1 Friday, 10 November 2023 2 MS PRICE: Good morning sir, can you see and hear 3 us. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much. 5 MS PRICE: May we please call Ms Bernard. 6 NATASHA PRUDENCIA BERNARD (sworn) 7 Questioned by MS PRICE 8 MS PRICE: Can you confirm your full name, please, 9 Ms Bernard? 10 A. Natasha Prudencia Bernard. 11 Q. You should have in front of you a hard copy of 12 a witness statement in your name, dated 13 16 October of this year. Have you got that 14 there? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. If you can turn, please, to page 23 of that 17 document. Does your copy have a visible 18 signature? 19 A. Yes, it does. 20 Q. Is that your signature? 21 A. It is. 22 Q. Are the contents of that statement true to the 23 best of your knowledge and belief? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. For the purposes of the transcript, the 1 1 reference for that is WITN09390100. 2 Thank you for coming to the Inquiry to 3 assist it in its work and for providing the 4 witness statement that you have. As you know, 5 I will be asking questions on behalf of the 6 Inquiry. 7 Today I'm going to be asking you about 8 issues which arise in Phase 4 of the Inquiry, 9 focusing on your involvement as an Investigator 10 within the Security and Investigation Team in 11 the criminal prosecution case study of 12 Mrs Oyeteju Adedayo. Before we turn to that 13 case study, I'm going to be asking you about the 14 Security team and your role and the processes 15 within that. 16 You joined the Post Office in 1985; is that 17 right? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. As a counter clerk initially? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In April 1998 you became an Assistant Branch 22 Manager? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You stayed in this role until June 2000 when you 25 were promoted to an Investigation Manager; is 2 1 that right? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Are we right that an Investigation Manager is 4 sometimes referred to as a Security Advisor -- 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. -- but they're essentially the same role? 7 A. No, they weren't the same role. At one point we 8 were referred to as Investigation Managers. I'm 9 not sure if that was at the start or in the 10 middle or at the end, but we were also known as 11 Security Advisors and at that point was where 12 Security and Investigation became one -- 13 Q. I see. 14 A. -- as in the role became combined. 15 Q. You left the Post Office in February 2011; is 16 that right? 17 A. I did, yes. 18 Q. How did you come to apply to join the Security 19 team? 20 A. If I can -- if I recall correctly, I was working 21 at Acton branch office and I was -- I think 22 I was the manager at the time. The -- somebody 23 from the Post Office Investigation Department 24 came. They were going to interview 25 a subpostmaster who was local in Acton and they 3 1 needed to use one of our rooms. When the person 2 approached me, I recognised him, I didn't know 3 where from. He said he'd come and talk to me 4 after he'd done the interview with his 5 colleague, and when he came afterwards we 6 realised that we went to school together, and 7 his name was Tony Utting. 8 So I was asking him how he got into 9 Investigations and he told me at that time that 10 they were going to have -- that vacancies were 11 coming out in January 2000. So I applied. 12 Q. Was it common for Security and Investigation 13 Team members to be drawn from other non-security 14 areas of the business rather than being 15 recruited externally? 16 A. That was the first -- I'd seen people in the 17 Security and Investigation Team in the past. 18 I think then it was called Post Office 19 Investigations Department and it seemed to be -- 20 there didn't seem to be many of them and I think 21 at that time they had a huge recruitment 22 campaign and I think they were -- they'd 23 actually taken people from within the Post 24 Office and externally. 25 Q. You say in your statement that when you became 4 1 an Investigation Manager you complete the 2 security foundation course; is that right? 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 4 Q. How long did that course last? 5 A. If I remember correctly, I think it was two 6 weeks residential. 7 Q. Can you recall now what topics were covered on 8 the course? If you need to refer to your 9 statement, feel free to. 10 A. I can -- I've still got them, actually. I think 11 there were 17 or so modules that had to be 12 complete before we started the course and then, 13 on the first day of the course, there was 14 an exam to sit and if you didn't pass that 15 exam -- I think it was a multiple choice as 16 opposed to just an exam -- if you didn't pass 17 then you would have to take it a few days later 18 and then, if you still didn't pass, then you 19 would have -- I think you'd be sent home. 20 And then there was -- at the end of the two 21 weeks there was another exam which you had to 22 pass. 23 Q. You say in your statement that you were made 24 aware on the course of Post Office policies, 25 around the duty on an investigator to 5 1 investigate a case fully and what this meant in 2 practice. From that training, what did you 3 understand the duty to investigate a case fully 4 to mean? 5 A. By looking at all lines of inquiry that -- 6 that's about all I can remember. 7 Q. Were any examples given of how an investigator 8 might seek to comply with that duty in practice? 9 A. I can't remember. 10 Q. You don't mention in your statement receiving 11 training on disclosure in the context of that 12 security foundation course. Is it right, as you 13 say in your statement, that you cannot recall 14 whether you had any specific training on 15 disclosure while you worked at the Post Office? 16 A. I don't remember having training on disclosure 17 during that foundation course. There may well 18 have been but I don't remember it. 19 Q. After you were appointed, you were assigned 20 a mentor, weren't you? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. This was David Posnett? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. What was his role as a mentor to you? 25 A. I could go -- I was working -- I think I was 6 1 working in Twickenham at the time so he was 2 based in Twickenham as well so I think, just 3 because we were both in the same office, he -- 4 I could go to him about anything. I would 5 shadow him. He would -- if I remember correctly 6 I think he was reading my reports, as well. 7 I can't remember. 8 Q. Who was your line manager when you started in 9 the role? 10 A. So my line manager was Paul Fielding, who used 11 to deal with the physical security, and because 12 I was assigned to Investigations I had -- I was 13 kind of supervised, if you like, by Tony Utting 14 because he was more Investigations. 15 Q. In the 11 years that followed the initial 16 security foundation course, did you receive any 17 other formal training? 18 A. Not that I can recall. 19 Q. Looking, then, to other forms of guidance which 20 were available to you, relating to the conduct 21 of investigations, you say at paragraph 21 of 22 your statement that two of the policy documents 23 sent to you by the Inquiry -- please do turn 24 that up if you'd like to -- two of the documents 25 sent to you by the Inquiry for the purposes of 7 1 preparing your statement were ones which, having 2 reviewed, you think guided you on what needed to 3 be contained in the legal report; is that right? 4 A. That's correct, yeah. 5 Q. Those two documents were the casework management 6 policies, version 1, dated March 2000, and 7 version 4, dated October 2002. Before we go to 8 those documents can you explain, please, what 9 the legal report was? 10 A. The legal report was a report that we would 11 write after we'd completed an investigation, 12 after we'd done the interview and that would be 13 for the Legal team. 14 Q. That was prepared by Investigators, was it -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- who'd been involved? You say the Legal team: 17 who was that? 18 A. The Criminal Law Team for Post Office. So Post 19 Office Legal Services I think they were called 20 at the time. 21 Q. Was that the process for seeking legal advice on 22 a case for the whole time you were 23 an Investigation Manager? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Could we have on screen, please, the first of 8 1 the casework management policies. The reference 2 is POL00104747. Looking first, please, at 3 page 5 of this document. We can see, scrolling 4 down, please, at section 5, this includes 5 details of the document including an "Effective 6 from" date of March 2000. The "Assurance 7 Details" in the next section appear not to have 8 been completed and, over the page, please, the 9 final review section also appears not to have 10 been completed. 11 So it is possible that this document is not 12 the final approved version. However, the 13 material parts of the wording we're going to 14 look at is materially the same as the later 15 version, which we'll come on to. 16 Going back, please, to page 1 of this 17 document. The "Purpose" of this policy at 18 section 1 is said to be: 19 "The aim of this policy is to ensure that 20 adequate controls are in place to maintain 21 standards throughout investigation processes." 22 Section 2 covers the "Link to 23 Accountabilities", and identifies "Security 24 Managers". 25 Then section 3.1, "Reporting Standards". 9 1 This bullet point, the first one here, gives 2 some background to what follows and it reads in 3 this way: 4 "Industrial Tribunals have criticised the 5 practice of refusing to disclose investigation 6 reports to interviewees on the grounds of 7 privilege. As a consequence, it is now business 8 policy to release investigation reports to the 9 subjects of those investigations during the 10 disciplinary process. It is therefore essential 11 that consistent standards are applied by all ... 12 in the Security Community when compiling 13 investigation reports to comply with business 14 requirements whilst avoiding unauthorised 15 disclosure of sensitive material." 16 Moving to the fourth bullet point here, we 17 have this: 18 "In the majority of investigation cases, the 19 investigation report alone will adequate limit. 20 The requirements of both the prosecution and 21 conduct processes. In some cases, however, it 22 is necessary to protect sensitive information 23 which, if disclosed, could damage either ongoing 24 enquiries, the anonymity of informants or the 25 reputation of Consignia." 10 1 Just going on to the fifth bullet point: 2 "For cases in England and Wales, sensitive 3 information should be detailed in a separate 4 report clearly marked with the level of 5 sensitivity (In Confidence/In Strictest 6 Confidence etc) and placed in a sealed envelope 7 enclosed in the case papers sent to Legal 8 Services, Criminal Law Division and must be 9 listed on form CS006D and if necessary CS006E as 10 sensitive information." 11 Just pausing there, the asterisk there, and 12 we see where it links up further down, says: 13 "See Post Office Code of Practice under the 14 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996." 15 Do you know what that document was? Is that 16 document as described there among those provided 17 to you by the Inquiry? 18 A. The Post Office Code of Practice? 19 Q. Mm. 20 A. I can't remember. 21 Q. Going further down the page please, there is, at 22 the bottom of the page, a list of things which 23 would count as sensitive information. 24 A. Mm-hm. 25 Q. Going over the page, please, the first bullet 11 1 point we have here: 2 "Heads of Security should ensure that all 3 face reports are vetted for content before 4 copies are supplied for disciplinary purposes." 5 The next bullet goes on: 6 "In England and Wales, Legal Services will 7 decide what information will be disclosed to the 8 Defence in compliance with the Criminal 9 Procedure and Investigations Act 1996." 10 The next bullet point deals with failures in 11 security or operational procedures which are 12 identified in the course of an inquiry. The 13 bullet point down from that, so the fourth on 14 this page, deals with information concerning 15 procedural failures. It says this: 16 "The issue of dealing with information 17 concerning procedural failures is a difficult 18 one. Some major procedural weaknesses if they 19 become public knowledge have the potential to 20 assist others to commit offences against the 21 Post Office, or to undermine the Prosecution 22 case, or to bring Consignia into disrepute, or 23 to harm relations with major customers such as 24 the DSS or Girobank. Unless the Offender states 25 that he is aware that accounting weaknesses 12 1 exist and that he took advantage of them, it is 2 important not to volunteer that option to the 3 Offender during interview. The usual duties of 4 disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and 5 Investigations Act 1996 still apply." 6 You said in your statement that you 7 remembered using this document to guide you with 8 what needed to be contained in the legal report 9 when you reviewed it for the purposes of 10 preparing your statement. Do you now remember 11 the guidance given in this bullet point that 12 we've just read through? Is that familiar to 13 you? 14 A. No, it's not familiar to me. 15 Q. What do you understand this paragraph to be 16 instructing someone to do, where a major 17 procedural weakness has been identified in the 18 course of an investigation and it had the 19 potential to undermine the prosecution case or 20 bring the business into disrepute? 21 A. It seems like it's saying that you shouldn't 22 bring it up to the suspect offender during 23 an interview, like volunteering that 24 information, because it will give them a way to 25 explain their behaviour. That's what I'm 13 1 understanding this to mean. 2 Q. The terminology that was being used in this 3 paragraph to describe someone being investigated 4 for a potential offence is that of an offender, 5 isn't it, on the terms of that paragraph? Was 6 that the terminology that was used at the time 7 to describe a suspect. 8 A. Suspect offender. 9 Q. Do you understand that paragraph to include 10 an instruction that accounting weaknesses, which 11 might be relevant to the case against the person 12 being interviewed, should not be disclosed to 13 the suspect at least in interview? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Could we have on screen, please, version 4 of 16 this "Casework Management" document, which is 17 dated October 2002. The reference is 18 POL00104777. Going, please, to page 6 of this 19 document. We see at the bottom of the page, 20 a little further down, please, the date of 21 October 2002. In section 5 a bit further up, we 22 have the "Effective date" as being from February 23 2002 and a last update date of November 2001. 24 Then below that, at section 6, the "Assurance 25 Details" give the last "Assurance Date" as 14 1 29 November 2001. 2 Having looked at both of these documents and 3 having recognised them as the documents that 4 guided you, as you say, on the content of the 5 legal reports, can you help with the way the 6 dates are on this document? 7 A. No, not at all. I wouldn't have been involved 8 in -- I wouldn't have been involved in drafting 9 any of this. 10 Q. Going back, please, to page 1 of this document 11 and scrolling down a little to the second bullet 12 point, please. We can see that this second 13 bullet point has changed from the last version 14 we looked at and it says this -- the first 15 bullet point remains materially unchanged. The 16 second bullet point says: 17 "As a consequence of this criticism there is 18 now a necessity for Security Managers to prepare 19 two reports, both of which are to be included 20 within the case file. One report is to be 21 clearly marked 'CONFIDENTIAL': (insert name of 22 business) and addressed to our Legal Services. 23 The second report is to be marked 24 'CONFIDENTIAL': (insert name of business) and 25 addressed 'For the attention of the Discipline 15 1 Manager'. This is known as the Conduct report." 2 Does that description of those two reports 3 sound right to you in terms of the -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- reports that you made at the time? 6 Going over the page to page 2, please. The 7 second bullet point down on this page is also 8 different from the last version, and it says: 9 "The Prosecution Support Office will ensure 10 that all investigation reports are vetted for 11 content before copies our supplied for 12 disciplinary purposes." 13 Do you recall there being a Prosecution 14 Support Office which the Post Office Security 15 Team liaised with? 16 A. There was one. There was something called the 17 Prosecution Support Office but I can't remember 18 where it was. I can't remember who was in it. 19 Q. One bullet point which remains unchanged in all 20 material respects is the fifth bullet point on 21 this page. The wording is the same, isn't it, 22 as the paragraph dealing with "information 23 concerning procedural failures" in the last 24 version we looked at, save that "Consignia" has 25 been replaced with "our Business". 16 1 Turning, then, to the remainder of the 2 policies you reviewed from those sent to you by 3 the Inquiry to assist with the preparation of 4 your statement, these are the ones listed at 5 paragraph 20 of your statement, if you want to 6 have that in front of you. 7 In respect of the Post Office policies, you 8 say in your paragraph 21 of your statement that 9 you do not specifically remember them, but you 10 appreciate that you would have been aware of 11 them at the time of your employment, but the 12 Royal Mail Group ones you do not recall any of 13 or you do not think you would have been aware of 14 them at the time of your employment; is that 15 right? 16 A. That's correct, yes. 17 Q. Where were the Post Office policies kept so that 18 Post Office employees could access them? 19 A. So I only really accessed the policies at the 20 start. I remember during -- either during 21 training, either before training, during 22 training or after training, I can't remember 23 when, it was when we had to look at these a lot. 24 But I don't remember where they were, where they 25 were kept. I don't remember. 17 1 Q. One of the documents you list at paragraph 20 of 2 your statement as one that you reviewed when we 3 sent it to you is the "Disclosure of Unused 4 Material -- Criminal Procedure and 5 Investigations Act 1996 Codes of Practice" 6 policy, dated May 2001. Could we have that on 7 screen, please. The reference is POL00104762. 8 Did you recognise this document when it was 9 provided to you by the Inquiry for the purposes 10 of preparing your statement? 11 A. I think I recognised the wording as opposed to 12 the actual policy. Like it was -- the wording 13 was familiar to me. 14 Q. Is it a document you referred to in the same way 15 you referred to the casework management 16 documents, in terms of guiding you? 17 A. Not particularly this document, but perhaps the 18 little blue book that is what I would have in my 19 tackle kit. So I think that's where 20 I recognised the wording from, as opposed to 21 recognising the actual policy itself. 22 Q. Sorry, can you just say that again? The which 23 book? 24 A. The CPIA, it was like a light blue, tiny little 25 A5, I don't know, half the size of an A4 -- 18 1 a little blue book that used to be part of my 2 tackle kit. 3 Q. I'm sorry, can I ask you to explain that 4 expression as well? 5 A. So just all the equipment and stuff that we 6 would take with us, I would have like the Police 7 and Criminal Evidence Act in a pouch, along with 8 the CPIA, small booklet. 9 Q. So we can see from the title that this document 10 covers the disclosure of unused material. 11 A. Mm-hm. 12 Q. It refers in the title to the Criminal Procedure 13 Investigation Act 1996 Codes of Practice. We 14 can see from the bottom of the page that it's 15 dated May 2001. Going to the last page, please, 16 page 4. We can see the last "Assurance Date" is 17 4 May 2001, although again the "Final Review" 18 box appears empty. 19 Going back to page 1, please, the 20 "Introduction" here explains that: 21 "The rules relating to the disclosure of 22 unused material to the Defence are laid down in 23 the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 24 1996. 25 "In light of the Human Rights Act 1998 the 19 1 Attorney General has issued new guidelines on 2 the disclosure of unused material. The 3 Guidelines clarify the responsibilities of 4 Investigators, Disclosure Officers, Prosecutors 5 and Defence Practitioners." 6 Then further down the page, please, the 7 "General Principles" section. There's a section 8 here for "Investigators and Disclosure Officers" 9 and an Investigator is defined at that first 10 bullet point as: 11 "An Investigator [being] a person involved 12 in the conduct of a criminal investigation 13 involving Consignia. All Investigators have 14 a responsibility for carrying out the duties 15 imposed on them under this Code, including in 16 particular recording information, and retaining 17 records of information and other material." 18 At the second bullet point we have this: 19 "Investigators and Disclosure Officers must 20 be fair and objective and must work together 21 with prosecutors to ensure that disclosure 22 obligations are met. A failure to take action 23 leading to proper disclosure may result in 24 a wrongful conviction. It may alternatively 25 lead to a successful abuse of process argument 20 1 or an acquittal against the weight of the 2 evidence." 3 The third bullet point: 4 "In discharging their obligations under the 5 statute, code, common law and any operational 6 instructions, investigators should always err on 7 the side of recording and retaining material 8 where they have any doubt as to whether it may 9 be relevant." 10 Moving, then to the second bullet point on 11 this page: 12 "The Disclosure Officer is the person 13 responsible for examining material retained 14 during an investigation, revealing material to 15 Legal Services during the investigation and any 16 criminal proceedings resulting from it, and 17 certifying to Legal Services that he has done 18 this. Normally the Investigator and the 19 Disclosure Officer will be the same person." 20 Do you recall that being the case, that the 21 Investigator and the Disclosure Officer in 22 a case were usually the same person? 23 A. No. I never saw myself as a Disclosure Officer; 24 I just saw myself as an Investigator but, 25 according to this, I was both. 21 1 Q. You say similarly in your statement that you 2 cannot recall having any official role in 3 relation to disclosure, other than sourcing and 4 providing documents as and when requested. 5 Should we take that to mean that you do not 6 recall having been the Disclosure Officer in the 7 cases you investigated? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Having now seen the documents provided to you by 10 the Inquiry, do you accept that, at least on 11 some occasions, you were the Disclosure Officer 12 in cases you were investigating? 13 A. Yes, I accept that now. 14 Q. Going down the page, please, to the bullet point 15 about halfway down the page, under the section 16 in bold, this covers Disclosure Officers making 17 sure that descriptions by Disclosure Officers in 18 non-sensitive schedules are clear. Then the 19 bullet point below this says this: 20 "Disclosure Officers must specifically draw 21 material to the attention of the Prosecutor for 22 consideration where they have any doubt as to 23 whether it might undermine the prosecution case 24 or might reasonably be expected to assist the 25 Defence disclosed by the accused." 22 1 At the time you were an Investigator, did 2 you understand that you had a duty specifically 3 to draw material to the attention of the 4 prosecutor, where you were the Disclosure 5 Officer, where you were in any doubt as to 6 whether something might undermine the 7 prosecution case or assist the defence? 8 A. Sorry, can you repeat that? 9 Q. I'm sorry, it was a very long question. At the 10 time, when you were an Investigator, did you 11 understand you to have a duty to draw material 12 to the attention of the prosecutor where you 13 were in any doubt as to whether it might 14 undermine the prosecution case or assist the 15 defence? 16 A. I think at the time I may not have understood it 17 fully. After leaving the Post Office, I went 18 and had -- I had another job and then I decided 19 that I wanted to get a qualification, and it was 20 only after -- it was only doing the 21 qualification that I think I got a better 22 understanding of disclosing information to -- 23 that would undermine the prosecution or assist 24 the defence. 25 Q. The bullet point below that reads: 23 1 "Disclosure Officers must seek the advice 2 and assistance of prosecutors when in doubt as 3 to their responsibility, and must deal 4 expeditiously with requests by the prosecutor 5 for further information on material which may 6 lead to disclosure." 7 Who was the prosecutor in cases you 8 investigated on behalf of the Post Office? 9 A. I'm guessing it would have been the Criminal Law 10 Team, but then the prosecutor was -- I just 11 remember Bell -- I think it was Bell Yard, 12 that's where all the barristers were. I don't 13 know. 14 Q. In the context of this instruction, in this 15 document, it may be that you never went to the 16 prosecutor to ask but, had you had a disclosure 17 query and you'd been looking for someone to ask 18 who was the prosecutor, who would you have gone 19 to? 20 A. I would probably have asked, if I didn't -- if 21 I was unsure where to put something when I was 22 preparing a committal, it would be my colleagues 23 or the Criminal Law Team or a manager. 24 Q. Were you ever in any doubt about your 25 responsibilities as they related to disclosure? 24 1 A. I don't think I fully understood, at the time, 2 about disclosure. I can't -- I can't really 3 remember. 4 Q. It is not referenced in this document but were 5 you aware, when you were an Investigator, that 6 there was an obligation on a criminal 7 investigator to pursue lines of inquiry which 8 pointed away from the guilt of the suspect? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Turning then to the process which was followed 11 from the start of an investigation to 12 a prosecution being brought, you say at 13 paragraph 18 of your statement that there was 14 another team within the Post Office, you refer 15 to this team as the Casework Function Team, what 16 was that team's role? 17 A. I think that was the Casework Management Team 18 and all the cases, I think, used to start, not 19 necessarily there, because if something was 20 reported to a line manager, then they may raise 21 the case themselves and then inform the Casework 22 Management Team. But there was a team who kind 23 of dealt with all the admin, so that when the 24 cases will come from there, they would go to 25 your line manager, they would then assign 25 1 an Investigator and then, during the course of 2 the investigation, the -- you may send the file 3 back to the Casework team who would then put 4 a memo in and then send it to the Criminal Law 5 Team. 6 I didn't -- I don't know what their 7 processes were but I think that's what their -- 8 that's what they spent their time doing. 9 Q. Where a case involved a shortfall having been 10 identified in a branch on audit, you say in your 11 statement that the Investigation Team would get 12 a call from the Audit Team. Can you explain, 13 please, what happened after that call, from 14 an investigatory perspective? 15 A. So the audit -- I'm not sure if the Audit Team 16 contacted the Casework Management Team or their 17 line manager, who then may then escalate things 18 but, once the call came into the Investigation 19 team leader, it would be up to that team leader 20 to assign -- ask an Investigator to go to the 21 office to conduct the investigation. 22 Q. You say in your statement at paragraph 15 that 23 your role included carrying out interviews under 24 caution of those accused of a criminal offence 25 and you had full training on this. Can you 26 1 explain, please, what the training covered and 2 what process you followed in your interviews? 3 If you need to refer to paragraph 15, please do. 4 A. I can't remember. I know one of the modules 5 covered -- I think it covered interviews. 6 I believe, during the actual training, the 7 residential training -- I can't remember 8 specifically about interviews. 9 Q. You say in your statement that you would always 10 inform the individual of their right to legal 11 representation and a friend? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes, I do recall that. 15 Q. In general terms, do you recall there ever being 16 an occasion when a suspect said something in 17 interview which led to further enquiries being 18 made by you as the Investigator? 19 A. I don't recall. 20 Q. You don't recall whether that happened or you 21 don't recall making further enquiries when 22 someone said something or raised something in 23 an interview? 24 A. I'm just trying to think of something specific 25 and I can't think -- there's nothing that comes 27 1 to mind but I'm sure there probably were 2 occasions when that happened but I can't think 3 of any -- I can't think of an example right now. 4 Q. Coming, then, to the reports which you completed 5 once an investigation was done, it appears from 6 your statement that you recall there being at 7 least two different reports produced by 8 Investigators, and that's in line with the 9 second Casework Management policy we looked at. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You say at paragraph 11 you would write a report 12 to the Contracts and Services Manager, and that 13 was the conduct report, was it? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. That report was only allowed to contain facts 16 about what happened and not an opinion? 17 A. That's correct, yes. 18 Q. But you would also write a report to the 19 Criminal Law Team -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- in which you could express an opinion on next 22 steps, including a recommendation on charges; is 23 that right? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you have any training in criminal law to 28 1 assist you in making recommendations on charges? 2 A. Not that I can recall. 3 Q. Can you recall what test you were applying when 4 making recommendations on charges? 5 A. If you'd have asked me this question without me 6 having seen any of the documents, then 7 I wouldn't be able to answer but, having read 8 this, I can recall from this information the 9 public interest test. 10 Q. You say at paragraph 17 of your statement that, 11 ultimately, any charging decision was up to the 12 Criminal Law Team; is that right? 13 A. Yes, that's correct. 14 Q. You reference at paragraph 11 that you thought 15 you produced a third type of report but you 16 can't recall now the content or purpose of that 17 third report. Does that remain the case or have 18 you remembered anything further about this since 19 preparing your statement? 20 A. I was convinced that there were three reports 21 and -- but, having looked at the information, 22 it's probably why I can't remember because there 23 wasn't a third report. It may have been -- 24 I always, I just always thought there was three. 25 I don't know -- I think I was probably wrong. 29 1 Q. You say at paragraph 16 of your statement that, 2 once you had written your legal report, you 3 would submit it to the Criminal Law Team with 4 the relevant documents? 5 A. Mm-hm. 6 Q. Was there a checklist of steps to take and what 7 information to obtain or any other guidance to 8 ensure that all relevant information was sent to 9 the Criminal Law Team? 10 A. I think there was something. Now, I don't know 11 if it was a policy or if it was something that 12 had been made or created by a member of the 13 Security and Investigation Team. So like an aid 14 for us to follow. But I can recall that there 15 was something but I don't know who generated it 16 or created it. 17 Q. Can you remember what it said? 18 A. It was similar to the Casework Management 19 policy, so I'm guessing it was probably -- it 20 was based on that. 21 Q. As a matter of practice, what documents would 22 you provide to the Criminal Law Team? 23 A. So the report; any exhibits; any witness 24 statements that had been taken; things like 25 notebook entries; if the customer -- sorry, if 30 1 the person being interviewed had made any 2 significant statement; any kind of schedules 3 that had been prepared to reflect the evidence. 4 Q. Were the Criminal Law Team reliant on 5 Investigation Managers to identify potential 6 sources of information and documents that were 7 relevant for disclosure? 8 A. Yeah, I'd expect so. 9 Q. Could we have on screen, please, paragraph 19 of 10 Ms Bernard's statement, that's WITN09390100. 11 It's page 5 of that document -- a little further 12 down, just to paragraph 19. 13 You say here: 14 "Once we had carried out the investigation, 15 we would submit the case to the Criminal Law 16 Team who would look at the evidence and draft 17 advice on prosecution. If prosecution was going 18 ahead, we would prepare the committal and issue 19 the summons." 20 Who decided whether a prosecution was going 21 ahead? 22 A. The Criminal Law Team or -- I don't know if it 23 was down to a particular person. I remember 24 vaguely prosecution authority but that's not 25 from memory, that's only through reading this 31 1 bundle. So it would come from them whether we 2 were going to prosecute. 3 Q. Sorry it would come from who? 4 A. The Criminal Law Team in their advice. 5 Q. Did that change at all, as far as you can 6 recall, in the 11 years you were 7 an Investigation Manager? 8 A. I don't recall. 9 Q. Can you recall any times where the Criminal Law 10 Team recommended that no further action be taken 11 in respect of the case? 12 A. Are you talking specifically about audit 13 shortages, or any? 14 Q. Well, any cases across the board, to start with? 15 A. Yes, I think -- I can't remember specifically 16 but, yes, I'm sure there was. 17 Q. Can you remember any audit shortages -- 18 A. Where? 19 Q. -- cases where the Criminal Law Team advised no 20 further action, as opposed to prosecution? 21 A. I wouldn't be able to name a case, no. 22 Q. In terms of your involvement in disclosure after 23 the decision had been made to proceed to 24 prosecution, you say in your statement that the 25 Criminal Law Team would list additional 32 1 documents and evidence that they required and it 2 was your job to source and provide this. Other 3 than responding to requests from them for 4 documents, did the Investigation Team conduct 5 any further evidential inquiries themselves of 6 their own initiative, after the decision had 7 been made to proceed with the prosecution? 8 A. I think then an Investigator would -- if there 9 was something that they felt needed to be 10 included that wasn't listed in the advice, that 11 they would do that, yes. 12 Q. Could we have on screen, please, document 13 reference POL00026980. 14 This is a "Schedule of Sensitive Material", 15 which appears to have been prepared by you when 16 acting in the role of Disclosure Officer. So we 17 can see your name at the bottom there and the 18 declaration at the top: 19 "The Disclosure Officer believes that the 20 following material, which does not form part of 21 the prosecution case, IS SENSITIVE." 22 The copy on screen has the signature 23 redacted out but I understand you've been 24 provided with a copy without the redaction; is 25 that right? 33 1 A. That's correct, yes. 2 Q. Can you confirm, please, that it is your 3 signature underneath the redaction? 4 A. Yes, I can confirm that. 5 Q. This document is dated 15 January 2010. There's 6 just one item listed on this schedule and in the 7 "Description" column it is: 8 "Article relating to integrity of Horizon 9 system, supplied with accompanying letter by 10 defendant." 11 Can you recall anything about this article 12 now? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Would you have read the article, given that you 15 were providing comment on it in this document? 16 A. If I was supplied with it I would like to think 17 that I read it, yes. 18 Q. The reason that this was said to be sensitive 19 was that it could be used as mitigation, ie to 20 blame Horizon system for loss. On the face of 21 this, if a document were thought potentially to 22 benefit the defence in this way, was this not 23 a case for disclosure, as opposed to against it? 24 A. I would say, yes, now. 25 Q. The placing of an item on a sensitive schedule 34 1 meant that the defence would not be made aware 2 of it. Did you understand that at the time, in 3 general, about sensitive schedules? 4 A. Yes, but, looking at this, I thought this had 5 come from the defence. 6 Q. Was the only sensitivity here that the article 7 was unhelpful to the Post Office? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Was this the first time that you became aware of 10 anyone questioning the Horizon system and 11 blaming it for loss or had you been made aware 12 of this before? 13 A. I don't recall. I don't recall when I learned 14 about the Horizon system. If I hadn't have seen 15 this, I would have probably said that I didn't 16 know about it until after I left. 17 Q. Setting aside the fact that this document 18 appears to have come from the defendant, do you 19 recognise now that the justification given on 20 this schedule was not a proper justification for 21 the inclusion of material on a sensitive 22 schedule? 23 A. Yes. 24 MS PRICE: Sir, if it is convenient to you, may 25 I ask that we take the morning break a little 35 1 early. I've just finished one topic and the 2 next topic is a little lengthier. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, by all means. So what's the 4 time by now? Well, we'll call it 10.55, so 5 11.10? 6 MS PRICE: Yes, sir, thank you. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. 8 (10.53 am) 9 (A short break) 10 (11.10 am) 11 MS PRICE: Hello, sir. Can you see and hear us? 12 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 13 MS PRICE: Could we have on screen, please, 14 paragraph 38 of Ms Bernard's statement. That is 15 WITN09390100, page 13 of that document. 16 Paragraph 38 reads: 17 "I can also recall having training on how 18 the Horizon system worked and that it 19 essentially worked as a giant calculator." 20 This description of Horizon as a giant 21 calculator, where or who did that come from? 22 A. That was just how we referred to it. 23 Q. What did you understand by that? 24 A. That it was just like a calculator. You know, 25 whatever you put into it, it calculated it and 36 1 threw it out. 2 Q. What did your training on Horizon consist of? 3 A. So to start with, when I first joined the Post 4 Office, there wasn't any Horizon or anything. 5 I don't remember when but there was a system 6 called ECCO that came next and I was very 7 familiar with that, and then, when I was working 8 at Acton and I was -- Acton branch office, and 9 I was due to start working as an Investigator in 10 the June, I don't remember if Horizon had come 11 in to Acton at that point. 12 When I started work as an Investigator, 13 I think it was a case -- it wasn't formal 14 training, I think it was a case of just going -- 15 I used to work at Croydon, the offices there and 16 there was a branch office downstairs. And 17 I think it was a case of just arranging with the 18 Branch Manager to go and sit behind someone for 19 a few days. So it was just sitting next to 20 somebody and watching them. There was no -- it 21 wasn't -- as far as I can recall. 22 Q. You say in your statement that, when you were 23 investigating an investigation for a shortfall, 24 you would usually request ARQ data from Fujitsu 25 as part of your investigation and that you did 37 1 that as a matter of course. Do you recall, 2 though, there being a limit on the number of ARQ 3 requests which could be provided by Fujitsu? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you ever recall being told you could not have 6 the ARQ data in a case because of those limits? 7 A. Not that you couldn't have it but that you might 8 have to wait until the following month. I think 9 it was -- there was a limit to the amount that 10 could be requested during a particular period. 11 So you may have to wait until the start of the 12 next period to request something. 13 Q. You say at paragraph 46 of your statement, and 14 if we can go to that, please, this is page 15, 15 you say: 16 "I cannot recall whether or not the data was 17 provided to the subpostmaster but I assume that 18 it would have been during disclosure. If 19 relevant, an extract from a report might be 20 provided to the Criminal Law Team within the 21 investigation documents." 22 So you assume that it would have been 23 provided during disclosure. Do you know that 24 that was the case? 25 A. No. I can only assume that it was -- that -- 38 1 provided to the subpostmaster. 2 Q. You say that an extract was provided to the 3 Criminal Law Team rather than the full ARQ data. 4 So can you just explain what that extract might 5 be? 6 A. So this could be anything, not just necessarily 7 ARQ data. It could be a schedule that was 8 prepared, it could be, let's say, an extract -- 9 if we had -- at the time of the audit, we'd 10 asked the auditor to run off the reports from 11 the Horizon system, it may be that you'd look 12 through it and you might just photocopy 13 an extract from that. 14 Q. From Fujitsu, you recall dealing with Penny 15 Thomas but not Gareth Jenkins; is that right? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. How often would you speak to Penny Thomas? 18 A. I don't know. Not on a regular basis. 19 Q. Was she the person that you regularly spoke to 20 when you asked for ARQ data? 21 A. Do you know, I don't remember how we had to 22 request the information. I don't think it 23 involved a phone call. There was probably 24 a process in place but I don't remember what 25 that process was. I can't imagine it was 39 1 phoning her and asking her. 2 Q. Just trying to understand the context in which 3 you recall dealing with Penny Thomas, can you 4 help with that at all? 5 A. I remember speaking to her and I know I met her 6 but I can't recall what the conversation was 7 about or ... 8 Q. In cases involving Horizon data, how was 9 a financial loss or shortfall proved? 10 A. The auditors would verify the cash and stock 11 that was on hand at the audit, and then that 12 would be compared to what the Horizon system 13 says and the difference would either show 14 an over or a short. That's my understanding. 15 Q. David Posnett was your mentor. 16 A. Mm-hm. 17 Q. Did he remain your mentor for the whole time you 18 were an Investigator? 19 A. No, he would be somebody, as well as anybody 20 else in the Investigation Team. I could go to 21 any one of them. 22 Q. Did he ever discuss with you any problems with 23 the functioning of the Horizon system? 24 A. I don't recall that. 25 Q. Did he or anyone else ever discuss with you the 40 1 potential for problems with the system to impact 2 upon a subpostmaster's ability to balance in 3 branch? 4 A. I don't remember any conversations about the 5 Horizon system. 6 Q. It may follow but were you ever aware, in the 7 time you were an Investigator with the Post 8 Office, that balancing problems could result 9 from bugs, errors or defects in the system? 10 A. No. 11 Q. I'd like to turn, please, to your involvement in 12 the investigation of Mrs Adedayo. You say in 13 your statement that you have no direct memory of 14 this case. Does that remain the case now? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Having seen the documents sent to you by the 17 Inquiry, can you explain, please, how you came 18 to be involved in Mrs Adedayo's case? 19 A. I think -- looking at the documentation, I was 20 asked to attend the office. I don't know who 21 asked me but I was asked to go and attend the 22 office. I don't remember how I got there. 23 I don't remember if I took a train or if 24 somebody picked me up. I don't remember at all. 25 Q. You cover your involvement in your statement 41 1 starting at paragraph 54, so please do have that 2 in front of you if it would help. It appears 3 from paragraph 54 and the underlying documents, 4 that you went to the branch on 5 September 2005 5 to commence an investigation after the audit 6 identified an apparent shortfall of £52,864.08. 7 It's the figure you give in your statement. Is 8 it right that you attended with your colleague, 9 Adrian Morris? 10 A. Yes, that's correct. 11 Q. You say that you introduced yourself to 12 Mrs Adedayo, do you know what you would have 13 said to her about your role? 14 A. That we're here to talk to her about the audit 15 shortage, probably something like that. 16 Q. You say she agreed to a voluntary interview. 17 What steps did you take to investigate the case 18 before you interviewed Ms Adedayo? 19 A. I would probably have spoken to the auditors. 20 I don't recall. 21 Q. Did you seek to obtain any evidence before the 22 interview? 23 A. I don't -- I can't remember. I don't know. 24 Q. It appears from the content of the interview 25 that you were in possession of a note which was 42 1 signed by Mrs Adedayo and witnessed by the 2 auditor on the day of the audit. Have you now 3 seen a copy of that note? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Was this provided to you by the auditor on the 6 day of the audit? 7 A. That's what I would assume, yes. 8 Q. Can we have that note on screen, please. It is 9 OADE0000001. We see at the bottom left there 10 "Witnessed by JR Valan". That was the Auditor, 11 was it? 12 A. Well, it says "Deepak". I don't know who 13 JR Valan is. I'm guessing. I think it says 14 Deepak Valani. 15 Q. We have the audit report from 5 September and 16 that is signed by the Branch Auditor Deepak 17 Valani -- 18 A. Mm-hm. 19 Q. -- and we can see that it is signed, although 20 that signature is redacted, by Mrs Adedayo 21 a little further down. 22 At the top of this note, Mrs Adedayo used 23 the word "confessed". It says, "confessed the 24 auditor". Was it usual for a subpostmaster to 25 sign confession documents in front of an Auditor 43 1 on the day of an audit revealing a shortfall? 2 A. I've known Auditors in the past who, if the 3 subpostmaster says something, they may either 4 write a note at the time or ask the person 5 making the statement to write it out at the 6 time. 7 Q. There are obvious problems, are there not, with 8 this being done on the spot like this, before 9 a subpostmaster has had the opportunity to 10 consider the position or take legal advice; 11 would you agree with that? 12 A. I wasn't there when -- I don't know what the 13 circumstances of this was. I wasn't there. 14 Q. Did you ask what the circumstances were? 15 A. I don't remember. 16 Q. Because Auditors are not trained in the conduct 17 of criminal investigations, are they, and none 18 of the safeguards of an interview are present in 19 these circumstances -- 20 A. Mm-hm. 21 Q. -- are they? 22 A. I agree with that, yeah. 23 Q. Do you recall being told anything by the Auditor 24 about the circumstances in which this note came 25 into being? 44 1 A. I don't remember. 2 Q. Did you give any consideration to the 3 possibility that an Auditor may have said or 4 done something that made both the written note 5 and the subsequent confession in interview 6 unreliable? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Coming to the interview, you have said in your 9 statement that your practice was always to 10 inform an individual being interviewed of their 11 right to legal representation and a friend. 12 What did you say to Mrs Adedayo about her legal 13 rights at the start of and during the interview? 14 I think you've had the opportunity to read the 15 transcripts of that interview now. 16 A. I'm sorry, can you say that again? 17 Q. Putting it a different way. In this case, did 18 you do that? Did you tell Mrs Adedayo about her 19 legal rights at the start of the interview? 20 A. Er ... 21 Q. We can look to that interview, if it helps you. 22 A. Yes, please. I mean, yes, I would say I did, 23 without looking at it. 24 Q. So the reference is POL00066742. 25 A. Yeah. 45 1 Q. Starting on page 3 of that document, going about 2 halfway down and in bold, by Natasha Bernard at 3 00.01.43, you appear to be providing the 4 caution. 5 A. Mm-hm. 6 Q. Do you have the hard copy in front of you? 7 A. Yes, I do. 8 Q. You do. Do you want to just have a look through 9 and check if you can answer the question based 10 on having a look? Looking, for example, at 11 page 7, if we can have page 7 on the screen as 12 well, please. 13 Further down the page, please. 14 A. Yeah, she was offered a solicitor. 15 Q. I'm sorry, your answer wasn't quite caught there 16 by -- it won't be caught by the transcriber. 17 Can you say that again? 18 A. She was offered -- yeah, she was asked if she 19 wanted to speak to a solicitor or if she wanted 20 legal representation. 21 Q. The note which we've just looked at, you asked 22 Mrs Adedayo to read that note out in her 23 interview, didn't you? If we need to go to that 24 section of interview, we can. 25 A. Yes, please. 46 1 Q. It's page 25 of the document we just had up 2 POL00066742, page 25, please. 3 A. Oh, yes. 4 Q. So you say, three entries down: 5 "Yeah, I've got that note here in front of 6 me. Can you read it out for me please?" 7 Mrs Adedayo does read it out. 8 A. Mm-hm. 9 Q. Just beneath that, you say: 10 "All right, and you signed that?" 11 The response is, "Yup". 12 "You agree you wrote that? 13 "Yes, oh yes." 14 Then you note it's been witnessed by the 15 Auditor. Over the page: 16 "Okay, he's signed that as well." 17 A. Mm-hm. 18 Q. Looking further down that page, did you ask 19 Mrs Adedayo about the circumstances in which the 20 note came to be written and witnessed by the 21 Auditor? 22 A. It doesn't appear so, no. 23 Q. Did you ask her whether what she said in it was 24 correct? 25 A. I don't think so. 47 1 Q. But you did, on page 26, if we can go to the top 2 of the page again, please, three entries down, 3 give Mrs Adedayo an opportunity to explain the 4 shortage that we have in the Post Office 5 Accounts. 6 A. Sorry, can you say that again? 7 Q. Yes. Yes, that third entry there says: 8 "Okay, um, well what I want to do now, is to 9 give you an opportunity to explain erm, the 10 shortage that we have in the post office 11 accounts." 12 So you were giving her an opportunity to 13 explain the shortage. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Before you asked that question -- or at any 16 point before this -- did you explain to 17 Mrs Adedayo what the basis was for saying there 18 was a shortage? 19 A. No, it doesn't appear so. 20 Q. What explanation was given by Mrs Adedayo in 21 this interview to you? 22 A. The explanation for? 23 Q. For the shortage? 24 A. The shortage? That she'd used the money to pay 25 people that she'd borrowed money from. 48 1 Q. Did you manage to pinpoint with any precision 2 what amounts Mrs Adedayo was saying were paid to 3 her lenders and when? 4 A. Only from what's in the tape summary. So it 5 seems like there was £10,000 initially, followed 6 by two amounts of £20,000, during the months 7 just before the audit shortage was identified. 8 Q. Did you seek any further evidence following the 9 interview with Mrs Adedayo as to the payments of 10 those amounts? 11 A. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. 12 Q. Did you ask Mrs Adedayo for any documentation 13 relating to the payment of those sums? 14 A. During the interview. 15 Q. After the interview, did you make any further 16 enquiries? 17 A. I can't remember. 18 Q. Was any data sought from Horizon -- sorry, was 19 any data sought from Fujitsu in this case, 20 whether any ARQ data or other type of data? 21 A. I don't know if there was but if, there was, it 22 would have been -- it would have made up part of 23 the case file. It would have been in the 24 exhibits. 25 Q. You wrote your report for the Criminal Law Team 49 1 after the interview. Can we have that on 2 screen, please. It is POL00044366, and if we 3 can go, please, to the fifth page of that. 4 Scrolling down, please, you can see your name 5 there and the date of 8 September 2005. Going 6 back to the first page, please and scrolling 7 down a bit, we can see there the identification 8 of the "Designated Prosecution Authority" -- 9 A. Mm-hm. 10 Q. -- who is listed as Tony Utting. 11 A. Mm-hm. 12 Q. Is that right? 13 A. Yes, it is. 14 Q. The discipline manager is Keith Long. Have you 15 reviewed this document for the purposes of 16 preparing your statement? Have you read it? 17 A. I read it but I don't know if I read it before 18 or after we did the -- I think probably during 19 the witness statement, yes. 20 Q. Okay. But you have, at this point in time, read 21 it -- 22 A. I've read it, yes. 23 Q. -- since the Inquiry sent it to you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You gave a recommendation as to charge in this 50 1 report and, if we can turn to page 5 of the 2 document, it's one line at the top: 3 "Given the admissions made by Mrs ADEDAYO 4 there is no reason why she should not be charged 5 with false accounting." 6 What was the basis for this conclusion? 7 A. I would probably have looked at false accounting 8 and see if it met all the points, if that makes 9 sense. 10 Q. Mrs Adedayo having said what she did in 11 interview and having read the note, as far as 12 you were concerned, was that the end of the 13 enquiries into the shortfall? 14 A. I don't remember. 15 Q. Mrs Adedayo was prosecuted following advice from 16 the Criminal Law Team in this case. What 17 further involvement did you have in the case 18 once this decision was made? If you need to 19 refer to your statement, please do. 20 A. Is this after -- are you asking after she was 21 prosecuted? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. I don't recall having anything further to do, 24 unless there was any kind of financial 25 investigation afterwards. 51 1 Q. If you can look, please, to paragraph 67 of your 2 statement. 3 If we can have that up, please, on screen 4 it's WITN09390100, page 21, please. 5 Just before we come to paragraph 67 you, say 6 at paragraph 66: 7 "I do not think that I was the Disclosure 8 Officer in this case and I cannot remember ever 9 holding this official title." 10 We've been to the other schedule and I think 11 you've revised your evidence on that point. 12 Do you remember giving any consideration to 13 disclosure in this case? 14 A. I don't remember. 15 Q. Paragraph 67, you refer here to a memo from 16 Debbie Helszajn, which states that: 17 "... Mrs Adedayo appeared at Chatham 18 Magistrates Court on 19 January 2006 and pleaded 19 guilty to the three charges and accepted the 20 further offences set out in the Schedule of 21 TICs. She advises that I should attend the 22 sentencing hearing. This was a normal course of 23 action as all Investigation Managers were asked 24 to attend sentencing hearings and write 25 something up after the sentencing to conclude 52 1 the case. I have no direct memory of the 2 sentencing hearing and therefore cannot confirm 3 whether or not I did actually attend. However, 4 it would not have been unusual for me to arrange 5 for someone else from the team to go in my place 6 if I could not attend." 7 Can we take it that you can't help any 8 further than that as to whether you actually did 9 attend the sentencing? 10 A. I don't think I did because -- but then I don't 11 know. I've seen in the documentation there was 12 some reference to somebody doing a full report 13 and I think that person was called John 14 Thornewell, following -- so I think maybe -- it 15 wasn't unusual -- because I lived in Croydon and 16 this was Maidstone or somewhere, that Legal 17 Services may have said that we're going to be 18 sending somebody anyway. So I don't remember 19 going. 20 Q. You have now, I think, read the statement from 21 Mrs Adedayo that she gave for the purposes of 22 this Inquiry and read the transcript of her 23 evidence given in the Human Impact hearings; is 24 that right? 25 A. Yes. 53 1 Q. Could we have the transcript of Mrs Adedayo's 2 oral evidence to the Inquiry on screen, please. 3 It is INQ00001039. I'm going, please, to 4 page 21 of that document. 5 There are some internal page numbers on the 6 bottom of each of the four squares of this page. 7 At internal page 81, Mrs Adedayo was asked about 8 her interview with you and Adrian Morris. At 9 the top of page 82, she is asked what evidence 10 was produced to her to evidence the shortfall 11 and she says underneath that, three lines down: 12 "... the cash accounts, the report from the 13 computer [that] was the only thing they showed 14 me ..." 15 Then she is asked this is line 13: 16 "Did you ask whether anyone else had 17 experienced discrepancies?" 18 The answer was this: 19 "I did. When we went downstairs and the 20 argument was going backwards and forwards 21 I turned around and I said, 'Has anyone else 22 experienced this?' They turned around, they 23 said 'Have you heard of it? Have you heard of 24 it anywhere?' I said 'No', which is true, 25 'I didn't hear anything about it'. They said, 54 1 'Well, there you are, it's peculiar to you'. 2 "And that was when I thought, 'In the whole 3 of the United Kingdom only me?' I didn't know 4 what to do. That was when I started inventing 5 the story because if I'm the only one in the 6 United Kingdom, who is going to listen to me?" 7 Can you recall a conversation to this effect 8 happening before the interview or at any point? 9 A. Not at all. 10 Q. Are you saying that that conversation didn't 11 happen or that you can't recall whether it did? 12 A. I think if it did happen, I would have 13 remembered it. 14 MS PRICE: Sir, those are all the questions that 15 I have for Ms Bernard. There are some questions 16 from Core Participants. Shall I proceed to turn 17 to them? 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, please. Yes. 19 MS PRICE: I think starting with Ms Page. 20 Questioned by MS PAGE 21 MS PAGE: Ms Bernard, I act for a number of 22 subpostmasters, including Ms Adedayo who sits to 23 my right. 24 Now, I'd like to go back to the interview 25 transcript, first of all, because what I'd like 55 1 to do is look at what was said to you about the 2 supposed £50,000 that was mentioned first of all 3 in the written document, and then questions were 4 asked in the interview about it. So if we go to 5 POL00066742, please. If we go down, first of 6 all, to page 28, Mrs Adedayo says: 7 "So that I can put the money back. It 8 wasn't intentional, doing it at all. So I get 9 them the £20,000 at that point, again." 10 You say: 11 "And when was that?" 12 She says: 13 "Oh, it was the right period of time. 14 "No, but when?" 15 She says: 16 "I would say in the last, everything can 17 change in the last couple of months, two 18 months." 19 Then: 20 "So when did you give them this £20,000?" 21 The reply is: 22 "I gave them roundabout, I would say about 23 June." 24 So that's the first extract. If we could 25 then, please, hold that thought and go down to 56 1 page 35, where you pick up that thought, and if 2 we go down to -- yes, just -- if we pick up at 3 27.50. Your question is: 4 "Okay, so you've, you've paid off the 5 £20,000, that accounts for £20,000." 6 Mrs Adedayo says: 7 "No, 30, so far that I've given them the 8 remaining 20 to get them off me." 9 You say: 10 "So how much have you given them?" 11 Mrs Adedayo says: 12 "I've given them 50." 13 If we go over to the next page, again 14 following this same thread, if we go down 15 a little bit, just stop there. Thank you, 16 sorry, just tiny bit up. Your question at 17 28.13: 18 "So how did you take this money? How, how 19 did?" 20 Mrs Adedayo says: 21 "I, I told Joan." 22 You say: 23 "No, no how did, what exactly did you do? 24 What did you come in, did you just come in and 25 take £50,000?" 57 1 She says: 2 "No, no, no." 3 You say: 4 "Okay, so tell me exactly what you did." 5 She says: 6 "I did the £10,000, because I thought if 7 I can get a mortgage, remortgage, I will put the 8 £10,000 back in the Post Office." 9 Just pausing there for a moment, at this 10 point we've had 20,000, 30,000, and now we're 11 back to 10,000, as the opening gambit, if you 12 like. If we go a bit further down to page 39, 13 and if we go to a little further down to 30.54, 14 and you say: 15 "So you paid £10,000 in June to these 16 people, and when did you pay the rest?" 17 "I, I gave them £20,000 in July." 18 Then you say: 19 "And you gave them £20,000. So £10,000 in 20 June, £20,000 in July?" 21 If we just go over the page. We then get 22 Mrs Adedayo says: 23 "Yes." 24 "Natasha Bernard: And?" 25 Mrs Adedayo says: 58 1 "And the remaining £50,000 was in July, 2 August, I gave it to them", and then she 3 continues with her explanation. 4 So, in other words, we're getting a very, 5 very scrambled account, aren't we, of how much 6 money was paid and when; would you accept that? 7 A. Absolutely. 8 Q. When you get that sort of question and answers 9 in an interview, does it cause you any concern? 10 A. Looking back at this interview, reading this, 11 I was very confused. So I can only imagine that 12 I was probably confused during the interview. 13 Q. That can come down. Thank you. 14 We've looked at the document that was 15 apparently signed before the interview and we 16 can read it out again, if you like. In fact, 17 I think it probably makes sense if we do that. 18 So let's just go to OADE0000001, please. If we 19 read it out in full, it says: 20 "I have today 5th of September 2005 21 confessed [probably 'to'] the auditor regarding 22 the sum of £50,000 taking, with my mentioning it 23 to my assistant that I was going to be 24 repossessed and since [probably 'have'] equity 25 no mortgage on the Rainham Road property have 59 1 already applied for £50,000 loan to pay back to 2 the Post Office as this has never been my 3 intention to steal or take somebody else's money 4 which I have never done before in all my 6 years 5 here." 6 Would you accept that actually that does not 7 confess to theft or, indeed, any other crime? 8 A. I can't remember what the points to prove for 9 theft are, I don't know. 10 Q. You can't recall what the points to prove for 11 theft are, is that what you just said? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Well, do you recall that it's to take money and 14 to not give it back, in layman's terms? 15 A. I remember it was part of it. 16 Q. What we have here is somebody saying they were 17 going to give it back, don't we? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. All right. Well, the Auditor who took this 20 "confession" evidently was not trained in what 21 you call the points of theft, was he? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Well, would you have expected an Auditor to be 24 trained in the points of theft? 25 A. No. 60 1 Q. Had you been trained in what ought to happen if 2 a suspect makes statements prior to a formal 3 interview? 4 A. To make a note of it, yeah. 5 Q. So when confronted with an Auditor who has 6 carried out some form of interview prior to your 7 arrival, what should you have done? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Sorry? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. You don't know now or didn't know then? 12 A. I don't know now. 13 Q. Did you know at the time? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. You don't know whether you were trained in what 16 you should do in that situation? 17 A. I can't remember. 18 Q. Do you recall ever, in that situation, making 19 a note to yourself of what has been said? 20 A. I don't recall. 21 Q. Do you remember anything about the principles 22 around taking contemporaneous notes or notes as 23 soon as possible thereafter and asking suspects 24 whether they are prepared to read over them, 25 whether they accept them, whether they signed to 61 1 say they're true? Do you know anything -- do 2 you recall anything about having done that at 3 all in your time at the Post Office? 4 A. I can remember contemporaneous notes but not all 5 the things that you've just mentioned, no. 6 Q. When you were trained in interviewing, were you 7 also trained in other aspects of interviews? 8 Were you trained, for example, in the provisions 9 around unreliable confessions? 10 A. No, I don't remember that at all. 11 Q. So you never were taught anything about the 12 possibility that things that might be said or 13 done that might render confessions unreliable? 14 A. I don't remember that, no. 15 Q. No. Leaving aside your training, did it ever 16 occur to you that the people you encountered in 17 these particular types of cases, these audit 18 shortfall cases, were not just managers of post 19 offices but were proprietors? They owned their 20 businesses. 21 A. Mm-hm. 22 Q. They had everything to lose, didn't they? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. They could be suspended, dismissed, prosecuted. 25 They had their reputations and their livelihoods 62 1 and their investments on the line, didn't they, 2 when you interviewed them? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. All of that could disappear pretty much 5 overnight for them, couldn't it? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did it ever occur to you that they were 8 vulnerable and that you were wielding quite 9 a lot power over them? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did it ever occur to you that they might be 12 particularly susceptible to inducements or 13 threats? 14 A. I don't know whether it occurred to me. I'm 15 guessing that in their position they were open 16 to -- they may well have been threatened. 17 Q. Well, then, just considering what was said in 18 interview, the confusing, as you say, nature of 19 it, and considering a few other points, let's 20 just look at how the actual loss, the figure of 21 the loss, was arrived at. 22 We are told that the audit cash shortage was 23 £53,000, just a little over £53,000, and that 24 was a £52,864 cash shortfall, after stock 25 differences were taken out of the equation. So 63 1 52,864 cash shortfall. The note signed by 2 Mrs Adedayo mentioned £50,000 -- 3 A. Mm-hm. 4 Q. -- and that was what was then picked up and 5 picked over in interview. Why did you consider 6 the confession to be reliable, given that it 7 could only explain the removal of £50,000 and 8 not £52,000 or even the overall shortfall of 9 £53,000? 10 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand. 11 Q. Well, there was a confession note -- quotes 12 "confession note" -- that mentions £50,000 -- 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- but the shortfall was said to be at least 15 £52,000? 16 A. Mm-hm. 17 Q. How could the confession to £50,000 be reliable 18 if the cash shortfall was larger than that? 19 A. It was Ms Adedayo that wrote the £50,000. The 20 audit shortage was £52,000. I don't -- 21 Q. Yes, well you had told her about the £52,000 22 shortfall and yet, nevertheless, her 23 "confession" never amounted to £52,000, did it? 24 A. This what she wrote, though. 25 Q. Well, that's right. 64 1 A. Mm-hm. 2 Q. Did it not occur to you that it was unreliable? 3 A. No. This is -- she wrote this herself. 4 Q. Yes, as we've just, I hope, established, with 5 the Auditor there and with you yourself 6 recognising a certain susceptibility, in the 7 circumstances, to inducements and threats. Yes? 8 A. (No audible answer) 9 Q. We've looked also at your report to the lawyers 10 in which you recommended that Mrs Adedayo could 11 be charged on the basis of this confession. So 12 what that was, effectively, was cherrypicking 13 from her account interview and the confession 14 document, in the sense that you said it could be 15 relied upon to charge her with false accounting 16 but, obviously, all the parts where she put 17 forward her explanations, which would undermine 18 dishonest intent, which would undermine any 19 dishonesty at all, were to be disregarded. Do 20 you take my point? 21 A. I thought my -- in the report, I just reported 22 what she said and what I said. I wasn't 23 cherrypicking anything. 24 Q. Did it ever occur to you that the problems in 25 her account and the contradictions in her 65 1 account came from the fact that none of it was 2 true? 3 A. I didn't -- I think it's quite clear in my 4 report that I didn't believe what she was 5 telling me. 6 Q. But you believed it enough to rely on the 7 "confession" elements? 8 A. It was -- the "confession" isn't my word, it's 9 hers. 10 Q. Looking back, do you think you were really 11 trained in investigative interviewing or were 12 you just trained to get "confessions" -- 13 A. No. 14 Q. -- in whatever manner you could? 15 A. No. I wouldn't describe it like that at all. 16 MS PAGE: Thank you, sir. Those are my questions. 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ms Page. Anyone else? 18 Questioned by MS PATRICK 19 MS PATRICK: Sir, it's Ms Patrick. We have number 20 of questions. We should be very short. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. 22 MS PATRICK: Thank you. 23 Good morning, Ms Bernard, my name is Angela 24 Patrick and I act for a number of subpostmasters 25 who were prosecuted and convicted but who have 66 1 since had their convictions overturned. I only 2 want to ask you about two documents. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. They relate to a case for a client we represent 5 called Mrs Pauline Stonehouse. You weren't the 6 investigating officer in her case and I just 7 want to give a bit of background before we go to 8 the documents, to perhaps save some time in 9 context. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. The Inquiry is familiar with the findings in 12 Allen & others in the Court of Appeal where on 13 10 December 2021, Ms Stonehouse's conviction in 14 2008 for false accounting was overturned. In 15 that case, the Post Office accepted that hers 16 was an unexplained shortfall case and evidence 17 from Horizon was essential to the prosecution. 18 She was entitled to a proper investigation of 19 the reliability of Horizon and to receive 20 disclosure in relation to Horizon Issues. 21 The Post Office accepted that this did not 22 happen and that Mrs Stonehouse's prosecution was 23 therefore unfair and an affront to justice. 24 To understand the documents we're going to, 25 I'm just going to read two paragraphs from the 67 1 Court of Appeal, so that we can shortcut a lot 2 of other information. 3 Paragraph 19 of the judgment, it reads: 4 "On 7 June 2007, Mrs Stonehouse was 5 interviewed. She agreed she'd inflated her cash 6 figure to conceal the shortfall. She denied 7 stealing any of the money. She said that she 8 knew it was wrong to declare a false figure but 9 she did not know what else to do." 10 Then at paragraph 20: 11 "In a defence statement dated 15 February 12 2008, Mrs Stonehouse denied dishonesty and 13 expressly raised the reliability of Horizon. 14 She said that she would require an expert to 15 analyse the POL accounts and the accounting 16 system which was open to abuse. In 17 correspondence of the same date, her solicitors 18 emphasised concerns about Horizon." 19 It goes on to explain what the solicitors 20 had said. 21 Now, if we turn to the two documents I'd 22 like to ask you some questions about, the first 23 of those is FUJ00122540. You can see it's 24 a short two-page email thread. Can you see that 25 there, Ms Bernard? 68 1 A. I can. 2 Q. If we start at the very top on the page there 3 you can see there's a reference to 4 an attachment. Can you see that, Ms Bernard? 5 A. Attached is -- 6 Q. A WS Seaburn, can you see that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I only raise that because Seaburn was 9 Mrs Stonehouse's branch. 10 A. Right, okay. 11 Q. If we can go to the very end and start at the 12 end, at page 2, it may make more sense. You can 13 see there at the very end, there is an email 14 from Andy Dunks to you, Ms Bernard. Can you see 15 that there? 16 A. Oh, yes, yeah. I can see me, yeah. 17 Q. The date, we can see it a little bit below your 18 name there, is 25 March 2008. Can you see? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So, logically, if Mrs Stonehouse's defence 21 statement had been produced in February 2008, 22 this exchange would have been after the 23 production of the defence statement; is that 24 fair? 25 A. Mm-hm, yeah. 69 1 Q. You see what Mr Dunks says and I'm going to read 2 it out for the transcript: 3 "Please find the attached WS [witness 4 statement] which I hope covers the request for 5 the working condition of the Horizon system. 6 Please let me know if this is ok, and I will put 7 a copy in the post." 8 Can you recall who Mr Dunks was? 9 A. No. 10 Q. We'll return to that. Another document might 11 help your memory but, looking at this, does it 12 seem that a witness statement was being sought 13 by the Post Office and produced by Mr Dunks for 14 that purpose, to cover the working condition of 15 Horizon? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Can you recall now if it was you that asked for 18 that witness statement? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Does it seem from this email correspondence that 21 it was you who had asked for that witness 22 statement? 23 A. Yes, I guess so. I don't remember the case 24 though. 25 Q. So this is in 2008. 70 1 A. Mm. 2 Q. If you were making that request, is it 3 reasonable to assume you'd have been aware that 4 there was a need for the Post Office to have 5 evidence to support the data being produced by 6 Horizon? 7 A. Yeah, so if -- whenever we asked for the Horizon 8 data, we would normally ask for a witness 9 statement in order that the evidence could be 10 produced. 11 Q. Okay. If we go back to the email document and 12 we scroll up a little, we can see that you 13 forward this on to Ms Dickinson to consider on 14 25 March 2008. I think we can see that at the 15 bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Can you see that there, Ms Bernard? 18 A. Yeah. 19 Q. Can you help us: who is Ms Dickinson? 20 A. I think she was another Investigator. 21 Q. You think she was an Investigator in 22 Mrs Stonehouse's case? 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. If we scroll up again we see Ms Dickinson 25 replies to you on 14 April 2008, and I'm going 71 1 to read a little there. Can you see that, 2 Ms Bernard, before we scroll on? Is it on your 3 screen? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. We can see it starts: 6 "As discussed regarding Seaburn SPSO." 7 Does that suggest to you that Ms Dickinson 8 would have talked to you about the statement 9 before sending you this email? 10 A. I don't know what she means by "as discussed". 11 It suggests that maybe we did discuss something 12 but I can't remember. 13 Q. If we read on, it says: 14 "Please see attached a slightly amended 15 witness statement required for court on Friday, 16 18 April. 17 "All I have done is increase the time period 18 to a starting date of 1 July 2005. This is 19 because the defence have requested Horizon data 20 from the previous year for comparison. 21 Therefore the amount of ... calls will more 22 likely increase from the 20 mentioned in the 23 draft." 24 Is it likely, looking at that, that your 25 discussion with Ms Dickinson covered that the 72 1 defence was seeking more information about 2 a greater period starting from 1 July, and 3 a greater volume of calls were going to be 4 required to be covered by Mr Dunks? 5 A. I don't remember any of this. All I can think 6 is, during my later years before I left the Post 7 Office, I was working in the Banking Fraud team 8 and I don't know, and I did say this in -- not 9 in my witness statement but when I was preparing 10 my witness statement, that I may well have been 11 involved with ARQ requests but I couldn't 12 remember. 13 And I just think, looking at this, it may be 14 that I was just the person who was passing the 15 information to Andy Dunks. I was just kind of, 16 like, the middle person. I wasn't doing 17 investigations, I don't think, at this time. 18 So that's all I can think of. I don't know 19 if she would have discussed anything with me at 20 length because I just would have been pass -- 21 obtaining information and passing it on. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. If that makes sense. 24 Q. Just going on to what you said earlier today 25 about when you became aware of challenges to the 73 1 Horizon data being produced and its integrity? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. By April 2008, when we're having this exchange, 4 you would have been aware that a defence in this 5 case, prosecution was seeking access to Horizon 6 data for the purposes of comparison? 7 A. Sorry, was that your question? 8 Q. Sorry. By this time, 2008, looking at this 9 exchange, do you accept you would have been 10 aware that there were cases where the defence 11 was seeking Horizon data for the purposes of 12 trial? 13 A. So because I believe, looking at this, I was the 14 person just passing information from one person 15 to another, I may have been the person that they 16 contacted. I wouldn't have been looking into 17 too much about what's actually being said here. 18 I would just have been passing the information 19 on. 20 So I cannot say, hand on heart, that I knew 21 what they were talking about. Because, when we 22 requested information, I, in the past, have had 23 to ask witness statements from Fujitsu in order 24 to -- for them to produce their discs, and 25 that's maybe what I would have assumed this was 74 1 about without reading -- like having a huge 2 discussion because I wouldn't have needed to 3 know all of that. 4 Q. But by 2008, you accept that this does appear to 5 suggest that you and your colleagues would at 6 least have been aware that there were challenges 7 to the integrity of Horizon happening? 8 A. I really can't remember if I was aware or not 9 about the Horizon challenges, even with this in 10 front of me. 11 MS PATRICK: No further questions, Ms Bernard. 12 Thank you. 13 MS PRICE: Sir, I think those are all the questions 14 from Core Participants. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. 16 On reflection, I just want to ask one or two 17 questions in order to clarify my mind. 18 Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS 19 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So I think you agreed with both 20 Ms Price and Ms Page in the questions they put 21 to you that -- but I'll try and put it as 22 neutrally as possible -- the answers which were 23 given to you by Ms Adedayo in the interview 24 under caution about the circumstances in which 25 she'd apparently taken £50,000 in order to repay 75 1 it to someone, were somewhat confusing. Yeah? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. So am I right in thing 4 that, notwithstanding that that was the state of 5 affairs, you didn't think it appropriate or 6 necessary to chase up on what she'd done with 7 that £50,000, for example by getting from her 8 the name or names of the person to whom it had 9 been paid and checking with them whether, in 10 fact, they'd received such sums; is that right? 11 Have I got that right? 12 A. From the documents that have been presented to 13 me in the Inquiry, I believe we -- and I did -- 14 ask for the names of the creditors. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. 16 A. Looking at the taped transcript, Mrs Adedayo 17 says that she needed to talk to her husband 18 first, is what I -- it's not what I remember, 19 this is what is in there. 20 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, yes. 21 A. And she was going to send them to us afterwards, 22 and then I think in my report I'm just saying 23 "To date, this has not been received". So it 24 was kind of left up to her to present those 25 names to us. 76 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. So I can be clear about 2 it, your state of mind was that it's for 3 Mrs Adedayo (or Ms Adedayo) to provide this 4 information and, unless she does, there's 5 nothing much I can do about it; is that fair? 6 A. I think because it seemed that she was reluctant 7 to give us the names at interview, when it would 8 have been quite easy for us to check with these 9 people, had we had the names -- because she 10 appeared to be reluctant, I think if I'd have 11 put more pressure, I would have probably been 12 accused of being oppressive. 13 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. 14 A. So that's probably why I didn't -- 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I'm asking these questions 16 because -- and if I've misheard you, this the 17 chance to put it right -- I think you said to 18 Ms Page that you didn't actually believe what 19 Mrs Adedayo was telling you in interview, yes? 20 A. Yes, that's true, sir. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right, okay. Did you make 22 a witness statement for the criminal prosecution 23 of Mrs Adedayo? (Pause) 24 It hasn't been referred to, sometimes that's 25 quite deliberate because there's no need for it 77 1 to be referred to in the Inquiry, but I am just 2 wondering whether you did actually make 3 a witness statement? 4 A. I don't -- I think -- I don't think so, because 5 she pleaded guilty. 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So she pleaded guilty in the 7 Magistrates Court, as I understand it, yeah? 8 A. Right, yeah. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So, from memory -- and 10 I appreciate this is a long time ago but I just 11 want to get your best memory -- your memory is 12 that you didn't actually get to the point of 13 making a witness statement? 14 A. Honestly, I don't remember. But it's -- I don't 15 think so. 16 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. 17 A. That's about the best I can do. 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you very much. 19 Well, thank you for coming to give evidence 20 before me, and for making a witness statement in 21 advance of that. I think that concludes the 22 evidence for the day. 23 I want to recognise the fact that 24 Mrs Adedayo is in the hearing room today to hear 25 evidence about her case, so I'm glad she was 78 1 able to do that and, as with all other Core 2 Participants, I welcome her to the Inquiry 3 proceedings. 4 So, with those final remarks, I think we'll 5 bring today's session to a close. 6 Ms Price, we're due to start again on 7 Tuesday? 8 MS PRICE: Yes. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: But am I right in thinking that 10 we are still contemplating whether or not that 11 is possible, in the light of disclosure issues 12 which are well known, at least to the lawyers in 13 the room? 14 MS PRICE: Yes, sir. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Do you have -- and if you 16 haven't, that's fine -- but do you have any 17 current information about the likelihood of us 18 being able to resume on Tuesday? 19 A. No, sir. 20 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine, all right. Well, then, 21 I'll wait to be kept informed. 22 Thank you all very much. 23 (12.21 pm) 24 (The hearing adjourned until 25 Tuesday, 14 November 2023) 79 I N D E X NATASHA PRUDENCIA BERNARD (sworn) .............1 Questioned by MS PRICE ........................1 Questioned by MS PAGE ........................55 Questioned by MS PATRICK .....................66 Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS ..............75 80