YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Horizon scandal: Alan Bates takes stand in Post Office inquiry – watch live

Horizon scandal: Alan Bates takes stand in Post Office inquiry – watch live — Transcript

by Guardian News · 15,171 words · 2,298 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00I want to draw your attention to the
0:01enclosed survey which has just taken
0:03place as you'll see it's been completed
0:05by serving sub postmasters with their
0:07enor anonymity Ur to safeguard them from
0:10reprisals I'm sure you'll find the
0:11results disturbing and in total conflict
0:14with the assurances given by post office
0:16limited to your predecessor and no doubt
0:19to yourself if you were to raise our
0:21concerns with them um who conducted the
0:25survey uh well I did really um via the
0:29web site we I think we only had it up
0:32for about a week it was a very short
0:34sharp um uh survey just to get some sort
0:40of feedback from sub postmasters to what
0:42extent things happened before people
0:45started to abuse the um the uh uh
0:49survey and I think on the subsequent
0:51Pages if we just quickly look at the in
0:53the interest of time um we look at page
0:58three
1:03you tell us in the second paragraph the
1:04survey remained online for eight days
1:06yeah it was a Survey Monkey um uh
1:10Le uh
1:13survey and then over the page to page
1:21five some examples I'm not going to go
1:23through all of this do you have regular
1:24balance shortages that you have to put
1:25money into
1:27address 77% of respondents said
1:30yes yeah uh going back to page one of
1:34the letter
1:39please and the last
1:43paragraph uh or penultimate paragraph
1:45previously we offer to work with your
1:46department to assist with uncovering
1:48this major Scandal and I now extend that
1:51offer to
1:53you um you got a reply to this letter I
1:56believe yes can we look at that UK gii
1:59Tre
2:0701612 and if we just blow up the main
2:09text from Norman
2:12lamb um I think youd followed it up in
2:15the meantime with a chaser on the 20th
2:17of March which is why it refers in the
2:19first paragraph to letters of 25th of
2:22February which is the one we've looked
2:23at in 20th of March which we
2:25haven't he apologizes for the delay in
2:28replying and he says as you're aw from
2:30your context with my uh predecessor Ed
2:32Davy the concerns raised by the jfsa
2:35rate to operational and contractual
2:37matters for the Post Office and as the
2:39shareholder government has an arms
2:41length relationship with the company and
2:44um uh does not I think that should say
2:47does not have any role in its day-to-day
2:49operations I also understand that legal
2:52action against post office is underway
2:55uh on behalf I think that should say of
2:57a number of jfsa uh members
3:00uh taking into account that any meeting
3:01would take place within this overall
3:03context I would ask you to contact my
3:05diary manager to um if you'd still like
3:08to arrange a suitable date so um uh
3:12taking the point about an arms length
3:15relationship meaning that government has
3:18no role in operational and contractual
3:21matters but nonetheless offering um a
3:27meeting you um I think uh know that you
3:30attended a um the meeting that's
3:32referred to in that um paragraph
3:34although you can't recall the date you
3:36say it was mid
3:382012 um we know from other evidence that
3:40it was on the 27th of June 2012 so
3:44you're um exactly right and you tell us
3:47in your statement that letter can come
3:48down thank you um that Mr lamb appeared
3:51to be willing to listen to you yeah it's
3:53the first time I I thought a minister
3:55was actually taking on board the
3:57concerns that we were raising with him
3:59um
4:00and he he did seem to be genuinely
4:04concerned about
4:07it did you form the impression at the
4:09meeting with Mr lamb that he understood
4:13that um a scandal had
4:16developed I think I I think he was
4:19starting to recognize there was a real
4:24problem did you form any view as to
4:26whether or not Mr lamb was going to
4:28continue to re r on the justification
4:32that the government had an arms length
4:34relationship with the post office I I
4:38don't think that's the way his support
4:42if he if it was support for for our uh
4:45cuse went um I think it probably
4:49manifested itself in in a different way
4:52but I I could be wrong on that it it's
4:55um fair to point out that um this
4:58meeting on the 27th of June took 2012 um
5:01ought to be viewed in the context of
5:03some other developments that had taken
5:05place in the meantime um if we can just
5:07reference those without going into the
5:10details um there had been meetings with
5:12James alnot um and Oliver Lewin yeah um
5:17a small group of MPS had joined and had
5:21met with senior post office um
5:23management and on the 18th of June 2012
5:27they had agreed to commission an
5:28independent review
5:30yeah did you know those things at the
5:33time of the meeting with Mr lamb um I
5:36was aware of what was going on there and
5:39I think I I I could be wrong this is my
5:42reading the situation is I would not be
5:45surprised at all whether um this is what
5:48I'm saying that Norman lamb perhaps
5:50showed his support somewhat differently
5:52maybe putting uh a quiet word with post
5:56office that maybe they should support
5:58some sort of MP or whatever
6:00investigation that was my impression I
6:02could be wrong it's just that the timing
6:04seemed to work quite well everything
6:06seemed to slot into
6:08place um after Norman lamb was replaced
6:11he was in office for um in this office
6:13for a short period of time six months or
6:15so yeah um did you pursue the matter
6:18immediately with his
6:20successor I I don't recall uh I think we
6:23were following another route at that
6:25time weren't we were are you the second
6:27site yeah that's right um review
6:30can we turn then to the appointment of
6:33second site
6:37um we know from your written evidence
6:39and some U the documents that we've got
6:42how it was that the idea of an
6:44independent review came to be conceived
6:47and carried into
6:49effect and that um second site were to
6:53be appointed in order to conduct the
6:55investigation or the review how did you
6:58first feel when it was suggested that
7:01second site be brought in to undertake
7:03an investigation or a review we're
7:05talking now of the MP case review yes um
7:12suspicious um it we were highly
7:15suspicious of it because were they being
7:17brought into if you like whitewash it's
7:20on behalf of post office because um post
7:23office brought them forward um to to
7:26ourselves to um to to to see how we we
7:30thought they would get on but I mean as
7:34time went on with second side we had
7:35more and more confidence in in their
7:38independence in it but initially um we
7:41we were highly wary of them and was that
7:44because they were being paid for yeah uh
7:47in a lot of by the post office by post
7:48office yeah I mean and that's been a
7:52concern down the line with all the
7:54different schemes that that um post
7:57office has been funding them and um and
8:01I've always said and and I continue to
8:03say now is throughout the whole of the
8:05period with all of this all of this sort
8:08of Scandal that's been going on it's
8:10it's been about control of the narrative
8:13and it's something that post office was
8:15incredibly Keen to do they had the money
8:18they had the powers they they wanted to
8:20brief the MPS they wanted to XY said
8:24they wanted to sit on the Committees of
8:26all of these things they wanted to pay
8:28for everything in there and it was um
8:32it's it always has been the concern um
8:37this controlling the narrative I mean I
8:40think they lost that at the time we went
8:42we got to the Glo or just after the Glo
8:44but I mean uh up until then um they they
8:48I think it was their approach to
8:50managing the whole of this
8:51situation looking at the work of second
8:54site as a whole and in particular the
8:56post offices approach to it did did you
8:59form a view on the basis of what the
9:02post office said and what the post
9:04office did well I as to whether the post
9:08office um Wanted the investigation to
9:11succeed to engage openly and
9:13transparently with it and for the truth
9:16to
9:17emerge I don't know they they used to
9:20they used to say at the meetings that
9:21they wanted the truth as well but um I I
9:24mean I had a lot of faith in James or
9:27bunot who was like the lead MP support
9:30for us and
9:32um I think actually As It quotes in the
9:35drama what other choice did we have at
9:37that time as well and it seemed a a um a
9:41way of taking it Forward at least people
9:44starting to investigate and look
9:46seriously at these cases and you know
9:50let's see how it got let's see how it
9:51went let's see how it got on yeah you
9:53said that you what other choice did we
9:54have yeah why did you feel that you had
9:56no other choice
9:58well we had no money we um the legal
10:03option wasn't available to us at that
10:05time there seemed a willingness seemed
10:08um by post office albeit it might have
10:11been a reluctant willingness but there
10:13did seem uh to be a willingness by post
10:15office at that time and I mean the the
10:19the MPS were were quite positive about
10:22it at that time obviously wary but they
10:25were quite positive so it it it did seem
10:28a good way for forward at least to start
10:31with uh can I just briefly explore the
10:34um extent of the jfsa and your
10:37involvement in the appointment of um
10:38second site you tell us in your witness
10:40statement it's paragraph 109 that you
10:43and the jfsa were not involved in the
10:45appointment of second site albeit MPS
10:48were Keen to seek your approval of
10:50second site's appointment can we look at
10:53a few documents please on that uh
10:55starting with poll1
10:587174
11:05um we can see that um if we scroll down
11:07a little bit just to get the email up a
11:09little bit more thank you an email from
11:11ROM warmington of second site to Susan
11:14kryon Simon Baker and copying in his
11:17colleague um Ian Henderson on the 4th of
11:22July and it's a report of a meeting that
11:26day with MPS
11:30um and it says in the second paragraph
11:32as well as James and Janet that's James
11:34AR bnot and Janet Walker is that right
11:38correct he Chief of Staff yes um there
11:40were the following and there were four
11:41MPS set out um and a representative of
11:44Andrew garne um Oliver lein sent his
11:49apologies
11:53um and then just scrolling down a bit
11:56thank you uh about halfway down the page
12:00um ja that's James R bnot stated it was
12:03a Pity that having cleared it that the
12:05jfsa leader Alan Bates could attend in
12:08the end he was unable to do so um at
12:11short notice so it's right is it that
12:14you were invited to attend the meeting
12:16with MPS to discuss whether second site
12:19should be appointed yes and then
12:23um ja clearly wanted to and now wants to
12:28get some Buy in from Alan Bates and
12:31seemed genuinely disappointed that the
12:33whole thing couldn't be buttoned up
12:34today he asked whether Ron warmington
12:37would be prepared to come back for a
12:39three-person meeting in James arnot's
12:41office U Ron warmington um of course
12:44offered to do
12:46that and then if we go to page three
12:55please and if we scroll down a little
12:58bit yeah it's just um three paragraphs
13:00on the bottom in regard to Alan Bates
13:03and the jfsa whilst James R bunot
13:06clearly wants Alan bates's buyin he
13:09doesn't want to give Alan Bates the
13:10impression that he Alan Bates has a
13:13power of veto over who carries out the
13:15review its scope and how it is to be um
13:18carried
13:20out the meeting concluded with James Al
13:22bunau confirming on behalf of all
13:24present that they're satisfied that
13:26second site is a suitable choice and it
13:28now remains to get Alan Bates and gfsa
13:31um concurrence so it seems that um would
13:34you agree that the MPS wanted your
13:36approval on behalf of the jfsa in order
13:39to as it's put button up second site's
13:42appointment yes and would you agree that
13:45it wasn't therefore necessarily a done
13:47deal the appointment of second site
13:48without your approval no but I don't
13:52think um we were going to be able to
13:54hold them sort of Hostage over it as
13:56well I think they'd have gone on a with
13:59without it but obviously they prefer to
14:01have our blessing and I think you
14:03therefore attended a meeting um with
14:05kayin L and second site that's right um
14:09can we look at that please poll 309
14:186817 and um at the um page two at the
14:22foot of it
14:25please an email from U James our bunot
14:28to Paul
14:29venel I've just completed a very good
14:32meeting with Ron and I from second site
14:34and you you were accompanied by forensic
14:37accountant Kay Lenell both asked some
14:40challenging questions of Ron and Ian
14:42which they answered to Mr Bates and Miss
14:45lenell's um
14:48satisfaction um do you recall um
14:51attending that meeting and coming away
14:53with it having expressed satisfaction
14:56that second site were suitable
14:58appointees
14:59yes I think so yeah and therefore you
15:02essentially agreed to their appointment
15:03oh
15:06yes and so to that extent um would you
15:11accept that you and the jfsa were um
15:13both therefore involved in the
15:15appointment of second
15:17site to that extent
15:22yes can we turn to Second T second s's
15:25remit
15:27please you tell us in paragraph 111 of
15:31your statement that you don't recall
15:33being involved in setting second sites
15:36remit or terms of reference again can we
15:39look at certain documents in relation to
15:42that uh poll dou1
15:5743976
16:01poll1
16:1443976 and if we look at the email at the
16:17bottom of the
16:18page from Simon Baker to you on the 14th
16:21of November Mr Baker the head of
16:24business change saying he works for the
16:26Post Office and involved is involved in
16:29setting supporting the second site
16:32investigation uh following on from your
16:34conversation with Paula venos and James
16:36R bunot we've updated your draft
16:38immunity agreement so that it addresses
16:40both your concerns this is a draft
16:44document please call me once you've had
16:46a chance to
16:48review um we'll also send a copy to Kay
16:51Lenell to ensure she's kept in the um
16:54picture what was the um immunity
16:56agreement about
16:57please
17:00I don't clearly recall but I I know
17:02there was
17:04um we had concerns about anyone coming
17:07forward to to any of the schemes there
17:10that there might be some sort of post
17:13office and may well
17:16um I don't
17:18know the there might be some sort of
17:21Retribution by post office for anyone
17:23and and what we wanted was some sort of
17:26agreement that such an instant wouldn't
17:29happen in there and I think that um
17:32hopefully pretty certain they did
17:34approve something in the end as
17:37well can we look please at the document
17:39that was attached to that email the
17:41raising concerns with Horizon document
17:45poll1
17:5143977
17:54uh the draft document says um
18:01uh this is a paper that's been issued by
18:03the agreement of post office limited and
18:05the justice for sub
18:07postmasters um
18:10Alliance is it right that um it was
18:15intended that the raising concerns with
18:17Horizon document which is a foundational
18:20document for this part of the review was
18:22to be a a document that was issued with
18:25the agreement of both post office and
18:27jfsa well we yeah we we wanted to agree
18:31the wording of it and it encompassed uh
18:34all the issues involved um uh it's quite
18:38an interesting document um with some of
18:40the the comments that are in it um
18:45nowadays
18:47um can I take you to the things that I
18:50found interesting and then you add if
18:52there are any others um I was looking at
18:55page four of the document
19:02Under The Heading the remit of the
19:03inquiry okay
19:06yeah um the remit of the inquiry will be
19:09to consider an advise on whether there
19:11are any systemic
19:14issues um Andor concerns with the
19:16Horizon System including training and
19:19support processes giving evidence and
19:21reasons for the conclusion
19:24reach um inquiry is not asked to
19:27investigate or comment on General
19:28improve improvements which might be made
19:30it's not a mediation or
19:32arbitration um
19:36the terms of reference there do they set
19:40out sorry do the does the remit
19:43described there essentially set out the
19:45terms of reference I think it does um I
19:48mean it was early days for us as a group
19:51to be involved with this type of scheme
19:54um so um we're a little bit led by by
19:59what was thought in there but we felt it
20:01encompassed the main concerns at an
20:03early stage and and here the remit is
20:06said to uh consider and advise on
20:09whether there are systemic issues or
20:10concerns with the whole
20:12system yeah was that um jfsa
20:17aim well it's it was to try and
20:20establish the truth about it
20:24yeah is that how it ended
20:27up well I think um there was a um slight
20:33disagreement over the word systemic
20:36issues and how far they extended and all
20:39that issue but yeah basically that's
20:41where it started
20:43from can we move um sorry was there
20:45anything else in here that you wanted to
20:47draw attention to but on that document
20:49yes well um uh it was on page one of the
20:55original document that we we've gone on
20:56to the appendix there haven't we yeah
20:58yeah
21:01um yeah I I think I'm sorry I probably
21:04shouldn't do this but um it was some of
21:07the wording in there we we all recognize
21:10soorry it's the third paragraph We all
21:12recognize that post office limited cares
21:13about its agents and thousands of sub
21:16postm post office limited to committing
21:19the highest standards to corporate
21:20openness U prity and accountability is
21:23happy to sensibly Challenge and believe
21:26that I can't see the next bit sorry um
21:30can I see the next the full page please
21:32thank you
21:33um yeah I it it it was this statement
21:38underneath post office limited would
21:41like to take this opportunity to
21:44emphasize that these fears are
21:47unfounded um I mean and they've been
21:51going on about sorry it's the top
21:53paragraph or second paragraph down where
21:55there's been persistent alleg assertions
21:57that the hor system Horizon may be the
22:00source of unresolved shortages in post
22:03office and then they're trying to
22:05dismiss it afterwards it's just that I
22:06think that's quite important for what
22:09was known by post office at that time
22:12and they were quite happy to put their
22:13name to a statement like
22:16that that's sorry that was just the
22:18point on that thank you m Mr Bas now I
22:21think you um send a reply to this
22:24request for comments on the draft Yeah
22:26to um Simon Baker I'm not going going to
22:28turn it up that the reference is poll
22:3283679 that was on the 20th of November
22:352012 and um your only major change was
22:39to extend the deadline for concerns to
22:42be lodged until the 31st of March 2013 I
22:45think so I think it's fair to say that
22:49um looking at that exchange of emails
22:51and the drafts ATT that you on behalf of
22:54jfsa had agreed the the remit of um the
22:59initial second site investigation I
23:01think we'd agreed with the remit yes I'm
23:04sorry I missed out I think we agreed
23:07with the remit
23:09yes thank you and that can come
23:15down can we um turn to your witness
23:18statement please um page
23:2735
23:30[Music]
23:40and in um
23:43paragraph um 10 you say something
23:46similar to that which you've said
23:48already today we had real concerns as
23:51they that second site had been chosen by
23:53the post office we were concerned as to
23:55whether they would under take a white
23:57wash and were in the the post office's
23:59pocket in a similar way to the
24:02nfsp and then paragraph
24:06112 I was suspicious of the post office
24:09at this point and the whole scheme in
24:11general after having engaged in
24:13countless Communications with the post
24:15office over a long period of time all of
24:18which were sent in the hope of receiving
24:19some support from the post office uh no
24:22one felt as this we could trust the Post
24:24Office in all of
24:26this I think it's right that despite
24:29your initial suspicions your impression
24:32of second site improved um once you had
24:35had Direct engagement with them is that
24:37right yes we can see that by looking at
24:41page 37 of your witness
24:45statement at paragraph 118 at the foot
24:48of the page my impression of second site
24:52improved from um initial contact with
24:54them I felt more confident in their
24:56ability and could see them operating
24:57more independ ly from the post office my
25:00main reservation at the start had been
25:01the fact they had been selected by the
25:02post office however I came to see that
25:05they were keen on um working as an
25:08unbiased third party which improved my
25:10confidence in them as an investigating
25:20body was that as a result of your direct
25:23engagement with second side yeah no um
25:26uh I did use to spend quite a bit of
25:29time certainly in the early days as well
25:31providing background information to how
25:33how things had come about and also um
25:36contact information about uh individuals
25:40or uh any queries about those in the
25:42group as
25:44well I think you had a concern
25:47nonetheless that
25:50information was um not getting back to
25:54uh Paula venel on the post office side
25:56is that right yeah I did you tell us
25:59about that in um paragraph 123 of your
26:02witness statement on page
26:0839 you say there was a concern that
26:10perhaps the information was not getting
26:12through to miss venol as I did not think
26:15her staff were feeding back to her I was
26:17concerned she wasn't being told the full
26:19story so I wanted to ensure she was
26:21being accurately informed of the whole
26:23situation this was perhaps a failure in
26:25the way Miss venos handled the situation
26:27in that I did not confident that she had
26:29been receiving accurate updates and was
26:32truly invested in the investigation and
26:34the subsequent events and we're going to
26:37explore um with um other Witnesses
26:40including Miss venor yeah um and
26:42including of course by reference to
26:46recordings of conversations that the
26:48inquir is in possession of the extent to
26:50which he was not or was not being
26:52properly briefed and was um challenging
26:55of the information that she received but
26:58can we look at a direct communication to
27:00to to you between the pair of you it's
27:03poll 30
27:2398418 and look at the email at the foot
27:25of the page
27:27please
27:29thank you um so this is 21st of May um
27:342013 and um you copy um kayin l in and
27:39it's a direct email to Paula venos you
27:42say hello Paula it's been a while since
27:44we met at James R Bun's um office but at
27:47that time you did say if I had any
27:49concerns I should contact you directly
27:52hence the reason for this email would it
27:54be possible for kayin L and I to meet
27:56you you'll recall that k is an
27:58independent forensic accountant on
28:00behalf who on behalf of jfsa has been
28:02monitoring the work second site has been
28:05undertaking the main purpose of the
28:07meeting is to ensure you've been
28:08receiving the full details of what have
28:10been occurring with the second site
28:12investigation bearing in mind what's
28:14been discovered so far I uh for one I'm
28:17surprised that we haven't met yet met to
28:20disclos the implications whil I
28:22appreciate majority of the issues began
28:24under previous regimes and you've
28:26expressed the genuine willingness to
28:27address address the concerns that jfsa
28:29have been raising that these issues are
28:31still continuing I've little doubt it's
28:33now um feasible to show that many of the
28:36prosecutions that the post office have
28:38pressed home should never have taken
28:40place I believe this is a view shared by
28:43K and then you suggest um some
28:49dates overall what was the purpose of
28:52making such direct one-to-one contact
28:54with Paula
28:56venel I don't remember clearly at that
28:58particular time for for that particular
29:00issue but um I
29:04certainly
29:07I I can't we we obviously did have
29:10concerns at that point about what was
29:12going on and what was being reported
29:13back but I can't actually place exactly
29:17where it lies in everything in the
29:18chronology yeah yeah just um trying a
29:22little harder on some of the details in
29:24the um the email you say bearing in mind
29:26what's been discovered so far I'm for
29:29one surprise we haven't yet met to
29:31discuss the
29:32implications uh do you know what that
29:34refers to I'm just wondering whether
29:36that's um after the interim report have
29:39been produced interim report hasn't come
29:41out yet has come yet um that's not until
29:43the 8th of July 2013 okay I think this
29:45must be early emerging information from
29:48second site wonder if it was a draft of
29:51it um I don't think a draft would emerge
29:54by the 21st of May I'm not sure I'm not
29:57sure sure I can't
29:59say I can't actually I can't recall
30:01clearly the the instances perhaps K
30:10count can you remember what happened as
30:12a result of
30:15this it depends where it drops into the
30:19chronology of the other issues
30:21unfortunately and I don't clearly
30:24remember off the top of my head no and
30:27if we look at the top of the page page
30:28we can see that um Miss ven's um
30:32assistant um asks Orwin orn Lions to
30:35then come secretary yeah to draft some
30:40words uh can you recall whether this
30:42resulted in a
30:45meeting we did have a meeting with her
30:49and also I'm not sure whether Paula was
30:53also there at that meeting but I do
30:55remember a meeting in Old Street
30:59the reason why I'm asking these
31:01questions in particular is that one of
31:02the covert recordings that we have is
31:05from the 22nd of May 2013 which is the
31:08day after uh you sent an email to Paula
31:11venel um and in that covert recording
31:15there is a discussion over the extent to
31:16which Paula Paula should or should not
31:19be told certain things certain items
31:21right sorry I can't help you further
31:24okay if you can't remember um I'll move
31:25on to what extent did you you understand
31:29that document can come down thank
31:31you that um at the time of the second
31:34site the MP cases investigation as you
31:36called it um Fujitsu was involved in the
31:41process I wasn't aware of anything at
31:43that time um not as far as the
31:45discussions that were going on about the
31:48system and all the rest of it I had no
31:50idea of them being did you know whether
31:53the post office was going back to
31:55Fujitsu to um uh check or
32:00verify information being given I think
32:02I've seen the later document more
32:04recently which um um does seem to
32:09suggest that that uh Fujitsu were
32:12involved and in part of discussions with
32:14post office on the
32:16system although this will be a question
32:19for um second sighting due course what
32:22was your understanding of the extent to
32:24which underlying data and information
32:27held by Fujitsu including arq data for
32:31example um contractual relationships
32:35between post office and Fujitsu U
32:38policies and correspondence between the
32:40two organizations was obtained and
32:43analyzed as part of second s's work um
32:47it it depends at what date you're you're
32:51saying about that I did become aware of
32:53it at some point that um but I think
32:56this was probably during the me
32:57mediation scheme itself when um we
33:01became aware that um I think it was
33:04something like 700 requests a year could
33:07be made by post office for arq data from
33:11Fujitsu um without any other charge
33:14being inflicted but then after that I
33:17think there was a charge involved it but
33:20I think that was during as I say during
33:23the time of the mediation scheme
33:26itself
33:28um can I um fast forward to um after the
33:32um draft of the second site interim
33:35report was being
33:37circulated and um look at poll 011
33:475961 um this is an email from Paula
33:50venel um internally to a a whole group
33:53of people within the post office and so
33:55not something you'll have seen at the
33:57time
33:58um if
34:00we um look at the first paragraph she
34:03says that she's had two very uh
34:06constructive telephone conversations
34:09with you which confirmed your
34:11willingness to work collaborative
34:14collaboratively with the post office in
34:16taking forward our response to the
34:18review in particular he agreed to
34:20participate in a new user Forum to
34:23provide feedback on training and support
34:25issues uh related to Horizon and bring
34:28the existing review process to a
34:30conclusion is that right can you
34:32remember whether um um you gave such a I
34:38I did have a um um I did have some uh
34:40telephone conversations with Paula and
34:43um I do remember
34:46one quite long one really it was about
34:50but it was after the the um after the
34:54inim report had been published that
34:56that's the one I really do recall that
34:59that phone call the others I'm afraid I
35:03don't
35:04recall um she says it's worth
35:06emphasizing that your main issue is not
35:08the computer but the human aspect how in
35:11his View Post Office fell to support and
35:14help vulnerable and muddle-headed sub
35:17postmasters was that your view well it
35:21wasn't just the computer but it was also
35:24the way that I mean she's put it down as
35:26not the computer but I'd say it
35:28definitely was the computer in there as
35:30well but it's it's also the way that
35:33post office dealt with these sorts of
35:35problems and dealt with some postmasters
35:37in an unconstructive way I mean and and
35:41I think that was one of the big problems
35:43and that we'll probably get to it but uh
35:47something further on but I'll wait for
35:49that um can we turn to the next bullet
35:52point
35:53please um he that's you also raised the
35:56idea of setting up a new independent
35:58third party that sub postmasters can
36:00approach if they're facing issues with
36:02Horizon which cannot be resolved through
36:04the normal post office
36:06processes yeah and she said that aligns
36:08with some of their own thinking and
36:10they're therefore inclined to agree with
36:11the idea um does that accurately reflect
36:14what you were suggesting yes it does I
36:17mean i' I've long felt um that there
36:19should be a totally independent third
36:22party that sub postmasters to go to when
36:25they have problems and um that who could
36:29then request post office records to
36:32check things in there I mean it's an
36:35alternative scheme in there so as not to
36:38expose um s postmasters to to the uh WTH
36:43of post office straight up uh and one of
36:46the reasons I I I used to suggest
36:49something like that was because I was
36:51being contacted over the years by a
36:53number of sub
36:55postmasters who had serious losses I'm
36:59talking about 30 40,000 PS of losses
37:03which they'd never declared to post
37:05office because they were so terrified of
37:07what was going to happen to them and
37:10they didn't know what to do or how to
37:12move on from that position and I could
37:16see something like a third party that
37:18they could have gone to directly that
37:20might have been able to assist or direct
37:23their the the concerns might have uh
37:26been useful
37:29and if we just go lastly over the page
37:34please uh the last bullet point in terms
37:36of the report itself we received a full
37:39draft from second site yesterday this
37:41was Saturday the 6th of July so that we
37:43been on the Friday the 5th and we've
37:45sent them back a version with track
37:47changes on a number of sections which we
37:50and Fujitsu believe are either factually
37:52inaccurate or open to
37:55misinterpretation again did you know
37:57know at this time that uh Fujitsu were
38:00working with the post office to provide
38:03answers to concerns raised during the
38:06second site investigation process not at
38:08this
38:10time did you at this stage however have
38:12an opportunity to meet with Fujitsu
38:14senior managers and any technical
38:18Specialists within Fujitsu to um discuss
38:21directly your concerns no it was never
38:24an offer made and um post office your
38:28used to take the position that we were
38:31contracted to them to post office and
38:35and um Fujitsu was a third party if you
38:38like um contracted to or to post office
38:42so we weren't directly um contracted to
38:46to Fujitsu or had control over anything
38:49that went on
38:51there
38:53unfortunately and so the
38:56uh report the second site interim report
38:59is published
39:01um on the 8th of July
39:042013 um if we turn up page 41 of your
39:07witness statement please
39:26yeah
39:28at paragraph
39:30128 you say I'm not sure how many of the
39:33group um that that's the jfsa saw the
39:36report or whether it was discussed
39:38overall the interim report was positive
39:40in general as it showed that there were
39:42issues
39:43concerning sorry occurring but we had a
39:45real concern over the interim report
39:47stating there were no systemic flaws
39:49what was your concern about the report
39:51stating that there were no systemic
39:54flaws well um I I actually thought there
39:58were there were systemic flaws in there
40:01and there systemic flaws in the way that
40:03post office operated and the way it
40:05dealt with people and all the rest of it
40:07perhaps not um being interpreted
40:11interpreted in the way that they were
40:13with the computer system even though
40:15there were s uh flaws of that nature in
40:18there but I knew perfectly well that out
40:21of a 30 OD page report the post office
40:25would jump on one particular line or one
40:28particular comment and that's what would
40:31be appearing in the media and in their
40:34press releases and it was that to what
40:38extent did they deploy that line and
40:40they did and they basically they kept
40:42saying that second site you know uh
40:44independent um investigators found that
40:47the there were no systemic flaws in
40:49Horizon you know they just kept on
40:51picking that one line out of a 30 page
40:54report which identified many other
40:57concerns right across the whole of the
40:59uh
41:01issue and um did it take until the
41:05judgments of Mr Justice Fraser for
41:08anyone in a decision-making role to
41:11acknowledge the existence or find uh the
41:14existence of systemic faults and
41:17failures in the Horizon system wow wa
41:21wait we're going back now to um
41:24controlling the narrative and that was
41:26the first time post off office lost
41:28control of the narrative once we got
41:30into the high court so yes that's when
41:32the the truth started to come out at
41:34that point had you previously IE months
41:38before then I months before the 8th of
41:42July publication drawn attention um to
41:47the problems with using the phrase um
41:50systemic flaw systemic failures or
41:52systemic faults to Second site yes can
41:55we look please to pull call
41:58309
42:148315 uh bottom email
42:20please thank you um this is two months
42:23before publication time so the 12th of
42:25May where you right to um Ron warmington
42:29of second
42:30side um and there's a whole heading um
42:33system errors versus systemic
42:37failures um you point out I'm not going
42:40to go through exactly what you say um
42:42here in the interest of time because
42:43we've still got a lot of ground to cover
42:46but in short order what was your
42:48point well one the point was I've just
42:52made to you there that post office would
42:54jump on it as being the Sy and those
42:57systemic failures um with post office
42:59and their Horizon system which it says
43:01in there I mean there were system
43:05failures in there but I just I couldn't
43:08understand
43:10why they felt that was so important to
43:13put in something of that sort in there
43:16when it was was obvious that there were
43:18SI systemic failures in the way post
43:21office dealt with so postmasters and the
43:23way they process things and the support
43:25they gave it it was was a total failure
43:28of post office throughout all of that
43:32um and I just found it a bit frustrating
43:35and I think even to this day Ron will
43:38remember this in great detail and we had
43:40a lot of um discussions over it at the
43:43time and I think he feels that they got
43:46it wrong the one thing they got wrong in
43:48that report was that thank you that can
43:51come down thank
43:53you to the um reports um the interim
43:57report is published on the 8th of July
43:59yeah um
44:012013 did you know at the time that
44:04shortly after the publication of second
44:06sight's interim report on the 8th of
44:08July um that the post office was
44:11informed that a witness that it had used
44:13in a series of
44:15prosecutions um Gareth Jenkins had
44:18failed to disclose to the court
44:21material which undermined the opinions
44:24that he gave that he had not complied
44:26with his duties to the court that his
44:29credibility to an expert as an expert
44:31witness was fatally undermined that the
44:35post office had been in breach of its
44:36duties as a prosecutor and that there
44:38were a number of convicted sub
44:40postmasters to whom disclosure of these
44:43facts should have been given but was not
44:45given not at that time when was the
44:48first time that you learned that the
44:50post office um had been given that
44:55information um
44:57it was quite late on um essentially I've
45:01summarized the Clark advice the first
45:04Simon Clark advice there yeah I I just I
45:07think it's it was it was probably at the
45:10time of the um the appeal court hearings
45:13for the overturn convictions I think
45:15that's when it really started coming to
45:17so 2021
45:20yeah was anything ever
45:24um discussed or even hinted at in all of
45:29the meetings that you held all of the
45:32conversations that you were a party to
45:35all of the letters that you wrote all of
45:37the email exchanges that you had with
45:40everyone at the post office from Alice
45:42Perkins and Paulo venel
45:46down about such problems with
45:49convictions
45:51no were there convicted sub postmasters
45:55within the jfsa at this time
45:58yes I've read somewhere that it was
46:00about a third of them that must um vary
46:05over the course of time it did I think
46:07what was the proportion yeah by the time
46:09we got to the Glo of the 550 as such in
46:11there I think about 60 of them is about
46:1310% roughly
46:17convictions in
46:19fact that that had been the the issue
46:24that had caused problems with the
46:26original origal um uh lawyers that were
46:29supporting a Sho Smiths back in
46:33201 10 uh it's because they couldn't
46:36obtain um at
46:39Insurance um because we had convictions
46:42in the
46:44group and just winding forwards a little
46:46bit before um uh the
46:48break that cohort of people I've said it
46:51was about a third at this time it um
46:54changed in number by the time you got up
46:56to five 50 um at the time of the the
46:59Glo what approach did the post office um
47:03take in relation to that group of people
47:05the sub uh convicted sub poost Masters
47:08in terms of whether they could um take
47:11their claims to the mediation scheme or
47:13have their claims
47:16adjudicated within a mediation uh in
47:19they actually agreed that they could go
47:20forward into the mediation
47:23scheme and were um such claims
47:25adjudicated upon in the
47:29mediation
47:31um I I don't recall specifically on that
47:37basis I mean that that that's a whole
47:40other
47:41discussion um one of the consequences um
47:46indeed one of the only substantial
47:49consequences of the interim report was
47:51the setting up of the initial complaint
47:55and review and mediation scheme
47:57sometimes called the um icms or
48:01sometimes the mediation
48:02scheme can we look please at page 45 of
48:05your witness statement
48:24please at paragraph 133 at the
48:29bottom you say the purpose of the
48:32mediation scheme was to address sub
48:34postmaster complaints and individual
48:35cases so that there could be an
48:38exploration into way they the way they
48:40had been treated with a view to finding
48:42a solution for the sub
48:44postmasters which was likely to involve
48:47compensation it was also set up to
48:49establish what have been the truth
48:50behind the
48:51circumstances um is that a complete
48:54summary essentially of your it's a fair
48:56comment it's a f yeah it is yeah and if
48:58we go over the page
49:02please you say in 134 um that at the
49:05outset we thought that the mediation
49:07scheme might well achieve the aims it
49:09had set out provided that the post
49:11office would enter it in good faith uh
49:14we entered into this process as we
49:15didn't have any viable alternative at
49:18this time and then um paragraph 137 over
49:22the page
49:25please
49:28uh you say unfortunately the financing
49:30of the scheme came from the post office
49:32it provided the Secretariat and
49:34administrative support which were
49:36supposed to be independent however we
49:38were not aware at the time that Belinda
49:41Crow was also a member of the post
49:43office's covert project Sparrow team as
49:46was the post office's General Council as
49:48indicated from um some minutes um that
49:52you refer to at this time at the setting
49:55up of the mediation scheme did you know
49:58of the existence of projects Sparrow
50:03no thank you that's a convenient uh
50:06moment sir I wonder whether we could um
50:08break until five pass please very
50:25well
50:55e
51:25e
51:55e
52:25e
52:55e
53:25e
53:55e
54:25e
54:55e
55:25e
55:55e
56:25e
56:55e
57:25e
57:55e
58:25e
58:55e
59:25e
59:55e
1:00:24e
1:00:54e
1:01:24e
1:01:54e
1:02:24e
1:02:54e
1:03:24e
1:03:54e
1:04:24e
1:04:54e
1:05:24e
1:05:54e
1:06:24e
1:06:54e
1:07:10you've been shocked in the
1:07:15silence good afternoon Mr Bat can we um
1:07:17continue with the mediation scheme and
1:07:21um look please at page 50 of your
1:07:23witness statement of paragraph
1:07:32146 uh just wait for that to come up it
1:07:35says you um it was never agreed that the
1:07:39working group would discuss individual
1:07:42cases just stopping there can you
1:07:44briefly explain what the working group
1:07:45was in the context of the mediation
1:07:47scheme um the the the medi sorry the the
1:07:51working group was uh a combination of
1:07:54the jfsa and post office and we had an
1:07:58independent chair um Sir Anthony Hooper
1:08:03and um then second site were employed to
1:08:08work for the working group to do the
1:08:12investigations and report back to the to
1:08:14the group accordingly and produce the
1:08:16reports as uh required thank you you say
1:08:19it was never agreed that the working
1:08:21group um would discuss individual cases
1:08:24and make decisions on whether to mediate
1:08:26it was down to Second site to decide
1:08:29this then there was the mediation scheme
1:08:31which would undertake the process of
1:08:33mediating between post office and the
1:08:34sub
1:08:36postmasters uh however two example cases
1:08:39were discussed prior to Second St
1:08:40starting to produce reports but only to
1:08:42agree a format in which case reports
1:08:44were to be produced um I just want to
1:08:47explore this issue um briefly of um who
1:08:50would make decisions on whether to
1:08:52mediate and whether that was um down to
1:08:55second
1:08:56site
1:08:59um you um I think wrote an email about
1:09:03this to Sir antthony Hooper uh can we
1:09:05see
1:09:07poll1
1:09:08[Music]
1:09:247151 in that it's a letter rather than
1:09:26an
1:09:27email you can see this is dated the 10th
1:09:30of
1:09:30November uh
1:09:332014 to um sir
1:09:38antthony and you say in the second
1:09:41paragraph um jfa is now of the opinion
1:09:44the scheme of stray so far from the
1:09:46original purpose for which it was
1:09:47intended that the few applicant who
1:09:49actually reached a mediation meeting
1:09:51through Ceda um just explain what Ceda
1:09:54was it was um I can't remember what it
1:09:57actually stands for now it was a um it's
1:10:00a professional Center for dispute
1:10:01resolution dispute
1:10:04yeah have expressed such disappointment
1:10:06within the scheme that um at least one
1:10:08applicant has withdrawn and then under
1:10:11number paragraph one you asked that it's
1:10:13noted uh quote as has been stated on
1:10:16many occasions it's
1:10:18jfsa view that it's not the role of the
1:10:20working group to approve which cases go
1:10:22to mediation for the following reasons
1:10:25which are contained um within the main
1:10:28document that each of the applicants to
1:10:30the scheme received within it they were
1:10:32promised and then you set out um some
1:10:35extracts from it yes but was that your
1:10:37view that it wasn't the role of the
1:10:39working group to decide or approve which
1:10:41cases should go to mediation only in
1:10:44specific instances for example if not
1:10:47enough information had been supplied by
1:10:50an applicant as whether is C to um fully
1:10:54understand or investigate his case would
1:10:55it go forward then or other
1:10:59um other perhaps yeah I don't variations
1:11:03on that theme but but the norm the the
1:11:05main bulk of them you should go through
1:11:09um on their own on their
1:11:12own dependent on second site's
1:11:14recommendation and on and whilst we're
1:11:16on it on page four of the letter
1:11:23please um in top paragraph there second
1:11:26line you say the further the scheme
1:11:28progresses the more entrenched and
1:11:30defensive post office has become and the
1:11:32original concept of actually seeking the
1:11:34truth has long since been abandoned
1:11:37replaced by denial and a culture of
1:11:39blaming the applicant Time After Time
1:11:41the underlying fact that it was the
1:11:43failure of post office to correct the
1:11:44shortcomings of their Horizon system and
1:11:46its Associated issues is ignored by post
1:11:50office again and again that's plainly
1:11:52how you felt at the time um what um
1:11:56material or evidence was that view based
1:11:58upon oh one of the key ones and I
1:12:01suppose a favorite one of of the hearing
1:12:04is is um the failure of disclosure it
1:12:08was holding up cases time and time again
1:12:11and it was also uh the amount of time
1:12:13post office um sorry the way the scheme
1:12:16worked basically was someone applied to
1:12:18go into the scheme if it was shown post
1:12:21office quickly looked at their
1:12:22application to ensure that they were a
1:12:24sub poost master and they had been there
1:12:27during the period they say at that point
1:12:29they've been accepted into the mediation
1:12:32scheme then um they would have the
1:12:35option of having an independent um
1:12:39expert work on their case either a
1:12:42forensic accountant or or solicitor at a
1:12:45set fee they would produce a report at
1:12:48this about their CA this in this
1:12:50person's case at the same time post
1:12:53office would be providing their own
1:12:55report on that um person's case both of
1:13:00these CA the both of these reports would
1:13:02then go to Second site who would
1:13:04investigate and put together and make a
1:13:06recommendation to the uh working
1:13:09group um on the on its findings simple
1:13:13as that um
1:13:16but once these cases were being
1:13:19investigated in theory by by post office
1:13:22they were asking for more and more time
1:13:25there was meant to be a turnaround
1:13:26period of about four to 6 weeks um for
1:13:29them to to undertake an investigation
1:13:31but they were they were asking for
1:13:33extension after
1:13:35extension um to investigate each of
1:13:37these cases and in some cases they were
1:13:40going on for six months or seven months
1:13:42asking for extensions whilst they were
1:13:44investigating so it just dragged on and
1:13:47on and on and on and that was one of the
1:13:50big frustrations with all of that we we
1:13:52had very little control o uh of the flow
1:13:55at that
1:13:56point Thank you just on the issue of um
1:13:59who made a recommendation and who made a
1:14:01decision on whether a case are suitable
1:14:03for mediation can we just go back and
1:14:06look at the one of the founding
1:14:07documents of the scheme yeah at poll 302
1:14:202120 um this is um an
1:14:24overview um uh of the complaint um
1:14:28review and mediation um scheme and is
1:14:31one of the um originating documents
1:14:34published by post office at the time of
1:14:37the initiation of the um scheme if we um
1:14:41look please at page
1:14:43two
1:14:45yes and three paragraphs from the
1:14:50bottom it as a result as a result of
1:14:53this investigation
1:14:55um second site will produce a case
1:14:58review summarizing its findings and a
1:15:00recommendation on whether the case is
1:15:02suitable for mediation a copy of the
1:15:04case review will be provided to you the
1:15:07working group will however take the
1:15:08final decision on any cases that may not
1:15:11be suitable for
1:15:12mediation um what would you say to the
1:15:14suggestion that this makes it clear that
1:15:16it was the working group that took final
1:15:19decisions on which cases should and
1:15:21should not proceed to mediation no I
1:15:23think what you're missing here here is a
1:15:25a document which is uh is it q&as or
1:15:28something of that that went with it as
1:15:30well uh key points and there's one of
1:15:33the questions in it asks uh will my case
1:15:36go to
1:15:38mediation and I think the answer to that
1:15:40is it says in the majority of cases it
1:15:43they will go to mediation I think where
1:15:46where it takes the final decision on any
1:15:49cases that that's those controversial
1:15:51cases where there wasn't enough
1:15:53information uh at all that been supplied
1:15:56as part of the
1:16:02application I think maybe you're
1:16:04referring to um page five of the
1:16:13document are they the FAQs that you're
1:16:15talking that's the FAQs yeah and is the
1:16:18one that you're thinking about on page
1:16:23eight
1:16:26will my case definitely be referred to
1:16:27mediation is that the one that's the one
1:16:39yeah it's the second paragraph down
1:16:42I that second sentence of the paragraph
1:16:46yeah second paragraph yeah gives as an
1:16:50example um the ability of the working
1:16:53group to decide that the case is not one
1:16:57which requires resolution yeah if there
1:16:59was in yeah
1:17:00exactly doesn't that didn't that give
1:17:03the working group the ultimate power of
1:17:06veto in those
1:17:09circumstances in those circumstances if
1:17:12there's insufficient information about a
1:17:15case we may decide then that it it
1:17:18wasn't worth it going to mediation oh it
1:17:21um but as it says in in most cases if to
1:17:25provide detailed and accurate
1:17:26information it's likely in most
1:17:28instances and that was where we were
1:17:31relying on second site to uh I think um
1:17:35in the course of the uh work of the
1:17:37mediation you um wrote a number of
1:17:39letters to the their Minister Joe
1:17:41Swinson about its operation is that
1:17:43right yes I did can we look at some of
1:17:45those please um poll
1:17:48014
1:17:534511
1:18:08you'll see that it's dated the 17th of
1:18:12April I'm not going to read um the first
1:18:15page if we can skip to the second page
1:18:19please and look at the last paragraph on
1:18:22page two and onto page three
1:18:25there's no doubt at all that the
1:18:27systemic failures identified so
1:18:30far have been brought to post offices
1:18:32attention through their regular meetings
1:18:34with second side and this alone raises
1:18:36the question as to why post office is
1:18:38continuing with their prosecutions of
1:18:40sub poost Masters when it is now so much
1:18:43more obvious that they are standing on
1:18:44very shaky legal ground as I've
1:18:47mentioned before these systemic failures
1:18:49are proven facts which are at the root
1:18:51of many of the sub postmaster cases
1:18:53although from the second site briefing
1:18:54document presented at the Port Cullis
1:18:56house meeting they're only going to be
1:18:57treated as um an
1:19:00adjunct to the issue of individual cases
1:19:03to the point where only a few of them
1:19:05may be featured in their forthcoming
1:19:07report it's evident to ask that these
1:19:09systemic failures should become the yard
1:19:11stick that the individual cases are
1:19:12measured against as they're
1:19:14significantly easier for others to
1:19:15comprehend without the requirement of an
1:19:17in-depth knowledge of the finer points
1:19:19of horizon the refocusing of the
1:19:21investigation on the systemic failures
1:19:23would not only offer a quicker and far
1:19:25more efficient method of addressing the
1:19:27whole issue but would minimize
1:19:31the uh information required from post
1:19:33office which has been the main cause of
1:19:35the slow and um at times no progress
1:19:38second site has made with the individual
1:19:41um cases um did you get any um
1:19:43reassurance back from the
1:19:45minister I don't
1:19:47recall um can we I think yeah sorry can
1:19:51we move on then please to poll
1:19:5300145
1:19:5864 and look at page three
1:20:05please uh foot of the page we're now on
1:20:08the 18th of July this is another
1:20:10communication from you um to the
1:20:14minister you refer to a reply of the
1:20:1711th of July where you confirm that
1:20:19further cases can be put forward to
1:20:23review
1:20:25um you say that you recently wrote to
1:20:27MPS who rais
1:20:31questions uh about um 47 cases that only
1:20:35ever seem to be um commented on and you
1:20:39um refer in the report sorry you say the
1:20:4247 cases referred to in the report
1:20:45comprises of and then you give a
1:20:46breakdown and then if we scroll up the
1:20:48page
1:20:50please a bit further please thank
1:20:53you do you see that your email um to The
1:20:58Minister's correspondence address has
1:21:00found its way to um the sh ex the
1:21:04shareholder executive within the
1:21:06department from business Innovation and
1:21:12skills this is as the email has been
1:21:14produced to us we can't
1:21:16see um how it got
1:21:21there um address to um Martin
1:21:27Edwards and um Susan
1:21:32kryon and two other members of the two
1:21:35members of the shx and then if we just
1:21:37take that off
1:21:39please U Mr Whitehead within Biz um
1:21:44says Martin Susan the email letter below
1:21:48from Alan Bates at jfsa to Joe Swinson
1:21:50raises a number of issues which will be
1:21:52helpful for us to discuss with you
1:21:55before drafting a reply I think a
1:21:56meeting within the next week or so might
1:21:58be the best way forwards given the range
1:22:00and complexity of some of the issues
1:22:03involved did you know or did you
1:22:06appreciate at the
1:22:09time that um notwithstanding what had
1:22:12been said by uh government ministers
1:22:15about um operating an arms length
1:22:19relationship with the post
1:22:21office um there was nonetheless a back
1:22:24channel of communications between the
1:22:27government and the post
1:22:29office no no I I I can't say was aware
1:22:32of that with your correspondence being
1:22:35copied from um the government to the
1:22:38post office I could understand them
1:22:40perhaps having some concern because I
1:22:43was in regular contact with many of the
1:22:45MPS there um but no I can't um say was
1:22:50word and if we um just go to page one
1:22:53please
1:22:58we can see on this page um emails within
1:23:03the post office starting in the middle
1:23:05of the page from olwin Lions to Mark
1:23:09Davis um Martin Edwards and Susan
1:23:14kryon and she says when discussing what
1:23:17reply to give is um the problem is the
1:23:21problem we have is that he that's you
1:23:24doesn't know we um have seen the letter
1:23:27we need to be careful that the minister
1:23:28is not um seen to be aligning with us by
1:23:33us help by us asking us to help her
1:23:36respond I'll read that again the problem
1:23:38we have is that he that's you doesn't
1:23:41know we've seen the letter that's your
1:23:43letter and we need to be careful that
1:23:45the minister is not seen to be aligning
1:23:50with us that's the post office by asking
1:23:52us to help her resp
1:23:55respond so they're discussing
1:23:57essentially how to play it with you
1:24:01without revealing that the government
1:24:02has sent on your letter to the post
1:24:05office correct seems to be that way yeah
1:24:09you say in your witness statement that
1:24:10there were no changes as a result of
1:24:12your letter um the one that we've just
1:24:15looked at did um Joe Winson um in fact
1:24:19respond to
1:24:20you I don't recall I I I can't
1:24:25no can we turn on to another letter you
1:24:27wrote to Joe Swinson a year later on the
1:24:3016th of April 2014 when she was still
1:24:32minister for postal Affairs um poll
1:24:36302
1:24:432683 we can see the date and to whom
1:24:46it's
1:24:47addressed and for some context um by
1:24:50that
1:24:53date was it right that no post office
1:24:56investigation had been completed to a
1:24:59sufficient state for second site to
1:25:01complete its own report
1:25:08yeah um you set out um how the scheme
1:25:11was meant to work if we just scroll
1:25:13down and keep
1:25:17scrolling and keep
1:25:20scrolling keep
1:25:23scrolling you say that the above
1:25:25structure was agreed and published at
1:25:28scheme
1:25:28launch and the documentation is still
1:25:31available for downloading app
1:25:33essentially that's the documentation
1:25:35that I showed you um earlier yes
1:25:37unfortunately the reality of where the
1:25:39scheme is actually at is very
1:25:42different um as at the date of writing
1:25:44so this is April mid April
1:25:462014 during at the time the scheme was
1:25:49open for applications 150 cases were
1:25:52accepted although it should we noticed
1:25:54since the scheme is closed there have
1:25:56been others who would have applied if
1:25:58they' had been aware of its existence of
1:26:00the 150 the earliest that Paul became
1:26:03aware of the names of individuals and
1:26:05the identities of the post offices that
1:26:07were to be involved was as
1:26:10follows uh next bullet point once the
1:26:13criteria to enter the scheme had been
1:26:15met and the working group had approved
1:26:17the initial application the personalized
1:26:19CQR can you um explain what the CQR was
1:26:23it was the in initial um report um I
1:26:27can't that was sent out to the relevant
1:26:28applicant for completion um with the um
1:26:32um assistance of their pa so far the
1:26:35returned completed cqrs are as follows
1:26:38and you set them out over the
1:26:41page and then you say top of the next
1:26:43page yet to date poll has not finalized
1:26:46a single case report to the point where
1:26:48it's ready for the working group to
1:26:49consider its suitability for being sent
1:26:51to mediation and realistically that
1:26:54could still be a considerable um time
1:27:00off if we scroll down
1:27:04further and keep
1:27:08going and keep
1:27:12going stop there that third paragraph
1:27:16you say regardless of what it says
1:27:18publicly poll in practice seems not only
1:27:20to be hardening its corporate defense
1:27:23but now seems to be prepared to invoke
1:27:24the protection of P the public purse as
1:27:27their last line of justification for not
1:27:29writing the wrongs they've inflicted on
1:27:30so many it appears at whatever poll can
1:27:33block it does for some reason the post
1:27:36office is the only one that doesn't seem
1:27:38to be able to recognize what everybody
1:27:40else
1:27:42can see so clearly and then you talk
1:27:45about um the only way we're going to
1:27:47resolve this is through the media and
1:27:49the courts and so what was your
1:27:52principal concern by the time you were
1:27:53writing this
1:27:54I think um I think this is a time when
1:27:58um they post office had changed their
1:28:01general counsel I think this was at the
1:28:03point where Chris oard had come along do
1:28:07correct me if I'm wrong getting the uh I
1:28:10think that was September 2013 from M
1:28:12yeah it's coming on and I think when he
1:28:15turned
1:28:17up I think he had a very clear remit to
1:28:22get rid of the mediation scheme or to
1:28:26change it or to bin it or whatever
1:28:28because he was also part of this project
1:28:31Sparrow which was as we later to find
1:28:36um uh monitoring what was going on in
1:28:39that scheme and how it's going ahead now
1:28:42I had a a big discussion with with um
1:28:45Chris oard over the um interpretation of
1:28:50the aims and the objectives of the
1:28:52scheme and that was earlier on in the
1:28:54the year that year and um I remember I
1:28:58had to detail him uh to him the whole
1:29:02scheme how it was meant to work and I
1:29:04also copied in Sir Anthony Hooper on
1:29:06that correspondence as well but
1:29:09basically it seemed they were trying to
1:29:11twist it twist it twist it the whole
1:29:13time to take away its
1:29:16Effectiveness and um
1:29:19it I it just it just wasn't it didn't
1:29:23feel wholesome anymore it didn't feel
1:29:26like we were after the truth anymore it
1:29:28just felt like we were trying to defend
1:29:30post office's position in all of
1:29:39this you tell us in your witness
1:29:41statement it's paragraph 145 no need to
1:29:43turn it up that as a result of writing
1:29:45this letters there this letter there was
1:29:48no change um as a
1:29:51result is that right yeah that's correct
1:29:54I think in fact you got a letter back
1:29:55from Paul Paula venel which criticized
1:29:58you for writing in these terms to Joe
1:30:00Swinson yeah that's correct let's have a
1:30:02quick look at that please poll
1:30:050011
1:30:126501 I think this is a draft I think
1:30:14it's in the terms that it was sent no
1:30:17doubt we can chase that down if I'm
1:30:18wrong um your letter of the 16th of
1:30:21April um to the U minister has been
1:30:24passed to me for
1:30:27reply since the publication of the
1:30:29second site interim report post office
1:30:31has worked collaboratively with the jfsa
1:30:34as an organization is that
1:30:37true to a very small
1:30:40degree uh and you as its chair to design
1:30:43the initial complaint and review and
1:30:45mediation scheme the scheme
1:30:47documentation was agreed with you and
1:30:50put on your website that is correct
1:30:51isn't not yes uh the post office has
1:30:54remained true to the aims of the scheme
1:30:56is that
1:30:57correct to a
1:30:59degree committed substantial um resource
1:31:03to ensure its success and respected the
1:31:05confidentiality of the working group um
1:31:09and then there's about sharing a
1:31:10platform on the 24th of March against
1:31:12that background your action in sending
1:31:14your letter that's the letter to the
1:31:16minister has come as a shock and a
1:31:18disappointment um to her I find two
1:31:21things troubling the content of your
1:31:23letter would appear to breach the
1:31:25confidentiality of the working group and
1:31:28furthermore paints a picture which is
1:31:29inconsistent with the position as I
1:31:31understood it to
1:31:33be well that's another one of these
1:31:36things where you know is she getting the
1:31:37right information from her staff she
1:31:39never attended these
1:31:41meetings never ever attended one of the
1:31:44working group meetings to the best of my
1:31:47knowledge and of course this is to be
1:31:49set against the context of the email
1:31:51discussion oh yeah that I took you to
1:31:54which is how do
1:31:55we inform The Minister's reply to this
1:31:58letter without
1:32:00disclosing that that we've informed The
1:32:03Minister's dis reply to this letter
1:32:05without disclosing that
1:32:07fact um the second Point she makes is
1:32:10the fact you've bypassed the structure
1:32:11of the working group to raise your
1:32:13concerns post office has displayed a
1:32:15strong commitment to the scheme over a
1:32:16prolonged period of time I remain
1:32:18committed in principle to making the
1:32:20scheme work but your letter has damaged
1:32:21the trust post office has invested
1:32:24in you as a member of the working group
1:32:28there are a number of specific points in
1:32:29your letter the post office will need to
1:32:30address I've asked Chris o to prepare a
1:32:33more detailed response in the meantime
1:32:35I'll need to consider post office
1:32:36position in relation to the scheme over
1:32:39the coming days did you know that the
1:32:41post office was having an internal
1:32:43debate at this time over whether your
1:32:46letter presented a golden
1:32:48opportunity because of your alleged
1:32:50breach of confidentiality for the post
1:32:52office to back out of the scheme and
1:32:54bring it to a quick close no I wasn't I
1:32:57wasn't aware of that I mean I presume
1:32:59this was something that was discussed in
1:33:01Project Sparrow I I don't know maybe a
1:33:04question for them but I mean my concern
1:33:07has always been the the the group first
1:33:09what's best for the group not what's
1:33:11best for post office in all of this so I
1:33:14I was representing the group in these
1:33:16discussions and with what was going on
1:33:18and I had to stand up for what what was
1:33:20right at the time for
1:33:22them
1:33:24can we turn to um paragraph 157 of your
1:33:27witness statement
1:33:29please which is on page at
1:33:4253
1:33:47yeah you say um in paragraph 157 that
1:33:50you believe the mediation scheme failed
1:33:53as it was part of the cover up by poll I
1:33:56expect the post office discovered things
1:33:57that they did not like and did not want
1:33:59to come out there was definitely an
1:34:02element of not wanting to accept fault I
1:34:04believe the post office had no intention
1:34:06whatsoever of getting to a mutually
1:34:08acceptable and fair decision if anything
1:34:10it seemed as if the post office had been
1:34:12using the scheme as a fishing expedition
1:34:14to see what evidence sub postm has
1:34:16actually had about
1:34:20Horizon was what you say there based on
1:34:23information from sub
1:34:25postmasters no I it was I suppose it's
1:34:28it's the feedback from working on the
1:34:30scheme for that that many months or that
1:34:32those years um and knowing the way post
1:34:36office operated I mean I've been dealing
1:34:39with them them for many many years and I
1:34:42certainly could see the way they
1:34:43operated and what they're up to whether
1:34:45forthcoming on
1:34:48issues in what circumstances um did the
1:34:53uh post office terminate the
1:34:55scheme I got a phone call I got a phone
1:34:58call and um just to say oh we've decided
1:35:01to send all the cases to mediation now
1:35:04so there's no need for the working group
1:35:06to meet now interesting interestingly
1:35:10that was the day before a meeting was
1:35:14due to be held in which we were going to
1:35:16see the draft of the second site part
1:35:19two report which was damning and I think
1:35:23one the Reon reasons they did that to
1:35:25stop stop that report from coming out
1:35:28and what was your view of the decision
1:35:30of the post office to um terminate the
1:35:33scheme
1:35:36um I suppose publicly I was very
1:35:39dismayed about it I think privately I
1:35:42was ecstatic about it because I've been
1:35:45thinking of pulling out of that scheme
1:35:47for about 12 months and I've been
1:35:49sitting in there the whole of that
1:35:50period to get as much information and
1:35:52reports out of them in order for us to
1:35:55move on to the next step of legal
1:35:59action uh did you um then make a
1:36:02decision that it was necessary to
1:36:04commence legal proceedings we had been
1:36:06looking around for a little while it was
1:36:08I think the writing was on the wall or
1:36:10had been for a number of months and
1:36:11we've spoken to a few firms a few firms
1:36:15initial discussion the first claim
1:36:17turning to the group litigation was um
1:36:19issued in April
1:36:222016 first claim yes uh yeah uh well uh
1:36:27we eventually found free in September of
1:36:302015 yes that's when they came on board
1:36:33and then they really took
1:36:36over and one of the first steps was an
1:36:38application by um the claimants for a
1:36:42group litigation order that's correct
1:36:44and that was opposed by the post office
1:36:46is that right that's correct um despite
1:36:48that opposition the PO the court ordered
1:36:51that the claim should be managed under a
1:36:53group ation order from the 22nd of March
1:36:562017
1:37:02right I think um the jfsa made an
1:37:06announcement by press release of the
1:37:09making of the group litigation order
1:37:11didn't
1:37:12it uh I don't recall it it probably did
1:37:17would you remember there was a time if
1:37:18people wanted to join in the group
1:37:20litigation a date by which they had to
1:37:22do so a cou off date uh yes there was I
1:37:25mean the the with free and free took
1:37:29quite an active role in this we we had
1:37:31to find the funding and then we had to
1:37:33go out and recruit far more um claimants
1:37:36in there and so then they uh a whole
1:37:40batch of PA and uh advertising was
1:37:43undertaken for a few months in there to
1:37:45bring forward the numbers that were
1:37:47needed to uh I think the um I don't know
1:37:51what they call the schedules are the
1:37:52names that go forward to be attached to
1:37:55the Glo I think there were about three
1:37:57that were attached to eventually finish
1:37:59up with the 550 that went forward can we
1:38:02um uh briefly look at the release that
1:38:04you made the press release that um the
1:38:06jfsa made poll 024
1:38:228057
1:38:26and go to um page two towards the bottom
1:38:32please um this is an email um from um
1:38:37Melanie um corfield a name that we'll
1:38:40become familiar with in these phases and
1:38:44she's a member of the post office's
1:38:46Communications team just going back to
1:38:48the
1:38:49email you'll see um she um emails rodri
1:38:56Williams Andrew Parsons of Bon Dickinson
1:38:59and others saying we've been alerted by
1:39:01a trade mag to a statement issued by the
1:39:04jfsa and then if we go down the page a
1:39:06little
1:39:07bit there is the jfsa statement cut into
1:39:11her email can you see
1:39:14that yeah um you say in the statement
1:39:18jfsa announced today that the um group
1:39:21litigation order against the post office
1:39:23has now been approved by the president
1:39:24of the Queen's bench division of the
1:39:26high court which means that the case
1:39:28will continue through the court as a
1:39:30group action post office limited is
1:39:32defending the claim over a thousand sub
1:39:34post masters from across the UK have now
1:39:36applied applied to um join the
1:39:41action I think about 1,200 eventually
1:39:44applied but I think by the time they'd
1:39:46sifted through then we finish up with
1:39:48550 and um at the second paragraph on
1:39:51the uh second page there you can see a
1:39:54quote from you Alan Bates of jfsa said
1:39:57the C case is now up and running we've
1:39:59um had over 1,000 plus candidates come
1:40:02forward so far uh sub post Masters have
1:40:06until 26th of July to join the action
1:40:08before the cut off which prevents new
1:40:10claimants at joining the claim
1:40:13thereafter and I just want to ask you
1:40:15some questions about the rest of this
1:40:17email chain even though you won't cop it
1:40:18into it because they're relevant to
1:40:20later Witnesses if we just scroll up the
1:40:22page please please you'll see that Mel
1:40:26corfield sends it to amongst others
1:40:28Andrew
1:40:31Parsons and then in the email there's a
1:40:34reply from the head of portfolio legal
1:40:37risk and governance Mark
1:40:39Underwood saying jfsa have issued a
1:40:42statement that's been picked up by Nick
1:40:43Wallace and computer weekly the
1:40:45statement is included in Mel's note
1:40:48below um I don't think there's anything
1:40:50new included in it safe for the claim
1:40:53that over 1,000 sub postmasters from
1:40:55across the UK have now applied to join
1:40:57the action though concerning they've
1:40:59chosen to use the word applied rather
1:41:01than just joined or
1:41:03similar and then further
1:41:08up um Jan
1:41:11McLoud who we're to hear from the group
1:41:13director of legal risk and governance
1:41:15says I think the key words are underline
1:41:17below they haven't joined yet
1:41:19exclamation
1:41:21mark and then further up the
1:41:24page Andrew
1:41:27Parsons says that he's happy with the
1:41:30comms that's a draft reply plus let's
1:41:33not forget that Alan Bates has a
1:41:34somewhat loose relationship with the
1:41:38truth just two questions on that um if I
1:41:41may firstly um was what you were saying
1:41:45in the press release accurate yes
1:41:48secondly had you ever had any dealings
1:41:50with Mr Parsons oh yes um had you had
1:41:54you had any dealings with Mr Parsons
1:41:56that might properly allow him to form
1:41:58the view that you had a somewhat loose
1:41:59relationship with the truth no I mean um
1:42:03Andy Parsons was one of those who used
1:42:04to appear at the uh working group
1:42:07meetings one of the many lawyers that
1:42:09post office used to send to them and
1:42:14um I I mean I don't know why he's come
1:42:16up with that I mean I I sometime I might
1:42:19embellish but I don't like I mean
1:42:21anything to promote it I I spend too
1:42:23much time around lawyers from now and
1:42:25then so the wording and phrasing I
1:42:28sometimes can seem a little bit that way
1:42:30but it was quite right we'd had over
1:42:311,200 people that did apply to to join
1:42:35the scheme and um out of that as I say
1:42:38550 were signed up to
1:42:44it um I think in the um course of the
1:42:47litigation that can come down thank you
1:42:49um there was an application to strike
1:42:51out um passages from your witness
1:42:54statement is that right you know the
1:42:55long 41 page witness statement we looked
1:42:58at earlier yeah um the post office
1:43:01applied to um strike it out
1:43:05um and that application was dismissed
1:43:08for the reference is poll
1:43:1544094 um in the course of that um
1:43:17judgment is it right that the judge and
1:43:19in her previous judgment deliver
1:43:21warnings about aggressive litigation
1:43:23tactics
1:43:26yes from your perspective as a
1:43:30litigant what if any litigation tactics
1:43:32were being used by the post office oh uh
1:43:36they're definitely trying to outspend us
1:43:39uh I mean we we'd have to raise
1:43:41commercial funding from it they had a
1:43:44bottomless pocket as such being a
1:43:46government organization so anything they
1:43:49could do to spin it out or any anything
1:43:51they could do to recuse the judge or or
1:43:54whatever they did and um anything to
1:43:58cost us money and not try and get us to
1:44:01um stop the
1:44:04case that was
1:44:08obvious um you gave evidence in the
1:44:10common issues trial I
1:44:12did um the reference is
1:44:15poll trip2 at
1:44:182936 um and for reference between
1:44:23Pages 44 and 51 the judge um deals with
1:44:27um your evidence and the findings that
1:44:29he made about your truthfulness and um
1:44:31honesty which I'm not going to um
1:44:33display at the
1:44:34moment in your witness statement you
1:44:36provide examples of what you say was the
1:44:39post office trying to prevent the truth
1:44:41coming out in the group
1:44:44litigation okay yeah can you assist us
1:44:47with what those um um tactics were well
1:44:52uh obviously to outspend us that that
1:44:55was the key one uh throughout all of
1:44:57that and um I think I just sort of
1:45:00listed the main points that they've gone
1:45:04through I think it's right that um you
1:45:08have yourself made an application for
1:45:12redress yes I have and when was the
1:45:15application
1:45:17made gosh um it
1:45:21was must have been knocked I think it
1:45:23was October last
1:45:25year and um I'm not going to ask you
1:45:28what um any of the figures are or the
1:45:30offers are um when did you first receive
1:45:33an
1:45:33offer um I received an offer I think it
1:45:36was 77 working days after my um claim
1:45:41had gone in um which against the target
1:45:46of the Department responding in 40 days
1:45:51I mean and the offer that they actually
1:45:53made was only about a sixth of the claim
1:45:57that had gone in there and um it's I
1:46:01mean you know I'm trying to fight for
1:46:03everyone's uh Financial redress in this
1:46:06but I've also got a fight for my own as
1:46:08well and I have no doubt that um there's
1:46:14a bit of vindictiveness coming in from
1:46:16the department and post office on this
1:46:19and the reason I say that is is quite
1:46:22simple they don't don't think there's
1:46:23any Worth to any of the work that I've
1:46:26done over the years I mean my my claim
1:46:30has gone in and it's being treated
1:46:32exactly the same as everyone else is
1:46:34they all have these heads of claims in
1:46:36there there are some heads of claim that
1:46:38apply to some people and not to others
1:46:40so I was never made a bankrupt so that
1:46:42doesn't apply to me um I was never
1:46:45suspended and so on so forth so they
1:46:47they do vary but and this was without me
1:46:51knowing the lawyer representing or
1:46:55dealing with my claim and also the
1:46:57forensic accountants dealing with my
1:47:00claim put it together and I was not
1:47:03involved with the figures and they put
1:47:05it together and they included an amount
1:47:07for the work that I'd done over the 20
1:47:10years it's like another column heading
1:47:13and that's been totally negated by them
1:47:17in other words government doesn't think
1:47:19anything I've done is worth
1:47:21anything
1:47:24I think the first offer you received was
1:47:27shortly before your appearance before
1:47:28the select committee in January yeah and
1:47:31you um said publicly that it was
1:47:33derisory it was still
1:47:39is have you received any
1:47:42um further offers since then no
1:47:46um a challenge letter went in um from my
1:47:50lawyer but and they were meant to hear
1:47:53last week a response which they never
1:47:55did receive and so I still don't know
1:47:58anything from your perspective has the
1:48:01process of seeking and obtaining redress
1:48:04being efficient and effective
1:48:09no in your case what have been the
1:48:11Principal problems aside from the
1:48:13timeliness of the reply with the
1:48:16operation of the scheme of redress um
1:48:19the initial problem was Disclosure by
1:48:22post office I mean once again they just
1:48:25would not come forward with it and
1:48:27considering they knew the names of all
1:48:30of those people involved in that scheme
1:48:32when from the date when the minister um
1:48:35announced the scheme which was I think
1:48:37March 22 um so there's no reason they
1:48:41they couldn't have started at that point
1:48:43you mean they had a head start a head
1:48:44start on it yeah
1:48:46obviously I thought it was quite
1:48:49fortuitous um the comment made by
1:48:53swin uh first thing this morning about
1:48:57disclosure and that you should just
1:48:59carry on with regardless and just ignore
1:49:01it if it hasn't come through just get on
1:49:02with the job and I think that's really
1:49:05what should have happened quite a while
1:49:09ago um standing back what's your
1:49:13experience of the culture of the post
1:49:16office in your dealings with it over the
1:49:19years uh they're an atrocious
1:49:21organization they need disbanding it
1:49:24needs removing it needs building up
1:49:26again from the ground floor and as I've
1:49:28been quoted quite commonly the whole of
1:49:32the the whole of the Postal Service
1:49:34nowadays it's it's beyond it's a dead
1:49:37duck it's beyond saving and to be quite
1:49:39Fair it needs to be sold to someone like
1:49:42Horizon sorry s like Horizon last thing
1:49:46I'd say sell to someone like Amazon um
1:49:50it it needs a real big injection of
1:49:54money and I only I think that can only
1:49:56happen coming in from outside otherwise
1:49:58it's just going to be it's going to be a
1:50:01bug bear for the government for the
1:50:03years to
1:50:05come Mr B thank you very much for
1:50:07answering um my many questions um today
1:50:10so there's only one set of questions
1:50:12from sub postmaster groups and they're
1:50:13from Mr Henry and I think we'll take
1:50:15under 10 minutes well I'm just going to
1:50:18move over here so that I can see Mr
1:50:21Henry and in Ed by a large
1:50:26pillar thank you Mr Bates um you've
1:50:30exposed over many years the post
1:50:32office's suppression of disclosure and
1:50:35covering up the truth over Horizon's
1:50:39flaws but you have also exposed have you
1:50:42not the government's Reckless
1:50:44indifference to the post office's
1:50:46misconduct over many years would you
1:50:49agree yeah I I I think I think that is
1:50:53the case and I I mean since all this
1:50:57well since this year I suppose since the
1:50:59drama we've got we've had faral
1:51:01publicity uh about the issue
1:51:05nationally I mean I've noticed there's a
1:51:07general frustration with many other
1:51:11organizations um that have that problem
1:51:14with government as well it seems to be a
1:51:17fundamental flaw in the way government
1:51:19works that they can't deal with these
1:51:21types of things easy
1:51:23and
1:51:24sensibly could I take you to a letter
1:51:27you received and we'll deal with it very
1:51:30briefly but it's p
1:51:34001
1:51:3602
1:51:38385 and this is a letter you
1:51:42received shortly after the 19th of March
1:51:462015 from the minister Joe
1:51:51Swinson
1:51:54and you had written to her on the 10th
1:51:58of March regarding the post office
1:52:00mediation
1:52:03scheme and have you had a chance to look
1:52:07at this letter before coming here
1:52:10today um possibly um would you care to
1:52:16read it to
1:52:18yourself and when you have done so could
1:52:20you let me know because I want to take
1:52:22you to just one passage in it but I want
1:52:26to give you the opportunity to refresh
1:52:28your memory in case there is anything
1:52:30you would like to point
1:52:44out yeah thank you you can see at the
1:52:50conclusion that the minister States
1:52:52to conclude I note that though second
1:52:54sight's report and the subsequent
1:52:57investigations through second sight's
1:52:59report and the subsequent investigations
1:53:01forgive me there is no evidence of a
1:53:03systemwide problems with Horizon this
1:53:06conclusion has stood firm through nearly
1:53:09two years of
1:53:14Investigation were you um forgive me
1:53:18when did you become
1:53:20aware that the post office had in fact
1:53:24written to their
1:53:25insurers nearly 2 years before that to
1:53:29notify them of issues with
1:53:35Horizon potential issues with Horizon
1:53:38which was originally going to be
1:53:40described as Financial
1:53:43discrepancies that have occurred in
1:53:45Horizon when did you become
1:53:47aware that the post office had written
1:53:50to their insurers
1:53:53well uh um there are two parts to that
1:53:57answer the first one I think is um when
1:54:01a lot of people became aware of it which
1:54:03was during the um uh it was the
1:54:07overturning of convictions over those
1:54:10cases the appeal courts I think that's
1:54:12when it one of the times it arose but
1:54:15also I mean the there's a similar
1:54:17reference that I've seen recently in a
1:54:20document disclosed to me
1:54:23um for for the hearing and there
1:54:27was I'm trying to think of the date it
1:54:29was
1:54:31July was it 2013 it might be 2013 or 2
1:54:36was was this the one this is about the
1:54:40what do they call it the officers and uh
1:54:43D dno Insurance shall I take you to it
1:54:46yes that would help so if we could go to
1:54:49p
1:54:51yeah1
1:54:544576
1:54:58please and I'm going to ask you to look
1:55:02at uh some
1:55:04correspondence um
1:55:07between Charles cahun and this is at
1:55:10page internal numbering four of six
1:55:13Charles cahun Susan Kon and Andrew
1:55:18Parsons whom of course you
1:55:21know so if we go to page four of six uh
1:55:26Charles cahun Wednesday July the 24th
1:55:292013 been discussing this with Miller
1:55:33what would she we what we should tell
1:55:35jlt reh Horizon issues we've worked up
1:55:39the attached version which hasn't been
1:55:41sent any
1:55:43comments up a little bit Andy could you
1:55:46take a look at this draft letter to go
1:55:48to our insurance broker read The Horizon
1:55:50issue I've not looked at it thanks Susan
1:55:54is that Susan kryon then we have Mr
1:55:57Parsons July the 24th
1:56:002013 at 6:51 in the evening Susan the
1:56:04letter does nothing more than put polls
1:56:06insurers on notice of the Horizon issues
1:56:09it's very Bland my only hesitation is
1:56:12whether this is strictly necessary to do
1:56:15from a p perspective it would look bad
1:56:18if this got into the public domain sign
1:56:20of guilt oblique concern from the board
1:56:24uh I'd be happy to have one of our
1:56:26insurance lawyers look at it look over
1:56:29the dno policy directors and officers
1:56:31policy to see if poll is required to
1:56:33notify the insurers if not then we might
1:56:36want to hold fire on this I would
1:56:39recommend tweaking the first paragraph
1:56:42current version suggests that there are
1:56:44problems with Horizon when at present
1:56:46there are no systemic problems to report
1:56:50uh it should just say that the Press
1:56:51have reported reported a potential on
1:56:54potential issues with Horizon rather
1:56:56than financial discrepancies have
1:56:57occurred in
1:56:58Horizon um and then if we could then go
1:57:02please to page
1:57:04one of the internal numbering and we can
1:57:09see again this time on the 29th of July
1:57:12a further email from Mr
1:57:14Parsons and a bullet point summary at
1:57:19the top six bullet points would you be
1:57:23kind enough Mr Bates to read those six
1:57:25bullet points to
1:57:43yourself yes and do you see anything in
1:57:48there which you consider to be
1:57:50symptomatic of the post office off's
1:57:52habitual problem with
1:57:54disclosure yeah um certainly one two
1:57:57three four the the fifth bullet point oh
1:58:00no the fourth and the fifth um the risk
1:58:03of notification is that it would look
1:58:05bad for Paul if it ever became public
1:58:08knowledge that Paul had it notified its
1:58:10insurers to reduce this risk it is
1:58:13recommended that rather than sending a
1:58:16formal written notification Paul speaks
1:58:19to charteris renamed AIG and verbally
1:58:23notifies them so as not to leave a paper
1:58:26trail in our experience AIG may be
1:58:29prepared to accept a verbal
1:58:34notification yes exactly yeah so with a
1:58:39view I suppose thereafter to plausible
1:58:41deniability over the issue since there
1:58:44isn't anything written down no paper
1:58:47trail no paper trail could I now Mr
1:58:51Bates and this is my final topic ask you
1:58:55a few questions about the litigation
1:58:57that bears your name and I realize that
1:59:00Mr Beer has already asked you some but I
1:59:03want you to
1:59:04consider whether the No Holds bar
1:59:08approach adopted by the post office may
1:59:11not have been motivated not simply to
1:59:13win at all costs to defeat you and your
1:59:17fellow claimants but to kill the prum of
1:59:21your litigation
1:59:24now have you formed a
1:59:27view bearing in mind all that has pass
1:59:31have you formed a view that the conduct
1:59:33of the way in which they uh approached
1:59:37the Horizon common issues and the
1:59:39Horizon issues judgment May in part have
1:59:43been influenced by the fact
1:59:46that rather than just being concerned
1:59:48about losing a money
1:59:50claim they were
1:59:52also concerned that if they lost that
1:59:55money claim that you had brought against
1:59:58them they would then
2:00:00be exposed to potential Criminal Appeals
2:00:05concerning people who have been wrongly
2:00:08prosecuted some of whom of course who
2:00:10had been wrongly imprisoned have you
2:00:13formed any view about
2:00:15that I'm quite certain that they were
2:00:18very concerned on a whole number of FR
2:00:21fronts and certainly that would have
2:00:23been one of them and the other one would
2:00:26have been protecting the brand at any
2:00:29cost I think that was a key one and
2:00:32protecting the roles of those involved
2:00:34with making the decisions over the years
2:00:36that they took so wrongly I think
2:00:39there's a whole batch of reasons that
2:00:41they went ahead with it and I heard a I
2:00:44heard a comment that was meant to have
2:00:46come from the board at that time that it
2:00:48should be buried at any cost this court
2:00:51case and I think we we saw that or saw
2:00:55them trying to do that along the way so
2:00:58I have no doubt that they were desperate
2:01:02to get rid of it on for a whole raft of
2:01:06reasons and that would
2:01:08include those Criminal Appeals
2:01:11absolutely which rested on the outcome
2:01:14absolutely and that they'd known were
2:01:17wrong for many many
2:01:19years thank you Mr Bates I I I suppose
2:01:24um following Mr Henry's
2:01:27point and I think I've got this right
2:01:30the claims in the Glo on behalf of some
2:01:34of the
2:01:35claimants included claims from malicious
2:01:38prosecution so
2:01:40inevitably the propriety of the
2:01:42prosecutions were in isue in effect in
2:01:46the Civil proceedings yeah yeah
2:01:50yeah thank you Mr baites Mr Beer
2:01:53anything else no there's nothing arising
2:01:54that's the end of Mr bates's evidence
2:01:56well thank you very much for coming
2:01:58thank you thank you for your witness
2:02:00statement and thank you for providing
2:02:03answers on a very um to a great many
2:02:07number of
2:02:09questions and I can see Hands preparing
2:02:13and I know what's coming because it's
2:02:15inevitable and I fully understand why
2:02:19they want to applaud you Mr Bates but
2:02:21I'm going to ask you not to for this
2:02:24reason that there will be Witnesses who
2:02:27are coming in the next um so forth who
2:02:32may not be as attractive to many of you
2:02:35and I would hate to think that I would
2:02:37have to intervene when they're here to
2:02:41prevent bad behavior so in the interest
2:02:44of people being evenhanded I'm asking
2:02:47you to remember that this is not a
2:02:49public meeting but a public inquiry it's
2:02:53not a court of law but it's a judicial
2:02:56process so please leave it
2:02:59there tomorrow morning we will resume at
2:03:0410:00 as you know I appeared on the
2:03:07first day of phase 4 and then
2:03:09disappeared completely in the sense that
2:03:12I conducted the hearings remotely I fear
2:03:15my circumstances are such that that will
2:03:18still be necessary I.E that I will
2:03:21conduct most of the hearings remotely
2:03:24during this passage I do intend to
2:03:27appear as often as I can but I want you
2:03:31to be frank with you it won't be very
2:03:34often I find that I can do this
2:03:37acceptably but I want to be open with
2:03:39you about happen about what's happening
2:03:42henceforth all right so we will resume
2:03:45tomorrow but I'll be on a screen not
2:03:47sitting here thank you
2:03:50sir
2:04:20for
2:04:50e

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Horizon scandal: Alan Bates takes stand in Post Office inquiry – watch live by Guardian News, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 15,171 words across 2,298 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.