YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → In Full: Alan Bates gives evidence at Post Office inquiry

In Full: Alan Bates gives evidence at Post Office inquiry — Transcript

by The Telegraph · 38,833 words · 6,121 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:28e
0:58e
1:28e
1:58e
2:28e
2:58e
3:28e
3:58e
4:28e
4:58e
5:28e
5:58e
6:28e
6:58e
7:23this to be can I explain that
7:27um uh one of our cessors is uh joined in
7:33remotely this morning and I understand
7:36that before we begin hearing evidence
7:40you wish to
7:42raise the issue of
7:44disclosure yes um it's a matter of
7:47importance that I wanted to update you
7:49and uh the core participants on before
7:53we call Mr Bates to give his oral
7:55evidence and commence the substance of
7:58the hearings in phases um five and six
8:03the core participants were sent an email
8:05by the solicitor to the inquiry
8:07yesterday that contained relevant
8:09correspondence from the post office uh
8:13that um dates between the 28th of March
8:16and the 5th of April sent to the inquiry
8:19that consists of nine
8:22letters I would propose to give you a
8:24brief background before moving to the
8:26current issue I'm going to try and keep
8:28it as succinct as possible but I also
8:31think that putting the issue the current
8:33issue in context May assist
8:35you so you'll recall that the post
8:38office's late and problematic disclosure
8:41of documents has been a constant theme
8:44in this inquiry resulting in you
8:47ordering that we hear oral evidence from
8:49the post office and its inquiry
8:52representatives in two disclosure
8:54related hearings held in July and
8:56September last year on the 12th of
8:59January this year the inquiry held a
9:01further hearing on disclosure and called
9:04post office's recognized legal
9:06representative Mr Jackson of Burgess
9:09salmon LLP to give oral evidence you
9:13will recall that by and large the key
9:15issue that was discussed at that hearing
9:17was how the post office had discovered a
9:20further post office repository or data
9:23source known as Microsoft Exchange
9:28365 you'll recall that the
9:31Microsoft Exchange 365 um uh repository
9:35was brought to the inquiry's attention
9:37during the phase four hearings and as a
9:41result the inquiry received numerous
9:44sometimes voluminous last minute
9:46disclosure of documents said to relate
9:48to phase four Witnesses on some
9:50occasions only days before some
9:53witnesses were due to give their
9:54evidence during the January hearing Mr
9:57Jackson Jackson said that some last
9:59minute Disclosure by the post office
10:01during the phase four hearings had been
10:04quote
10:05suboptimal those late disclosures had
10:08put immense pressure on the inquiry
10:10Council and solicitor teams who worked
10:13extremely hard to ensure that the phase
10:15four hearings could in fact continue as
10:18planned in some instances regrettably a
10:21decision was made to postpone or
10:23reschedule a witness at short notice
10:26including you'll remember Mr Jenkins and
10:28Mr Longman at both of whom the inquiry
10:30has now scheduled to hear during phases
10:33five and six whilst other matters were
10:36discussed at the hearing held on the n
10:38on the 12th of January the focus was on
10:40the post office's work related to the
10:43Microsoft Exchange
10:45repository on the 31st of January this
10:48year and following the hearing you made
10:50directions which were published on the
10:52inquiry website those directions
10:55provided that firstly a meeting would be
10:57held between the representatives of the
10:59the inquiry and the post office to
11:01discuss disclosure issues as soon as
11:03reasonably practicable and in any event
11:05well before the commencement of AAL
11:07hearings in phases five and six you
11:10directed that the meeting would be
11:11minuted and that the minute should be
11:13agreed and thereafter disclose the core
11:16participants and secondly you ordered
11:18that a further disclosure hearing should
11:20be con uh convened either before or
11:22during uh phases five and six of the
11:26inquiry on the 28th of February 2020 4
11:29members of the inquiry team um and
11:32information management team U met with
11:35the post office and its Representatives
11:38um in this building as directed by you
11:41and the inquiry later circulated a copy
11:43of the minute of that meeting as agreed
11:45with the post office to core
11:47participants I'll not read the minute in
11:49full but I note that paragraph three of
11:51the minute as circulated says as follows
11:55at the outset of the meeting leading
11:57Council to the inquiry
11:59that's me uh noted that from the inquiry
12:02perspective the aim of the meeting was
12:05to ensure that the post office are doing
12:07as much as possible to ensure phases
12:09five and six can proceed in accordance
12:11with the inquiry timetable Mr Jackson
12:14confirmed that the post office agreed
12:16and noticed noted that the post office's
12:19starting point for the meeting was
12:21prioritizing and clarifying what needed
12:23to be done in line with your directions
12:26ensuring reasonable and proportionate
12:28disclosure whilst minimizing and
12:30hopefully avoiding disruption to the
12:32hearing timetable and the inquiry
12:34proceedings Council to the inquiry
12:37confirmed that the aim was not
12:39minimizing disruption to the hearings
12:41but eliminating it given the post office
12:44is highly disruptive late disclosure in
12:47phase four Mr Jackson confirmed that the
12:50post office also aspired to eliminate
12:52disruption wherever it was possible to
12:54do so and that the post office's recent
12:57structural work should have mitigated
12:59the likelihood that a new disclosure
13:01issue would come from left
13:04field in order to achieve that objective
13:07prior to the meeting the inquiry had
13:08provided the post office with a series
13:10of deadlines for any further late
13:12disclosure of Microsoft Exchange
13:15documents in correspondence in summary
13:18quote for all oral Witnesses but for
13:21those listed within the four weeks of
13:23the inquiry timetable the inquiry
13:25directed that any late disclosure must
13:27be provided by the post office
13:29no later than 6 weeks before the date on
13:32which the witness is due to be called to
13:34give evidence for the witnesses listed
13:37in the first four weeks separate
13:39specific deadlines have been set in
13:41March
13:422024 the inquiry in the post office also
13:45discuss other what the inquiry
13:47understood to be relatively ad hoc and
13:49less significant potential document
13:51sources I.E other than Microsoft
13:53exchange this was outlined in the
13:55meeting um minute paragraph 10 quote Mr
13:59Jackson then took the inquiry legal team
14:02through the work completed by the post
14:04office regarding other potential
14:06document sources including mcast SMS and
14:10instant messaging and eia
14:13sources uh brackets corporate devices
14:16servers backup tapes and file stores
14:19post offices Representatives confirmed
14:21that they had sent and were still
14:22sending questionnaires regarding data
14:24sources to for specific former part uh
14:28specific former post office employees
14:30and board members material held by third
14:32party advisers and material relating to
14:35whistleblowing was also discussed in
14:37short the inquiry understood that work
14:39was still ongoing in relation to some of
14:41the additional data sources but should
14:43post office have any material update and
14:45in particular should any particular data
14:47source contain highly relevant material
14:49post office would alert the inquiry as
14:52soon as
14:53possible on Distributing the minute to
14:56core participants the inquiry noted that
14:58as the disclosure Ure process by the
15:00post office was continuing and the
15:02disclosure of additional documents to
15:04the inquiry had only recently
15:06started I had advised you that the
15:08inquiry legal team ought to continue to
15:11monitor the post office's compliance
15:13with the inquiry disclosure requirements
15:15and report to you at regular intervals
15:18the reporting ought to include whether
15:20the post office contined to meet the
15:21deadlines the inquiry had set in order
15:24to enable the phase five and six all
15:27hearings to proceed and thereafter
15:29continued as scheduled at that stage I
15:32am the solicitor to the inquiry advised
15:34that we considered it premature for the
15:36inquiry to hold a further disclosure
15:38hearing prior to the commencement of
15:40phases five and six today you considered
15:43Our advice and confirm you agreed with
15:45it but in the light of the historic
15:47disclosure issues and the disruptive
15:49nature of the post office's late
15:50disclosure of Microsoft Exchange
15:53material in phase four you noted that
15:55you wanted to keep this on this issue
15:57under very close consideration
15:59you also noted that you would not
16:00hesitate to hold a hearing should it
16:02become necessary in due
16:04course throughout February and March the
16:06post office continued to disclose a
16:08large volume of material as a result of
16:10its Microsoft Exchange disclosure
16:13failings and the remediation exercises
16:15put in place to rectify them the last of
16:18these Productions was made on the 22nd
16:20of March
16:212024 can I turn to the present issue
16:25then on Thursday the 28th of March the
16:28legal rep representatives for the Post
16:30Office notified the inquiry that the
16:32post office would be providing the
16:34inquiry with documents that day and the
16:36following week in relation to Witnesses
16:39giving evidence during the first week of
16:42phases five and six of the hearings and
16:44in the latter part of April or documents
16:47which uh uh might otherwise be quote of
16:50interest to the inquiry the volume of
16:53documents was said to be in the low
16:55hundreds and no more than a thousand and
16:57to and have come from quote a last check
17:01scoping exercise particularly in
17:04relation to documents from third party
17:07advisor some such documents were in
17:09response to the inquiry section 21
17:11notice issued as long ago as the 21st of
17:14July
17:152023 known as section
17:18213 others were not responsive to a
17:20notice or a request from the inquiry but
17:23were otherwise of
17:25Interest as I say section 213 was sent
17:29by the inquiry to the post office back
17:30on the 21st of July last year in which
17:34the inquiry mandated that the post
17:35office disclosed several categories of
17:37material relevant to phases five and six
17:40of the inquiry I.E documents addressing
17:43what was defined in the notice as
17:45relevant issues the relevant issues
17:47including reviews of horizon carried out
17:50by ernston Young deoe KPMG and Link lers
17:54the notice expressly stated the
17:57documents um that the documents be those
18:00created by sent to or received by that
18:05recorded a conversation or meeting
18:06involving or otherwise made reference to
18:1019 specific individuals within the post
18:13office the individuals named in the
18:15notice included but were not limited to
18:18Paula venel Alice Perkins olwin Lions
18:22Angela Vanden Bogard Mark Davis Tim
18:25Parker and Susan
18:27kryon at
18:29520 5:32 on Thursday the 28th of March
18:33the post office sent a cover letter for
18:35a production of 171 documents the cover
18:39letter noticed that the post office had
18:41quote initiated two Assurance exercises
18:45the first being a review of specific
18:47third party material sorry third party
18:49advisor material and the second being
18:52search and review of email inboxes of
18:56personal assistance PAs to the section
18:59213
19:02individuals and other email inboxes of
19:05potential relevance were considered
19:07appropriate for this
19:09exercise the letter further explained
19:12that the post office is quote section
19:14213 search methodology focused on the
19:17relevant individuals data sources
19:20thirdparty advisor files and personal
19:23assistant emails have previously been
19:25reviewed for other Rule 9es and section
19:2721s as EXP explained in previous dis
19:30interim disclosure statements however as
19:32part of assurance post office has now
19:35run such searches across specific
19:37third-party advisor files as was set out
19:40in the
19:41letter so such thirdparty advisors
19:44included those who the inquiry had
19:46specifically named in the section 21
19:48notice including link lers deoe and
19:53KPMG the post office explained that
19:55within the production of 1,071 documents
19:59788 of them were said to be relevant to
20:02section
20:02213 of which 583 related to Witnesses
20:07and 15 documents were said to be quote
20:10High um of high relevance and
20:14material 44 documents were said to be
20:16documents of Interest being documents
20:19that the post office said were not
20:20directly responsive to the notice but
20:23were otherwise of relevance to the
20:24inquiry's terms of reference of those
20:26six related to Witnesses the remaining
20:29239 documents were family members of
20:32such
20:33documents the post office noted uh that
20:36a number of the documents could be
20:38apparent duplicates of previous
20:40documents already produced but that
20:42information to assist in identifying
20:44duplicates would be provided
20:46separately so the Easter break then took
20:49uh Place between Friday the 29th of
20:51March and Monday the 1st of April at
20:54around 10:00 a.m. on the 2nd of April
20:56the post office's legal representative
20:58contacted the inquiry legal team to note
21:01that further documents were to be
21:03expected the post office requested a
21:05meeting with the inquiry to provide an
21:07update and discuss how the post office
21:09intended to disclose further
21:11documents at 11:47 on the 2nd of April
21:15the inquiry confirmed it would be
21:16grateful if the post office could please
21:19provide the inquiry with the information
21:21it should have or would be assisted in
21:23have in having in relation to the late
21:25disclosure that was relevant to hearings
21:28or w wies this week at 6:58 p.m. that
21:31day the post office sent the inquiry a
21:34four-page letter seeking quote to
21:35provide a brief update regarding the
21:38post office's further urgent witness
21:40focused review to best assist the
21:42inquiry with anticipated timings for
21:44further Productions that letter has been
21:46provided to core participants and I'm
21:48not going to repeat it however it was in
21:50this letter received after hours on
21:52Tuesday that the inquiry was informed
21:55that the post office intended to make
21:56quote a small number of further verges
21:58salmon filled Fisher Productions in the
22:01near future of further documents
22:03relevant to phases five and six it was
22:06said that most will be directly relevant
22:08to Witnesses scheduled to appear later
22:10in April and then in May to July but a
22:12limited amount will relate to Witnesses
22:14scheduled to appear during this week I.E
22:17starting
22:18today the letter said that the post
22:20office anticipated that the documents
22:22that relate to Witnesses appearing this
22:24week are likely to be low in number and
22:27or likely not likely to contain many
22:30documents that will give rise to
22:32potential questions for those Witnesses
22:34but will rather particularly for non
22:36post office or Royal maale group
22:38Witnesses for the most part be documents
22:40that refer to them importantly the
22:43letter said that the post office
22:45anticipated making yet further
22:46Productions of material uh following
22:49five further reviews it confirmed that
22:52the reviews were not related to the
22:54Microsoft Exchange remediation process
22:58but as noted already the documents were
23:00relevant to phases five and six and to
23:03Witnesses scheduled to be called as
23:05early as this week those five reviews
23:08were summarized by the post office as
23:11follows first the third party advisor
23:13and personal assistant review secondly
23:16the NAS drive and file share review
23:20thirdly the supplementary precautionary
23:22mcast review arising from the five phase
23:26five and six remediation review
23:29at the hard copy documents review and
23:31finally the Patrick Bor 2017 mcast data
23:35review the post office did not provide
23:38the numbers of documents for Witnesses
23:41um uh commencing this week although they
23:44anticipated providing those numbers
23:46shortly between the 2nd of April and the
23:485ifth of April the inquiry re received
23:51seven further letters about um one or
23:54more of those reviews those letters have
23:57also been provided to Corp participants
23:59and I shouldn't repeat
24:01them within those letters the post
24:03office disclosed a number of additional
24:05documents as follows on the 3rd of April
24:07196 documents were disclosed said to be
24:10from the Nash Drive the post office said
24:13they were continuing to collect material
24:15from the post office file share that
24:17might be relevant to the phase five and
24:19six
24:20hearings however the inquiry understands
24:23such a measure to be out of an abundance
24:24of caution also on the 3rd of April
24:273,100 188 documents were disclosed said
24:30to be from quote uh further material
24:33identified from third-party advisor
24:35files and material identified as part of
24:38a second Assurance review involving
24:40searches of email inboxes of personal
24:43assistance to section 213 individuals
24:46and other inboxes of potential relevance
24:48were considered appropriate this was
24:51further to the
24:52171 documents already disclosed to the
24:55inquiry back on the 28th of March on
24:58Friday the 5th of April so the Friday
25:00that's just passed the post office
25:03disclosed 189 documents following a
25:06review of post office's hard copy
25:08material 200 documents following an
25:10additional precautionary mcast review a
25:13further 374 documents were disclosed
25:16said to be the third tranch of documents
25:19including quote further material
25:21identified as part of a second Assurance
25:23review involving searches of email
25:26inboxes of personal assistance to
25:28section 213 individuals this was in
25:31addition to the 1071 documents disclosed
25:34on the 28th of March and the 3,188
25:37documents disclosed two days further the
25:41post office said that it was now quote
25:43urgently reviewing data for personal
25:45assistance to the section 213
25:47individuals who are witnesses and are
25:49due to give evidence from the 23rd of
25:51April onwards and they anticipated they
25:54would provide the documents to the
25:56inquiry on or before this Friday the
25:5812th of
25:59April so taking the five
26:02reviews about which the inquiry was W um
26:05informed on the 2nd of April in turn I
26:08understand the position to be as follows
26:10the third party advisor and personal
26:12assistant review has seen the disclosure
26:15to of a total of
26:184,633 documents since the 28th of March
26:20alone the post office has told us that
26:23that review is not yet complete the NAS
26:26drive and file share saw the the
26:28disclosure of 196 documents from the NAS
26:30drive last week but the review is
26:33ongoing in relation to other
26:36Witnesses the supplementary
26:38precautionary mcast review arising from
26:40the phase 56 remediation review saw the
26:44disclosure of 200 documents but that's
26:46now sent to be
26:48complete the hard copy documents review
26:50saw the disclosure of 189 documents last
26:53week it's unclear if that review is
26:55complete or remains ongoing the Patrick
26:58Bor 2017 mcast data work appears to be
27:02ongoing we understand the data is being
27:04collected and processed urgently the
27:07volume and timing of such disclosure is
27:09unknown but the post office said that
27:11they were working to disclose any
27:13further documents well in advance of at
27:17Patrick bork's hearing on the 7th of
27:20May so we in the inquiry team wish to
27:23inform you and the core participants of
27:27uh these developments without delay they
27:30present issues with which the inquiry
27:34has become um extremely and
27:36unfortunately familiar uh with over the
27:39past three
27:40years I should also put the uh
27:43developments in a wider context since
27:45the end of the phase four hearings alone
27:49so that's since the closing submissions
27:52on the 2nd of February
27:542024 the post office has disclosed 73
27:583,720 documents to the inquiry of which
28:02the inquiry legal team have
28:04characterized
28:0667210 documents as possibly relating to
28:10phases five and six of the inquiry the
28:14inquiry has received um documents from
28:16other providers during that time orbit
28:19none as substantially in volume as the
28:20post office and the inquiries
28:23information management team have
28:24confirmed that as of late yesterday at
28:27least
28:2978,2 documents including but not limited
28:32to the post office's documents that
28:34likely or potentially relate to phases
28:36five and six of the inquiry may fall for
28:39disclosure to core
28:41participants the matters that the inquir
28:43is investigating span two decades and a
28:46number of uh detailed issues in order to
28:49proceed with hearings in a meaningful
28:51way the inquiry has needed to prioritize
28:54its disclosure to core participants and
28:56will continue to do so
28:59it's with this in mind that we and the
29:01inquiry team specifically set deadlines
29:04for the receipt of the late exchange
29:06material likely to be relevant to the
29:08phase five and six um hearings on a
29:12witness by witness and week by week
29:14basis in order to ensure that the
29:16hearings could go ahead as planned this
29:19was communicated to the post office and
29:21the inquiry understood that the post
29:23office considered that it had completed
29:26its phase 56 EX change remediation
29:29exercises by the 22nd of March the
29:33obligation of disclosure to the inquiry
29:35is of course ongoing the inquiry had
29:37expected and indeed anticipated ongoing
29:40disclosure from providers of documents
29:43in certain instances documents can be
29:45found late hard copies or electronic
29:48files or messages may turn up in
29:50unexpected
29:52devices but the issues that the post
29:54office's disclosure to this inquiry have
29:56presented have been much more than minor
30:00ad hoc or additional disclosure in
30:03particular the post office's Assurance
30:06review as it has called it of personal
30:10assistant emails and other inboxes of
30:13potential relevance in response to the
30:16inquiry section 213 notice of last year
30:19is very concerning as I say that notice
30:22was sent in July of last year it lists
30:25the number of senior key post office uh
30:29individuals such individuals would
30:31undoubtedly communicate via their
30:34personal
30:35assistance the inboxes of what are
30:38called uh inboxes of potential relevance
30:42have not been explained by the post
30:43office so we don't know to whom they
30:47relate even more concerning the inquiry
30:50emphasized that the inquire the post
30:52office ought to apply a common sense
30:54approach to senior custodians as far
30:57back as a meeting with the post office
31:00in April
31:022023 so you asked for your team closely
31:06to monitor the post office's disclosure
31:08to the inquiry we have done so and will
31:11continue to do so whilst these new
31:14developments
31:15are to use a parliamentary word
31:19unwelcome your team is not
31:21unprepared we're committed to doing all
31:24that we can to ensure that the hearings
31:27can go ahead as planned and subject to
31:31your views that's what we intend to do
31:34to continue with the
31:36hearings the alternative further delay
31:40to allow the post office to get its
31:42disclosure house in order is not one
31:45which is
31:46acceptable it of course follows from
31:49that approach that there may be a need
31:51to recall some witnesses to ask them
31:54questions about documents which have not
31:57been processed
31:58in time for them to be asked questions
32:00about such documents in the coming weeks
32:03so that's the the approach that we um
32:06intend to take and that's all I say at
32:08the moment about this latest late post
32:11office
32:13disclosure thank you thank you Mr Beer
32:17um the substance or a summary of what Mr
32:22Beer has just explained publicly was
32:26provided to me
32:28uh late last week together with Mr beers
32:32and his team's advice that despite the
32:36problems which have occurred we should
32:38carry
32:40on I've had the weekend to think about
32:43that and also whether it would be
32:46necessary to invite core participants to
32:49provide their views to me about that and
32:53the decision I have reached is as
32:55follows first of all I don't wish to
32:58hear from the
32:59co-participants and secondly we're going
33:02to carry
33:04on now that is um perhaps a bold thing
33:08to do because it does mean that there
33:12may be occasions in which Witnesses are
33:15giving evidence where the documents
33:18haven't caught up with the witnesses so
33:21to speak and that is a highly
33:24undesirable State of
33:26Affairs but but as Mr Beer has explained
33:30that can be
33:32cured orbe it with some cost to the
33:34witness by recalling them if
33:38necessary the alternative is to have a
33:41substantial
33:42break and in my opinion dare I say
33:46judgment even though I'm not a judge
33:48anymore uh that is not
33:53desirable make no mistake everyone I
33:57understand fully
34:00that the problems with
34:03disclosure are capable of creating very
34:06significant pressures for all the
34:09participants in the
34:12inquiry but protracted adjournments so
34:16as to ensure that every relevant
34:19disclosable document is in the hands of
34:22all core participants prior to a witness
34:25giving evidence would also cause very
34:30damaging stresses to all the
34:33participants and so I have to exercise
34:37judgment and um come to a balanced
34:41decision and as I've said my view is
34:44that at the moment the problems are not
34:47such that we need to call a halt and my
34:51um
34:53intention is to continue with the
34:55evidence sessions in accordance with our
34:59published timetable so far as is
35:02reasonably
35:04possible I stress as Mr Beer has
35:07stressed that the monitoring of
35:09disclosure which I promised would
35:11continue throughout will continue
35:15throughout and if I deem it appropriate
35:18I will certainly use one of our days off
35:22a Monday or sometimes a Friday to hold a
35:25disclosure hearing so there's a threat
35:28to you
35:33all I want to publicly acknowledge and
35:36this is the last of the observations
35:38which I wish to
35:40make that at least in part I may be to
35:44blame for some of the problems relating
35:48to
35:50disclosure there may be some in this
35:52room in fact there are some in this
35:56room and certainly there are some in the
35:59inquiry team who consider that the
36:03timetables which I set for the hearing
36:06of evidence are unrealistically
36:10tight on any view the volume of material
36:13to be disclosed to the inquiry and then
36:16by the inquiry to core participants is
36:21enormous I acknowledge that if the
36:23hearing phases had been spread out with
36:27greater breaks between between them as
36:30some have
36:32advocated then some of the disclosure
36:35pressures would be
36:38eased however I am acutely conscious
36:42that this public inquiry has been in
36:45existence for very nearly three
36:49years although by the standards of some
36:53inquiries that is a comparatively short
36:56period of of
36:58time I am unshakable in my belief that
37:02this inquiry should not last for a day
37:05longer than is strictly
37:09necessary and if that means that the
37:12pace at which we proceed causes
37:15significant work pressures for us all
37:19then I'm afraid that's a price we're all
37:22going to have to
37:23pay so thank you for your words Mr Beer
37:27and I think we're ready for some
37:29evidence well just before we do that can
37:31I turn to a brighter note all right a
37:33brighter note thank you um as you know
37:36sir and was publicly announced um by the
37:39inquiry on the 9th of January this year
37:42the inquiry um jointly appointed Dame
37:45Sandra dwson and Dr Katie Stewart to the
37:49role of governance expert
37:51Witnesses uh Dame Sandra is Professor
37:55emerita of management studies University
37:58College Cambridge and a fellow formerly
38:00the master of Sydney Sussex College
38:02Cambridge she acted as an expert member
38:06on organization governance and
38:08Leadership on the expert Advisory Group
38:10on the Wind Rush Lessons Learned review
38:13and regularly advises on leadership
38:15governance and organization structure Dr
38:19Stewart is a policy governance expert
38:21and was a visiting scholar at at Sydney
38:24Sussex College Cambridge Dame Sandra and
38:28Dr Stewart have been instructed to
38:30produce two reports addressing issues
38:32relating to leadership management and
38:35governance the first of those reports
38:37has been disclosed to core participants
38:40it's dated the 27th of March 2024 and
38:43has the UR expg
38:47606 it sets out the expected and best
38:50practice in relation to the standards of
38:53governance management and leadership in
38:55companies such as the post office in the
38:58period 1999 to
39:002019 it's a substantial body of work
39:03being 133 pages in length including its
39:06appendices a copy of that um report the
39:09first report is to be treated as being
39:12having read into the record today and
39:15therefore a copy will be uploaded to the
39:17inquiry's website
39:19today Dame Sandra and Dr Stewart will be
39:22considering the evidence given in phases
39:25five and six of the inquiry both the
39:27written evidence and the oral evidence
39:29and will produce a second report in the
39:32light of that evidence when phases five
39:33and six have
39:35concluded thank you Mr Beer I think we
39:38can all agree that is a brighter
39:41note uh can I call Alan Bates please yes
39:44of course ah he's
39:51appeared
39:53right sorry repeat after me I swear by
39:56alight Lord I swear by almighty God that
39:59the evidence I shall give that the
40:01evidence I shall give shall be the truth
40:03shall be the truth the whole truth the
40:05whole truth and nothing but the truth
40:06and nothing but the truth thank you very
40:13much good morning Mr Bat good morning my
40:16name is Jason beer as you know and I ask
40:18questions on behalf of the inquiry can
40:20you tell us your full name please uh
40:22Alan bat thank you very much for
40:25previously providing a compreh
40:27comprehensive and detailed witness
40:28statement to the inquiry and for coming
40:30to London today to give evidence to
40:33assist the inquiry um in its work can we
40:35start by looking at your witness
40:37statement please um it's the only hard
40:39copy document I'm going to be asking you
40:41to refer to it's got for the purposes of
40:43the transcript the UR win
40:4835100 and it's up on the screen it's 59
40:52pages long um excluding the exhibits
40:55page and is dated the 29 of February um
40:59I picked up a couple of typos I wonder
41:01whether we could just correct those
41:03first if we look at page
41:0723 and the foot of page 23 at uh
41:12paragraph
41:1475
41:16um uh it says the CW were not involved
41:19in this period as I recall the nfsp in
41:23the letter should that say from Colin
41:26Baker yes
41:27dated the 13th of January so cross out
41:29the words January 200 and put in the
41:31words Baker the word Baker yes yes
41:35please and page
41:4132 uh paragraph
41:54102 it says in my letter to Mr Mr O'Neal
41:57dated the 9th of September 2009 I think
42:00that should be
42:032004 the original
42:06letter yes it would be yes yes so can
42:09that be corrected to 2004 thank you if
42:12you can turn to page 59 please in the
42:14hard copy um do we see your signature
42:20there yes you do and with those two
42:22typos corrected are the contents of the
42:24statement true to the best of your
42:26knowledge and belief they are thank you
42:28very much Mr Bates I'm not going to ask
42:30you questions about every aspect of your
42:33witness statement because it's long and
42:35detailed and a copy of it will be
42:37uploaded to the inquiry's website today
42:39so the public can um read it can I start
42:42the statement can come down please um
42:44can I start with um a little bit about
42:46your
42:47background uh you tell us in your
42:49witness statement it's paragraph 5 no
42:51need to turn it up that before you
42:54became a sub postmaster you worked for
42:5612 years
42:57in the Heritage and Leisure project
42:59management sector is that right that's
43:02correct and is it right that in the
43:04course of um that work you developed
43:07experience in electronic point of sale
43:10epos systems yes I do you developed
43:14experien in the development of site
43:17specific business software and the
43:19provision of Staff IT training that's
43:22correct to what extent if any did that
43:26background assist you you when you
43:28became a sub postmaster and were later
43:32required to work with the Horizon it
43:34system I think when Horizon came in I
43:37think I was quite positive about it um
43:40because I I knew what technology and
43:42these sorts of systems could do so um I
43:45I was quite positive but I I found it a
43:48bit frustrating once the system was
43:50installed and we were operating I found
43:53there were many shortcomings in the
43:55system and and um knowing what these
43:59systems could do it just seemed a bit of
44:02a lost
44:04opportunity you were a sub postmaster I
44:06think between the 31st of March 1998 and
44:11the 5th of November
44:132003 yes uh by my Reckoning so a period
44:17of five and a half years or so that's
44:20correct and by comparison if you don't
44:22mind me saying to other sub postmasters
44:25that's a relatively short period isn't
44:26it it
44:30is sorry it is but it's due to post
44:33office not to myself
44:36quite and also I suppose ironically you
44:40spent more than four times that period
44:44campaigning oh
44:47yes and why has that been
44:51necessary um because uh well initially
44:55it was because post office terminated my
44:58contract giving me 3 months notice and
45:01not giving me a reason for doing so um
45:04purely because in my belief is that it
45:07is I kept raising problems and concerns
45:10over its Horizon system due to a number
45:13of faults I'd found over the years you
45:16tell us in your statement that you spent
45:18um that period of time Seeking Justice
45:23accountability and redress for not just
45:26yourself and your uh wife but also on
45:31behalf um of a much wider group of
45:33people is that right yes I did um we um
45:38once I'd started my individual little
45:41campaign in
45:43the we we found others along the way and
45:47eventually we all joined up and so the
45:49jfsa was born and onwards went the
45:55campaign you say in your witness
45:57statement that you have dedicated this
45:59part of my life to this
46:03cause is that how it has seemed or felt
46:08first firstly that it's required
46:10dedication but secondly it's a
46:13cause yeah I think it's also
46:15stubbornness as well but um
46:18it's I mean as you got to meet people
46:22and realize it wasn't just yourself and
46:25you saw the harm in Justice that had
46:28been um descended upon them uh it was
46:33something that you felt you had to deal
46:35with sorry um it's something you felt
46:38you had to deal with it's something you
46:40couldn't put down and um you had the
46:43supports of the rest of the group in
46:45there as well
46:47Sor that's right do take a moment to uh
46:50clear the frog in your throat yeah I
46:53have hopefully not a Welsh one there
46:58talking of which um you ran a post
47:00office in North Wales um I did what was
47:03the name of the post office and in which
47:05town was it it's codon post office in
47:08sanded no just say that
47:11again codon post office in Flo and what
47:15kind of post office like me teasing him
47:17about oh I see okay what kind of post
47:20office was it it was well it it was a
47:24three position counter in uh it was was
47:27uh when we first um bought the property
47:29it was very much at the back of the the
47:31property in there and it was a bit run
47:33down and it also had another side um a
47:37retail side to the business which was a
47:40whole variety of things crafts knitting
47:44um habitatery a whole range of things so
47:48for the first year or two we just ran
47:51the business as it was and slowly
47:54developed it from there putting on a big
47:57extension up updating the um updating a
48:01lot of the stock but more importantly we
48:04actually saw it as a a big potential to
48:07to grow the Post Office business we
48:09brought it right to the front of the
48:11building and with a a large queuing area
48:16for for people unfortunately it seems
48:18what post offices need and um uh so we
48:23we invested quite heavily in developing
48:25the post office and that was at the time
48:27Horizon came in thank you and I think
48:30you and your wife suzan were 44 years
48:33old when you took it over is that right
48:35about that yes s have been you tell us
48:37in your witness statements that there's
48:39no need to turn it up it's paragraphs 9
48:41to13 in summary terms um about your
48:45decision to become a sub postmaster your
48:47decision to pick this post office uh
48:50your hopes and aspirations and the
48:53process by which you applied and by
48:55which your application was approved I
48:59just want to look at an account you've
49:01given in the past in more detail about
49:03that if we may um can we look please on
49:05the screen at poll
49:07302
49:194194 this is a witness statement you
49:21made in the course of the um group
49:23litigation proceedings in the high court
49:26um we deal more about that later today
49:30is that right yes it is yes and we can
49:32see the date on it in the top right um
49:359th of August
49:382018 and so this witness statement was
49:40made for the purposes of what came to be
49:43known as the common issues trial is that
49:45right that's
49:47correct and so the process by which you
49:50applied to become a sub postmaster the
49:53documents that were or in fact were not
49:57given to you were important issues and
50:01addressed in this witness statement in
50:02very great detail is that right that is
50:05right yeah can we look please at uh page
50:12three and pick up at paragraph 11
50:17please you say a key attraction to
50:20working with post office was that it
50:23would provide secure employment based
50:25upon the fact it provides a community
50:27service and has an established brand in
50:30the community from among the various
50:32small business options available a post
50:35office branch would in my mind be a safe
50:37option I was also encouraged by the fact
50:39I could run a secondary business such as
50:42a retail shop alongside the post office
50:44branch that sets out in summary your
50:47reasons for picking post office as a um
50:51a future Enterprise with your wife is
50:54that right that's
50:55correct
50:57now um paragraph 12 on this page right
51:02through to um paragraph 23 on page five
51:08addresses the initial inquiries you made
51:11with the existing or the outgoing sub
51:14postmaster Peter Savage I think his name
51:16was that's correct um and the Planned
51:19visits that you made and indeed some
51:21unannounced visits that you made to the
51:24post office in question as part of your
51:26due diligence is that right that's
51:29correct can we just look at paragraph 21
51:32on page five
51:40please you say that you do remember that
51:43during one of my visits um to the branch
51:46Mr Savage explained that he had a
51:48practice of keeping unders an overs in a
51:51tin in the safe as a system to deal with
51:54any odd shorts or overs I remember this
51:58because I thought it to be rather casual
52:00and unusual for a business nevertheless
52:02I was not particularly concerned and
52:04considered it to be a matter for Mr
52:05Savage and his staff and I didn't
52:07understand it to involve large figures
52:10or to be um problematic is that right
52:14that is right and it was very odd and
52:16very strange I thought for a for a cash
52:18based um system where you didn't
52:21actually record anywhere the amounts um
52:25and you
52:30didn't return you know that seemed to be
52:33the way it operated but these were small
52:35sums of money is that they were small
52:36sums of money yeah uh on um from
52:40paragraph 24 if we scroll down
52:43please um right through to paragraph 33
52:47at the bottom of page seven you deal
52:49with the agreement to purchase the post
52:51office yes yes and then if we go forward
52:54to page eight please
53:02um from paragraph 34 on this
53:05page right through to paragraph 86 on
53:09page 19 you deal with the following
53:12issues I'm just going to summarize them
53:15without reading the text firstly the
53:18application to the post office to be a
53:20sub
53:20postm secondly the interview at the
53:23regional office in Banger that you and
53:26your
53:27um wife
53:28attended thirdly um the confirmation
53:32that your application had been
53:35successful and the material that you
53:37were then given yes and if we just go
53:40forward to page 15
53:47please and look at paragraph 62 you say
53:52at no stage during the process of my
53:54application appointment and branch
53:56opening was I ever um sent a copy of the
53:59sub postmaster contract I first obtained
54:02a copy of the sub postmaster contract
54:05much later in circumstances I explained
54:07below at no point during my appointment
54:10process was it mentioned or explained to
54:11me that the sub postmaster contract
54:14which was a lengthy document of 114
54:16Pages govern the terms of my um
54:20appointment now we'll hear later that is
54:23this right that the post office robustly
54:26challenged you on that issue alongside
54:28other issues at the trial and then the
54:31trial judge then Mr Justice Fraser held
54:35that you were an honest witness that you
54:37were telling the truth and that like
54:39many other sub postmasters you did not
54:41receive a copy of this document it's
54:45correct you address later in this
54:47section of your witness statement your
54:49initial classroom uh training and then
54:52lastly the transfer of the branch to you
54:55and the open opening of it correct
54:58correct yes can we turn to the um
55:02introduction of the Horizon system into
55:04your
55:05branch and can we go to your inquiry
55:08witness statement
55:10please at page
55:25five
55:29paragraph
55:3014 you tell us that in October 2000 the
55:35post office introduced Horizon at my
55:36branch and imposed upon me a requirement
55:40that I use it to record transactions at
55:43the branch and to submit uh Branch
55:46accounts to the best of my recollection
55:48Horizon was installed from the 2nd of
55:50October 2000 I remember the branch was
55:52closed around this time to um allow for
55:55this
55:58so Horizon installed um under two years
56:03after you took up uh the position of sub
56:06postmaster of this office correct and
56:08then scroll down to 15
56:11please you say um I didn't have any
56:15involvement in discussions about the
56:16introduction of horizon I had no choice
56:19but to accept and accommodate this
56:21variation obviously this was also a huge
56:23change in how I operated the branch as
56:26many of the previous processes that I've
56:28been trained on and had operated at the
56:30branch were made obsolete not only for
56:32me but also for my um
56:37assistance um paragraph 16
56:42please you say um when Horizon was
56:45introduced given my background with
56:47electronic Point of Sales Systems uh I
56:50regarded the introduction of Horizon at
56:53first as a positive Innovation and
56:54you've told us that yes in summary this
56:57morning however I did not expect there
56:59to be any apparent discrepancies shown
57:01on the system that I was unable to
57:03identify the cause of and resolve either
57:07by myself or with support or information
57:10from post office limited certainly I did
57:13not expect discrepancies to occur for
57:15which the post office would try and hold
57:17me liable without the cause being
57:21investigated and established to that
57:24point I'd been preparing accounts
57:26manually using the capture system just
57:29going back to um what you say on the
57:34previous
57:36page you say in the third line I didn't
57:39expect there to be any apparent
57:41discrepancies shown on the system that
57:43you were unable to identify the cause of
57:46and
57:48resolve what do you mean by
57:51that well
57:54um I expected to be able to track down
57:59any
58:01transaction uh um that i' undertaken um
58:05myself or my staff had undertaken at the
58:08branch um One Way or Another there are
58:12variety of ways of interrogating systems
58:14and the data on the systems and I
58:16presumed that the system would enable
58:19you to do that at the outset but um I
58:23mean in in in previous roles you know
58:26before post office I'd use something
58:29like Crystal Reports on software
58:31packages to
58:33to um to extract information using
58:37certain parameters in there but there
58:39was very little flexibility in Horizon
58:43as I saw it at that time um for reports
58:46that you could control the the um
58:50parameters of your searches for there
58:52were a set of reports don't get me wrong
58:54there were a set there were already
58:56built into the system but they were
58:59quite restrictive in there and
59:03um it did seem to cause problems and um
59:07we see this as a feature in the
59:08correspondence that you we're going to
59:10turn to a little later sure um today and
59:13a constant theme that you pursued I.E
59:16the visibility of transactions and the
59:20auditability of
59:22transactions um from a sub postmaster's
59:25perspective was lacking in the Horizon
59:27system is that correct very much so
59:31yeah can we um uh turn please back to
59:35your high court statement poll 302
59:444194 and um turn to page 32
59:55please
1:00:02and can we pick it up at paragraph um
1:00:08144 uh you say that you've been referred
1:00:11to a part of the post office's um um
1:00:14defense and to its defense and counter
1:00:18claim and you say that you understand
1:00:21from this that the post office's case
1:00:23for the purposes of the common issues
1:00:25trial is quote that losses do not arise
1:00:29in the ordinary course of things without
1:00:32fault or error on the part of sub
1:00:34postmasters and their assistants and um
1:00:37this is what the post office said it
1:00:39would not be right to infer or presume
1:00:42that a shortfall and loss was caused
1:00:45instead by a bug or error in
1:00:47Horizon and quote that the truth of
1:00:50whether a shortfall did or did not
1:00:52result from losses for which the sub
1:00:54postmaster was responsible quote lies
1:00:57peculiarly within the knowledge of sub
1:00:59postmasters as the person with the
1:01:02responsibility for branch operation and
1:01:05the conduct of transactions in branches
1:01:09you say um these things were in my own
1:01:12experience very far from the case and
1:01:15then you set out from your own
1:01:17experience
1:01:20um by comparison um what you say
1:01:26by reference to what the post office
1:01:29suggest can we look at paragraph 145
1:01:35please you say I um didn't expect there
1:01:38to be any apparent shortfalls that you
1:01:40were unable to identify that's
1:01:42essentially what you said in your um
1:01:44inquiry witness
1:01:46statement and then
1:01:48146 you say one of my fundamental
1:01:51concerns when Horizon was introduced
1:01:54which you clearly Comm communicated
1:01:56through various letters was the lack of
1:01:58transparency and control available to me
1:02:02in reviewing transactions when trying to
1:02:05balance you refer to a letter and you
1:02:09say I could not fully access data that I
1:02:11needed in order to properly track and if
1:02:14necessary to correct
1:02:16transactions um your concerns came to a
1:02:19head in December 2000 following a
1:02:22particularly difficult balance you were
1:02:25therefore dependent you say upon the
1:02:27post office for this sort of
1:02:29information and therefore in order to
1:02:31ascertain the cause of any apparent
1:02:32shortfall and whether it was in fact a
1:02:35real
1:02:36loss and then you say in 147 although
1:02:40Post Office later moved to monthly
1:02:41balancing during your tenure you were
1:02:44required to produce weekly accounts
1:02:46which meant you had to conduct a balance
1:02:48on a weekly basis on a Wednesday when
1:02:50carrying out this balance on Wednesday
1:02:52the 13th of December 2000 The Horizon
1:02:56system showed there was an unexplained
1:02:58variance of over £6,000 relating to um
1:03:02gyro
1:03:04deposits that can come down thank you so
1:03:07the first substantial unexplained
1:03:09variance was over over £6,000 is that
1:03:13right yes and it was only a number of
1:03:15weeks after the system had gone Live
1:03:17Well I was going to ask you that um
1:03:19system live um about the 2nd of October
1:03:23we're now talking about the 13th of
1:03:25December so 2 months or so yeah after
1:03:28the system had been installed this
1:03:30variance arose
1:03:37yes um if we go back to um paragraph 148
1:03:41please of poll 302
1:03:534194 so over the page please
1:04:02thank you you say as you mentioned in a
1:04:05paragraph above I contacted the helpline
1:04:07seeking support and help as to why this
1:04:10apparent variance had occurred they were
1:04:12unable to assist in any meaningful way I
1:04:15tried to investigate the matter myself I
1:04:16printed various reports from two of my
1:04:19three counter terminals I left the third
1:04:21terminal for use to serve customers who
1:04:24as we were very busy in the branch with
1:04:26customers queing out of um the door um
1:04:30you cross refer back to paragraph
1:04:40143.000 you contacted the helpline seven
1:04:42times is that right that's correct and
1:04:44one of the calls was um about an hour an
1:04:47hour in length yeah and would they have
1:04:50any assistance at all in that um in
1:04:52those seven goals not really um
1:04:56that stating the bleeding obvious I
1:04:59think really is is is one description I
1:05:01might use but I
1:05:03it it was all things that I'd tried um
1:05:07did they suggest anything no and the the
1:05:10the other impression I got is they they
1:05:12they couldn't access the system any
1:05:14further than I could at that
1:05:17time and just by way of an aside um I
1:05:20think you tell us in your um uh
1:05:23statement that post office records
1:05:25subsequently disclose to you show that
1:05:28in the 2year and 9mon period um up until
1:05:34um February up until November 2003 I
1:05:39when your contract was
1:05:41terminated you and your assistant made
1:05:44507 calls to the helpl line
1:05:48correct of which 85 related to Horizon
1:05:51and balancing problems
1:05:54yes and that you found the helpl line to
1:05:57be ineffective indeed of no help um very
1:06:01much so and often we never bothered
1:06:03ringing
1:06:05it can we go on to paragraph 149 of your
1:06:08high court witness statement
1:06:10here you say using the limited reports
1:06:13you were able to uh print you ascertain
1:06:16that around
1:06:17£5,000 of the alleged shortfall related
1:06:19to gyro items that had become wrongly
1:06:22duplicated on Horizon these were reports
1:06:25were in the form of lengthy multi-line
1:06:27narrow till reips and were many meters
1:06:29long making them difficult to review in
1:06:31any event at the time I believe that a
1:06:34majority of the remaining alleged
1:06:35shortfall being
1:06:371,182 81 was also attributable to gyro
1:06:41errors however I was unable to track
1:06:44these potentially smaller sums in the
1:06:46absence of proper reporting functions on
1:06:49Horizon therefore far from being within
1:06:51my knowledge I was unable to ascertain
1:06:54the root cause of the apparent short for
1:06:55at all um you had your thoughts which
1:06:58you set out later I also called my
1:07:00retail line man sorry my retail network
1:07:03manager Jerry Hayes the following day to
1:07:05inform him in the absence of a proper
1:07:07response from the post office I carried
1:07:09out I carried over the apparent
1:07:12shortfall from that week's cash account
1:07:14to the following week's cash account by
1:07:16transferring it to a suspense account
1:07:18which was visible to um the post
1:07:21office so um £5,000 of the 6 ,000 was um
1:07:27attributable to wrongly
1:07:29duplicated uh
1:07:31Gyros the loss which had been left about
1:07:35£1,100 um you couldn't account for on
1:07:38the information available to you and is
1:07:40it that some 11,100 that you ended up in
1:07:43dispute with the post office over at
1:07:45that time yes it was yeah and I think
1:07:49the first thing you did was to write a
1:07:50detailed letter to the post office about
1:07:52it I did can we look at that please
1:07:564
1:08:094598 at page 134
1:08:21please we can see this is dated the 19th
1:08:24of December 2000 so about 6 days after
1:08:28the balancing issue emerged and again
1:08:31about two and a bit months after the
1:08:33installation of Horizon at your
1:08:35branch and um it must be noted I think
1:08:40very early in the life of the Horizon
1:08:42system taken as a whole would you agree
1:08:44yes
1:08:45I you'll see that the heading of it is
1:08:49um Horizon
1:08:51faults can we read the letter together
1:08:53because this sets out um what might be
1:08:56an important
1:08:57account early in the life of
1:09:01horizon uh you refer back in the first
1:09:03paragraph to a um a
1:09:07conversation and um
1:09:10as um is good practice you confirmed it
1:09:13in detail in
1:09:15writing you say the balance at this
1:09:17office on the 13th was not only very
1:09:21stressful but also very
1:09:22worrying the evidence that appeared
1:09:25during that day proved Beyond any doubt
1:09:28that the Horizon system cannot be relied
1:09:30upon to give 100% accurate
1:09:35figures the problem which was
1:09:37highlighted to this office that day was
1:09:39with regard to gyro deposits and at one
1:09:42point the weekly returns were showing a
1:09:43variance to the addition of the daily
1:09:46returns of over
1:09:48£6,000 the whole of that afternoon was
1:09:50spent making a number of phone calls to
1:09:52the different helpl lines one of almost
1:09:54one hour long
1:09:56and kept two of the three terminals
1:09:57producing nothing but reports at a Pete
1:10:00trading time when we had cues out of the
1:10:02door though eventually I did manage to
1:10:04track down the majority of the money
1:10:07that said the cash account for that week
1:10:09is still showing a shortage of 11
1:10:1218281 I can without any doubt attribute
1:10:1736850 of that to gyro items that have
1:10:20been double entered and that I'm unable
1:10:23to track because of the way Rison is set
1:10:26up of the remaining 81431 shortage I'm
1:10:30presuming that
1:10:3140915 of that shortage is from the
1:10:34previous week that's become added to the
1:10:36total this leaves a difference of
1:10:3940516 which I am I'm unsure of where it
1:10:43comes from it may well be a Gyros System
1:10:45error as might be the previous week's
1:10:4840915 shortage or it may be something
1:10:51else unfortunately the current Horizon
1:10:53system does not let you act access
1:10:55previous transactions adequately enough
1:10:57to track problems with shorts or Rovers
1:11:00at the end of the week
1:11:04continuing having spoken to the LA local
1:11:06Branch Secretary of the Federation of
1:11:08sub poost Masters on these problems and
1:11:10realizing the problems I'm experience
1:11:13experiencing are being found by others
1:11:15around the
1:11:17country I do not I really do not believe
1:11:19it would be unreasonable for post office
1:11:21Network to hold me liable for losses on
1:11:24the cash account until such time as 100%
1:11:28guarantee can be given about the
1:11:29accuracy of
1:11:32horizon I've been hoping to leave any
1:11:35comments in writing about Horizon until
1:11:37the office is quieter in January and
1:11:39then write a detailed submission about
1:11:41the cost we've incurred with it around
1:11:43,000 the problems with the counter staff
1:11:46working with money and stamp books on
1:11:49chairs or on the shelf behind them the
1:11:51very poor layout of the screen and menus
1:11:54the slowness of the printers the lack of
1:11:56report writing facilities the chaotic
1:11:58end of day and end of week procedures
1:12:00and the problems of having to do quote
1:12:02office work at a terminal on the counter
1:12:05given time I shall produce the report
1:12:07for you please do not think that I'm
1:12:09being nothing but negative about the
1:12:11system I'm a firm believer in the way
1:12:13forward through such a system but bear
1:12:16in mind my comments are made by someone
1:12:18who's had considerable experience of
1:12:20electronic Point of Sales Systems before
1:12:22joining the post office in 1998 I first
1:12:25began working with them in 1986 and used
1:12:28a variety of systems reading on so I do
1:12:31have some insight into those systems and
1:12:34I would gladly be willing to offer
1:12:35constructive feedback if asked with
1:12:38regard to the current deficit showing on
1:12:40our cash account for last week how do
1:12:42you want me to progress this week's
1:12:43balance should I just roll it through
1:12:45and see what happens or what and then
1:12:48you ask for
1:12:49assistance so in that letter you make it
1:12:52clear on a number of occasions that
1:12:54Horizon his fault at fault and you
1:12:57explain in detail why so far as you
1:12:59could tell that was so is that right
1:13:01that's correct you tell the post office
1:13:03that you're not alone and that this was
1:13:05happening around the country that's what
1:13:08I understood yeah did that information
1:13:10come from your local Branch Secretary at
1:13:12the nfsp it did was that Dave Foster it
1:13:15was Dave
1:13:18Foster and you ask a question what
1:13:20should I do at the end yes did you ever
1:13:23get a reply a written reply to the raft
1:13:25of the points sorry no I never did no
1:13:28reply to this letter at all
1:13:32never can we move on please um to page
1:13:37140 in this
1:13:43bundle this is um a follow-up letter of
1:13:46the 7th of January
1:13:542002 so
1:13:57now over a year has
1:14:02passed and you're writing to the post
1:14:05office about this um longin the tooth
1:14:07alleged
1:14:09shortfall and you say as you're aware
1:14:11the cash account for this office is
1:14:12still showing an amount of
1:14:1510486 in the suspense account this
1:14:18cumulative figure was placed in the
1:14:20suspense account towards the end of
1:14:222000 and I have no doubt at all that it
1:14:25was due to errors in the Horizon system
1:14:27over a number of weeks at that time in
1:14:30my letters to Jerry Hayes of the 19th of
1:14:32December which we've just looked at um
1:14:3416th of July 2001 I've skipped over that
1:14:37one because of time neither of which did
1:14:39I receive a written reply to I gave
1:14:42further details on this matter I really
1:14:45do think that enough time has now passed
1:14:47for post office to have resolved this
1:14:49issue and that unless I receive a
1:14:51written comment to the contary by the
1:14:53end of this month I'll take it the
1:14:54matters closed when I signed my contract
1:14:57with post office counters I did not sign
1:14:59to accept the liabilities arising from
1:15:02the shortcomings of a less than adequate
1:15:04Horizon system all liabilities from such
1:15:07a system are clearly the responsibility
1:15:10of post office limited or ICL
1:15:13pathway allowing this issue to drag on
1:15:16not only continues the stress and strain
1:15:18of the original problems but I fear also
1:15:20continually cast out over my honesty and
1:15:23that of my staff therefore I greatly
1:15:25appreciated it it if you would bring
1:15:27this matter to a head in order that we
1:15:30can um move
1:15:37on can um we turn to your inquiry
1:15:40witness statement
1:15:42please at paragraphs 39 and
1:15:4740 which um are on page
1:15:5312
1:15:58you
1:15:59say finally by letter of the 6th of
1:16:02March
1:16:032002 I was notified that quote post
1:16:06office has decided to take no further
1:16:08action in respect of the loss at my
1:16:10branch and that this will be written
1:16:13off uh no reason was given but I've
1:16:17since seen a copy of a quote write off
1:16:19Authority voucher disclosed by the post
1:16:21office which gives the reason for the
1:16:23write off as quote disputed Horizon cash
1:16:27account shortage the letter of the 6th
1:16:29of March also said that the post office
1:16:31had taken time to respond because quote
1:16:34it has been necessary to formulate a
1:16:37consistent response to all such cases I
1:16:40take it from this that the post office
1:16:41was aware at the time of many such
1:16:43complaints I also take uh from the fact
1:16:46that the post office was willing to
1:16:47write off the considerable apparent
1:16:49discrepancy I disputed that my
1:16:51complaints were valid and that the post
1:16:53office was aware
1:16:55that was the case and wish to avoid the
1:16:57controversy on this matter given that I
1:16:59was willing to assert my legal
1:17:04rights uh can we turn up please and poll
1:17:084 zos
1:17:114598 at page 143
1:17:23please we should just just um look back
1:17:25at um page 142
1:17:28please this is the letter of the 6th of
1:17:30March 2002 that you were referring to in
1:17:33your witness statement
1:17:37yes and um if we look at the third
1:17:45paragraph there's the passage that you
1:17:47cited after due consideration of the
1:17:50facts surrounding your loss in your
1:17:52report post office has decided to take
1:17:53no further action in respect of the loss
1:17:56which will be written
1:18:00off and the right of authority if we
1:18:03just look at the second page that was
1:18:09included if we just scroll down a little
1:18:12bit thank
1:18:14you this is the the unsigned version
1:18:17essentially um I've received a write off
1:18:21Authority um voucher
1:18:25to the value of the amount which has
1:18:28been cleared from my suspense account
1:18:31and the voucher has been cleared in the
1:18:32appropriate manner in the cash account
1:18:36number week number I'm
1:18:39sorry uh was that amount 10
1:18:434186 actually cleared out of your
1:18:46suspense account so you went back to
1:18:48zero in balancing terms yes yes it did
1:18:51so it didn't remain there after a
1:18:53shortfall which you were required to
1:18:55roll over
1:18:57no and then can we look at the loss
1:18:59authorization document which you also
1:19:01referred to in your uh witness statement
1:19:05that's poll 0032
1:19:188099 uh page three
1:19:23please
1:19:26I think this is the loss authorization
1:19:28document if we just pan out so we can
1:19:30see all of it
1:19:32please I don't think this is something
1:19:34that you saw at the time is that right
1:19:36this is an internal Post Office document
1:19:39that's correct um but you got disclosure
1:19:41of it later is that right that's
1:19:44right and we'll see that it seems to be
1:19:47in standard
1:19:49form it's got your branch name and your
1:19:53fad code the am ount of money and it
1:19:56says the following decision has been
1:19:58made with regard to the loss at the
1:19:59above office which relates to an aged
1:20:03shortage which the sub postmaster
1:20:05insists was attributable to a horizon
1:20:07system software equipment training
1:20:09failure and then three boxes are three
1:20:13options are
1:20:14given the second of which was sub poost
1:20:17Master makes it good the third of which
1:20:20um an amount of it must be made good an
1:20:23amount of it will be written off and the
1:20:25first of which was the full amount will
1:20:27be written off and the post uh sub postm
1:20:30has been sent the appropriate voucher
1:20:31with which to clear the loss of the
1:20:35amount yes yes um did you um see this
1:20:40document that
1:20:42um the writing off of a
1:20:46loss because you said the loss was
1:20:49attributable to the Horizon system at
1:20:52the time of the dispute with the post
1:20:54office in 2002 and 2003 I.E before
1:20:57termination of your contract no no I
1:21:00didn't say
1:21:02see and so were you aware at that time
1:21:05that the post office um seemingly used
1:21:08the standard
1:21:09form um with delete as appropriate boxes
1:21:14on it no no I didn't but now that you
1:21:18mention it I I do recall a conversation
1:21:23that the retail network manager had at
1:21:28the time with this department at my
1:21:31office so I only heard one side of the
1:21:33conversation and it was about arranging
1:21:35for this write off amount or write off
1:21:39foucher and I seem to recall and it's
1:21:43stuck in memory because of what it was
1:21:45he said oh it's another one the Horizon
1:21:48losses and it's just one of those little
1:21:51things that you know sticks in the back
1:21:52of your mind that Happ that was said at
1:21:55the time when when the retail manager
1:21:58was speaking to this department on the
1:22:01phone arranging the voucher in any event
1:22:04there existed a form in which a
1:22:07loss um could be authorized to be
1:22:10written off on the grounds um that the
1:22:14sub Postmaster said the loss was
1:22:16attributable to Horizon yes it did and
1:22:19that's what happened in your case
1:22:23yes thank you that can come
1:22:27down now before you um uh had
1:22:31authorization to write this loss off you
1:22:34continue to roll it over from week to
1:22:35week yes I did and was that done with
1:22:38the knowledge and approval of your then
1:22:40retail line manager well they were aware
1:22:42of it they're certainly informed that
1:22:44that's what I was doing
1:22:47so we've heard um from some post off
1:22:50office staff um the evidence of um Susan
1:22:54hard
1:22:55Springs to mind particularly to me um
1:22:58that the post office believed that the
1:23:00suspense account was used by sub
1:23:04postmasters to cover up theft and
1:23:09fraud your evidence is that you were
1:23:12being transparent from an early stage in
1:23:15the life of
1:23:16horizon in your complaints about Horizon
1:23:20discrepancies about the use of the
1:23:22suspense account to hold over
1:23:25disputed sums whilst continued whilst
1:23:28continuing to assert that the money
1:23:30wasn't owed and ought not to be made
1:23:32good is that right that's
1:23:35correct did there come a time when that
1:23:37practice was
1:23:39challenged um not during my tenure I
1:23:43understand it was later
1:23:46on I think after this write off um there
1:23:50continued to be um some shortages short
1:23:54Falls shown on Horizon is that right
1:23:57that is that's right yes well not just
1:24:00sorry um you say shortages it was also
1:24:03overs and unders it was so surpluses as
1:24:06well surpluses
1:24:10yeah and did you seek to discover the um
1:24:13cause of both the surpluses and the
1:24:16shortages yes um as much as we could and
1:24:20did you um encounter success on occasion
1:24:23yes
1:24:25did it remain the case however that a
1:24:27sum just over um
1:24:29,000 um was carried as um a shortage in
1:24:34the suspense
1:24:36account uh no not not to my recollection
1:24:40there was a claim at the very end of my
1:24:43um contract that I think they said that
1:24:46the um office was owing something in the
1:24:48region of 12 or
1:24:50,400 but it's that I'm referring to
1:24:53sorry it's that I was referring to yeah
1:24:55no it but that wasn't carried such what
1:24:58happened was that I refused to
1:25:02um
1:25:04um when we when we undertook our weekly
1:25:07balance you were then meant to put in
1:25:09money to make up to the figure or take
1:25:11money out if it it was over in there I
1:25:14refused to do that I rolled through the
1:25:16shortages or the losses in the uh sorry
1:25:19shortages or the overs each time so it
1:25:22had a a running total it it was adjusted
1:25:25from week to week um because I really
1:25:28did not know where the office was up to
1:25:30you know I had no idea so and often some
1:25:35of these um where there had been an
1:25:39error might come back in a week or two
1:25:42weeks or something of that um that sort
1:25:45of time or it could be a lot longer um
1:25:48when the actual error was discovered
1:25:51elsewhere and it can be corrected um but
1:25:54no I never actually
1:25:57reset um or zeroed the system but I just
1:26:00kept rolling through the shortages and
1:26:02losses and post office were aware of
1:26:05what I was
1:26:07doing did um the um installation of a
1:26:11new retail line manager Mike wakeley um
1:26:15cause matters to uh be brought to a head
1:26:17in that respect eventually yes and can
1:26:20we look at that eventually um poll 4 Z's
1:26:264598 uh page 144
1:26:36please this is a letter to you dated um
1:26:39the 14th of April
1:26:422003 um reference losses and
1:26:45gains um just want to read the first
1:26:49part of the first paragraph further up
1:26:51to our conversation you confirm that
1:26:53you've been rolling over losses and
1:26:54gains for the past two years or more um
1:26:57that's um what you've just described yes
1:27:00he says I was unaware of this
1:27:03practice and then in the second
1:27:06paragraph he says I'm now instructing
1:27:08you that with immediate effect you're
1:27:10required to make good the outstanding
1:27:11loss and to cease with this current
1:27:13practice of rolling over any losses and
1:27:18gains can we see your reply please uh
1:27:21page 145
1:27:28you say I'm rece in receipt of your
1:27:30letter the 14th of April that's the one
1:27:32we've just read confirming our
1:27:34conversation regarding losses and gains
1:27:36at our office which have always been
1:27:37rolled over since the installation of
1:27:39horizon I appreciate you may well have
1:27:42been unaware of this practice at the
1:27:43office but can assure you that many
1:27:45others at post office many other post
1:27:47office staff knew of
1:27:49it my comments regarding this are all
1:27:52well documented a number of letters
1:27:55such as that dated the 19th of
1:27:57December which like all letters was sent
1:28:00recorded
1:28:01delivery uh the problem with rolling
1:28:03over the losses and gains is that I
1:28:05presume I'd be accepting um uh liability
1:28:09for them which is something that I've
1:28:10pointed out in writing to you since the
1:28:13introduction of horizon here I'm unable
1:28:15to do until such time as I'm able to
1:28:17access the data that I'm being asked to
1:28:20be responsible for as I've written
1:28:22previously the totally inadequate report
1:28:24system has been made so complex it lacks
1:28:26the ability to interrogate the system
1:28:29when you know the information is inside
1:28:32if I'm unable to access the data to
1:28:34check items it's totally unreasonable to
1:28:36expect me to accept liability from
1:28:39uncheckable um uh data I think that
1:28:42reply um speaks for itself but did this
1:28:46exchange of Correspondence the newi is I
1:28:50think retail line manager raising the
1:28:52issue requiring you to make good the
1:28:54shortfall to Cease the practice
1:28:57ultimately LED lead to your contract
1:29:00being terminated I believe
1:29:04so uh can we look please at page 147 of
1:29:07this
1:29:12bundle um letter um from Mr wakeley um
1:29:172nd of May scroll
1:29:19down thank you for your letter of the
1:29:2116th of April that's the one we've just
1:29:23looked at the content of which have been
1:29:24noted nevertheless I must point out uh
1:29:27that you were Bound by the terms and
1:29:29conditions of your contract for services
1:29:31which was acknowledged by you on the
1:29:3331st of March 2003 and somebody's
1:29:36written in correctly I think 1998 that
1:29:38was you was it it's 1998 exclamation
1:29:40mark um accepting your appointment um to
1:29:44this effect your charge with ensuring
1:29:46that all accounts entrusted to you are
1:29:48kept in the form prescribed by post
1:29:50office using the approved accounting
1:29:52system and therefore in the event of any
1:29:55losses occurring these should be made
1:29:57good without delay accordingly failure
1:29:59to comply with these obligations can be
1:30:02construed as a breach of contract which
1:30:04could ultimately put your contract for
1:30:06services at risk over the page I
1:30:09therefore request that you acknowledge
1:30:11the content of the letter within 10 days
1:30:13of its posting confirming that the
1:30:15accounts are being maintained in the
1:30:16correct
1:30:18fashion and make good the losses as per
1:30:21your contractual um oblig ations and
1:30:25then 149
1:30:30please uh your reply to that
1:30:32letter with regard to your letter of the
1:30:352nd of May the first paragraph I think
1:30:37you pick him up on the
1:30:38typo um you refer me to section 12 of
1:30:42the
1:30:44contract and rather than what he has
1:30:46suggested to you you're liable to repay
1:30:49all losses you point out that section 12
1:30:52in fact uh
1:30:54States the sub postmaster is responsible
1:30:57for all losses caused through his own
1:30:59negligence carelessness or error and
1:31:02also for losses of all kinds caused by
1:31:04his assistance deficiencies due to such
1:31:06losses must be made good without delay
1:31:09you rightly point out that I've agreed
1:31:11these terms I can confirm I gladly make
1:31:13good any losses caused in these manner
1:31:16um but I can see nothing in this clause
1:31:19which states that I'm also liable for
1:31:21data I'm unable to check and that's a
1:31:24summary of the position that you had
1:31:25been maintaining I think consistently
1:31:28since installation yes to take an
1:31:31extreme if the Horizon system said I
1:31:34owed a million pounds would you say I'd
1:31:37have to make good the loss without delay
1:31:38and without
1:31:39question there's no way I will agree to
1:31:42be held responsible for data I have
1:31:44input until um such time as I'm able to
1:31:47access the data that I'm asked I'm being
1:31:50asked to be responsible for in trying to
1:31:52state that I've acknowledged such things
1:31:54as terms and conditions of my contract
1:31:55you're in effect purporting to vary this
1:31:59contract um we can skip over the next
1:32:03paragraphs which are about something
1:32:06else and then go to the uh next page 148
1:32:10sorry one
1:32:12F and then the letter
1:32:15ends so um you you correct the post
1:32:20office on the terms and conditions you
1:32:24make it clear the point that many have
1:32:27missed that the contract uh does not
1:32:30oblige you to repay all
1:32:32losses um and then um you make a point
1:32:35of emphasis the million pounds example
1:32:37in your third
1:32:39paragraph Was there any um effort by the
1:32:43post office to engage with the points
1:32:46that you were making in this letter none
1:32:48at all never addressed
1:32:50them can we turn please to poll 4 Z
1:32:544598 and Page 30 that's the same bundle
1:32:58page
1:33:0830 scroll down
1:33:11please Mr
1:33:13wakeley in accordance with your
1:33:15contracts I'm writing to issue you with
1:33:173 months notice of termination of your
1:33:20contract the termination will take
1:33:22effect on the 5th of November 20
1:33:263 so um this is the letter that um
1:33:30brought your um contract to an end is
1:33:32that right that is correct yes the
1:33:35letter of course speaks for itself um it
1:33:37gave you no um explanation for the
1:33:40reason for termination of your contract
1:33:43that's correct yeah was any such
1:33:45explanation given to you by the post
1:33:46office at this time
1:33:50never um it may seem an insensitive
1:33:53question but how did receiving this
1:33:55notice make you
1:34:03feel to put it mildly um
1:34:07but I think it was partly expected in a
1:34:10way because it was pretty pretty obvious
1:34:13they were determined
1:34:14to they were after me one way or another
1:34:18and um the buildup of correspondence
1:34:21over the period was certainly pointing
1:34:24in that
1:34:26direction but I always find it quite
1:34:28interesting that I pulled them up on the
1:34:30point about um trying to terminate me
1:34:33terminate me my contract under Clause 12
1:34:36or uh of the contract but they didn't do
1:34:39it that way they decided to go for they
1:34:42decided to go just under this you know
1:34:44any reason they wanted three months
1:34:46notice without giving a reason so it's a
1:34:49without fault without reason that's
1:34:51right um termination just on three month
1:34:53written notice yeah that's it but you'd
1:34:56had the 1,100,000
1:35:001,100 pounds written
1:35:03off um you'd had the post office
1:35:06acknowledging that it was because of a
1:35:09genuine dispute over whether Horizon was
1:35:13to blame for it over the operation of
1:35:15horizon you'd been rolling over other
1:35:18shortfalls and surpluses since then with
1:35:22post office knowledge and then this
1:35:25arrives well it it was it it was a bit
1:35:28strange in a way because we were um a
1:35:32very busy post office in fact it was a
1:35:34time when uh a lot of post offices were
1:35:37were losing trade but our sales figures
1:35:40were were extremely high in the region
1:35:43we developed a lot of new business in
1:35:45there but you know it it was their
1:35:47decision to do it and so be it uh I mean
1:35:50I did offer I did offer at one point
1:35:54um when there were discussions between
1:35:57the retail manager and myself when we
1:35:58were heading in this direction he was
1:36:00saying come on Alan you know change your
1:36:02mind do this do that and all the rest of
1:36:04it and I'm said look if you're unhappy
1:36:06with the way that I'm providing your
1:36:08service then pay us back our in initial
1:36:11investment and take the post office away
1:36:13I would have been quite happy for for
1:36:15them to do that and I probably wouldn't
1:36:18have been here today on that basis but I
1:36:21mean it's it's um
1:36:25they they just decided they were going
1:36:27to I I felt they were they were going to
1:36:30make um a lesson of my case because a
1:36:36number of other people knew what was
1:36:37going on that time and I I think it was
1:36:39something the post office liked to try
1:36:42and give lessons of how they were in
1:36:44charge can we just look before the
1:36:46morning Break um at some reasoning that
1:36:49the post office gave subsequently for
1:36:52terminating your cont trct um to start
1:36:55with can we look at poll um10
1:37:117538 and Page 11
1:37:22please
1:37:27um this is um a
1:37:29letter written to an MP Betty
1:37:33Williams um in relation to a letter that
1:37:36she wrote as a constituency MP to Alan
1:37:40Leighton the then chairman of the post
1:37:42office um and it's the 29th of
1:37:47October um if we just go to the second
1:37:51page scroll down we can see who written
1:37:53by Dave Barrett head of commercial urban
1:37:56area for Wales the marches and merys
1:37:59side back to page
1:38:01one and look at the second
1:38:05paragraph briefly we've given notice to
1:38:07Mr Bates the present sub postm that
1:38:10we're withdrawing from our contract with
1:38:12him and then this this is because we've
1:38:15lost confidence in his willingness to
1:38:18conduct the job in the manner
1:38:21expected was that ever EXP explain to
1:38:24you that they had lost confidence in
1:38:26your willingness to conduct conduct the
1:38:28job in the manner
1:38:33expected can we look please at poll
1:38:373031
1:38:481815 this is a presentation on Horizon
1:38:52integrity prepared by um Dave Smith it's
1:38:57undated and it seeks to tell a story
1:39:00about the
1:39:02um um Integrity of horizon um it's um we
1:39:09may find in due course an interesting
1:39:10account overall but I just want to look
1:39:13at um what it says about you on page
1:39:18six and scroll down
1:39:22please
1:39:24uh Mr Smith says of the cases I'm
1:39:27aware Bates had
1:39:30discrepancies was dismissed because he
1:39:32became
1:39:33unmanageable was that ever explained to
1:39:36you that you became unmanageable no not
1:39:38at
1:39:40all and then Mr Smith says of you that
1:39:44you quote clearly struggled with
1:39:47accounting and despite copious support
1:39:50did not follow instructions
1:39:54uh firstly did you struggle with
1:39:56accounting no not not at all were you
1:39:59given copious
1:40:00support
1:40:05no did you seek to
1:40:07follow um the instructions that you had
1:40:10been given by the post office basically
1:40:12try and Bank bankrupt myself no I didn't
1:40:15so not to that
1:40:19extent if these um that can come down
1:40:22thank you if these after the fact
1:40:25reasons or justifications for the
1:40:28termination of your contract are not on
1:40:31your understanding correct what do you
1:40:34understand to be the reason for the
1:40:35termination of your
1:40:37contract well well I basically I think
1:40:42it was because a they didn't like me
1:40:43standing up to them in the first
1:40:45instance B they were finding it awkward
1:40:49and see I don't think they could answer
1:40:52these questions
1:40:54and I think they had a a feeling I was
1:40:56going to carry on in a similar vein
1:40:59going
1:41:01forward uh just lastly then can we look
1:41:03at um poll 302
1:41:174194 this is your witness statement can
1:41:19we look at paragraph 170 I'm afraid I
1:41:21haven't written which page that is try
1:41:23about
1:41:3425 hopeless um try about
1:41:5030 try about
1:41:5235
1:42:02and then if you can scroll forward to P
1:42:03paragraph 170
1:42:12please you say this is your high court
1:42:15statement for the Glo common issues
1:42:18trial um I've little doubt that the
1:42:20reason for my termination is that I had
1:42:23not only uncovered limitations and
1:42:26potential errors with the Horizon system
1:42:29but that I continued to question the
1:42:30post office on the contractual
1:42:32relationship between sub postmasters and
1:42:36the post office was that your belief at
1:42:38the time yeah it it's a good summary of
1:42:42how I felt does it remain your belief
1:42:43now oh
1:42:45yes Mr thank you can we take the morning
1:42:47break please there's a slight um glitch
1:42:50with the transcription service which I
1:42:52think means we need to take 20 minutes
1:42:54rather than our usual 15 all right so
1:42:56what time should we resume I think that
1:42:59means um 52 5 to 12 all right see you
1:43:03all
1:43:22then
1:43:52e
1:44:22e
1:44:52e
1:45:21e
1:45:51e
1:46:21e
1:46:51e
1:47:21e
1:47:51e
1:48:21e
1:48:51e
1:49:21e
1:49:51e
1:50:21e
1:50:51e
1:51:21e
1:51:51e
1:52:21e
1:52:51e
1:53:21e
1:53:51e
1:54:21e
1:54:51e
1:55:21e
1:55:51e
1:56:21e
1:56:51e
1:57:21e
1:57:51e
1:58:21e
1:58:51e
1:59:21e
1:59:51e
2:00:20e
2:00:50e
2:01:20e
2:01:50e
2:02:20e
2:02:50e
2:03:20e
2:03:50e
2:04:20e
2:04:50e
2:05:17so good morning uh if we continue Please
2:05:20Mr Bates with um all August
2:05:232003 you remember where we are in the um
2:05:27narrative you've been given um notice of
2:05:30um termination of your contract I think
2:05:33one of the first things you did was to
2:05:34write to the chairman of the royal male
2:05:37group PLC is that right that's correct
2:05:40uh can we look at that letter please um
2:05:43poll1
2:05:507538
2:05:52will'll see that this is um dated the
2:05:557th of August
2:05:572003 to Mr Allan Leighton um chairman of
2:06:01Royal M group
2:06:04PLC we'll look at the detail in a moment
2:06:07but can I ask you in general terms what
2:06:09the purpose was in writing to um the
2:06:12chairman of Royal M group PLC by this
2:06:15time you'd received post office's
2:06:18decision to terminate your contract um
2:06:22what was the point well I I was still in
2:06:24post if you like for the next few months
2:06:27so I thought it was well worth trying to
2:06:29write to to the chairman to make him
2:06:32aware of what was going on um because he
2:06:35may well and have not known so uh I
2:06:39hoping that he might be able to
2:06:41undertake some sort of review into it
2:06:43and look at the case for us or whatever
2:06:45take it on board a little bit more
2:06:48seriously uh this is of course still um
2:06:51taking a step back relatively
2:06:54early um in the entire Narrative of the
2:06:59Scandal August
2:07:012003 um Horizon had only been rolled out
2:07:04for three years or
2:07:06so yeah but it was wrong sorry I knew it
2:07:10was wrong then there were things wrong
2:07:12with it and I and having heard that
2:07:16others had had problems with it as well
2:07:19surely someone should have been looking
2:07:21at all of this and taking these things
2:07:24into
2:07:26consideration well in that sense you're
2:07:29obviously right because many people were
2:07:32yet to be terminated many people were
2:07:35yet to be prosecuted many people were
2:07:38yet to be convicted and many people were
2:07:40yet to go to
2:07:44prison can we look at what you said to
2:07:46the
2:07:47chairman that first paragraph um I'm
2:07:51right wrting to you with regard to a
2:07:53letter I've just received from post
2:07:55office limited giving me formal
2:07:57notification of their decision to
2:07:58terminate my sub postmaster contract as
2:08:01chairman of the group responsible for
2:08:03post office limited I thought important
2:08:06that you should be aware of what he
2:08:07being undertaken in your
2:08:09name um you very much personalized
2:08:11things in that first paragraph
2:08:16Yes did you expect this letter to at
2:08:19least be seen by the person to whom you
2:08:20wrote it i c I certainly hoped it would
2:08:23be
2:08:24um um I can't do more than draw their
2:08:29attention to it I can't force them to
2:08:31read it but
2:08:33um if you don't write to them then
2:08:35they'll never
2:08:38know paragraph two uh please find
2:08:42enclosed a copy of that letter as well
2:08:44as copies of previous correspondence and
2:08:46notes regarding the problems in question
2:08:49I'm not going to go through the previous
2:08:50correspondents or your not notes upon it
2:08:52which I've tried to keep in a
2:08:53chronological order uh in reality this
2:08:56matter should never have reached this
2:08:58stage uh but the extremely poor handling
2:09:01by post office Management in the past
2:09:03has led to the situation which could
2:09:05result um in us not only losing our
2:09:08business but something else um unlike
2:09:10the uh post office I do not have endless
2:09:14funds to fight this Injustice through
2:09:16the
2:09:18courts why was that in your mind at that
2:09:21stage the relative funds available to
2:09:25each side to fight a case through the
2:09:29courts well I suppose realistically I
2:09:33have been speaking with lawyers at that
2:09:36time and um I I was being advised that
2:09:41you probably wouldn't be able to afford
2:09:45um to take post office on um it just you
2:09:49know it was just an impractical
2:09:52uh situation from a financial point of
2:09:54view more than anything else regardless
2:09:57of the
2:10:00case uh moving on to paragraph the rest
2:10:03of the paragraph I do realize it's
2:10:05imperative for as many people as
2:10:07possible to have an opportunity to see
2:10:09the um in detail the management style
2:10:13applied by Royal M group um to the very
2:10:16public face of the local post office
2:10:18it's again trying to use what seems to
2:10:20be so often described in its outdated
2:10:23stalinistic management approach in order
2:10:26to bludgeon its will onto the poor sub
2:10:28postmaster with an issue that could
2:10:30bankrupt every sub post office in the
2:10:32country whilst I appreciate that
2:10:35principles can be expensive I cannot
2:10:37agree to any position which would leave
2:10:39me and every other sub postmaster liable
2:10:41for claims of millions of pounds from
2:10:43the post office without any redress or
2:10:47access to data to check such claims is
2:10:50that a refence reference to the um
2:10:53auditability or visibility the reporting
2:10:55function available to sub poost Masters
2:10:59on the system well certainly the lack of
2:11:01it
2:11:02yes uh my only um defense until I can
2:11:05find an organization willing to offer
2:11:07support is to ensure that the media and
2:11:10all those politicians who represent a
2:11:13ward with a Sub postm sub post office as
2:11:16well as everyone who runs a sub poost
2:11:18office who or who uses ones has an
2:11:20opportunity to read all the facts to
2:11:23that end these documents enclosed and
2:11:24others will shortly be available online
2:11:27once the um hoarding at the for the
2:11:29front of our building advertise
2:11:31advertising our website
2:11:34www.post offic victims. org.uk is ready
2:11:38um in a week or so originally I'd
2:11:41registered um post office victim at
2:11:44me.uk to use but as the launch will
2:11:46undoubtedly bring up many other cases
2:11:47from across the country it was thought a
2:11:50larger and less person personal site
2:11:52would be more um
2:11:53appropriate over the
2:11:56page it's important to make clear I've
2:11:59not breach my contract I will not be
2:12:01ceasing to trade on the 5th of November
2:12:042003 if I did I certainly would be in
2:12:06breach of my
2:12:08terms uh uh if you read the enclosed
2:12:10documentation it's all self-evident I'm
2:12:12sure you can tell my back is up against
2:12:14the wall but until the book um the
2:12:17hoarding is ready and in place and all
2:12:20the web pages are downloaded to the
2:12:22server I welcome any option that will
2:12:24resolve this matter with a minimum of
2:12:26fuss without the national publicity this
2:12:28issue is bound to draw hence my letter
2:12:30to you as a last attempt to reach a
2:12:32sensible um uh
2:12:36conclusion I don't think you got a reply
2:12:38from um Mr uh Leighton did you no um I
2:12:43got one from his office somebody did
2:12:47acknowledge it if I recall can we look
2:12:50at poll three
2:12:594354 um you can see this is the 27th of
2:13:03August thank you for your letter dated
2:13:05the 7th of August address to Alan Leon
2:13:07which has been forwarded to me for
2:13:10reply uh can we look at the um second
2:13:13page
2:13:16please and scroll
2:13:19down you can see you you can see that
2:13:21it's um from somebody in the operations
2:13:24Department Ria McQueen a case liaison
2:13:29manager go back to the first um page
2:13:33please and then if we look um in the
2:13:36second paragraph she says I've now
2:13:39completed my
2:13:41inquiries they've taken longer than
2:13:44expected and she says I've spoken with a
2:13:46number of the Personnel involved in the
2:13:48search for a solution to the situation
2:13:51um at the branch although I regret that
2:13:53the situation has re reached the point
2:13:55of termination of your contract quote I
2:13:58am confident that the various teams
2:14:00concerned in the events have worked hard
2:14:03to provide support and assistance to you
2:14:06in a consistent and sympathetic manner
2:14:09was that your experience no but this is
2:14:11post office's view it's not
2:14:13mine this support included a number of
2:14:16on-site attendances to assist with
2:14:18balancing did that occur that I had two
2:14:22people visit to try and assist with
2:14:25balancing but they could access the the
2:14:28system no further than I could so there
2:14:31was absolutely no help at all and also
2:14:33to provide extra training on the horizon
2:14:35system did you get additional training
2:14:37on the horizon system not that I can
2:14:40recall the aim was always that of
2:14:42achieving a solution to the difficulties
2:14:44you were experiencing in managing um
2:14:47transactions and processes um at the
2:14:50branch uh The Horizon system at the
2:14:52branch has been reviewed and
2:14:54interrogated um in response to your
2:14:56complaints and the reports from the
2:14:58Horizon fied support team and the MBC
2:15:02have confirmed that there's nothing
2:15:03inherently wrong with The Horizon system
2:15:06installed at the
2:15:07branch but was the system installed at
2:15:10your branch to your knowledge um
2:15:13reviewed and
2:15:14interrogated not that I'm aware of no
2:15:17one ever came to the place and I I've
2:15:19always been confused over nothing
2:15:21inherently
2:15:22wrong that turn of phrase it just seems
2:15:25a
2:15:27little unusual nothing wrong I can
2:15:30understand but inherently
2:15:32wrong it seems like a back covering sort
2:15:36of uh
2:15:38phrase and then read on please if we
2:15:41scroll down thank
2:15:45you um the sub postmaster contract is
2:15:47clear on the requirement that
2:15:49postmasters must make good loss or gains
2:15:52when misbalances occur in fact it isn't
2:15:54clear on that at all that's a complete
2:15:56misstatement of the contract um it's
2:15:58evident you've consistently refused to
2:16:00do this um even when specifically
2:16:03requested to do so by the area
2:16:04management
2:16:05team um the contract um also states that
2:16:08either party May terminate it with three
2:16:11months notice without a reason being
2:16:12given um that's what we've
2:16:15done and then I'm sure you've carefully
2:16:17considered the idea of your website I
2:16:20feel you should be aware where that use
2:16:21of the post office limited imagery on
2:16:25your website May constitute trademark um
2:16:29infringement you say um in your witness
2:16:31statement that despite you having sent
2:16:34the chairman a full clip of the um
2:16:38relevant correspondence with notes about
2:16:41each item within
2:16:43it um to quote your witness statement
2:16:48predictably the response of the post
2:16:50office was to ignore the content and
2:16:53predictably to fail to investigate the
2:16:57real
2:16:58issues why in your view was it that the
2:17:01predictable response of the post
2:17:04office
2:17:09it's it was the way they tried to deal
2:17:12with things um which you experienced
2:17:16through
2:17:17their area manag I mean it was const
2:17:21stly post office was in the right and
2:17:24you were always in the wrong and um uh
2:17:29it
2:17:30was it just seemed to be their
2:17:34nature um you tell us in your um witness
2:17:37statement that this reply was the quote
2:17:41usual box ticking exercise written
2:17:43entirely from the post office's
2:17:45perspective of course yeah that's what
2:17:47it
2:17:49was the last last paragraph concludes
2:17:52the management team has been wholly
2:17:54professional in the management
2:17:55deliberation and investigation of your
2:17:57issues had in fact the issues that you
2:17:59raised been investigated at all not that
2:18:01I'm aware
2:18:04of can we turn to paragraph 52 of your
2:18:07witness statement please your inquiry
2:18:10witness statement which is page
2:18:1916
2:18:26we asked you a question what data you
2:18:28believe you needed to access in order to
2:18:31determine the cause of discrepancies in
2:18:34the Horizon generated Branch accounts
2:18:37and you say um I required access to all
2:18:41data even in a readon format held on the
2:18:45system in relation to all input by me
2:18:47and my staff which happened at the
2:18:50branch
2:18:51in respect of verifying information
2:18:53regarding those transactions or the
2:18:56accounts that they ultimately formed a
2:18:57part of I could only check transaction
2:18:59logs that were available on Horizon for
2:19:01limited periods of time or use the
2:19:03limited range of information and reports
2:19:05I had access to and which could be
2:19:07printed from Horizon terminals comparing
2:19:10them to stock in the branch I had no
2:19:12real way of checking information held in
2:19:15Horizon that came from post office
2:19:17itself or from its client such as
2:19:18Camelot or indeed the way in where which
2:19:21those have been reconciled with
2:19:23transactions in the
2:19:28branch and then if we go um further on
2:19:35please uh scroll down please to
2:19:4054 um whilst the position as stated in
2:19:43the letter that's the letter we've just
2:19:44read um is that they' reviewed and
2:19:46interrogated and concluded there was
2:19:48nothing inherently wrong with the
2:19:50horizon system I'd seen no evidence of
2:19:52the apparent review and interrogation
2:19:54they'd claimed to carry out I was still
2:19:57without the data which I've been
2:19:58requesting for a number of years nor had
2:20:00they discussed their findings with me I
2:20:02do not believe there was any
2:20:03investigation or evidence that the P
2:20:05purported investigation had taken um
2:20:09Place have you seen any evidence to date
2:20:12that the purported investigation that's
2:20:14referred to in the letter sent on behalf
2:20:16of the chairman taken place no I haven't
2:20:19have any ever seen claim necessity take
2:20:21pay
2:20:22place so far as um you know was the data
2:20:26that you are speaking about in these
2:20:28paragraphs that you needed access to in
2:20:31order to understand the cause of an
2:20:34apparent uh shortfall or an over common
2:20:37to all cases uh in sub poost offices
2:20:41that um you later came across I.E that
2:20:44no one could actually in the post office
2:20:47branch get access to the data they
2:20:50needed did to see what had happened not
2:20:52not not that I'm aware of
2:20:59anyway you I think um wrote your MP is
2:21:02that right correct can we look please um
2:21:06at poll
2:21:08304
2:21:190368
2:21:23you tell us in um uh your witness
2:21:26statement that
2:21:30um uh you wrote to your um MP um about
2:21:35your case that's um Miss Williams is
2:21:37that right that's right um on the 27th
2:21:40of October 2003 and she in turn raised
2:21:43it with post office and with the
2:21:46minister um she received um a reply um
2:21:50saying that they had taken a decision to
2:21:52review the case in its um
2:21:55entirety uh you say that that was
2:21:57carried out behind closed doors and
2:22:00didn't involve any contact with you is
2:22:01that right that's correct and then um
2:22:04she um wrote again um to uh post office
2:22:09and um your MP as a result of which post
2:22:13office wrote this letter on the 19th of
2:22:15January um
2:22:192004 um and if we look at the um second
2:22:27page I'm sorry just scroll up to the
2:22:29bottom of the first
2:22:31page we can see that it's written by
2:22:33Richard Barker the then general manager
2:22:36of the commercial Network and go to the
2:22:38top
2:22:40please um he says to Betty Williams MP I
2:22:44promise to write to you once a
2:22:45comprehensive review had been undertaken
2:22:48of the issues raised by you
2:22:51that review has been completed by a
2:22:52senior manager within post office with
2:22:54considerable experience in the handling
2:22:56of disputes and subsequent appeals the
2:22:58conclusions of that review which I fully
2:23:00endorse are that the termination of your
2:23:03contract was done following proper
2:23:05investigation coupled with proper
2:23:07warnings and with appropriate offers of
2:23:10additional training and support no
2:23:12evidence was found which in any way
2:23:14substantiates the various claims being
2:23:16made by Mr
2:23:18Bates and Mr um B
2:23:21uh goes as far as saying that the
2:23:24decision to terminate your contract was
2:23:26not only correct it was the only
2:23:28sensible
2:23:30option the best way is to consider the
2:23:33matter closed again were you um involved
2:23:36in any such comprehensive review no and
2:23:40that was one of my big objections no one
2:23:41ever came and spoke to me about it or
2:23:44tried to understand what the problem had
2:23:45been it was as I said before or as it's
2:23:48been recorded um it was carried on
2:23:51behind closed
2:23:57doors so we've seen you write to your MP
2:24:01we've seen you write directly to um Alan
2:24:04Leon and the reply we've seen your MP
2:24:08write to post office and we've seen this
2:24:12um reply trying to ask
2:24:15questions
2:24:17um it suggested in some parts of your
2:24:19witness statement that um they were
2:24:22being um shut down or fobbed off by the
2:24:25post office is that your view that's the
2:24:27it seems to be the way the business
2:24:29works
2:24:31yeah can we turn please to poll 0032
2:24:408099 and if we just pan out a little
2:24:44bit it may
2:24:46be that um these five
2:24:51paragraphs on this undated piece of
2:24:53paper are the comprehensive
2:24:57review um that has been referred to in
2:25:00the
2:25:01correspondence it may be but I I hadn't
2:25:03seen them until recent no I just want to
2:25:07look at what um the author Sandy Steven
2:25:11um
2:25:13says
2:25:14um they say I've reviewed if we scroll
2:25:18to the top paragraph please all the
2:25:20files from the date of horizon
2:25:22installation until the termination of
2:25:24bat's contract and read all the
2:25:26subsequent
2:25:27correspondents um I've summarized the
2:25:29salum points following um bates's
2:25:33assertions against the Horizon system
2:25:36there were clear attempts made by
2:25:37several people to ass ascertain whether
2:25:40sorry if there were systems problems
2:25:43eventually it was decided to write off
2:25:44the debt and a clear signal was given um
2:25:47to Bates that all future losses would be
2:25:50recovered significantly further training
2:25:52and support was given to Bates at that
2:25:53time is that
2:25:56true well it's true if that's what it
2:25:59says yes um I meant in reality yeah no
2:26:02I'm afraid it wasn't that one no um
2:26:04later it transpires and Bates admitted
2:26:09um that he continued to roll over losses
2:26:12um did you have to admit to this or were
2:26:14you in fact telling line managers sorry
2:26:18that already informed them I was right
2:26:20and I you know I wasn't hiding the fact
2:26:22at all they were well aware of what okay
2:26:25so later it transpired and you admitted
2:26:28that you continue to roll over losses
2:26:30and had done um so since the
2:26:32introduction of horizon he received a
2:26:34formal letter instructing him to stop
2:26:36the practice that's true we've seen that
2:26:38from Mr wakeley um and make good any
2:26:41losses that's also true he did not
2:26:43that's also true losses continued to be
2:26:45made and rolled over and the retail line
2:26:47manager sought advice and contracts and
2:26:49legal services before terminating the
2:26:52contract um from the evidence contained
2:26:54in the fils it's clear that retail line
2:26:56conducted themselves correctly and acted
2:26:58in accordance with the rules and then
2:27:00this leaving aside the anecdotal
2:27:02evidence on file which demonstrates
2:27:04Bates unsuitability as a
2:27:07postmaster was that ever put to you that
2:27:09you were unsuitable to be a
2:27:11postmaster no but they'd appointed me in
2:27:13the first
2:27:17instance are you aware of what anecdota
2:27:19level Ence there might be which
2:27:22demonstrates your unsuitability to be a
2:27:25postmaster if I mean I have records of
2:27:29that time which were statements from the
2:27:31retail network manager or my current
2:27:34retail network manager at that time
2:27:36which was Mike Wakley to say how well
2:27:39the office was doing and and well done
2:27:41for all the hard work I mean it's it
2:27:44it's a nonsense I this was just them
2:27:47flexing their muscle and just deciding
2:27:49they're right and I was
2:27:53wrong uh they point out po post office
2:27:55has an absolute right to terminate um a
2:27:58contract with three months notice that's
2:28:00also one of the true statements in um in
2:28:02this document it was done in this
2:28:04instance following proper investigation
2:28:07uh formal warning coupled with support
2:28:09and additional training yet you quote
2:28:12continue to flaunt and ignore the
2:28:16legitimate instructions from your retail
2:28:18line manager and then we see a sentence
2:28:22that um gets cut into the letter that
2:28:24we've just read the decision to
2:28:26terminate was not only right it was the
2:28:29only sensible option which is what led
2:28:31me to think that this was the
2:28:34comprehensive
2:28:35review and investigation that um had
2:28:39been referred to um it says that you
2:28:43continue to
2:28:44flaunt the legitimate instructions of
2:28:48the retail line manager did you flaunt
2:28:51his
2:28:52instructions no I just pointed out what
2:28:54I was doing and the reasons why I was
2:28:56doing it but they never respond to me
2:28:59they'd never discussed the issue about
2:29:00data and data access and liability and
2:29:03holding uh and how long that liability
2:29:06lasted for and all the rest of it I when
2:29:10I went into post office it was sold to
2:29:13me at the time as you were in
2:29:14partnership with the business but you
2:29:17very soon learned that this was a very
2:29:20one-sided partnership I mean basically
2:29:23you do whatever you're told is was your
2:29:26side of the partnership and they just
2:29:29didn't seem to like it if you raised any
2:29:32queries even no matter how Justified
2:29:35they
2:29:46were in um relation to this part part of
2:29:50um The Narrative can we lastly please
2:29:53look at poll 4 Z's
2:30:004598 at page um three
2:30:09please and scroll down
2:30:11please this is um part of us um a slew
2:30:15of correspondents that I'm not going to
2:30:17investigate in detail um over whether
2:30:21you would continue to provide a service
2:30:23within the post office as an interim
2:30:25measure and the um Arrangements that
2:30:29were being made for the post office to
2:30:30come into the branch and take away what
2:30:33they say belong to
2:30:35them um you say um at no time did post
2:30:40office ever ask me if I would continue
2:30:42providing a service as an interim
2:30:44measure I would not deny you did make a
2:30:46sort of request to use our premises and
2:30:48our facilities to have someone else come
2:30:50in to provide a service at a time when
2:30:52you've taken away our livelihood
2:30:54investment and savings but as you don't
2:30:56seem to live in the real world I can
2:30:58tell you that this was just received as
2:31:00an insult it seems your organization
2:31:03will do every anything and everything to
2:31:05try and keep the failures of horizon
2:31:07hidden regardless of who they have to
2:31:10trample down on the way such as us or
2:31:13our community I can assure you of my
2:31:16continued and now increased resolve to
2:31:19bring the real facts of what is going on
2:31:21to those who will have no choice but to
2:31:23act regardless of whether it takes
2:31:28years in relation to the P penultimate
2:31:31paragraph
2:31:35there that the post office would do
2:31:37anything and everything to try and keep
2:31:39the failures of horizon hidden why do
2:31:42you think that they were why did you
2:31:45think that they were trying to keep the
2:31:46failures of horizon
2:31:48hidden
2:31:50I think a number of reasons first off I
2:31:53think their their field um
2:31:57Personnel didn't understand it to any
2:32:00great um depth and they just seemed to
2:32:05follow the corporate Mantra that Horizon
2:32:08is robust and that's it and everyone
2:32:11else is
2:32:12wrong
2:32:14um they didn't seem to want to
2:32:17engage uh in useful disc discussions
2:32:20about how to try and uh improve things
2:32:24they it any that they did make any
2:32:30approaches they made were very much
2:32:33surface it was just for show rather than
2:32:37to change things in any meaningful
2:32:45way is what you write in that paragraph
2:32:48um was what you wrote in that paragraph
2:32:50based on your own experience or were you
2:32:53drawing from wider experiences of others
2:32:55then
2:32:56well first off it um I had some
2:33:01experience of those types of systems and
2:33:04it it was obvious it was extremely
2:33:06poorly designed and it didn't really do
2:33:08the job it was meant to and there were a
2:33:10huge amount of problems and I kept on
2:33:12hearing problems a little problems from
2:33:14all sorts of people um other sub
2:33:18postmasters because I used to go to
2:33:21Regional uh Federation meetings as well
2:33:24and you did sit and chat and everyone
2:33:27had a moan and a winge about it uh and
2:33:30you heard of stories of where people
2:33:32were literally taking their computers
2:33:35and the whole systems and leaving them
2:33:37on the pavement outside and telling post
2:33:39office to come and collect it those were
2:33:41the sort of stories that were running
2:33:43around at the time in there uh
2:33:47but it was I think it was the last lack
2:33:50of real engagement in all of this to try
2:33:53and resolve the problems address the
2:33:55problems and resolve them which made me
2:33:58think they just you know they just put
2:34:00up a stone wall on the whole thing your
2:34:02last paragraph might be considered to be
2:34:08prophetic yeah but I don't suppose I
2:34:11don't suppose when um you wrote it you
2:34:14would end up 20 years later sitting here
2:34:17answering my questions no
2:34:22in the clip of um
2:34:24materials
2:34:27that identified or or led to the Sandy
2:34:31Steven comprehensive review that we saw
2:34:35the five paragraphs on the one page in
2:34:37that clip of material is a note from um
2:34:41Mike wakeley your retail line
2:34:43manager um contributing to that document
2:34:48and he said that at this time Allan
2:34:51believes his actions are now a matter of
2:34:54principle is that how you felt it was
2:34:57because it goes back to uh an earlier
2:35:00letter that they could hold me liable
2:35:02for any amount in there that's what I
2:35:05would that's what they wanted me to
2:35:06agree to and that was
2:35:09wrong that can come down thank you I
2:35:12think one of the first things that you
2:35:13did after termination of your contract
2:35:16was to um set up the website um um
2:35:21www.post offic victims. org.uk I did
2:35:25yeah yes I did um and I also wrote to
2:35:28the local newspaper who to explain to
2:35:32the local community uh what had gone on
2:35:35un fortunate the local paper printed my
2:35:38letter in full to explain what had
2:35:40happened with post office and I also had
2:35:44um large scale posters blown up of that
2:35:46letter which were attached to the front
2:35:48of the door of our premises
2:35:50and remained there for quite a time and
2:35:52postoffice victims. org UK was the nent
2:35:56group that subsequently became the jfsa
2:36:00is that right it I suppose it was like a
2:36:03seed I wouldn't say organization was it
2:36:06um it was what I set up initially there
2:36:09to try and attract and draw uh other
2:36:12cases and also as a warning to others
2:36:15about getting involved with post office
2:36:17this is this is the type of organization
2:36:20you are
2:36:22um planning to get involved and there
2:36:25were other things I did as well around
2:36:27that time to uh try and raise uh the
2:36:31profile of the issue can we turn to um
2:36:33page 28 of your witness statement
2:36:42please Federation and uh paragraph
2:36:4892
2:36:59and if I zoom in on that please you say
2:37:01my main objective for creating the jfsa
2:37:04was to expose the truth I wanted to
2:37:06create a body of former and current sub
2:37:08poost Masters and Branch assistants
2:37:10which could provide a community for all
2:37:12those going through the same experiences
2:37:14with the post office I knew that I was
2:37:16not alone in my dealings with the post
2:37:18office and the JFS say was set up in
2:37:20order to ensure that other people in the
2:37:22same situation as myself knew that they
2:37:24too were not on their own as mentioned
2:37:26above there was a complete lack of
2:37:28support from post office and I believe
2:37:30those in s similar circumstances
2:37:32required um
2:37:36support um I've read elsewhere that one
2:37:39of the reasons that um you set up the
2:37:42group was that you and others had felt
2:37:45that you had been abandoned by every
2:37:49other organization so that you had to
2:37:50group together is that right yeah Ian
2:37:53and I think that's true um what you're
2:37:56saying there it was myself and others as
2:37:59well it wasn't I know I seem to take the
2:38:02lead in it but um there were a lot of
2:38:04others certainly in the early days there
2:38:05was a great deal of support from which
2:38:08other organizations had abandoned you
2:38:10and others well certainly the Federation
2:38:12the Federation was absolutely useless I
2:38:14mean they were just another department
2:38:16of post office as I believe it still is
2:38:18these days as well well but um uh they
2:38:22why why do you think they're just
2:38:23another department of the post office
2:38:25well at one time I believe they had an
2:38:26office in in post off his headquarters
2:38:28but ignoring that um
2:38:32they it depends which bit we're going if
2:38:35you go right back to the early days the
2:38:372002 2003s and when I was going to these
2:38:40Federation meetings I know I attended
2:38:43one uh meeting uh where a sub postmaster
2:38:47at the back of the uh
2:38:50meeting group he started saying I've
2:38:52just had my post office taken off me and
2:38:54I'd have problems with Horizon and all
2:38:55the rest and the Federation exact the
2:38:58Federation exact people who were there
2:39:01escorted him out the back of the place
2:39:04uh they took him away out of that
2:39:06meeting I know perfectly well when my
2:39:09contract was terminated I went to a
2:39:12federation meeting to try and well a
2:39:15local branch one I went to a federation
2:39:17meeting where I tried to um speak on
2:39:21behalf of that and um there was one of
2:39:25the national executive uh Federation
2:39:28members at that meeting and he stop
2:39:31tried to stop me speaking he refused to
2:39:34say this that I should be allowed to
2:39:36talk about such things at the meeting
2:39:38and if it hadn't been for the local
2:39:40chairman who was nol Thomas at that time
2:39:44um if it hadn't been for him talking and
2:39:47moving this chap out the way I'd never
2:39:50been able to get over what had happened
2:39:52to me and explained to the other IND so
2:39:54there was awful lot of pressure from the
2:39:56Federation to support post office and it
2:39:58in fact there is I don't know if you're
2:40:02going to show it there is
2:40:04correspondence um from the
2:40:07Federation where they actually support
2:40:09post office's position in terminating my
2:40:12contract um I don't know whether you're
2:40:14going to cover
2:40:17that um SL L out of order but I think I
2:40:20know what you're um talk about can we
2:40:23yeah sorry you're asking about the
2:40:26Federation I'm the one that's supposed
2:40:27to Bow the fast
2:40:29balls um I think um if I can cover drive
2:40:34it back it's poll
2:40:36021
2:40:415384 if you're right that's a good slip
2:40:48catch
2:40:55is that the document you're talking
2:40:57about
2:40:58uh a letter to you from Colin Baker the
2:41:02General Secretary of the nfsp yeah I
2:41:10that's uh you had written a couple of
2:41:12letters to him I'm not going to show now
2:41:15um of December 2003 and January 200 and
2:41:20four and he notes that Betty Williams
2:41:22has written to Alan Leon we've seen that
2:41:25um he says I can go no higher within the
2:41:28Royal M group than Alan Leon I'm sure
2:41:30that your Member of Parliament would
2:41:32have had as much if not more success
2:41:34than I would hopefully you'll have more
2:41:36information from that um
2:41:41route and then the last paragraph I
2:41:43think is the one you're referring to
2:41:45we're not in a position to provide
2:41:46information regarding other sub poost
2:41:48Masters dealings with post office we're
2:41:51aware there are some disputes around the
2:41:53time that um offices migrated from the
2:41:56manual systems of the Horizon system but
2:41:59we are now of the view that Horizon
2:42:01works well and there are no real
2:42:03problems with post offices at which are
2:42:06operating the or operated by The Horizon
2:42:10system was that essentially the nfsp
2:42:13position has communicated to you Horizon
2:42:16works well there are no problems with
2:42:18post off in post office is with it yeah
2:42:21and I
2:42:23um it was very much I I mean the
2:42:26Federation always seem to try and manage
2:42:28any of the problems around Horizon um I
2:42:32can recall a conference Federation
2:42:35conference main conference I think it
2:42:36was in 2002 around there
2:42:40in it was in candido which is why I went
2:42:44to it and there were a whole host of
2:42:46people raising queries delegates raising
2:42:50queries about Horizon during conference
2:42:53and it got to such a state that they
2:42:55couldn't move on with conference and
2:42:56Conference decided to set up a separate
2:42:59committee to look into Horizon issues um
2:43:03and for members to report the to them
2:43:06and they would then discuss the the post
2:43:10office uh to what extent is the nfsp
2:43:13assisted you in establishing the facts
2:43:15in your case none to what extent has the
2:43:19nfsp assisted you in seeking redress in
2:43:22your case
2:43:25none to your knowledge what role did the
2:43:28nfsp play in assisting other sub
2:43:30postmasters when it was alleged against
2:43:32the sub postmaster that they had a short
2:43:35for I have not heard of one instance
2:43:39where they've successfully done anything
2:43:41of that nature I think you tell us that
2:43:43you've been informed that the post
2:43:45office would often only allow a
2:43:48representative of the nfsp or a friend
2:43:51to sit in on interviews where suspension
2:43:53or termination was contemplated that's
2:43:57correct and you tell us in your
2:43:59statement that the nfsp nearly always
2:44:01agreed with the post office and said
2:44:03sometimes to the post postmaster come on
2:44:06own up tell them what you did with the
2:44:07money
2:44:10yeah are these accounts that other sub
2:44:12postmasters have given to you yes
2:44:14sir to your knowledge has the nfsp ever
2:44:18once helped a sub postmaster in any
2:44:20court case in which the operation of the
2:44:23Horizon system or the Integrity of the
2:44:26data which it produces has been
2:44:27questioned no to what extent did the
2:44:31nfsp assist in the group litigation none
2:44:34at
2:44:36all to what extent has the nfsp assisted
2:44:39others following the group litigation in
2:44:41obtaining redress I don't
2:44:44know thank you if we can go back to um
2:44:47where we were in the um the account but
2:44:51that can come down from the screen thank
2:44:55you you'd set up the um
2:44:58jfsa and you tell us that from um the
2:45:01late 2000s onward um so from about 2009
2:45:06onwards you have spent an estimated 30
2:45:09to 40 hours um a week campaigning in
2:45:13relation to post office in Horizon is
2:45:15that right easily
2:45:17yes can we look please at page 27 of
2:45:21your witness
2:45:40statement and paragraph 87 at the
2:45:44top you say the challenges were faced at
2:45:48every step of the way since the post
2:45:50office would obstruct me the gravity and
2:45:52enormity of the problem was not
2:45:54recognized by others in power including
2:45:56government and it became clear that the
2:45:58only way to achieve progress was through
2:46:00a formal legal route which has its own
2:46:02challenges including obtaining the
2:46:04necessary funding for this route you say
2:46:09there that challenges were faced at
2:46:10every step of the way since the post
2:46:13office would obstruct me what had you
2:46:14got in mind when you were saying that
2:46:17well dis close is a good one um they um
2:46:22I mean we went through before we got to
2:46:24to the court case we went through a
2:46:26whole host of schemes and they always
2:46:28used to say yes we'll be supportive yes
2:46:31we'll try you know with MPS and all the
2:46:33rest yes we'll we'll get on board with
2:46:35it yes we're looking for the truth and
2:46:37all the rest of it but all they did is
2:46:39is cause problems they they were not
2:46:42forthcoming with the details in there
2:46:44certainly disclosure is a very good
2:46:47example of that I I mean cases used to
2:46:50take months and months to progress um
2:46:53I'm thinking of the initial mediation
2:46:57scheme uh for example um and it you just
2:47:02felt you though they were there you were
2:47:05still banging your head against a brick
2:47:07wall to try and get anything out of them
2:47:10because they were determined to PR to
2:47:13protect the brand at any cost and they
2:47:17didn't want anything coming out or being
2:47:19disclosed that might cause damage to
2:47:21post
2:47:23office now you cease work as a sub
2:47:25postmaster in November 20 2003 yeah yes
2:47:30yes and I think you've um uh not
2:47:32returned to other work since then
2:47:34because instead you've dedicated to
2:47:38campaigning for accountability justice
2:47:40and redress is that right yeah I
2:47:43mean I think the key the key issue has
2:47:45always been to expose the truth um uh uh
2:47:49right from the outset um because the
2:47:51other thing sort of always felt they
2:47:54followed on if you once you know the
2:47:56truth about issues the rest will
2:47:58hopefully follow on
2:48:00afterwards
2:48:02um I mean I didn't set out to spend 20
2:48:06years doing this um uh I hadn't expected
2:48:10to be uh doing this so much by myself
2:48:13but it it got more and more complex and
2:48:18it was very it was harder and harder to
2:48:20share out and work as a a bigger group
2:48:25um uh to take things forward so uh yeah
2:48:30I did finish up sort of leading in a way
2:48:33in there but obviously going back to to
2:48:35The Others When when when there was an
2:48:37opportunity for for their
2:48:41endorsement I it was it was encouraging
2:48:43along the way one one of the things we
2:48:45did do is bring people together and a
2:48:48lot of people it was a bit like um I
2:48:52don't mean this in a derogative way but
2:48:54it's a bit like stray lands they were
2:48:55lost people were lost out there they're
2:48:57the only ones they're wandering around
2:48:59wondering you know what have I done
2:49:01wrong they're suffering so badly but
2:49:03once you managed to bring them together
2:49:05to meet others in a similar situation it
2:49:08had enormous effect on their
2:49:11lives you spent um two decades
2:49:14undertaking this work um presumably
2:49:18thousands of hours
2:49:21yes why in your view has that been
2:49:25necessary because the further down the
2:49:27road you you went with it um the more
2:49:30you realized you couldn't let it
2:49:35go I think you um at one stage um
2:49:40attempted the um strategy of speaking to
2:49:43government about this yeah yeah can we
2:49:46turn please to correspondence with Ed D
2:49:49MP in May
2:49:512010 that can come down from the screen
2:49:53thank you and so to put this into
2:49:55context to orientate ourselves May 2010
2:50:00jfsa was well established now yeah yes
2:50:05um the computer weekly article had been
2:50:07written by Rebecca Thompson on the 11th
2:50:10of May 2009 M and I think you were
2:50:14indeed interviewed by her as part of um
2:50:16her work yes that's correct
2:50:19and her work Drew together the facts
2:50:22about a number of cases
2:50:25yes can we look then at the letter that
2:50:27you wrote to Ed Davy mp on the 20th of
2:50:30May 2010 um ukg
2:50:33301
2:50:44619 so um as we can see from the way you
2:50:48addressed a letter um at the
2:50:51top um Minister for postal Affairs
2:50:55within the Department of Business
2:50:57Innovation and skill sometimes called um
2:50:59Biz so I think um to put his um position
2:51:03in context there he was the then
2:51:05Minister for postal of Affairs the new
2:51:08government having been
2:51:10formed 14 days earlier on the 6th of May
2:51:172010 General election that year was 6th
2:51:19of May so he's 14 days in can we read
2:51:22the letter together um you say I'm
2:51:25writing to you with regard to your
2:51:28position as Minister on behalf of
2:51:30jfsa we're an independent group of EX
2:51:33and serving subst Masters who've
2:51:35suffered at the hands of the post office
2:51:37and their Horizon system ever since it
2:51:39was first installed our website outlines
2:51:43how we came about and our aims as well
2:51:45as offering sample cases that were
2:51:47provided by some of the group currently
2:51:50the group numbers close to 100 though we
2:51:52continue to be joined by others who have
2:51:54learned of jfsa and have found that
2:51:56there is nowhere else to turn for help
2:51:59in every instance the post office acts
2:52:01as judge jury and executioner and the
2:52:04individual is deserted by their reputed
2:52:07reputed representative organization the
2:52:09national Federation of sub poost Masters
2:52:12invariably these cases all stem from the
2:52:14flows sorry the flaws of the Horizon
2:52:17system at the post office introduced and
2:52:19which they refuse to admit has ever
2:52:21suffered from a single problem the
2:52:23evidence is there to be found by anyone
2:52:25in a position of being able to unlock
2:52:27doors instead of placing barriers in the
2:52:29way of those pursuing the information
2:52:31our organization has access to a number
2:52:33of Specialists who could provide the
2:52:35questions and analyze the resulting data
2:52:38if required uh though an
2:52:41independent um external investigation
2:52:44instigated at ministerial level would be
2:52:46most appropriate um and will without
2:52:49doubt easily find evidence of the error
2:52:52ridden system I'm sure you'll appreciate
2:52:54that there is not a single computer
2:52:56system that does not from time to time
2:52:58suffer from errors especially when the
2:53:00size and level of complexity of the
2:53:02programs associated with the Horizon
2:53:04system the post office blindly state
2:53:07that there are not nor have there ever
2:53:09been any system errors so subsequently
2:53:11anything wrong is entirely the
2:53:12responsibility of the sub postmaster as
2:53:15that is what they've agreed to when
2:53:17signing their contract this is a
2:53:19contract that was produced in 1994 and
2:53:22does not address nor identify new
2:53:24technology but they're still using it to
2:53:26intimidate and prosecute sub postmasters
2:53:29over the page the weight of evidence
2:53:32we've been cating over the years
2:53:33continues to grow and gain in standing
2:53:36it's only the flat refusal of the post
2:53:38office to allow experts to examine the
2:53:40system which is holding back this major
2:53:42scandal from breaking with the
2:53:44continuing sorry the growing numbers in
2:53:46jfsa and the support we're now finding
2:53:49from the it community and the media it's
2:53:51just a matter of time until the real
2:53:52truth about the post office in Horizon
2:53:55is exposed over the years I've
2:53:57personally submitted written details of
2:53:59all of this to the Select Committee of
2:54:00the DTI and then on two other occasions
2:54:03to that of Burr and put simply the
2:54:05information has either been buried or
2:54:07disappeared others of JF jfsa have
2:54:10followed the route of contacting their
2:54:11MPS they've taken the matter up with the
2:54:14post office on their behalf subsequently
2:54:16they're stonewalled or handled by the
2:54:18post office often with off the-shelf
2:54:20answers where they only change the name
2:54:21and address I'm writing to you on behalf
2:54:24of the group I'm asking for a meeting
2:54:27where we can present our case to you
2:54:29much has appeared in the Press over the
2:54:30last few days that government is going
2:54:32to change and I only hope that's true if
2:54:35it is the abuse of sub poost Masters
2:54:37that has been going on under the
2:54:38protection of the previous government
2:54:40May well come to an
2:54:45end so your letter to um Mr
2:54:49DMP um provides um some detail either in
2:54:53the body of the letter or through cross
2:54:55referencing to your um website as to the
2:54:59issues that sub postmasters were facing
2:55:02and informs Mr Davey that um the post
2:55:05office's conduct amounted to a
2:55:08scandal yes very can we look at the
2:55:10reply please
2:55:12abat
2:55:17701
2:55:20um dear Alan Bates um thank you for your
2:55:24letter of the 20th of May requesting a
2:55:26meeting since 2001 when the Royal Mail
2:55:29which includes post office limited was
2:55:31set up as a public limited company with
2:55:33the government as its only shareholder
2:55:35government has adopted an arms length
2:55:36relationship with the company uh so that
2:55:39it has commercial Freedom to run its
2:55:41business operations without interference
2:55:43from the shareholder the Integrity of
2:55:45the post office system is an operational
2:55:47and contractual matter for the Post
2:55:48Office and not government and whilst I
2:55:51do appreciate your concerns and those of
2:55:53alliance members I do not believe that a
2:55:55meeting would serve any useful
2:55:59purpose you tell us in your um witness
2:56:02statement that you took um offense at
2:56:05the term arms length to um describe the
2:56:10role that the government played in
2:56:12relation to overseeing and monitoring
2:56:15the post office why well it's because of
2:56:17the structure wasn't it government the
2:56:20sole shareholder they were the owners as
2:56:23such of all of this and how can how can
2:56:26you run or take control or sorry take
2:56:29responsibility for for a an organization
2:56:32without having some interest in there or
2:56:35trying to be in control in fact
2:56:37government were pumping huge amounts of
2:56:40money into post office year after year
2:56:43so you know they need to be
2:56:45held responsible or
2:56:48they need to be addressed really about
2:56:51the way that they've been going on and
2:56:53it's very hard to engage them in it um
2:56:57not nowadays they're a bit more
2:56:58interested these days but I mean at that
2:57:00time to try and get government to to
2:57:02take it on board seriously was but
2:57:05before a four-part drama
2:57:07onv no In fairness yes the drama was
2:57:10great did a lot for for us but I mean
2:57:13we've had en enormous cross-party
2:57:15support from many MPS over the years
2:57:18some of whom I think you'll see you know
2:57:21shortly but I mean um
2:57:24the you the time this this letter was
2:57:27written was in
2:57:292010 and I think at that time we were
2:57:33involved with a firm called uh sh Smith
2:57:36a law firm called shith and there've
2:57:38been a number of meetings bringing
2:57:39people together and in fact sh Smiths
2:57:41have been working with the MP so we were
2:57:43we were growing a body we were growing
2:57:45an interest and a number of the other
2:57:49MPS were finding their own um
2:57:54constituents who'd had problems some
2:57:56postmaster props so it was starting to
2:58:00become a little more gelled as as an
2:58:04organization and the number and with a
2:58:08substantial growing and growing number
2:58:10in there and it was very much why we
2:58:15felt government should have been
2:58:17involved D at that
2:58:19time I mean you showed me this letter
2:58:23from Ed Davy and
2:58:26I I don't know what your script is but I
2:58:29I I'm more concerned about another
2:58:33letter that came in response from uh a
2:58:37letter I wrote to Ed Davy and um I'm not
2:58:41sure whether you're going to go to that
2:58:44let's see let's
2:58:46see you tell us in your witness
2:58:48statement I'm not going to turn it up um
2:58:49it's paragraph 104 um that this response
2:58:53from um Mr Davey was disappointing
2:58:57because he had not taken account of
2:58:59anything which you had said in your
2:59:01letter and indeed appeared to be a
2:59:03standard template form of response is
2:59:05that correct
2:59:07yes and I think you didn't keep those
2:59:09feelings to yourself at the time you in
2:59:12fact sent a reply to Mr
2:59:14Davey um on the 8th of July 2010 can we
2:59:18please look at ukg
2:59:21301
2:59:326099 you say um I have to say that your
2:59:35response to me dated the 31st of May
2:59:38that's the one we've just looked at
2:59:39regarding the very serious very serious
2:59:42issues I had uh raised was not only
2:59:45disappointing but I actually found your
2:59:47comment
2:59:49offensive it seems though that um there
2:59:51are new politicians in post the
2:59:53government hasn't changed the letter you
2:59:55sent is little different to the one I
2:59:57received seven years ago from the
2:59:59minister responsible for post offices at
3:00:01that time and so many more lives have
3:00:03been ruined in the interim U because of
3:00:07that same
3:00:08attitude it's not that you can't get
3:00:10involved or cannot investigate the
3:00:13matter after all you do Own 100% of the
3:00:16shares and normally shareholders
3:00:18concerned about the morality of the
3:00:20business they own it's because you've
3:00:21adopted an arm lims relationship that
3:00:24you have allowed a once great
3:00:25institution to be asset Stripped by
3:00:28little more than thugs in suits and
3:00:31you've enabled them to carry on with
3:00:32impunity regardless of the human misery
3:00:36and suffering they inflict you can
3:00:38listen to your civil servants telling
3:00:40you that these are really an operational
3:00:42matter for the post office to deal with
3:00:44you can even listen to the post office
3:00:46telling you Horizon is wonderful
3:00:48that there's never um ever been a
3:00:50problem it is inherently robust and
3:00:53these are just a few malcontents trying
3:00:55to cause trouble or you can meet and
3:00:57hear us sorry you can meet with us and
3:01:00hear the real truth behind Horizon and
3:01:03what the post office is actually up to
3:01:06your civil servants in the post office
3:01:08will not tell you about post office
3:01:09staff harrassing sick ex sub post
3:01:11Masters demanding written Promises of
3:01:13money or they'll send the police around
3:01:15they won't tell you that the post office
3:01:16watch his post office is heading into
3:01:19trouble fails to provide any help and
3:01:21then Waits until the problem shows a
3:01:23loss of 20,000 plus so that the sub
3:01:26postm then Falls foul of the proceed to
3:01:28Crime act they won't tell you that when
3:01:30someone wants to sell their post office
3:01:32and has a suitable buyer post office
3:01:34will turn down the applicant to drive
3:01:36that business into the ground you won't
3:01:38hear about sub postmasters ending
3:01:39requesting audits of their offices and
3:01:42having to wait for up to um five years
3:01:45for someone to turn up in offices
3:01:47turning over5 million a year neither
3:01:50will they tell you of the cases where
3:01:52the post office have run an audit closed
3:01:54a post office bankrupting the owner who
3:01:56loses his business house and family
3:01:59holds a pending court case over him for
3:02:0118 months then drops the charges and
3:02:03walks away nor will they tell you um
3:02:05tell all about how they are stopping sub
3:02:08post Masters selling on the post office
3:02:11side of their business in order to
3:02:13recover the original investment they
3:02:15won't even tell you the post office
3:02:17sorry that the horizon system is
3:02:18designed to entrap sub post Masters so
3:02:20that they can easily finish up in prison
3:02:22just by trying to open up the day after
3:02:24a trading at period balance this is just
3:02:27a taste of some of the practices your
3:02:29company is carrying out in your name day
3:02:31after day they brandish a big legal
3:02:33stick fail to provide evidence in court
3:02:35and rely on the clause in the 1994
3:02:37contract about a sub postmaster being
3:02:40liable for any loss from their office
3:02:42however it occurs yet their shoddy
3:02:44Horizon system is the root cause of all
3:02:47of this post office themselves lose
3:02:49thousands of pounds from each of the
3:02:51crown offices that they run using
3:02:53Horizon though their staff are not
3:02:55treated as guilty and to proven innocent
3:02:57but a sub postmaster is the hold of this
3:03:00Scandal is teetering on the edge of a
3:03:01precipice at this point but it's still
3:03:03not too late for you to reconsider
3:03:05convening a meeting to discuss this
3:03:07issue involved if you're prepared to
3:03:09keep an open
3:03:15mind it seems that um
3:03:18following your
3:03:19letter um Mr Davey agreed to a
3:03:24meeting yes I think so um at um
3:03:28paragraph 105 of your witness statement
3:03:31there's no need to turn it up you
3:03:33confirm that you attended a meeting with
3:03:35um Mr Davy on or about the 7th of
3:03:38October um and you tell us that you
3:03:41don't in fact have a note of the meeting
3:03:43and can't recall details of the um
3:03:46meeting
3:03:48the inquiry is in possession of a
3:03:49briefing document for Mr Davy for the
3:03:52purposes of um his attendance at that
3:03:55meeting um with you um can we see
3:03:58whether we can look at that please
3:04:00ukg
3:04:08662 it's dated as you'll see the 5th of
3:04:10October
3:04:1320110 and the um purpose of the document
3:04:17is a rescheduled meeting with you on the
3:04:197th of October to discuss the jfsa
3:04:23claims that endemic flaws in the Horizon
3:04:25system have resulted in a number of sub
3:04:28postmasters having their contracts
3:04:29wrongly
3:04:30terminated um and in many cases
3:04:33prosecuted for uh false
3:04:36accounting and if we scroll down
3:04:39please it sets out the U
3:04:43background to the
3:04:46meeting recalling the history of your
3:04:49two
3:04:50letters describing the second as being
3:04:53more
3:04:58confrontational and then it says that
3:05:00this is the fourth line of that
3:05:03paragraph uh that letter was followed by
3:05:05reports that channel 4 were planning to
3:05:08run a news item on the jfsa
3:05:11campaign we then recommended offering a
3:05:14meeting in response to this second
3:05:17request that's the letter we've just
3:05:18read quote for presentational reasons
3:05:22against the background of potential
3:05:24publicity playing heavily on government
3:05:27Minister quote refusing to meet victims
3:05:30of government-owned post office Horizon
3:05:32system which has systemic faults
3:05:35resulting in wrongful accusations of
3:05:37theft and false accounting end um
3:05:43quote so this recalls that the
3:05:45recommendation to Mr Davey was that he
3:05:47should should offer to attend a meeting
3:05:49for presentational reasons against the
3:05:52background of potential publicity IE the
3:05:55channel
3:05:564 uh news item when you um attended the
3:06:00meeting can you recall whether Mr Davey
3:06:03appeared to engage with the substance of
3:06:05the issues that you were raising I don't
3:06:09recall you don't recall whether he did
3:06:12or
3:06:12not I don't I don't recall the the the
3:06:16detail of of the meeting and I'm quite
3:06:20certain that if there had been something
3:06:22positive that was coming out of it I'd
3:06:24have remembered
3:06:26that if we scroll on on the briefing
3:06:28note for Mr
3:06:30Davis sorry Mr
3:06:34Davy um it sets out the
3:06:37objectives he's to seek to establish at
3:06:40a very early stage
3:06:41whether legal action against post office
3:06:44is imminent or
3:06:45planned and it will be prudent to adopt
3:06:48a subdudes approach in the comments you
3:06:50make he should emphasize the issues
3:06:53raised by the jfsa or operational and
3:06:55contractual
3:06:56matters should make the point about
3:06:58government having an arms length
3:07:02relationship establish whether the jfsa
3:07:04is committed or planning to initiate
3:07:06action against the post
3:07:09office uh note that it will be for the
3:07:11relevant legal process to decide on the
3:07:13jfa
3:07:15case demonstrate you're prepared to to
3:07:17hear the jfsa side of the story but make
3:07:21it clear you're not in a position to
3:07:22offer substantive comment and avoid
3:07:25committing to setting up an independent
3:07:27or external um review of
3:07:32horizon do you recall whether Mr Davey
3:07:35responded to the points that you had
3:07:36made in detail in your letter of the 8th
3:07:39of July no I don't recall
3:07:42sorry to your
3:07:44mind was Mr Davy aware at the conclusion
3:07:47of your meeting that a scandal in your
3:07:49view had taken place and was in the
3:07:52process of still taking place I'm I I
3:07:55don't
3:07:56recall did Mr Davy um alter the position
3:08:00that he had set out in the letter that
3:08:02the government enjoyed an arms length um
3:08:05relationship with the post office in the
3:08:08light of the concerns that you had
3:08:09raised I don't
3:08:11know what was the outcome of the
3:08:16meeting um
3:08:18I can't think of anything startling that
3:08:20came out of it otherwise I'd probably
3:08:22recall it but um I I suppose I
3:08:25mean this has been like a long journey
3:08:28you sort
3:08:29of you finish one thing you move on to
3:08:32the next been there done that tried that
3:08:34so let's just keep going um so I think
3:08:37it was just another step along the way
3:08:40did you walk away from the meeting with
3:08:42Mr Davey having said that he was going
3:08:44to do anything at all not that I can
3:08:46recall
3:08:48which I can recall from other ministers
3:08:52I've met are you able to remember any
3:08:55positive development arising from the
3:08:57meeting
3:09:00no thank you that can come
3:09:03down looking at the way that the um
3:09:07Horizon Scandal
3:09:09developed what view do you take of the
3:09:12arms length approach that the government
3:09:14took in relation to its oversight of the
3:09:16post office
3:09:18I think it should have been involved or
3:09:19got involved far earlier on and in fact
3:09:26um don't know preempt where you're going
3:09:29but there was a uh I think one of the
3:09:32responses I think I got from Ed Davy's
3:09:36office at a later time which oh no it
3:09:40might have been a different Minister
3:09:42sorry I maybe jumping the gun it was it
3:09:45was a a response that I to one the
3:09:47ministers for a
3:09:50meeting but the the and to inform them
3:09:54that four letters of intent had been
3:09:57issued by the lawyers Shu Smiths at that
3:10:01time but the response didn't come from
3:10:03the minister it came from the
3:10:06shareholder executive I.E
3:10:10government um so they were fully aware
3:10:14that legal proceedings were potentially
3:10:17about to
3:10:21begin throughout your statement you
3:10:23refer to the responses of government
3:10:26ministers across the years um Pat
3:10:29mcfaden um Ed Davey Norman lamb Joe
3:10:32Swinson and
3:10:34others on being repeatedly informed
3:10:37about the um concerns of sub postmasters
3:10:41and Crown office employees the formation
3:10:44of the
3:10:45jfsa and indeed the
3:10:47Glo in which they say that the post
3:10:50office is an arms length body that the
3:10:52matters raised were matters for the post
3:10:54office to deal with and that the post
3:10:56office was independent of
3:10:58government the I I do think a lot of the
3:11:03ministers a lot of them come in for
3:11:05stick in the inquiry and all the rest of
3:11:07it and I'm sure some of it's deserved
3:11:10but I actually hold the
3:11:12department um and I I I hold the Civil
3:11:15Service more to blame in a lot of these
3:11:19instances why things never progressed at
3:11:21the time because I'm sure between them
3:11:24and post office briefing ministers they
3:11:26were briefing them in the direction they
3:11:28wanted to to brief them in not that was
3:11:31for the benefit of the group or the
3:11:32individuals in there because of the
3:11:35positions that they felt they were in
3:11:37and that should be taken at that time
3:11:39and also knowing that they probably have
3:11:42other
3:11:43organizations um hammering away on
3:11:47nagging at them but they were going to
3:11:49probably wait and see who got the
3:11:52furthest who got the
3:11:54furthest but I mean I I do think it's I
3:11:57do c certainly hold the officials far
3:12:00more guilty in all of this than the
3:12:02politician you tell us um finally before
3:12:04lunch um in paragraph 298 of your
3:12:06witness statement that around this point
3:12:09the point being after the settlement of
3:12:11the group litigation the government
3:12:13abandoned the line that this was all a
3:12:15matter for the Post Office and move
3:12:17moved on to the new line that it had
3:12:19been misled by the post office is that
3:12:21your view I don't think they could deny
3:12:24anything house could they
3:12:27really thank you very much Mr B sir if
3:12:30that's an appropriate moment can I ask
3:12:31that I think it's five pass now can we
3:12:34um reconvene at 52
3:12:37yeah so 5 to two 5 to two everyone
3:12:46yeah
3:13:16e
3:13:46e
3:14:16e
3:14:46e
3:15:15e
3:15:45e
3:16:15e
3:16:45e
3:17:15e
3:17:45e
3:18:15e
3:18:45e
3:19:15e
3:19:45e
3:20:15e
3:20:45e
3:21:15e
3:21:45e
3:22:15e
3:22:45e
3:23:15e
3:23:45e
3:24:15e
3:24:45e
3:25:15e
3:25:45e
3:26:15e
3:26:45e
3:27:15e
3:27:45e
3:28:15e
3:28:45e
3:29:15e
3:29:45e
3:30:14e
3:30:44e
3:31:14e
3:31:44e
3:32:14e
3:32:44e
3:33:14e
3:33:44e
3:34:14e
3:34:44e
3:35:14e
3:35:44e
3:36:14e
3:36:44e
3:37:14e
3:37:44e
3:38:14e
3:38:44e
3:39:14e
3:39:44e
3:40:14e
3:40:44e
3:41:14e
3:41:44e
3:42:14e
3:42:44e
3:43:14e
3:43:44e
3:44:14e
3:44:44e
3:45:13e
3:45:43e
3:46:13e
3:46:43e
3:47:13e
3:47:43e
3:48:13e
3:48:43e
3:49:13e
3:49:43e
3:50:13e
3:50:43e
3:51:13e
3:51:43e
3:52:13e
3:52:43e
3:53:13e
3:53:43e
3:54:13e
3:54:43e
3:55:13e
3:55:43e
3:56:13e
3:56:43e
3:57:13e
3:57:43e
3:58:13e
3:58:43e
3:59:13e
3:59:43e
4:00:12e
4:00:42e
4:01:12e
4:01:42e
4:02:12e
4:02:42e
4:03:12e
4:03:37good afternoon uh
4:03:42sir
4:03:46I think we're about to start if we may
4:03:49please Mr Bates we left off um for lunch
4:03:53by looking at correspondence with Ed
4:03:55Davy can I turn to um Mr Davy's
4:03:59successor Norman lamb MP and on the 25th
4:04:02of February 2012 you wrote to him can we
4:04:05look at that letter please poll
4:04:0810731 thank
4:04:12you I think um from public records that
4:04:16just just hang on a second I've left my
4:04:19glasses in
4:04:22my I think from public records uh it's
4:04:26the case that Mr lamb had taken over as
4:04:30Minister for postal Affairs on the 3r of
4:04:33February
4:04:342012 um Mr Davy having been promoted to
4:04:38become Secretary of State for energy and
4:04:39climate change and so you were here
4:04:42writing um again shortly after a change
4:04:45in post is that right yes yes um if we
4:04:49look at the letter you say you're
4:04:51writing on behalf of the JSF as you did
4:04:53with the former
4:04:55Minister uh on that and uh subsequent
4:04:58occasions I wrote to draw attention his
4:05:00attention to the plight of sub
4:05:02postmasters at the hand of post office
4:05:04limited um the reference number was
4:05:06given and it will provide an outline of
4:05:09our concerns during November 2010 um I
4:05:12met him at his um office
4:05:14um I think that was October
4:05:1620110 um to raise many of the issues
4:05:20which have been causing Devastation and
4:05:22distress in the sub postmaster Community
4:05:25following the meeting I understand he
4:05:27quered a number of points with post
4:05:29office management and he seems to have
4:05:30taken them at their uh
4:05:37word on what was that based can you
4:05:41recall that following the meeting you
4:05:43under understood that Mr Davy had
4:05:46queried a number of points with post
4:05:47office management and he seems to have
4:05:49taken them at their word well nothing
4:05:52changed nothing
4:05:54changed um I write to you on this
4:05:56occasion to request a meeting to discuss
4:05:58this matter further with you as you'll
4:06:00see from previous correspondents
4:06:02solicitors are now acting on behalf of a
4:06:04number of um victims of post office
4:06:06limited but the law moves slowly and in
4:06:08the meantime many more P sub poost
4:06:10Masters will suffer whilst JSF very much
4:06:13reflects the views of those who have
4:06:15fallen victims to the failures of post
4:06:16office limited's Horizon system I want
4:06:19to draw your attention to the enclosed
4:06:21survey which has just taken place as
4:06:23you'll see it's been completed by
4:06:24serving sub postmasters with their an
4:06:27anonymity ensured to safeguard them from
4:06:29reprisals I'm sure you'll find the
4:06:31results disturbing and in total conflict
4:06:33with the assurances given by post office
4:06:36limited to your predecessor and no doubt
4:06:39to yourself if you were to raise our
4:06:40concerns with them um who conducted the
4:06:45uh well I did really um via the website
4:06:50we I think we only had it up for about a
4:06:52week it was a very short sharp um uh
4:06:56survey just to get some sort of feedback
4:07:00from sub postmasters at what extent
4:07:02things happened before people started to
4:07:05abuse the um the uh uh
4:07:08survey and I think on the subsequent
4:07:11Pages if we just quickly look at the in
4:07:13the interest rest of time um we look at
4:07:15page
4:07:21three you tell us in the second
4:07:23paragraph the survey remained online for
4:07:25eight days yeah it was a Survey Monkey
4:07:28um uh
4:07:30Leed uh
4:07:32survey and then over the page to page
4:07:40five some examples I'm not going to go
4:07:42through all of this do you have regular
4:07:43balance shortages that you have to put
4:07:45money in to
4:07:46address 77% of respondents said
4:07:50yes yeah uh going back to page one of
4:07:53the letter
4:07:59please and the last
4:08:02paragraph uh or penultimate paragraph
4:08:04previously we offered to work with your
4:08:06department to assist with uncovering
4:08:08this major Scandal and I now extend that
4:08:11offer to
4:08:12you um you got a reply to this letter I
4:08:15believe yes can we look at that ukg Tri
4:08:2601612 and if we just blow up the main
4:08:29text from Norman
4:08:31lamb um I think you'd followed it up in
4:08:34the meantime with a chaser on the 20th
4:08:36of March which is why it refers in the
4:08:39first paragraph to letters of 25th of
4:08:41February which is the one we've looked
4:08:42at in 20th of March which we
4:08:44haven't he apologizes for the delay in
4:08:47replying and he says as you're aware
4:08:49from your context with my uh predecessor
4:08:51Ed Davy the concerns raised by the jfsa
4:08:55rate to operational and contractual
4:08:57matters for the Post Office and as the
4:08:59shareholder government has an arms
4:09:00length relationship with the company and
4:09:03um does not I think that should say does
4:09:07not have any role in its day-to-day
4:09:09operations I also understand that legal
4:09:11action against post office is under way
4:09:14uh on behalf I think that should say of
4:09:16a number of jfsa uh members taking into
4:09:20account that any meeting would take
4:09:21place within this overall context I
4:09:23would ask you to contact my diary
4:09:25manager to um if you'd still like to
4:09:28arrange a suitable date so um uh taking
4:09:32the point about an arms length
4:09:34relationship meaning that government has
4:09:37no role in operational and contractual
4:09:40matters but nonetheless offering um IM
4:09:46meeting you um I think uh know that you
4:09:50attended a um the meeting that's
4:09:52referred to in that um paragraph
4:09:54although you can't recall the date you
4:09:55say it was mid
4:09:572012 um we know from other evidence that
4:10:00it was on the 27th of June 2012 so
4:10:03you're um exactly right and you tell us
4:10:06in your statement that letter can come
4:10:08down thank you um that Mr lamb appeared
4:10:10to be willing to listen to you yeah it's
4:10:13the first time I I thought a minister
4:10:15was actually taking on board the
4:10:16concerns that we were raising with him
4:10:19um and he he did seem to be genuinely
4:10:23concerned about
4:10:26it did you form the impression at the
4:10:29meeting with Mr lamb that he understood
4:10:32that um a scandal had
4:10:36developed I think I I think he was
4:10:39starting to recognize there was a real
4:10:42problem
4:10:44did you form any view as to whether or
4:10:46not Mr lamb was going to continue to
4:10:49rely on the justification that the
4:10:52government had an arms length
4:10:54relationship with the post office I I
4:10:57don't think that's the way his support
4:11:02if he if it was support for for our uh
4:11:05calls went um I think it probably
4:11:09manifested itself in in a different way
4:11:12but I I could be wrong on that it it's
4:11:15um fair to point out that um this
4:11:17meeting on the 27th of June
4:11:192012 um ought to be viewed in the
4:11:22context of some other developments that
4:11:24have taken place in the meantime if we
4:11:26can just reference those without going
4:11:29into the details um there had been
4:11:31meetings with James alnot um and Oliver
4:11:35Lewin yeah um a small group of MPS had
4:11:39joined and had met with senior post
4:11:42office um management and on the 18th of
4:11:45June 2012 they had agreed to commission
4:11:48an independent review yeah did you know
4:11:51those things at the time of the meeting
4:11:54with Mr lamb um I was aware of what was
4:11:57going on there and I think I I I could
4:12:00be wrong this is my reading of the
4:12:03situation I would not be surprised at
4:12:06all whether um this is what I'm saying
4:12:08that Norman lamb perhaps showed his
4:12:10support somewhat differently maybe put
4:12:13in uh a quiet word with post office that
4:12:16maybe they should support some sort of
4:12:18MP or whatever
4:12:20investigation that was my impression I
4:12:22could be wrong it's just that the timing
4:12:24seemed to work quite well everything
4:12:25seemed to slot into place there um after
4:12:29Norman lamb was replaced he was in
4:12:31office for um in this office for a short
4:12:33period of time six months or so yeah um
4:12:36did you um pursue the matter immediately
4:12:38with his
4:12:39successor I I don't recall uh I think we
4:12:43were following another route at that
4:12:45time weren't we were are the second site
4:12:47yeah that's right um review can we turn
4:12:50there to the appointment of second site
4:12:56um we know from your written evidence
4:12:59and some U the documents that we've got
4:13:01how it was that the idea of an
4:13:04independent review came to be conceived
4:13:07and carried into
4:13:08effect and that um second site were to
4:13:12be appointed Ed in order to conduct the
4:13:15investigation or the review how did you
4:13:18first feel when it was suggested that
4:13:20second site be brought in to undertake
4:13:23an investigation or a review we're
4:13:25talking now of the MP case review yes um
4:13:31suspicious um we were highly suspicious
4:13:35of it because were they being brought
4:13:37into if you like whitewash it's on
4:13:40behalf of post office because um post
4:13:43office brought them forward um to to
4:13:45ourselves to um to to see how we we
4:13:49thought they would get on but I mean as
4:13:53time went on with second side we had
4:13:55more and more confidence in in the
4:13:57independence in it but initially um we
4:14:01we were highly wary of them and was that
4:14:04because they were being paid for yeah uh
4:14:06in a lot by the post office by post
4:14:08office yeah I mean and that's been a
4:14:11concern down the line with all the
4:14:13different schemes that that um post
4:14:16office has been funding them um and I've
4:14:20always said and and I continue to say
4:14:22now is throughout the whole of the
4:14:25period with all of this all of this sort
4:14:27of Scandal that's been going on it's
4:14:30it's been about control of the narrative
4:14:32and it's something that post office was
4:14:35incredibly Keen to do they had the money
4:14:38they had the powers they they wanted to
4:14:40brief the MPS they want to do XY said
4:14:43they wanted to sit on the Committees of
4:14:46all of these things they wanted to pay
4:14:48for everything in there and it was um
4:14:51it's it always has been the concern um
4:14:56this controlling the narrative I mean I
4:14:59think they lost that at the time we went
4:15:01we got to the Glo or just after the Glo
4:15:03but I mean uh up until then um they they
4:15:07I think it was their approach to
4:15:09managing the whole of this
4:15:11situation looking at the work of second
4:15:13site as a whole and in particular the
4:15:16post offices approach to it did you form
4:15:19a view on the basis of what the post
4:15:22office said and what the post office did
4:15:25well I as to whether the post office um
4:15:28Wanted the investigation to succeed to
4:15:31engage openly and transparently with it
4:15:34and for the truth to
4:15:37emerge I don't know they they used to
4:15:40they used to say at the meetings that
4:15:41they wanted the truth as well but um I I
4:15:44mean I had a lot of faith in James o
4:15:46bunot who was like the lead MP supporter
4:15:49for us and
4:15:52um I think actually As It quotes in the
4:15:55drama what other choice did we have at
4:15:57that time as well and it seemed a um a
4:16:00way of taking it Forward at least people
4:16:04starting to investigate and look
4:16:06seriously at these cases and you know
4:16:09let's see how it got let's see how it
4:16:11went let's see how it got on yeah you
4:16:12said that and what other choice did we
4:16:14have yeah why did you feel that you had
4:16:16no other choice
4:16:18well we had no money we um the legal
4:16:22option wasn't available to us at that
4:16:24time there seemed a willingness there
4:16:27seemed um by post office albeit it might
4:16:30have been a reluctant willingness but
4:16:32there did seem uh to be a willingness by
4:16:34post office at that time and I mean the
4:16:38the the MPS were were quite positive
4:16:41about it at that time obviously wary but
4:16:44they were quite positive so it it it did
4:16:47seem a good way forward at least to
4:16:49start
4:16:50with can I just briefly explore the um
4:16:54extent of the jfsa and your involvement
4:16:57in the appointment of um second site you
4:16:59tell us in your witness statement it's
4:17:00paragraph 109 that you and the jfsa were
4:17:04not involved in the appointment of
4:17:05second site or be MPS were Keen to seek
4:17:08your approval of second site's
4:17:11appointment can we look at a few
4:17:12documents please on that uh starting
4:17:15with poll1
4:17:237174 um we can see that um if we scroll
4:17:27down a little bit just to get the email
4:17:29up a little bit more thank you an email
4:17:31from ROM warmington off second site to
4:17:33Susan kryon Simon Baker and copying in
4:17:36his colleague um Ian Henderson on the
4:17:384th of
4:17:41July and it's it's a report of a meeting
4:17:44that
4:17:46day with
4:17:48MPS um and it says in the second
4:17:51paragraph as well as James and Janet
4:17:53that's James Al bnot and Janet Walker is
4:17:56that right correct his chief of staff
4:17:59yes um there were the following and
4:18:00there were four MPS set out um and a
4:18:03representative of Andrew garne um Oliver
4:18:07Lewin sent his apologies
4:18:11um
4:18:14and then just scrolling down a bit thank
4:18:16you uh about halfway down the page um ja
4:18:20that's James AR bnot stated it was a
4:18:22Pity that having cleared it that the
4:18:25jfsa leader Alan Bates could attend in
4:18:28the end he was unable to do so um at
4:18:31short notice so it's right is it that
4:18:34you were invited to attend the meeting
4:18:36with MPS to discuss whether the second
4:18:38site should be appointed yes and then um
4:18:44ja clearly wanted to and now wants to
4:18:47get some Buy in from Alan Bates and
4:18:50seemed genuinely disappointed that the
4:18:52whole thing couldn't be buttoned up
4:18:53today he asked whether Ron warmington
4:18:56would be prepared to come back for a
4:18:58threers meeting in James arnot's office
4:19:01Ron warmington um of course offered to
4:19:04do
4:19:05that and then if we go to page three
4:19:11please
4:19:15and if we scroll down a little bit yeah
4:19:18it's just um three paragraphs on the
4:19:20bottom in regard to Alan Bates and the
4:19:23jfsa whilst James R bunot clearly wants
4:19:27Alan bates's buyin he doesn't want to
4:19:29give Alan Bates the impression that he
4:19:31Alan Bates has a power of veto over who
4:19:34carries out the review its scope and how
4:19:36it is to be um carried
4:19:39out the meeting concluded with James
4:19:42albor confirming on behalf of all
4:19:43present that they're satisfied that
4:19:45second site is a suitable choice and it
4:19:47now remains to get Alan Bates and gfsa
4:19:50um concurrence so it seems that um would
4:19:53you agree that the MPS wanted your
4:19:55approval on behalf of the jfsa in order
4:19:59to as it's put button up second site's
4:20:01appointment yes and would you agree that
4:20:04it wasn't therefore necessarily a done
4:20:07deal the appointment of second site
4:20:08without your approval no but I don't
4:20:11think um we
4:20:13going to be able to hold them sort of
4:20:15Hostage over it as well I think they'd
4:20:17have gone on it without it but obviously
4:20:20they prefer to have our blessing and I
4:20:22think you therefore attended a meeting
4:20:24um with kayin L and second site that's
4:20:26right um can we look at that please poll
4:20:30309
4:20:376817 and um at the um page two at the
4:20:42foot of it
4:20:44please an email from James Al bunot to
4:20:48Paula
4:20:49venel I've just completed a very good
4:20:51meeting with Ron and I from second site
4:20:54and you you were accompanied by a
4:20:56forensic accountant Kay Lenell both
4:20:59asked some challenging questions of Ron
4:21:01and Ian which they answered to Mr Bates
4:21:04and Miss lenell's um
4:21:08satisfaction um do you recall um
4:21:11attending that meeting at and coming
4:21:13away with it having expressed
4:21:14satisfaction that second s were suitable
4:21:18appointees yes I think so yeah and
4:21:21therefore you essentially agreed to
4:21:22their appointment oh
4:21:26yes and so to that extent um would you
4:21:30accept that you and the jfsa were um
4:21:33both therefore involved in the
4:21:34appointment of second
4:21:37site to that extent
4:21:41yes can we turn to Second Ty second
4:21:44site's remit
4:21:47please you tell us in paragraph 111 of
4:21:50your statement that you don't recall
4:21:53being involved in setting second sites
4:21:56remit or terms of reference again can we
4:21:58look at it certain documents in relation
4:22:01to
4:22:02that uh poll1
4:22:1143976
4:22:21poll1
4:22:3443976 and if we look at the email at the
4:22:36book bottom of the
4:22:37page from Simon Baker to you on the 14th
4:22:41of November Mr Baker the head of
4:22:43business change saying he works for the
4:22:45Post Office and involved is involved in
4:22:48setting supporting the second site
4:22:51investigation uh following on from your
4:22:53conversation with Paul lenel and James R
4:22:55bnot we've updated your draft immunity
4:22:58agreement so that it addresses both your
4:23:00concerns this is a draft
4:23:03document uh please call me once you've
4:23:05had a chance to
4:23:08review um we'll also send a copy to Kay
4:23:11Lenell to ens sure she's kept in the um
4:23:13picture what was the um immunity
4:23:16agreement about
4:23:18please I don't clearly recall but I I
4:23:21know there was
4:23:23um we had concerns about anyone coming
4:23:27forward to to any of the schemes there
4:23:29that there might be some sort of post
4:23:32office and may well
4:23:35um I don't
4:23:38know the there might be some sort of
4:23:40Retribution by post office for for
4:23:42anyone and and I what we wanted was some
4:23:45sort of agreement that such an incident
4:23:48wouldn't happen in there and I think
4:23:51that um hopefully I'm pretty certain
4:23:53they did approve something in the end as
4:23:56well can we look please at the document
4:23:59that was attached to that email the
4:24:01raising concerns with Horizon document
4:24:04at poll
4:24:0500143
4:24:11977 uh
4:24:14the draft document says
4:24:19um this is a paper that's been issued by
4:24:23the agreement of post office limited and
4:24:25the justice for sub
4:24:26postmasters um
4:24:29Alliance is it right that um it was
4:24:34intended that the raising concerns with
4:24:37Horizon document which was a
4:24:38foundational document for this part of
4:24:40the review was to be a a document that
4:24:44was issued with the agreement of both
4:24:46post office and jfsa well we yeah we we
4:24:49wanted to agree the wording of it and it
4:24:52encompassed uh all the issues involved
4:24:55um uh it's quite an interesting document
4:24:59um with some of the the comments that
4:25:01are in it um
4:25:04nowadays
4:25:06um can I take you to the things that I
4:25:09found interesting and then you add if
4:25:11there are
4:25:12any others um I was looking at page four
4:25:16of the
4:25:20document Under The Heading the remit of
4:25:23the inquiry okay
4:25:25yeah um the remit of the inquiry will be
4:25:28to consider an advise on whether there
4:25:31are any systemic
4:25:33issues um Andor concerns with the
4:25:36Horizon System including training and
4:25:38support processes giving evidence and
4:25:40reasons for the conclusion
4:25:44reach um inquiry is not asked to
4:25:46investigate or call on General
4:25:48improvements which might be made it's
4:25:50not a mediation or
4:25:52arbitration um
4:25:55the terms of reference there do they set
4:25:59out sorry do the does the remit
4:26:02described there essentially set out the
4:26:04terms of reference I think it does um I
4:26:08mean it was early days for us as a group
4:26:11to be involved with this type of scheme
4:26:14um so um we're a little bit led by what
4:26:18was thought in there but we felt it
4:26:20Encompass the main concerns at an early
4:26:22stage and and here the remit is said to
4:26:27uh consider an advise on whether there
4:26:29are systemic issues or concerns with the
4:26:31whole
4:26:32system yeah was that um jfsa
4:26:36aim well it's it was to try and
4:26:40establish the truth about it yeah
4:26:44yeah is that how it ended
4:26:46up well I think um there was a um slight
4:26:52disagreement over the word systemic
4:26:55issues and how far they extended and all
4:26:58that issue but yeah basically that's
4:27:00where it started
4:27:02from can we move um sorry was there
4:27:05anything else in here that you wanted to
4:27:06draw attention to but on that document
4:27:09yes well um uh it was on page one of the
4:27:14original document that we we've gone on
4:27:16to the appendix though Haven we yeah
4:27:20um yeah I I think I'm sorry I probably
4:27:23shouldn't do this but um it was some of
4:27:27the wording in there we we all recognize
4:27:29so it's the third paragraph We all
4:27:31recognize that post office limited cares
4:27:33about its agents and thousands of sub
4:27:36postm post office limited to committing
4:27:38the highest standards to corporate
4:27:40openness uh probity in the
4:27:42accountability happy to sensibly
4:27:44Challenge and believe that I can't see
4:27:46the next bit sorry
4:27:48um can I see the next the full page
4:27:51please thank you
4:27:53um yeah I it it was it was this
4:27:57statement underneath post office limited
4:28:00would like to take this opportunity to
4:28:03emphasize that these fears are
4:28:06unfounded um I mean and they've been
4:28:10going on about sorry it was the top
4:28:12paragraph or second paragraph down where
4:28:14there's been persistent allegate
4:28:16assertions that the Horizon system
4:28:18Horizon may be the source of unresolved
4:28:21shortages in post office and then
4:28:23they're trying to dismiss it afterwards
4:28:25it's just that I think that's quite
4:28:27important for what was known by post
4:28:30office at that time and they were quite
4:28:32happy to put their name to a statement
4:28:34like
4:28:35that that's sorry that was just the
4:28:37point on that thank you Mr Bas now I
4:28:40think you um send a reply to this
4:28:44request for comments on the draft Yeah
4:28:46to um Simon Baker I'm not going to turn
4:28:48it up that the reference is poll
4:28:5283679 that was on the 20th of November
4:28:552012 and um your only major change was
4:28:59to extend the deadline for concerns to
4:29:01be lodged until the 31st of March 2013 I
4:29:05think so I think it's fair to say that
4:29:08um looking at that exchange of emails
4:29:11and the drafts attack
4:29:12that you on behalf of jfsa had agreed
4:29:15the the remit of um the initial second
4:29:19site investigation I think we'd agreed
4:29:21with the remit yes I'm sorry I missed
4:29:24that I think we agreed with the remit
4:29:28yes thank you that can come
4:29:34down can we um turn to your witness
4:29:37statement please um page
4:29:4135
4:29:50[Music]
4:29:59and in um
4:30:02paragraph um 10 you say something
4:30:06similar to that which you've said
4:30:07already today we had real concerns as
4:30:10they that second site had been chosen by
4:30:13the post office we were concerned as to
4:30:14whether they would under take a
4:30:16whitewash and were in the post office's
4:30:18pocket in a similar way to the
4:30:21nfsp and then paragraph
4:30:26112 I was suspicious of the post office
4:30:28at this point and the whole scheme in
4:30:30general after having engaged in
4:30:32countless Communications with the post
4:30:34office over a long period of time all of
4:30:37which were sent in the hope of receiving
4:30:38some support from the post office uh no
4:30:41one failed this we could trust the Post
4:30:43Office in all of
4:30:46this I think it's right that despite
4:30:49your initial suspicions your impression
4:30:51of second site improved um once you had
4:30:54had Direct engagement with them is that
4:30:57right yes we can see that by looking at
4:31:00page 37 of your witness
4:31:05statement paragraph 118 at the foot of
4:31:08the page my impression of second site
4:31:11improved from um initial contact with
4:31:13them I felt more confident in their
4:31:15ability and can see them operating more
4:31:17independently from the post office my
4:31:19main reservation at the start have been
4:31:20the fact they had been selected by the
4:31:22post office however I came to see that
4:31:24they were keen on um working as an
4:31:27unbiased third party which improved my
4:31:29confidence in them as an investigating
4:31:39body was that as a result of your direct
4:31:42engagement with second side yeah now um
4:31:46uh I did used to spend quite a bit of
4:31:48time certainly in the early days as well
4:31:50providing background information to how
4:31:52how things have come about and also um
4:31:56contact information about uh individuals
4:31:59or any queries about those in the group
4:32:02as
4:32:03well I think you had a concern
4:32:06nonetheless that
4:32:10information was um not getting back to
4:32:14Paula venel on the post office side is
4:32:16that right yeah I did you tell us about
4:32:18that in um paragraph 123 of your witness
4:32:22statement on page
4:32:2739 you say there was a concern that
4:32:30perhaps the information was not getting
4:32:31through to miss venol as I did not think
4:32:34her staff were feeding back to her I was
4:32:37concerned she wasn't being told the full
4:32:38story so I wanted to ensure she was
4:32:40being accurately informed Med of the
4:32:42whole situation this was perhaps a
4:32:44failure in the way Miss venos handled
4:32:46the situation in that I did not feel
4:32:47confident that she had been receiving
4:32:49accurate updates and was truly invested
4:32:52in the investigation and the subsequent
4:32:55events and we're going to explore um
4:32:58with um other Witnesses including Miss
4:33:00venor yeah um and including of course by
4:33:03reference to
4:33:05recordings of conversations that the
4:33:07inquir is in possession of the extent to
4:33:10which he was not or was not being prop
4:33:12briefed and was um challenging of the
4:33:15information that she received but can we
4:33:18look at a direct communication to to to
4:33:20you between the pair of you it's poll
4:33:23309
4:33:408418
4:33:44and look at the email at the foot of the
4:33:45page
4:33:48please thank you um so this is 21st of
4:33:51May um
4:33:532013 and um you copy um kayael in and
4:33:59it's a direct email to Paula venor you
4:34:01say hello Paula it's been a while since
4:34:03we met at James R bot's um office but at
4:34:06that time you did say if I had any
4:34:09concerns I should contact you directly
4:34:11hence the the reason for this email
4:34:13would it be possible for Kay linell and
4:34:15I to meet you you'll recall that Kay is
4:34:17an independent forensic accountant on
4:34:19behalf who on behalf of jfsa has been
4:34:22monitoring the work second site has been
4:34:24undertaking the main purpose of the
4:34:26meeting is to ensure you've been
4:34:28receiving the full details of what have
4:34:29been occurring with the second site
4:34:31investigation bearing in mind what's
4:34:33been discovered so far I uh for one I'm
4:34:36surprised that we haven't met yet met to
4:34:39disclos the implications whil I
4:34:41appreciate majority of the issues began
4:34:43under previous regimes and you've
4:34:45expressed the genuine willingness to
4:34:47address the concerns that JF have been
4:34:49raising these issues are still
4:34:51continuing I've little doubt it's now um
4:34:53feasible to show that many of the
4:34:55prosecutions that the post office have
4:34:57pressed home should never have taken
4:34:59place I believe this is a view shared by
4:35:03K and then you suggest um some
4:35:08dates overall what was the purpose of
4:35:11making such direct onetoone contact with
4:35:14Paul of
4:35:15venos I don't remember clearly at that
4:35:18particular time for for that particular
4:35:20issue but um I
4:35:24certainly
4:35:26I I can't we we obviously did have
4:35:29concerns at that point about what was
4:35:31going on what was being reported back
4:35:34but I can't actually place exactly where
4:35:36it lies in every in the chronology yeah
4:35:39yeah just um trying a little harder on
4:35:42some of the details in the um the email
4:35:45you say bearing in mind what's been
4:35:46discovered so far I'm for one surprise
4:35:49we haven't yet met to discuss the
4:35:51implications uh do you know what that
4:35:54refers to I'm just wondering whether
4:35:55that's um after the interim report have
4:35:58been produced interim report hasn't come
4:36:00out yet has come yet um that's not until
4:36:02the 8th of July 2013 okay I think this
4:36:05must be early emerging information from
4:36:07second side I wonder if it was a draft
4:36:10of it um
4:36:12I don't think a draft had emerg by the
4:36:1321st of May I'm not sure I'm not sure I
4:36:17can't
4:36:18say I can't actually I can't recall
4:36:21clearly the the instances perhaps K C
4:36:29count can you remember what happened as
4:36:31a result of
4:36:34this it depends where it drops into the
4:36:38chronology of the other issues
4:36:40unfortunately and I don't clearly
4:36:43remember off the top of my head no U if
4:36:46we look at the top of the page we can
4:36:47see that um Miss Ben's um
4:36:51assistant um asks olwin OLN Lions to
4:36:54then come me secretary yeah to draft
4:36:57some
4:36:59words uh can you recall whether this
4:37:01resulted in a
4:37:05meeting we did have a meeting with her
4:37:08and also I'm not sure whether Paul was
4:37:12also there at that meeting but I do
4:37:15remember a meeting in Old
4:37:18Street the reason why I'm asking these
4:37:20questions in particular is that one of
4:37:22the covert recordings that we have is
4:37:24from the 22nd of May 2013 which is the
4:37:27day after uh you sent an email to Paula
4:37:31venel um and in that covert recording
4:37:34there was a discussion over the extent
4:37:35to which Paula Paula should or should
4:37:38not be told certain things certain items
4:37:41right sorry I can't help you further
4:37:43okay if you can't remember um I'll move
4:37:45on to what extent did you understand
4:37:48that document can come down thank
4:37:50you that um at the time of the second
4:37:53site the MP cases investigation you
4:37:56called it um Fujitsu was involved in the
4:38:00process I wasn't aware of anything at
4:38:02that time um not as far as the
4:38:05discussions that were going on about the
4:38:07system and all the rest of it I had no
4:38:10idea of them being invol did you know
4:38:12whether the post office was going back
4:38:14to Fujitsu to um check or verify I think
4:38:20information being given I think I've
4:38:22seen a later document more recently
4:38:25which um um does seem to suggest that
4:38:30that uh Fujitsu were involved and in
4:38:32part of discussions with post office on
4:38:35the
4:38:36system although this will be a question
4:38:38for um second sighting due course what
4:38:41would was your understanding of the
4:38:43extent to which underlying data and
4:38:46information held by Fujitsu including
4:38:49arq data for example um contractual
4:38:53relationships between post office and
4:38:56Fujitsu U policies and correspondence
4:38:59between the two organizations was
4:39:01obtained and analyzed as part of second
4:39:04sight's work um it it depends at what
4:39:09date you're you're saying about that I
4:39:11did become aware of it at some point
4:39:14that um but I think this was probably
4:39:16during the mediation scheme itself when
4:39:20um we became aware that um I think it
4:39:24was something like 700 requests a year
4:39:26could be made by post office for arq
4:39:29data from Fujitsu um without any other
4:39:33charge being inflicted but then after
4:39:36that I think there was a charge involved
4:39:39it but I think that was during dur as I
4:39:42say during the time of the mediation
4:39:44scheme
4:39:46itself um can I um fast forward to um
4:39:50after the um draft of the second site
4:39:54interim report was being
4:39:57circulated and um look at poll 011
4:40:075961 um this is an email from Paula
4:40:09venel um internally to a a whole group
4:40:12of people within the post office and so
4:40:15not something you will have seen at the
4:40:17time um if
4:40:19we um look at the first paragraph she
4:40:23says that she's had two very uh
4:40:26constructive telephone conversations
4:40:28with you which confirmed your
4:40:31willingness to work collaborative
4:40:33collaboratively with the post office in
4:40:35taking forward our response to the
4:40:37review in particular he agreed to
4:40:40participate in a new user Forum to
4:40:42provide feedback on training and support
4:40:44issues uh related to Horizon and bring
4:40:47the existing review process to a
4:40:50conclusion is that right can you
4:40:51remember whether um um you gave such a I
4:40:57did have a um um I did have some uh
4:41:00telephone conversations with Paula and
4:41:03um I do remember
4:41:05one quite long one really it was about
4:41:10but it was after the the the um after
4:41:13the interim report had been published
4:41:16that that's the one I really do recall
4:41:18that that phone call the others I'm
4:41:21afraid I don't
4:41:23recall um she says it's worth
4:41:25emphasizing that your main issue is not
4:41:28the computer but the human aspect how in
4:41:31his View Post Office fell to support and
4:41:33help vulnerable and muddle-headed sub
4:41:36postmasters was that your view well it
4:41:40wasn't just the computer but it was also
4:41:43the way that I mean she's put it down as
4:41:46not the computer but I'd say it
4:41:48definitely was the computer in there as
4:41:49well but it's it's also the way that
4:41:52post office dealt with these sorts of
4:41:54problems and dealt with sub postmasters
4:41:57in an unconstructive way I mean and and
4:42:00I think that was one of the big problems
4:42:02and that we'll probably get to it but uh
4:42:06something further on but I'll wait for
4:42:08that um can we to the next bullet point
4:42:12please um he that's you also raised the
4:42:15idea of setting up a new independent
4:42:17third party that sub poost Masters can
4:42:19approach if they're facing issues with
4:42:21Horizon which cannot be resolved through
4:42:23the normal post office
4:42:25processes yeah and she said that aligns
4:42:27with some of their own thinking and
4:42:29they're therefore inclined to agree with
4:42:31the idea um does that accurately reflect
4:42:34what you were suggesting yes it does I
4:42:36mean i' I've long felt um that there
4:42:39should be a totally independent third
4:42:41party that sub postmasters to go to when
4:42:45they have problems and um that who could
4:42:49then request post office records to
4:42:51check things in there I mean it it's an
4:42:55alternative scheme in there so as not to
4:42:57expose um sub postmasters to to the Roth
4:43:02of post office straight off uh and one
4:43:05of the reasons I I I used to suggest
4:43:08something like that was because I was
4:43:10being contacted over the years by a
4:43:13number of sub
4:43:14postmasters who had serious losses I'm
4:43:18talking about 30 40,000 of losses which
4:43:22they'd never declared to post office
4:43:25because they were so terrified of what
4:43:27was going to happen to them and they
4:43:29didn't know what to do or how to move on
4:43:32from that position and I could see
4:43:36something like a third party that they
4:43:38could have gone to directly that might
4:43:40have been able to assist or direct the
4:43:43the uh the concerns might have uh been
4:43:47useful and if we just go lastly over the
4:43:50page
4:43:53please the last bullet point in terms of
4:43:56the report itself we received a full
4:43:58draw from second site yesterday this was
4:44:01Saturday the 6th of July so that would
4:44:03be on the Friday the 5th and we've sent
4:44:05them back a version with track changes
4:44:07on a number of sections which we and
4:44:09Fujitsu believe are either factually
4:44:12inaccurate or open to
4:44:15misinterpretation again did you know at
4:44:17this time that uh Fujitsu were working
4:44:20with the post office to provide answers
4:44:23to concerns raised during the second
4:44:25site investigation process not at this
4:44:29time did you at this stage ever have an
4:44:32opportunity to meet with Fujitsu senior
4:44:35managers and any technical Specialists
4:44:37within Fujitsu to um discuss directly
4:44:41your concerns no it was never an offer
4:44:44made and um post office yours used to
4:44:49take the position that we were
4:44:50contracted to them to post office and
4:44:54and um Fujitsu was a third party if you
4:44:57like um contracted to or to post office
4:45:02so we wen't directly um contracted to to
4:45:06Fujitsu or had control over anything
4:45:08that went on
4:45:09there
4:45:12unfortunately and so the
4:45:15uh report the second site interim report
4:45:18is published
4:45:20um on the 8th of July
4:45:232013 um if we turn up page 41 of your
4:45:26witness statement please
4:45:39yeah
4:45:48paragraph
4:45:50128 you say I'm not sure how many of the
4:45:53group um that that's the jfsa saw the
4:45:55report or whether it was discussed
4:45:57overall the interim report was positive
4:45:59in general as it showed that there were
4:46:01issues concerning sorry occurring but we
4:46:04had a real concern over the interim
4:46:06report stating there were no systemic
4:46:08flaws what was your concern about the
4:46:10report stating that there were no
4:46:13systemic
4:46:14flaws well um I I actually thought there
4:46:17were there were systemic flaws in there
4:46:20and the systemic flaws in the way that
4:46:22post office operated and the way it
4:46:25dealt with people and all the rest of it
4:46:26perhaps not um being interpreted
4:46:30interpreted in the way that they were
4:46:32with the computer system even though
4:46:34there were s flaws of that nature in
4:46:37there but I knew perfectly well that out
4:46:41of a 30 OD page report the post office
4:46:44would jump on one particular line or one
4:46:48particular comment and that's what would
4:46:50be appearing in the media and in their
4:46:53press releases and it was that to what
4:46:57extent did they deploy that line and
4:46:59they did and they basically they kept
4:47:02saying that the second site you know uh
4:47:04independent um investigators found that
4:47:07the there were no systemic flaws in
4:47:08Horizon you know they just kept on
4:47:10picking that one line out of a 30 of
4:47:13page report which identified many other
4:47:17concerns right across the whole of the
4:47:19uh
4:47:20issue and um did it take until the
4:47:24judgments of Mr Justice Fraser for
4:47:27anyone in a decision-making role to
4:47:30acknowledge the existence or find uh the
4:47:34existence of systemic faults and
4:47:36failures in the Horizon system wow wait
4:47:39wait
4:47:41we're going back now to um controlling
4:47:44the narrative and that was the first
4:47:45time post office lost control of the
4:47:48narrative once we got into the high
4:47:50court so yes that's when the the truth
4:47:52started to come out at that point had
4:47:55you previously I months before then a
4:48:00months before the 8th of July
4:48:02publication drawn attention um to the
4:48:07problems with using the phrase um
4:48:09systemic flaw systemic failures or
4:48:11systemic faults 2 second site yes can we
4:48:15look please to poll
4:48:18309
4:48:348315 uh bottom email
4:48:39please thank you
4:48:41um this is two months before publication
4:48:43time so the 12th of May where you write
4:48:46to um Ron warmington of second
4:48:49side um and there's a whole heading um
4:48:52system errors versus systemic
4:48:57failures um you point out I'm not going
4:48:59to go through exactly what you say um
4:49:01here in the interest of time because
4:49:02we've still got a lot of ground to cover
4:49:05but in short order what was your
4:49:08point well one the point point was I've
4:49:11just made to you there that post office
4:49:13would jump on it as being the Sy and no
4:49:16systemic failures um with post office
4:49:19and their Horizon system which it says
4:49:21in there I mean there were system
4:49:24failures in there but I just I couldn't
4:49:28understand
4:49:29why they felt that was so important to
4:49:32put in something of that sort in there
4:49:35when it was was obvious that there were
4:49:37SI systemic failures in the way post
4:49:40office dealt with some post Masters and
4:49:42the way they process things and the
4:49:44support they gave it it was a total
4:49:47failure of post office throughout all of
4:49:50that
4:49:51um and I just found it a bit frustrating
4:49:54and I think even to this day Ron will
4:49:57remember this in great detail and we had
4:50:00a lot of um discussions over it at the
4:50:02time and I think he feels that they got
4:50:05it wrong the one thing they got wrong in
4:50:08that report was that thank you that come
4:50:10down thank
4:50:12you to the um report um the interim
4:50:17report is published on the 8th of July
4:50:19yeah um
4:50:202013 did you know at the time that
4:50:23shortly after the publication of second
4:50:26sight's interim report on the 8th of
4:50:28July um that the post office was
4:50:30informed that a witness that it had used
4:50:33in a series of
4:50:34prosecutions um Gareth Jenkins had
4:50:37failed to disclose to the court material
4:50:41which undermined the opinions that he
4:50:44gave that he had not complied with his
4:50:46duties to the court that his credibility
4:50:49to an expert as an expert witness was
4:50:52fatally undermined that the post office
4:50:54had been in breach of its duties as a
4:50:56prosecutor and that there were a number
4:50:58of convicted sub postmasters to whom
4:51:01disclosure of these facts should have
4:51:03been given but was not given not at that
4:51:06time when was the first time that you
4:51:09learned that the post off office um had
4:51:12been given that
4:51:15information um it was quite late on um
4:51:20essentially I've summarized the Clark
4:51:22advice the first Simon Clark advice
4:51:24there yeah I I I think it's it was it
4:51:28was probably at the time of the um the
4:51:31appeal court hearings for the overturn
4:51:34conviction I think that's when it really
4:51:36started coming to 2021
4:51:39yeah was anything ever
4:51:44um discussed or even hinted at in all of
4:51:48the meetings that you held all of the
4:51:51conversations that you were a party to
4:51:54all of the letters that you wrote all of
4:51:56the email exchanges that you had with
4:51:59everyone at the post office from Alice
4:52:02Perkins and Paula venel
4:52:05down about such problems with
4:52:08convictions no
4:52:11were there convicted sub postmasters
4:52:14within the jfsa at this time
4:52:18yes I read somewhere that it was about a
4:52:20third of them that must um vary over the
4:52:24course of time it did I think was the
4:52:26proportion yeah by the time we got to
4:52:28the Glo of the 550 as such in there I
4:52:31think about 60 of them was about 10%
4:52:34roughly
4:52:36convictions in
4:52:38fact that
4:52:41that had been the the issue that had
4:52:44caused problems with the original um uh
4:52:48lawyers that were supporting the Sho
4:52:49Smiths back in
4:52:52201 10 uh it's because they couldn't
4:52:56obtain um at
4:52:59Insurance um because we had convictions
4:53:01in the
4:53:03group and just winding forwards a little
4:53:05bit before um uh the
4:53:08break that cohort of people I've said it
4:53:10was about a third at this time it um
4:53:13changed in number by the time you got up
4:53:15to 550 um at the time of the the
4:53:19Glo what approach did the post office um
4:53:22take in relation to that group of people
4:53:25the sub uh convicted Sub
4:53:27postmasters in terms of whether they
4:53:29could um take their claims to the
4:53:32mediation scheme or have their claims
4:53:35adjudicated within a mediation uh in
4:53:38they actually agreed that they could go
4:53:39forward into the mediation
4:53:42scheme and were um such claims
4:53:45adjudicated upon in the
4:53:48mediation
4:53:50um I don't recall specifically on that
4:53:57basis I mean that that that's a whole
4:54:00other
4:54:01discussion um one of the consequences um
4:54:06indeed one of the only substantial
4:54:08consequences of the interim report
4:54:11was the setting up of the initial
4:54:13complaint and review and mediation
4:54:16scheme sometimes called the um icms or
4:54:20sometimes the mediation
4:54:22scheme can we look please at page 45 of
4:54:25your witness statement
4:54:39please
4:54:44at paragraph 133 at the
4:54:49bottom you say the purpose of the
4:54:51mediation scheme was to address sub
4:54:53postmaster complaints and individual
4:54:55cases so that there could be an
4:54:57exploration into way they the way they
4:54:59had been treated with a view to finding
4:55:01a solution for the sub
4:55:03postmasters which was likely to involve
4:55:06compensation it was also set up to
4:55:08establish what had been the truth behind
4:55:09the Circ circumstances um is that a
4:55:13complete summary essentially of your
4:55:15it's a fa comment it's a first yeah it
4:55:17is yeah and if we go over the page
4:55:21please you say in
4:55:23134 that at the outset we thought that
4:55:26the mediation scheme might well achieve
4:55:27the aims it had set out provided that
4:55:30the post office would enter it in good
4:55:32faith uh we entered into this process as
4:55:35we didn't have any viable alternative at
4:55:37this time and then um paragraph 137 over
4:55:41the page
4:55:46please you say unfortunately the
4:55:48financing of the scheme came from the
4:55:51post office it provided the Secretariat
4:55:53and administrative support which were
4:55:56supposed to be independent however we
4:55:58were not aware at the time that Belinda
4:56:00Crow was also a member of the post
4:56:02office's covert project Sparrow team as
4:56:05was the post office's General councel as
4:56:08indicated from um some minutes
4:56:11um that you refer to at this time at the
4:56:14setting up of the mediation scheme did
4:56:17you know of the existence of project
4:56:19Sparrow
4:56:22no thank you that's a convenient uh
4:56:25moment sir I wonder whether we could um
4:56:27break until five pars please very
4:56:39well
4:57:09e
4:57:39e
4:58:09e
4:58:39e
4:59:09e
4:59:39e
5:00:08e
5:00:38e
5:01:08e
5:01:38e
5:02:08e
5:02:38e
5:03:08e
5:03:38e
5:04:08e
5:04:38e
5:05:08e
5:05:38e
5:06:08e
5:06:38e
5:07:08e
5:07:38e
5:08:08e
5:08:38e
5:09:08e
5:09:38e
5:10:08e
5:10:38e
5:11:08e
5:11:38e
5:12:08e
5:12:38e
5:13:08e
5:13:27you've been shocked in the
5:13:32silence good afternoon Mr Bates can we
5:13:34um continue with the mediation scheme
5:13:38and look please at page 50 of your
5:13:40witness statement of paragraph
5:13:49146 uh just wait for that to come up it
5:13:52says you um it was never agreed that the
5:13:56working group would discuss individual
5:13:59cases just stopping there can you
5:14:01briefly explain what the working group
5:14:02was in the context of the mediation
5:14:05scheme um the the the medi sorry the the
5:14:08working group gr was a combination of
5:14:11the jfsa and post office and we had an
5:14:15independent chair um Sir Anthony Hooper
5:14:20and um then second site were employed to
5:14:26work for the working group to do the
5:14:29investigations and report back to the to
5:14:31the group accordingly and produce the
5:14:33reports as uh required thank you you say
5:14:37it was never agreed that the working
5:14:38group
5:14:39um would discuss individual cases and
5:14:41make decisions on whether to mediate it
5:14:43was down to Second site uh to decide
5:14:46this then there was the mediation scheme
5:14:48which would undertake the process of
5:14:50mediating between post office and the
5:14:52sub
5:14:53postmasters uh however two example cases
5:14:56were discussed prior to Second site
5:14:57starting to produce reports but only to
5:14:59agree a format in which case reports
5:15:01were to be produced um I just want to
5:15:04explore this issue um briefly of um who
5:15:07would make decisions on whether to
5:15:09mediate and whether that was um down to
5:15:12Second
5:15:13site
5:15:16um you um I think wrote an email about
5:15:20this to Sir Anthony Hooper can we see
5:15:24poll1
5:15:377151
5:15:43that it's a letter rather than an
5:15:44email you can see this is dated the 10th
5:15:47of
5:15:48November uh
5:15:502014 to um sir
5:15:55antthony and you say in the second
5:15:58paragraph um jfa is now of the opinion
5:16:01the scheme is tray so far from the
5:16:03original purpose which it was intended
5:16:05that the few applicants whove actually
5:16:07reached a mediation meeting through C
5:16:08Ceda um just explain what Ceda was it
5:16:12was um I can't remember what it actually
5:16:14stands for now it was a it's a
5:16:17professional Center for dispute
5:16:18resolution disp
5:16:21yeah have expressed such disappointment
5:16:23within the scheme that um at least one
5:16:25applicant has withdrawn and then under
5:16:28number paragraph one you asked that it's
5:16:30noted uh quote as has been stated on
5:16:33many occasions it's
5:16:35jfsa view that it's not the role of the
5:16:37working group to prove which cases go to
5:16:40mediation for the following reasons
5:16:42which are contained um within the main
5:16:45document at that each of the applicants
5:16:47to the scheme received within it they
5:16:49were promised and then you set out um
5:16:52some extracts from it yes was that your
5:16:54view that it wasn't the role of the
5:16:56working group to decide or approve which
5:16:58cases should go to mediation only in
5:17:01specific instances for example if not
5:17:05enough information had been supplied by
5:17:07an applicant as whether is
5:17:09to um fully understand or investigate
5:17:12his case would it go forward then or
5:17:15other
5:17:16um other perhaps yeah I don't variations
5:17:20on that theme but but the norm the the
5:17:23main bulk of them you should go through
5:17:26um on their own on their
5:17:29own dependent on second site's
5:17:31recommendation and on whilst we're on it
5:17:34on page four of the letter
5:17:37please
5:17:41um in the top paragraph their second
5:17:43line you say the further the scheme
5:17:45progresses the more entrenched and
5:17:47defensive post office has become and the
5:17:49original concept of actually seeking the
5:17:51truth has long since being abandoned
5:17:54replaced by denial and a culture of
5:17:56blaming the applicant Time After Time
5:17:58the underlying fact that it was the
5:18:00failure of post office to correct the
5:18:01shortcomings of their Horizon system and
5:18:04its Associated issues is ignored by post
5:18:07office again and again that's plainly
5:18:09how you felt at the time um what
5:18:12um material or evidence was that view
5:18:15based upon oh one of the key ones and I
5:18:19suppose a favorite one of of the hearing
5:18:21is is um the failure of disclosure it
5:18:25was holding up cases time and time again
5:18:28and it was also the amount of time post
5:18:31office um sorry the way the scheme
5:18:33worked basically was someone applied to
5:18:35go into the scheme if it was shown post
5:18:38office quickly looked at their
5:18:40application to ensure that they were a
5:18:41sub postmaster and they had been there
5:18:44during the period they say at that point
5:18:47they've been accepted into the mediation
5:18:49scheme then um they would have the
5:18:52option of having an independent um
5:18:56expert work on their case either a
5:18:59forensic accountant or or solicitor at a
5:19:02set fee they would produce a report at
5:19:05this uh about their CA this in this
5:19:07person's case at at the same time post
5:19:10office would be providing their own
5:19:13report on that um person's case both of
5:19:17these CA the both of these reports would
5:19:19then go to Second site who would
5:19:21investigate them put together and make a
5:19:23recommendation to the uh working
5:19:26group um on the on its findings simple
5:19:30as that um
5:19:33but once these cases were being
5:19:36investigated in theory by by post office
5:19:39they were asking for more and more time
5:19:42there was meant to be a turnaround
5:19:43period of about four to six weeks um for
5:19:46them to to undertake an investigation
5:19:49but they were they're asking for
5:19:50extension after
5:19:52extension um to investigate each of
5:19:55these cases and in some cases they were
5:19:57going on for six months or seven months
5:19:59asking for extensions whilst they were
5:20:01investigating so it just dragged on and
5:20:04on and on and on and that was one of the
5:20:07big frustrations with all of that we we
5:20:09have very little control o uh of the
5:20:12flow at that
5:20:14point Thank you just on the issue of um
5:20:16who made a recommendation and who made a
5:20:18decision on whether a case is suitable
5:20:20for mediation can we just go back and
5:20:23look at the one of the founding
5:20:24documents of the scheme yeah at poll 302
5:20:372120 um this is um an
5:20:41overview um uh of the complaint um
5:20:45review and mediation um scheme and is
5:20:49one of the um originating documents
5:20:51published by post office at the time of
5:20:54the initiation of the um scheme if we um
5:20:58look please at page
5:21:02two and three paragraphs from the
5:21:07bottom it as a result as a result of
5:21:10this
5:21:11investigation um second site will
5:21:14produce a case review summarizing its
5:21:16findings and a recommendation on whether
5:21:19the case is suitable for mediation a
5:21:21copy of the case review will be provided
5:21:23to you the working group will however
5:21:25take the final decision on any cases
5:21:27that may not be suitable for
5:21:29mediation um what would you say to the
5:21:31suggestion that this makes it clear that
5:21:33it was the working group that took final
5:21:36decisions on which cases should and
5:21:38should not proceed to mediation no I
5:21:40think what what you're missing here is a
5:21:42a document which is uh is it q&as or
5:21:46something of that that went with it as
5:21:47well uh key points and there's one of
5:21:50the questions in it asks uh will my case
5:21:53go to
5:21:55mediation and I think the answer to that
5:21:58is it says in the majority of cases it
5:22:00they will go to mediation I think where
5:22:04where it takes the final decision on any
5:22:06cases that that's those controver verial
5:22:09cases where there wasn't enough
5:22:11information at all that been supplied as
5:22:14part of the
5:22:19application I think maybe you're
5:22:21referring to um page five of the
5:22:30document are they the FAQs that you're
5:22:33talking and is the one that you're
5:22:35thinking about on page eight
5:22:43will my case definitely be referred to
5:22:44mediation is that the one that's the one
5:22:56yeah it's the second paragraph
5:22:59down that second sentence of the
5:23:02paragraph second
5:23:04paragraph gives us an
5:23:07example um the ability of the working
5:23:11group to decide that the case is not one
5:23:14which requires resolution yes there was
5:23:16in yeah
5:23:17exactly doesn't that didn't that give
5:23:20the working group the ultimate power of
5:23:23veto in those
5:23:26circumstances in those circumstances if
5:23:29there's insufficient information about a
5:23:32case we may decide then that it it
5:23:35wasn't worth it going to mediation I it
5:23:38um but as it says in in most cases if
5:23:42you provide detailed and accurate
5:23:43information it's likely in most
5:23:45instances and that was where we were
5:23:48relying on second site to uh I think um
5:23:52in the course of the uh work of the
5:23:54mediation you um wrote a number of
5:23:56letters to the their Minister Joe
5:23:58Swinson about its operation is that
5:24:01right yes I did can we look at some of
5:24:03those please um poll
5:24:050014
5:24:074511
5:24:25you'll see that it's dated the 17th of
5:24:29April I'm not going to read um the first
5:24:32page if we can skip to the second page
5:24:36please and look at the last paragraph on
5:24:39page two and onto page
5:24:41three there's no doubt at all that the
5:24:44systemic failures identifiers so
5:24:47far have been brought to post office's
5:24:50attention through their regular meetings
5:24:51with second side and this alone raises
5:24:53the question as to why post office is
5:24:55continuing with their prosecutions of
5:24:57sub postmasters when it is now so much
5:25:00more obvious that they are standing on
5:25:01very shaky legal ground as I've
5:25:04mentioned before these systemic failures
5:25:06are proven facts which are at the root
5:25:08of many of the sub postmaster cases
5:25:10although from the second site briefing
5:25:11document presented at the Port Cullis
5:25:13house meeting they're only going to be
5:25:15treated as um an
5:25:17adjunct to the issue of individual cases
5:25:20to the point where only a few of them
5:25:22may be featured in their forthcoming
5:25:24report it's evident to ask that these
5:25:26systemic failures should become the yard
5:25:28stick that the individual cases are
5:25:29measured against as they're
5:25:31significantly easier for others to
5:25:32comprehend without the requirement of an
5:25:34in-depth knowledge of the finer points
5:25:36of horizon the focusing of the
5:25:39investigation on the systemic failures
5:25:40would not only offer a quicker and far
5:25:42more efficient method of addressing the
5:25:44whole issue but would minimize
5:25:48the uh information required from post
5:25:50office which has been the main cause of
5:25:52the slow and um at times no progress
5:25:55second site has made with the individual
5:25:58um cases um did you get any um
5:26:00reassurance back from the
5:26:02minister I don't
5:26:04recall um can I think yeah sorry move on
5:26:08then please to poll1
5:26:154564 and look at page three
5:26:22please uh foot of the page we're now on
5:26:25the 18th of July this is another
5:26:27communication from you um to the
5:26:31minister you refer to a reply of the
5:26:3411th of July where you confirm that
5:26:36further cases can be put forward to
5:26:41review um you say that you recently
5:26:44wrote to MPS who raised
5:26:48questions uh about um 47 cases that only
5:26:52ever seem to be um commented on and you
5:26:56um refer in the report sorry you say the
5:26:5947 cases referred to in the report
5:27:02comprises of and then you give a
5:27:03breakdown and then if we scroll up the
5:27:05page
5:27:07please a bit further please thank
5:27:10you do you see that your email um to The
5:27:15Minister's correspondence address has
5:27:17found its way to um the sh ex the
5:27:21shareholder executive within the
5:27:23department from business Innovation and
5:27:29skills this is as the email has been
5:27:32produced to us we can't
5:27:33see um how it got there
5:27:39um address to um Martin
5:27:44Edwards and um Susan
5:27:49kryon and two other members of the two
5:27:52members of the shx and then if we just
5:27:54take that off
5:27:56please U Mr Whitehead within be um
5:28:01says Martin Susan the email letter below
5:28:05from Alan Bates at jfsa to Joe Swinson
5:28:07raises a number of issues which will be
5:28:09helpful for us to discuss with you
5:28:12before drafting a reply I think a
5:28:13meeting within the next week or so might
5:28:15be the best way forwards given the range
5:28:17and complexity of some of the issues
5:28:20involved did you know or did you
5:28:23appreciate at the
5:28:26time that um not withstanding what had
5:28:29been said by uh government ministers
5:28:32about um operating an arms length
5:28:36relationship with the post
5:28:39office um there was nonetheless a back
5:28:41channel of communications between the
5:28:44government and the post
5:28:46office no no I I I can't say I was aware
5:28:49of that with your correspondence being
5:28:52copied from um the government to the
5:28:56post office I could understand them
5:28:57perhaps having some concern because I
5:29:00was in regular contact with many of the
5:29:02MPS there um but no I can't um say I was
5:29:07aware and if we um just go to page one
5:29:14please we can see on this page um emails
5:29:19within the post office starting in the
5:29:21middle of the page from olwin Lions to
5:29:25Mark
5:29:26Davis um Martin Edwards and Susan
5:29:31kryon and she says when discussing what
5:29:34reply to give is um the problem is
5:29:38that the problem we have is that he
5:29:40that's you doesn't know we um have seen
5:29:43the letter we need to be careful that
5:29:45the minister is not um seen to be
5:29:48aligning with us by us help by us asking
5:29:52us to help her respond I'll read that
5:29:54again the problem we have is that he
5:29:56that's you doesn't know we've seen the
5:29:59letter that's your letter and we need to
5:30:01be careful that the minister is not seen
5:30:05to be aligning with us that's the post
5:30:08office by asking us to help her
5:30:13respond so they're discussing
5:30:15essentially how to play it with you
5:30:18without revealing that the government
5:30:20has sent on your letter to the post
5:30:22office correct seems to be that way yeah
5:30:26you say in your witness statement that
5:30:28there were no changes as a result of
5:30:29your letter um that the one that we've
5:30:32just looked at did um Joe Winson um in
5:30:36fact respond to you
5:30:38I don't recall I I
5:30:42can't can we turn on to another letter
5:30:44you wrote to Joe Swinson a year later on
5:30:47the 16th of April 2014 when she was
5:30:49still minister for postal Affairs um
5:30:52poll
5:30:53302
5:31:002683 we can see the date and to whom
5:31:03it's
5:31:04addressed and for some context um by
5:31:07that
5:31:10date was it right that no post office
5:31:14investigation had been completed to a
5:31:16sufficient state for second site to
5:31:19complete its own reports
5:31:25yeah um you set out um how the scheme
5:31:28was meant to work if we just scroll
5:31:30down and keep
5:31:34scrolling and keep
5:31:36scrolling keep
5:31:40scrolling you say that the above
5:31:42structure was agreed and published at
5:31:45scheme
5:31:46launch and the documentation is still
5:31:48available for downloading apps
5:31:50essentially that's the documentation
5:31:52that I showed you um earlier yes
5:31:55unfortunately the reality of where the
5:31:56scheme is actually at is very
5:31:59different um as at the data of writing
5:32:01so this is April mid April
5:32:042014 during at the time the scheme was
5:32:06open for application 150 cases were
5:32:09accepted although it should be noticed
5:32:12since the scheme is closed there have
5:32:14been others who would have applied if
5:32:15they' had been aware of it existence of
5:32:18the 150 the earliest that Paul became
5:32:20aware of the names of individuals and
5:32:22the identities of the post offices that
5:32:24were to be involved was as
5:32:27follows uh next bullet point once the
5:32:30criteria to enter the scheme had been
5:32:32met and the working group had approved
5:32:34the initial application the personalized
5:32:36CQR can you um explain what the CQR was
5:32:40it was the initial um report um I can't
5:32:44that was sent out to the relevant
5:32:46applicant for completion um with the um
5:32:49um assistance of their pa so far the
5:32:52returned completed cqrs are as follows
5:32:55and you set them out over the
5:32:58page and then you say top of the next
5:33:00page yet to date poll has not finalized
5:33:03a single case report to the point where
5:33:05it's ready for the working group to
5:33:07consider it suit posibility for being
5:33:08sent to mediation and realistically that
5:33:11could still be a considerable um time
5:33:18off if we scroll down
5:33:21further and keep
5:33:25going and keep
5:33:30going stop there that third paragraph
5:33:33you say regardless of what it says
5:33:35publicly poll in practice seems not only
5:33:38to be hardening its corporate defense
5:33:40but now seems to be prepared to invoke
5:33:41the protection of P the public purse as
5:33:44their last line of justification for not
5:33:46writing the wrongs they've inflicted on
5:33:48so many it appears at whatever poll can
5:33:51block it does for some reason the post
5:33:53office is the only one that doesn't seem
5:33:55to be able to recognize what everybody
5:33:57else
5:33:59can see so clearly and then you talk
5:34:02about um the only way we're going to
5:34:04resolve this is through the media and
5:34:06the court
5:34:08and so what was your principal concern
5:34:10by the time you were writing this letter
5:34:12I think um I think this is a time when
5:34:15um they post office had changed their
5:34:19general counsel I think this was at the
5:34:21point where Chris oard had come along do
5:34:25correct me if I'm wrong getting the uh I
5:34:27think that was September 2013 from
5:34:29remember yeah it's coming along and I
5:34:31think when he turned
5:34:34up I think he had a very clear remit to
5:34:39get rid of the mediation scheme or to
5:34:43change it or to bin it or whatever
5:34:46because he was also part of this project
5:34:48Sparrow which was as we later to find
5:34:53um uh monitoring what was going on in
5:34:56that scheme and how it was going ahead
5:34:58now I had a a big discussion with with
5:35:02um Chris oard over the um interpretation
5:35:07of the aims and the objectives of the
5:35:09scheme and that was earlier on in the
5:35:11the year that year and um I remember I
5:35:16had to detail him uh to him the whole
5:35:19scheme how it meant to work and I also
5:35:21copied in Sir Anthony Hooper on that
5:35:24correspondence as well but basically it
5:35:27seemed they were trying to twist it
5:35:29twist it twist it the whole time to take
5:35:31way to
5:35:33Effectiveness and um
5:35:36it
5:35:38it just it just wasn't it didn't feel
5:35:41wholesome anymore it didn't feel like we
5:35:43were after the truth anymore it just
5:35:45felt like we were trying to defend post
5:35:47office's position in all of
5:35:56this you tell us in your witness
5:35:58statement it's paragraph 145 no need to
5:36:00turn it up that as a result of writing
5:36:02this letters there this letter there was
5:36:05no change um as a result
5:36:09is that right yeah that's correct I
5:36:11think in fact you've got a letter back
5:36:12from Paul Paula venel which criticized
5:36:16you for writing in these terms to Joe
5:36:17Swinson yeah that's correct let's have a
5:36:19quick look at that please poll
5:36:22011
5:36:296501 I think this is a draft I think
5:36:31it's in the terms that it was sent no
5:36:34doubt we can chase that down if I'm
5:36:35wrong um your letter of the 16th of
5:36:38April um to the U Minister has been
5:36:41passed to me for
5:36:44reply since the publication of the
5:36:46second site interim report post office
5:36:48has worked collaboratively with the jfsa
5:36:51as an organization is that
5:36:54true to a very small
5:36:57degree and you as its chair to design
5:37:01the initial complaint and review and
5:37:02mediation scheme the scheme
5:37:04documentation was agreed with you and
5:37:07put on on your website that is correct
5:37:08is it yes uh the post office has remain
5:37:11true to the aims of the scheme is that
5:37:14correct to a
5:37:16degree committed substantial um resource
5:37:20to ensure its success and respected the
5:37:22confidentiality of the working group um
5:37:26and then there's about sharing a
5:37:27platform on the 24th of March against
5:37:29that background your action in sending
5:37:31your letter that's the letter to the
5:37:33minister has come as a shock and a
5:37:35disappointment um to her I find two
5:37:38things troubling the content of your
5:37:40letter would appear to breach the
5:37:42confidentiality of the working group and
5:37:45furthermore paints a picture which is
5:37:46inconsistent with the position as I
5:37:48understood it to
5:37:50be well that's another one of these
5:37:53things where you know is she getting the
5:37:54right information from her staff she
5:37:56never attended these
5:37:58meetings never ever attended one of the
5:38:01working group meetings to the best of my
5:38:04knowledge and of course this is to be
5:38:06set against the context of the email
5:38:08discussion oh yeah that I took you to
5:38:11which is how do
5:38:12we inform The Minister's reply to this
5:38:15letter without
5:38:17disclosing that that we've informed The
5:38:20Minister's dis reply to this letter
5:38:22without disclosing that
5:38:25fact um the second Point she makes is
5:38:27the fact you've bypassed the structure
5:38:28of the working group to raise your
5:38:30concerns post office has displayed a
5:38:32strong commitment to the scheme over a
5:38:33prolonged period of time I remain
5:38:35committed in principle to making the
5:38:37scheme work but your letter has damaged
5:38:38the trust post office has invested in
5:38:42you as a member of the working group
5:38:45there are number of specific points in
5:38:46your letter the post office will need to
5:38:47address I've asked Chris Oar to prepare
5:38:50a more detailed response in the meantime
5:38:52I'll need to consider post office
5:38:53position in relation to the scheme over
5:38:56the coming days did you know that the
5:38:58post office was having an internal
5:39:00debate at this time over whether your
5:39:03letter presented a golden
5:39:05opportunity because of your alleged
5:39:07breach of confidentiality for the post
5:39:09office to back out of the scheme and
5:39:11bring it to a quick close no I wasn't a
5:39:14I wasn't aware of that I mean I presume
5:39:16this was something that was discussed in
5:39:18Project Sparrow I I don't know maybe a
5:39:21question for them but I mean my concern
5:39:24has always been the the the group first
5:39:26what's best for the group not what's
5:39:28best for post office in all of this so I
5:39:31I was representing the group in these
5:39:33discussions and with what was going on
5:39:35and I had to stand up for what what
5:39:37there's rise at the time for
5:39:40them can we turn to um paragraph 157 of
5:39:44your witness statement
5:39:46please which is on page
5:39:5953
5:40:04yeah you say um in paragraph 150 7 that
5:40:07you believe the mediation scheme failed
5:40:10as it was part of the cover up by poll I
5:40:13expect the post office discovered things
5:40:14that they did not like and did not want
5:40:16to come out it was definitely an element
5:40:19of not wanting to accept fault I believe
5:40:21the post office had no intention
5:40:23whatsoever of getting to a mutually
5:40:25acceptable and fair decision if anything
5:40:27it seemed as if the post office had been
5:40:29using the scheme as a fishing expedition
5:40:31to see what evidence sub postm has
5:40:33actually had about
5:40:36Horizon
5:40:38was what you say there based on
5:40:40information from sub
5:40:42postmasters no I it was I suppose it's
5:40:45it's the feedback from working on the
5:40:47scheme for that that many months or that
5:40:49those years um and knowing the way post
5:40:53office operated I mean I've been dealing
5:40:56with them them for many many years and I
5:40:59certainly could see the way they
5:41:00operated and what they're up to whether
5:41:02they're forthcoming on
5:41:06issues and circumstances um did the post
5:41:10office terminate the
5:41:12scheme I got a phone call I got a phone
5:41:15call and um just to say oh we've decided
5:41:18to send all the cases to mediation now
5:41:21so there's no need for the working group
5:41:23to meet now interesting interestingly
5:41:27that was the day before a meeting was
5:41:31due to be held in which we were going to
5:41:33see the draft of the second site part
5:41:36two report report which was damning and
5:41:39I think one of the reasons they did that
5:41:41to stop stop that report from coming out
5:41:45and what was your view of the decision
5:41:47of the post office to um terminate the
5:41:50scheme
5:41:53um I suppose publicly I was very
5:41:56dismayed about it I think privately I
5:41:59was ecstatic about it because I've been
5:42:02thinking of pulling out of that scheme
5:42:04for about 12 months and I've been
5:42:06sitting in there the hold of that period
5:42:08to get as much information and reports
5:42:10out of them in order for us to move on
5:42:12to the next step of legal
5:42:16action uh did you um then make a
5:42:19decision that it was necessary to
5:42:21commence legal proceedings we had been
5:42:23looking around for a little while it was
5:42:25I think the writing was on the wall or
5:42:27had been for a number of months and we'
5:42:28spoken to a few firms a few firms
5:42:32initial discussion the first claim
5:42:34turning to the group litigation was um
5:42:36issued in April
5:42:402016 first claim yes uh yeah uh well uh
5:42:44we eventually found free in September of
5:42:472015 yes that's when they came on board
5:42:50and then they really took
5:42:53over and one of the first steps was an
5:42:55application by um the claimants for a
5:42:59group litigation order that's correct
5:43:01and that was opposed by the post office
5:43:03is that right that's correct um despite
5:43:05that opposition the PO that the court
5:43:07ordered that the claim should be managed
5:43:09under a group litigation order from the
5:43:1122nd of March 2017 that
5:43:19right I think um the jfsa made an
5:43:23announcement by press release of the
5:43:26making of the group litigation order
5:43:28didn't
5:43:29it uh I don't recall it I probably did
5:43:34would you remember there was a time if
5:43:36people wanted to join in in the group
5:43:37litigation a date by which they had to
5:43:39do so a cut off date uh yes there was I
5:43:42mean the the with free and free took
5:43:46quite an active role in this we we had
5:43:48to find the funding and then we had to
5:43:50go out and recruit far more um claimants
5:43:53in there and so then they a whole batch
5:43:57of PA and uh advertising was under taken
5:44:01for a few months in there to bring
5:44:03forward the numbers that were needed to
5:44:05uh I think the um I don't know what they
5:44:08called are the schedules are the names
5:44:10that go forward to be attached to the
5:44:12Glo I think there were about three that
5:44:14were attached to eventually finish up
5:44:16with the 550 that went forward into the
5:44:19can we um uh briefly look at the release
5:44:21that you made the press release that um
5:44:23the jfsa made poll 024
5:44:368057
5:44:43and go to um page two towards the bottom
5:44:49please um this is an email um from um
5:44:54Melanie um corfield a name that we'll
5:44:57become familiar with in these phases and
5:45:01she's a member of the post office's
5:45:03Communications team and just going back
5:45:05to the email
5:45:07you'll see
5:45:09um she um emails rodri Williams Andrew
5:45:14Parsons of Bon Dickinson and others
5:45:17saying we've been alerted by a trade mag
5:45:19to a statement issue by the
5:45:21jfsa and then if we go down the page a
5:45:23little
5:45:24bit there is the jfsa statement cut into
5:45:29her email can you see
5:45:31that yeah um you say that's in the
5:45:34statement jfsa announced today that the
5:45:38um group litigation order against the
5:45:39post office has now been approved by the
5:45:41president of the Queen's bench division
5:45:43of the high court which means that the
5:45:45case will continue through the court as
5:45:47a group action post office limited is
5:45:49defending the claim over a thousand sub
5:45:52postmasters from across the UK have now
5:45:53applied uh applied to um join the
5:45:58action I think about 1200 eventually
5:46:01applied but I think by the time they'd
5:46:03sifted through them we finished up with
5:46:05550 and um at the second paragraph on
5:46:08the uh second page there you can see a
5:46:11quote from you Alan Bates of jfsa said
5:46:14the count Cas is now up and running
5:46:16we've um had over 1,000 plus candidates
5:46:19come forward so far uh sub post Masters
5:46:22have until 26th of July to join the
5:46:25action before the cut off which prevents
5:46:27new claimants at joining the claim
5:46:30thereafter and I just want to ask you
5:46:32some questions about the rest of this
5:46:34email chain even though you weren't cop
5:46:35it into it because they're relevant to
5:46:37later Witnesses if we just scroll up the
5:46:40page please you'll see that Mel corfield
5:46:43sends it to amongst others Andrew
5:46:48Parsons and then in the email there's a
5:46:51reply from the head of portfolio legal
5:46:54risk and governance Mark
5:46:56Underwood saying jfsa have issued a
5:46:59statement that's been picked up by Nick
5:47:00Wallace and computer weekly the
5:47:02statement is included in Mel's note
5:47:05below um I don't think there's anything
5:47:08new included in it say for the claim
5:47:10that over 1,000 sub post masters from
5:47:12across the UK have now applied to join
5:47:14the action though concerning they've
5:47:16chosen to use the word applied rather
5:47:18than just joined or
5:47:20similar and then further
5:47:25up um Jan
5:47:28McLoud who we're to hear from the group
5:47:30director of legal risk and governance
5:47:33says I think the key words are
5:47:34underlined below they haven't joined yet
5:47:36exclamation
5:47:38Mark and then further up the
5:47:41page Andrew
5:47:44Parsons says that he's happy with the
5:47:47coms that's a draft reply plus let's not
5:47:50forget that Alan Bates has a somewhat
5:47:52loose relationship with the
5:47:55truth just two questions on that um if I
5:47:58may firstly um was what you were saying
5:48:02in the press release accurate yes
5:48:05secondly had you ever had any deal ings
5:48:07with Mr Parsons oh yes um had you had
5:48:11you had any dealings with Mr Parsons
5:48:13that might properly allow him to form
5:48:15the view that you had a somewhat loose
5:48:16relationship with the truth no I mean um
5:48:20Andy Parsons was one of those who used
5:48:21to appear at the uh working group
5:48:24meetings one of the many lawyers that
5:48:26post office used to send to them and
5:48:29um
5:48:31uh I I mean I don't know why he's come
5:48:33up with that I mean I I sometime I might
5:48:36bellish but I don't like I mean anything
5:48:38to promote it I suppose I spend too much
5:48:41time around lawyers from now and then so
5:48:43the wording and phrasing I sometimes can
5:48:45seem a little bit that way but it was
5:48:47quite right we'd had over 1,200 people
5:48:50that did apply to to join the scheme and
5:48:54um out of that as I say 550 were signed
5:48:57up to
5:49:01it um I think in the um course of the
5:49:04litigation that can come down thank you
5:49:06um there was an application to strike
5:49:08out um passages from your witness
5:49:11statement is that right you know the
5:49:12long 41 page witness statement we looked
5:49:15at earlier yeah um the post office
5:49:18applied to um strike it out
5:49:23um and that application was dismissed
5:49:25for the reference is poll
5:49:3244094 um in the course of that um
5:49:34judgment is it right that the judge and
5:49:36in a previous judgment deliver warnings
5:49:39about aggressive litigation tactics
5:49:43yes from your perspective as a
5:49:47litigant what if any litigation tactics
5:49:49were being used by the post office oh uh
5:49:53they're definitely trying to outspend us
5:49:56uh I mean we we'd have to raise
5:49:58commercial funding from it they had a
5:50:01bottomless pocket as such being a
5:50:03government organization so anything they
5:50:06could do to spin it out or any anything
5:50:08they could do to recuse the judge or or
5:50:11whatever they did and um anything to
5:50:15cost us money and trying get us to um
5:50:19stop the
5:50:21case that was
5:50:25obvious um you gave evidence in the
5:50:27common issues trial I
5:50:29did um the reference is
5:50:32poll
5:50:33trip2
5:50:352936
5:50:37um and for reference between Pages 44
5:50:41and 51 the judge um deals with um your
5:50:45evidence and the findings that he made
5:50:47about your truthfulness and um honesty
5:50:49which I'm not going to um display at the
5:50:51moment in your witness statement you
5:50:53provide examples of what you say was the
5:50:56post office trying to prevent the truth
5:50:58coming out in the group
5:51:02litigation okay yeah can you assist us
5:51:04with what those um um tactics were well
5:51:09uh obviously to outs Spenders that that
5:51:12was the key one uh throughout all of
5:51:14that and um I think I just sort of
5:51:17listed the main points that they've gone
5:51:21through I think it's right that um you
5:51:25have yourself made an application for
5:51:29redress yes I have and when was the
5:51:32application
5:51:34made gosh um it
5:51:38was must have been o I think it was
5:51:40October last
5:51:42year and um I'm not going to ask you
5:51:45what um any of the figures are all the
5:51:47offers are um when did you first receive
5:51:50an offer um I received an offer I think
5:51:53it was 77 working days after my um claim
5:51:58had gone in um which against the target
5:52:04of the Department responding in 40 days
5:52:08I mean and the offer that they actually
5:52:10made was only about a sixth of the claim
5:52:14that had gone in there and um it's I
5:52:18mean you know I'm trying to fight for
5:52:20everyone's uh Financial redress in this
5:52:23but I've also got a fight for my own as
5:52:25well and I have no doubt that um there's
5:52:31a bit of vindictiveness coming in from
5:52:33the department and post office on this
5:52:36and the reason I say that is is quite
5:52:39simple they don't think there's any
5:52:40Worth to any of the work that I've done
5:52:43over the years I mean my my claim has
5:52:47gone in and it's being treated exactly
5:52:50the same as everyone else's they all
5:52:51have these heads of claims in there
5:52:54there are some heads of claim that apply
5:52:55to some people and not to others so I
5:52:58was never made a bankrupt so that
5:52:59doesn't apply to me um I was never
5:53:02suspended and so on so forth so they
5:53:04they do vary but
5:53:07and this was without me knowing the
5:53:09lawyers representing or dealing with my
5:53:13claim and also the friends of
5:53:14accountants dealing with my claim put it
5:53:18together and I was not involved with the
5:53:20figures and they put it together and
5:53:23they included an amount for the work
5:53:26that I'd done over the 20 years it's
5:53:28like another column heading and that's
5:53:31been totally negated by them in other
5:53:34words government doesn't think anything
5:53:36I've done is worth
5:53:40anything I think the first offer you
5:53:42received was shortly before your
5:53:44appearance before the select committee
5:53:46in January yeah and you um said publicly
5:53:50that it was derisory it was still
5:53:56is have you received any
5:53:59um further office since then no
5:54:03um a challenge letter went in um from my
5:54:07lawyer but and they were meant to hear
5:54:10last week a response which they never
5:54:12did receive and so I still don't know
5:54:15anything from your perspective has the
5:54:18process of seeking and obtaining redress
5:54:21been efficient and effective
5:54:26no in your case what have been the
5:54:28Principal problems aside from the
5:54:30timeliness of the reply with the
5:54:33operation of the scheme of redress um
5:54:36the initial problem was Disclosure by
5:54:39post office I mean once again they just
5:54:42would not come forward with it and
5:54:44considering they knew the names of all
5:54:47of those people involved in that scheme
5:54:49when from the date when the minister um
5:54:52announced the scheme which was I think
5:54:54March
5:54:5422 um so there's no reason they they
5:54:58couldn't have started at that point you
5:55:00mean they had a head start a head start
5:55:01on it yeah
5:55:03obviously I thought it was quite foru us
5:55:07um the comment made by Sir win uh first
5:55:12thing this morning about disclosure and
5:55:15that you should just carry on with
5:55:16regardless and just ignore it if it
5:55:18hasn't come through just get on with the
5:55:20job and I think that's really what
5:55:22should have happened quite a while
5:55:27ago um standing back what's your
5:55:31experience of the culture of the post
5:55:33office in your dealings with it over the
5:55:35years
5:55:37uh they're an atrocious organization
5:55:40they need disbanding it needs removing
5:55:42it needs building up again from the
5:55:44ground floor and as I've been quoted
5:55:47quite commonly the whole of the the
5:55:50whole of the Postal Service nowadays
5:55:52it's it's beyond it's a dead duck it's
5:55:54beyond saving and to be quite Fair it
5:55:57needs to be sold to someone like Horizon
5:56:00sorry so like Horizon last thing I'd say
5:56:04so to someone like Amazon um it it needs
5:56:08a real big injection of money and I only
5:56:12I think that can only happen coming in
5:56:14from outside otherwise it's just going
5:56:16to be it's going to be a bug bear for
5:56:19the government for the years to
5:56:22come Mr B thank you very much for
5:56:24answering um my many questions um today
5:56:27so there's only one set of questions
5:56:29from sub postmaster groups and there
5:56:30from Mr hemry and I think we'll take
5:56:32under 10 minutes well I'm just going to
5:56:35move over here
5:56:36so that I can see Mr Henry unimpeded by
5:56:40a large
5:56:43pillar thank you Mr Bates um you've
5:56:47exposed over many years the post
5:56:49office's suppression of disclosure and
5:56:52covering up the truth over Horizon's
5:56:56flaws but you have also exposed have you
5:56:59not the government's Reckless
5:57:01indifference to the post office's
5:57:03misconduct over many years would you
5:57:05agree
5:57:07yeah I I I think that is the case and I
5:57:12I mean since all this well since this
5:57:15year I suppose since the drama we've
5:57:16we've had far more publicity uh about
5:57:20the issue
5:57:22nationally I mean I've noticed there's a
5:57:24general frustration with many other
5:57:28organizations um that have that problem
5:57:31with government as well it seems to be a
5:57:34fundamental flaw in the way government
5:57:36works that they can't deal with these
5:57:38types of things easily and
5:57:41sensibly could I take you to a letter
5:57:44you received and we'll deal with it very
5:57:47briefly but it's
5:57:51p001
5:57:5302
5:57:55385 and this is a letter you
5:57:59received shortly after the 19th of March
5:58:032015 from the minister Joe swi
5:58:10wison and you had written to her on the
5:58:1510th of March regarding the post office
5:58:17mediation
5:58:20scheme and have you had a chance to look
5:58:24at this letter before coming here
5:58:27today um
5:58:29possibly would you care to read it to
5:58:35yourself and when you have done so could
5:58:37you let me know because I want to take
5:58:39you to just one passage in it but I want
5:58:43to give you the opportunity to refresh
5:58:45your memory in case there is anything
5:58:47you would like to point
5:59:01out yeah thank you you can see at the
5:59:07conclusion that the minister states to
5:59:10conclude I note that though second
5:59:11site's report and the subsequent
5:59:14investigations through second site's
5:59:16report and the subsequent investigations
5:59:18forgive me there is no evidence of a
5:59:20systemwide problems with Horizon this
5:59:23conclusion has stood firm through nearly
5:59:26two years of
5:59:31Investigation were you um forgive me
5:59:35when did you become
5:59:37aware that the post office had in fact
5:59:41written to their
5:59:42insurers nearly two years before that to
5:59:46notify them of issues with
5:59:52Horizon potential issues with Horizon
5:59:55which was originally going to be
5:59:57described as Financial
6:00:00discrepancies that have occurred in
6:00:02Horizon when did you become aware that
6:00:05the post office had written to their
6:00:09insurers well uh um there are two parts
6:00:13to that answer the first one I think is
6:00:17um when a lot of people became aware of
6:00:19it which was during the um uh it was the
6:00:24overturning of convictions over those
6:00:27cases the appeal courts I think that's
6:00:29when it one of the times it arose but
6:00:32also I mean there's a similar reference
6:00:35that I've seen seen recently in a
6:00:37document disclosed to me um for for the
6:00:42hearing and there
6:00:44was I'm trying to think of the date it
6:00:47was
6:00:48July was it 2013 it might be 2030 to two
6:00:53was was this the one this is about the
6:00:57what do they call it the officers and D
6:01:00DN Insurance shall I take you to it yes
6:01:03that would help so if we could go to P
6:01:09yeah1
6:01:114576
6:01:15please and I'm going to ask you to look
6:01:19at uh some
6:01:21correspondents um
6:01:24between Charles cahun and this is a page
6:01:28internal numbering four of six Charles
6:01:31cahun Susan kryon and Andrew Parsons
6:01:36whom of course you
6:01:38know so if we go to page four of six uh
6:01:43Charles cahon Wednesday July the 24th
6:01:462013 been discussing this with Miller
6:01:50what would she we what we should tell
6:01:52jlt reh Horizon issues we've worked up
6:01:56the attached version which hasn't been
6:01:58sent any
6:02:00comments up a little bit Andy could you
6:02:03take a look at this draft letter to go
6:02:05to our insurance insurance broker read
6:02:06The Horizon issue I've not looked at it
6:02:09thanks Susan is that Susan kryon then we
6:02:13have Mr Parsons July the 24th
6:02:172013 at 6:51 in the evening Susan the L
6:02:22does nothing more than put polls
6:02:23insurers on notice of the Horizon issues
6:02:26it's very Bland my only hesitation is
6:02:29whether this is strictly necessary to do
6:02:32from a PR perspective it would look bad
6:02:35if this got into into the public domain
6:02:37sign of guilt oblique concern from the
6:02:40board uh I'd be happy to have one of our
6:02:43insurance lawyers look at it look over
6:02:45the dno policy directors and officers
6:02:48policy to see if Paul is required to
6:02:50notify the insurers if not then we might
6:02:53want to hold fire on this I would
6:02:56recommend tweaking the first paragraph
6:02:59current version suggests that there are
6:03:01problems with Horizon when at present
6:03:03there are no systemic problems to report
6:03:06uh it should just say that the Press
6:03:08have reported a potential on potential
6:03:11issues with Horizon rather than
6:03:13financial discrepancies have occurred in
6:03:15Horizon um and then if we could then go
6:03:19please to page
6:03:21one of the internal numbering and we can
6:03:25see again this time on the 29th of July
6:03:29a further email from Mr
6:03:31Parsons and a bullet point summary at
6:03:36the top six bullet points would you be
6:03:40kind enough Mr Bates to read those six
6:03:42bullet points to
6:04:00yourself yes and do you see anything in
6:04:05there which you consider to be
6:04:07symptomatic of the post office's
6:04:09habitual problem with
6:04:11disclosure yeah I'm certainly one two
6:04:14three four the the fifth bullet point oh
6:04:17no the fourth and the fifth um the risk
6:04:20of notification is that it would look
6:04:22bad for Paul if it ever became public
6:04:25knowledge that Paul had it notified its
6:04:27insurers to reduce this risk it is
6:04:30recommended that rather than sending a
6:04:33formal written
6:04:34notification Paul speaks to chist
6:04:37renamed AIG and verbally notifies them
6:04:41so as not to leave a paper trail in our
6:04:44experience AIG may be prepared to accept
6:04:48a verbal
6:04:51notification yes exactly yeah so with a
6:04:56view I suppose thereafter to plausible
6:04:58deniability over the issue since there
6:05:01isn't anything written down no paper
6:05:04trail no paper trail
6:05:06could I now Mr Bates and this is my
6:05:09final topic ask you a few questions
6:05:13about the litigation that bears your
6:05:15name and I realize that Mr Beer has
6:05:17already asked you some but I want you to
6:05:21consider whether the No Holds bar
6:05:25approach adopted by the post office may
6:05:28not have been motivated not simply to
6:05:30win at all costs to defeat you and your
6:05:34fellow claimants but to kill the
6:05:36prospects of any future Criminal Appeals
6:05:40that rested on the outcome of your
6:05:44litigation
6:05:45now have you formed a
6:05:49view bearing in mind all that has passed
6:05:52have you formed a view that the conduct
6:05:55of the way in which they uh approached
6:05:58the Horizon common issues and the
6:06:01Horizon issues judgment May in part have
6:06:04been influenced by the fact
6:06:07that rather than just being concerned
6:06:10about losing a money
6:06:12claim they were also concerned that if
6:06:16they lost that money claim that you had
6:06:18brought against them they would then
6:06:22be exposed to potential Criminal Appeals
6:06:26concerning people who have been wrongly
6:06:29prosecuted some of whom of course who
6:06:32had been wrongly imprisoned have you
6:06:34formed any about
6:06:36that I'm quite certain that they were
6:06:40very concerned on a whole number of FR
6:06:42fronts and certainly that would have
6:06:45been one of them and the other one would
6:06:48have been protecting the brand at any
6:06:50cost I think that was a key one and
6:06:53protecting the roles of those involved
6:06:55with making the decisions over the years
6:06:58that they took so wrongly I think
6:07:01there's a whole batch of reasons that
6:07:03they went ahead with it and I heard a
6:07:06I heard a comment that was meant to have
6:07:08come from the board at that time that it
6:07:10should be buried at any cost this court
6:07:12case and I think we we saw that or saw
6:07:17them trying to do that along the way so
6:07:20I have no doubt that they were desperate
6:07:24to get rid of it on for a whole raft of
6:07:27reasons and that would
6:07:30include those Criminal Appeals
6:07:32absolutely which rested on the outcome
6:07:35absolutely and that they'd known were
6:07:38wrong for many many
6:07:41years thank you Mr BS I I suppose um
6:07:47following Mr Henry's
6:07:49point and I think I've got this right
6:07:52the claims in the Glo on behalf of some
6:07:56of the
6:07:56claimants included claims from malicious
6:08:00prosecution so
6:08:02inevitably the propriety of the
6:08:04prosecutions would in isue in effect in
6:08:07the Civil proceedings yeah
6:08:11yeah thank you Mr Bates Mr Beer anything
6:08:15else no there's nothing arising that's
6:08:16the end of Mr bates's evidence well
6:08:18thank you very much for coming thank you
6:08:20thank you for your witness statement and
6:08:23thank you for providing answers on a
6:08:26very um to a great many number of
6:08:30questions and I can see Hands preparing
6:08:34and I know what's coming because it's
6:08:37inevitable and I fully understand why
6:08:40they want to applaud you Mr Bates but
6:08:43I'm going to ask you not to for this
6:08:46reason that there will be Witnesses who
6:08:49are coming in the next um so forth who
6:08:53may not be as attractive to many of you
6:08:57and I would hate to think that I would
6:08:59have to intervene when they're here to
6:09:02prevent bad behavior so in the interest
6:09:05of people being evenhanded I'm asking
6:09:09you to remember that this is not a
6:09:11public meeting but a public inquiry it's
6:09:14not a court of law but it's a judicial
6:09:17process so please leave it
6:09:21there tomorrow morning we will resume at
6:09:2510:00 as you know I appeared on the
6:09:28first day of phase four and then
6:09:31disappeared completely in the sense that
6:09:33I conducted the hearings remotely I fear
6:09:37my circumstances are such that that will
6:09:40still be necessary I.E that I will
6:09:43conduct most of the hearings remotely
6:09:46during this passage I do intend to
6:09:49appear as often as I can but I want you
6:09:53to be frank with you it won't be very
6:09:55often I find that I can do this
6:09:58acceptably but I want to be open with
6:10:01you about happen about what's happening
6:10:04hence forth all right all right so we
6:10:06will resume tomorrow but I'll be on a
6:10:08screen not sitting here thank you
6:10:34sir
6:11:04e
6:11:34e
6:12:04e
6:12:34e
6:13:04e
6:13:34e
6:14:04e
6:14:34e
6:15:03e
6:15:33e
6:16:03e
6:16:33e
6:17:03e
6:17:33e
6:18:03e
6:18:33e
6:19:03e
6:19:33e
6:20:03e
6:20:33e
6:21:03e
6:21:33e
6:22:03e
6:22:33e
6:23:03e
6:23:33e
6:24:03e
6:24:33e
6:25:03e
6:25:33e
6:26:03e
6:26:33e
6:27:03e
6:27:33e
6:28:03e
6:28:33e
6:29:03e
6:29:33e
6:30:02e
6:30:32e
6:31:02e
6:31:32e
6:32:02e
6:32:32e
6:33:02e
6:33:32e
6:34:02e
6:34:32e
6:35:02e
6:35:32e
6:36:02e
6:36:32e
6:37:02e
6:37:32e
6:38:02e
6:38:32e
6:39:02e
6:39:32e
6:40:02e
6:40:32e
6:41:02e
6:41:32e
6:42:02e
6:42:32e
6:43:02e
6:43:32e
6:44:02e
6:44:32e
6:44:42e

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of In Full: Alan Bates gives evidence at Post Office inquiry by The Telegraph, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 38,833 words across 6,121 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.