 through Cartwright King, who I understand are criminal 11 law specialists, and that he had counsel, and I never 12 heard from him that he felt unsupported in that way. My 13 observation was that there wasn't that much, in terms of 14 any criminal law issues, at that time, but I'm clearly 15 removed from the details of all of this. So I wouldn't 16 have had the best -- I wouldn't have been in the best 17 position to have made such observations. 18 Q. If we could turn to POL00257831. That's your E54. This 19 is an appeal chain that you're not copied into, and I'm 20 just going to really, by way of timeline, if we scroll 21 down to the bottom we're now in October 2018. This is 22 an email from Mr Williams to individuals at UKGI. He 23 says: 24 "The purpose of this email is to let you know that 25 on Thursday, 11 October 2018 the Criminal Court of 25 1 Appeal will hear an application from a former postmaster 2 seeking permission to appeal ..." 3 If we scroll up, we can see that is relating to the 4 case of Mr Butoy, who we saw a letter in relation to 5 just before. It says: 6 "Mr Butoy's application for permission to appeal was 7 refused earlier today." 8 Then in the next paragraph it says: 9 "In response to Tom's enquiry from earlier this 10 morning, Mr Butoy has not applied to the Criminal Cases 11 Review Commission for a review of his conviction, ie he 12 is not one of the 33 Post Office prosecutions currently 13 being reviewed by the CCRC." 14 Were you aware at this stage of the significant 15 number of Post Office prosecutions that were being 16 reviewed by the CCRC? 17 A. No. My understanding at this stage -- I was aware that 18 the CCRC had been involved in the Group Litigation. 19 I think my understanding at this point was the CCRC was 20 waiting to understand what was happening with the Group 21 Litigation. I mean, I had a very limited understanding 22 around the process around the CCRC at this point. 23 Q. As somebody who managed Mr Williams, why is it that so 24 much is taking place between Mr Williams and Ms MacLeod, 25 rather than Mr Williams discussing these kinds of 26 1 matters with you? 2 A. Because she's the General Counsel and it was her 3 decision to divide the work in this way, which I don't 4 think is necessarily unreasonable, in the sense that the 5 Group Litigation was a significant matter and, as the 6 General Counsel now, I think she wanted to have the 7 Subject Matter Expert -- which internally within the 8 team was Rod -- and she wanted to work in that way that 9 she had that direct access. 10 Moreover, there were a significant number of legal 11 issues other than the Group Litigation that also needed 12 to be managed, which was my focus, and so that was the 13 basis upon which she divided the labour. 14 I did actually ask twice to -- I offered my services 15 to help on the Group Litigation but she said that that 16 wasn't necessary. 17 Q. What was your understanding as to why that wasn't 18 necessary? 19 A. Because she said we already had a lot of lawyers 20 involved in the matter. 21 Q. If we could please turn to POL00259733. That's your 22 E23. This is an email chain from 29 November 2018. If 23 we scroll down to the bottom, we can see it's an email 24 from Grove Road Post Office, sent to a number of people 25 including Paula Vennells. 27 1 If we scroll down, we can see the author says: 2 "I have not left my position as postmaster for Hope 3 Farm Road and Grove Road post offices. I still hold 4 a valid contract for both branches. I am however 5 precautionarily suspended from my duties at the moment 6 due to your client's perception of circumstances that 7 I have, as yet, not been given the opportunity to have 8 a dialogue with your client's representative to put my 9 side of the story to your client. I have a meeting 10 arranged for 4 December 2018 to discuss this. 11 "I dispute that I owe your client the sum of 12 [£35,000] in fact I am currently making repayments 13 towards this figure from my remuneration albeit under 14 duress and without prejudice." 15 It then says: 16 "To this end I have registered as a secondary 17 claimant to the Group Litigation Order currently being 18 dealt with by the High Court in the matter of Bates & 19 Others ..." 20 If we scroll up, we can see a response, it's 21 forwarded, I think, to you by Jane MacLeod. She says: 22 "Please get someone to deal with this." 23 If we scroll up above we see your response: 24 "We are on it and I'll revert back with a note to 25 you on how it is being managed." 28 1 By November 2018, had you become more involved in 2 matters relating to the Group Litigation? 3 A. Not the Group Litigation programme itself but I think at 4 that stage the issues around the contracts and agent 5 debt had been raised, and so I think, in this respect, 6 it would have been either the Head of Legal for Retail 7 because the -- it's a current postmaster, I think, at 8 that point, and/or it would have gone to Rod. 9 Q. Is it fair to say that by November 2018 you were aware 10 of issues concerning the resumption of prosecutions, 11 those first documents that we saw, and you were also, to 12 some extent, involved in matters touching on the Group 13 Litigation? 14 A. I don't think I was aware of the resumption of 15 prosecutions. 16 Q. Involved in discussions relating to the resumption of 17 prosecutions? 18 A. I was not involved in resuming any criminal 19 prosecutions. 20 Q. Involved in discussions relating to those: the emails 21 that we saw when we started today? 22 A. Sure but I was not involved in any discussions relating 23 to that matter. I did not instruct Cartwright King. 24 I did not make any decisions on that. So whilst it may 25 be in a document that I have been copied into, I was not 29 1 involved in that matter whatsoever. 2 Q. In relation to the GLO, by November 2018, is it fair to 3 summarise as some involvement on the sidelines? 4 A. Well, I may have been copied into matters that related, 5 if you want to say "on the sideline", but to be clear, 6 I did not attend the Working Group, I was not involved 7 in instructing any external lawyers, I was not involved 8 in attending the SteerCo, in which decisions were made, 9 and I did not attend the Board subcommittee that made 10 the decisions in respect of the matter. 11 It's not to say that I didn't have any information 12 about it and I absolutely was aware of the major 13 milestones. So, of course -- and, indeed, I actually 14 asked Rod to keep me up to speed on the major issues. 15 Q. Thank you. 15 March 2019, so moving on a little, that 16 was the Common Issues Judgment, and I'd like to look at 17 an email of the same day, that's POL00023809. That can 18 be found at your E9. If we start at the bottom of 19 page 3 into page 4. If we scroll up slightly we can see 20 it's an email from Jane MacLeod and you're copied in at 21 this stage: 22 "Please see attached a first draft of the 'more 23 detailed' briefing to go to UKGI ... tomorrow ... on the 24 detail of the judgment." 25 If we scroll up, please. Mr Beabey, where did he 30 1 fit within your team? 2 A. So because Jane had said to me that Rod was spending, 3 understandably, a lot of time on the Group Litigation, 4 she -- and, of course, I needed him to do other 5 litigation work, we came to the view that we needed 6 an additional litigation lawyer to be part of the 7 inhouse team. So he became involved in supporting the 8 litigation areas within the Legal Department. 9 I think -- actually, no, I don't recall which law 10 firm he may have come from. 11 Q. He says: 12 "I know there's a framework around information 13 sharing with UKGI -- my immediate thought concerns the 14 status of the document when it goes across in terms of 15 privilege and restrictions from subsequent disclosure by 16 them under [the Freedom of Information Act]?" 17 If we scroll up, we can see an email from Amy Prime, 18 junior solicitor at Womble Bond Dickinson. She's 19 responding to him, so the "Ben" referred to there is 20 him. She says: 21 "It would be easier to maintain privilege over 22 an advice note to [the Post Office] that is being shared 23 with UKGI, rather than a note to UKGI. The problem with 24 a note to UKGI is that they are not the lawyer's ... 25 client and so legal advice privilege does not apply. We 31 1 think this would be a document prepared for the purpose 2 of litigation, and therefore attract litigation 3 privilege, but it's not 100% clear cut." 4 If we scroll up, there's a response from 5 Mr Underwood, Mark Underwood. He says: 6 "Amy -- please see attached. Presumably, similar 7 problems arise re privilege and [Freedom of Information 8 Act]. Is there a way to navigate our way through those 9 in relation to the attached briefing which Patrick has 10 prepared for UKGI/Ministers?" 11 The response is the first email on the page. 12 Ms Prime says: 13 "Yes, the same problem arise [for] this document. 14 "For UKGI, is necessary to produce a separate paper 15 to Jane's briefing note which is being shared under the 16 protocol? 17 "For BEIS, it is not 100% clear cut that litigation 18 privilege would apply to this document ..." 19 She says below that: 20 "We would therefore recommend that the document does 21 not contain any information that would be awkward or 22 damaging to Post Office if it was publicly released." 23 Now, that's an email chain that you're copied into. 24 I think you've already explained some concerns within 25 the Department or from Ms MacLeod relating specifically 32 1 to UKGI. Were there concerns at this point in time in 2 the business with sharing certain information with UKGI 3 because of privilege issues? 4 A. Yes. I think Jane had concerns and I think it may have 5 even predated this document, but I -- my recollection 6 generally is that she did have concerns about 7 information, the way it could be communicated to UKGI 8 and the Government Shareholder. I think her concerns 9 were whether a privilege would be lost or, if 10 information does go to a Government department and it's 11 then on-forwarded or shared further, the -- of course, 12 as lawyers will know, that then undermines or creates 13 a risk that you lose confidentiality, you lose the 14 privileged status that is attached to the document. 15 Q. Thank you. That can come down. 16 The 9 April 2019 was the recusal judgment. Were you 17 in any way involved in that matter? 18 A. No, but I was made aware of the recusal. I remember 19 Jane -- I remember having a conversation with Jane and 20 she said -- she informed me that recusal application was 21 going to be made in the Group Litigation. I expressed 22 surprise. I made the -- I actually remember the comment 23 saying that, "Oh, I thought it would be a high bar", and 24 she said, "No, actually, it's" -- and then she 25 articulated what the legal test was to me. 33 1 So for some reason that's really the only bit that 2 I remember, but I was aware that the recusal application 3 was going to be made but, again, I didn't appoint any of 4 the barristers -- Lord Neuberger, Lord Grabiner, 5 I wasn't involved in their appointment -- and I wasn't 6 involved in the Board meetings. 7 Q. One of your areas of responsibility as Legal Director 8 was managing legal risk. Do you think you were 9 sufficiently informed by Ms MacLeod, by those involved 10 in that litigation of the legal risks involved at that 11 stage? 12 A. It's Ms MacLeod who, as the General Counsel, ultimately 13 manages and supports the business to manage legal risk. 14 So I reported to Jane MacLeod. She was my boss and she 15 is an admitted solicitor and she was managing the Group 16 Litigation. So I -- as an independent regulated 17 solicitor, I didn't think it's unreasonable for the 18 General Counsel to take ownership of the matter and she 19 had a different role in the Group Litigation, in that 20 she would -- she attended the Common Issues trial, 21 I think almost every day, and she attended the Horizon 22 Issues trial. So that was her decision to resource the 23 legal matters in that way. 24 Q. We're going to look at one last document before we break 25 and it relates to Ms MacLeod stepping down. 34 1 Irrespective of the fact that it was her job to manage 2 the overall risk, do you think, at this stage, you had 3 been given sufficient information, sufficient updates, 4 sufficient briefings, relating to matters such as the 5 Group Litigation and the CCRC? 6 A. No, because although I, from my own pro-activeness, 7 asked for updates, I wasn't involved in any of the 8 Working Group meetings, I didn't instruct counsel, 9 I didn't attend the Executive SteerCo that oversaw this 10 matter from an Executive position in the company, and 11 nor did I attend the Board subcommittee, which made all 12 of the decisions in relation to the matter. 13 The General Counsel ultimately has responsibility 14 for supporting the business to manage its legal risk and 15 so there is no higher person, and that was her decision 16 to manage it in that way. And she was supported. 17 I think it's important to note that she was supported by 18 several QCs because when I offered my support -- not 19 just once, twice, I recall offering it -- she was 20 supported by multiple Queen's Counsel, now King's 21 Counsel, as well as a number of barristers and a law 22 firm. 23 Q. Thank you we'll just go to that document. It's 24 POL00359988, it's at your E42. It's an email from 25 Ms MacLeod to herself. I think she sends it to her 35 1 personal email account from perhaps her work email 2 account -- or certainly two of her own accounts. It's 3 subject is "Update": 4 "Monday 5 "Meeting 15/4/2019", with Mr Cameron. 6 I'll just read to you a few passages from that. She 7 says there: 8 "Al then said 'I'm going to say something that will 9 make you angry' 10 "Then informed me that 'we' weren't happy with the 11 litigation" -- 12 A. I'm sorry to interrupt. I think the connection dropped 13 out. If you're able to -- I got the beginning of the 14 document. 15 Q. Thank you. So it's an email from Ms MacLeod to herself. 16 She records a meeting from 15 April 2019 with Mr Cameron 17 and she sets out there in the fourth bullet point that 18 Mr Cameron said to her "I'm going to say something that 19 will make you angry": 20 "[They] informed me that 'we' weren't happy with the 21 litigation, and wanted to bring in ..." 22 Is that Herbert Smith? 23 A. Correct. That's what I presume, yes. 24 Q. "... to run it." 25 So what was Herbert Smith's role before this? 36 1 A. Herbert Smith was not involved at all. 2 Q. Do you know who made the decision for them to be brought 3 in? 4 A. I understand subsequently that the Chairman -- or, 5 sorry, obviously the former Chairman, the Chairman at 6 the time, Tim Parker, the Government Shareholder 7 representative, Tom Cooper, together with Al Cameron who 8 was the interim CEO and, of course, the subsequent CFO, 9 they approached two law firms one of which was Herbert 10 Smith, and they appointed Herbert Smith. 11 Q. Thank you. That's consistent with the bullet point 12 below. It then says that: 13 "[Mr Cameron] was vague about role (taking it over, 14 independent or just replacing me). 15 "I expressed concern about the timing vis à vis 16 current process. 17 "I asked whether change that immediate effect -- it 18 did. 19 "I Asked if [Herbert Smith] were expecting to be 20 instructed this week -- they were. I asked whether he 21 wanted me involved in briefing [Herbert Smith] -- he did 22 and asked me to meet with them that day ..." 23 Can you assist us: what was the feeling within the 24 company, within the senior levels of the company, at 25 this stage, towards the way the litigation had been 37 1 handled? 2 A. Well, when the Common Issues Judgment was handed down 3 and was communicated, I think it came as a great shock 4 to the organisation and I think that people such as Al, 5 and some members of the Board, were very disappointed in 6 the legal advice, in the sense that the legal advice was 7 simply not borne out in the judgment. 8 Q. If we scroll down, there's mention of speaking to you to 9 give you the heads up of the proposed changes; do you 10 recall that conversation? 11 A. Yeah, I recall she asked me to go to her office and 12 I went into her office and she appeared upset and she 13 said that HSF were, in effect, replacing her role. 14 Q. If we scroll down, was it clear to her that she was 15 being replaced more broadly than just in relation to 16 Group Litigation? 17 A. Oh, yes, that, in effect -- I don't recall if these 18 words were used, it's hard to remember the actual 19 conversation -- but I think it was she felt redundant. 20 Q. She then refers to another conversation with Mr Cameron 21 around 9.20, and it's just a passage I'd just like to 22 ask you about, it's the fourth bullet point: 23 "I asked who would instruct [Herbert Smith]/to whom 24 would a secondee report to? Al was unclear on this and 25 asked my view -- I said it was either Ben (lower than my 38 1 current accountability) or a [Group Executive] member, 2 but no one else was close to the issues." 3 Was it ultimately you -- 4 A. In -- sorry, in what sense? 5 Q. -- who would instruct Herbert Smith or who would be the 6 direct liaison with Herbert Smith? 7 A. So when I became General Counsel, so obviously the Board 8 had made a decision to appoint HSF, and so there's 9 obviously an engagement letter that needs to be signed 10 off the back of it. But, yes, as General Counsel, 11 I would then, and did so, liaise with HSF. 12 Q. As someone who was lower than Ms MacLeod's 13 accountability, did you feel comfortable taking on that 14 role? 15 A. Well, it was a step up, if that's the question. So yes, 16 I obviously was the Legal Director, and I would be -- 17 not that I think I knew at this point but, subsequently, 18 Al had a conversation with me and he said that he would 19 like to appoint me as General Counsel. 20 Q. What was your view as to whether that was a good 21 opportunity, something that you were qualified and 22 experienced for, or something that you weren't 23 sufficiently experienced for? 24 A. I knew it would be a challenging role. I have had the 25 benefit of having excellent previous experience, whether 39 1 it's as a senior associate in private practice or 2 teaching law at university, or publishing as well as 3 working in an inhouse role as -- for corporate lawyer 4 for a major financial services institution and, indeed, 5 by that point I'd also been on subsidiary executive 6 committees and also risk and compliance committees, and 7 so I've had the benefit of extensive experience but 8 I accept the point that it was my first General Counsel 9 role. 10 MR BLAKE: Thank you. 11 Sir, that might be an appropriate moment to take our 12 first morning break. 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. 14 MR BLAKE: Can we come back at quarter past? 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. 16 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 17 (10.06 am) 18 (A short break) 19 (10.15 am) 20 MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir. 21 Mr Foat, could we move on now to 11 May 2019. If we 22 could turn to POL00023233, and that's at your E8. The 23 Court of Appeal had refused permission to appeal in 24 relation to the recusal application. If we turn over to 25 page 2, we can see Mr Parsons providing an update on 40 1 that at the bottom of page 2. If we scroll down 2 slightly, he says: 3 "Please find attached the Court of Appeal's decision 4 refusing permission to appeal ..." 5 Then we have your response on page 1, at the bottom 6 of page 1. You say: 7 "Thanks both -- we will need to explain the CEO and 8 the Board why we received advice that is again contrary 9 to the outcome. Can we summarise the [Court of 10 Appeal's] conclusions and what was it that caused there 11 to be a different conclusion from the advice that was 12 given. I am concerned that credibility is being lost so 13 let's be clear on how this is to be positioned." 14 To what extent were you involved in the decision to 15 appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the recusal 16 application? 17 A. So the decision to appeal was already taken by the Board 18 on 20 March, so in the Board resolution -- I only know 19 this subsequently, of course -- but if you look in the 20 minutes of the Board resolution, they had made the 21 decision to recuse, at first instance, and should Lord 22 Justice Fraser now not grant permission, that the Board 23 authorise that recusal appeal be made. So the Board, 24 I understood had made that decision on 20 March. 25 Q. Thank you. In respect of the refusal of permission, how 41 1 was that received within the business? 2 A. This is Lord Justice Fraser's refusal on the permission 3 in the -- 4 Q. No, I think this is appeal, isn't it? The Court of 5 Appeal refusing permission. If we scroll down, sorry, 6 over the bottom of page 2 into page 3? 7 A. Sure. So I think the business was disappointed and it 8 was disappointed because, understandably, the Board had 9 taken advice from Lord Neuberger, Lord Grabiner and 10 David Cavender QC, and I think -- importantly, I think 11 it was in April that HSF was appointed and so I think, 12 from the Board's perspective, the Board was given legal 13 advice that suggested the Post Office had good merits in 14 making the application to appeal, or making the recusal 15 application and the appeal, and so the Board was, again, 16 disappointed like they were disappointed in the Common 17 Issues Judgment, which is why I make the point about 18 being concerned of the Legal Department losing 19 credibility. 20 Q. Could we turn to POL00042675, please. That's your B13. 21 If we could start on page 3. So the recusal application 22 having been lost and Court of Appeal having refused 23 permission, there's an email chain shortly after, 24 15 May, and it says as follows, from Mr Mitchell -- who 25 was Mick Mitchell? 42 1 A. I think it's someone in the IT Department. 2 Q. He says: 3 "Rob 4 "We have reached out to an independent test company 5 Ten10 to review our current and test strategies, 6 focusing on the Horizon/[Fujitsu] estate. We anticipate 7 the review will produce outputs around mid-June. We 8 will keep you informed and I will ask Isabel to 9 circulate the [Terms of Reference] for the work. If we 10 need to be more specific on Horizon then happy to accept 11 the feedback." 12 We can see on page 1 where this all leads to, and 13 it's advice from Mr Parsons from Womble Bond Dickinson, 14 yes, in May 2019 now, 17 May. He says: 15 "The work below makes me nervous. If the report 16 flags any risk in Horizon, we will be obliged to 17 disclose it to Freeths. The report landing in mid-June 18 would be terrible timing as it might land when Worden is 19 giving evidence or just as we are preparing closing 20 submissions. I would advise against conducting this 21 work whilst the Horizon trial is live. 22 "We will have an ongoing duty of disclosure all the 23 way up to the Horizon judgment being handed down (and 24 potentially beyond that). If we disclose the report 25 after the Horizon trial closes but before judgment, 43 1 there is a risk that Freeths will seek to put in extra 2 submissions to the judge. 3 "In an ideal world from a litigation perspective, 4 this work would not happen until after the Horizon 5 judgment given is. I appreciate however that there is 6 a need to balance litigation risk against normal 7 business activity." 8 You respond above, saying: 9 "Thanks Andy -- very helpful." 10 Was that work undertaken? 11 A. The test? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. Yes, I understand it was in August. 14 Q. So was it undertaken after the trial? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Yes, and was that intentionally so, in light of 17 Mr Parsons' advice? 18 A. I'm not aware of that. 19 Q. Is this another example of concern within the business 20 about creating material that would be disclosable in 21 litigation? 22 A. I think the point of this was just making sure that -- 23 it's joining the -- as General Counsel, I'd say joining 24 the dots across the organisation. So it was just making 25 sure that the business -- if they don't need to do 44 1 something and there's no obligation to do something and 2 that can create risks, well, then normally lawyers will 3 advise the accountable business owner of that. That's 4 not to say, if there are adverse documents that have to 5 be disclosed, then they will be disclosed. 6 But I think it's just making sure that there was 7 coordination between the IT Department and the Legal 8 Department. My understanding is that the test did go 9 ahead and, if there was anything adverse, then that 10 would have been disclosed. 11 Q. The kind of advice given by Mr Parsons there, do you 12 think that is appropriate, in the circumstances where 13 the Post Office is owned by the Government and also in 14 circumstances where the Post Office has historically 15 prosecuted people? 16 A. At the relevant time, I think I was in as General 17 Counsel for about two or three weeks, I'm not sure 18 I would necessarily have quite understood all of the 19 context of the question you just put but I think -- 20 I mean, I simply asked for the legal advice and this is 21 legal advice that came back, and I think what they're 22 saying here is that looking at it, as he says, from 23 a litigation perspective, if you don't have to do 24 something, and therefore he's saying not to, but what 25 I'd be very clear is -- and indeed, I think it's 45 1 implicit in his point, that there is an ongoing duty of 2 disclosure, and so, if something does happen, it will 3 need to be disclosed. 4 Q. Irrespective of your state of knowledge at that 5 particular time, you were subsequently General Counsel 6 for a fair amount of time, looking at your role and 7 looking at the Post Office, do you think it is 8 appropriate for that kind of a position to be taken by 9 the Post Office, in light of its Government ownership 10 and in light of its historic prosecution function? 11 A. I am not aware of any specific rules of why it wouldn't. 12 My understanding is that this is legal advice, it's 13 litigation legal advice, and so it would follow the 14 normal course, which is -- 15 Q. Irrespective of the advice that's being given, though, 16 in terms of a position, so let's say that advice was 17 adopted by the company, do you think it is appropriate 18 for the Post Office to adopt that position? 19 A. That's ultimately a question for the decision makers. 20 They would need to factor in or consider the legal 21 advice but they, as -- whether as Board Directors or 22 whether as other accountable business owners, they need 23 to have regard number of considerations. That would 24 include, for instance, the criteria or additional 25 elements that you have put forward, but the role of the 46 1 lawyer is to advise on the legal risks. 2 But you're right: there are other considerations 3 that a decision maker ought to take into account. 4 Q. If you were the decision maker, what would your view be? 5 A. I'm not the decision maker. 6 Q. But if you were the decision maker what would your 7 decision be? 8 A. It's not the role of the General Counsel to be the 9 decision maker. 10 Q. But if you were the decision maker what would your 11 decision be? 12 A. I don't have a view on it. It is not my role. 13 Q. Can we turn to POL00021556, please. 14 This a Board meeting of 28 May 2019, if we scroll 15 down we can see you are in attendance as General 16 Counsel. How often would you attend Board meetings? 17 A. I would attend for the relevant section of the Board 18 meeting that would be -- would pertain to me. So when 19 I became General Counsel, I would attend in respect of 20 the Group Litigation. 21 Q. Is it right that throughout your time as General 22 Counsel, the role was somebody who would attend the 23 Board but would not be a member of the Board? 24 A. That's correct. The General Counsel is not a Board 25 Director and so, therefore, it's not a member of the 47 1 Board. It will only attend upon the invitation by the 2 Board and, in Post Office's case, the General Counsel 3 doesn't sit through the entire Board meeting. It only 4 attends in relation to specific agenda items. 5 Q. In your view, is that usual or unusual? 6 A. I'm aware from an industry perspective there are 7 different models. My personal perspective is that it 8 does make my role more difficult not to be attending the 9 Board -- not a member because I'm not a Board 10 Director -- but not to attend the Board makes it more 11 challenging because you don't actually get to hear all 12 of the other agenda items. You don't get to hear, for 13 instance, you know, what is discussed about NBIT or what 14 is discussed about other topics, and so it just makes it 15 a little bit harder for that. 16 Q. Do you feel that, during your time as General Counsel, 17 you were given sufficient information as to what was 18 going on at Board level? 19 A. In relation to what? Sorry. 20 Q. Broadly: was your level of information regarding the 21 company sufficient for your role? 22 A. From time to time, I don't think it was adequate. There 23 are a number of occasions where certain documents 24 I asked for and I wasn't provided with. The model that 25 Post Office has does make it more difficult, unlike my 48 1 predecessor, who was both the General Counsel and the 2 Company Secretary, had the benefit of being able to sit 3 throughout the entire Board meeting and, personally, 4 I do think that is a more helpful model. 5 Q. Thank you. If we go over the page we see there 6 reference to: 7 "... a number of attacks on the [Post Office] brand 8 through the Group Litigation and with the Horizon trial 9 about to resume; the Daily Mail campaign to 'Save our 10 Post Offices'; continued opposition in some quarters to 11 franchising ... and, the case brought by 123 postmasters 12 on employment rights. We needed to undertake a review 13 of postmaster remuneration which provided sustainable 14 solutions. Ideally, an announcement would be made in 15 November 2019 for introduction in April 2020, however, 16 this might need to be fast tracked depending on 17 publicity and disquiet sounding the Horizon trial." 18 Were you aware from within the business of 19 consideration being given to essentially provide good 20 news to counteract what was going on in the Horizon 21 trial? 22 A. Not specifically. We -- Post Office has 23 a communications department. I assume that is probably 24 where that -- comments are coming from. 25 Q. Can we turn, please, to page 4, which is where the Group 49 1 Litigation update is provided and I think that's the 2 agenda item for which you attended. It says there: 3 "Alan Watts introduced the paper and he and Ben Foat 4 updated the Board on recent developments. We had 21 5 days to make an application to the Court of Appeal for 6 leave to appeal", and then it refers to new counsel. 7 There's a paragraph below on the recusal costs being 8 around £300,000. 9 It then goes on to say a number of points were 10 raised, and it's the second bullet point that I'd like 11 to ask you about. It says: 12 "Whether there was anything further we could do to 13 influence the outcome of the Horizon trial? It was 14 reported that Fujitsu's witnesses had not been strong, 15 while [the Post Office's] had been satisfactory. Only 16 the expert witnesses has yet to provide evidence and it 17 was important that they did not renege on their previous 18 position that Horizon was a robust system. It was 19 critical that Horizon was seen as a robust system today. 20 It was likely that the expert witnesses would say that 21 the system had bugs. This was not in dispute but the 22 issue was the degree to which it was a robust system 23 that could be relied upon and that there was nothing in 24 the judgment that suggested the system was unfit for 25 purpose today. We had looked at the evidence of the 50 1 system and what the issues had arisen over the period of 2 time covered by the case." 3 The suggestion there that the expert witnesses -- if 4 we scroll up -- may renege, do you recall a concern of 5 that sort? 6 A. No, my recollection, albeit this may be a subsequent 7 recollection, was -- there was a question mark as to 8 whether or not the experts had come up to proof in the 9 sense -- and I think what was communicated, in the 10 nicest possible way, perhaps both of the expert 11 witnesses had not put their best foot forward. 12 Q. Was there a concern within the business? 13 A. Pertaining to? 14 Q. That the experts would renege on their previous position 15 that Horizon was a robust system? 16 A. I think there was a general concern about the conclusion 17 that would be reached about Horizon. Horizon is 18 an essential system to the provision of the Post Office 19 services. 20 Q. Yes. Can we move on to POL00091437. That's your E13. 21 It's 10 June 2019, an email from Rodric Williams. It's 22 summarising the cross-examination of the claimant's 23 expert, Mr Coyne. It identifies his evidence in 24 relation to bugs. He said: 25 "Mr Coyne's evidence on this seemed confusing, 51 1 ranging from 13 to 22 bugs." 2 Was it clear in your mind at this stage that Horizon 3 had bugs and those bugs were at least 13 to 22, as 4 suggested here? 5 A. I'm not entirely sure, but I thought I probably had the 6 view that the question was not so much about the bugs 7 itself but the impact of bugs and I -- tangentially, 8 I remember a reference about that there was very little 9 bugs given the broader context, but I wouldn't have 10 necessarily have known much more than that. 11 Q. Given your previous understanding in terms of the air 12 traffic control system, the robustness of Horizon, did 13 there come a point at which you started to question the 14 line that had been taken by the business and, if so, at 15 what point was that? 16 A. I think it became evident only in the trial itself 17 that -- querying whether or not the witnesses came up to 18 proof, and I think it was the reporting back to the 19 Executive and the Board about the witnesses and the 20 evidence. 21 Q. If we could turn, please, to POL00136421. That's your 22 E18. If we could start on page 7. We're now into June 23 2019. At the bottom of the page, it's an email from Tim 24 McCormack to Mr Cameron, and he emails Mr Cameron about 25 another computer error. We see there, if we scroll down 52 1 slightly, he says: 2 "I don't know what they have brought to your 3 attention recently but the single-most important piece 4 of information you should be dealing with right now is 5 a new error in your computer systems that, as it stands, 6 cannot be introduced into the current trial but should 7 be." 8 If we scroll up, we can see Mr Cameron asks for more 9 detail. If we keep on scrolling up, Mr McCormack says 10 that: 11 "The error in question is serious. Details of it 12 are being treated as confidential ..." 13 There is then, if we scroll up, Mr Cameron wants to 14 speak to Mr McCormack. He says: 15 "[For your information] I will speak to him." 16 If we keep on scrolling up, there is a message from 17 Mr Mark Davies, the Director of Communications, slightly 18 above, at the bottom of page 5, please. He says: 19 "My advice is to wait before speaking to him so that 20 we can brief you. But if you are speaking today, please 21 be aware that as you do it is a direct line to likely 22 public comment/journalists. I'm uneasy about saying 23 more on email. I suggest you read this blog ... in some 24 depth before speaking to him. I also suggest giving 25 Angela a call: she has dealt with him on many occasions 53 1 over the last seven years." 2 If we keep on scrolling up, please, to page 3 -- 3 perhaps the bottom of page 2, actually -- it seems that 4 all the correspondence with Mr McCormack has been kept 5 on file "including Rod's letters to him when he was 6 regularly emailing Paula". 7 Was there at this time, June 2019, a caution within 8 the business in relation to looking further, in relation 9 to bugs, errors and defects? We saw that Ten10 email 10 and the testing and the concern about carrying out 11 further testing at that stage. Were there wider 12 concerns within the business about looking too deep into 13 current bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system? 14 A. No, I don't believe that's so. My understanding -- and 15 a lot of this I'm not actually necessarily involved 16 directly but it -- my understanding of this email chain 17 was concerned that the Comms Team were raising with Al 18 about discussing, had Al been the interim CEO at the 19 relevant time, having a conversation with Tim McCormack. 20 I understood that there was a long history, the details 21 of which I wasn't involved, but I think that's the 22 concern that's been raised by the Comms Team. 23 Q. Was there, though, more broadly, a concern within the 24 business, or perhaps a lack of reflection within the 25 business, as to the extent of the problems with Horizon? 54 1 A. At that point, Post Office's position was still that the 2 system was robust. It had received advice saying that 3 the witnesses had not come quite up to the proof that 4 was expected, but I don't think anyone was suggesting 5 that they wouldn't look into bugs, errors or defects. 6 Q. Could we please turn to POL00280270, that's your E33. 7 It's an email from Al Cameron, the Interim Chief 8 Executive at that time of 2 August 2019. He says as 9 follows: 10 "Ben, I have been made very uncomfortable about 11 an issue at Little Milton Post Office ... They 12 approached me recently because they had been asked to 13 pay a significant amount ... to us. Kim Abbotts got 14 involved but could not explain what had happened 15 remotely. At my suggestion an audit was held and the 16 belief now seems to be that there was no loss, just 17 misbooking of stock and mis-remming of cash. However, 18 Kim has not yet been able to explain things to my 19 satisfaction. 20 "Could you please work with Kim while I am away to 21 understand what has happened and answer two questions. 22 "1. Is our understanding of what is happening in 23 branch sufficient for us to be able to ask for money or 24 suspend postmasters -- it doesn't feel like it. 25 "2. Secondly, should there be any implications for 55 1 our defence of the GLO. 2 "Given our shareholder's focus on a rapid 3 settlement, I would rather you looked at the questions 4 without it being clear I am asking -- I haven't used the 5 whistleblowing process to protect privilege but I am 6 asking for that confidentiality and protection. You do 7 not therefore have my permission to discuss this 8 elsewhere, other than talking to Kim about the 9 specifics." 10 A few questions on this. First of all, the 11 reference there is, "the shareholder's focus on a rapid 12 settlement"; can you assist us with what that meant as 13 at August 2019? 14 A. I think that was part of the change of strategy that had 15 been discussed by the Board with the shareholder, which 16 was, as opposed to what had happened in the Common 17 Issues Judgment, when Al was appointed as interim CEO 18 and after the Horizon Issues Judgment, I think there was 19 a concerted effort to re-examine the approach that had 20 been taken. Obviously the comments by Lord Justice 21 Fraser, both the tone of which and his findings, came as 22 a shock to the organisation and so there was a change of 23 approach to make sure that the company understood that 24 and, in particular, that there'd be a focus on mediation 25 or resolving the matter, rather than just through 56 1 litigation. 2 Q. We see an email on the same day, POL00327569. That's 3 your E39, from you. You forward the concern to Norton 4 Rose and ask for advice. I think the suggestion in 5 there is that it may have been raised by Mr Cameron 6 because he had been unsuccessful in his application to 7 become the CEO. What was your view of the concerns that 8 were being raised by Mr Cameron? 9 A. I remember the way that I treated this was to treat it 10 with what -- I would say a straight bat, so I treated it 11 as if it was a potential whistleblowing matter and, 12 because it provided an unusual set of circumstances that 13 this was the CEO purporting to make a potential Speak 14 Up, in circumstances where it was his own area of 15 responsibility, so the -- at this point, he was 16 responsible for the operations, where he -- the issues 17 around stamps and Little Milton occur. So it was 18 a unique situation of someone whistleblowing for which 19 they are themselves accountable for the work. 20 I was also mindful of the fact that, as the General 21 Counsel, I reported in to the interim CEO, and then 22 I was also mindful of the different hats that, at that 23 point, I was wearing because I inherited Jane's work, 24 and so I was both the whistleblowing officer but also 25 the General Counsel. 57 1 And so it put me in a unique and difficult position 2 and so I sought external legal advice. 3 Q. Irrespective of the difficult position because of 4 Mr Cameron's role, do you have any concern about the 5 difficulties in getting to grips with apparent 6 shortfalls? 7 A. I specifically raised -- it's not to NRF, but to Herbert 8 Smith, it was specifically raised with them, to make 9 sure that that was looked into. 10 Q. Was there a concern in the business at that stage that 11 there may be wider problems that hadn't really been 12 identified? 13 A. At that stage I think they were trying to work out what 14 actually happened at Little Milton and, of course, it 15 was somewhat problematic, in that we had to sort of 16 proceed obviously with not mentioning Al, but I was able 17 to have a conversation with a relevant person in the 18 Operations Team. As I said before, HSF were actually 19 appointed to look into the specific issue and then, 20 subsequent to this issue, the issue around remming in 21 and stamps, et cetera, was looked into. 22 Q. You've said that during this period, the summer of 2019, 23 there was a movement towards settlement -- 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. -- and it's settlement and some advice that was received 58 1 in that respect that I'd just like to look at now. 2 Could we please turn to POL00042755, that's your E11. 3 We're going back in time only slightly. We're in June 4 2019, if we scroll down, please, we can see advice from 5 Andrew Parsons of Womble Bond Dickinson. He says: 6 "All 7 "We spoke couple of weeks ago about a plan for 8 moving forward settlement in the Group Litigation. In 9 simple terms, this was to ask Freeths to provide better 10 claim valuation information either alongside or as 11 a precondition to mediation. Has that plan changed 12 following the Board subcommittee last week?" 13 He says at the bottom of that second paragraph: 14 "Either way, we may wish to write to Freeths sooner 15 rather than later about settlement. 16 "If we're still following the same path, I think 17 that HSF were preparing a first draft of a letter to 18 Freeths? In the meantime, we have now received advice 19 from Brian Altman QC on settling with convicted 20 claimants -- attached." 21 Scroll down, please: 22 "His conclusion is: 23 "'In my opinion, there is some risk to including 24 convicted claimants in any settlement agreement or 25 package. At this stage, and in the abstract, I am 59 1 unable exactly to define or quantify the risk. While it 2 has to be a matter for others to advise and decide how 3 far the Post Office should go in progressing 4 a differential approach among the convicted Claimants 5 and the rest, my advice must be that reaching any 6 settlement agreement with the convicted Claimants should 7 be a red line for all the reasons given above'." 8 What did you understand by the risk that had been 9 identified by Mr Altman? 10 A. My understanding was that it -- and I'm not sure if my 11 understanding is based on that or other advice on the 12 point. My understanding is that it was contrary to 13 public policy that you can't compensate people while 14 they have the conviction. So that was, I think, the 15 conundrum with the settlement, which is: how do we 16 settle the claims that the original 555, a number of 17 which did have criminal convictions? The vast majority 18 did not but there were some that did, and so I think, in 19 the end, the settlement agreement settled holistically 20 with the -- with everyone, including the convicted 21 criminals. But it didn't include compensation around 22 the overturning of their criminal convictions because 23 that had not yet occurred. 24 Q. Did you have any concerns in respect of the advice that 25 had been given by Mr Altman? 60 1 A. I don't have any recollection of this particular point 2 specifically. 3 Q. That can come down, please. In terms of the settlement 4 and the legal costs, were you aware that a substantial 5 proportion of any settlement would go to pay the costs 6 and litigation funders on the part of the claimants? 7 A. Correct, yes. 8 Q. How early were you aware of that situation? 9 A. From memory, I think there was discussions with HSF 10 around, I would say August, perhaps? August to 11 September? And certainly going into mediation, we 12 understood that the challenge would be around litigation 13 funding. I remember asking about whether or not it was 14 a recoverable head of loss. 15 Q. I want to move on to tactics more broadly in the Group 16 Litigation. Can we please turn to POL00276474. If we 17 start on page 2. That's your E29. I won't read out 18 this email because it's an email that we've seen, we 19 dealt with it in depth with Mr Parsons. He there sets 20 out, essentially, why it was that an opinion on the 21 merits in the litigation hadn't been provided or 22 obtained originally, and it sets out there the strategy 23 that had been adopted. 24 What was your view on the strategy as set out here 25 and the fact that there wasn't an overall opinion on the 61 1 merits? 2 A. I do apologise. Which document is this one? 3 Q. E29 of your bundle. It should end 6474. 4 A. Thank you. 5 Q. Page 2 is the email from Mr Parsons. He sets out there 6 that the strategy was to contest the Common Issues trial 7 and he sets out the thinning the herd strategy, and he 8 says that: 9 "The strategy was never to seek an outright win 10 through the court process [because] that would mean 11 ultimately defending 500 plus individual claims ..." 12 He explains: 13 "I hope this helps explain why there hasn't been 14 an overall opinion on the merits of the litigation in 15 general." 16 If it assists, if we turn over the page to the first 17 page, you say there: 18 "It does leave the Post Office in a difficult 19 position. I remain surprised that no overall assessment 20 on merit has been undertaken when we are two trials in." 21 You also say that you should point out that "Al", 22 I think that's Al Cameron: 23 "... was particularly disappointed on learning that 24 the claimants had in fact provided a Schedule of 25 Information in relation to quantum. Like him, [you] had 62 1 heard numerous people advise that the claimants had not 2 provided anything on quantum ..." 3 Briefly, can you assist us with what your view was 4 in respect of how the litigation had originally been 5 approached? 6 A. So as I think Andy is explaining there, I think Post 7 Office took a very technical and legal approach to the 8 matter and so, yes, it was setting out to me what had 9 previously occurred in the Common Issues Judgment, which 10 I understood took place in November 2018. 11 Q. Were you concerned by the fact that there wasn't, for 12 example, an advice, an overall opinion on the merits of 13 the litigation? 14 A. Yeah, I think at this point because the strategy had 15 changed, it even -- it changed even in respect of the 16 Common Issues appeal, to narrow it down, to make sure 17 the tone was right, to make sure that we were looking at 18 mediation rather than a technical litigation defence. 19 I think the strategy clearly had changed in June 2019. 20 I think what Andy is explaining there was a look-back, 21 if you like, at what the previous litigation was. 22 Q. If we please turn to POL00276883, that's your B68. If 23 we scroll down, please, it's on the same theme. It's 24 an email from you raising concerns in relation to the 25 lack of information regarding quantum that had been 63 1 provided. It seems as though there was an email, one 2 and a half years ago but since, notwithstanding that 3 email which had been forwarded to you in the chain 4 below, you say: 5 "... even I have constantly heard since becoming 6 involved that the claimants have not provided us 7 anything on quantum." 8 It appears, in fact, that they had provided some 9 figures. 10 In what way did that, in your view, delay the 11 settlement of the case, the lack of information that 12 appeared in the business regarding the quantum of the 13 claim? 14 A. I'm not sure it necessarily delayed settlement, in the 15 sense that, for me -- and, again, I'm sure others may 16 have a different opinion -- but from where I was 17 standing, it seemed to me that the catalyst for change 18 was the handing down of the Common Issues Judgment and 19 the failed recusal application. That -- because that 20 was a shock and that was really the crystallisation of 21 change. 22 But what I'm saying in this particular email is that 23 there are things that the way that the previous lawyers, 24 or Womble Bond Dickinson in this case, had taken, 25 although they didn't -- I didn't think that they were 64 1 doing it intentionally, I think they were making 2 generalised statements and, unfortunately, sometimes 3 those generalised statements can be misinterpreted, and 4 so I was just picking up the point that I had observed, 5 or been indeed told, that the claimants hadn't 6 particularised their claim when, in fact, what in 7 reality was, was that they had provided some information 8 about their claim, albeit it wasn't particularly 9 particularised as it ought to be in a legal claim. 10 So I guess what I was saying to Andy here is, "You 11 need to be more precise with your language because it 12 could mislead", and I'm conscious, obviously, as the 13 then General Counsel, I'm conscious to make sure that my 14 lawyers, you know, don't leave a false impression or 15 mislead the Board, notwithstanding any -- of course, no 16 intention to do so. 17 Q. Thank you. The final topic before we move to Phase 7 18 and the final topic also before our next break is 19 records management. Could we please have a look at 20 POL00401613, that's your E58. 21 You have previously given evidence in respect of 22 disclosure to the Inquiry and this is a similar topic. 23 This is a Risk and Compliance Committee meeting in which 24 you were present on 10 September 2020 and it's page 2 of 25 those minutes that I'd like to look at. If we scroll 65 1 down, please, there's the section there on "GLO/Freedom 2 of Information Request/GDPR". It says: 3 "... the team remains stretched responding to 4 Historic Shortfall Scheme and related/linked [Freedom of 5 Information] requests ... Following receipt of 41 6 [Freedom of Information] enquiries considered vexatious 7 from one journalist, 31,000 boxes of data (previously 8 unknown) have now been identified in storage. These are 9 being reviewed by legal, [Herbert Smith Freehills] and 10 Peters & Peters and a separate paper for [the Audit and 11 Risk Committee] will be prepared regarding this issue. 12 "The Committee recognised the need for improved data 13 retention/management training across the group and in 14 the retail network." 15 Can you briefly assist us with the 31,000 boxes and 16 how it is that they were identified? 17 A. So my understanding was that, in the course of mapping 18 out the relevant data repositories, that documents that 19 I understand came from the retail part of the business 20 was discovered and it hadn't otherwise been indexed, or 21 at least there was an issue around the indexing of the 22 documents, and that it hadn't been captured in the 23 previous reviews. And so I was extremely mindful of the 24 fact that -- and not just for this matter -- sorry, and 25 I mean the Group Litigation, but in respect of other 66 1 legal matters as well. It was critically important that 2 we have a data universe and that we understand what that 3 data universe is and that the business is complying with 4 our document retention policy and the document 5 preservation notices. 6 Q. Thank you. Can we please turn to POL00021462 and that's 7 your E59. The issue is then raised on 22 September at 8 the Audit and Risk Committee. If we scroll over to 9 page 5, into page 6, please, the same topic: 10 "The team is extremely busy dealing with requests 11 related to Historic Shortfall Scheme and related/linked 12 FOI requests." 13 If we can scroll down please, it says: 14 "Of serious concern and Committee discussion, was 15 the discovery of 31,000 boxes previously unknown to the 16 wider organisation, which are being reviewed ... The 17 Committee questioned whether management had a handle on 18 data management controls such as archiving, and remarked 19 on the lack of accountability within [the Post Office]. 20 "NR [I think Mr Read] remarked that this was 21 an unacceptable incident and that he did not expect this 22 to be brought to the Committee's attention by 23 compliance. A paper on data controls is expected at 24 [Group Executive] for discussion. 25 "The Committee recommended a data amnesty ..." 67 1 There is one more document that I'd like to take you 2 to and that's POL00167390. That's your E60. This is 3 a Board meeting, 22 September 2020. We see, if we 4 scroll down there, there's the Committee report from the 5 Audit and Risk Committee: 6 "Carla Stent provided a brief overview of the topics 7 discussed at the ARC Committee meeting held earlier in 8 the day including the pensions assurance update and the 9 identification of 31,000 boxes ..." 10 By this time, so we're September 2020, the Post 11 Office had been involved in the Group Litigation since 12 2016. Did the Post Office have a sufficient grip on its 13 own records, in your view, by this date? 14 A. No, it did not. 15 Q. Who do you consider is responsible for that? 16 A. Well, data had sat with the CFOO, there had been a data 17 director in the company who reported to Al Cameron. 18 Data then transferred to the IT Department but, to be 19 fair, the accountability for data was something that was 20 raised, or rather the accountabilities generally, of 21 which data was one, was raised as an area that needed 22 resolution. 23 I wasn't aware of the state of the organisation's 24 data until this issue around the 31,000 boxes and then, 25 subsequently, all the remediation work that needed to be 68 1 undertaken. But I had raised clarity around 2 accountabilities at a broad level and, certainly, when 3 I became aware of Post Office's data, and the state of 4 its data, specifically the data universe, I repeatedly 5 raised it to both the RCC, the ARC and Nick Read. 6 Q. I don't think I need to take you to it, but there's 7 an ARC meeting on 12 November 2020, that's POL00423519, 8 it's your E61, but I think we can deal with that without 9 looking at the document. By that stage, sampling still 10 hadn't taken place in respect of those boxes, so we're 11 a couple of months later. 12 Do you think sufficient priority was being given 13 within the business to assessing that data, given that 14 the appeals were, at that point, going to be heard in 15 March 2021? 16 A. I think it's yes and no. So there were aspects where we 17 were encouraging all the business to make sure that they 18 have provided all data, to make sure that we understood 19 what the data universe was. At this time, Mr Salter had 20 a Head of Data that was in his team and, in the end, 21 I actually shifted some of my resources, such as my 22 Compliance Director and my Operations Director, to 23 support the accountable business owners to map out the 24 data universe to make sure -- and I personally went down 25 to the archiving unit, and I also went up to 69 1 Chesterfield. I walked thorough every room, together 2 with a third party. 3 I was particularly concerned from this point onwards 4 about the state of the data and whether or not the 5 organisation had got to grips on it, and I devoted more 6 resource from my team to facilitate that. 7 Q. Do you think the company is now properly on top of its 8 records? 9 A. I think considerable effort has now been made. 10 I obviously, as you will have seen undoubtedly in the 11 ARC and RCC minutes, raised the legal risk around 12 failure to have our historical data properly managed and 13 the legal risks that that creates. 14 A substantial work and Remediation Programme has 15 taken place. There's now -- (audio disruption) -- of 16 a data director, which -- there has been establishment 17 of a data counsel. 18 Q. Sorry, I think you cut off briefly. 19 A. Oh, I apologise. So in short, in short, a number of 20 remediation steps have occurred with a data director, 21 a data counsel, a lot more -- because of the frankly 22 embarrassing and unacceptable issues around disclosure, 23 that the Inquiry is well aware, the company is far more 24 cognisant about its data management and a lot more 25 resource has been put in place. 70 1 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 2 Sir, we're going to move on to Phase 7 issues. 3 Perhaps that is a convenient moment to take a 10-minute 4 break. 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Of course. 6 MR BLAKE: Could we come back at 11.15? 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Okay. 8 (11.08 am) 9 (A short break) 10 (11.17 am) 11 MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir. Can you see and hear me? 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 13 MR BLAKE: Can we begin our Phase 7 examination by turning 14 to POL00289903. That's E39 of your Phase 7 bundle. 15 A. Thank you. 16 Q. This is correspondence, if we scroll down, of 17 7 September 2019, with Mr Watts. Was he a solicitor at 18 Herbert Smith Freehills? 19 A. Mr Watts is the partner. 20 Q. Partner, thank you. He says in this email: 21 "Again, we do not want to hear anything more from 22 them other than an appropriate offer and settlement deed 23 wording. We aren't going to have sessions with them in 24 Chesterfield or wherever. Frankly I don't think there 25 is anything more to be said. As for Nick and I, we need 71 1 to focus on the other 10,000 postmasters who are running 2 the Branch Network [sorry, this is from you] and serving 3 customers over the busy December period. Hopefully that 4 gives you enough clarity to pass on to the other side." 5 Is this a point in time where you're discussing 6 settlement and providing instructions to Herbert Smith? 7 A. Correct. I think this was day 9 or day 10 of the 8 mediation. 9 Q. Thank you. The reference there to needing to focus on 10 the other 10,000 postmasters, was it your view, at this 11 stage, that the focus of the business needed to be reset 12 onto existing postmasters rather than historic matters? 13 A. No, it wasn't as broad as that. What this email relates 14 is that the original settlement and mediation had been 15 set down for two days, I think the parties had 16 an extensive negotiation and settlement. Post Office 17 had provided a lot of additional information. Amanda 18 Jones, the Postmaster Director at Post Office, had met 19 with those in attendance at the mediation. Julie 20 Thomas, the Operations Director, had met. They'd 21 explained the improvements that they were making. 22 Post Office also accepted to meet with the claimants 23 for the following year to update them on progress. 24 My concern at this point, and this is an email 25 between lawyers in the matter, is that the mediation had 72 1 gone a lot longer than it had been intended and, of 2 course, although the Group Litigation is clearly one of 3 my, you know, key matters, I am General Counsel for all 4 the other matters as well and I am -- I guess this is 5 some frustration that I'm expressing on Saturday about 6 trying to balance all of that. 7 Q. Can we turn to POL00290399. That's your E40. If we 8 have a look on page 2 it's a circular that was sent by 9 Mr Read on 11 December within the organisation. He says 10 there: 11 "We are committed to a reset in our relationship 12 with postmasters, placing them alongside our customers 13 at the centre of our business. As we agree to close 14 this difficult chapter, we look forward to continuing 15 the hard work ahead of us in shaping a modern and 16 dynamic Post Office ..." 17 Mr Read's evidence to the Inquiry was to the effect 18 that you presented the issue of prosecutions to him as 19 a historic issue; would you agree with that? 20 A. I did see Mr Read's evidence. I categorically deny that 21 I told him not to dig into the past. I would not have 22 said that. Indeed, I don't think any General Counsel 23 would. But I couldn't have said it because I am clearly 24 on record in the documents saying that, even with the 25 Horizon Issues trial being undertaken, once the judgment 73 1 is handed down, the issue around criminal convictions 2 would need to be looked into. 3 And that's well documented that I said that in 4 SteerCos, and to the Board, and I said that before 5 Mr Read started and I said it after Mr Read started. 6 So for me to have said anything contrary to that is 7 very odd. 8 Q. You've said in your statement that there came a time at 9 which you became more removed from the Board: you've 10 used words such as "increasingly sidelined". When did 11 that happen and what happened to your relationship with 12 Mr Read? 13 A. So I was appointed as a temporary sponsor for the GLO 14 and Inquiry programmes but, increasingly, my direction 15 and advice on matters were not being taken up and 16 I wasn't included in meetings that I asked to be 17 included, such as meetings with Herbert Smith, such that 18 it was making it increasingly difficult for me to 19 maintain the veneer of the title of temporary sponsor. 20 And I raised this in March 2023 with Mr Read, again in 21 April and, ultimately, in July I said to Mr Read that 22 I would not continue to be the temporary sponsor of 23 those programmes in those circumstances. 24 Q. Where does this originate from, in your view? 25 A. I made a number of recommendations and I raised a number 74 1 of concerns to Mr Read and to -- obviously I raised 2 them, as well, with the Board, and I just wasn't getting 3 the traction and so I didn't feel it was appropriate for 4 me to remain having that title when it didn't reflect 5 the reality. 6 Q. You've referred elsewhere in your statement to 7 prioritisation of costs management over quality and 8 speed. To what extent does that feed into that issue? 9 A. It is part of the issue, particularly when I did 10 a review of the HMU and Inquiry programmes, when Declan 11 Salter, the previous director, left and just prior to 12 the appointment of the two new directors, and I made the 13 observation that there was too much focus on cost 14 management. Even, indeed, when the two directors were 15 in the role, both if them expressed the concern that 16 40 per cent of the time was to do with managing costs, 17 rather than the delivery of the programme. 18 Q. Putting compensation and redress to one side because 19 we'll address that as a separate topic, how has that 20 focus on cost impacted on, for example, addressing the 21 concerns raised by Lord Justice Fraser? 22 A. I would say that there is genuine desire by the business 23 to get things done. I think the Retail Team -- 24 I haven't been able to watch all of the evidence with 25 apologies, but you will have heard from Tracy Marshall 75 1 and Mel Park, I believe, and I think they have tried to 2 progress matters as quickly as possible. My view is 3 that they, like other parts of the organisation, have 4 been stretched and, with constant restructures and 5 constant cost reduction exercises, it has necessarily 6 meant that reprioritisation has had to be undertaken in 7 their areas, as indeed my own area. 8 Q. Focusing now on compensation and redress, what was your 9 formal role in relation to compensation and redress as 10 at the beginning of 2020? 11 A. I was the General Counsel. At the beginning of 2020, we 12 would have had -- the Horizon Issues Judgment had 13 landed, the settlement of the original 555 had occurred, 14 and the establishment of the -- what we called the 15 post-GLE -- sorry, my apologies, the post-GLO programme, 16 and that programme was chaired by Nick, and the purpose 17 of that was to manage all of the implications that were 18 arising from the Common Issues Judgment appeal, ie the 19 Post Office was not successful in terms of the Common 20 Issues Judgment, and so, for -- and therefore to ensure 21 that it incorporated all of the components of the Common 22 Issues Judgment and that they were operationalised 23 across the business. 24 It included, similarly, the implications that arose 25 from the Horizon Issues Judgment, and so that's where 76 1 you will have seen that Peters & Peters and a series of 2 counsel teams are appointed in respect of the criminal 3 work. There was also a number of workstreams, including 4 the settlement conformance. 5 So there were a number of obligations that were set 6 out in the settlement agreement that Post Office needed 7 to comply with. So it was a broad programme of work. 8 Q. I'd like to ask you about the overall business's 9 attitude towards compensation and redress, as at that 10 period. If we could turn to POL00155397. That's your 11 E10. It's an email that the Inquiry has already been 12 looking at. At the bottom of page 1, it's an email from 13 Mark Underwood to Rodric Williams and you. Scroll down, 14 please. He emails saying: 15 "Hi Rod, 16 "Some comments for your consideration ..." 17 This is about setting up the Historic Shortfall 18 Scheme. 19 If we scroll down to the bottom, we can see the 20 section on fees. He says as follows: 21 "My strong view is that you cannot seek payment from 22 applicants -- however small and regardless of the 23 rationale behind it." 24 Were you aware of consideration being given at that 25 stage to charging fees to applicants? 77 1 A. I think there was reference made in a legal advice note. 2 My understanding was it was in relation to the 3 escalation process. 4 Q. Can you assist us with what you mean by that? 5 A. So my understanding in that email -- certainly -- well, 6 my view to Alan at the time was there should be no fees. 7 My understanding was that there was -- I think it was 8 UKGI who raised the issue generally around that in 9 schemes, you need to make sure that there's fraud 10 controls within it, and then there was a subsequent 11 dialogue and legal advice that Post Office obtained. 12 And I think what Mr Underwood is saying here is that 13 he wouldn't have an application fee but what he was 14 suggesting is a nominal fee for the -- for claims that 15 were not resolved by the independent claim, that it was 16 for the -- if they wanted to pursue it to a mediation, 17 which was part of the dispute resolution process. 18 Q. He then continues: 19 "Optically, this would be extremely challenging and 20 would be a position that I believe the business would 21 struggle to maintain under political and media pressure. 22 I think you can achieve the same desired outcome [that 23 must be 'through'] having a very tight and communicated 24 set of eligibility criteria and requirements in terms of 25 the documentation applicants have to provide in order to 78 1 be accepted into the Scheme." 2 One reading of that is that a plan is being devised 3 to make it more challenging for applicants to apply to 4 the scheme; what's your view on that? 5 A. In reality, that isn't the case, if you read the 6 eligibility scheme. So the eligibility scheme for the 7 HSS -- firstly, the HSS, just for context, was actually 8 part of the settlement. It was suggested by the 9 claimants that they thought having such a scheme was 10 important for other postmasters that weren't included in 11 the original 555. They also made the point that it was 12 important that such a scheme not require legal 13 representation because the original 555 had had to have 14 legal representation because, obviously, it went through 15 the court process. 16 So with that in mind, Post Office established the 17 scheme. The eligibility criteria for the scheme just 18 required that you were, in fact, obviously a postmaster, 19 that you say you have shortfalls and that, as per the 20 Horizon Issues Judgment, your shortfalls arose under 21 what was called HNG-X or previous versions of Horizon, 22 such as Legacy Online Horizon. 23 So in those circumstance, there is not a hurdle or 24 challenge to applying to the HSS. 25 Q. There has been suggestion that the original forms were 79 1 complicated. Who was responsible for that original 2 documentation? 3 A. Herbert Smith Freehills drafted the original scheme 4 documents. Obviously, Post Office is not a claims 5 management company, in that it sought advice from HSF as 6 to the establishment of the scheme. I am mindful of 7 also this Inquiry's previous consideration in respect of 8 the issue and I accept, of course, I think with the 9 benefit of hindsight being able to make things clearer, 10 being able to put things in more plain English, I think 11 are entirely fair observations. 12 Q. If we scroll up, we can see that this email chain, it's 13 sent to you but also to Rodric Williams. Mr Underwood 14 says there: 15 "Hi Rod and Ben, 16 "Further to the below and purposely just to you -- 17 I am not sure the workstream leads set out in Appendix 1 18 are set in stone yet. For example, I am not sure Nick 19 wants me to lead the Historical Claims workstream owing 20 to my prior involvement in the Complaint & Mediation 21 Scheme, Chairman's Inquiry and the GLO." 22 Rodric Williams, that's obviously a name that we've 23 been seeing from the very beginning of today and it's 24 somebody that the Inquiry has already heard from. Had 25 there been any prior discussion about people like Rodric 80 1 Williams, who have a history in the underlying matters, 2 being involved in any of those matters going forward, 3 given their past role? 4 A. Yes, there had been. The challenge -- and 5 I particularly felt this quite acutely -- which is this 6 was a very complex, longstanding matter that had been 7 running for years and trying to get up to speed with 8 everything, trying to understand where all the documents 9 are, trying to get across the huge breadth of issues and 10 detail was very difficult, and so, on the one hand, it 11 was important to be able to have corporate memory, and 12 be able to have people like Rod and others support us; 13 equally, there needed to be a counterbalance to that. 14 So I felt the fact that when, obviously, Rod was 15 working on these matters, he was heavily overseen by 16 external lawyers and, indeed, the function of HSF was 17 overseeing the litigation, that that brought the 18 counterbalance. 19 Indeed, the external lawyers themselves actually 20 advised that it would be very difficult for them to do 21 their work if they didn't have access to those people. 22 Q. Do you have a view as to whether the process that was 23 set up was too confrontational? 24 A. I don't think it was intended to be confrontational. As 25 I said before, it was a well-intentioned scheme, in the 81 1 sense that we were acting on feedback from the original 2 GLO 555. We sought to make a scheme whereby they didn't 3 need to have legal representation, like the original 555 4 had had. We were directly acting on that feedback. The 5 scheme itself was one where we would have an external, 6 independent -- I think it was three representatives that 7 would assess the claims. It provided a dispute 8 resolution procedure and, in fact, the structure of it 9 had been provided to the original 555 claimants, that 10 that would -- there would be that escalation procedure. 11 I think the fact that we understood that from 12 an evidential standard, that obviously it wouldn't be 13 the same bar as one would employ in terms of litigation, 14 and so I think it was well intentioned but, at the same 15 time, I do recognise, of course, that there are things 16 that could have been done better. 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Can I just ask, I'm obviously aware that 18 there have been changes to the scheme -- that's the HSS 19 scheme -- over time. Are all those changes the work 20 either of Herbert Smith or some other outside firm of 21 solicitors? 22 A. Yes, there's -- we've had a number of advisers, not just 23 HSF, but there has also been a number of Queen's Counsel 24 that have also opined on matters. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: The only point I'm seeking to make is 82 1 that each change to the form or criteria, or anything of 2 that nature, has been drafted by outside lawyers not by 3 POL inhouse? 4 A. Indeed. But I would add that those documents did go 5 through governance, it did go through the Board steering 6 committees, and UKGI and our Government Shareholder. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So the process is, if there's to be 8 a change, outside lawyers draft it and then it's 9 approved by the appropriate people within the Post 10 Office? 11 A. Correct. I would add that, at this point, there were 12 number of inhouse lawyers as well supporting the 13 external lawyers to do so, but the work -- I think if 14 I understand your question, the work itself was 15 undertaken directly by the external lawyers. 16 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I'm not suggesting that there 17 wouldn't have been conversations with internal lawyers 18 but the actual end result is the result of work by 19 external lawyers and then approved by the Board or 20 whoever, to whomsoever the Board has delegated that 21 function? 22 A. Correct, sir. 23 MR BLAKE: There's been a suggestion in the Inquiry that the 24 view at the Post Office was that the scheme should be 25 run by the Department for Business and Trade. Was that 83 1 view ever expressed to you? 2 A. Yes, if I could perhaps -- what was expressed to me 3 wasn't necessarily that it would be BEIS or UKGI. 4 I think, initially, what was discussed was whether or 5 not it was appropriate for Post Office to run the 6 schemes. My understanding is that Post Office raised 7 that issue with UKGI and the Government Shareholder. 8 There was a strong observation back to the Board that 9 the Government Shareholder would not allow -- that the 10 matter had to stay with Post Office and that Post Office 11 had to administer the scheme. 12 Once that was understood, the Board then made the 13 decision that, if that was the case, then it would 14 separate these -- the compensation matters into 15 a separate business unit from what we call the BAU 16 business. 17 Q. In respect of Mr Read's views, were you aware of his 18 views as to whether it was appropriate or not for the 19 business to be running the scheme, as opposed the 20 Government? 21 A. I think number of representatives, including Mr Read, 22 including Al Cameron, advised that -- they raised the 23 question of, putting it in frank terms, whether the 24 perpetrator, so to speak, should be administering the 25 compensation. It was a point directly raised. 84 1 Q. Raised with whom? 2 A. The Government Shareholder and UKGI. 3 Q. Is it your evidence that the Government Shareholder and 4 UKGI were not open to that possibility? 5 A. Correct. 6 MR BLAKE: Thank you. 7 Sir, I'm going to move on from compensation unless 8 you have any further questions? 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, thank you. 10 MR BLAKE: I'd like to deal with the Pineapple email, as we 11 know it, that's POL00448302. I'm not sure what your 12 reference is for that particular document but I'm sure 13 it will be one that you're well familiar with, as are 14 we. If we scroll down further over the page, please. 15 So this is the Project Pineapple note from 16 Mr Staunton to himself. It's a note of the conversation 17 he had with the two Subpostmaster Non-Executive 18 Directors on 14 January 2024. You'll be familiar with 19 paragraph that addresses yourself, if we scroll down. 20 It says: 21 "Equally, Saf and Elliot are FED UP WITH THE AMOUNT 22 OF POWER WIELDED BY FOAT. He and other members of the 23 senior team act as if [postmasters] ARE GUILTY UNTIL 24 PROVED INNOCENT ('as per my experience' they both 25 said)." 85 1 Just pausing there, is that something that you have 2 said? 3 A. I have never said that people are guilty until proven 4 innocent. I have maintained the view throughout my 5 entire tenure at Post Office that we need to adhere to 6 the Common Issues Judgment, the Horizon Issues Judgment 7 and Hamilton, that people are innocent until proven 8 guilty, that is one need not be a senior lawyer to know 9 that point, and I am on record repeatedly saying due 10 process needs to be done but absolutely people are 11 innocent until proven guilty. 12 Q. They continue: 13 "WHILST FOAT IS AT THE HELM, NOTHING WILL CHANGE." 14 What do you think went wrong here between you and 15 the Non-Executive Director Subpostmasters? 16 A. I think this came off the back of an issue with 17 Mr Staunton. After this email was given to me 18 I received an apology from the two Postmaster NEDs. 19 They were in the apology to me -- it was a meeting. 20 They said that Henry had whipped up this issue and 21 I said to them -- and I went through this email with 22 them because I wanted to explain to them that the 23 observations/allegations that were made in this email 24 were false, so that, for instance, the power that I was 25 wielding as a result of the Inquiry could not be right, 86 1 given that I stopped being the sponsor of the Inquiry, 2 and I was conflicted, and I did not attend the Inquiry 3 SteerCos from July 2023. 4 So for half a year, I'd not been involved in the 5 Inquiry and yet here is an email suggesting I am, in 6 capitals, "WIELDING POWER", as a result of my work in 7 the Inquiry. 8 So I explained that to them. I also explained that 9 the reference to Steve Bradshaw was incorrect because 10 Steve Bradshaw and the investigators in that team had 11 never reported to me. They are not part of the A&CI 12 team, which wasn't created until 2022 and so, any 13 conflation between what previous investigators may have 14 done with my team was not right and was unfair. 15 And the other issues around -- I think there's 16 a reference to me "pushing Phoenix into the long grass", 17 I told them that I would show them the emails that, when 18 I was involved in terms of the particular investigation, 19 that I had, in fact, done the opposite, which was to ask 20 my team to strategically prioritise it, to ask my team 21 to progress it and, indeed, it was the actual -- the 22 then Inquiry Director who had overridden that direction. 23 And so I went through this email with the Postmaster 24 NEDs explaining why this was not a factually accurate 25 observation, and which they apologised to me for it, and 87 1 I have had seen part of their evidence, and I noted that 2 they did row back from -- I think clearly in this email 3 they mentioned "Foat", and I think in their oral 4 evidence they talk about "Legal" rather than myself 5 specifically. 6 Q. Two follow-up questions from that. The first: Stephen 7 Bradshaw and Project Phoenix, why was it taking so much 8 time? 9 A. So Project Phoenix was established as a result of the 10 Inquiry response tracker. This was an operational 11 process that I put forward for the Inquiry Team to do, 12 so that we could track all issues that were coming from 13 the Inquiry. It actually wasn't just the Inquiry, it 14 was also as a result of lawyers as well, and that the 15 business, the relevant accountable business owners, 16 could address it. 17 Part of that response tracker included allegations 18 that had been made by certain people and, at the time, 19 I think the A&CI team was relatively newly established. 20 They had very little resource. We did communicate with 21 the Executive Board about the lack of resource. But 22 I was very clear in 2023 to JB, Sarah and Diane Wills, 23 to say that Phoenix had to be strategically prioritised 24 and, even, I think, in an email in March 2023, 25 I directed the Legal Director, who oversees the A&CI 88 1 Director, to even take other lawyers off if necessary to 2 make sure that Phoenix was addressed and was given the 3 priority that it ought to. 4 To be fair to the team, I do want to say they did 5 repeatedly raise the fact that they needed more resource 6 and support to the Finance Team, and to the Executive, 7 which I supported them in doing so. 8 Q. Was there difficulty obtaining the funding for that? 9 A. Yes, they asked for it three times and it was denied 10 twice, and then, in the end, they did secure additional 11 resource towards -- I think it was August, from memory. 12 Q. Who, in your view, was responsible for the delay? 13 A. I think in part it was multifaceted. I would have 14 thought that, had there been more resource, more 15 funding, that would have enabled the A&CI team to 16 complete its part of the work and then, of course, it's 17 then handed over to HR, who then has the panel 18 discussions, which were, I believe, set up in October 19 '23. 20 So I don't necessarily think it is one individual 21 person. At the time I think one has to also acknowledge 22 that the HR department, you know, Karen McEwan only 23 started in October 2023, so I think it was difficult for 24 the HR team, as well, prior to that time. 25 So I don't think there's one individual but I do 89 1 think a significant part of the delay was the fact that 2 the A&CI team was a new team and had not been adequately 3 resourced, despite the fact that they did ask for that. 4 Q. We heard from Mr Bartlett yesterday in respect of the 5 resourcing. Why do you think it is that they are not 6 sufficiently resourced in both yours and Mr Bartlett's 7 view? 8 A. I think, at the time, when -- and this is -- this is, 9 like many things, including in other organisations, when 10 you start a new function and then you start to lift 11 rocks, you start to try to make improvements, you try to 12 remediate, examine the issue and address the issue, the 13 workload increases. And I think, in part, it wasn't 14 fully understood just how many different types of 15 investigations would be needed from the A&CI team. 16 Q. Why didn't those investigations or why wasn't the 17 mechanism put in place far earlier? So I think you've 18 mentioned that it was in response to the Inquiry. Why 19 wasn't it before then? Why were people still working in 20 roles and why was there no investigation into those 21 people prior to it being raised as a matter relating to 22 the Inquiry? 23 A. I think -- well, certainly in respect of my team, I had 24 considered the issue. I had raised the issue with Nick 25 Read. We had looked at a number of people in roles, and 90 1 this balance between corporate memory but also making 2 sure that there was the counterbalance of having 3 external people, so I can't speak more broadly for the 4 organisation, but I had worked on that issue in respect 5 of my team. 6 Q. Thank you. Before I pass over to Core Participant 7 questions, do you have any reflections in respect of the 8 role of General Counsel, the role that it plays within 9 the business, how it might be improved? 10 A. Yeah. I think it's fair to say that being the General 11 Counsel in this period of Post Office's history was and 12 is a challenging role. One needs to be able to 13 challenge Board Directors, Executives but also be able 14 to coach your team, be able to liaise with other parts 15 of the business. I think having a mindset of embrace 16 lifelong learning, which is a value -- a personal value 17 and a corporate value of a previous company that 18 I worked at -- having that mindset, but also leading 19 from the front, in terms of making sure that people 20 understand that legal conformance is a licence to trade. 21 It's not optionality, it's mandatory and making sure 22 that the business understands it at all levels, that 23 complying with the law is essential to good business 24 practice. 25 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 91 1 We have some questions from Core Participants. 2 We're going to take a break at 12.15 but perhaps we can 3 deal with -- Mr Stein isn't currently in the room. Are 4 there other questions or is it just Mr Stein? 5 Yes, Mr Henry and Mr Moloney, perhaps we can hear 6 from them first. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. 8 Questioned by MR HENRY 9 MR HENRY: Mr Foat, can I understand your evidence about the 10 compensation forms, in particular the HSS. You said 11 that you didn't consider them to be, as it were, 12 over-technical or unfair. Am I right in thinking that? 13 A. I'm not sure I did say that. I think I acknowledged 14 that, in hindsight, they could have been clearer. And 15 I'm obviously mindful of the issues that the Inquiry has 16 already identified, in particular around consequential 17 loss. 18 Q. Yes. I'm going to deal with those in submissions 19 because that is what the Chairman invited me to do when 20 I was putting that to Mr Read. But let me concentrate 21 on the issue of contemporaneous documents. The guidance 22 in the appendix which was drafted, as you say, by 23 Herbert Smith Freehills, uses the term "contemporaneous" 24 ten times. You acknowledge, don't you, that 25 historically subpostmasters were put in incredible 92 1 difficulties by being deprived access to contemporaneous 2 documents? 3 A. Yes, I understand that to be the case. 4 Q. Yes. I mean, because although this happened 5 historically, it was referred to in the Common Issues 6 Judgment -- 7 A. Sure. 8 Q. -- and you remember that? 9 A. (The witness nodded) 10 Q. So that, of course, would have been nine months old, the 11 Common Issues Judgment, when these forms were being 12 discussed and when these forms were being drafted, 13 wouldn't it? 14 A. I imagine so, yes. 15 Q. Yes. So, therefore, at 3.2.2 of the form, it says: 16 "Greater weight will be attached to contemporaneous 17 evidence, loss of earnings. This will require evidence, 18 preferably contemporaneous, that the subpostmaster was 19 suspended ..." 20 This is 5.22. 21 "... or had their contract terminated without 22 sufficient notice." 23 Further references to "contemporaneous 24 correspondence" being required in relation to loss of 25 earnings. 93 1 Further requirement for contemporaneous documents in 2 respect of loss of profits, and it goes on. 3 I don't think I need to go through all ten 4 instances. But you accept don't you that subpostmasters 5 were at a disadvantage in providing contemporaneous 6 documents relating to matters which may have been, by 7 that time, decades old? 8 A. Yes, and I understand your point. I think it's helpful 9 to note that, in terms of the scheme, that the 10 evidential bar was not going to be on a litigation 11 standard and that, of course, it is helpful if the 12 postmasters do happen to have documents but it's not 13 saying that they -- that only reference is to be had to 14 that. It's, of course, if that documentation does exist 15 and they have it, that it would be helpful to provide 16 it. 17 Q. Moving aside now from the Historic Shortfall Scheme but, 18 so far as compensation is concerned, it ought not to be 19 an adversarial process, do you agree; it was never 20 designed to be an adversarial or litigation process, was 21 it? 22 A. Yes, it's -- yes, correct. It's different from 23 litigation in a court. So if I understand the purpose 24 of your question, it is different from the court 25 litigation process. 94 1 Q. Yes. So, therefore, I mean, in the case of Janet 2 Skinner, for example, she has been asked to provide 3 a fifth expert report. You obviously can't comment on 4 the circumstances of her case but that suggests, does it 5 not, an exacting standard being advanced on behalf of 6 the Post Office by its representatives? 7 A. I'm not aware of the specific details. I could suggest 8 that having five expert reports -- oh, sorry, you are 9 frozen on my screen. 10 Q. Am I frozen? 11 A. Can you still hear me? 12 Q. I can still hear you very well. Can you still hear me? 13 A. Yes, I can hear you. In fact, apologies, you are back 14 now, sorry. 15 Q. Right. 16 A. So just in respect of, as a general observation, 17 I would -- it would seem that five experts would seem 18 a lot but I don't know the particulars of the claim as 19 to why that's been required. Obviously, I think 20 Mr Salter -- sorry, Mr Recaldin is going to be before 21 the Inquiry on Monday, but I can take that away if you 22 would like me to look into. 23 Q. Thank you. Final thing. You accept, do you not, that 24 in these negotiations over compensation the Post Office 25 must act with the utmost good faith, and not indulge or 95 1 transgress into any sharp practice. That goes without 2 saying, does it not? 3 A. Correct, sir. 4 MR HENRY: Thank you very much. 5 MR BLAKE: Thank you. 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: On the issue of compensation, you will 7 probably have realised that, in every progress update 8 and in my interim report, I have been careful to quote 9 what both the Government and Post Office have said on 10 a number of occasions, namely the aim is to provide 11 compensation which is full and fair, all right? Forget 12 the prompt side of it for the moment. 13 When I asked questions of both Mr Staunton and, 14 I think, Mr Cameron in the recent phase, that is in 15 Phase 7, they appeared to be acknowledging that, 16 nonetheless, there was a balance to be struck between 17 the compensation payable to the postmaster and the fact 18 that it was coming from public funds, in other words, 19 public money had to be protected. 20 As far as you're concerned, Mr Foat -- and 21 I appreciate you may not be directly concerned in 22 individual cases in the compensation schemes which the 23 Post Office is administering -- do you think that there 24 is a balancing exercise taking place, or do you think 25 that the panels or negotiators or whatever the correct 96 1 terminology may be, are seeking to fulfil the commitment 2 to full and fair compensation? 3 A. Thank you, sir. I think I do understand your question. 4 With respect to my colleagues, I think they are 5 conflating two separate issues. One is to do with 6 an overarching financial envelope that the Government 7 Shareholder may have set aside, as distinct from the 8 individual assessment of claims. The individual 9 assessment of claims is done with reference to three 10 external panel members, one being a QC (sic), one being 11 an accountant, one being a retailer representative. 12 They are then assessed with respect to principles 13 and, indeed, at the requirement of Government, we also 14 needed to do test cases, and they are with reference to 15 well-recognised established heads of loss. So, you 16 know, that would include general damages, past and 17 economic loss, special damages, et cetera. 18 So I don't see that managing public monies, although 19 that is a separate legal obligation on Post Office 20 generally, that does not pertain directly to the 21 individual claims assessment in these cases. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. 23 MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir, if we could have questions from 24 Mr Moloney before we take a ten-minute break. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Certainly. 97 1 Questioned by MR MOLONEY 2 MR MOLONEY: Thank you, sir. 3 Mr Foat, can I take you back to the start of your 4 evidence this morning, or certainly the early part, when 5 Mr Blake was drawing your attention to the repeated 6 messages sent by Mr Williams, and cascaded through the 7 business about matters of privilege in respect of GLO, 8 ultimately. 9 A. Sure. 10 Q. Mr Blake focused on the instruction that was given in 11 relation to the creation of documents and your evidence 12 was that, while you wouldn't have been supervising 13 Mr Williams in this work, you would have seen this as 14 standard practice in civil commercial litigation? 15 A. Yes, so there is a standard process around what we call 16 a document preservation notice and when -- not just for 17 this matter but when there are any -- which I think the 18 legal test is anticipated legal proceedings, it is 19 appropriate for a company -- or indeed a party -- to 20 issue a document preservation notice as part of -- 21 I think, later when I became Legal Director, 22 I established a central repository of precedence, and 23 I understand that the document preservation notice, 24 although not necessarily Rod's, but subsequently there 25 is a -- what one might say is a more enhanced document 98 1 preservation notice. 2 Q. Thank you, Mr Foat. Can we just look very quickly 3 again, please, at one of the documents that Mr Blake 4 showed you this morning, which is POL00415520. 5 A. With apology, what's the bundle reference number? 6 MR BLAKE: It's E50 of your Phase 5/6 bundle. 7 MR MOLONEY: I'm grateful to Mr Blake and I apologise to 8 Mr Foat. 9 A. No, that's all right. 10 Q. Thank you. 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. Thank you, Mr Foat. 13 The first page is simply an urging of all to read 14 the email carefully. At page 2 of this document, we see 15 the three crucial document rules which are the standard 16 practice, Mr Foat, and you've been taken to those. 17 I don't need to go into those in any detail, but if we 18 go on to the next page, we see, "What is a 'document'?", 19 and, "What are 'relevant' documents?" 20 We see the definition of a document at number 1 but: 21 "Relevant documents are any document that could: 22 either support or undermine the case of any party to the 23 litigation." 24 So the additional note includes advice on documents 25 and duty to disclose documents which exist. 99 1 You told the Inquiry this morning that, as his 2 supervisor, you said you knew that Mr Williams was 3 relying on Cartwright King when it came to any criminal 4 matters? 5 A. That's what I -- yes, that's what I understood the 6 resource was that he was relying on. 7 Q. Yes. There's no mention in this email of the Post 8 Office's continuing duties as a prosecutor? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Yes. Would you have expected anyone to whom this email 11 was being cascaded -- and, by that, I mean people in the 12 business working in other roles outside the Legal 13 Teams -- to be able to understand any relationship 14 between litigation privilege in civil claims and the 15 ongoing duties of the organisation as a prosecutor, from 16 this email? 17 A. No, I think you're quite right, sir. I think this email 18 was limited to a document preservation notice in 19 reference to the High Court litigation. So the civil 20 litigation, rather than a criminal matter. 21 Q. Entirely. Just a question about your experience and 22 perhaps quite complex experience here: this was a case 23 involving civil litigation in a commercial context, 24 brought in part by individuals who had been prosecuted 25 by the business. So a rare species of litigation. Had 100 1 you, at that point in your career, had experience of 2 commercial litigation against a prosecuting 3 organisation? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. As his line manager, did you know whether Mr Williams 6 had had that unusual combination of experience either? 7 A. I was aware that he had been handling this matter for 8 some years, so I was aware that he had experience. Just 9 to clarify, he wasn't a criminal lawyer but he had 10 experience of both areas of law, if I can put it in 11 those terms. 12 Q. Yes. Are you able to assist on whether, at any time 13 during your supervision of Mr Williams and before the 14 conclusion of the GLO, there was any message cascaded 15 through the business clarifying that, privilege aside, 16 Post Office may owe duties of disclosure to those who 17 might have the basis for a criminal appeal? 18 A. Not off the top of my head, sir, no. I don't recall it. 19 My vague recollection from 2019 was that there was 20 a device that -- and I think, actually, this was the 21 same basis upon which the CCRC proceeded -- was that it 22 was awaiting the outcome of the Horizon Issues Judgment. 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. I take your -- sir, if your point is that there is 25 an ongoing duty of care of disclosure, that is correct, 101 1 sir. 2 Q. Thank you. Just one final thing, please, Mr Foat. In 3 the autumn of 2020, lawyers were preparing for the 4 criminal appeals hearings, which were to take place in 5 February 2021. 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. To your knowledge, was the fact of the discovery of 8 31,000 boxes of materials ever revealed to the Court of 9 Appeal Criminal Division? 10 A. I think it was. It was flagged to HSF and Peters & 11 Peters. There were what was called tranches of 12 disclosure that was made and so there were a number of 13 QCs, there were quite a number of junior barristers, who 14 were conducting the exercise, and it occurred over 15 several months -- forgive me, I think it was around 16 August and I think the last disclosure was around 17 February. 18 Q. To your knowledge, did all of that disclosure in the 19 criminal appeal proceedings, did that follow examination 20 of the 31,000 boxes? 21 A. I would have thought so, sir, given that Peters & Peters 22 were directly briefed on the issue and were a part of 23 the resolution of that. 24 MR MOLONEY: Thank you very much, Mr Foat. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Moloney. 102 1 MR BLAKE: Thank you, sir. Could we take a ten-minute 2 break? 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. 4 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much, sir. 12.25, please. 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 6 MR BLAKE: Thank you. 7 (12.14 pm) 8 (A short break) 9 (12.27 pm) 10 MR BLAKE: Thank you, Mr Foat. 11 Mr Stein? 12 Questioned by MR STEIN 13 MR STEIN: Mr Foat, good afternoon. Can you see and hear 14 me? 15 A. Yes, I can thank you. 16 Q. I'm not going to be very long, I have two areas of 17 questions to ask you about, so can I take you then 18 directly to a document I think you'll find in your 19 module 7 bundle at E3, and on the screen, please 20 FUJ00243199. 21 Mr Foat, this is a letter written by Mr Patterson of 22 Fujitsu to Mr Read. The date you'll see on the face of 23 the document is 17 May 2024, and I'm going to take you 24 to one particular part of this letter, which is at the 25 bottom half of that first page, please, and then under 103 1 the second point there, which is "Pursuit of Shortfalls 2 from Postmasters". I'll just go through this: 3 "It seems that the Post Office may be continuing to 4 pursue postmasters for shortfalls in their accounts 5 using Horizon data. We would have expected that the 6 Post Office has changed its behaviour in light of the 7 criticisms and is appropriately circumspect with respect 8 to any enforcement actions." 9 Then Mr Patterson goes on to say: 10 "It should not be relying on Horizon data as the 11 basis for such shortfall enforcement." 12 Just as a reminder, Mr Foat, Mr Patterson is the 13 European Director of Fujitsu, so a very, very senior 14 figure within Fujitsu's operations. 15 Now, my first question about this letter is that, 16 bearing in mind the date, 17 May this year, when was it 17 first brought to your attention? 18 A. So I was on leave at the relevant time, so I wasn't 19 involved in this matter. I was due to give evidence 20 previously and I returned to the office and the Interim 21 General Counsel flagged to me this broad issue. I don't 22 necessarily know if I've seen this letter, other than 23 I have seen that it has been raised in other witnesses. 24 Q. Right. So after 17 May, when you return from that 25 period of leave, this letter was brought to your 104 1 attention but you didn't see a hard copy or a digital 2 copy of it; is that what you're saying it? 3 A. I don't recall. I recall the Legal Director -- or, 4 sorry, the now Interim General Counsel, flagging that 5 there had been an issue between Post Office and Fujitsu 6 and that there was correspondence between the CEO. 7 I don't know if I have the -- all of the details of it 8 but I am aware of this letter, if that's your question. 9 Q. When it was brought to your attention at that time, on 10 the basis of there's been this issue between Fujitsu and 11 the Post Office, was it brought to your attention on the 12 basis of, well, this is a bit awkward, Fujitsu are not 13 necessarily saying that you should rely upon the Horizon 14 system to look at shortfalls -- in other words that this 15 is quite an important issue; was it brought to your 16 attention in that way? 17 A. Yes, it was raised with me that Post Office didn't 18 accept for Fujitsu to be saying that their system -- and 19 I think part of what Sarah said was that, you know, 20 obviously Post Office is paying for a system and Post 21 Office expects that it's fit for purpose, and so -- but 22 she -- the -- the conversation that I had with her is 23 she was reassuring me that there was this issue, it's 24 being looked into, that the Legal Team -- and, 25 I understood it, an external lawyer was involved in this 105 1 correspondence. But I'm afraid I didn't have any other 2 detail in respect of it. 3 Q. Understood, Mr Foat. Let me press you a little bit 4 further. We heard yesterday from Mr Bartlett, 5 Mr Bartlett being the Director of Assurance & Complex 6 Investigations, that's John Bartlett. Now, his evidence 7 included a reference to this particular document and he 8 explained that advice had been taken, it seemed to be 9 from outside of the Post Office advice, which allowed 10 the Post Office not to disclose it to police 11 investigations; are you aware of that step being taken, 12 in other words advice being taken regarding this 13 correspondence leading to the outcome, which is 14 non-disclosure? 15 A. I'm not aware of that, sir. 16 Q. Given the background history of this scandal, which in 17 really short terms is about non-disclosure, it's about 18 not giving people the right information anywhere close 19 to the right time, it does seem surprising that the Post 20 Office still seems to be keeping back information that 21 may be useful for the exercise of a police 22 investigation; do you not agree? 23 A. Sir, I'm not aware of that advice. I haven't been given 24 that advice. I can't comment on that. 25 Q. Well, I wasn't asking you about the details of that 106 1 advice. I was telling you what Mr Bartlett said in his 2 evidence, Mr Foat, which is the effect of his evidence 3 is that they sought advice which led to this document 4 not going out to police investigations. Don't you agree 5 that seems surprising, given the background to this 6 matter and this scandal? 7 A. I would want to see the advice before I comment. 8 Q. One of the concerns that might be said about what's 9 going on here is this is very much same old/same old: 10 information that should go to the police, so that they 11 can investigate either in one direction against 12 an individual or to consider whether their information 13 is correct, is being stopped at a bottleneck at the Post 14 Office. Well, that sounds like history repeating 15 itself, Mr Foat; do you agree? 16 A. No, that's absolutely not the ethos of the Post Office 17 Legal Team or the A&CI Team. I don't believe that 18 that's the case but it's a bit difficult for me to 19 comment on an advice I haven't seen. 20 Q. Yes. In your current situation, are you able to look at 21 such information and consider it and then consider 22 whether it should be reviewed by the team supporting the 23 Post Office before this Inquiry, and then consider that 24 for disclosure purposes? 25 A. Certainly, sir. I can take that away and revert back. 107 1 Q. My last question concerns something slightly different. 2 Mr Moloney asked you some questions just before the 3 short break regarding the lead-up period to the appeals 4 in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. 5 Now, at that time in the lead-up to the appeals in 6 the Court of Appeal criminal division, we know that 7 Brian Altman KC was leading on behalf of the Post 8 Office, responding to those appeals in the Court of 9 Appeal. We also know that Mr Altman had a very 10 long-term involvement in matters touching upon issues 11 that relate to this Inquiry, including at least being 12 engaged on issues that relate to disclosure or indeed 13 non-disclosure, and he's admitted that he's made 14 a mistake in relation to dealing with the matters of 15 disclosure himself. 16 Did he ever come to you or, to your knowledge, any 17 other member of the Legal Team and say, "I'm worried 18 about whether I should be, in fact, presenting matters 19 on behalf of the Post Office"? 20 A. No, he did not but it was the other way round. 21 Q. I was going to ask the other way round. Thank you very 22 much. What was the other way round, Mr Foat? 23 A. Thank you, sir. By that I mean it was Post Office that 24 raised the fact of -- obviously, Brian had been 25 involved. Mr Altman is an extremely experienced senior 108 1 criminal lawyer and, frankly, he had a lot of 2 information and memory on issues, which someone like 3 myself or indeed a lot of other people didn't have, so 4 he was valuable from that perspective. But the Board 5 discussed the matter and the Board determined that Zoe 6 Johnson QC, another very capable, experienced Queen's 7 Counsel, should be appointed as independent from Brian 8 Altman and, in addition, the Board also appointed 9 Sir David Calvert-Smith who would oversee and 10 specifically advise the Board itself, separate from 11 Brian Altman and Zoe Johnson QC. 12 So I think those measures or controls helped make 13 sure that there was that counterbalance that I've 14 referred to previously, that, even if someone had been 15 involved in the matter that there was independent advice 16 and expertise that sat independent from it and, indeed, 17 that there was also Sir David Calvert-Smith. 18 Q. Right. To your knowledge, did Mr Altman say or express 19 his own concerns that "I, Brian Altman, was part of the 20 decision-making process and made an error in that 21 process on disclosure issues", and express his therefore 22 concerns about whether he had a conflict; was that ever 23 discussed with you? 24 A. No. 25 Q. In the reverse, was that ever discussed with him, "Look, 109 1 Mr Altman, you're experienced, you're valuable to us 2 because you've done a lot of work on this", did the Post 3 Office ever say, "You were part and parcel of that 4 history of non-disclosure, should you really be part of 5 this"; was it ever really raised in that term? 6 A. So the reverse -- as I said before, the reverse is true. 7 Post Office recognised that he had involvement. But 8 just to be clear to your question, it was only until he 9 gave evidence at the Inquiry that I understand he 10 acknowledged that issue. Before that time, Mr Altman 11 has never -- well never to me or anyone else that I'm 12 aware -- has acknowledged that point, if that's -- if 13 that's the question. 14 MR STEIN: It's part of it. Thank you, Mr Foat. 15 I'll just check. 16 Nothing else. Thank you, Mr Foat. 17 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 18 MR BLAKE: Sir, we have one small matter from Mr Moloney and 19 then we have another small matter from Ms Allan. 20 Further questioned by MR MOLONEY 21 MR MOLONEY: Simply this, and I'm obliged to Mr Foat. 22 Mr Foat may remember that I asked him the question 23 about the 31,000 boxes and the extent to which they had 24 been reviewed and material from them disclosed for the 25 purposes of the criminal appeal proceedings before the 110 1 Court of Appeal Criminal Division. 2 Sir, we've managed to make some checks during the 3 time that Mr Foat gave his answer and, in fact, those 4 documents were reviewed prior to the substantive hearing 5 of the criminal appeals. 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Moloney. Ms Allan? 7 Questioned by MS ALLAN 8 MS ALLAN: Good afternoon, Mr Foat. My name is Christie 9 Allan, and I ask questions on behalf of Core Participant 10 Susan Sinclair, who was the first subpostmaster to 11 successfully appeal her conviction in Scotland. 12 At paragraph 231 of your fourth witness statement, 13 which I don't propose to turn up, you refer to steps 14 taken by the Post Office between 2019 and 2020 in 15 relation to individuals who may have been affected by 16 bugs, errors and defects with Horizon, especially those 17 convicted claimants and those who had suffered historic 18 shortfalls. 19 In that context, you describe liaising with external 20 advisers and criminal law experts in terms of the Post 21 Conviction Disclosure Exercise and as a result of 22 ongoing communication from the CCRC. 23 Can you confirm any proactive steps that Post Office 24 took, particularly in light of the Horizon Issues 25 Judgment in 2019, to immediately seek to rectify the 111 1 miscarriages of justice which had occurred in Scotland 2 as a result of its failings in its duty of disclosure? 3 A. So immediately after the Horizon Issues Judgment was 4 handed down, legal advice was immediately obtained, 5 setting out the potential implications to criminal 6 convictions. Subsequent to that, then Peters & Peters 7 was appointed and, as we've just heard through the 8 questionings with Mr Stein, there were a number of other 9 Queen's Counsel and judge appointed to that process. 10 My understanding is that Peters & Peters also 11 engaged with a Scottish criminal law firm and, I do 12 apologise, I can't recall the name of that law firm, but 13 those issues were then communicated back through Peters 14 & Peters. 15 Q. Perhaps I can maybe assist you with the name of that law 16 firm. I think that might have been BTO Solicitors; 17 would that be correct? Does that ring a bell? 18 A. I don't know but I understood that there was a Scottish 19 law firm to advise under Scottish law. 20 Q. Thank you. Did or has the Post Office engaged with the 21 Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission or Crown 22 Office in Scotland directly to seek to rectify its 23 failings from the past and to identify those affected 24 subpostmasters in Scotland? 25 A. My understanding is that there has been a liaising 112 1 between the Scottish CCRC and with Peters & Peters. I'm 2 not across the detail but that is correct. 3 MS ALLAN: Okay, thank you. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms Allan. 5 MR BLAKE: Sir, before we finish, I remembered that when 6 I read out the witness statement at the very beginning 7 I read the first witness statement, second witness 8 statement, third, fourth and sixth. I forgot the fifth 9 witness statement, which is WITN09980500, dated 29 May 10 2024. Mr Foat, can you just confirm for us that your 11 signature appears on that statement and that it is true 12 to the best of your knowledge and belief? 13 A. It does appear on this statement and it is in accordance 14 with my belief. Thank you. 15 MR BLAKE: Thank you. 16 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. 17 Well, first of all, thank you very much, Mr Foat, 18 for providing all the witness statements to which you 19 have attested. I am grateful to you for that. I am 20 very sorry that in the summer, when you were ready to 21 give evidence, that couldn't take place. I am very 22 grateful to you for giving oral evidence this morning 23 and agreeing with arrangements for starting early in 24 order to facilitate what I have to do this afternoon 25 and, finally, I'm grateful to you for your oral evidence 113 1 today. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I would like to say publicly that I'm 4 grateful to everyone who has cooperated with making 5 today happen, starting very early and the hearing 6 running very smoothly. So thanks to you all. 7 We now have, I think, a fortnight's break and we 8 resume on 4 November with Mr Recaldin, is it not, 9 Mr Blake? 10 MR BLAKE: That's correct, sir, yes. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. See you all then. 12 MR BLAKE: Thank you very much. 13 (12.44 pm) 14 (The hearing adjourned until Monday, 4 November 2024) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 I N D E X BENJAMIN ANDREW FOAT (affirmed) ...............1 Questioned by MR BLAKE ........................1 Questioned by MR HENRY .......................92 Questioned by MR MOLONEY .....................98 Questioned by MR STEIN ......................103 Further questioned by MR MOLONEY ............110 Questioned by MS ALLAN ......................111 115