1 Friday, 24 November 2023 2 (10.00 am) 3 Announcement re evidence of Lisa Allen 4 MS PRICE: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear 5 us? 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 7 MS PRICE: Sir, before we proceed to today's 8 evidence, there is a matter which you have asked 9 me to address at the outset of today's hearing. 10 We were due to hear today from two witnesses: 11 Diane Matthews and Lisa Allen. As you are 12 aware, we will now be hearing from Ms Matthews 13 only, following a decision you made late 14 yesterday afternoon relating to Ms Allen's 15 evidence. 16 Earlier this week, Ms Allen, who is employed 17 by Royal Mail, alerted the Inquiry Team to the 18 existence of 90 documents relating to the 19 investigation and prosecution of Suzanne Palmer 20 held by Royal Mail. She was able to find these 21 documents, as she has access, as an employee, to 22 Royal Mail systems. 23 The Inquiry sought, and has now been 24 provided with, these documents. It appears that 25 a significant proportion of the documents have 1 1 not been provided to the Inquiry previously. It 2 is also evident that the documents are highly 3 relevant both to Ms Palmer's case and to 4 Ms Allen's involvement in it. In these 5 circumstances, and mindful that these documents 6 need to be disclosed to Core Participants so 7 that they can consider them ahead of Ms Allen 8 giving evidence, you concluded that it is not 9 practicable to proceed with Ms Allen's evidence 10 today. It is right to note that this appears to 11 be a different species of disclosure problem 12 than the Inquiry has encountered previously. 13 The Inquiry Team is investigating, with the 14 Post Office, how this problem has come about. 15 At your request, the Inquiry Team communicated 16 your decision about Ms Allen's evidence to Core 17 Participants by email yesterday afternoon, 18 immediately after it was made. This has meant 19 that unnecessary travel for Mrs Palmer, who was 20 intending to intend today to hear Lisa Allen's 21 evidence, has been avoided. 22 Finally, sir, you expressed a wish that 23 Ms Allen attend to give evidence on 24 a replacement date before the break to minimise 25 the impact on the timetable. I am able to 2 1 confirm that Ms Allen has confirmed she is able 2 to attend to give evidence on 20 December in 3 place of today. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Ms Price. 5 In view of the very full explanation which 6 you provided, I don't propose to add anything, 7 especially given that the Inquiry Team and the 8 Post Office are engaged in seeking to ascertain 9 what went wrong on this occasion. However, if 10 Ms Gallafent does wish to say anything at this 11 stage, I will afford her the opportunity to do 12 so now. 13 MS GALLAFENT: Sir, simply to say we are grateful to 14 the Inquiry for acting upon this so promptly and 15 in particular informing other Core Participants 16 that Ms Allen wouldn't be able to give evidence 17 today in the circumstances, and meaning that 18 Ms Allen -- I'm so sorry, Ms Palmer -- didn't 19 need to come today. 20 But we do apologise to Ms Palmer because, 21 obviously, the expectation of coming and hearing 22 from Ms Allen itself is a difficulty and 23 problematic for any individual involved in these 24 proceedings. 25 I can confirm that we in Post Office are 3 1 continuing to look into how this particular 2 issue arose but we agree with the analysis of 3 Counsel to the Inquiry that it appears to be of 4 a different sort to those previously encountered 5 and we hope a one-off that can be easily 6 remediable. I have nothing further to assist in 7 terms of what may have happened but we will 8 obviously write to the Inquiry as soon as we are 9 in a position to assist in that respect. Thank 10 you, sir. 11 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right, thank you very much. 12 Over to you, Mr Beer. 13 MR BEER: Thank you, sir, can I call Diane Matthews, 14 please. 15 DIANE SARAH MATTHEWS (affirmed) 16 Questioned by MR BEER 17 MR BEER: Good morning, Ms Matthews. My name is 18 Jason Beer and I ask questions on behalf of the 19 Inquiry. Can you give us your full name, 20 please? 21 A. Yes, it's Diane Sarah Matthews. 22 Q. Thank you very much for giving evidence remotely 23 today and for previously providing a witness 24 statement to the Inquiry. You should have 25 a copy of that witness statement in front of 4 1 you; is that right? 2 A. I do, yes. 3 Q. It's dated 1 November 2023 and, excluding the 4 exhibit sheet, is 36 pages in length. Can you 5 go to the 36th page, please? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Is that your signature? 8 A. It is, yes. 9 Q. Are the contents of the statement true to the 10 best of your knowledge and belief? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Thank you. A copy of that witness statement is 13 going to be uploaded to the Inquiry's website. 14 I'm going to ask you some questions about some 15 parts of it; do you understand? 16 A. I do, yes. 17 Q. Thank you. Can we start with your professional 18 background, please. I think you joined the Post 19 Office in March 1986 as a counter clerk; is that 20 right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You left Royal Mail Group in 2018; is that 23 right? 24 A. It is, yes. 25 Q. So 32 years' service? 5 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Looking into the divisions within that 32 years, 3 I think you were a counter clerk for 13 years 4 between 1986 and 1999; is that right? 5 A. Yes, various things within the branch office 6 network, yeah. 7 Q. Between 1999 and 2003, you were seconded to work 8 on the rollout of the Horizon system; is that 9 right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Between 2003 and 2004 you worked as an Assistant 12 Branch Manager and then an Audit Manager; is 13 that right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. That included conducting some audits yourself? 16 A. Yes, the audits I conducted were normally at 17 Crown Offices, the larger ones. 18 Q. Then between 2004 and 2008 you worked in the 19 Post Office Investigation Department, being 20 promoted in 2007 to a Security Manager managing 21 a team of Investigators; is that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. In 2008, you moved to Royal Mail Group as 24 an Investigator, where you stayed for 10 years 25 until 2018 when you retired? 6 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I'm principally interested, as you'll know, in 3 the four or so year period between 2004 and 4 2008, when you worked in the Post Office as 5 an Investigator and then as a manager of other 6 investigations. 7 But, before we look at that period, that 8 four-year period, can we look back at earlier 9 period. You tell us at paragraph 2 of your 10 statement -- there is no need to turn it up at 11 the moment -- when referring to your secondment 12 to the Horizon rollout team between 1999 and 13 2003, that you had a role: 14 "... managing a team of 22 Horizon Field 15 Support Officers in ensuring they were supported 16 in managerial terms, for example, timetable, 17 accommodation and performance." 18 A. That's correct, yes. 19 Q. Was your role, as that sentence might suggest, 20 purely an administrative one, concerned with the 21 management and logistics of the team, or did you 22 have any substantive involvement in the rollout 23 process itself? 24 A. Well, when I joined in 1999 I was part of 25 a small group of people that did what was called 7 1 live trial and it was migrating -- it was only 2 a small amount of post offices and I remember 3 I went to Northern Ireland and Belfast to do 4 that, and they were put onto the Horizon system 5 and it was like a test. 6 And it was after that that it got paused and 7 I stayed working within that function then to 8 take over the administrative duties, in terms of 9 pulling the team together and what that schedule 10 would look like. 11 From that period, I didn't attend offices 12 doing the migration. My role was purely to look 13 after the people that were out there in the 14 field doing that role. 15 Q. Dealing with the first part first, then, when 16 you were involved with offices themselves, this 17 was live trials rather than rollout; is that 18 right? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Did you receive the feedback that the branches 21 that you were responsible for gave as to what 22 was going on in the course of the live trial? 23 A. I wouldn't say I received the feedback. 24 I obviously knew when I was there, undertaking 25 the role, that there was issues. What came 8 1 further along as part of them issues, I wasn't 2 party to that detail, really. I knew from my 3 role that the office migrated, there was network 4 issues, that's what I was told was the problem 5 with it, was network issues, and the office 6 carried on working. 7 It did have some problems with the 8 functionality, in terms of it kept crashing, 9 there was hardware problems, and then, after -- 10 I think I was there three days, and it was more 11 a case of helping the counter clerks understand 12 the workings, the balancing, the day-to-day 13 duties that needed to be done. And then after 14 that, it went to a much higher level than me to 15 determine what them issues were and what was 16 going to happen next. 17 Q. So in the course of the live trial, you were 18 told about problems that included network 19 issues. I think you've told us about problems 20 with connectivity -- 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. -- with hardware, and did you say balancing, as 23 well? 24 A. No, not with the balancing. I was there to 25 assist some of the balancing, but when you say 9 1 was told about that, I experienced that. I saw 2 that firsthand because I was there when they 3 were having issues with it. But, obviously, 4 there was engineers on site for this particular 5 part of the process, because it was right at the 6 very beginning. So anything that needed to be 7 addressed was addressed there and then. 8 Q. How long did this work last? 9 A. My role in it? 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. Yeah, um, I can remember I did two offices. 12 I know one was in Belfast, I think the other one 13 was probably in the UK, and it was only a very 14 short period of time. I think I stayed four 15 days at each office, and that probably took me 16 from when I joined, probably to, it was over 17 maybe a three-month period. 18 Q. I see. Then you became responsible for 22 19 HFSOs, the Field Support Officers? 20 A. That's correct, yes. 21 Q. What did the Field Support Officers do? 22 A. They were there to oversee the day of migration, 23 so they would liaise with the Auditors that 24 would go in, perform an audit and they would 25 then take over in terms of entering the cash and 10 1 stock figures onto the Horizon system. 2 They would then stay for a period of -- 3 I think it was normally three days, and they 4 would stay at the office and assist the 5 subpostmaster and their staff with the 6 transition from manual to computer-based ways of 7 serving and balancing. They would then -- if 8 a Wednesday wasn't part of them three days, they 9 would then return and assist with one of the 10 balancing days or the first balancing day. 11 Q. We have heard evidence about a series of 12 problems, some of them significant, that were 13 identified and evident during the testing and 14 rollout phases. Were you aware at the time of 15 such problems identified during the four or so 16 year period that you undertook this role? 17 A. I was aware there was issues, yes. 18 Q. In terms of significance or scale of issues, can 19 you help us with what your memory is of that? 20 A. Yeah, my recollections were that it was 21 sufficient enough to delay the actual rollout at 22 first. I think, when rollout did start there 23 was also delays with certain offices. To be 24 honest, I was led to believe they were more 25 network issues and there was some problems with 11 1 maybe a keyboard not working, but I do know -- 2 not in my area but I do know nationally that 3 there was probably more substantial problems 4 with getting offices onto the system. 5 Q. Did you gain any knowledge about difficulties in 6 balancing using the new system? 7 A. I knew there were issues balancing, yes, but 8 I think that was put down more to user issues. 9 It wasn't -- I don't think at first it was 10 particularly user-friendly for someone that had 11 never used any sort of computer-based equipment 12 before and I think it was a massive transition 13 for some people, and I knew that, therefore, 14 there was problems balancing. 15 I also knew that there was problems 16 balancing because of significant figures that 17 were being generated, and -- 18 Q. Sorry, significant figures being generated by 19 what? 20 A. The system was just -- I'm trying to remember 21 an example. There was figures put in suspense 22 accounts and the next week it would drop off, 23 and it was like nobody had an answer as to why, 24 and these were like put down as maybe people not 25 using it right, maybe people -- maybe the 12 1 systems hadn't been migrated correctly, but 2 I didn't really get into them issues because 3 that's not what my role was at the particular 4 time. 5 Q. So trying to encapsulate what you've just said, 6 in the course of this testing and then the 7 rollout phase, the system was generating large 8 discrepancies that were placed in a suspense 9 account and then would disappear, and you say 10 they put it down to either user error or the 11 system; is that right? 12 A. Figures were on a balance -- on a printout on 13 balance day and nobody could identify where it 14 had come from. So, therefore, that figure then 15 got put into a suspense account and it 16 dropped -- it got dropped. Why that happened, 17 whether it was a transaction that hadn't been 18 put in correctly, I wasn't there, and I just 19 know that one or two of my team reported issues 20 up to Fujitsu because of that. 21 Therefore, my role in that was to provide 22 that office with extra support. So my role was 23 to then reschedule the HFSOs to obviously make 24 sure that personnel could be there. So I wasn't 25 close to the detail of them problems. I just 13 1 knew that I had to change some of what my 2 scheduling was because the office needed more 3 support because of it. 4 Q. Did you ever experience problems in using 5 Horizon when you were acting as an Assistant 6 Branch Manager? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Were you aware of others around you experiencing 9 problems with Horizon when you were acting as 10 an Assistant Branch Manager? 11 A. No. 12 Q. By the time that you finished your job as 13 Assistant Branch Manager, if I'd asked you 14 what's your view as to the reliable and 15 robustness of Horizon, what would you have said? 16 A. I'd have said it was reliable and robust because 17 I never personally experienced any problems or 18 knew of anybody in the Crown Office Network that 19 I worked with that did. 20 Q. So what impact had these things that you'd been 21 told by your HFSOs, about subpostmasters having 22 problems with the system, had on your view on 23 the reliability and robustness of Horizon, by, 24 say, 2003/4? 25 A. It was explained that, with a project of this 14 1 size and magnitude -- we were told it was the 2 biggest single computer install in the UK -- 3 that there was teething problems, that there 4 were going to be issues and that the -- 5 obviously, they would monitor and work through 6 them. 7 That's how it was portrayed right at the 8 very beginning and I just thought that, you 9 know, it just stands to reason there's going to 10 be concerns, there's going to be issues and that 11 they were worked through and resolved. 12 Q. Who was passing you that message, the one that 13 you've just relayed to us? 14 A. It was just part of the Horizon team. It was 15 just -- it probably came from quite high up. 16 I can't remember who was over the Horizon 17 install project. But they were the messages 18 that were cascaded down. 19 Q. Were they, in turn, cascaded down by your team 20 to subpostmasters? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. So the overall impression, by the time we get to 23 2004, that you walked away with, was that 24 although there were problems with the system, 25 this was to be expected in a system so large and 15 1 complex and these were just teething problems? 2 A. At the very beginning, yes. By the time the end 3 of the rollout was approaching, the migrations 4 were getting much smoother, they'd probably been 5 like that for the majority of the final phase. 6 I mean, some of the problems were that there was 7 no phone lines put in at an office. 8 It could be a simple explanation as to why 9 there were delays. It wasn't always to do with 10 the actual system. It could have been something 11 to do with some of the pre-work that needed to 12 be done in order for the install to happen. 13 But by -- you know, I didn't experience 14 many, if any, reports for about the last 15 12 months of install. By that, I'm not saying 16 there wasn't any but there certainly wasn't any 17 concerns, let's say, that couldn't be put down 18 to user error or issues with problems with the 19 electrics, et cetera. 20 Q. Can we turn, then, to the four-year period from 21 2004 to 2008 when you worked in the 22 Investigations Department. You were a Security 23 Manager and an Investigator and you carried out 24 a number of investigations yourself; is that 25 right? 16 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. In that four-year period, how many 3 investigations do you think you undertook? 4 A. It probably wasn't -- it was probably about 20, 5 but my first six months were purely assisting 6 other people because I was bought in on 7 a temporary turn to do pension docket fraud. 8 And then, after that, I got taken on 9 permanently -- so that was probably towards the 10 start of 2005 -- and then, from my best 11 recollection, it was around that time that 12 I undertook the training. 13 So I'd actually been working within the team 14 before I started training but it was purely as 15 an administrative thing, looking at pension 16 docket fraud. 17 Q. So in the four-year period, perhaps five 18 investigations a year? 19 A. Yeah, the first probably 18 months, it probably 20 wasn't anywhere near that but, obviously, as 21 I got more experienced, I was probably given 22 more. 23 Q. When you were carrying out that investigation 24 work, did you have an understanding that all 25 departments and all divisions within the Post 17 1 Office were subject to a legal duty to retain 2 and record information that might be relevant to 3 the Post Office's function of bringing private 4 prosecutions? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What were the processes within the Post Office 7 to ensure that such information was retained and 8 recorded? 9 A. When you say "processes", what do you mean? 10 Q. You said that you knew that the Post Office was 11 under a legal duty to ensure -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- that all parts of the organisation, all 14 divisions and departments, retained and recorded 15 information that was or might be relevant to the 16 prosecution function -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- and I'm asking what processes were put in 19 place to ensure that that retaining and 20 recording duty could be carried out? 21 A. Well, we obviously had to follow PACE and CPIA 22 and guidelines -- or, you know, they were -- 23 Q. That, Ms Matthews, is more about the reveal 24 function -- 25 A. Right, you're -- 18 1 Q. -- by an Investigator to go and find the 2 material and ensure that it's revealed. I'm 3 looking at the stage before then, 4 an organisation that prosecutes people knows 5 that it's under a duty to retain and record 6 information that might be relevant to the 7 prosecution. How was that carried into effect? 8 A. I'm sort of struggling with the question 9 a little bit. I mean, I can tell you what 10 I did. 11 Q. So if I run a sweet shop and I don't prosecute 12 anyone, I might keep my books for a year and 13 then I might throw them away. 14 A. Right, okay. 15 Q. I might not write down everything that I buy and 16 sell because I think "Well, I'm not going to be 17 prosecuting anyone, I needn't do that". If, 18 however, I know that I might prosecute people, 19 I might think to myself that I need this 20 information, not just to know how many sweets 21 I've sold or bought but because I'm going to be 22 prosecuting people, and the information that I'm 23 creating is -- might be used as the basis to 24 prosecute them. 25 Therefore, I've got these whole other 19 1 duties, these legal duties, because I'm not just 2 a seller of sweets; I'm a prosecutor too. I've 3 got to do some different things in the running 4 of my business to make sure that what I do is in 5 compliance with the law and is fair. 6 A. So everything that I did, in terms of when 7 I gathered evidence, we had -- first of all, we 8 had guidelines, we had casework guidelines, we 9 had policies and procedures that we had to 10 follow, that were accessible via database and 11 whatever I did, in terms of an investigation, 12 was documented. 13 So I either made a notebook entry or any 14 evidence that I got was then retained, and it 15 was disseminated onto different forms, depending 16 on how that information was classified. 17 Q. So I'm again looking at the stage -- 18 A. I don't really think I'm answering your question 19 here because I'm a bit lost in what it is. 20 I understand what you're saying but I don't 21 know, I can't remember what procedures were in 22 place for that. 23 Q. So was there, for example, a series of data 24 stores that the Post Office had set up that 25 could be accessed by you, where the information 20 1 you obtained from them had been recorded in 2 an evidentially secure fashion? 3 A. I don't remember storing any evidence. 4 Q. Were there, for example, standing instructions 5 to Auditors that you remember about the way that 6 they could conduct their audits, because they 7 weren't just conducting an audit; if the audit 8 showed a shortfall or a discrepancy, then the 9 Auditor's evidence might be translated into 10 criminal prosecution evidence and the Auditors 11 might be called as witnesses, and what they said 12 to a suspect, to a postmaster, might be used in 13 evidence against the postmaster. 14 So what I'm trying to establish is, as 15 an Investigator, what did you know about the way 16 that the rest of the business organised itself 17 to ensure that it was ready to conduct 18 prosecutions? 19 A. I don't know. I can't answer that. 20 Q. What processes, turning to you as 21 an Investigator, then, existed to ensure that 22 there was the sufficient collection and 23 correlation of information relating to the 24 operation of Horizon? 25 A. From my recollection, it was an online database 21 1 that you could access and all relevant documents 2 that you needed to refer to would be on there. 3 Q. So, as an Investigator, you could access some 4 data that was created by Horizon; is that right? 5 A. No. I'm talking about operating processes. 6 Q. Okay. So, ie policies and procedures about the 7 conduct of an Investigator? 8 A. Yes, I've never been able to access any historic 9 Horizon data online. 10 Q. Okay. So what were the processes for obtaining 11 access to Horizon data as an Investigator? 12 A. From my recollection, I would have to make 13 a request to the Casework Team and they would -- 14 Q. Who were the Casework Team? Were they part of 15 the Security Department? 16 A. Yes, they were, yeah. They were a function of 17 the Security and Investigations based in 18 Croydon. 19 Q. How many of them were there? 20 A. No idea. 21 Q. So if you wanted some data from or about 22 Horizon, you would contact the Casework Team? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What would operate on your mind in deciding 25 whether to make such a request to the Casework 22 1 Team? 2 A. If an investigation -- if it was to do with some 3 transactions that were in question or to look at 4 if, during investigation interviews, that the 5 person being interviewed had come up with some 6 reasons why a loss had happened and, if they 7 related to anything transactional or anything to 8 do with maybe balancing, then you could always 9 go and get the transactions and that would 10 probably dictate if I would ask or not. 11 Q. Okay, so if there was a questionable transaction 12 or if the suspect raised an issue, they would be 13 the triggers for going off and getting this 14 data? 15 A. Yeah, or it could be further down the line. You 16 decided that you needed further information or 17 you needed to clarify something, then you could 18 request it. But, from my recollection, there 19 was limits. 20 Q. Limits on what? 21 A. Limits on the number of -- I think these were 22 called ARQ requests -- 23 Q. Yes? 24 A. -- and for the business, there was limits on the 25 number of ARQ requests that could be made in 23 1 a month. After that quota was taken up, Post 2 Office Limited had to pay for it and you had to 3 have a really, really good reason why you needed 4 it, in order to invoke the cost element of it. 5 Q. So did the limitation and then the cost penalty 6 have an impact on the number of occasions that 7 you requested ARQ data? 8 A. It didn't have an impact on the number of 9 occasions I requested it; it may have had 10 an impact on the number of disks that 11 I received. 12 Q. The number of? 13 A. Disks, ARQ -- sorry, ARQs came on, like, CD 14 disks. So I can't recall any particular case or 15 time when I didn't receive them but I may have 16 received them in the next month. 17 Q. Were there any processes within the Post Office 18 Security team to ensure that there was proper 19 recording and cross-dissemination of information 20 about issues that had been raised as to the 21 operation of Horizon, in prior investigations 22 and prosecutions? 23 A. I don't know. By the time I left, I hadn't 24 really heard of issues being raised with Horizon 25 but, shortly after I left, I knew it was 24 1 starting. So I don't know what processes were 2 for that. 3 Q. There wasn't a central repository, a database, 4 a share file, some other document where all 5 Investigators within the Security team could 6 feed in problems or issues that had either been 7 raised by a suspect or had been established? 8 A. To do with Horizon? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. Not while I was there, no. But like I say, 11 I hard hardly heard of any issues regarding this 12 before I left. 13 Q. If a suspect said that there is some error or 14 bug or defect with Horizon that's causing the 15 loss, was there a central repository of 16 information in the Post Office -- putting aside 17 the Security team for the moment -- to which you 18 would turn to say, "My suspect has suggested 19 that there's a problem with Horizon, what does 20 the Post Office know about an error, bug or 21 defect in the system"? 22 A. Not to my knowledge. I didn't know of that. 23 Q. Which department or departments would you speak 24 to to gather any information about that? 25 A. I never needed to, apart from on one occasion. 25 1 Q. That's Mr Hughie Thomas' case; is that right? 2 A. Yes. And, obviously, what I did is I raised it 3 to Criminal Law Team and also the Casework Team 4 were aware of it, as well as obviously my team 5 leader. 6 Q. You tell us that -- and it's paragraph 41 of 7 your statement, no needed to turn it up for the 8 moment -- that when you left in 2008, Mr Thomas' 9 case involving alleged faults with the Horizon 10 system remained the only investigation that you 11 led or had involvement in, in which such claims 12 were made; is that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you discuss the claims made by Mr Thomas 15 with the rest of the Investigation Team? 16 A. I can't remember. I obviously knew that Steve 17 Bradshaw -- he was with me at the time, he 18 obviously knew. A team leader would have known. 19 I guess I would have told the rest of the team, 20 it would have been a discussion point because 21 I think it was the first time that claim had 22 been made. 23 Q. To your knowledge, was that the first time that 24 the Post Office had heard of an allegation of 25 a fault with Horizon that was leading to errors 26 1 or discrepancies in the accounts? 2 A. I have no knowledge or idea of what the Post 3 Office knew. I only knew that was the first 4 time it had been raised and brought to my 5 attention. 6 Q. Who do you think you may have discussed it with, 7 other than, obviously, Mr Bradshaw, your 8 co-investigator? 9 A. Well, there would have been a few people. 10 I mean, specifically about Mr Thomas' case, 11 there was involvement from Emlyn Hughes, the 12 Area Manager. There would have been involvement 13 from Paul Dawkins, my line manager at the time. 14 I would imagine, but I can't speak for him, that 15 that would then have been raised up to John 16 Scott. 17 Q. The Head of Security? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. In relation to that sort of escalating series of 20 individuals, did you ever any word back that, in 21 fact, there have been allegations made about the 22 operation of Horizon and it -- the system -- 23 causing shortfalls and discrepancies, almost 24 right from the beginning, from 2000? 25 A. I didn't know of any other case, at that moment 27 1 in time, where the integrity of the Horizon 2 system had been brought into question. 3 I obviously knew from my previous working 4 history that there'd been issues right at the 5 beginning but we were led to believe that they 6 had been resolved. 7 Q. When you say you were "led to believe", was that 8 a sort of a corporate message; is that a fair 9 way of describing it? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In paragraph 24 of your witness statement you 12 set out the process followed by Security Team 13 Investigators when conducting an investigation 14 and, in paragraph 30 of your witness statement, 15 you say: 16 "In the investigations I undertook, 17 I followed the evidence trail." 18 Yes? 19 (No audible answer) 20 In paragraph 43 of your witness statement 21 you say: 22 "[You] do not know if ARQ data was requested 23 from Fujitsu as a matter of course regarding 24 shortfalls identified which the subpostmaster or 25 clerk attributed to the Horizon system. I was 28 1 not involved in this process." 2 Does it follow that it was your 3 understanding that ARQ data was not requested as 4 a matter of course when an Investigator or 5 a prosecutor sought to rely on Horizon data in 6 their investigation and their prosecution. 7 A. It's difficult -- well, I can't answer that 8 question because the only one I knew about was 9 Mr Thomas, and I requested the ARQ data and then 10 I left shortly after. So the majority of the 11 issues were probably after my time but the 12 one -- the only one that I was aware of, 13 certainly within my team, was Mr Thomas. 14 Q. I think what you're saying, Ms Matthews, is that 15 it's only if the suspect raised a problem that 16 the trigger would be to request Horizon ARQ 17 data; is that right? 18 A. Yes, it is, yeah. 19 Q. So it wasn't requested as a matter of course in 20 every investigation or prosecution, in order to 21 prove the loss? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. How was the loss proved then? 24 A. By an audit going in and checking the cash and 25 stock on hand. 29 1 Q. So half of that is walking into the branch and 2 seeing how many stamps, giros and pound notes 3 are there, yes? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. But the other half of it is relying on what 6 Horizon says should be there? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What evidence was obtained, if any, to establish 9 that what Horizon said should be there was 10 accurate or did you just take the balance sheet 11 that Horizon printed out? 12 A. It was just taken, yes. 13 Q. So you didn't peek behind that as a matter of 14 course to see the process by which that account 15 had been created by the system? 16 A. You wouldn't doubt the integrity of the system 17 because we were led to believe that wasn't in 18 question. So -- 19 Q. Putting aside whether you were told that the 20 system had integrity or was robust or not, 21 I think it follows that you didn't think that 22 there was a need to prove the accuracy of the 23 account that Horizon produced; it was sufficient 24 if Horizon produced an account? 25 A. I think it was accepted that, if the cash and 30 1 stock figures that were on hand were represented 2 on the Horizon system, then you'd accept the 3 figures that were printed off, yes. 4 Q. Moving on to your understanding of disclosure 5 obligations, you tell us in your witness 6 statement, as you've done today, that the Post 7 Office Security Department was governed by the 8 provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence 9 Act and the CPIA, and you tell us that you 10 received training on, amongst other things, 11 disclosing evidence. 12 I just want to explore, without looking at 13 an individual case yet, your understanding of 14 the disclosure obligations. 15 Can you confirm, please, from the 16 perspective of a Security Manager, that you 17 received training on the fundamental importance 18 of disclosure to the criminal process? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did you receive training on the nature of the 21 statutory disclosure duties owed by 22 an investigator and by a prosecutor? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What did you understand as to whether those 25 duties could be delegated to a third party? 31 1 A. I've probably got slightly confused when I've 2 written my witness statement. My understanding 3 was it's up to the Investigator to obtain, 4 collate and disclose all documentation. 5 However, I've probably misinterpreted the 6 question and seen the disclosure as disclosure 7 to the defence, which wasn't part of my duty. 8 Q. Were you trained on something called the "three 9 Rs", does that ring a bell? 10 A. Is that -- yeah, um, you've put me on the spot 11 now but I do recall it. Is it -- 12 Q. Retain, record and reveal? 13 A. Yes, yes. 14 Q. That was part of the training? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was there training on how those maybe abstract 17 or theoretical principles were translated into 18 effect within the Post Office: ie how the 19 business was going to retain; how the business 20 was going to record; and how the business was 21 going to reveal documents? 22 A. I don't remember that. I don't remember 23 receiving specific training. That's not to say 24 I didn't. I just can't remember. 25 Q. Did you receive training about a CPIA Code 32 1 requirement about reasonable lines of inquiry? 2 A. I can't remember specifically. 3 Q. What did you understand the duty of 4 an Investigator to be in terms of the pursuit of 5 lines of inquiry? 6 A. That you had to follow all lines of inquiry to 7 understand what's gone on in a particular 8 situation. 9 Q. Whether they pointed away or towards the 10 suspect's -- 11 A. Absolutely, yes. 12 Q. -- guilt, yes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was that translated into practice, again, that 15 high level statement of a duty in operation in 16 the Post Office, ie what must we do when 17 a suspect says that it's Horizon that's causing 18 discrepancies in their branch? 19 A. Well, again, I can only recall the one time I've 20 had to deal with that and, obviously, I took it 21 extremely seriously and made relevant decisions 22 to try to find out whether the Horizon system 23 was to blame, or causing issues, or had bugs and 24 defects. It has to be checked. 25 Q. You tell us in your witness statement -- it's 33 1 paragraphs 57 and 58, no need to turn them up -- 2 that you completed disclosure schedules to 3 ensure that relevant unused material was 4 scheduled and brought to the attention of 5 reviewing lawyers and the Prosecution Support 6 Office, yes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When you say that you submitted the relevant 9 documents for the purposes of disclosure, do you 10 mean that, when you were the Investigating 11 Officer in a case, you would collate the unused 12 material that you had gathered and complete the 13 relevant schedules of material yourself? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Would they include a schedule of non-sensitive 16 material, a schedule of sensitive material and 17 a Disclosure Officer's report? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What processes would you undertake to ensure 20 that a reviewing lawyer was aware of the 21 existence of material that may assist the 22 defence or may undermine the prosecution case? 23 A. I would ensure that they were aware of it but 24 I don't actually recall ever having anything 25 like that. 34 1 Q. Never in your four years was there any material 2 that might undermine a prosecution or help 3 a defendant? 4 A. I don't recall putting anything on a sensitive 5 schedule. I always remember that everything was 6 either used or unused and everything was on them 7 two documents. I don't ever remember having 8 anything that was classified as "sensitive". 9 Q. Putting aside the sensitive for the moment, 10 whose decision was it whether material should be 11 disclosed to the defence? 12 A. The Criminal Law Team. 13 Q. You tell us in paragraph 58 of your statement 14 that you were not the Disclosure Officer in any 15 cases. 16 A. Yeah. I think I have misinterpreted the 17 question on that. I understand my duties as 18 Disclosure Officer was to provide all the 19 information to the Criminal Law Team. What I've 20 read into that question was what then happened 21 in order to disclose it to the defence. 22 Q. I see. If we just look at what you say in your 23 witness statement, page 18 of your witness 24 statement -- it will come up on the screen for 25 you -- at the foot of the page. 35 1 We're dealing here with Janet Skinner's case 2 and at 58 you say: 3 "I was not the Disclosure Officer in this 4 case or any cases. The decision on what was 5 disclosed was a legal matter and dealt with by 6 the Prosecution ... Team. I submitted all 7 documents to them on the relevant paperwork and 8 I played no further part in the dissemination of 9 the evidence." 10 If we go forwards to page 34, at 11 paragraph 99, when we're dealing with Hughie 12 Thomas' case, you say in 99: 13 "I was not the Disclosure Officer in this 14 case. This was undertaken by the Prosecution 15 Support Office." 16 I think you just told me that you 17 misunderstood the questions that led to those 18 two paragraphs, 58 and 99. What had you 19 misunderstood? 20 A. I've taken it as -- when talking about 21 disclosure, disclosure to the defence. Not 22 disclosure to -- from the outset, of the 23 investigation. I thought it was discussing the 24 disclosure to the defence lawyers. 25 Q. Had you received training on what the role and 36 1 duties of a Disclosure Officer were? 2 A. I would have done at the time, but you're asking 3 me this question now, you know, about -- I've 4 misinterpreted a question. 5 Q. I'm going to show you in probably an hour's time 6 couple of disclosure schedules where you're 7 shown as the Disclosure Officer and you've 8 signed the disclosure schedule saying you 9 complied with your duties as Disclosure Officer. 10 What did you understand your duties as 11 Disclosure Officer were? 12 A. That I had to disclose all information that has 13 been obtained as part of the investigation. 14 Q. You understood that as meaning disclosure to the 15 Criminal Law Team and then you're drawing 16 a distinction between the actual provision of 17 documents to the defendant, which was undertaken 18 by the Prosecution Support Office; is that 19 right? 20 A. I thought that was what the question was asking: 21 who disclosed the information to the defence? 22 That's how I've misinterpreted the question. 23 I understand my role as a Disclosure Officer was 24 to obtain and disclose every piece of 25 information that was gathered as part of the 37 1 investigation. 2 Q. Okay, that can come down. Thank you. 3 Who or what was the Prosecution Support 4 Office. 5 A. They were, from recollection, an administrative 6 function within the Criminal Law Team. 7 Q. Were they lawyers? 8 A. I don't know. I think -- I know some were legal 9 execs, but I don't know what their legal 10 training was. 11 Q. Were they based in one place or more than one 12 place? 13 A. I think they were based in London, within the 14 Criminal Law Team, but I couldn't say 100 per 15 cent. 16 Q. It was your understanding that they were the 17 ones responsible for physically giving 18 disclosure; is that right? 19 A. Yes. Them and, obviously, in line with the 20 assigned lawyer. 21 Q. Sorry, can you say that again? Your voice 22 dropped. 23 A. Sorry, yeah. The Prosecution Support Office, as 24 well as the assigned lawyer to the case. 25 Q. Can we turn to paragraph 34 and 35 of your 38 1 witness statement, please, which will come up on 2 the screen. It's page 11. At paragraph 34 you 3 say: 4 "I have been asked what I understood by the 5 bullet points on page 2 of the Casework 6 Management [document]." 7 You had reviewed it: 8 "The first 3 bullet points ... are regarding 9 the documents required to be associated in any 10 case file ... all case files go in the first 11 instance to the Prosecution Support Office. 12 "With regards to bullet point 4 ... 13 concerning failures in operational procedures 14 and security, my recollections on this are 15 anything you observed or encountered which 16 played a part in a fraud being committed or loss 17 in an office." 18 Then you give some examples and say at the 19 end of the paragraph: 20 "These are examples where the business would 21 not want these details to become common 22 knowledge." 23 Can we just look at that document, please, 24 POL00104777. We can see, if we just look at the 25 foot of the page, it's dated October 2002. Then 39 1 look at the top of the page, "Casework 2 management", it's an investigation policy, whose 3 purpose is: 4 "... to ensure that adequate controls are in 5 place to maintain standards throughout 6 investigation processes." 7 Then if we go to the points that you were 8 referring to in your witness statement, which is 9 on page 2, and if we look at the fifth bullet 10 point, the one beginning "The issue of" -- thank 11 you, if that can just be highlighted: 12 "The issue of dealing with information 13 concerning procedural failures is a difficult 14 one. Some major procedural weaknesses, if they 15 become public knowledge, may have an adverse 16 effect on our Business. They may assist others 17 to commit offences against our Business, 18 undermine a prosecution case, bring our Business 19 into disrepute or harm relations with major 20 customers. Unless the offender states that he 21 is aware that accounting weaknesses exist and he 22 took advantage of them, it is important not to 23 volunteer that option to the offender during 24 interview. The usual duties of closure under 25 the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 40 1 1996 still apply." 2 Was it your understanding that, if your 3 investigation identified a procedure failing or 4 some other irregularity, that may undermine 5 a case against a suspect or assist them in some 6 way, that had to be brought to the attention of 7 Legal Services? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. If we just look at the bullet point above, 10 please, bullet point 4: 11 "If, during the course of an enquiry, 12 failures in security or operational procedures 13 are identified which may or may not be directly 14 connected with the offence/s under 15 investigation, full detail must be included 16 within the report to Legal Services. If 17 necessary, any urgent remedial action can be 18 notified to the appropriate operational manager 19 verbally," et cetera. 20 So, irrespective of what's in that fifth 21 bullet point, you knew that, if a procedural 22 failure or some other irregularity that 23 undermined a case against a suspect existed, 24 that had to be brought to the attention of Legal 25 Services; is that right? 41 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Would that be in the confidential investigation 3 report that was submitted to Legal Services? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Can you recall instances where, in the words of 6 the policy, the business would not want the 7 details to become public knowledge? 8 A. I can remember a couple of them, yes. 9 Q. Were they to do with physical security issues? 10 A. One was to do with an Alliance & Leicester issue 11 in particular. 12 Q. Was that to do with the way that the system 13 operated? 14 A. It was to do with the system allowing a customer 15 to make multiple deposits of up to £20,000 at 16 a time into the system, without any checks. So, 17 in other words, one of the cases I had was 18 £500,000 had been deposited during somebody's 19 lunch hour and the system allowed them to do it, 20 and it was obviously a weakness where there was 21 no checks. 22 Q. Did you understand what we've just read in the 23 policy about not revealing procedural weaknesses 24 to be, and only to be, about cases where future 25 advantage might be taken of the weakness? 42 1 A. No. I didn't see it like that. 2 Q. How did you see it? 3 A. I saw it as anything that might not only, not 4 only allow people to take advantage but also 5 could bring the company into question. So, 6 again, we use Horizon. If I was aware that it 7 was Horizon, that would be raised. 8 Q. Raised with who? 9 A. Through the Criminal Law Team but, if that was 10 the case, it would probably also be raised to 11 a much higher level -- 12 Q. This policy is saying don't reveal that to the 13 suspect in the interview? 14 A. At that particular time, though, if it wasn't 15 an issue about Horizon, I wouldn't reveal 16 anything because I wouldn't have anything to 17 reveal at that time, because it would mean 18 I would have to go and check the -- you know, 19 the situation that had been put in front of me. 20 Q. Can I turn to a different topic, the last of the 21 general issues before we look at the case 22 studies, and your understanding of the 23 relationship between the instruction of 24 an expert and the duties of disclosure. 25 Did you know that the instruction of 43 1 an expert gave rise to distinct and particular 2 disclosure obligations on the part of the 3 prosecution? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Were you aware of a requirement, I'm not going 6 to set out where it arises, that communications 7 with an expert were subject to a particular duty 8 to retain? 9 A. I don't recall that. 10 Q. Does that mean that you wouldn't have included 11 communications with an expert on your schedules 12 of unused material? 13 A. I would include everything that I had as part of 14 the case on the schedules, in terms of it would 15 go somewhere. But when you say about an expert, 16 in order to get an expert witness statement, 17 I wouldn't personally do that. 18 Q. Who would personally do that? 19 A. From my best recollection, I would go to the 20 Casework Manager and -- 21 Q. Who was the Casework Manager; was it Mr Ward? 22 A. I think Graham Ward was one of them. 23 Q. We're going to see, over the next couple of 24 hours, your involvement in procuring evidence 25 from Gareth Jenkins, in the case of Hughie 44 1 Thomas, looking at a wide variety of 2 communications, either involving you or in which 3 you were a copyee, about the content of the 4 evidence that he was going to give about 5 revisions to his witness statement, about adding 6 bits in and taking bits out. Would you have 7 understood that those communications were 8 disclosable to the defence -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- and that they should be listed in the 11 Schedule of Unused Material? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. When we look at the Schedule in due course, in 14 Mr Thomas' case, we can see that they were not 15 listed. Looking at the matter generally, do you 16 know why that was? 17 A. My only recollection of how that would have 18 happened was because when -- I would do my first 19 disclosure of all the evidence I had. The 20 statements would then form part of the evidence 21 that was gathered after, that went to the 22 Prosecution Support Office and would be added 23 then. 24 I didn't see the bundle again after I'd done 25 my initial disclosure of all the information I'd 45 1 got from the initial investigation. I wouldn't 2 do a supplementary one. It would be added as -- 3 you know, by the prosecution team and Criminal 4 Law Team, as part of new evidence. 5 Q. Whose duty was it to conduct a rolling 6 disclosure exercise by the completion of 7 successive Schedules of Unused Material as the 8 investigation proceeded? 9 A. I'm presuming it was the Prosecution Support 10 Office and Criminal Law Team. 11 Q. You're saying that you did one schedule and one 12 schedule only when you submitted the papers, and 13 that was it? 14 A. My best recollection of what I did at the time 15 is that I did the initial scope of work, of 16 which I then did disclosure on every document 17 I had. These were supplementary things that 18 I didn't really have much involvement in, from 19 my recollection and when that statement came -- 20 Q. We're going to see in a moment that you did have 21 some involvement in them but, putting that to 22 one side, did you not understand your duty as 23 the Investigator and the Disclosure Officer to 24 include the preparation and submission of 25 supplemental Schedules of Unused Material as the 46 1 investigation and prosecution proceeded? 2 A. I was led to believe that would be done by the 3 department. 4 Q. Who led you to believe that it was to be done by 5 the department? 6 A. Because that was my liaison with them in the 7 Criminal Law Team and Prosecution Support 8 Office. 9 Q. Okay, well, we'll maybe see this in action when 10 we look at specific cases. Just, lastly, 11 generally, did you understand that you were 12 under a duty to disclose to the defence drafts 13 of witness statements, if they materially 14 differed from the final signed version? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Can we look at Hughie Thomas' case, then, 17 please, and can we start, please, with 18 POL00047748. These are the terms of reference 19 with the criminal investigation into Mr Thomas. 20 Can you see, if we just scroll down, please, 21 "Investigator": you're shown as the 22 Investigator, yes? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. If we pan back out, just look at the whole of 25 the page, is this a document that was completed 47 1 at the beginning of the investigation? 2 A. I believe so but I don't actually recall this 3 document. 4 Q. Well, I was going to ask you what the purpose of 5 the terms of reference document for a criminal 6 investigation was. 7 A. I don't recall. I can't remember that document. 8 Q. Was it a document completed by the investigator? 9 A. I'm presuming so, yes, but I don't ever remember 10 seeing -- or I don't have any recollection of 11 that document. 12 Q. If we just look, we can see the office name at 13 the top, which is Mr Thomas' office. It says, 14 "Customer 1", Emlyn Hughes, "Service and 15 Contracts Manager". What function did Mr Hughes 16 perform? 17 A. He was the Area Manager for North Wales. 18 Q. So he's described as "Customer 1"; what does 19 that mean? 20 A. I've no idea what "Customer 1" means because 21 I don't recollect this form at all. But I knew 22 who Emlyn Hughes was. He looked after the 23 subpostmasters and their contracts. He wasn't 24 anything to do with the Security team. 25 Q. If we scroll down, please, to the big box at the 48 1 bottom. Thank you. "Details of Incident": 2 "Audit took place on 13 October 2005. 3 Result of which was a loss of [£48,000-odd]. 4 The majority of the loss was in cash. 5 "Subpostmaster, Mr Thomas, was arrested on 6 suspicion of theft of Post Office funds. 7 "Cash Accounts do not show any loss/gains so 8 there is also false accounting. 9 "Mr Thomas has blamed the loss on the 10 Horizon system saying online banking 11 transactions are producing nil totals when he 12 has given cash out over the counter to 13 customers. 14 "Mr Thomas insists that he only has access 15 to the office while the only other user on the 16 system is his wife. 17 "[He] has a buyer for the Post Office and 18 expects to reimburse the Post Office with the 19 proceeds of the sale." 20 Then the line which says -- three paragraphs 21 from the top there, "Mr Thomas has blamed the 22 loss on the Horizon system", and then he gives 23 an explanation, it's "online banking that are 24 producing nil totals when he has given cash ... 25 out to customers", if we go over of the page, 49 1 please, box 6: 2 "As a result of an initial scoping exercise 3 ... in this section the investigator has 4 identified the initial activities to be 5 undertaken in dealing with this incident. 6 "Objective: To collate information regarding 7 the background for £48,000 loss at branch. 8 "Action: To interview the [subpostmaster] 9 Mr Thomas and seek reasons for the audit loss at 10 the branch. Gather facts surrounding problems 11 at branch. 12 "Outcome anticipated: Obtain relevant 13 information. Look to recover the audit loss of 14 £48,000", by 25 October 2005. 15 Can you help us why this does not include, 16 given Mr Thomas had squarely blamed the loss on 17 Horizon, any mention, as an investigative 18 action, an investigation into the Horizon 19 system. 20 A. I don't recall this form. So I can't add 21 anything to it. 22 Q. I mean, that's a pretty obvious line of inquiry, 23 isn't it, given what he had said -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- a suspect raising squarely the problem with 50 1 Horizon and identifying what the issue was? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So that ought to have resulted in 4 an investigative activity; is that right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Can we move forwards then, please, to 7 FUJ00155181. If we start at the back, we're 8 going to end up with this ARQ request. If we 9 start at the back of page 23 of this document, 10 please -- and if we just scroll to the page 11 above, please, the bottom of the page above, 12 thank you -- we see an email there from you to 13 Mr Ward of 14 October 2005; can you see that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Thank you. You say: 18 "Graham, 19 "Just to clarify, the subpostmaster has not 20 made any calls to HSH or NBSC ..." 21 Do you now recall what those are? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can you tell us what your recollection of HSH 24 and NBSC is now? 25 A. HSH, I think, is the Horizon System Helpdesk and 51 1 NBSC is the -- I think it's the National Support 2 Centre. 3 Q. Network Banking Support Centre? 4 A. That's it, yes. 5 Q. Can you now recall who each of those were 6 operated by, HSH and NBSC? 7 A. Sorry? I didn't hear that. 8 Q. Can you recall who operated each of those? 9 A. I can't recall. 10 Q. You don't now remember whether they were Post 11 Office operated or Fujitsu operated? 12 A. Well, the Horizon -- I think the Horizon System 13 Helpline may have been Post Office but 14 I wouldn't -- I can't recall for sure. 15 Q. Okay, you say he has not made any calls to 16 either of them: 17 "... prior to yesterday's audit, and is now 18 voicing his concerns over the nil transactions 19 on card account/online banking transactions. 20 "I believe that there are at least 2 21 scenarios where a nil value [are] recorded. 22 These are ..." 23 Then you set them out: 24 "If a customer places a card into the PIN 25 pad ..." 52 1 Then the second one: 2 "If a customer places a POCA card into the 3 PIN pad." 4 Yes? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Over the page, please: 7 "Please can you check any other 8 possibilities of nil values on these types of 9 transactions with Fujitsu. 10 "Also as the subpostmaster is blaming the 11 [Horizon] system on his losses, please could we 12 check there are no problems with the Horizon kit 13 at the branch." 14 The branch is going to remain closed. 15 So you're saying "I think that there are two 16 scenarios where a nil value will be recorded on 17 Horizon, but please can you, Mr Ward, go to 18 Fujitsu to see whether there are any others"? 19 A. They were the only two scenarios at that time 20 I could think of but I couldn't 100 per cent say 21 there was no others. Also, I note there to 22 confirm the branch will remain closed. 23 I recall, when I got there, the branch had 24 actually reopened and then I asked for it to be 25 closed because I wasn't happy -- if Horizon had 53 1 been given as a reason for the losses, I didn't 2 think it was appropriate that we continue 3 undertaking transactions on a system that may 4 have issues. 5 Q. Okay. Can we scroll up, then, please to the top 6 of page 22. Thank you. 7 Mr Ward, on the same day, a couple of hours 8 later, emails Fujitsu, copying you in -- can you 9 see that -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- saying: 12 "The email below from one of our 13 investigators says it all. 14 "Is there a check that can be made to ensure 15 there are/were no serious errors on the system 16 at this post office? We already have details of 17 calls made to the Helpdesk (see spreadsheet 18 below), which do not highlight anything obvious. 19 Are there general error type reports that will 20 tell you when there is a problem with the 21 system, which the Post Office may not 22 necessarily be aware of, particularly in 23 relation to the highlighted paragraph. Have 24 there been similar problems elsewhere? (I've 25 heard of Tivoli event logs. Could these be 54 1 relevant?) 2 "This case is in its early stages, but if it 3 were to proceed to a prosecution, we'd likely 4 need a statement which outlines how you can 5 confirm that there were no operating errors in 6 this office's system. I haven't submitted 7 an ARQ yet but can do so if you feel it's 8 needed." 9 Okay, so a general email from Mr Ward to 10 Fujitsu asking whether there are or were any 11 serious errors on the system at this post office 12 but he hasn't submitted an ARQ, yes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Then if we go to page 19, please, foot of the 15 page, please. You're not copied in on these, 16 but I just want to see what happens within 17 Fujitsu first. There's an internal email from 18 Brian Pinder within Fujitsu, forwarding the 19 chain we've just looked at: 20 "Obviously this has not come our way yet, 21 but meanwhile any thoughts comments? I guess we 22 just wait for an ARQ, but do we (Security) have 23 anything in our arsenal, to go back to Graham 24 with at all?" 25 Then scrolling up, Ms Lowther forwards it to 55 1 Oddette Moronfolu: 2 "Could you advise us on this please." 3 Then Ms Moronfolu forwards it to Richard 4 Craig: 5 "Hi Ric, 6 "Can you have a look at this? 7 "They really need to know if there is 8 anything else that could have caused the nil 9 transactions." 10 Then top of the page. He replies: 11 "The original email makes reference to 12 an audit. To answer your question definitively, 13 I'd need to know what data they are auditing 14 that defines a 'nil transaction'. Is it zero 15 transaction values in the R or A messages? Or 16 are they auditing data in some host database or 17 log? This matters because the counter doesn't 18 send up an amount value in the R message for 19 'Withdraw to limit' but that may be represented 20 as a zero value in a log or database field. The 21 same might be true for Change PIN and Balance 22 Enquiry. 23 "All banking transactions are approved 24 online with the acquirer. The acquirer may 25 decline for reasons other than an incorrect PIN 56 1 ... These other reasons might also cause a nil 2 transaction. 3 "Nil transactions could also be caused by 4 errors in PIN pad, counter, agents or host code 5 depending on what constitutes a 'nil 6 transaction'. This cannot be determined without 7 access to the appropriate system logs. 8 I understand that it is not felt to be 9 appropriate at this stage for those logs to be 10 examined by development staff. I'd recommend 11 however that counter logs our harvested now 12 before potential evidence is lost." 13 MR BEER: I wonder whether we could stop there 14 before we look at the rest of the chain later in 15 October 2005 and, if it is convenient to you, 16 sir, take a break until 11.35. 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, of course. 18 MR BEER: Thank you. 19 (11.21 am) 20 (A short break) 21 (11.35 am) 22 MR BEER: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear 23 me and Ms Matthews, can you see and hear me? 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I can, yes. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can. 57 1 MR BEER: Thank you very much, can we have back up 2 FUJ00155181, please, and page 18, please, and 3 look at the foot of the page, please. We'd 4 looked at the very bottom email, if we just look 5 at this one, Mr Pinder replies to Ms Moronfolu: 6 "Oddette 7 "Thanks for your input here and I note 8 Richard's reply but without wanting to cause any 9 further unnecessary work (on our part) we have 10 exhausted all reasonable avenues of enquiry on 11 this. 12 "Graham's initial last para states ... 13 "'This case is in its early stages, but if 14 it were to proceed to a prosecution, we'd likely 15 need a statement which outlines how you can 16 confirm that there were no operating errors 17 within this offices system. I haven't submitted 18 an ARQ yet but can do so if you feel it's 19 needed'." 20 "Do we need to follow this up elsewhere or 21 can we leave it at that, is there anything to go 22 back to Graham with?" 23 Then up the page please: 24 "We have nothing to go back to Graham with 25 unless a call is raised to investigate. Which 58 1 Ric suggests happens sooner rather than later." 2 Then: 3 "Thanks ... let's leave it at that." 4 Then, please, if we go to page 15, and if we 5 could just look at the foot of the page, please, 6 we can see Penny Thomas from Fujitsu sending 7 Mr Ward an email: 8 "As you know, nothing is ever 9 straightforward! Here's some feedback ..." 10 Then she cuts in the internal Fujitsu email 11 that we'd seen earlier and passes it on to the 12 Post Office, concluding with: 13 "In other words, we need to check the system 14 logs. How would you like to proceed?" 15 Then if we go to the top of the page, 16 please, we can see that you're now copied into 17 this email. It seems that the email I've just 18 looked at was forwarded to you or a reply by 19 Mr Ward to Ms Thomas adding you in: 20 "Penny 21 "Thanks ... but you've confused me! 22 "What is an R&A message? 23 "What is a host database? (I believe the 24 nil transactions were identified on 25 a transaction log.) 59 1 "I think it is best that the system logs are 2 examined in the first instance (do you need 3 an ARQ for this?), going back to 1 April 2005. 4 Is it possible for you to run a report to show 5 'nil' values for the transaction examples 6 described below, so we can see how often it has 7 happened?" 8 This kind of email exchange that we've seen 9 so far, Ms Matthews, is this essentially how 10 investigations into Horizon were conducted, with 11 email exchanges such as this? 12 A. I wasn't aware of the majority of them emails. 13 I wasn't privy to them. From my recollection, 14 I informed the Casework Manager what I needed 15 and he was the liaison point into Fujitsu. 16 Q. It looks like, would you agree, that there was 17 no established system? 18 A. From my end, the established system was: tell 19 Casework what was required or ask them and they 20 had whatever procedures were in place. But 21 I think, probably back in 2005, there probably 22 wasn't any set procedures or parameters for 23 that. 24 Q. I mean, to the outsider, it looks like everyone 25 is flapping around a little, to be honest -- 60 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. -- and the only theme that emerges is "Why don't 3 we wait and see whether a prosecution is 4 commenced and then maybe make an ARQ request at 5 that point?" I mean, is that an unfair 6 characterisation? 7 A. I can't really agree or disagree with that 8 because that was not at a level that I was 9 operating at. I certainly wasn't privy to them 10 conversations. 11 Q. Okay, well, Mr Ward seeks to move it on, if we 12 go to page 14, please. You can see, he sends 13 you an email on 25 October, so a day later, 14 copying Mr Dawkins and Penny Thomas in, in 15 relation to the branch there. I'm not going to 16 try and pronounce it, given my tribunal; I'm 17 going to call it the branch on Anglesey. He 18 says: 19 "I've spoken with the Fujitsu Security team 20 and have agreed the following course of action. 21 "Fujitsu will [investigate] a thorough 22 analysis of the system ... going back one month 23 from the date of audit (if we need to go back 24 further we will do). I do not see a need to 25 remove hardware at this point to conduct any 61 1 specialist examination of the [processes], 2 particularly given the postmaster did not report 3 any faults with the system to the HSH. I would 4 suggest that a call is logged with the HSH ... 5 outlining the 'alleged' fault and asking them to 6 send an engineer to the site to conduct a test 7 of the equipment prior to the office being 8 reopened. I'm sure they can also perform a few 9 test transactions." 10 Then if we go to page 12, please, this is 11 an internal Fujitsu email, forwarding that email 12 that we've just looked at, saying: 13 "Here's a copy of Graham's request 14 concerning the [branch on Anglesey] outlet. 15 "The 'thorough analysis' I have agreed with 16 Graham is the analysis of all nil transactions 17 on card account/online banking transactions." 18 Then the last paragraph: 19 "As you can see, I've also suggested that 20 [Post Office] log a Helpdesk call and request 21 that the system is checked for error." 22 Then on to page 1, please. We can see the 23 ARQ request that Mr Ward settled. You will see 24 that it's dated 24 October 2005. Then if we 25 scroll down, please, "Information Requested". 62 1 So the date range is a month before the audit, 2 14 September 2005 to 13 October 2005, and the 3 request is: 4 "Please conduct an analysis of all Helpdesk 5 calls for the above period. 6 "Also please conduct a thorough examination 7 of the system in general with a view to refuting 8 the postmaster's allegation that there is 9 a fault with the 'nil' transactions on card 10 account/online banking transactions. 11 "Please bear in mind we are investigating 12 a substantial shortage in the accounts and 13 should this proceed to prosecution we may be 14 asking for a supporting witness statement." 15 Do you get to see these ARQ requests before 16 they are issued? 17 (No audible reply) 18 Was that a no, sorry? 19 A. I don't recall seeing any of these documents 20 before. 21 Q. When you say "any of these documents", plainly 22 you saw the emails that I've drawn your 23 attention to at the time? 24 A. Sorry. To clarify, I don't recall seeing any of 25 the ARQ documents before. These weren't 63 1 completed by me and I've not had sight of them. 2 Q. Did you have the facility to raise ARQ requests 3 yourself or did they have to be raised by 4 Mr Ward? 5 A. They were raised by Mr Ward or someone in the 6 Casework Management Team. 7 Q. You'll see that in his second paragraph he says: 8 "... please conduct a thorough examination 9 ... in general with a view to refuting the 10 postmaster's allegation that there is a fault 11 ..." 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I think you would probably agree that that's not 14 really the open minded way that disclosure 15 requests ought to be settled, is it? 16 A. I agree, and that's not what my intention was 17 for getting information because -- because I'd 18 got prior knowledge of Horizon in my previous 19 role. If there was something wrong, it needed 20 to be resolved. So it wasn't a case from my 21 mindset that I was looking to refute Mr Thomas' 22 allegations. I wanted to know what caused the 23 shortage. 24 Q. Because you've told us in your witness statement 25 that you would seek evidence with an open mind 64 1 that might support the Post Office's case but 2 equally might assist the suspect, Mr Thomas? 3 A. Yes, and that was one of the reasons why 4 I didn't think it was appropriate to reopen the 5 Post Office with the same equipment, because if 6 it was the equipment, then all you're doing is 7 passing a potential problem on to somebody else 8 that might experience the same situation and the 9 same losses and outcomes, and, you know, 10 I didn't think that was appropriate. 11 Q. In any event, this request is raised on the 12 24 October 2005 and we've seen the emails that 13 reflect, to some extent, the request that was 14 made. 15 Can we turn to your investigation report, 16 please, at POL00044861. So the ARQ requests 17 that we were just looking at was 24 October, and 18 I think we can see, if we go to page 7, this is 19 signed off by you on 25 October, the next day, 20 yes? 21 A. Yes. Can I just add, I've not had sight 22 previously of this particular document. I don't 23 know if this was one that was forwarded to me 24 this week that I've not had a chance to review, 25 but the only one I've seen is the one that was 65 1 for the discipline manager. 2 Q. Yes, that's what this document is. This was 3 sent to you with your original Rule 9 Request 4 a couple of months ago. 5 A. Right. Okay. 6 Q. If we go back to page 1, please. You can see 7 it's "Personnel", it's the discipline one I'm 8 asking about at the moment. 9 A. Right, okay. 10 Q. You'll see that it relates to Noel Thomas, it 11 sets out his service and then, bottom of the 12 page: 13 "These papers refer to an audit shortage at 14 [the post office] on Thursday, 13 October 2005." 15 If we go forwards, please, to page 6, and 16 four paragraphs in you say: 17 "Mr Thomas is convinced that the Horizon 18 system is affecting his balance results, as the 19 Online Banking summary contains several zero 20 totals." 21 Then you say: 22 "There are a number of legitimate reasons 23 why a zero entry would be present on the 24 summary. 25 "[1] A customer places their card into the 66 1 PIN pad terminal and enters an incorrect PIN 2 number. 3 "[2] A customer requests a withdrawal but no 4 funds are present in their account. 5 "[3] A customer has previously entered 6 an incorrect PIN on 3 separate occasions and the 7 card provider blocks the transaction. 8 "[4] The card has been reported stolen and 9 the card has been cancelled. 10 "[5] The transaction does not receive online 11 authorisation from the card provider even with 12 the correct PIN entered. 13 "If Mr Thomas has paid out funds in respect 14 of the above transactions and a loss occurred 15 then this is down to incompetence and not the 16 failings of the Horizon system." 17 Now, this was written by you, prior to the 18 receipt of any of the ARQ data, wasn't it? 19 Indeed, it was written only a day after the 20 request was made. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. How did you determine that there were five 23 reasons for nil transactions? 24 A. I was -- I can't remember exactly how I came to 25 that assumption. I think it was just from my 67 1 knowledge of the system. 2 Q. What enquiries, training or knowledge did you 3 rely on to say that there were five reasons, 4 legitimate reasons, for zero entries? 5 A. I can't remember what prompted me to write that, 6 in terms of getting information. I may have 7 made some phone calls. I may have taken some 8 advice. I can't recall. 9 Q. Were you saying these were the only five 10 reasons? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Well, if there were more than five reasons, 13 potentially, why did you only list these five? 14 A. Because this document wasn't to facilitate any 15 criminal proceedings or make any legal 16 decisions. This was just where the case was at 17 the moment, to give to Mr Hughes -- sorry, Mr -- 18 yeah, Emlyn Hughes -- in respect of where I was 19 with the case from a discipline or make 20 decisions on Mr Thomas' role as a subpostmaster. 21 Q. Well, I'd ask you to remember that answer for 22 a little later today because what we'll see is 23 that what you set out here does become part of 24 the prosecution case, that these are the five 25 reasons for legitimate nil transactions. 68 1 Why didn't you wait for the results of the 2 ARQ data to come back? 3 A. Because it was the Post Office procedures to 4 send an interim report to the conduct manager, 5 normally within the week of the audit, or loss 6 being occurred. 7 Q. But why are you listing legitimate reasons for 8 zero entries being present in the audit, without 9 receipt of the ARQ data? 10 A. I'm hypothesising, I think, as what they could 11 be. I can't answer that because I can't 12 remember. 13 Q. It's written quite definitively, isn't it? Not, 14 "Amongst the reasons why a zero entry might be 15 print are the following" or "Here is 16 a non-exhaustive list". You're setting out the 17 reasons, and there are five of them, for 18 a legitimate zero entry being present, aren't 19 you? 20 A. I can't tell you what I was writing at the time, 21 I just know, probably from my experience on the 22 counter and through the system, these were 23 reasons I may have seen before, may have 24 experienced before, or maybe I made a phone 25 call. Any answer I give to that, I'm guessing, 69 1 because I can't remember what forced my decision 2 making to write that. I can't remember. 3 Q. Can we move forwards, please, to a couple of 4 months later to look at the offender report 5 prepared for criminal investigation and 6 prosecution purposes, POL00044867. 7 If we look at page 3, please, we should, if 8 we scroll down, see a date. It's partially 9 obscured but I've checked and that's 12 December 10 2005; can you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So this is your investigation report, and it's 13 a three-page report for the purposes of criminal 14 investigation and prosecution of 12 December 15 2005. Can we go back to page 1, please. You 16 say: 17 "The purpose of the report is to provide 18 additional information on the nil transactions 19 ... for which Mr Thomas has stated is the reason 20 for the audit shortage ... Mr Thomas claimed 21 that this loss had started some 12 months prior 22 to the audit. 23 "As requested by the Criminal Law Team, 24 I obtained and analysed 3 periods of Horizon 25 data covering a twelve-month period. The 70 1 periods are", and then you set them out. 2 Can you see that? 3 A. Yes. I've not seen this document prior to now. 4 Q. Do you need time to read it? It's three pages. 5 Ms Matthews? 6 A. I'm happy for you to carry on. I'm just -- you 7 know, I haven't had prior sight of it. 8 Q. Can you see that the document continues: 9 "Fujitsu had no concerns with the integrity 10 of the data received from Gaerwen Post Office, 11 similarly the Horizon System Helpdesk who 12 monitor the working of the system have not been 13 alerted to any hardware problems through their 14 offsite monitoring or by any complaints raised 15 by the ... branch. 16 "I will summarise each week in detail." 17 Then you set out summary of 18 November to 18 24 November and, over the page, 19 May to 19 25 May, and then the foot of the page, 20 14 September to 12 October 2005. Then on to 21 page 3, please. 22 "In conclusion: 23 "No problems highlighted with the integrity 24 of the data or the system. 25 "All nil online banking transactions 71 1 examined have valid reasons for the transactions 2 having no value attached to them. 3 "The majority of declined withdrawals with 4 nil value are immediately followed by 5 an authorised withdrawal for various amounts and 6 are undertaken by the same clerk on the same 7 terminal. 8 "The nil transactions are undertaken by both 9 Mr Thomas and Mrs Thomas on ... terminal 1 or 10 2." 11 What qualifications did you have to analyse 12 Horizon ARQ data? 13 A. I had no qualifications as such to do it. 14 Q. What training did you have to analyse ARQ data? 15 A. I can't remember. 16 Q. Did you have any training? 17 A. I can't remember any specific training, no. 18 Q. You reach a conclusion that every nil 19 transaction has a valid reason for having no 20 value attached to it. 21 A. (The witness nodded) 22 Q. How did you go about determining that there were 23 no problems with the integrity of the data or 24 the system and that all of the nil transactions 25 had valid reasons for having no value? 72 1 A. I can't remember. I remember getting the disk 2 and opening it up and, again, looking for 3 certain transactions and what happened next 4 after the transactions. So you could -- if 5 I remember correctly, it may have been coded. 6 So you're looking for what happened before and 7 after. I mean, I can't really say with any 8 surety what happened, what I did. 9 Q. Was it usual for investigators to carry out 10 their own self-analysis of Horizon raw data? 11 A. This was the first one that I remember 12 undertaking and I think -- 13 Q. Did you speak to any other Investigators to say, 14 "Look this is my first one, I've got reams and 15 reams of ARQ data. What do I do with it? Do 16 I analyse it and offer my own opinion on what it 17 shows and doesn't show?" 18 A. With this case, this was one of my first cases, 19 so I was mentored quite closely with undertaking 20 this one. So I can only presume that I wasn't 21 the only person involved in it. 22 Q. Can we move on, please, and look at what 23 happened next in relation to Gareth Jenkins. 24 Can we just look at what you say in your witness 25 statement first, please, about Mr Jenkins. 73 1 Firstly, page 31, paragraph 90, you say: 2 "From my recollection, I did not have any 3 direct communication with Penny Thomas or Gareth 4 Edwards ..." 5 I think you mean Gareth Jenkins there, don't 6 you -- 7 A. Sorry, yes. 8 Q. -- rather than the Rugby International? 9 "... apart from to manage them as witnesses 10 in the case, for example dates to avoid, dates 11 required in court, etc." 12 Having looked at emails now, do you now know 13 that that's incorrect, that you did have direct 14 communications with both Penny Thomas and Gareth 15 Jenkins? 16 A. Yes. However, I haven't -- as I explained 17 earlier, I haven't had time to go through, word 18 by word, every document you sent me because of 19 the time restraints. But I can see that I did 20 have some liaison with them but I don't recall 21 it. 22 Q. Then page 33, please, at paragraph 97. You say: 23 "I have been asked to consider [some 24 documents]. I recall meeting somebody at the 25 post office to remove the equipment and presume 74 1 from the documents this was Brian Pinder. 2 I think Gareth Jenkins was a Fujitsu expert on 3 Horizon and Penny Thomas was the contact for 4 obtaining Horizon data. I have never met Gareth 5 Thomas or Penny Thomas and my interaction with 6 them was regarding their witness availability. 7 All other requests were made via the Casework 8 Management Team who would be the interface into 9 all requests made to Fujitsu." 10 Does that remain the case, that you had 11 not -- your recollection is that you'd not met 12 Gareth Thomas -- sorry -- 13 A. I don't recall -- 14 Q. -- I think you mean Gareth Jenkins there. 15 A. I've been calling him all sorts. I don't 16 remember him specifically. 17 Q. Then lastly, page 98 -- sorry, paragraph 98, at 18 the foot of the page: 19 "With regards to the request for a statement 20 from Gareth Jenkins, I would have asked the 21 Casework Team for a statement regarding the 22 Fujitsu involvement and it would be the Casework 23 Management Team who would go via their agreed 24 channels and obtain this, with Gareth Jenkins 25 offered by Fujitsu as their subject matter 75 1 expert. I was not involved in this process 2 apart from [asking] for a statement." 3 Does that remain your recollection? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Can we look at some contemporaneous materials 6 and the drafts of witness statements attached to 7 emails, which indicate that both Graham Ward, 8 the Casework Manager, and you, were involved in 9 reviewing and drafting parts of Mr Jenkins' 10 witness statement. Can we start, please, with 11 FUJ00152587. Can we go to page 4, please -- in 12 fact, maybe if we start at page 5., thank you. 13 Can we see that on 22 March, Mr Ward emails 14 Brian Pinder -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- copying in Neneh Lowther and Penny Thomas: 17 "Brian 18 "I'll get back to you once I have confirmed 19 whether we need these statements or not ... 20 "Can I also take this opportunity to clarify 21 our requirements in respect of the Gaerwen 22 statement. In this case the subpostmaster is 23 blaming Horizon for his losses claiming that for 24 various banking related transactions the counter 25 desktop records amounts entered for payment but 76 1 then shows 'Nil' when the transaction log is 2 printed, and it is this that we need to refute. 3 "Various emails passed between myself and 4 your team on this matter and the reply below 5 ..." 6 We have looked at those, the October '05 7 emails. He continues: 8 "Nil transactions could also be caused by 9 errors in PIN pad, counter, agents or host code 10 depending on what constitutes a 'nil 11 transaction'. This cannot be determined without 12 access to the appropriate logs. 13 "Penny also sent with the respective ARQ 14 data, additional spreadsheets which showed all 15 'Nil' transactions for the periods. 16 "We therefore require of the usual statement 17 producing the Transaction and Event logs (Penny 18 has sent me a draft and I have suggested one or 19 two minor amendments). We will also need the 20 above spreadsheets produced by whoever put them 21 together, explaining the headings and under what 22 circumstances 'Nil' transactions can occur. 23 Finally, 'to cover all the angles' I would also 24 like to produce the call logs during the entire 25 period ... so we can see whether the postmaster 77 1 ever reported this alleged fault with the system 2 ... a statement similar to the Bill Mitchell 3 statement ... will be ideal." 4 So this is the Post Office, through Mr Ward, 5 asking Fujitsu, through Mr Pinder, for a witness 6 statement fulfilling these functions, agreed? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was there any formal process that you were aware 9 of at this time by which such a request could be 10 made? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Again, it was dealt with, person to person, by 13 email; is that right? 14 A. It -- I didn't know how Graham did it, if I'm 15 being honest. It was just I -- a statement was 16 needed and he was the liaison point in. 17 I didn't know whether he met them. I didn't 18 know whether it was via email. I didn't know. 19 Q. Who was responsible for managing requests for 20 witness statements from Fujitsu? 21 A. The Casework Manager. 22 Q. That's Mr Ward? 23 A. Yes, or one of his team. 24 Q. Who had responsibility for assisting with any 25 drafting, reviewing and finalising a statement? 78 1 A. I probably would have had some involvement in 2 that. From my recollection, it also went to the 3 Criminal Law Team. 4 Q. Was Mr Ward a manager of yours? 5 A. He wasn't a direct manager of mine, no. He 6 worked in, obviously, another function of the 7 same team. 8 Q. Were there any reporting lines between you and 9 Mr Ward? 10 A. No. 11 Q. What was the division of labour between Mr Ward 12 and you in relation to obtaining witness 13 statements from Fujitsu in Mr Thomas' case, as 14 far as you can remember? 15 A. As far as I remember, they did it. 16 Q. Who is the "they"? 17 A. The Casework Manager team and Fujitsu. I don't 18 recall much interaction with them at all. 19 Q. Can we go back to page 4, please, and then 20 scroll down. If we just look at the bottom of 21 that email from Ms Lowther to Mr Ward, and then 22 scroll onto the next page: 23 "Graham, 24 "Please see the draft [witness statement] 25 for the above re 'Nil transactions'. Could you 79 1 see if this meets your requirements." 2 So this is 23 March, Ms Lowther forwarding 3 an email or replying to Mr Ward's email, and 4 then if we go up the page, please, and scroll 5 up, reply from Mr Ward: 6 "The layout is presumably unfinished, 7 paragraph spacings, etc? 8 "As per my earlier email, and more 9 importantly the 3 spreadsheets sent with ARQ 10 data need to be produced as ... exhibits. 11 "Also, the line which begins at the foot of 12 the page ... appears unfinished?" 13 Then this: 14 "And I'm concerned at the words 'system 15 failure' which is also in an earlier line ... 16 'There has been some sort of system failure' -- 17 What does this mean exactly and is there any 18 indication of a system failure at this office 19 during the period in question?" 20 Then if we go up, please, a page. Just 21 scroll a little bit more, please, thank you. 22 We'd better stop there, thank you. 23 Let's look at the draft statement that was 24 included and about which Mr Ward was concerned 25 by the use of the words "system failure", 80 1 FUJ00122204. So it's in the name of Mr Jenkins. 2 If we scroll down, please, he introduces himself 3 in the first paragraph and then he says: 4 "There are three main reasons why a zero 5 value transaction may be generated as part of 6 the banking system: 7 "1. The transaction has no financial effect 8 (ie a Balance Enquiry or a PIN change] 9 "2. The transaction has been declined by 10 the bank. 11 "3. There has been some sort of System 12 Failure. Such failures are normal occurrences." 13 That third paragraph that Mr Jenkins 14 includes in this draft of his statement, can we 15 call that the system failure reason, 16 Ms Matthews, to summarise it rather than reading 17 it out? 18 A. Okay, yes. 19 Q. That's the thing that Mr Ward was concerned 20 about, agreed? 21 A. Agreed, yes. 22 Q. Can we go, please, to the next email in the 23 chain, FUJ00122203. If we scroll to the foot of 24 the page, thank you, an email from Neneh Lowther 25 to Mr Jenkins: 81 1 "Hi Gareth, 2 "I have updated your [witness statement] 3 with the column headings", et cetera. 4 Then scroll up -- thank you, bit more -- 5 Mr Jenkins to Ms Lowther and Mr Pinder: 6 "Neneh, 7 "I've annotated it with Revisions. 8 "In particular, I don't feel I can include 9 the last two paras, which may make the statement 10 useless." 11 So remember that: 12 "I don't feel I can include the last two 13 paras, which may make the statement useless." 14 Let's look at the statement, please, 15 FUJ00122204. Then go to page 3 and scroll 16 a little bit. Can you see that there is 17 a passage apparently highlighted, which consists 18 of two paragraphs, which I think are the last 19 two paragraphs that Mr Jenkins was referring to. 20 Originally, it said: 21 "There is no reason to believe that the 22 information in this statement is inaccurate 23 because of the improper use of the computer. To 24 the best of my knowledge and belief at all 25 material times the computer was operating 82 1 properly, or if not, any respect in which it was 2 not operating properly, or was out of operation 3 was not such as to effect the information held 4 on it. 5 "Any records to which I refer in my 6 statement form part of the records relating to 7 the business of Fujitsu Services. [They] were 8 compiled in the ordinary course of business from 9 information supplied by persons who have or may 10 reasonably be supposed to have personal 11 knowledge of the matter dealt with in the 12 information supplied, but are unlikely to have 13 any recollection of the information or cannot be 14 traced. As part of my duties, I have access to 15 these records." 16 Then Mr Jenkins has typed: 17 "I am not sure the yellow bit is true. Can 18 this be deleted? All I've done is interpret the 19 data in spreadsheets that you have emailed to 20 me." 21 So if we take into account the email that we 22 just looked at and this attachment to it, would 23 you agree that Mr Jenkins was saying, "I can't 24 include those two yellow paragraphs because I'm 25 not sure they're true, can they be taken out, 83 1 please?" 2 A. That's how it reads to me, yes. 3 Q. What impact do you think that had on the balance 4 of what Mr Jenkins was saying, that he felt 5 unable to say that there was no reason to 6 believe that the information in the statement is 7 inaccurate because of improper use of the 8 computer? 9 A. I don't know what he's trying to say in that 10 statement because it seems to contradict itself. 11 So I don't know because I've not seen that 12 statement before. 13 Q. Looking at it now, do you think this is 14 significant, that -- 15 A. Yes -- 16 Q. -- the expert from Fujitsu is unwilling to sign 17 a statement or have included in a signed 18 statement a paragraph which says, "To the best 19 of my knowledge and belief, the computer was at 20 all material times operating properly"? 21 A. What concerns me is he's written that and then 22 put the caveat at the bottom "I'm not sure the 23 yellow bit is true". 24 Q. And "Can it be deleted please"? 25 A. That's -- I've not seen that before, and 84 1 that's -- 2 Q. Is that very worrying? 3 A. It's very concerning, yes. That takes away from 4 the whole point of getting a statement. 5 Q. Do you recall seeing this draft of the 6 statement, the 23 March 2006 draft? 7 A. I don't recall having sight of that, no. That 8 doesn't look familiar to me and, if I'd have 9 seen that, I would have raised concerns over it. 10 Q. What about the bit on page 1, if we go back to 11 that, and scrolling down. Do you remember this 12 part of it, where Mr Jenkins is saying one of 13 the reasons, the three main reasons, why a zero 14 value may be generated is that there has been 15 some sort of system failure and that such 16 failures are normal occurrences? 17 A. I don't recall reading this statement. 18 Q. That would have been new information to you, 19 wouldn't it? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. It would very significant information to you, 22 wouldn't it? 23 A. It would have been, as a system failure, yes. 24 Q. Taken together with the fact that Mr Jenkins 25 wasn't prepared to sign a statement which said, 85 1 "To the best of my knowledge and belief, the 2 computer was at all material times operating 3 properly", that would be very concerning? 4 A. It would be, yes. 5 Q. Can we go forwards a day, please, to 24 March 6 2006, FUJ00122217. Can we start, please, at 7 page 2. This is when Fujitsu send what we've 8 just looked at back into the Post Office. Top 9 email: 10 "Hi, Graham, 11 "Please see attached [so this is Ms Lowther 12 to Mr Ward] second draft for the above with the 13 further explanation regarding the issues you 14 raised. Please let me know of any amendments 15 ASAP as we need to put this in the post to you 16 by lunchtime ..." 17 Then if we go to page 1, please, foot of the 18 page, Mr Ward replies to Ms Lowther and you're 19 now copied in. Can you see that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. "Neneh, this statement needs more work. I've 22 attached a suggested draft with a number of 23 comments ..." 24 So, to be clear, what's happening here is 25 the Post Office is going back to Fujitsu with 86 1 its own draft of the witness statement: 2 "... (as mentioned previously I think the 3 'system failure ... normal occurrence' line is 4 potentially very damaging). It may be worth 5 considering someone from our team taking 6 a statement directly from Gareth (where is he 7 based?) 8 "Whilst there is some urgency with this, it 9 is more important to get it right and ensure we 10 are not embarrassed at court, which we certainly 11 could be if we produced a statement accepting 12 'system failures are normal occurrences'." 13 So, to be clear, what's happening here, the 14 Post Office Casework Manager is amending a draft 15 witness statement from the Fujitsu expert -- 16 agreed -- 17 A. Agreed. 18 Q. -- and is expressing concern that the expert's 19 mention of system failures being a cause and 20 system failures being a normal occurrence is 21 damaging -- damaging to the Post Office -- and 22 potentially embarrassing for it, agreed? 23 A. Agreed. 24 Q. If we go further up the page, thank you, 25 Ms Lowther forwards that email and the new draft 87 1 to Mr Jenkins: 2 "Please see the email below and the new 3 draft statement." 4 Let's look at the statement as it then 5 stood, ie after the Post Office had amended it. 6 FUJ00122218. If we go to page 2, please, and 7 scroll down, please. Thank you. 8 So the section between "Should be 9 spreadsheets" and "declined by the Bank" is all 10 Mr Jenkins, as in the original. Then the next 11 sentence has been added in by Mr Ward in the 12 brackets. I wonder whether this could be 13 highlighted: 14 "(This is a really poor choice of words 15 which seems to accept that failures in the 16 system are normal and therefore may well support 17 the postmaster's claim that the system is to 18 blame for the losses!!!!)" 19 Can you see that the two reasons that 20 Mr Jenkins gave in his first draft of the 21 witness statement are included, "transactions 22 had no financial effect", "transaction has been 23 declined by the bank" -- yes -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- and the third one, "system failure", has been 88 1 deleted? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So the Post Office is deleting passages from 4 a witness statement suggesting that there may be 5 a system fault causing the loss that the 6 postmaster was pointing to, agreed? 7 A. Agreed. 8 Q. And the Post Office is suggesting that it be 9 deleted because it may well support the 10 postmaster's claim, agreed? 11 A. Agreed. 12 Q. As an Investigator, would you regard it as 13 appropriate or inappropriate to delete passages 14 from an expert's witness statement and set out 15 your own view of events? 16 A. I think it's -- they're an expert for a reason. 17 That's their opinion. I don't know whether 18 Mr Ward was looking at the terminology used or 19 the actual basis behind it but, either way, it's 20 somebody's statement and it has to be their 21 words and it has to be true. 22 Q. Then if we go to page 3, please, and just pan 23 out a little bit, please. You'll see that the 24 usual operation of the computer parts have been 25 deleted from the statement, can you see that? 89 1 Remember those two paragraphs that Mr Jenkins 2 said that he was uncomfortable including have 3 gone from the statement. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So Mr Jenkins had said, "I'm uncomfortable with 6 these, can they be deleted", and it looks as if 7 Mr Ward has indeed deleted them. 8 At the time, you were being put on notice by 9 Fujitsu that system failures were one of the 10 three main causes of nil transactions, agreed? 11 A. From that statement, yes, but I don't recall 12 that. I can't remember that. But it was 13 always -- you know, if somebody had raised it as 14 an issue, then it's always a possibility. 15 That's their belief as to what's happened. 16 Q. Would you agree with Mr Ward that the system 17 failure reason was simply a really poor choice 18 of words by Mr Jenkins or was it, in fact, 19 something much more fundamental than that? It 20 was actually a witness saying, "There is 21 a reason related to the system that may explain 22 the loss of which we're accusing this 23 subpostmaster"? 24 A. I don't know the context in which it was 25 written. I can't really comment on that. 90 1 Q. But, in any event, what we can see is the Post 2 Office here expunging from the draft witness 3 statement, the "it might be the system that's at 4 fault" reason for the nil transactions, and 5 expunging from the witness statement the 6 paragraphs which Mr Jenkins said he didn't want 7 included, saying that "I've no reason to believe 8 that the system was other than working 9 correctly", agreed? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Can we move forwards, please, FUJ00122217. 12 We see on 28 March Mr Jenkins replying back 13 to Ms Lowther and Mr Ward, you're not included 14 on this: 15 "I've added some further annotations to your 16 annotations. Does this move us forward?" 17 Let's look at the draft, please, it's the 18 one we were just looking at, FUJ00122218, and 19 page 2. Scroll down, scroll down. 20 So, after the part in brackets, "This is 21 a really poor choice of words", written by 22 Mr Ward, Mr Jenkins replies, and I wonder if 23 this can be highlighted: 24 "Please can you suggest something better 25 then? What we have here are genuine failures of 91 1 the end-to-end system which are not part of 2 normal operation, but are anticipated and the 3 system is designed to cope with them. Such 4 failures could be engineered as part of 5 a malicious attack (but that doesn't apply to 6 those failures that appear in the evidence 7 presented). In all cases the system is designed 8 to identify such failures and handle them in 9 a way that the customer, the postmaster, Post 10 Office Limited and the FIs are all clear as to 11 the status of the transaction and any necessary 12 financial reconciliation takes place. I guess 13 one option is to delete the paragraph since it 14 is purely an introduction to the following more 15 detailed description." 16 Thank you. Can you recall receiving this 17 updated statement from Mr Ward when it was sent 18 to him? 19 That can come down, thank you. 20 A. I don't recall, I don't recall seeing it, no. 21 Q. Would it have been normal, given that you were 22 the Investigator in the case, to have received 23 the email that I've just shown you and 24 Mr Jenkins' draft updated statement? 25 A. It doesn't appear to be, no. I would have 92 1 expected to have seen it. My role in it was -- 2 obviously, I knew that Mr Jenkins was going to 3 be asked to give a statement. I didn't know the 4 intricacies around or what took place. 5 Q. Can we move forwards, please, FUJ00152587. Just 6 to check where we are, if we go to page 2. The 7 email we've just looked at, Jenkins to Ward and 8 Lowther. "I've added some further annotations 9 ... does this move us forward?" 10 Then if we go to page 1, please. That is 11 sent on by Mr Ward to Mr Pinder, copied to 12 Ms Lowther and Mr Jenkins, and he, Mr Ward, 13 says: 14 "I do not understand why this statement, 15 which was originally requested on 10 March is 16 taking so long to be put together. I appreciate 17 it is slightly unusual, but I do not understand 18 the confusion as I thought I'd made our 19 requirements clear. 20 "Unfortunately, Gareth's annotations do not 21 take us forward at all (and I'm sure this not 22 Gareth's fault). Gareth has indicated in the 23 attachment below that the 3 spreadsheets 24 produced by your team (which show the 'NIL' 25 transactions ...) were not produced by him, 93 1 therefore as he quite rightly points out, he is 2 not in a position to produce them in his 3 statement. He also points out there are 4 differences in the headings, which I wasn't 5 aware of. 6 "As already stated, we urgently need 7 a statement producing these 3 additional 8 spreadsheets, explaining in general terms, under 9 what circumstances 'nil' transactions occur and 10 in particular how the 'nil' transactions at 11 Gaerwen occurred (as detailing on the 12 spreadsheet). The same statement needs to 13 included a paragraph which states that there is 14 no evidence of a system error at Gaerwen 15 (assuming this is the case) in relation to the 16 'nil' transactions at the office. We do not 17 need to mention 'system failures being normal 18 occurrences' if there is no evidence of such a 19 problem at this office. 20 "As I've indicated on an earlier email, it 21 may now be best if the investigator dealing with 22 this case arranges to meet Gareth to take the 23 statement in person ... Can you confirm that you 24 fully understand our requirements to ensure 25 Gareth ... is in a position to 'tie up' all 94 1 these requirements in one statement?" 2 Were you the Investigator dealing with the 3 case that Mr Ward is referring to there? 4 A. The Gaerwen one, yes. 5 Q. Did Mr Ward discuss with you what are described 6 as the Post Office's requirements for the 7 contents of the witness statement? 8 A. I have no recollection of that, no. 9 Q. Can you otherwise recall the Post Office's 10 requirements in relation to the statement that 11 the Post Office was requesting from Fujitsu in 12 relation to nil transactions? 13 A. That -- the parameters that I would expect in 14 a statement would be to do with the ARQs and the 15 obtaining of them. 16 Q. This is talking about the Post Office's 17 requirements for the content of a witness 18 statement, isn't it, not about the ARQ? 19 A. Yes, but I wasn't aware of this. 20 Q. Can we look, please, at FUJ00155721. Can we see 21 at the top of the page, an email exchange within 22 Fujitsu: 23 "I have arranged for Diane to meet with 24 Gareth at 11.00 on Thursday [the 4th] to record 25 the statement. She has already had sight of the 95 1 statement and comments which Gareth can provide 2 so it shouldn't take too long. Once she has 3 done this I thought it would be nice to 4 introduce her to the Security team, show her 5 around the audit room to see how we do things 6 and then perhaps a few minutes open forum to 7 discuss all aspects of the prosecution service. 8 "She may also bring another member of the 9 Investigation Team along which will all help to 10 oil the wheels when requests come in." 11 Did you attend a meeting with Mr Jenkins for 12 the purposes of taking a witness statement from 13 him? 14 A. I don't recall any of that, no. I just don't 15 recall. I don't recall meeting him. 16 Q. An email sent on Saturday, 1 April 2006, 17 referring to Thursday, would be referring to the 18 6 April, just by looking at a calendar, okay? 19 A. Yeah. 20 Q. How many times in your four years as 21 an Investigator did you attend Fujitsu's 22 offices? 23 A. I remember attending once and I thought it was 24 to do with the hardware equipment at the office. 25 Q. Do you recall attending -- 96 1 A. I can't -- 2 Q. -- sorry -- to speak with a Fujitsu employee 3 face to face, to take a witness statement from 4 them? 5 A. I can't remember. 6 Q. Do you now recall attending and taking -- 7 A. No. 8 Q. -- a witness statement on 6 April 2006 -- 9 A. (The witness shook her head) 10 Q. -- with Mr Jenkins at Fujitsu's office? 11 A. I can't remember. I know I've been -- I think 12 it was in Reading, and I know I've been on one 13 occasion. I seem to think it was to do with the 14 equipment that was being checked because I asked 15 for it to be checked, but I can't recall. 16 Q. Can we look, please, at FUJ00122237. We can see 17 a witness statement dated 6 April 2006 from 18 Mr Jenkins. If we scroll down you can see what 19 he says. Just read that slowly. Then go over 20 the page, please, and then scroll down, and then 21 scroll down, keep going. Just stopping there. 22 Then read carefully the last paragraph: 23 "There is no reason to believe that 24 information in the statement is inaccurate ... 25 To the best of my knowledge and belief at all 97 1 material times the computer was operating 2 properly ..." 3 Then over the page, that's the end of it. 4 So having looked at the email 5 correspondence, having looked at the comments in 6 the email correspondence and the process of 7 travelling drafts of Mr Jenkins' witness 8 statement and having looked at that last signed 9 version of the witness statement, can you see 10 that, firstly, Mr Jenkins originally said that 11 an explanation for the nil transactions may be 12 a Horizon system fault and that that has been 13 taken out of his signed witness statement? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Secondly, he said that he was unprepared to sign 16 a witness statement saying that, at all material 17 times, the Horizon system was operating 18 properly, but that has been added back in to his 19 witness statement. Can you see that? It's the 20 last paragraph, we just read. 21 A. Yes. Sorry, yes. 22 Q. So the passage indicating that it might be 23 a system fault has evaporated, hasn't it? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And his unwillingness to sign a statement which 98 1 says that the system was operating at all times 2 properly has been overcome, hasn't it? 3 A. It appears to be, yes. 4 Q. How has that come about? 5 A. I don't know because I don't remember. I don't 6 even remember taking that statement. 7 Q. Would you accept, on the basis of the documents 8 that we've looked at, that it appears that the 9 Post Office sought to harden up Mr Jenkins' 10 witness statement? 11 A. It appears that they go in self-preservation 12 mode, by the sound of it. 13 MR BEER: Sir, might that be an appropriate moment 14 to break for lunch? 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, certainly. 16 MR BEER: I wonder whether we can take a slightly 17 shorter lunch, given the earlier finishing time 18 today, and reconvene at 1.30? 19 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Subject to any representations 20 from the transcriber, yes. 21 MR BEER: She's saying fine, thank you. 22 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. So 1.30, then. 23 MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir. 24 (12.43 pm) 25 (The Short Adjournment) 99 1 (1.30 pm) 2 MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear 3 me? 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 5 MR BEER: Ms Matthews, can you see and hear me? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Good afternoon. 8 We saw, before lunch, that Mr Thomas had 9 said that the balances were affected by a series 10 of Horizon generated zero lines, that Fujitsu 11 were approached, and a witness with expertise 12 had said that the system errors within Horizon 13 were capable of generating zero lines and that, 14 through an exchange of emails and other 15 communications, that evidence was edited out of 16 the final statement served by Mr Jenkins, 17 agreed? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I want to turn to how the case was presented in 20 court, then, please. Can we start, please, with 21 POL00044885. Do you remember these kinds of 22 documents, a summary of facts prepared in 23 accordance with that rule of the Magistrates 24 Court rules? 25 A. Yes. 100 1 Q. Can you remember what the purpose of the summary 2 of facts were or was? 3 A. I believe it was just to give a synopsis of the 4 case to the -- I think it went to the 5 prosecuting solicitor who was attending court. 6 I'm not sure if it went to the defence. I don't 7 know. 8 Q. Who drew these up? 9 A. It would have been the Criminal Law Team. 10 Q. So, in this case, it would be Juliet McFarlane; 11 is that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I think we can see from the foot of the page, if 14 we keep scrolling, that this appears to have 15 been saved in a member of the Criminal Law Team, 16 Juliet McFarlane's, work folders; can you see 17 that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you know whether this was served on the 20 court? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. In any event, can we go to page 2, please. At 23 the foot of the page, the document has 24 summarised what Mr Thomas had said interview, 25 and then says this: 101 1 "There are a number of legitimate reasons 2 why a zero entry might be presented on an online 3 summary. These may be because: 4 "1. A customer enters an incorrect PIN 5 number. 6 "2. A customer that is no funds in their 7 account. 8 "3. An incorrect PIN number is entered on 3 9 separate occasions. 10 "4. The card has been stolen or cancelled. 11 "5. The transaction is unauthorised. 12 "Horizon data showing nil transactions have 13 been analysed over a specified period between 14 November 2004 and October 2005. Fujitsu had no 15 concerns regarding the integrity of the data 16 received from Gaerwen Post Office. Further the 17 Horizon System Helpdesk had not been alerted to 18 any hardware problems." 19 Can you see that, at the foot of page 2 and 20 the top of page 3 there, the so-called 21 legitimate reasons why a zero entry might appear 22 on an online summary is lifted from your report 23 for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings, 24 that we looked at this morning? 25 A. It looks the same, yes, but I wasn't sure the 102 1 Legal team actually got the discipline report. 2 I'm not sure. But it does look the same, yes. 3 Q. You remember this morning I said to remember 4 that? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. That was for now. So they've lifted, in the 7 document -- we know that this is disclosed to 8 defendants and presented to the court, that's 9 what the Magistrates Court rules say -- your own 10 summary of the five legitimate reasons for 11 a zero entry appearing in an online summary? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. What we don't see is Mr Jenkins' expression in 14 the course of the early drafts of his witness 15 statement, the fact that it may be a system 16 error, do we? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you know how that's come about? 19 A. I don't have any dealings in the presentation of 20 this document or in the drafting of it. 21 Q. We can take the document down, please. What was 22 the process or practice of the communication of 23 information, the like of which we've just seen 24 in the emails just before lunch, from the 25 Investigator to the Criminal Law Team? 103 1 A. Sorry, in respect of what? 2 Q. So we've seen that there were email exchanges, 3 there were at least three iterations of 4 a witness statement from Mr Jenkins; what was 5 the process for disclosing/communicating that 6 kind of information to the Criminal Law Team? 7 A. I would have presumed that, if them documents 8 would have been available to me, I would have 9 disclosed them to the prosecution lawyer -- 10 sorry, to the Criminal Law Team. However, 11 I would have expected the Casework Team to have 12 forwarded their documentation on to the Criminal 13 Law Team for consideration. 14 Q. We've seen that, in some cases, you were in 15 possession of the material, because you were 16 a copyee on the email chains? 17 A. On one. I don't even recall looking at that, 18 but there were several more, and I would have 19 expected the Casework Manager or the Management 20 Team to have forwarded them on. 21 Q. Why would you expect Mr Ward to forward those to 22 the Criminal Law Team when you were the Officer 23 in the Case, essentially, the Investigator? 24 A. Because some of them I didn't even have sight 25 of. 104 1 Q. That's why I'm asking what the process was. Was 2 it the case that somebody like Mr Ward had 3 a duty to fulfil disclosure obligations himself 4 directly to the Criminal Law Team or would he 5 provide material back to you? 6 A. I don't know what the process was at that time. 7 I don't think there was any structured process 8 when it came to dealing with Fujitsu because it 9 was a new area. I certainly wasn't aware of 10 what any set procedure would have been, in 11 regards to the communication between Fujitsu and 12 the Casework Team, but I wouldn't have expected 13 there to be documents and statements that I was 14 unaware of. 15 Q. I mean, this example we're looking at does 16 relate to Fujitsu but it need not relate to 17 Fujitsu. Mr Ward or another member of the 18 Casework Team could be having communications 19 with any witness? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What was the process for ensuring that material 22 created in the course of the investigation was 23 collected together by the Disclosure Officer and 24 passed to the prosecutor? 25 A. I don't recall what the process was. 105 1 Q. Is that because there wasn't one? 2 A. I don't think there was. I can't recall ever 3 seeing one, whereby what the lines of 4 communication laid down guidelines would be, 5 with regards to the Casework Management Team. 6 Q. Does it follow that you can't say that 7 Mr Jenkins' earlier drafts of statements dated 8 23 and 24 March 2006 were provided to the 9 Criminal Law Team? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. Irrespective of the means by which it occurred, 12 do you accept that it was necessary for 13 Mr Thomas and the court to be informed that one 14 of the three main reasons for nil transactions 15 were system faults? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you know that the law at the time required 18 a prosecutor -- including in that 19 an Investigator -- to retain, record and 20 disclose final versions of witness statements 21 where draft versions differed materially from 22 the final version? 23 A. I presume I would have done, yes. 24 Q. So you were aware of the duty to record the 25 existence of such draft statements on an Unused 106 1 Material Schedule? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Can you help as to whether that occurred in this 4 case or not? 5 A. I didn't do it because I didn't know of their 6 existence but anything that happened after my 7 documentation had gone into the Criminal Law 8 Team -- and it happened on a few other 9 occasions, not with the case that we're going to 10 talk about today -- then the material would be 11 added by the Criminal Law Team onto the 12 schedules, and then disclosed. 13 Q. We discussed earlier your initial analysis of 14 the ARQ data, which you said you analysed to 15 look for anomalies and patterns, and I asked you 16 about what training and experience you had in 17 analysing ARQ data to look for anomalies and 18 patterns. Did you, when you were undertaking 19 that work, record what you did? 20 A. It was a document, I think there was like a log, 21 but I certainly made an entry in my notebook to 22 say what I'd done. 23 Q. Would that be -- 24 A. I can't recall specific -- sorry. I can't 25 recall specifically what I did but it would be 107 1 recorded, what I did, and I don't know whether 2 I'd made it in my notebook or whether it was 3 a Word document, in terms of what I received and 4 how I did it. I can't recall specifically. 5 And, to be fair, I might be getting confused 6 with some analysis work that I did in Royal 7 Mail, so -- where it was recorded on logs. So 8 I can't be specific. 9 Q. Was your analysis served as used evidence? 10 A. I can't recall because I can't recall if I did 11 it. 12 Q. Does it follow -- 13 A. I just can't remember what happened in that 14 moment in time, as to -- the ARQ system was 15 quite new when I asked for it. It wasn't -- and 16 I'm not sure there was even a set procedure for 17 what to do in the casework management processes. 18 Q. Does it follow that you can't say that the 19 record of your analysis and the results of your 20 analysis was served as unused material as well? 21 A. I can't -- I don't know what was served. 22 Q. Can we move on, then, to closer to the court 23 appearance, and we've seen the witness 24 statements taken from or provided by Mr Jenkins. 25 Were you treating him in your own mind at this 108 1 time as an expert witness? 2 A. I think I was just treating him as a witness to 3 the case. 4 Q. So not as an expert? 5 A. It was never stressed to me he was an expert 6 witness; he was just a witness in the case. 7 Q. What does a witness in the case mean? 8 A. He was somebody that would be able to give 9 an account as to what had happened in 10 a particular circumstance and -- 11 Q. So a witness of fact, essentially? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Would you have treated him differently if you, 14 in your mind, were treating him as an expert 15 witness? 16 A. I don't think so because, at that point, my role 17 was one of an administrative to ensure he was 18 aware of the court times, hearings, location, 19 et cetera. 20 Q. But we've seen from the emails we looked at this 21 morning that you were copied in to a draft 22 statement and an arrangement was made for you to 23 attend at 11.00 at Fujitsu's premises to take 24 a witness statement from him. If you did attend 25 on 6 April 2006 and took a witness statement 109 1 from him, you would need to know, in your own 2 mind, whether you were treating him as an expert 3 witness or not, wouldn't you? 4 A. I don't even recall taking a witness statement. 5 Q. I know that you said that this morning but 6 assume that you did, for present purposes. 7 Would you agree that you'd have to establish in 8 your own mind how you were treating him, what 9 his status was? 10 A. In my mind at the time, I think I just had him 11 as a witness. I'm not sure it was specified to 12 me that he was an SME. 13 Q. If he was treated by you as an expert, can you 14 help us as to what differently you may have 15 done? 16 A. I can't because it didn't -- I didn't do that, 17 so I can't offer what I would have done 18 differently. Because I don't recall how he was 19 categorised at the time. Also, I'm not -- at 20 that time, as I explained earlier, I was being 21 mentored in my role, because I was quite new. 22 So, I mean, I think that email says to bring 23 somebody else or mentions taking somebody else. 24 I don't know whether I did, I don't know 25 whether I went. I can't remember. But I know 110 1 at that time the actions that were taken in 2 relation to this case were checked and, you 3 know, put through somebody else, whether that be 4 the second officer or my line manager at the 5 time. 6 Q. Who was your line manager at the time? 7 A. Paul Dawkins. 8 Q. Can we look at when the case is in court, by 9 looking at FUJ00152616, and look at page 3 10 please -- and scroll down, thank you. 11 This is an email, it's dated 12 July 2006 -- 12 if we just scroll up a little bit we'll catch 13 it, there -- from Mr Jenkins to you. He says: 14 "Diane, 15 "I discussed this with [somebody else] that 16 the last two weeks in September was the best 17 time to go away on holiday but since [something 18 else] we'll try and arrange some other time." 19 So there's some discussion about his holiday 20 and leave arrangements. He says: 21 "I understand also that the trial is 22 Caernarfon. Do you have any idea as to how much 23 time will be involved and what exactly is 24 required? I've never been to court in any 25 capacity and my knowledge of such things is 111 1 based on films and TV (which I'm sure are 2 inaccurate!)" 3 Then can we see your reply at page 2, 4 please -- and scroll down -- replied same day. 5 "Hi Gareth, 6 "Thanks for that." 7 First couple of paragraphs are about 8 practical arrangements, and then the third 9 paragraph: 10 "All witnesses will have to be present on 11 the 1st day unless the defence has agreed their 12 statement and don't wish to ask any questions 13 about that evidence. It is pretty much as you 14 see on the TV really but remember that you will 15 have sight of your statement prior to taking the 16 stand and can only be asked questions 17 specifically about your statement. 18 "A lot can happen between now and 19 25 September as Mr Thomas' defence are still 20 asking a lot of questions so we will wait with 21 anticipation." 22 So Mr Jenkins was making it clear to you 23 he'd never been to court? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. He was asking for your help? 112 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. You told him that going to court is pretty much 3 as you see on the television. 4 A. That's what I put on the email, yes. 5 Q. Is that accurate, that what happens in court is 6 like what happens on television? 7 A. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But there was 8 a conversation I had with Mr Ward, I think it 9 was, about the fact that Fujitsu -- by 10 telephone -- Fujitsu people haven't been to 11 court before, so, obviously, I don't know 12 whether other arrangements need to be put in 13 place. I don't know whether there was. Well, 14 there clearly wasn't. 15 Q. Looking back, maybe with the benefit of some 16 reflection, do you considered this to be 17 adequate advice -- 18 A. No. 19 Q. -- for a prosecution witness who had never give 20 oral evidence in court? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Would you agree that the advice given bears no 23 relation whatsoever to the sort of guidance and 24 advice that ought to be provided to a witness? 25 A. Yes, that's why I was in communication with the 113 1 Casework Team. 2 Q. Do you think that your level of training and 3 understanding was typical of other Investigators 4 at that time? 5 A. I can't speak for other Investigators. I was 6 new at this time. 7 Q. Did you alert anyone else in the Post Office 8 team as to this request for help or guidance by 9 Mr Jenkins? 10 A. Only the Casework Management Team. I think 11 I would have had a discussion with my mentor and 12 my line manager. 13 Q. You tell him that you can only be asked 14 questions specifically about your statement. 15 Where did you learn that information from? 16 A. That's what I was told to write. 17 Q. Told by whom? 18 A. That would have come from probably my team. 19 Q. What does that mean: "my team"? 20 A. Either the person mentoring me or my line 21 manager. 22 Q. Did that line "You can only be asked questions 23 specifically about your statement", have 24 anything to do with the fact that what had been 25 expunged from Mr Jenkins' statement was that the 114 1 Horizon system may have errors that caused the 2 creation of zero lines -- 3 A. No. 4 Q. -- ie "Don't worry about that stuff that we've 5 cut out"? 6 A. No. 7 Q. "You can't be asked about it"? 8 A. No. 9 Q. That's just a bit of casual advice, a bit like 10 "Going to court is a bit like you see on the 11 television"; is that right? 12 A. I've explained that's what I was told to write. 13 Q. Can we move on, please. FUJ00152650. This is 14 an email from you after the court appearance to 15 a range of people, including Mr Jenkins and 16 Penny Thomas, Andy Dunks, back in Fujitsu, dated 17 8 November 2006: 18 "Just to let you all know, Mr Thomas was 19 sentenced to 9 months in jail on Monday. He was 20 also ordered to pay costs and his finances are 21 now subject to further investigation. 22 "Thank you for all your help with this case. 23 Mr Thomas was not expecting a custodial sentence 24 and although not a particularly lengthy 25 sentence, it does send out the right message." 115 1 You attach a link to a BBC article. What 2 was the right message that was being sent out? 3 A. That was a cut and paste from the -- what I was 4 sent by the Communications Team to refer to. 5 Q. Who, within the Post Office, was responsible for 6 drawing up that message? 7 A. That was the Communications Team. It's like 8 a media team where, I don't know, the press, 9 et cetera, would go to them for comment, and 10 that's what I was told to put. 11 Q. Why were you speaking with the media team, the 12 Communications Team -- 13 A. They spoke to me. 14 Q. -- about the contents of an email being sent 15 internally and to Fujitsu? 16 A. I think the case was quite high profile, I think 17 it had been on the TV, and that's when the media 18 team, they got in touch with me, and this was 19 the party line to be told. And that's what 20 I did; I cut and pasted it from their message. 21 Q. So you were just following orders? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did you share the view that a custodial sentence 24 sends out the right message to subpostmasters? 25 A. Not necessarily, no. My view on it was I was 116 1 not expecting Mr Thomas to get a custodial 2 sentence. 3 Q. Was there often messaging like this by the Post 4 Office's PR machine? 5 A. It wasn't the only time I experienced it. 6 Q. You were saying you were told to say this, even 7 though you didn't think it personally yourself? 8 A. That was the message. I don't think it really 9 mattered, though. I don't think I was even 10 asked what my view on it was. It's -- this is 11 just -- this is the -- this is the response from 12 the Post Office. 13 Q. Can you help us why the communications 14 department would be dictating your -- the 15 contents of an email to Fujitsu? 16 A. I would imagine it's that we all give the same 17 message. It's a linear approach. I don't know. 18 I don't know what their reasons were at the time 19 but that's what I was told to follow. 20 Q. Were you aware of a sense that it was important 21 to the Post Office that this case should set 22 a precedent to other subpostmasters who raised 23 a problem with Horizon? 24 A. I don't know if -- my view on it at the time 25 was -- well, I don't know what the reasons were 117 1 at the time but I know now, and I probably knew 2 when I was leaving, that there was some lengths 3 that were being gone to to try and protect the 4 system, let's say. 5 Q. Who did you learn that from? 6 A. That was just my view, because I could see what 7 was happening before I left. 8 Q. What could you see was happening before you 9 left? 10 A. That people were raising concerns over the 11 system. 12 Q. But what about the response to that? What could 13 you see in relation to the response to that? 14 A. It seemed to be a denial that anything was wrong 15 and it was like protect at all costs because, 16 obviously, they're invested. 17 Q. Can we turn to Janet Skinner. That can come 18 down. Thank you. 19 In your witness statement, it's 20 paragraph 68, you tell us, Ms Matthews, that you 21 were unhappy that Janet Skinner was charged with 22 theft. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You did not think that she had stolen the money 25 and that there was no evidence to prove that she 118 1 had, yes? 2 A. From my recollection -- and I have relied 3 heavily on the documentation with this because 4 I didn't recall it at first -- but I just don't 5 think I could get to the bottom of who had done 6 what in the office. 7 I couldn't prove or disprove Ms Skinner had 8 or hadn't, and the same with some of the 9 witnesses, although, you know, the witnesses did 10 give some accounts and, you know, on the balance 11 of probabilities, I couldn't determine who had 12 done what. 13 Q. If we just look at your witness statement, 14 please, at page 21, paragraph 68. It's at the 15 foot of the page, paragraph 68. This under the 16 heading of "Janet Skinner": 17 "My views in this case have not changed in 18 [I think that's 'any'] respect. I was not 19 convinced Ms Skinner had stolen the money and 20 there was no evidence to prove she had. I was 21 therefore unhappy with the theft charge and 22 conveyed this at the time to the assisting 23 lawyer." 24 Yes? 25 A. Yes. 119 1 Q. So you didn't think she had but, more 2 importantly, there wasn't any evidence to prove 3 that she had committed the offence of theft, 4 correct? 5 A. Right, yes. 6 Q. You interviewed Janet Skinner alongside 7 Mr Bradshaw, didn't you? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did he, Mr Bradshaw, agree with you that, at 10 that stage, there was no evidence of theft? 11 A. I don't know. I don't know what Mr Bradshaw 12 thought at the time. 13 Q. Did you discuss it as co-investigators? 14 A. I would have done but I can't remember what his 15 views were. 16 Q. Did either of you say to Ms Skinner "We've dealt 17 with people who have stolen money from the Post 18 Office before but we know that you haven't 19 stolen the money"? 20 A. I don't recall saying that. 21 Q. So she wouldn't have known that you thought that 22 she was innocent of theft? 23 A. No, because when I spoke to Ms Skinner, I did 24 some follow-up statements after that and it was 25 on the basis of everything put together that 120 1 I didn't think she'd stolen anything. 2 Q. I see. Did you communicate that view to 3 Mr Bradshaw? 4 A. I can't remember. I presume I did but, if you 5 want me to say absolutely, I can't remember. We 6 had conversations about all of the cases 7 regularly, so I presume I did but I can't say 8 for sure. 9 Q. When you reached this view, as you say, as 10 a result of investigation, that Ms Skinner had 11 not stolen the money or there was no evidence to 12 prove that she had, did you communicate your 13 view to Ms Skinner then? 14 A. No. 15 Q. You say that you spoke to or conveyed this to 16 the assisting lawyer; who was the assisting 17 lawyer? 18 A. I think it might have been Juliet McFarlane. 19 Q. What did -- if it was Juliet McFarlane -- she 20 say? 21 A. I can't remember but I remember, when I saw the 22 charges, I said I didn't really agree with them. 23 But, again, it was a case of she's the legal -- 24 legally trained person who makes the decision. 25 I don't make them decisions. 121 1 Q. Did you speak to your line manager about it? 2 A. He would have known. 3 Q. I'm sorry? 4 A. He would have known because that would have been 5 the communication at the time. I'm not sure if 6 it was still Mr Dawkins or not at that point. 7 We had several managers. 8 Q. Presumably, if you think (a) that Ms Skinner had 9 not stolen the money but (b), perhaps more 10 importantly, there wasn't any evidence to prove 11 that she had, but the lawyer was pressing ahead 12 with a theft charge, that would be quite 13 a significant event, wouldn't it? 14 A. I can only presume that she thought there was 15 some evidence in there that warranted that 16 charge. 17 Q. We haven't seen any communications between you 18 and the lawyer over this issue. Was this all 19 done orally? 20 A. It was a phone call, when I got the -- well, I'm 21 trying to remember correctly. I think it was 22 a phone call that I made to her when I received 23 the charges. 24 Q. Was it just the one phone call? 25 A. Sorry, notification of the charges. I hadn't 122 1 received the actual summonses or anything. 2 I think, yeah, I think it was just the one phone 3 call, because as I've said, like I'm guessing 4 I said something along the lines of -- because 5 I can't remember exactly, that, you know, 6 I couldn't point the finger definitely at one 7 person because there seemed to be a lot of 8 people there and there was a lot of people had 9 different opportunities and reasons. So, you 10 know, Ms Skinner was adamant she hadn't stolen 11 it and never made any admissions to that, from 12 my recollection, and I was shocked that the 13 theft charge was there. 14 Q. So, presumably, when she was sent to prison, 15 leaving behind her two teenage children, you 16 thought that was monstrously unfair? 17 A. It's never a good thing when people go to prison 18 and I don't take -- it's not something I take 19 great pleasure in seeing. 20 Q. Might that contain a whiff of understatement. 21 I wasn't asking you whether -- 22 A. I don't know what your question is meaning to 23 say, leaving her two children behind, because 24 that's very emotive and I don't like to -- 25 Q. No, it's a matter of fact. 123 1 A. It is a matter -- 2 Q. She left two teenage children behind whilst she 3 went to prison. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. It is emotive, you're right, and I'm asking you 6 what your reaction was when she was sent to 7 prison, leaving her two teenage children behind. 8 Please give me an answer. 9 A. It's not a nice feeling and she -- as far as 10 I was aware, she went to prison for false 11 accounting, not theft. But it's never a good 12 thing and I never like it and it's, you know -- 13 I'm sorry it's happened. 14 Q. Can we look, please, at POL00106906 and at 15 page 51, please. If we just scroll down we can 16 see the entirety of the document. It's a letter 17 from Ms Skinner's Area Intervention Manager, 18 Angela Bettison -- and scroll up, please -- 19 dated 12 December 2005, to Ms Janet Skinner. It 20 says: 21 "Dear Janet, 22 "We recently discussed the change in your 23 remuneration to Traffic Related Pay, this will 24 commence from 1 January 2006. The new contract 25 is currently being drawn up and will be sent to 124 1 Vicky Harrison (Contracts and Services Manager) 2 to be signed off and you will of course receive 3 a copy. 4 "This means that all of the hard work that 5 you have put into the office in recent weeks 6 will be paid in February's remuneration. 7 "Thank you for your continued hard work and 8 help running North Bransholme Post Office." 9 This is some evidence -- it's a couple of 10 months before the audit and interview -- that 11 Ms Skinner was a dedicated subpostmistress 12 working well, wasn't it? 13 A. I didn't have anything to do with this letter so 14 I don't know, but it sounds like they were very 15 grateful and supportive, yes. 16 Q. Would this be the kind of document that ought to 17 be brought to a reviewing lawyer's attention, so 18 that he or she could consider whether 19 a subpostmistress like this would be likely, 20 very shortly thereafter, to commit crimes 21 against the Post Office? 22 A. I don't know. That would be for the Legal team. 23 I don't know whether they would take that into 24 consideration or not. And I know Ms Skinner was 25 highly thought of and was given responsibility 125 1 for more than one office and she wouldn't have 2 been given that if she wasn't considered to be 3 a stand-up subpostmistress. 4 Q. Can we turn to disclosure of other information, 5 please, and look at POL00044673. This is 6 instructions and a brief to counsel in the case 7 of the R v Janet Skinner. If we go to the last 8 page, please -- in fact it's not the last page, 9 it's page 4, please -- and scroll down. They're 10 dated December 2006, drawn up, it seems, by 11 Ms McFarlane and Mr Taylor, the legal executive. 12 Now, I suspect you don't have any role in 13 the creation of these instructions and brief to 14 counsel; is that right? 15 A. (Unclear), yes. 16 Q. If we go back to page 1, please, can we see that 17 there's a list of documents that the barrister 18 was sent. If we scroll down a little bit more, 19 items 9 and 10 are copies of minutes from you, 20 dated 4 December 2006 and 24 November 2006. As 21 we're going to see, I think, they concern 22 somebody called Wendy Lyell; do you remember 23 Wendy Lyell? 24 A. I don't remember without being prompted by the 25 documents but I do recall there was something 126 1 after -- further on from the investigation 2 interviews, yes. 3 Q. If we just scroll down under "Observations": 4 "The defendant a former subpostmistress ... 5 The charges concern the theft of monies from the 6 post office during the course of employment." 7 Then over the page and scroll down, please. 8 Last paragraph on the page: 9 "Counsel is requested to advise on evidence, 10 and, in particular, whether he considers any 11 additional evidence is required. Counsel's 12 attention is drawn to the enclosures at 9 and 10 13 above ..." 14 They're the two minutes that we've just 15 looked at: 16 "... and is asked whether a theft charge is 17 still appropriate in all the circumstances. 18 Mrs Wisker is a temporary subpostmistress at 19 North Bransholme who took over the office 20 following Janet Skinner's apprehension. These 21 enquiries have not yet been completed in the 22 case against Mrs Lyell. Whilst clearly the new 23 information does not fare well with the 24 prosecution case particularly as Mrs Lyell was 25 a witness (now unused) this does not necessarily 127 1 mean that Mrs Lyell is the only thief at the 2 office. Counsel may in any event feel that the 3 papers do reveal a very significant 4 sophisticated method of false accounting on 5 behalf of the Defendant in order to conceal 6 a loss for which he raised little concern with 7 her staff." 8 Can we look at one of the minutes please 9 that's referred to as enclosure 9 and 10 10 POL00048272. If we scroll to the bottom please 11 and just a bit more, please, we'll see this is 12 one of your two minutes that are referred to in 13 those papers to counsel, dated 24 November 2006. 14 Then scroll to the top, please. So it's 15 addressed to Juliet McFarlane: 16 "As discussed today on the telephone, I am 17 forwarding the committal papers in respect of 18 Janet Skinner. 19 I have contacted Joanne Wisker, temporary 20 subpostmistress at North Bransholme office to 21 ascertain the details surrounding the suspension 22 of Wendy Lyell, who is a witness in the case 23 against Ms Skinner. This following a loss at 24 the branch of [£2,800-odd]. 25 "Mrs Wisker, who also owns Chanterlands 128 1 Avenue Post Office, was contacted by a member of 2 staff as they were concerned over the movement 3 of £2,000 between individual stock units. It 4 appears Mrs Lyell contacted a colleague, Avril 5 and said she had removed £2,000 out of her 6 individual sealed stock unit pouch as she was 7 concerned over running out of cash before the 8 remittance into the branch was received. 9 Mrs Lyell added that she would return the cash 10 today, which was her next schedule day on duty. 11 "Mrs Wisker stated she arrived at the branch 12 this morning and spoke with Mrs Lyell. It is 13 unclear when the conversation between Mrs Lyell 14 and Avril took place. However, when Mrs Wisker 15 checked Avril's stock unit, it shows a loss of 16 £2,000. 17 "There was an issue over a bag of £2 coins, 18 totalling £500 ..." 19 The next paragraph: 20 "The situation at the present time is that 21 Mrs Lyell has been suspended from her duties 22 pending further checks being undertaken by 23 Mrs Wisker." 24 Then at the end: 25 "Mrs Wisker has a number of areas to check 129 1 and verify information. She is to keep me 2 informed throughout this process with any 3 relevant finding which I will relay to 4 yourself." 5 So this is a formal means of communication 6 of information relevant to the case against 7 Mrs Skinner from you to the relevant lawyer; is 8 that right? 9 (No audible answer) 10 Sorry I missed your answer there? 11 A. Yes, sorry. 12 Q. Wendy Lyell was somebody who you had taken 13 a witness statement from? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. She was a lady that worked in Mrs Skinner's 16 branch -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- and she was subsequently arrested for theft? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Yes? Now, I think you were the Lead 21 Investigator in this case by now. We're now in 22 late 2006. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Yes? 25 A. Yes, sorry. Can you not hear me? Yes. 130 1 Q. Did that also mean that you were the Disclosure 2 Officer? 3 A. Yes, I disclosed things to the Criminal Law 4 Team. 5 Q. Is that how you viewed the duties of 6 a Disclosure Officer, to disclose things to the 7 Criminal Law Team, rather than having 8 a responsibility both to the defendant and to 9 the court to give disclosure? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So who would have been responsible for ensuring 12 that information of the kind that we see here 13 was relayed to the defence? 14 A. That would be the Criminal Law Team. 15 Q. Who would be responsible for ensuring that 16 material like this went onto an Unused Material 17 Schedule? 18 A. That would be the Criminal Law Team and the 19 Prosecution Support Office. So any additional 20 material from what I'd already forwarded would 21 be added to or an additional schedule would be 22 done by them to present the cases to the 23 defence. 24 Q. Can we look, please, at POL00048259. Can we see 25 this is a "Schedule of Non-Sensitive Unused 131 1 Material", in the case of Janet Skinner. Then 2 if we look at the foot of the page, we can see 3 the date of the schedule, 16 November 2006. Can 4 you see that? 5 (No audible response) 6 Then if we go to the top, please, it states: 7 "The Disclosure Officer believes that the 8 following material which does not form part of 9 the prosecution case is NOT SENSITIVE." 10 Then you signed that at the bottom, didn't 11 you? 12 A. Presumably, yes. 13 Q. If we scroll down, see under where it says, 14 "GRO" that means General Restriction Order. 15 We've blacked out your signature? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So were you responsible for typing documents 18 like this up? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Did you, consistently with the answers you gave 21 a moment ago, believe that this was just a means 22 of communication of information to the lawyer as 23 opposed to a declaration, essentially, to the 24 defence and to the court? 25 A. No, I saw it as a declaration, but it always 132 1 went to the Criminal Law Team because there were 2 occasions where -- I don't know in this 3 particular case, but I do recall times when they 4 would move things around on schedules. So I may 5 have put it as unused and they'd moved it onto 6 the used. 7 So sometimes what I'd actually forwarded was 8 not exactly the same as what was disclosed, 9 maybe the other way as well. Maybe some things 10 that I put as unused they would see as evidence. 11 Q. So you were responsible for typing these up. 12 The reviewing lawyer would look at them and 13 sometimes move things from used to unused, and 14 from unused to used, or from non-sensitive to 15 sensitive? 16 A. I don't know about the sensitive part because 17 I don't recall too much being on them, if 18 anything, but certainly between the used and 19 unused, yes, because they obviously cast their 20 legal eye upon it, of which I'm not legally 21 trained, and they consider things differently. 22 Q. In any event, take it from me that the material 23 relating to Wendy Lyell isn't on this schedule? 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. Okay? I don't want to run through it all, but 133 1 it isn't. Can we move forwards in time to see 2 what happened, then POL00048292. This is 3 a letter of 6 December from Juliet McFarlane to 4 you and the Post Office Investigation Team; can 5 you see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. She says: 8 "The committal papers have been approved and 9 served on the Defence Solicitors", and she 10 encloses a copy. 11 Then scroll down: 12 "I have noted the present position regarding 13 Wendy Lyell and that police enquiries are 14 continuing. This information will need to be 15 disclosed to the defence in due course. Further 16 attempts will need to be reviewed to see whether 17 the charge of theft stands. Apprehension of 18 Mrs Lyell is not in itself conclusive evidence 19 that she alone was the thief. However this will 20 depend on the evidence revealed in due course. 21 I have also removed Wendy Lyell's statement from 22 the bundle, this can be placed on the unused." 23 That's an example of what you were just 24 describing, yes? 25 A. Yes. 134 1 Q. Can we then see what happened when agent 2 solicitors were instructed on the same day, 3 6 December, POL00048303. This is a letter from 4 Juliet McFarlane to agency solicitors, Myer 5 Wolff Solicitors in Kingston Upon Hull: 6 "I would first refer you to the minutes of 7 24 November 2006 and 4 December 2006 from the 8 Officer Diane Matthews." 9 We've looked at one of those: 10 "As I understand it Mrs Wisker is the 11 temporary subpostmistress at North Bransholme. 12 Police enquiries have not yet been completed. 13 Whilst clearly the new information does not bear 14 well with the prosecution case particularly as 15 Ms Lyell is the witness, this does not 16 necessarily mean that Ms Lyell is the only thief 17 at the office. The papers in any event do 18 reveal a very sophisticated method of false 19 accounting on behalf of Ms Skinner in order to 20 conceal a loss for which she raised little 21 concern with her staff. Naturally the above 22 information will need to be disclosed to the 23 Defence (although the officers reports 24 themselves are confidential)." 25 So this is a letter of 6 December in 135 1 relation to a committal hearing we can see on 2 the 12 December 2006. What Ms McFarlane is 3 saying is that "We're not going to reveal this 4 information about Ms Lyell now, we're going to 5 reveal it in due course"; can you see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Were you aware of anything like a duty of 8 candour when attending committal proceedings? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Were you trained on being open and transparent 11 to a court at the point of committal hearings, 12 ie to reveal information at the point of 13 committal which tended to undermine the 14 prosecution case? 15 A. No. 16 Q. In any event, so far as we can tell, there was 17 no disclosure of the Lyell information at or 18 before the point of committal. 19 Then can we turn to much later during the 20 confiscation proceedings, again -- 21 A. Can I just take a comment that I've not -- 22 I wasn't aware of that letter. I wasn't copied 23 in. I don't believe I've seen the letter to 24 Myer Wolff. So I didn't know that had been 25 served. But I would have expected them 136 1 documents to be served. 2 Q. Can we look, then, at what happened later during 3 the confiscation proceedings, POL00048819. Can 4 we see this is an email of mid-2007 from Juliet 5 McFarlane to you and others. She says: 6 "Diane 7 "I am presently dealing with the 8 Confiscation proceedings. The Defence would 9 like to know whether Mrs Lyell was prosecuted 10 (by the police?) and if so the details. Could 11 you enquire and get back to me." 12 Then POL00048829, your reply: 13 "No charges were brought against Ms Lyell by 14 Humberside Police. [She] was interviewed but 15 there was no evidence to support a prosecution." 16 Then POL00048856, letter of 3 July 2007 to 17 defence solicitors Max Gold Partnership. Second 18 paragraph: 19 "With regards to your comments raised in 20 paragraph 9 I am informed by the Investigation 21 Officer that whilst Ms Lyell was interviewed by 22 Humberside Police there was no evidence to 23 support a prosecution." 24 Okay, that can come down, thank you. 25 So we can see the revelation of some 137 1 information in the course of the conference 2 occasion proceedings against Janet Skinner. 3 Can you help us: was the material about the 4 possible prosecution or the arrest of Wendy 5 Lyell revealed to Janet Skinner or her Legal 6 team before she was convicted. 7 A. I wouldn't know. That should've been done by 8 the prosecution office or Criminal Law Team. 9 Q. That was their responsibility, was it? 10 A. Yeah, I just would have expected them to have 11 done that. 12 Q. What about you compiling a supplemental schedule 13 of unused material? 14 A. That just wasn't the way it worked. 15 MR BEER: Yes, thank you very much. Those are the 16 only questions I ask. 17 I'm going to look around the room to see 18 whether there are any other questions. 19 Just one set of questions, sir, from 20 Mr Stein. 21 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 22 Questioned by MR STEIN 23 MR STEIN: Good afternoon, my name is Sam Stein. 24 I represent a very large group of subpostmasters 25 and mistresses. 138 1 Can I take you, please, to your statement 2 which is, it's likely to be in front of the 3 document handler, but it's WITN08330100. So I'm 4 going to refer you to page 35, paragraph 107. 5 Ms Matthews, paragraph 107. Do you have that, 6 page 35? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. It's the bottom of that page. What you say 9 there is this: 10 "When I left POL in 2008, the issue of the 11 Horizon system having bugs and its integrity 12 were just starting to be raised." 13 You go on to say: 14 "I did not become involved in this whilst in 15 POL and where raised as mitigation in my 16 investigation, I followed the process and raised 17 the issues." 18 Okay? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So the date that you have within your statement 21 is potentially an important one for the Inquiry 22 to reflect on. Now, you've said in your 23 evidence this afternoon -- at, I think, about 24 2.05 this afternoon -- that the Post Office was 25 denying that there were issues with the Horizon 139 1 system. Your words were "That was denial at all 2 costs". 3 Now, can you help us just understand that 4 a little bit more: who was sending out this 5 message, this denial at all costs message? 6 A. I don't know what person, but I just, as time 7 was passing on with some more people blaming, 8 rightly so, the Horizon system, and saying I've 9 never heard the words "bugs and defects" until 10 late, you know -- well, as I was about to leave, 11 but it seemed, when the questions were raised 12 and that conversations that I can -- I can't 13 recall who said them, but it was "It won't be 14 Horizon system, it's not Fujitsu, it's" -- and 15 it's like it was a total denial. 16 And it's just my interpretation that this 17 was done because they were heavily invested in 18 it. It had to work. Not just from -- I don't 19 think just from a monetary point of view they 20 were heavily invested. I think also from 21 a reputational point of view they were heavily 22 invested and I think the fallout to admit, at 23 that point, they just didn't want to face. 24 That was just my opinion, I knew it was 25 talked about within the team, as in the greater 140 1 team. I don't have any firm comments made by 2 individuals to back what I've just said up but 3 my feeling at that time was that, when these 4 issues were raised, they wanted them to be put 5 to bed. That's just my opinion. 6 Q. Now, the date, 2008, and the message that was 7 being sent around by POL, that "denial at all 8 costs" message, how close to the date of when 9 you left in 2008 was this occurring: was that in 10 the months or year before? 11 A. I'm sorry, I can't give you a date. I just knew 12 I was getting more and more unhappy working 13 there because of certain things that were 14 happening, and I made the decision to leave 15 because of it. 16 Q. Those certain things that were happening, were 17 they relevant to the purposes of the Inquiry, in 18 other words regarding the Horizon system and its 19 issues? 20 A. No, it was more a personal issue with the Head 21 of Security at the time. 22 Q. Ms Matthews, when considering the question of 23 the way that POL was denying these issues, can 24 I just see if we can probe a little bit further. 25 Your line manager was who at that time? 141 1 A. When I left, I think it was somebody called 2 Julian Tubbs. 3 Q. Julian? Repeat that please? 4 A. Julian Tubbs, but he was only by line manager 5 for a very short period of time. Prior to that 6 it was Dave Pardoe. 7 Q. Now, those two individuals, Mr Tubbs and 8 Mr Pardoe, do you think the message was being 9 sent around -- the message of denial at all 10 costs was being sent around by those 11 individuals; were they communicating that to 12 you? 13 A. I don't think I ever had a proper conversation 14 with Mr Tubbs and it's not my belief that 15 Mr Pardoe made them assumptions. 16 Q. Ms Matthews, this particular issue, which is 17 that that POL was denying and was trying to tell 18 its staff members that there are no issues with 19 the Horizon system, this has come up with now 20 a number of witnesses before this Inquiry, and 21 there appears to be a collective amnesia about 22 this amongst individuals like yourself, in other 23 words not able to recall who on earth was 24 setting out this message. 25 Has word gone around, Ms Matthews, that you 142 1 should keep schtum about this and keep it quiet? 2 A. No. 3 Q. It's just a coincidence, is it, that you're one 4 of a number of witnesses that can't seem to 5 remember who sent out the message about keep 6 quiet about the Horizon system? That's just us 7 coincidence, is it? 8 A. I think it's quite unfair to say them things 9 when you're asking me about conversations from 10 a long time ago and I've done my utmost to try 11 to recall and be honest in this situation. It 12 was a feeling amongst people that that's what 13 was happening. 14 It wasn't a conversation where somebody 15 dictated "This the line we're going to take", it 16 wasn't like that. But things were happening 17 more often and -- in terms of subpostmasters 18 saying it was the system, and it was getting 19 more and more frequent and that led you to 20 believe is there something in it? 21 So I don't -- it wasn't a message where, you 22 know, we were all brought together or people 23 were told, "This is what we're going to do". It 24 wasn't that sort of situation. 25 MR STEIN: Sir, no further questions. 143 1 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is that it, Mr Beer? 2 MR BEER: Yes, it is, sir. 3 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, thank you very much, 4 Ms Matthews, for giving your witness statement 5 and for answering a good many questions today. 6 I'm grateful to you. 7 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 8 MR BEER: Sir, we return now at 10.00 am on Tuesday 9 with Mr Graham Brander. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. Thank you. 11 MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir. 12 (2.34 pm) 13 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am 14 on Tuesday, 28 November 2023) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 I N D E X Announcement re evidence of Lisa Allen ........1 DIANE SARAH MATTHEWS (affirmed) ...............4 Questioned by MR BEER .........................4 Questioned by MR STEIN ......................138 145