1 Thursday, 30 November 2023 2 (10.30 am) 3 MR BEER: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear 4 us? 5 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can. 6 MR BEER: Thank you very much. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Before you call Mr Singh to give 8 evidence, Mr Beer, I'd like to say a few words. 9 Many of you will know from reports in the 10 media that a former subpostmaster and Core 11 Participant, Mr Thomas Brown, recently passed 12 away. Mr Brown began his career as 13 a subpostmaster in 1979 or 1980. He was based 14 in the northeast of England and, over very 15 nearly 30 years, he managed and owned Post 16 Office branches in that area very successfully. 17 An audit in 2008 purported to show a very 18 large shortfall. That alleged shortfall was 19 based upon data produced by Horizon. Mr Brown 20 was suspended and shortly thereafter his 21 contract with the Post Office was terminated. 22 In due course, Mr Brown was declared bankrupt. 23 The Post Office began criminal proceedings 24 against Mr Brown which reached the Crown Court. 25 However, my understanding is that the Post 1 1 Office came to realise that there was no 2 realistic prospect of successfully convicting 3 Mr Brown of any criminal offence and, 4 accordingly, before the trial date, no evidence 5 was offered and Mr Brown was acquitted. 6 Mr Brown was a claimant in the Group 7 Litigation. He received a modest amount of 8 compensation as a consequence of that litigation 9 and I understand that, much more recently, he 10 received an interim payment under the Group 11 Litigation compensation scheme. However, 12 Mr Brown's compensation award under that scheme 13 had not been finalised prior to his death. 14 The Inquiry Team and I would like to extend 15 our deepest sympathies to Mr Brown's family and 16 friends. From all I have read and heard about 17 Mr Brown, he will be greatly missed. 18 Thank you, Mr Beer. 19 MR BEER: Thank you sir, I know that Mr Brown's 20 family couldn't be here today to hear you say 21 that but they are watching, each of them, from 22 the northeast, in Newcastle, and I think, in due 23 course, they're to apply to become Core 24 Participants in the Inquiry. 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, one can never be certain of 2 1 anything but I imagine that their grounds for 2 becoming Core Participant are compelling, 3 Mr Beer. 4 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 5 Can I call Jarnail Singh, please. 6 JARNAIL SINGH (sworn) 7 Questioned by MR BEER 8 MR BEER: Please do take a seat, Mr Singh. 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Before Mr Beer asks you any 11 questions, Mr Singh, I think it appropriate to 12 address you as follows. Under our law, 13 a witness at a public Inquiry has the right to 14 decline to answer a question put to him by 15 Counsel to the Inquiry, by any recognised legal 16 representative or by me, if there is a risk that 17 the answer to that question would incriminate 18 the witness. This legal principle is known in 19 shorthand form as the privilege against 20 self-incrimination. 21 Mr Singh, fairness demands that I remind you 22 of that principle before you give your evidence. 23 If at any stage you wish to rely on the 24 privilege, it is for you to make that clear to 25 me in respect of any question put to you, ie you 3 1 must tell me that you wish to rely upon the 2 privilege against self-incrimination. 3 If, therefore, any questions are put to you 4 by any of the lawyers who ask you questions or 5 by me which you do not wish to answer, on the 6 grounds that to answer such questions might 7 incriminate you, you must tell me immediately 8 after any such question is put. At that point, 9 I will consider your objection and, thereafter, 10 rule upon whether your objection should be 11 upheld. 12 I understand from Mr Beer that you are 13 represented here today by a solicitor. No 14 doubt, if the issue relating to 15 self-incrimination arises, the solicitor will 16 assist you and, if at any stage during the 17 questioning, you wish to consult your lawyer 18 about the privilege against self-incrimination, 19 you must tell me so that I can consider whether 20 that is appropriate. 21 Do you understand all that, Mr Singh? 22 THE WITNESS: I do, sir. I'm very grateful. Thank 23 you. 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. 25 Over to you, Mr Beer. 4 1 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 2 My name is Jason Beer and I ask questions on 3 behalf of the Inquiry. Can you give us your 4 full name, please? 5 A. Jarnail Singh. 6 Q. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence 7 to the Inquiry today and tomorrow and for 8 previously providing a witness statement to us. 9 You should have a copy of that witness 10 statement -- 11 A. I've got it here, yes. 12 Q. -- in front of you. Thank you. It's 89 pages 13 in length, excluding the indexes to the exhibits 14 and it's dated 6 October. For the transcript, 15 the URN is WITN04750100. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. If you turn to the 89th page, please, is that 18 your signature? 19 A. That is my signature but I think we discussed 20 before, I need to amend a few paragraphs. 21 Q. Yes, before I ask you whether the contents are 22 true to the best of your knowledge and belief, 23 I think there are a series of corrections you'd 24 like to make? 25 A. Yes, please. 5 1 Q. If we go to page 19, please, and paragraph 51, 2 if that could be brought up on the screen, 3 please. Paragraph 51, the sentence which reads: 4 "When the matter was committed to the Crown 5 Court, once instructed, Counsel were asked to 6 draft the indictment and in doing so, look at 7 the summons, and also provide advice on 8 evidence. Essentially they would revisit and 9 review the whole case." 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What's the correction you'd like to make to 12 that? 13 A. Just to add a paragraph just to clarify, I think 14 for you and anybody who wants to have a look at 15 this statement, is that if we can add: 16 "After counsel has been instructed, the case 17 papers are passed on or passed on to the legal 18 executives to manage and progress the case in 19 the Crown Court." 20 That's all. 21 Q. Thank you. Can we turn to page 25, please. On 22 paragraph 70. This reads: 23 "[A document] references a meeting which 24 I attended with Gareth Jenkins, Warwick Tatford 25 and Jon Longman in October 2010. I do not 6 1 recall this meeting or ever discussing Gareth 2 Jenkins' witness statement with him. As far as 3 I recall, I had very limited involvement with 4 Mr Jenkins. I cannot recall any discussions 5 where he was informed of his duties to the 6 Court, although I would have assumed Counsel 7 would have informed him of the same." 8 Which is the correction or clarification 9 that you would like to make? 10 A. The only word there is "very limited", and that 11 can go. That can be: 12 "I had more involvement with Mr Gareth 13 Jenkins." 14 Q. Sorry, so the sentence which says, "As far as 15 I recall I had very limited involvement with 16 Mr Jenkins" -- 17 A. I had more -- 18 Q. Hold on. Mr Singh, if you let me ask the 19 question first -- 20 A. Sorry. 21 Q. -- then when I finish speaking, if you start 22 speaking -- 23 A. Yes, let me know. 24 Q. So the sentence which says, "As far as I recall 25 I had very limited involvement with Mr Jenkins", 7 1 what is the amendment you would like to make -- 2 A. Well -- 3 Q. Hold on. 4 A. I was looking at you -- 5 Q. What is the amendment you would like to make to 6 that? 7 A. That should read: 8 "As far as I recall, I had more or greater 9 involvement with Mr Jenkins." 10 Q. So the opposite to what it says? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. The third correction, please, page 26, 15 paragraph 76, which is at the foot of the page. 16 It reads: 17 "My understanding is that when 18 a subpostmaster was found guilty, repayment 19 directions were given by the Court. Counsel 20 would forward these to [the Criminal Law Team] 21 who would make sure they were complied with by 22 the Defence. If enforcement proceedings were 23 needed because the directions were not complied 24 with, the Investigation and Security Team would 25 approach us and we would make the appropriate 8 1 application to the Court. To clarify, this was 2 before the separation of the businesses. When 3 the businesses separated, enforcement 4 proceedings were dealt with by [Cartwright 5 King]." 6 What's the correction or clarification you'd 7 like to make there? 8 A. Just give me a second. 9 Yes, where it says, "Counsel would forward 10 these to CLT", if we delete -- if we add there 11 something to the effect of: 12 "... and these were copied on to the 13 Investigation and Security Team." 14 Q. Thank you. 15 A. And I think if you delete -- so it should read: 16 "My understanding is that where the 17 subpostmaster is found guilty repayment 18 directions were given by the Court. Counsel 19 would put forward these to CLT who would in turn 20 copy this to the Investigation and Security Team 21 ..." 22 And if we can then -- 23 "... who would make sure they were complied 24 with by the Defence ..." 25 (The witness read to himself) 9 1 I think that's fine. That's fine. 2 Q. So it was the enforcement team who would made 3 they were complied the with by the defence -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- not the Criminal Law Team? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Is that the effect of the amendment you want to 8 make? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So it should read: 11 "Counsel would forward these to the Criminal 12 Law Team and the Enforcement Team, the latter of 13 whom would make sure they were complied with by 14 the defence." 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Thank you. Then lastly page 67, paragraph 200. 17 Towards the bottom of the page -- 18 A. Oh. 19 Q. -- it reads: 20 "I had limited contact with Mr Jenkins and 21 am not in a position to comment on any views 22 that he expressed in relation to the disclosure 23 being sought by the Defence and the relevance of 24 the material sought to the case. His main point 25 of contact was Jon Longman." 10 1 What's the correction or clarification -- 2 A. Ah -- I think that's where -- 3 Q. -- hold on. 4 A. Sorry, I should be looking at you. Sorry. 5 Q. What's the correction or clarification that you 6 would like to make to that, please? 7 A. I think that should be: 8 "I had more contact with Mr Jenkins ..." 9 Q. So it should read: 10 "I had more contact with Mr Jenkins" -- 11 A. I had, yeah, something -- 12 Q. -- and "am" or "am not" in a position to 13 comment? 14 A. Um ... I think that's -- yeah, I think that'll 15 be fine, I think -- 16 Q. That should stay. So it's: 17 "I had more contact with Mr Jenkins ..." 18 A. Yeah. 19 Q. Okay. With those four corrections brought into 20 account, are the contents of that witness 21 statement true to the best of your knowledge and 22 belief? 23 A. Yes. Yes, it is. 24 Q. Thank you. A copy of that witness statement is 25 going to be uploaded to the Inquiry's website 11 1 and I'm not going to ask you about every part of 2 it; do you understand? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. That can come down, thank you. You've come 5 today to assist the Inquiry with the issues 6 arising in Phase 4 of the Inquiry, that is the 7 investigation and prosecution of subpostmasters 8 for criminal offences. We're going to ask you 9 to return kindly next year to give evidence 10 about the issues in Phases 5 and 6 of the 11 Inquiry, and that includes: your interactions 12 with Simon Clarke; your interactions with 13 Cartwright King more generally; the 14 circumstances in which Mr Clarke's shredding 15 advice came to be written; your involvement with 16 the Second Sight reviews; your communications 17 with Susan Crichton and other senior members of 18 the Post Office, Chris Aujard as well and Brian 19 Altman KC. 20 I'm not going to ask you about those matters 21 today although some of the documents I'm going 22 to refer you to touch on Phase 4 issues, even 23 though they were created in 2012, 2013 and 2014. 24 Can I start please with your professional 25 background. In your witness statement, 12 1 paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, which is on page 3 -- no 2 need to display it for the moment -- you 3 describe your roles within the Royal Mail Group 4 and within Post Office Limited and you exhibit 5 a copy of your CV, your curriculum vitae, 6 setting out your qualifications and your career. 7 Can I summarise it, those two sources -- 8 paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 and the CV -- as follows, 9 and tell me whether I get it right: 10 Firstly, is it right that between 1985 and 11 1989 you were a legal executive in private 12 practice and that involved work in two firms. 13 In the latter firm you worked in conveyancing, 14 buying and selling houses. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You joined the Post Office as a legal executive 17 in December 1989 and, again, you worked in 18 conveyancing, specifically in the Post Office's 19 commercial conveyancing department? 20 A. Yes, I did. 21 Q. Whilst you were working for the Post Office you 22 were admitted as a solicitor in December 1992; 23 is that right? 24 A. That's right, yes. 25 Q. Does that mean that you were studying for your 13 1 Law Society finals whilst you were working in 2 the Conveyancing Department? 3 A. Yes, yes I was, yes. 4 Q. Then in September 1993 you transferred to the 5 Post Office's Litigation Department; is that 6 right? 7 A. That's right, yes. 8 Q. That was handling civil work; is that correct? 9 A. No, no, the -- yeah, that was the Civil 10 Litigation Department before I joined the 11 Prosecution Department. 12 Q. So you transferred to the Litigation Department 13 in September 1993 -- 14 A. '90 -- 15 Q. -- and worked on civil work -- 16 A. Civil work, yes. 17 Q. Then in August 1995 you transferred to the 18 Prosecutions Department? 19 A. That's right, yes. 20 Q. You tell us in your CV that upon transfer to the 21 Prosecutions Department, you were the senior 22 lawyer in the Prosecutions Department; is that 23 right? 24 A. Yes, yes, I was, yes. 25 Q. Was there only one senior lawyer in the 14 1 Prosecutions Department? 2 A. When I joined? No, I think I -- I think I -- 3 the structure of the team was, I think, there 4 was the Head of Criminal Law Team -- 5 Q. Sorry, say that again? 6 A. There was -- the structure of the Prosecutions 7 Department when I joined, was that there were 8 head -- Head of the Criminal Law Team. 9 Q. Who was that? 10 A. That was Mike Heath, and then you'd eight senior 11 lawyers on the same position, I think they were, 12 then you had three or four legal executives, 13 three or four admin staff, and four or five 14 secretaries. 15 Q. I see. 16 A. So -- 17 Q. It's just in your CV, if we can have it up on 18 the screen, WITN04750101, thank you. If we look 19 at the second page, look at foot of the page, do 20 you see the last paragraph where it says: 21 "In August 1995 I transferred to the 22 Prosecution Division as the senior lawyer ..." 23 A. No, well, maybe "the" need to come out. I think 24 we were all on the same grade, basically. Some 25 more experienced than others but they were all 15 1 known as senior lawyers and I think subsequently 2 they changed the titles. 3 Q. So where it says, "the senior lawyer", that's 4 a bit misleading, isn't it? 5 A. Possibly. 6 Q. So that should be "as one of eight senior 7 lawyers and there wasn't any other grade, we 8 were all senior lawyers"? 9 A. Yes, I think so. I think -- 10 Q. Okay. Did that remain the case that you were 11 one of the senior lawyers -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- until separation in 2012? 14 A. I don't know. Subsequently, there were various 15 structures, there were various roles, name 16 changes, to principal and principal lawyers and 17 team leaders, and all sorts of things like that. 18 But, generally, we were the same grade doing 19 more or less the same work. 20 Q. Okay. That can come down. Thank you. 21 Did you manage other lawyers. 22 A. No, no, I don't think any of us did, apart from 23 the team leader or the, you know, the Head of 24 Criminal Law. I think they managed -- I don't 25 think anybody actually managed anybody else, 16 1 apart from the legal executive and they 2 basically assisted you, they worked with you, 3 rather than sort of managed them as such, 4 because they were experienced. 5 Q. So when the name "senior lawyer" got changed to 6 "Team Leader", you weren't in fact leading 7 a team at all? 8 A. I think it -- I don't think anything really 9 changed apart from separation. On separation, 10 obviously I was -- 11 Q. We're talking about before separation -- 12 A. No, I think there was a team leader -- or not 13 team leader, he was the Head of Criminal Law, 14 I think that was one grade and I think he 15 managed and supervised everybody else. 16 Q. Okay, it's just a moment ago you said the name 17 changed from senior lawyer to Principal Lawyer 18 to Team Leader, referring to the role you were 19 undertaking. Did that happen before separation 20 in 2012? 21 A. No, no. Sorry, it's probably -- I'm trying to 22 sort of adjust to the Inquiry's -- yeah, there 23 was the -- the -- yeah, sorry. Let me clarify. 24 There was the Head of Criminal Law Team, he 25 managed, basically, the senior lawyers, and 17 1 I think the Principal -- 2 Q. Sorry, he managed the senior lawyers? 3 A. He managed all the team, basically, yeah the 4 legal executives, the secretaries, the admin, 5 and also the, you know, the lawyers. That's 6 basically it. He was the head of the team, 7 and -- 8 Q. So from August '95 until separation in 2012, you 9 remained the same grade -- 10 A. Yeah -- 11 Q. -- senior lawyer -- 12 A. More or less, yes. 13 Q. More or less or, in fact, the same? 14 A. Yeah, nothing changed for me, no. 15 Q. At the time you became the senior lawyer you 16 were, I think, by my calculations, two years and 17 eight months qualified; is that right? 18 A. Yes, I think so. 19 Q. You hadn't practised in criminal law whilst 20 you'd worked at the Post Office; is that right? 21 A. Not with the Post Office, no. 22 Q. Had you ever done any prosecution work before? 23 A. In -- when I first started, I was the personal 24 representative under the duty scheme, you know, 25 when it came in, 1984/85, whenever it was, when 18 1 I worked very closely with one of the senior 2 partners in the firm, the first firm I joined, 3 and I did about three -- three or four years 4 with -- 5 Q. That was defending though, presumably? 6 A. It was defending but he did quite a bit of 7 prosecution. I assisted with him -- I assisted 8 him. I don't know whether it was Trading 9 Standards, or something like that now, I mean 10 years and years ago now, but he did something 11 and I did a lot of preparation for him. Did all 12 the research and everything else. But I have 13 no -- that's right, I mean, you can say that. 14 Certainly, that was the only experience I had of 15 criminal law. 16 Q. As a legal exec? 17 A. As a legal exec, yes. 18 Q. Had you done any private prosecution work? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Had you ever had to give advice on the Full Code 21 Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors? 22 A. Prior to -- 23 Q. Prior to joining as a senior lawyer in August 24 1995? 25 A. No. 19 1 Q. Had you ever had to determine questions of 2 evidential sufficiency, whether to move to 3 a charge or a summons before? 4 A. Not as a -- not on the prosecution side of it. 5 I mean it's not anything I've looked at the 6 evidence, taken witness statements for the 7 senior partner -- well -- most of the 8 preparation work was done by me. 9 Q. Had you ever had to deal with whether 10 a prosecution was in the public interest from 11 the prosecution side? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you always report to the head of the 14 Criminal Law Team? 15 A. Well, talking about now, the Post Office 16 prosecution? 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. From August '95 -- 20 A. Yes -- 21 Q. -- to separation in 2012? 22 A. -- yes, well -- well, I inherited a very small 23 casework, but I worked very closely with the -- 24 two of the senior lawyers, very, very closely. 25 Q. Who were they? 20 1 A. I worked very closely with a number -- one or 2 two senior lawyers. 3 Q. Yes, and who were they? 4 A. There was Tony Brentnall and one other lady 5 who -- Debbie Stapel. 6 Q. Were you reporting, nonetheless, only to the 7 Head of Criminal Law? 8 A. I think -- I think -- 9 Q. Was he or she your line manager? 10 A. I think -- I suppose -- yeah. Yes. I think so, 11 yes. 12 Q. Did that remain constant until separation in 13 2012? 14 A. I think it was Mike Heath originally and then 15 when I think Rob Wilson took over, yes -- he 16 was -- yeah. 17 Q. So they were your line managers? 18 A. They were the line managers, yes. 19 Q. Where were you located? 20 A. In, firstly, Impact House in Croydon. Then 21 subsequently Victoria -- Eccleston Street in 22 Victoria. 23 Q. Were all of the lawyers located there? 24 A. All of the prosecution team has always been 25 together in -- you know, either in Impact House 21 1 or Victoria. 2 Q. Was this your full-time job? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You didn't have any other jobs? 5 A. Well, I was -- I had a consultancy type of thing 6 going on but that's more to do with working with 7 somebody else to gain some other experience, but 8 it wasn't substantive, or anything like that. 9 It was a bit like a hobby. It would be like 10 being monitored, you know, in a business 11 capacity type of thing. 12 I did a -- it was a businessman I met and he 13 wanted me to do some work for him and he was 14 basically acting as my mentor, and I set up 15 a consultancy in consultation with the 16 Law Society, and it was properly registered 17 under the legislation, the Law Society knew 18 about it, the Post Office knew about it, but it 19 didn't have any impact on any other work I did 20 for the Post Office at all. 21 Q. Can we just look at your CV please, 22 WITN04750101. You set out your employment 23 history here, if we scroll down, and then if we 24 go over the page, please, December '89 to May 25 '15, so 26 years at the Post Office in its 22 1 various guises. Then if we go to the foot of 2 the page, please, it says April 1996 to present, 3 "J Singh Judge Solicitors, Crawley West Sussex". 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Then over the page, please: 6 "In relation to property law, experienced in 7 both Commercial and Residential Property Law, 8 including Have a detailed [I think that must 9 mean 'including having a detailed'] knowledge of 10 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the Housing 11 Act 1996" -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- "the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban 14 Development Act 1993, the Land Registration Act 15 2002 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 16 2002. 17 "Acted on numerous residential conveyances 18 in the local Crawley, Horsham and West Sussex 19 areas, as well as lease and rental agreements 20 for both Private and Council tenancies. 21 Extensive experience in all property matters up 22 to senior level dealing including the following 23 buying and selling of residential and commercial 24 properties [I think there are some words missing 25 there], commercial and residential remortgage 23 1 applications, transfer of equity, drafting 2 leases, drafting commercial assignments, 3 leases/licences, auction transactions and 4 property litigation. 5 "Worked with a range of clients including 6 large and small businesses [including] 7 acquiring, selling, leasing or developing 8 property of all types, limited companies and 9 limited liability partnerships and private 10 individuals with active portfolios [then I think 11 a full stop] Freehold commercial property 12 acquisition and funding including the 13 introduction of commercial lenders where 14 appropriate. 15 "We were an accredited Law Society 16 Conveyancing Quality Scheme practice. Our 17 accreditation provides [presumably that means 18 'provided'] recognition of our adherence to good 19 practice, management standards and commitment to 20 providing efficient and high quality 21 conveyancing procedures which also led to our 22 introduction onto the panel for some major High 23 Street Mortgage lenders." 24 Is that all accurate, that from 1996 onwards 25 you were doing that? 24 1 A. Yes, it is, yes. At that time, the indemnity 2 insurance was taken care of by the Law Society 3 and it was practical. It worked. Yes, it did. 4 Q. So you had two jobs? 5 A. I didn't -- there wasn't that much work in that 6 sense but what I did do was I worked very 7 closely with the previous employers, referring 8 work to them, so I -- the firm I left 9 beforehand, and the previous firm when first 10 I started. A lot of the work was done for the 11 local community, more or less. They came to see 12 me and I referred them on. 13 It wasn't sort of a full-time job, as such, 14 it's more or less doing the community service, 15 like putting something back in the community, 16 more then -- 17 Q. It looks -- I'm so sorry, I spoke over you. 18 A. Sorry. 19 Q. It looks like quite a lot of work? 20 A. Well, it looks like -- on paper, it's completely 21 different to what the reality was. The reality 22 was that it worked for me and, instead of 23 collecting stamps, I was able to put something 24 back in the community. A lot of people were 25 grateful for it, for the referral for the 25 1 recommendations I made, and the Law Society was 2 happy with it, because I think it was the Law 3 Society who recommended it and I said "Look, 4 this what I'm doing, this is my full time job, 5 the Post Office obviously doesn't interfere, 6 there's no conflict, but this what I want to 7 do". And I think what they actually recommended 8 very kindly, "Look, why don't you set it up as 9 a consultancy? You can do both", and I think as 10 and when the practice certificate was up for 11 renewal -- 12 THE STENOGRAPHER: Sorry, can you slow down? 13 A. As and when the practice certificate came up for 14 renewal, it was done as a bulk renewal by the 15 Post Office and they knew very well what I was 16 doing, but it didn't interfere because it was, 17 like, you know, either collecting stamps or 18 doing something like that, which is useful to 19 the community it was useful to me and that was 20 a reason why I did what I had to do. 21 Q. Is a summary of that, for the entirety of the 22 period we were looking at, as well as being 23 a senior lawyer in the Prosecutions Department 24 of the Post Office, you were also in private 25 practice? 26 1 A. It was, yeah -- yes, you could say that. But it 2 didn't interfere -- 3 Q. Well, I am saying it and I'm asking you whether 4 it's true. 5 A. It is true. Yes. But it's -- it was true up to 6 about year 2000/2001, and I think after that, 7 the indemnity insurance got so much, purely 8 because it went -- it went on the free market. 9 Instead of £20, £30 a month, it went up to God 10 knows what it did, and all I did then was 11 restricted it to monitoring or mentoring -- 12 I think it is the expression -- by this 13 businessman. I did bits and pieces for him -- 14 a bit -- you know, advised him, drafted letters 15 and things for him because he was grateful for 16 that. 17 Q. You said that it is true up until 2000. If we 18 look at the foot of the previous page, it says 19 April '96 to present. 20 A. Yes, presently it's true. Presently, as you 21 know the work I've done, I'm acting as -- I'm 22 working as a consultant for one of the firms -- 23 Q. Hold on, just stop. If we look at the next 24 page, please, and scroll down, here, you detail 25 what you do since you left the Post Office and 27 1 I'm not going to ask you any questions about 2 what you've done since you left the Post 3 Office -- 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. -- because that's March '16 onwards and then 6 August 2021 onwards. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I'm asking you about this period from April 1996 9 to the present day. You've just told us that, 10 in fact, it was only until 2000 or 2001 that 11 that carried on? 12 A. Well, maybe that needs correcting or amending 13 but, certainly, it's in existence but I don't do 14 any work through it, purely because I don't want 15 to do it. But I -- if I wanted to, I could do. 16 It's there. If I want to put it into practice 17 now, the fact is that I can't use it purely 18 because I -- I'm inundated from a lot of 19 paperwork from the Inquiry. 20 So, you know, this a full-time job, dealing 21 with the Inquiry, the questions and preparing 22 statements and reading the documentation 23 forwarded to me by the Inquiry. But it's in 24 existence, any time I want to work with it I can 25 do. It always has been and I think the Law 28 1 Society are quite happy for it to be there. 2 I mean, there's nothing untoward in that. 3 I mean, I don't know what's the point you're 4 trying to make. It didn't interfere with -- 5 Q. I'm not making any point. I'm just letting you 6 speak at the moment. 7 A. Okay, well, you tell me what the upshot of it 8 and I'll explain it to you. 9 Q. I've asked you, is it correct that, for the 10 entirety of the period that we're looking at, as 11 well as being a senior lawyer in the 12 Prosecutions Department, you were also in 13 private practice? I think you said yes. 14 A. Yes. Yes, I suppose I was. Yes. 15 Q. If we scroll up this page, please. You were 16 acting in on numerous residential conveyances in 17 that period, correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. You were working with large and small businesses 20 buying and selling or leasing properties; is 21 that correct? 22 A. That's correct as well, yes. 23 Q. You say this is the equivalent to having a hobby 24 of collecting stamps? 25 A. Yes. 29 1 Q. Yes, we'll move on, thank you. 2 In paragraph 7 of your witness statement, 3 you say that when you transferred over to the 4 Post Office in 2012, you were the only in-house 5 criminal lawyer within the Criminal Law Team; is 6 that right? 7 A. That's right. 8 Q. What was the reason for the Post Office reducing 9 the number of in-house criminal lawyers? 10 A. I think you'd need to ask somebody senior. 11 I have no idea why they did that. All they did 12 was separated the businesses and I think the -- 13 their plan, the business plan was to have one 14 senior lawyer -- senior criminal lawyer, one 15 commercial lawyer to head those teams and to 16 have -- my understanding was to oversee and 17 manage the work done by a private firm who'd 18 done the -- tendered the work out to the private 19 firms. 20 I think that was their model and I fitted in 21 with the, you know, the criminal -- criminal law 22 aspect of it or the prosecution side of it. 23 Q. So the model was to outsource the work to 24 a firm, is that right, but to retain one lawyer 25 in-house? 30 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. From 2012 onwards, from the separation of the 3 business onwards, did you manage any other 4 criminal lawyers within the Post Office? 5 A. No. There was no other criminal lawyers there. 6 Q. It was just you? 7 A. Just me. 8 Q. From that time onwards, from separation onwards, 9 was the Criminal Law Team sufficiently 10 staffed -- 11 A. Well -- 12 Q. -- ie, by you and you alone? 13 A. You mean this is Post Office Limited now, 14 1 April '12 onwards? No. 15 Q. It wasn't sufficiently staffed? 16 A. Well, the -- 17 Q. In what respect wasn't it sufficiently staffed? 18 A. Well, firstly, I had no assistants. I had no -- 19 at CLT, the Criminal Law Team, before -- prior 20 to it, I had a secretary who basically did all 21 the typing for me because I'm not very good at 22 IT. I had a desktop but I dictated everything 23 to her, she put everything together and then you 24 had the legal executives putting the bundles 25 together for the jury, for the advance 31 1 information, for the Magistrates Court. 2 I didn't have any of that. So I basically 3 said "Look, I can't do the job you're trying to 4 tell me to do", so a lot of the work, basically 5 all the work, literally from the beginning to 6 the end of the case, went to Cartwright King. 7 So that was the only way it worked. So the only 8 thing I did was basically managed them and did 9 the admin or the advice sought by the seniors 10 within the Post Office. 11 Q. Thank you. Did you complain about this? 12 A. Well, I -- I don't know what you mean by 13 complaint? I mean -- 14 Q. Raise a grumble, express your dissatisfaction, 15 express annoyance or other cognate expressions? 16 A. It was an open-plan office. We had the head of 17 Legal, which was -- I've forgotten his name now, 18 Hugh Flemington, I think it was, and the 19 director of -- or counsel was Susan Crichton. 20 She was a lovely lady, and Hugh, we got on 21 really well. As and when we needed it, needed 22 them to discuss matters, I did. I said, "Look, 23 you know, I can't deal with it the way it is, 24 the way I want to do it", because the whole 25 point was it was a challenge and I have always 32 1 been up for challenges. 2 And I think they understood, or they didn't 3 understand, I don't know what they did or didn't 4 do about it now but, certainly, I did the best 5 I could and I was glad that you had Cartwright 6 King with the senior experienced expertise to 7 work with, that's the sort of thing I was 8 looking for, basically, and I just fitted in 9 with their team. 10 And that's how it sort of worked out for me 11 and I was able to have a direct communication 12 with them, and I think every time I phoned, 13 there was always somebody on the other side to 14 discuss matters to help me with some of the 15 advices internally, which the Post Office needed 16 or wanted. 17 Q. You had a long career as a criminal lawyer 18 within the Royal Mail Group and then the Post 19 Office Limited? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Given that long career within the Criminal Law 22 Team, until you left the Post Office in 2015, 23 it's right, isn't it, that you presided over 24 a number of prosecutions which have subsequently 25 been found by the Court of Appeal to involve 33 1 miscarriages of justice; that's right, isn't it? 2 A. That's right, yes. 3 Q. Including a number where the Court of Appeal has 4 found that the Post Office didn't actually have 5 any proof that loss had occurred to the 6 organisation? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In your witness statement, would you agree that 9 you accept no personal responsible for any of 10 the actions or admissions relating to the 11 specific cases that you're asked about? 12 A. How do you mean? What like -- what do you mean 13 by that? 14 Q. You don't accept any personal responsibility for 15 any mistakes made in relation to the cases that 16 we asked you about in your witness statement -- 17 A. Well, obviously, I -- I'm very grieved -- 18 Q. That's a different issue. 19 A. -- and I'm embarrassed and sorry. I mean 20 I think maybe we ought to start by me 21 apologising directly to the subpostmasters. 22 Obviously, I do, you know, we'll their pain 23 and hurt and I can feel the same. And 24 I don't -- I've never met any of them. My 25 basically employment of job entailed, or my role 34 1 entailed the paperwork I received, I assessed it 2 in line with the law, the evidence, the public 3 interest, and whether it was appropriate for 4 charges to go before the courts. 5 So, in that respect, you know -- I didn't do 6 the complete job, I didn't do the 7 investigations, I didn't know anything about the 8 Horizon in the sense about how it operated so we 9 had a witness statement to actually explain it 10 and then we had the barristers in turn to 11 approve it, and then it went before the judge to 12 deal with the enforcement side of things, if it 13 needed. 14 So, in that respect, of course I feel very 15 upset and aggrieved that it had gone so far, 16 because the whole idea of becoming a lawyer 17 wasn't to do any wrong, and I certainly -- 18 the -- I didn't want to be here today. I wanted 19 to enjoy a long legal career within the Post 20 Office and whoever, and now to carry on doing 21 the next stage of my life. 22 And certainly, in that respect, of course 23 I take responsibility for the -- what I've done 24 and sometimes you wake up, sometimes you can't 25 sleep, and say "I wish I'd done more. Why did 35 1 I accept the fact that Horizon was robust when 2 it wasn't?" But this has been going on since 3 about the year 2000 when it first came into -- 4 into place and, after that -- and I think I more 5 or less started doing more of the subpostmaster 6 work, purely because I think when Debbie Stapel 7 went off and started doing the Royal Mail work 8 and started working from home. 9 So you are relying on other people to tell 10 you that, you know, the system is working, the 11 investigation officers, again, should have been 12 the ones who should have got the evidence from 13 the operators and say, "No, you know, we need 14 more evidence", but then maybe it's our fault as 15 lawyers, and say, "No, where's your proof? 16 Prove the -- prove where the shortfall is?" 17 But I think we're a sort of -- more of us 18 are relying on the -- well, we can only do what 19 we've been given, that is the paperwork and we 20 thought that was appropriate. And we, you know, 21 we worked as a sort of team together and we 22 formulated -- I think I told you about the 23 template which we followed it religious -- well, 24 I certainly did, religiously, so that we don't 25 overlook anything. On top of it, all our work 36 1 was independently assessed and marked, if you 2 like, by the independent Bar, independent 3 barristers. 4 Q. What scores did they give you when they marked 5 your work? 6 A. I don't know that they actually gave us a mark 7 but, certainly, if there was no proof or, you 8 know, whether there was no proof or whatever it 9 was, they would have turned it back and said, 10 "No, it's not good enough. We're not going to 11 proceed with it because there's no evidence." 12 Q. In the long answer you've given, you reflect the 13 approach that you've taken in your witness 14 statement, would you agree, generating an air of 15 detachment of you personally from everything 16 that was going on, blaming the individual 17 investigators, the Fujitsu witnesses and Fujitsu 18 the company, and the independent Bar for 19 anything that had gone wrong. That's your 20 overall take, isn't it? 21 A. Absolutely not. I take full responsibility for 22 the bits I was involved in. 23 Q. The bits -- 24 A. You know, you cannot work alone on these things, 25 can you? I mean, you know, if you're going to 37 1 do something successful, I think no person can 2 actually exist on his own. You've got to work 3 it together. You've got to piece everything 4 together. I'm not blaming the investigators; 5 I'm not blaming the Bar, all I'm saying is that 6 I take this -- took this -- I took this role 7 very, very obviously. I take this -- I -- it 8 really hurts me to actually prosecute anybody 9 to -- somebody to go to court and then lose 10 their livelihood and also to lose, you know, on 11 top of it, not only that, and then, you know, 12 the damage to the reputation and credibility 13 when there -- when there shouldn't have been any 14 need for it. 15 Q. Overall, would you agree that the impression 16 that you seek to create in your witness 17 statement is one of acting with the utmost 18 professionalism at all times, but of sorrow and 19 being hurt after the event because, if only you 20 had known about Horizon, everything would have 21 been very different? 22 A. Absolutely not. I am not that sort of person. 23 It's not the way -- you made me come across 24 wrong. I take full responsibility for the -- 25 you know, the hurt and the sorrow people 38 1 (unclear) and I think -- I was actually going to 2 actually apologise to Julian Wilson's family, 3 seeing that he's not here to see that his good 4 name has been put intact and things have been 5 put right. 6 They're the ones who were telling everybody 7 that the Horizon system is wrong and nobody 8 believed them and they've been proved right now 9 and I'm with them. 10 Q. I think in those answers you said that you take 11 responsibility for any mistakes that you made? 12 A. Well, I think we worked for the -- 13 Q. Is that right? 14 A. Yes. Well, I wish none of this has happened. 15 Q. What mistakes did you make? 16 A. Well, the mistakes I made, presumably, are 17 relying on other people to tell me how wonderful 18 the system was. But then I wasn't the only one 19 working there. I mean, you had -- we were -- 20 like I said, we had a team who worked on these 21 cases. We had investigations throughout the 22 country. Maybe it was just a big organisation 23 and we couldn't manage it all. Maybe we were 24 just given too much work to deal with. 25 I don't know what the answer is. But 39 1 certainly I take responsibility for everything. 2 But the last thing I wanted to do is have what 3 I've got -- what I'm faced with now -- faced 4 with, you know, the subpostmasters who I advised 5 on, saying there's sufficient evidence, being 6 prosecuted and then being sentenced to something 7 that they've been wrongly convicted of and then 8 being punished when they shouldn't have been. 9 And I hope this Inquiry give them something they 10 can actually get on with their lives. 11 Q. Have you identified any mistake that you made 12 personally? 13 A. Well, the mistake I made was the fact that 14 I was, again, like everybody else, led to 15 believe that this system was good when it 16 wasn't. 17 Q. So you didn't make a mistake yourself personally 18 in anything you did, other than placing reliance 19 on other people? 20 A. Well, no, I -- you know, like anything else, 21 I mean, I thought I was probably the one or -- 22 well, certainly I can tell you from what I did, 23 all I did was I had a template, each and every 24 time, I put in the tests and followed it through 25 all the way to the actual matter going to the 40 1 court, even the disclosure aspect of it. 2 I mean, I took that very, very seriously, and I, 3 in turn, read through it, went away, came back, 4 made a few notes. So I -- I don't know what 5 you're asking me to say. Yes, of course I put 6 my hand up. Of course, I made mistakes. 7 Everybody does. But these were very, very 8 serious mistakes and I wholeheartedly wish they 9 had never happened. 10 And I sometimes wish, you know, if I had the 11 opportunity to leave the Post Office, I wish 12 I left before this, you know, mess basically. 13 That's all it is, isn't it? Because it 14 wasn't -- somebody senior should have said, 15 "Well, no, where's the evidence? Where's the 16 evidence?" Maybe the biggest mistake anybody 17 made is not actually to say, "Well, look, this 18 isn't good. Where is the evidence? Where is 19 the evidence the system is actually good?" 20 Q. You said in the course of one of the previous 21 three answers that it hurt you to prosecute 22 anyone? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Can I see whether that's true. Can we look 25 please at paragraph 206 and 207 of your witness 41 1 statement, please, which is on page 69. It'll 2 come up on the screen. You're saying: 3 "I have considered my email dated 21 October 4 2010 and my memo to Post Office Security and 5 others dated 16 November 2010." 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. "At the time, I thought the outcome of the case 8 was a success and I was relieved that the case 9 was concluded. 10 "There is a comment in my email that 'it is 11 hoped the case will set a marker to dissuade 12 other Defendants from jumping on the Horizon 13 bashing bandwagon'. I was asked to report back 14 to the team and in doing so, I commented on the 15 outcome and the fact that the Defence's 16 criticisms of the Horizon IT system were dealt 17 with and that the prosecution case was made out. 18 I was aware that the case was of wider interest 19 within the business and my comment in relation 20 to other cases was made with this in mind. 21 "The wording of the email also had some 22 input from Counsel." 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Can we look, please, at the email to which 25 you're referring there. POL00093686, page 5, 42 1 please. If we can focus on the email on the 2 bottom part of the page, please. 3 Can you see that there's an email there 4 sent -- we can just see it on the right-hand 5 side. It's sort of squished in, Marilyn 6 Benjamin, I think, on behalf of Jarnail Singh 7 sent on 21 October 2010 at 2.58; can you see 8 that? 9 A. Yes. Yes, I can. 10 Q. The subject "Regina v Seema Misra at Guildford 11 Crown Court -- Trial -- Attack on Horizon". Can 12 you see that this email does not appear to be 13 part of a chain? 14 A. I don't know what you mean by that. 15 Q. Do you know what a chain of emails is? 16 A. Yes, yes I know. Yes. 17 Q. If you look, for example, at the following page, 18 it's blank. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. No email there. 21 A. Yeah. 22 Q. Then if we go back to page 5. If you look at 23 the subject heading, can you see that, the 24 subject heading? If that can just be 25 highlighted. 43 1 A. Oh, "Attack on Horizon", yeah. 2 Q. It doesn't say, "Re: Regina v Seema Misra" or 3 "FW: Seema Misra". When you a reply to an email 4 or forward an email, the subject heading 5 changes, doesn't it? 6 A. I don't know. I don't know. 7 Q. You do not know that? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Would you agree that this looks like 10 an originating email from you, you started off 11 the conversation here? 12 A. Well, I was asked -- normally -- I mean, if 13 you've seen the previous reports, they're 14 basically done by legal executives. The case 15 comes in and then we've got a format for it and 16 they do it. And I think, in this case, I did 17 ask Phil Taylor to do it and I was told that, 18 "Jarnail, look, you need to do this because it's 19 going to a wider, you know, the wider audience 20 within the business". 21 That's the reason why I did it, and then 22 I did basically, you know -- told the first bit, 23 saying, "Look, this case was, you know, 24 a lengthy trial at Guildford Crown Court 25 after" -- 44 1 Q. We can see what the email says. We're going to 2 come to that in a moment. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Would you agree that you appear to have started 5 the conversation off here by this email? 6 A. Yes, yeah. 7 Q. So you picked both the title and the 8 distribution list? 9 A. Well, I was given the distribution list. I -- 10 Q. Who gave you the description list? 11 A. I think maybe Rob Wilson, maybe, I think, Mandy 12 Talbot. 13 Q. So how would they give you the distribution 14 list, Rob Wilson and Mandy Talbot? 15 A. Well, they said "Look, these people are 16 interested. This business, these units are 17 interested in this case and you need to send 18 it". Even that Doug Evans. Doug Evans was 19 the -- I don't know the Head of Legal, 20 basically, of the whole business. I've never 21 sent Doug Evans anything of that nature. 22 Q. So would they have emailed you a distribution 23 list or would they have told you orally to whom 24 you need to send the -- 25 A. I don't know. I mean this is going back 12/13 45 1 years. 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. But yeah, I -- 4 Q. One way or another, they would have given you 5 the distribution list? 6 A. Yeah, I don't know any of them. I mean, even 7 Susan Crichton, I have probably met her. 8 I didn't know her. Certainly -- any of them. 9 I mean, Mandy Talbot I know because I think she 10 was in the civil litigation in the same building 11 and Impact House at Croydon. Hugh Flemington, 12 I don't know who he was. I mean, subsequently 13 when I joined the -- the Post Office Limited on 14 1 April '12, I've never met him. I don't know 15 who he was. Jacqueline, I don't know. Jessica 16 Madron, yes, I think she was at Impact House. 17 John, and all the rest of them, I've never even 18 met so I don't know who they were. So certainly 19 I wouldn't have just plucked them out of the air 20 and put them in. 21 Q. So you at least picked, if you didn't pick the 22 distribution list, you picked the subject title 23 of the email? 24 A. I don't know -- 25 Q. You -- 46 1 A. Well -- 2 Q. Or was that dictated to you? 3 A. If there is -- it was dictated to me. If you 4 look at one of the enclosures the Inquiry sent 5 me, it's a cover, a brown cover on the file. 6 I don't know where it is now, and that's what it 7 was. You know, it said, "Jarnail, you ought to 8 do it, you're the senior lawyer, it's your 9 case", that type of thing, and that's when I did 10 the first bit, then I was told that "You need to 11 do a little bit more because it's going to go to 12 our communication team". I didn't even know we 13 had a communication in existence. 14 So, basically, then that last bit about the 15 jumping on the Horizon bashing -- 16 Q. I haven't asked you about that. All I'm asking 17 you about at the moment is the -- 18 A. Well, let's stick with that. It wasn't my idea 19 to put it the way it is. What I would have done 20 is the Post Office Limited v Seema Misra, this 21 was the result, the case was concluded after 22 a lengthy trial and she was found guilty by the 23 jury. 24 Q. Whose idea was it? Who dictated to you that the 25 words "Attack on Horizon" needed to be included 47 1 in the subject line? 2 A. I don't know. I can't -- 3 Q. Help us. 4 A. I honestly -- this is such a long time ago. 5 I wish I could. I mean, let me, you know, 6 the -- this thing, your papers the Inquiry has 7 had forwarded to me, I've read them so many 8 times you would not believe it because I do want 9 to come and assist. And if -- that heading was 10 not something that would naturally come to me. 11 Let me put it to you that way. What I -- 12 Q. It was something that would come naturally to 13 you because you viewed this case, didn't you 14 Mr Singh, as being about an attack on Horizon, 15 didn't you? 16 A. Absolutely not. I had no -- 17 Q. That's why you've headed your email up that way. 18 A. No. I can honestly say -- let me put it this 19 way: look, Mr Beer, no. 20 Q. Who viewed the case as an attack on Horizon? 21 A. Well, I think after a period, I think it started 22 off as a very simple case. I think Mrs Misra 23 pleaded guilty -- 24 Q. No, who viewed the case as an attack on Horizon? 25 A. I don't know. I mean, I wish I could assist. 48 1 I don't know. I honestly do not know. 2 Q. But you didn't? 3 A. I did not. 4 Q. So you're typing an email -- 5 A. I didn't type it. 6 Q. Okay, you're dictating it to your secretary -- 7 A. Yes, and I think, like I told you, if you look 8 back at the cover of the file, I don't know who 9 I was talking to, and I -- that was where I -- 10 I didn't have a paper so I -- I jotted the notes 11 on the cover of the file. And I, you know, if 12 you give me time at the break I will tell you 13 where it is. But there is a cover where there 14 are scribbles and whatever it is on it. 15 Q. I think I know the document you're referring to. 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. But are you saying that somebody dictated -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- that you needed to use the words -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- "Attack on Horizon" -- 22 A. Absolutely -- 23 Q. Hold on. You dictated an email, even though you 24 didn't believe it was a case about an attack on 25 Horizon? Is that where we've got to? 49 1 A. I don't know whether it's an attack on Horizon, 2 Horizon -- I've got no stake in Horizon, I don't 3 even know how it operated or anything of that 4 nature. Certainly, dealing with the Misra case 5 it opened my eyes to all sorts of things, 6 I mean, before I didn't have. All I was trying 7 to express to you originally was that my case 8 was that you have the investigation file, you 9 assess it, as appropriate, in line with evidence 10 in the public interest test. And then, if 11 there's an appropriate charge, you put it before 12 the court for the court to decide. 13 But, certainly, this thing doesn't come 14 naturally to me and my thing was to -- 15 I finished the job, the case is completed, the 16 legal executives managed it and they would have 17 done -- concluded the case -- they would have 18 reported to the, you know, the Post Office 19 support office, and cc'd in the officer. That 20 would have been normal. 21 But because this case was the only case that 22 actually had a lot of the -- you know, actually, 23 went to trial, I think, and obviously, all of 24 a sudden, everybody was interested in it. You 25 know, Susan Crichton. I mean, I don't know what 50 1 position she had at that time, but I'm sure it 2 was a senior. And, certainly, the other people 3 involved in it, presumably they had some sort 4 of -- 5 Q. Why was this case viewed by others as an attack 6 on Horizon, rather than simply a lady in 7 criminal proceedings saying that she was not 8 guilty of stealing money, rather the operation 9 of the system and errors within it were to blame 10 for the losses? 11 A. I think you're asking the wrong person. 12 I certainly wouldn't -- 13 Q. So the man that dictated the email that says, 14 "Attack on Horizon", is the wrong person to ask 15 why the case was viewed as an attack on Horizon? 16 A. Well, I -- 17 Q. Is that where we've got to, Mr Singh? 18 A. I think so I -- honestly, this is -- this sort 19 of thing doesn't come naturally to me and, 20 certainly, my -- I would have completed the 21 case, I'm the lawyer in the case and I would 22 have got one of the legal executives to -- in 23 a normal scheme of things, they would have 24 reported, concluded the case, and that would 25 have been it. 51 1 And, certainly, because of the importance of 2 the other side -- you know, the other aspect of 3 the business, or the wider business, internally, 4 that's why it was dealt with in that way. 5 Q. Isn't it the case that your use of these words 6 is a fair description and it precisely 7 represents how you saw things at the time. If 8 someone said they weren't responsible for losses 9 but that Horizon had system errors, that was 10 an attack on Horizon. That's how you viewed 11 matters, isn't it? 12 A. No, absolutely not. I -- like I said, this 13 system has been in existence. You had senior 14 people to me with more experience who have been 15 dealing with it and it just -- somehow or other, 16 this case landed on my desk and I dealt with it 17 as I felt it ought to be done. 18 I was very careful and cautious and 19 I think -- maybe we will be coming on to it 20 subsequently, I think -- I put every single 21 thing in it to make sure that it was very 22 thorough. There should be no stones unturned to 23 have this young -- this lady being either put 24 through it or certainly found guilty and went to 25 prison for it. That is not the sort of thing 52 1 I would want to get involved in. 2 Q. You say in your email: 3 "After a lengthy trial at Guildford Crown 4 Court the above named was found guilty of theft. 5 This case turned from a relatively 6 straightforward general deficiency case to 7 an unprecedented attack on the Horizon system. 8 We were beset with [I think it should read 9 'an unparalleled'] degree of disclosure requests 10 by the defence. Through [the] hard work of 11 everyone, Counsel Warwick Tatford, Investigation 12 Officer Jon Longman and through the considerable 13 expertise of Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu we were 14 able to destroy to the criminal standard of 15 proof (beyond all reasonable doubt) every single 16 suggestion made by the Defence. 17 "It is to be hoped that the case will set 18 a marker to dissuade other defendants from 19 jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon." 20 Would you agree that the language that you 21 used is quite breathless and rather emotive, in 22 describing the outcome of Mrs Misra's case. 23 A. Yes, I -- 24 Q. Why did you use breathless and emotive language? 25 A. Well, I think the last bit is wrong completely, 53 1 I accept that, the marker. But, like I said to 2 you, it was not my language. I would not write 3 anything of that nature. All I would have done, 4 you've seen the other formats, Mrs Misra found 5 guilty at Crown Court, the sentence, and that 6 would have been it. But, obviously, because 7 this is of interest to the wider internal Post 8 Office community or the Royal Mail Group, as it 9 was, I was put in a position to do -- to 10 actually put my name to it and that's exactly 11 what I did. It wasn't -- 12 Q. Did somebody else type an email which you cut 13 and pasted into this one? 14 A. No, no, no. 15 Q. No, okay, hold on -- 16 A. They dictated it. 17 Q. Who dictated it? 18 A. I don't know. I mean I don't know, there was 19 probably various people over -- 20 Q. So A collection of people? 21 A. Probably, yes, and I think it was approved by -- 22 Q. Who are the possible candidates for dictating 23 your email? 24 A. It was -- this wording was approved by Robert 25 Wilson, Rob Wilson, Head of the Criminal Law 54 1 Team. I would not say anything of that nature. 2 You need to ask him as and when but I can tell 3 you now: this is not me. This is not the way 4 I would have done it. 5 Q. So you said it was approved by him? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Was he one of the dictators? 8 A. I don't know whether he did or not. To be 9 honest with you -- to be honest, I -- I'm not 10 here to name names. I mean -- 11 Q. I think you just did. 12 A. I did, because -- 13 Q. Because I asked you? 14 A. Yes. You asked me and I am here to assist and 15 help. I'm not here to, you know, deny 16 everything. I mean, like I said, from the 17 outset, what is the truth is the truth and 18 I can't get away from it. 19 Q. Can we move on from the platitudes, please, and 20 answer my questions. 21 A. Yes, go on. 22 Q. Who dictate this email to you? 23 A. I think various people had input in it but 24 I certainly dictated -- 25 Q. Who dictated it? 55 1 A. I dictated it for my typist to type out. 2 Q. Who dictated it to you? 3 A. I don't know. I can't -- 4 Q. Who are the possible candidates? 5 A. Well, I -- like I said, to you it was approved 6 by the, you know, the Head of Criminal Law Team. 7 That's all. 8 Q. So Rob Wilson? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So he may have dictated this to you and then 11 approved it when he'd seen it? 12 A. Well, I don't know whether he dictated it but he 13 approved it, and certainly -- 14 Q. Who are the other candidates for dictating it to 15 you? 16 A. I think the -- I don't know. I mean -- I'm not 17 getting away from it. Maybe it is my fault. 18 Maybe I should have said "No, I'm not going to 19 put my name to it, if you want to do it, do it 20 yourself". Maybe, you know, that's in 21 hindsight -- 22 Q. Is "destroying" -- the use of the word, 23 "destroying to the criminal standard of proof", 24 appropriate language -- 25 A. No, no. 56 1 Q. -- to have used, given the reality was that this 2 was a woman going to prison? 3 A. No, I mean, to hear that she was sentenced to 4 prison sort of hurt me quite badly. I mean, for 5 two or three days I think, you know, it shook me 6 because that's not -- 7 Q. Do you now recognise that the language you used 8 was unprofessional? 9 A. Yeah, wholeheartedly. No, no, it shouldn't -- 10 nothing like that should ever be -- 11 Q. Would you agree that the language discloses to 12 us, it's indicative to us, of a degraded and 13 debased prosecutorial culture within your 14 office? 15 A. No. No, I wouldn't -- look, Mr Beer it's your 16 job to ask that but it's not, no. I think 17 I worked with those people very closely and they 18 are -- I -- we find ourselves with -- here, and 19 I agree with you, it's inappropriate. It 20 shouldn't -- 21 Q. The last paragraph where you say: 22 "It is to be hoped that the case will set 23 a marker to dissuade from jumping on the Horizon 24 bashing bandwagon", who within the Post Office 25 held that hope? 57 1 A. Well, certainly not the Criminal Law Team. 2 Certainly, I didn't. I mean, I wish I -- 3 Q. I'm not asking who didn't hold it; I was asking 4 you who did hold it? 5 A. Well, whoever dealt with the case. You know, 6 I didn't even know that civil litigation had -- 7 had cases starting from the initiation of -- or 8 the introduction of the Horizon system and, 9 presumably, the Civil Litigation Department 10 certainly, maybe the Communication Team. You 11 know, those are the people whoever dealt with 12 the Horizon, whoever had any connections with 13 the Horizon. 14 I mean, certainly the Criminal Law Team, 15 I can put hand on heart, I wouldn't have thought 16 anybody had that. I mean, you've heard evidence 17 from, you know, a couple of -- a couple of the 18 lawyers working there and they were quite badly 19 shaken. I think one of the ladies -- I've 20 forgotten her name now, Teresa -- Teresa -- 21 I mean, you saw her give evidence. I mean, she 22 was in tears. She was really broken by that -- 23 Q. So who did hope that the Seema Misra case would 24 be a marker that would dissuade other defendants 25 from jumping on the "Horizon bashing bandwagon"? 58 1 A. Mr -- 2 Q. It was you: you hoped it. 3 A. No. 4 Q. That's why you said "It is to be hoped" -- 5 A. No, absolutely not. You can ask me that ten 6 times, the answer's going to be no, no and no. 7 Q. Well, of course. That's why you folded your 8 arms and are giggling? 9 A. Well, I'm not giggling, I'm sort of hurt inside. 10 It's giggling because it's -- it's not true. 11 I'm not giggling at all. I mean, the idea is 12 that, you know, making -- you know, making that 13 sort of allegation to somebody who does not even 14 believe in it -- I mean, I -- you know, the 15 reason why I was there such a long time, I know 16 if I had to go to court and actually physically 17 see these people, then I wouldn't be able to do 18 the job. I think I would have left a long time 19 ago. 20 At the end of the day, this was a paper 21 exercise. You had the investigation file and 22 you dealt with the paper. You basically weigh 23 up where there's evidence, sufficient evidence 24 for getting a realistic prospect of conviction, 25 public interest, and a lot of the time you're 59 1 trying to look for a reason for not -- for them 2 to deal with it in an alternative way out of 3 court. 4 Q. Mr Singh, do you now accept that the aspiration 5 that's disclosed in this email, of dissuading 6 subpostmasters who believed that there were 7 system faults with Horizon from raising such 8 system faults when they were accused of criminal 9 offences, was entirely at odds with your 10 professional duties? 11 A. Well, I -- well, look, in hindsight, you can say 12 all sorts of things. The thing is -- 13 Q. Well, I'm saying that and I'm asking you the 14 question. 15 A. Well, I don't know what -- are you asking me 16 to -- what are you asking me? Please ask me. 17 Q. Do you accept now that writing this aspiration, 18 the hope that the outcome of the case will 19 dissuade other subpostmasters who might think 20 that Horizon is to blame for their losses from 21 raising that when they're accused of criminal 22 offences, is at odds with your professional 23 duties? 24 A. Of course. Of course it is. I mean, I wish -- 25 Q. How did you satisfy yourself that other 60 1 subpostmasters would be jumping on the Horizon 2 bashing bandwagon? 3 A. I don't -- I can't. I mean, like I said, this 4 is the one and only case that's gone to trial. 5 I didn't even realise that some of the cases 6 have been started in more or less when the 7 system was installed. So I don't know. I mean, 8 you know, in your position, you can write in to 9 all sorts of things but certainly that's not my 10 thinking at all. 11 I wish -- you know, the greater the wish 12 I had was that wish this sort of case has been, 13 you know, challenged, or in the courts a lot 14 earlier. You know, the year 2001, the year 15 2002/3, so we wouldn't have to face this. 16 Certainly, it just landed on my desk and I dealt 17 with it but, certainly, that's not, you know, my 18 intentions at all, and I'm not smiling. I am 19 just sort of feeling so aggrieved that you're 20 asking me this because that's not the idea of -- 21 you know, it was a challenge to qualify as 22 a lawyer and I don't -- the last thing I wanted 23 to finish this off was something like that. 24 Q. Well, let's look at a new document and see 25 whether you're less aggrieved by the questions 61 1 I ask you. POL00169170. This is a new document 2 that's recently become available to the Inquiry, 3 as a result of recent disclosures. If we just 4 look at the foot of page 1, please. 5 We can see -- thank you, stop there -- your 6 email of 21 October 2010 at 2.58, the one we've 7 just looked at, yes: 8 "After a lengthy trial the Guildford Crown 9 Court the above named was found Guilty of 10 theft." 11 Yes? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Yes? 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Then if we go further up the page, just stopping 16 there, we can see a reply or a forwarding or 17 a cutting and pasting of your email to a new 18 collection of people and, in part, a reply to 19 Mr Ismay. It says: 20 "Rod 21 "Brilliant news. Well done. Please pass on 22 my thanks to the team. 23 "Regards. 24 "Dave." 25 That is David Y Smith there, that was the 62 1 Managing Director of the entire company at that 2 time; is that right? 3 A. I don't know. I honestly don't know who Dave 4 Smith is. 5 Q. Do you not recall there were two Dave Smiths on 6 the emails, David X Smith, who was head of IT, 7 and David Y Smith, who was the MD of the company 8 you worked for, no? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. In any event, we know that David Y Smith 11 was the MD and he's saying: 12 "Rod 13 "Brilliant news. Well done. Please pass on 14 my thanks to the team." 15 Then if we scroll up a little bit further, 16 we can see that that email has been repurposed 17 by Mr Ismay, and has been sent back to 18 a distribution list that largely represents the 19 distribution list of your email. Can you see 20 that? 21 A. Yes, and -- 22 Q. He says: 23 "Dear all -- please note Dave Smith's thanks 24 to you all for your work on this important case. 25 "Dave and the ET [the Executive Team] have 63 1 been aware of the significance of these 2 challenges and have been supportive of the 3 excellent work going on in so many teams to 4 justify the confidence that we have in Horizon 5 and in our supporting processes. 6 "This is an excellent result and a big 7 thanks to everyone. 8 "Rod Ismay 9 "Head of Product & Branch Accounting." 10 So just to scroll down a little bit, we can 11 see what happened, your email has been sent to 12 some, would you agree, big figures within the 13 organisation, including Rod Ismay; you knew who 14 he was? 15 A. No. I don't think so. 16 Q. You didn't? Presumably when you received the 17 email back you did because, under his signature 18 block, it's got that he was head of Product and 19 Branch Accounting? 20 A. Well, that I knew but I'd never met the guy. 21 I didn't know -- I didn't even know what the 22 head of Product and Branch Accounting was, to be 23 honest. 24 Q. Mike Moores, did you know who he was? 25 A. No. 64 1 Q. Mike Young? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Paula Vennells? 4 A. I -- only when I joined the Post Office Limited. 5 Q. So that was a couple of years after this, or 6 a year and a half after this, in April 2012? 7 A. I mean, I probably heard the name but I'd never 8 met her. I didn't have any dealings with her. 9 I don't think I've directly emailed her or had 10 any communications with her. I don't think so, 11 I don't. 12 Q. But, anyway, the message coming back to you is 13 that Dave, who I've told you was the MD of the 14 company, and the Executive Team have been aware 15 of the significance of these challenges. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you know about that, when you were 18 litigating the prosecution of Seema Misra? 19 A. No, I don't think so. 20 Q. That the Executive Team were keeping an eye on 21 what was going on? 22 A. No. I honestly did not. I just dealt with it 23 in the normal scheme of things. I mean, 24 obviously, it was complicated and difficult but 25 I didn't know, you know, that there was a, you 65 1 know, big interest. I mean, I assume it would 2 be, but -- because, you know, the Post Office 3 are reliant on Horizon because, you know, it was 4 their tailor-made for their business -- you 5 know, I don't know, 12,000, 13,000, 14,000 units 6 they had at the time. 7 But, even that aspect of it, any came to my 8 knowledge purely because having dealt with the 9 Misra case. The Misra case opened up everything 10 and it educated me or advanced me in the whole, 11 you know, the whole business, I suppose. 12 I didn't know anything about, you know, the way 13 the system was put together. 14 Q. Is the way that Mr Ismay describes your work as 15 "justifying the confidence we have in Horizon" 16 accurate? 17 A. I don't know -- well, I don't know what he 18 thought but, I mean, certainly -- 19 Q. Did you see it as you job to justify the 20 confidence -- 21 A. No, no. 22 Q. -- that the organisation had in Horizon? 23 A. No, no, no, no. 24 Q. Was the prosecution an exercise in justifying 25 an existing belief, an existing confidence, in 66 1 the Horizon system? 2 A. No. That is not the way I handled this case. 3 Q. You see that that's how Mr Ismay seems to have 4 viewed it? 5 A. Yeah, but then I can't, you know, control what 6 he thinks or he doesn't think. 7 Q. This more than a pat on the back, isn't it, 8 a congratulatory email about the outcome of one 9 prosecution case, rather than any others, isn't 10 it? 11 A. I just went -- quietly went on with my business, 12 I mean, went on and started dealing with the 13 other case. This case was left -- 14 Q. Presumably you didn't receive emails from 15 exalted company like this very often at the end 16 of each successful prosecution case, did you? 17 A. To be honest, I don't really -- I don't know how 18 to put it. I'm not really into all this sort of 19 side of things. I'm not a public sort of 20 person. I didn't think anything of that. 21 I mean, I don't know whether I saw it, I even 22 read it, once maybe when it came in, closed it, 23 and I think a lot of the time I'm not really IT 24 sort of person. I had a desktop on my desk but 25 I don't think I paid much attention to it. 67 1 I was a traditional, old school lawyer and 2 I don't think -- this sort of thing is not for 3 me. And, certainly, you can make whatever 4 interpretations you like but that's not what 5 this was. I mean, the -- I actually tried to 6 assist Mrs Misra in every respect I could. 7 When she said she wasn't, you know, good at 8 IT, I actually for the first time, I think, got 9 her HR record to hopefully, fingers crossed, 10 prove that she wasn't. But, obviously, it 11 didn't. But no, that -- 12 Q. Sorry, you're saying you sought out Mrs Misra's 13 HR record to hopefully, fingers crossed, help 14 her out? 15 A. Help -- assist her in the sense that she was 16 saying -- whatever she was saying, that she 17 wasn't good with the -- you know, with the IT 18 side of it, or whatever it is. 19 Q. I'd ask you to remember that answer -- 20 A. I will, yeah. 21 Q. -- that you were trying to help Mrs Misra out, 22 with your fingers crossed? 23 A. Well, not help her -- well, yeah, that's the 24 wrong expression, because I probably, you know, 25 the -- I'm not comfortable with the questions 68 1 you're asking and I think because -- purely 2 because that doesn't justify any of the 3 interpretation you're putting on it. Because 4 that -- that side of it didn't really -- wasn't 5 what it was. I didn't even know any of the 6 people, whatever they did or didn't do, or, you 7 know, Paula Vennells, Mike Young. I mean, 8 I don't know what positions they held until -- 9 even Mike Young, I don't even know how he fitted 10 into the business. Paula Vennells, I did, 11 purely because she was the legal executive at 12 the Post Office Limited and she was in the same 13 office. 14 Q. Mr Singh, isn't it right that the reason why 15 this case was seen as significant and important, 16 and the reason why you wrote your email that 17 we've just seen is that the case was seen as 18 essential to justify the continued confidence of 19 the Post Office in Horizon -- 20 A. No. 21 Q. -- isn't it? 22 Sir, that's an appropriate moment -- 23 THE WITNESS: Can I just add something? 24 MR BEER: I'm so sorry, you've got another answer. 25 A. Yeah, if that was the case, I certainly wouldn't 69 1 be dealing with it. It would be somebody like 2 Rob Wilson or maybe Juliet McFarlane. Juliet 3 McFarlane was a lead in this sort of case, in 4 the -- you know, the prosecution of 5 subpostmasters. It wasn't me. I was at -- you 6 know, just more or less dealt with the 7 straightforward prosecutions of subpostmasters, 8 as you would see from the case studies, you 9 know, the cases you listed. 10 So it wouldn't have been me, it was just by 11 pure coincidence, accident or whatever it was, 12 that was the reason why I -- you know, I dealt 13 with it. 14 MR BEER: Thank you, Mr Singh. 15 Sir, if it's convenient to you, might we 16 take a break? 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, and what time shall we 18 resume? 19 MR BEER: 12.10, please. 20 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Certainly. 21 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 22 (11.52 am) 23 (A short break) 24 (12.10 pm) 25 MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear 70 1 me? 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can. 3 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 4 Can we move forward, please, Mr Singh to 5 December 2013. I'm still asking you questions 6 about culture and mindset within the Post Office 7 prosecution lawyers team. 8 A. Certainly. 9 Q. POL00141653, please. Thank you. Can we turn to 10 page 5, please. Just to give you some context 11 to the questions I'm going to ask, we can see 12 an email to you from Rodric Williams, 13 a litigation lawyer: 14 "Jarnail -- senior management has asked for 15 the 'current position on prosecutions -- when 16 paused/what do we have in train'. 17 "Can [we] put something together?" 18 If you go, please, to page 3 and scroll 19 down, you say on 4 December: 20 "Please find attached a Current snapshot of 21 position of [Post Office] prosecution cases. 22 Let me Know if you need anything further." 23 Then if we go to the bottom of page 2, 24 please. An email from you to David Oliver -- 25 who was David Oliver? 71 1 A. No idea, honest. I mean, at that time there 2 were so company teams set up, so many people 3 coming and going, so many QCs, senior lawyers, 4 agents. I honestly don't know how he fitted 5 into anything. 6 Q. Okay. So at this time, December 2013, just to 7 orientate ourselves, Second Sight was 8 undertaking its work, yes? 9 A. Yes, yes. 10 Q. This is after Simon Clarke from Cartwright 11 King's Advices, yes? 12 A. I don't know. I mean -- 13 Q. We know they're July and August 2013? 14 A. Yes, possibly. 15 Q. We're going to come back to all of this next 16 year, Mr Singh -- 17 A. Yeah, right. 18 Q. -- ie the extent to which the Post Office 19 continued to prosecute people, in the light of 20 information revealed to it -- 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. -- and the advice that it received and whether 23 there was an attempt to cover up information and 24 documents that might have led to criminal 25 convictions being overturned. But I'm looking 72 1 at it for a different purpose at the moment. 2 You say to Mr Oliver: 3 "Following my discussions with you and 4 Belinda ..." 5 Can you remember who Belinda Crowe was? 6 A. I think she was head of something, I mean, 7 I don't know what. Because it -- it was 8 difficult, because there's so much going on, 9 people dealing with mediation, people dealing 10 with all sorts of aspect of, you know, the 11 mediation, Chief Executive appearing before 12 committees, and -- you know, do you know what 13 I mean? 14 And Belinda, I have met her. I don't know 15 what position. She was heading something or 16 other but, you know, years on, I've forgotten, 17 I don't even know her surname. I think, 18 probably -- 19 Q. Crowe. 20 A. Oh, there it is, there, yeah. 21 Q. You continue: 22 "... here is a quick note which may help 23 with some of the answers to [I think that should 24 be 'the'] board's questions." 25 Looking at this, does it seem as if the 73 1 board of the Post Office Limited had asked some 2 questions; is that right? 3 A. Yeah, that's what it looks like. 4 Q. Then under the heading "Live Prosecution 5 Matters": 6 "1. It was regard acceptable to proceed 7 with. 8 "2. Number of the prosecutions were in the 9 pipeline and currently in Court. 10 "3. Looked at case by case ... and decision 11 made on them to continue." 12 Then over the page: 13 "4. Certain cases terminated after review. 14 Others were safe to continue with -- Guilty 15 plea. Admissions and not challenged the Horizon 16 in Court, ie Defendant made full and frank 17 admissions, pleaded guilty, substantial amount 18 theft of money, breach of trust, it would have 19 been [a] miscarriage of Justice to let them walk 20 three. Therefore the prosecution continued. 21 "5. The cases were not stopped because it 22 did not need to be. 23 "6. Have Post Office stopped every single 24 ..." 25 I think that should read "had": 74 1 "[Had] Post Office stopped every single 2 prosecution, what signal would/does that send 3 out about confidence in the Horizon system." 4 Now, I'm going to come back next year to ask 5 you about what all of this means and what was 6 being done in terms of deciding which cases to 7 proceed with, which cases were proceeded with 8 because an admission had been made, which cases 9 were proceeded with because an admission had 10 been made but no Horizon disclosure had been 11 given, and the like. But then you continue: 12 "Advised On ... 13 "Here former General Counsel [I think that 14 should be 'gave'] instructions that no further 15 summons to be issued for the time being. 16 "1. Security Team wished to continue 17 investigating and cases [I don't know this 18 means] were advice on and prepared for the 19 following reasons: 20 "a) so that evidence was not lost/witnesses 21 recollections deteriorated prior to any 22 statements being taken. 23 "b) so that Investigation Team could 24 continue to process the work and get the 25 prosecution in ready condition thereby avoiding 75 1 impossible workload, as and when prosecution is 2 resumed. 3 "Hope this helps." 4 So it seems like you're explaining which 5 cases are going to court and which cases have 6 been advised on, yes, and why you're continuing 7 to work on cases and the Investigation Team are 8 continuing to work on cases, even though General 9 Counsel had given instructions that no further 10 summonses were being issued, yes? 11 A. Well, I mean, I don't know. I don't know how to 12 explain this but it's such a long, long time 13 ago. There was, you know, there's so much 14 pressure and I think the -- it's very easy now, 15 you've got the time to actually consider all 16 that but that was on a -- don't forget the 17 prosecution has been tendered out to a third 18 party and that's more or less what their 19 position was, for me to advise in turn. So it 20 wasn't -- 21 Q. At the moment I'm not asking you to justify what 22 was done or asking you the substance -- about 23 the substance of what was done; this is just to 24 give you some background to the email that we're 25 looking at, to see in what context it was sent. 76 1 A. Yes, it's an update. 2 Q. Can we go to page 1, please. At the bottom of 3 the page, Mr Oliver replies to you: 4 "Jarnail, 5 "Thanks for this. 6 "I have a few questions now and will 7 probably come back with a few more if okay ..." 8 Then if we just go to the top of the page, 9 you replied saying: 10 "Please see my reply in red below." 11 Yes? 12 A. Yeah. 13 Q. If we scroll down, there are four questions and 14 if we can highlight those questions to start 15 with, so we can see what they were, in yellow, 16 please. So question 1 is: 17 "On the live prosecution cases can you give 18 me a few paras with why you are proceeding with 19 the POCA enforcement hearings?" 20 Yeah? Then there's your reply, which would 21 have been in red in the email, in the original; 22 do you understand? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Then over the page, please. Question 2 is under 25 that bullet point: 77 1 "What is a PCMH stage?" 2 Yes? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Then your reply, we can see it because it's in 5 a different font begins "The PCMH stage is", 6 yeah? 7 Then question 3 is: 8 "What is a mention before trial?" 9 Yeah? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then question 4 is: 12 "Of the 31 advised on cases how many are 13 being worked on for further evidence, how many 14 has there been advice to charge and how many are 15 awaiting the expert witness?" 16 Can you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So they're the four questions and everything 19 else is your reply in red; can you see that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. On that fourth question, that's the one I want 22 to ask you about, you reply to the question "How 23 many have been worked on for further evidence, 24 how many has there been advice to charge and how 25 many are awaiting expert [evidence]", you say: 78 1 "These are not mutually exclusive. As the 2 landscape now stands in most of the cases it is 3 better that we have the expert instructed as any 4 case begun now will attract some type of Horizon 5 issue because this is the passing bandwagon 6 people are jumping on. When we have a few wins 7 under our belt the Horizon challenges will melt 8 away like midnight snow. In some cases, 9 eg Redman, we do not need the expert as she has 10 made full admissions but the cases where Horizon 11 can be completely ruled out are few and far 12 between even if it only goes to quantum (value 13 of loss). 14 "Much of the work requested in our charging 15 advices is dotting Is and crossing Ts. Most of 16 the cases advised for charge will be sound 17 prosecutions with comparatively little extra 18 work when we either have an expert's statement 19 in the bundle or we can get one if the Horizon 20 is raised in a case. 21 "If you have any further questions, please 22 don't hesitate to get back." 23 You see in that answer -- and this is 24 December 2013, after Second Sight has started is 25 work, after the Clarke Advices have revealed, in 79 1 Mr Clarke's view, that Mr Jenkins was 2 a discredited prosecution witness and couldn't 3 be relied on in court, and that disclosures 4 needed to be made which may undermine the safety 5 of some criminal convictions -- you're saying 6 that people raising Horizon Issues are doing so 7 because there's a "passing bandwagon". Why did 8 you form that view? 9 A. I don't know. I had -- it's a sort of -- this 10 isn't just one person, this -- we worked as 11 a team, because there was so much going on, it 12 was a team effort team view. It wasn't 13 a decision made by me. It was a decision by 14 people working on it, and not only internally 15 but externally. They were people with a lot of 16 experience in this type of work. So this is not 17 a personal view. It was the view, the general 18 view, put in that -- put in that answer. 19 Q. This is your email? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. It's no one else's email? 22 A. No, but we -- we worked as a team. I don't 23 know, I can't explain as to -- 24 Q. Did somebody dictate this email to you? 25 A. Possibly. I don't know. I mean, certainly -- 80 1 I honestly can't answer that. It's such a long 2 time ago. Certainly, when you're -- pressurised 3 situation is completely different. Now, it's 4 completely different because now we've got the 5 time to consider it, time to actually digest it 6 all, but that's what it was at that time. 7 But I can't give you any explanation of why 8 it was put in that way because there's too many 9 issues that came together. 10 Q. Why in December 2013 did you and the team still 11 view the Horizon issue as a passing bandwagon 12 that people were jumping on? 13 A. I don't know, I've got no -- I can't explain it 14 to you. I don't know why that view was at that 15 time. I don't know. 16 Q. What evidence had you got by December 2013 that 17 there were no issues with Horizon affecting the 18 integrity of the data that it produced? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Why was it important to get some wins under your 21 belt? 22 A. Again, I don't know. 23 Q. Why did you say, "When we've got some wins under 24 our belt the Horizon challenges will melt away 25 like midnight snow"? 81 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Please help us. 3 A. I wish I could. It's such a long time ago. 4 Q. Are you struggling because you realise the 5 crassness of what you wrote -- 6 A. No. 7 Q. -- and you haven't got a justification? 8 A. Not at all. If I could, I would, but at the 9 moment I'm struggling in the sense that I can't 10 explain to what happened in the year 2013, and 11 we're in the year 2023, on to '24. At that 12 time, you know, the situation was what it was. 13 Now, you know people had been wrongly done, and 14 they've been complaining about something for 15 such a long time and they've been proved right. 16 And I feel aggrieved about it as much as 17 they do, probably not even more, because I was 18 in a position to do something and I didn't. 19 Q. Is this email further evidence that the mindset 20 that you displayed in your evidence of October 21 2010, after the conclusion of the Seema Misra 22 trial -- 23 A. No. 24 Q. -- continued and was still your mindset in 25 December 2013 -- 82 1 A. No. 2 Q. -- "There's nothing wrong with Horizon" -- 3 A. No. 4 Q. -- "people who say there is are jumping on 5 a bandwagon. We're going to get some wins and 6 the issue will melt away like the midnight 7 snow"? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Look at the last paragraph, you say: 10 "Much of the work requested in our charging 11 advices is dotting Is and crossing Ts. Most of 12 the cases advised for charge will be sound 13 prosecutions with comparatively little extra 14 work." 15 Is that reflective of how you, in your time 16 acting in the Criminal Law Division, worked, 17 namely your role was just to dot Is and cross 18 Ts? 19 A. Where are we talking about, old Street or are 20 you talking about Eccleston Street? Are you 21 talking about the Criminal Law Team or are you 22 talking about the Prosecution Support? 23 Q. Let's divide them up, then -- 24 A. Yeah, please do that. 25 Q. -- from August 1995, until separation in April 83 1 2012, was your role then, as a criminal lawyer, 2 to dot Is and cross Ts on advice files? 3 A. No. 4 Q. After April 2012 and before December 2013, was 5 your role as a criminal lawyer, when advising on 6 charge, to dot Is and cross Ts? 7 A. No, because I didn't do any of that work. 8 Q. Why did you say "most of the work is dotting Is 9 and crossing Ts"? 10 A. I don't know. I honestly can't help you 11 because, from what you're suggesting, I didn't 12 advise of any of it. It was tendered out. 13 Q. Is that how you viewed matters? You didn't take 14 a serious look at the evidence. You didn't 15 evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, you 16 didn't apply a critical eye to the evidence in 17 a case: you just dotted the Is and crossed the 18 Ts? 19 A. No. 20 Q. So why did you write this? 21 A. As I tried to explain to you, CLT -- this 22 doesn't refer to the Criminal Law Team in the 23 sense that we're in the year 2013. In the year 24 2013, I'm basically working with the agents. 25 The agents are the ones who are doing all the 84 1 work. They're -- presumably, that's what their 2 position was and I'm just highlighting to the -- 3 within the business as to where we are. 4 Q. Can we move on and look at a different summary 5 of the outcome you gave of Mrs Misra's case. 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr Beer, before that comes down, 7 there is one thing that occurs to me. If you 8 hadn't asked the questions because you're going 9 to do it in a different context, I won't ask any 10 now but, otherwise, I'd be interested to know 11 who the expert witness is referred to in the 12 paragraph that's highlighted. 13 A. Sir, which one? Where are we? 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I'm asking Mr Beer first of all 15 whether he wants to deal with it in a different 16 way or whether I should ask you the question. 17 MR BEER: Sir, can I answer it in two ways. 18 Firstly, I hadn't presently intended to look at 19 that issue but it may help us in our 20 investigatory work, on reflection, in readiness 21 for next year. So I don't think any harm will 22 be done by asking now. 23 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. 24 Well, then, Mr Singh, do you see the 25 paragraph which begins "Of the 31 advised on 85 1 cases", which is highlighted? 2 A. Is it -- at the top, isn't there? I can't see 3 it, sir. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: It's about halfway down the 5 screen -- 6 A. Oh, yes, sorry, I've got that. 7 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: -- and it's the fourth question 8 that you were going to answer, all right, and it 9 ends by saying -- well, let me read the 10 question: 11 "Of the 31 advised on cases, how many are 12 being worked on for further evidence, how many 13 has there been advice to charge and how many are 14 awaiting the expert witness?" 15 It's that last bit I want to ask you about, 16 all right? 17 A. Mm. 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Because I'd like you to tell me, 19 if you could, the identity of the expert witness 20 there being referred to. 21 A. Sir, at that time, from -- my understanding is 22 that Cartwright King were looking for an expert 23 and they couldn't find any, because, as you -- 24 I think, you know, you've been hearing a lot of 25 evidence, this system is very specialist, this 86 1 Horizon system as relates to the Post Office. 2 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. 3 A. And I think one or two times I did attend with 4 them, some at the university, some of the 5 professors, they weren't -- you know, in 6 Cartwright King's view, they weren't good enough 7 to deal with it. So I don't know -- at that 8 time, we didn't find an expert. 9 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So when you reply "As the 10 landscape now stands in most of the cases it is 11 better that we have the expert instructed", you 12 are there indicating, are you, that there should 13 be an expert instructed but you don't know who 14 that person is at that moment in time? 15 A. Sir, the position there was that all -- I didn't 16 do any of the work; it was tendered out 17 exclusive to a third party, Cartwright King, and 18 it's basically they are telling me -- I've asked 19 for a progress report, how to reply to it, and 20 it's basically their answer. They say, "Look, 21 this is the position", and all I'm doing is 22 relaying to the business, so I don't -- it's not 23 something that I have a personal knowledge of. 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: As far as you can recall, 25 Mr Singh, was an expert ever identified in late 87 1 2013 when this email being written, or 2 subsequently? 3 A. Sir, no. It wasn't. 4 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Right. All right. Thank you. 5 MR BEER: Thank you, sir, that can come down. 6 Can we look at a further summary of the 7 outcome of Mrs Misra's case, much later, please. 8 POL00113015, and can we start at page 10, 9 please. 10 We can see an email exchange between Lena 11 Hameed and Sophie Bialaszewski -- I'm sure I've 12 mispronounced that -- saying: 13 "Hi Sophie, 14 "We haven't got that much information as 15 there's not CQR yet. But I imagine the legal 16 team will have the criminal case files -- so 17 Jarnail will be able to provide a breakdown of 18 the merits of the case. As far as the scheme is 19 concerned, this is a summary of what we have: 20 "Seema Misra was given I post from [some 21 dates are given]. 22 "MP at the time of her application was 23 Jonathan Lord. 24 "Incidents reportedly occurred in the summer 25 of 2005. 88 1 "No specific references to Horizon Issues -- 2 cites lack of support as the main factor leading 3 to the losses. 4 "Alleges that [Post Office] threatened her 5 and used mental torture. 6 "Howe+Co represented -- funding agreement 7 signed in November. 8 "Still waiting on a CQR from the 9 applicant -- apparently SS [I think that's 10 Second Sight] have it for refinement." 11 Go to page 9 and look at the bottom, please. 12 We can see who Sophie was, a Public Affairs 13 Manager in the Post Office. She now copies you 14 in to this email on 11 June 2014: 15 "Thanks so much, Lena. Rodric/Jarnail would 16 you be able to provide me with a bullet [point] 17 or two on the legal position eg unanimous guilty 18 verdict by jury or whatever it would be." 19 Then up the page, please. You reply: 20 "Sophie 21 "Something along the lines of: 22 "Seema Misra was subpostmistress at West 23 Byfleet. She was accused of stealing 24 £74,000-odd between 2005 and 2008. On 21/10/10 25 after a seven-day trial, she was found guilty by 89 1 the jury of the theft." 2 Then bottom of page 8, please. Reply: 3 "Hi -- the Comms Team might need a bit more 4 to help them tell our side of the story 5 (Sophie -- please correct me if I'm wrong!) 6 "Is there any more detail you could provide, 7 eg around: 8 "the trial being a fully contested 9 adversarial proceeding, with X number of 10 witnesses (including experts) being 11 cross-examined; 12 "that no appeal was ever pursued against 13 conviction or sentence or both (or if it was, 14 how far it went); 15 "the implications of a jury advert (eg that 16 it's 12 people unanimously agreeing that all 17 elements of the offences were proved beyond 18 reasonable doubt etc)?" 19 Then if we continue to scroll up, please, 20 Sophie says: 21 "Yes please! Thanks Rod." 22 Then scroll up again. Then you reply: 23 "How about the following [in inverted 24 commas]: 25 "'After a lengthy trial Guildford Crown 90 1 Court the above named was found Guilty of 2 theft'." 3 Is this looking familiar to you, Mr Singh? 4 A. Well, yes. 5 Q. Why does it look familiar to you? 6 A. Because it's cut and paste from the previous 7 one -- previous -- you know, the final result -- 8 Q. The one from four years earlier? 9 A. Yeah. 10 Q. "'This case turned from a relatively 11 straightforward general deficiency case to 12 an unprecedented attack on the Horizon system'", 13 et cetera, et cetera. 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Then you say, outside the inverted commas, 16 albeit it is a quote from your original email of 17 October 2010: 18 "It is to be hope that the case will set 19 a marker to dissuade other Defendants from 20 jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon." 21 Those were sentiments that you still felt, 22 in June 2013, weren't they? 23 A. No, I -- 24 Q. Why did you write this, then? 25 A. I didn't feel them from the outset. I don't 91 1 feel it then. It was just basically reiterating 2 what was said before. I mean, so, no, that is 3 not true. 4 Q. Why did you write an email to media and PR 5 people, who were asking you for something that 6 would allow the Post Office to tell its side of 7 the story to the public in June 2014, which you 8 didn't believe was true or to be the case? 9 A. Well, look, sir, the position then and now is 10 completely different. So I can only apologise 11 to everybody, maybe it's hurt their feelings or 12 even hurt them deeply, but I can't explain, 13 sorry. 14 Q. Can we look at the response from Sophie in 15 public affairs, at the top of the page: 16 "Thanks for this, would it be possible to 17 get the bullets Rodric sent below with the 18 correct numbers in?" 19 Then the three questions are repeated, and 20 she says to you: 21 "Your para is too emotive for us to use and 22 so a factual account would be best." 23 Was it often the case that public affairs 24 and PR people told you that your copy was too 25 emotive for them? 92 1 A. No. I had very little to do with them, to be 2 honest. I wish I had even less. 3 Q. It's normally the other way round, isn't it? PR 4 people are trying to get you to give good copy, 5 say things that aren't emotive? 6 A. I'm sorry, sir, I can't answer that. I don't 7 have much dealings with them. I don't have much 8 experience with them so that was the first 9 experience and probably the last, and I'm happy 10 with that. 11 Q. She was asking you just to give her the facts, 12 not to overlay emotion onto it, wasn't she? 13 A. I don't know what she was asking. It's such 14 a long time ago, I have no idea. Hard to 15 explain that to you but not -- that was never my 16 motive from the outset, up to now. 17 Q. By the time you wrote your email, in June 2014, 18 where you cut and pasted your email of four 19 years earlier, from the last day of the trial, 20 that we looked at this morning, you knew about 21 the Helen Rose report, didn't you? 22 A. I know it was set up. I know they wanted some 23 help to help her to -- needed some help. That's 24 about it. I don't think I had much more to deal 25 with it. I had, by that time, I think 93 1 Cartwright King had taken care of the 2 prosecution side of it because I didn't have the 3 capacity or know-how or support to deal with it, 4 so they basically were dealing with the 5 prosecution side of it. They were dealing with 6 her directly. 7 Q. You knew by then that Simon Clarke had advised 8 that Mr Jenkins was a discredited witness who 9 had breached his obligations as an expert 10 witness -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- and that the Post Office that breached its 13 obligations of disclosure as a prosecutor, 14 didn't you? 15 A. Yes, I did, yes. 16 Q. You knew that those points applied in Seema 17 Misra's case, didn't you? 18 A. I think it applied all over the board. I mean, 19 I -- you know, from the outset, of the 20 installation of the actual system itself, yes. 21 Q. You knew the Post Office had stopped prosecuting 22 because it had been unable to find an expert 23 that would stand up in court and back the 24 Horizon system, didn't you? 25 A. No, I wasn't involved in the prosecution at that 94 1 time. 2 Q. Had the Post Office been able to find an expert 3 that would stand up in court and back the 4 Horizon system by June 2014? 5 A. I -- again, it's a matter for Cartwright King. 6 It wasn't a matter for me. They were physically 7 and practically involved in finding it and 8 finding it suitable for the Post Office to 9 authorise and approve and pay for, to deal with 10 it. But I didn't have any dealings with it. 11 Q. You were overseeing their work, weren't you? 12 A. Only a matter -- no, no, I wasn't. 13 Q. What were you doing? 14 A. I was helping the Post Office. As I tell you, 15 there was too many other -- 16 Q. Sorry? 17 A. There was other pressing matters. 18 Q. What was more pressing than the possible 19 wrongful conviction of dozens or even hundreds 20 of subpostmasters? 21 A. That side of it was taken over by the QC, at 22 that time, Brian Altman. You had, you know, 23 senior clerks -- senior barristers, counsel from 24 Cartwright King, and I think they had a few 25 other people involved. They had the senior 95 1 management involved. As you will probably see, 2 a lot of this email I'm not cc'd in, so no. 3 Q. So, given that you knew that Simon Clarke had 4 advised that Mr Jenkins was a discredited 5 witness who had breached his obligations as 6 an expert witness and that the Post Office had 7 breached its disclosure obligations as 8 a prosecutor, and that those two points applied 9 in the Seema Misra case, why were you churning 10 out the same old PR message? 11 A. I don't know. I can't answer that because 12 I can't explain it to you years -- you know, 13 years and years ago. 14 Q. That had previously been an internal message, 15 hadn't it? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. But you were now repurposing it for public, 18 external consumption, weren't you? 19 A. Absolutely not. If I'd known that, then 20 I wouldn't have done. This is internal team and 21 it's not just for communication; it's for other 22 people as well. I mean, I wasn't involved in it 23 and I was cc'd in and I told them what the 24 position was in the Misra case, that's all -- 25 how the results came out and what results were, 96 1 basically updating them to whatever the 2 conclusion of the case was. 3 Q. Can we go to what your reply was to Sophie's 4 suggestion that your paragraph was too emotive 5 to use and ask for a factual account instead. 6 Page 1 of this email chain, then if we scroll 7 down. Your email back to her, to Sophie, with 8 other people copied in, including Chris Aujard, 9 you say: 10 "Sophie 11 "Mrs Misra continues to protest her 12 innocence via the media. The summary below 13 shows that there was ample evidence to justify 14 a conviction." 15 Then if you just look at the document, 16 paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and then if you go over 17 the page and then just scroll through it, 18 please. Then you sign it off "Hope it helps". 19 First of all, who actually drafted this 20 email? 21 A. Various people. I had a -- there was various 22 people involved in drafting. It's not just -- 23 it was -- err -- 24 Q. It appears to contain no spelling mistakes or 25 missing words, which, if you'll forgive me for 97 1 saying, is your normal way of writing, ie with 2 spelling mistakes and missing words, and it 3 doesn't appear to be in your style of writing. 4 A. I can't help you on that. I don't know, but 5 there's -- it's such a long time ago. I mean -- 6 I have no idea. But there are, you know, it's 7 a teamwork. It's not one individual to put it 8 all together and the other thing is I'm not 9 a good typist, as you probably worked out. I'm 10 used to dictating work, and I don't -- it 11 probably had gone to somebody to have it typed 12 for me to approve with a few others. 13 Q. Can we look at some of the other contents to see 14 whether it helps you. Page 4, paragraph 18, 15 please, the author says: 16 "The two criminal files I looked at are of 17 some significance. Jo Hamilton and Noel Thomas 18 have been prominent critics of Horizon in the 19 media. Their cases were similar to Mrs Misra's. 20 Both were [subpostmasters] who chose to hide 21 deficiencies by false accounting over a long 22 period of time, rather than declare their 23 losses", et cetera. 24 Is that something that you did, look at the 25 criminal files of Jo Hamilton and Noel Thomas? 98 1 A. No, no. I -- 2 Q. So this tends to suggest it is somebody else who 3 is writing it? 4 A. Possibly, yes. To be honest, I -- now that you 5 mention it, you keep -- you know, you've got the 6 time to analyse it, scrutinise it but, at that 7 time, it was difficult, I mean, to do what did, 8 for an individual, it was next to impossible. 9 So you had people assisting, helping, putting 10 stuff together. 11 You're right on that but, certainly, Jo 12 Hamilton case, Noel Thomas case, I've never 13 dealt with them. I don't know -- 14 Q. Can we go to page 5, paragraph 20, please. Your 15 email says: 16 "Horizon is a complicated computer system 17 about which even eminent experts can make 18 mistakes. There was no reason to doubt 19 Professor McLachlan's expertise and good faith 20 but time and time again he had to be corrected 21 by Mr Jenkins. Professor McLachlan is not the 22 only expert to have misunderstood Horizon. 23 I have spoken to colleagues who prosecute these 24 cases and they have come across other experts 25 who have also fallen into error. I can say that 99 1 both sides in Misra were completely beholden to 2 Gareth Jenkins and his deep knowledge of 3 Horizon." 4 Again, is that you speaking there? "I have 5 spoken to colleagues"? 6 A. Possibly not. Haha, I don't know. 7 Q. Or is it somebody else? 8 A. I have -- my job was enjoyable because I was 9 talking to a lot of people, I was gaining a lot 10 out of it. It was stretching. It was 11 complicated. But that's the sort of thing 12 I enjoy. So it was enjoyable in that sense but 13 I can't say to you -- that certainly -- you 14 know, that more or less goes back to the fact 15 that there was a number of people involved in 16 assisting and advising and putting these sort of 17 things together. 18 Q. So this might be you actually writing this? 19 A. No. Maybe a contribution towards it. There's 20 a lot of people making contributions towards 21 these things -- 22 Q. At the moment, Mr Singh, I'm just trying to work 23 out, by taking you to bits of this email, to 24 help you to work out whether this is your work 25 or whether you've cut and pasted something else 100 1 that somebody else has said and repurposed it 2 for yourself. 3 A. Well, as you know, I mean when you do this work, 4 you obviously do have help and, certainly, I had 5 a lot of help over that period because it was -- 6 Q. I'm asking about something different, which is 7 cutting and pasting somebody else's work -- 8 A. Yeah. 9 Q. -- and passing it off as your own. 10 A. Yeah, you will get a lot of that everywhere and 11 certainly the work I deal with, that was the 12 only way I could cope with it and deal with it 13 and I did and that probably was a paragraph from 14 somewhere or probably a lot more than 15 a paragraph, might be quite a few from it, and 16 maybe I asked somebody "Look, the Misra case, 17 can you help me, can you highlight or bullet 18 point the lessons we learnt from the Misra 19 case?" Yes. 20 Q. Which other lawyers, other than you and Warwick 21 Tatford, were involved in the Seema Misra case? 22 A. I think Rob Wilson, Juliet McFarlane, maybe 23 Debbie -- I don't know what was -- she's changed 24 her name now, hasn't she? 25 Q. Debbie Stapel? 101 1 A. Staples (sic). I don't know. Certainly maybe 2 somebody else from Bell Yard. Certainly the two 3 legal executives, the Investigation Officer. 4 You name it, it was a big team because it was 5 a big -- it was just unmanageable. I mean, the 6 Post Office is so vast, to deal with it as one 7 individual, it's -- 8 Q. I'm looking at potential authors because the 9 person -- 10 A. Ah, I'm giving you the -- you know, given you 11 basically, you know -- 12 Q. You were happy to put your name to this and say 13 you own this email and the contents of it, 14 weren't you? 15 A. Well, I was happy to put my name to it, purely 16 because a lot of it -- you know, from again the 17 Misra case, I didn't go to court for seven days. 18 I think I started it off, certainly I had a lot 19 of counsel's opinions and views and advises on 20 it, as you know. But certainly -- 21 Q. Mr Singh, you wouldn't write an email with all 22 of this content unless you were happy with the 23 content, would you? 24 A. Well, like I said to you, these things work 25 purely because it's not for one individual. 102 1 Somebody has got to put their name to it and, if 2 it wasn't me, it probably would have been 3 somebody else. 4 Q. But in that case, you would say at the beginning 5 "This is a summary with multiple contributions. 6 I, Jarnail Singh, can't vouch for everything"? 7 A. Sir, you would do because you're such a wise and 8 experienced practitioner. But when you come to 9 my level -- 10 Q. Did you lack experience and lack wisdom; is that 11 what you're saying? 12 A. No, no, my level is different. 13 Q. Sorry? 14 A. It's a different level. It's a different degree 15 of work. Certainly, you know, if I was doing it 16 now, then I probably would have done but, at 17 that time, there is pressure of time, and 18 there's other matters to be dealt with. People 19 wanted these sort of advices, these sort of 20 prompters, yesterday, not today, not in seven 21 days' time, not in 14 days' time. So what you 22 do or what I did was to get help and put 23 something together to pass it on. 24 Q. Can we go back to the beginning of the email 25 then and look at the content. Page 1, please: 103 1 "Mrs Misra continues to protest her 2 innocence in the media. The summary below shows 3 there was ample evidence to justify 4 a conviction." 5 That was still your belief, was it, in June 6 2014? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Why did you very it then? 9 A. Because that was the job I was asked to do. 10 I was asked to summarise it. 11 Q. It was your job to say things you didn't 12 believe? 13 A. Well, I -- I can't answer that. I mean, you 14 know, at that time I wrote it and now, I regret 15 it, I suppose. 16 Q. I'm asking you why you wrote it. Not whether 17 you regret it now? 18 A. I don't know. It was -- I was asked to 19 summarise it, and the -- you know, with the help 20 of other people, I summarised it. So you asked 21 earlier why didn't I put a summary. There it 22 is, the summary below shows, and a lot of the 23 people who made a contribution towards it 24 obviously made a contribution to assist me at 25 that time. 104 1 Q. But you're adopting this as your work. There's 2 nothing on this that tells the reader that this 3 isn't you speaking here? 4 A. No. When you do work, you have a lot of 5 researchers, don't you? Do you actually put 6 their names to every single thing, that certain 7 people made a contribution towards it? It's 8 a team effort. People know whose work it is 9 because they worked with me at that time. It 10 wasn't an individual. I couldn't sit down and 11 churn that out within, I don't know, two hours 12 or three hours or a day, when I was asked to do 13 it. So the only way I could get the work done, 14 it was to, you know, seek a contributions from 15 the people who could help, and they did and here 16 we are. 17 Q. You say: 18 "The Misra case at Guildford Crown Court in 19 2009-2010 as far as I am aware, is the only 20 criminal trial where a jury has been required to 21 consider in detail the integrity of the Horizon 22 system." 23 Paragraph 2 is a cut and paste of your 24 earlier email. 3: 25 "Mrs Misra claimed that, although she was 105 1 guilty of false accounting, she had not stolen 2 the money whose loss she had concealed. She 3 suggested that one possible reason why the money 4 appeared to be missing might be computer error. 5 The jury heard from expert witnesses for the 6 Crown and Defence. Their evidence was 7 sufficiently detailed as to have lasted two full 8 days. The jury's verdict showed that it was 9 sure that computer error played no role in the 10 case. There has been no appeal against 11 conviction." 12 Then over the page, please: 13 "The Defence made very wide ranging requests 14 for disclosure and the prosecution was asked to 15 review material relating to a number of other 16 offices where subpostmasters had made complaints 17 about Horizon. That disclosure process was 18 fraught with difficulties, mainly because the 19 disclosure requests were unfocused and often 20 irrelevant. If we had complied with every 21 disclosure request, the Investigation Department 22 would probably have been paralysed for six 23 months, the investigators being unable to deal 24 with any other work. 25 "I am aware that Mrs Misra continues to 106 1 protest her innocence via the media and that she 2 is one of number of vocal critics of Horizon. 3 It is perhaps worthwhile setting out the facts 4 of her case and what happened at trial because 5 some of the critical reports of the case have 6 not been accurate." 7 You set out in paragraph 6 what happened in 8 the audit. 9 In 7, a plea and case management hearing. 10 Then 8: 11 "When Mrs Misra's case was listed for trial 12 in June 2009 she brought to Court material from 13 the Internet detailing number of complaints 14 about the Horizon system made by former 15 subpostmasters. The Post Office Limited agreed 16 to an adjournment of the trial to allow the 17 Defence to pursue this line of inquiry, even 18 though it was likely that Ms Misra was jumping 19 on a bandwagon now that she had realised her 20 original defence didn't work." 21 So it was still your view in 2014 that 22 Mrs Misra was a bandwagon jumper; is that right? 23 A. I think hindsight is -- if I'd known what 24 I known now, then, obviously, no, but the thing 25 is then -- no, that was not the case, but it 107 1 was, like I said, a teamwork or people who knew 2 the -- knew the case, made a contribution 3 towards it, and I think it was decided to put it 4 in. 5 But, certainly, you know, it wasn't my 6 decision to put it in. Let's put it that way. 7 I certainly wouldn't have -- wouldn't have 8 thought of that, originally, now or any time, 9 because that's not the way I write. I mean as 10 you know -- rightly say, I'm not that good at 11 typing, I'm not very good at putting something 12 like that together but that's why I'm probably 13 one of those that can't work without a team. 14 I'm not a guy who can just come and work. 15 I need -- every time I did something in life, 16 I would certainly -- in the profession, I always 17 had people around me. I mean, I can do certain 18 things very well certain things not so well, and 19 if I don't, I have people who can. So I put 20 it -- put a sort of team together to do, to be 21 able to exist and then certainly hopefully to do 22 a job or do the work to a high standard, and 23 that's what I've done. It was a team effort. 24 Q. You continue in paragraph 9: 25 "Mrs Misra changed solicitors and there then 108 1 followed a difficult period when [Post Office 2 Limited] was subjected to an avalanche of 3 disclosure requests. We were also served with 4 a series of so-called 'interim reports' by 5 a newly instructed defence expert called 6 Professor Charles McLachlan. These reports 7 raised theoretical possibilities of things that 8 might go wrong with Horizon. The reports 9 contained no evidence for the theories and no 10 explanation as to why any of these theories 11 might be relevant to the West Byfleet office. 12 Our efforts to control these disclosure requests 13 fell on deaf ears. We repeatedly made the point 14 that the case was not about whether the Horizon 15 system was perfect. No computer system can be 16 in perfect and errors can arise on any system. 17 The issue was whether anything had gone wrong at 18 West Byfleet. The person who would know that 19 was Mrs Misra. At the very least she should be 20 able to identify what sort of problems she had 21 encountered and where on the accounts the 22 deficiencies were emerging. She would know this 23 because she would have physically checked the 24 stock against the computer records." 25 I'm going to come back to that belief that 109 1 you had that it's the subpostmaster who would 2 know most about the operation of Horizon, later: 3 "10. It emerged in the trial that in spite 4 of our requests for a focused approach defence 5 expert Professor McLachlan had never sought any 6 information from Mrs Misra. His theories were 7 simply his own. Mrs Misra had given him no 8 guidance whatsoever as what might be going wrong 9 at West Byfleet. 10 "[The Post Office Limited] instructed their 11 own expert, Mr Jenkins, from Fujitsu. This was 12 a turning point in the case. Professor 13 McLachlan fairly conceded that Mr Jenkins had 14 given him very great assistance in understanding 15 Horizon. Mr Jenkins was able to explain to 16 Professor McLachlan how many of his theories 17 were not valid and based on a misunderstanding 18 of Horizon. Mr Jenkins advised that the only 19 way to assess any problems at West Byfleet was 20 to obtain the transaction logs and to examine 21 them for potential problems. Obtaining the logs 22 was expensive and their analysis was time 23 consuming. However, after both experts had 24 completed their analysis, neither could find 25 evidence of any computer error whatsoever that 110 1 could have contributed to the deficiency. 2 "In his evidence to the jury Professor 3 McLachlan conceded that all of the theoretical 4 problems he had raised were now irrelevant. He 5 abandoned most of his theories after being 6 assisted to a better understanding by 7 Mr Jenkins. Other theories he had checked 8 against the transaction logs and found to be 9 baseless. In a nutshell his final conclusion 10 was this: he hadn't found any problem but there 11 might still have been a problem that he and 12 Jenkins might have missed. The jury clearly 13 rejected this as wishful thinking, after 14 considering all of the evidence in the case." 15 13, about three lines in: 16 "She [Mrs Misra] was on the scene to witness 17 the symptoms of any computer problems while the 18 experts could only trawl through the data long 19 after the event. Any sensible [subpostmaster] 20 would have hunted high and low to ascertain 21 where in the accounts the losses were occurring. 22 A [subpostmaster] should be able to find the 23 location of the problem even if they could not 24 solve it. Mrs Misra had not made any such 25 rigorous checks. She had simply accepted each 111 1 loss rather than declare the deficiency in the 2 monthly balance, as she was required to do, she 3 had hidden it by false accounting." 4 Over the page. If we go to paragraph 17: 5 "It can be seen from this summary that there 6 was ample evidence to justify a conviction. The 7 jury was entitled to conclude that there was 8 only one sensible reason for Mrs Misra to cook 9 the books: to hide her own stealing. An honest 10 [subpostmaster] would have reported the loss 11 immediately. This is what they are required to 12 do. It is also the obvious step out of 13 self-interest. At the very least it would nip 14 any problem in the bud and limit the amount of 15 money the subpostmaster might have to repay. 16 Also, if a genuine problem was found with the 17 computer system, there would be no question of 18 repayment. Mrs Misra claimed that she had not 19 wanted to lose the Post Office and that is why 20 she had been so secretive. This ignored the 21 obvious fact that she had allowed the loss to 22 grow to such a catastrophic amount that it would 23 have been better to give the business away. The 24 jury was entitled to reject her evidence as 25 absurd and to conclude that her belated attack 112 1 on Horizon was nothing but a desperate 2 distraction [technique]." 3 Was that your view, in June 2014, that 4 Mrs Misra's questions as to the integrity of the 5 Horizon data were nothing but a desperate 6 distraction tactic? 7 A. Well, no. 8 Q. So why did you write it? 9 A. I didn't. It was -- as I say, it was a team 10 effort as a unit. Somebody wanted a summary of 11 what happened in year 2012 -- year 2010, at the 12 trial, and that's basically bringing them up to 13 date to what happened in the Misra case. 14 Q. So who in the team was responsible for this 15 effort? 16 A. It was joint effort, put together by number of 17 people, I think. I more or less told you the 18 people who were involved in it, who had a hand 19 in it and that's basically all I can help assist 20 you with. 21 Q. Was it representative of an underlying 22 assumption by that team, even in June 2014, that 23 subpostmasters raising Horizon Issues during 24 investigations were lying about the causes of 25 losses at their branch and were doing so as part 113 1 of a distraction technique? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Can we move, please, to POL00108394. 4 Can we look, please, at page 4, please, and 5 scroll down, please. Can we see this is 6 an email to you of March 2014 from -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- a paralegal -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- Renata Prywerek? 11 Did Renata Prywerek work in Post Office 12 Limited Legal, or Royal Mail Group. 13 A. No, Legal. She assisted all of us in the team. 14 I think those are the names of all the people in 15 the team. 16 Q. She says: 17 "Hi all 18 "I have been asked by Piero ..." 19 Who was Piero? 20 A. I think -- I don't know -- '12, '14, maybe -- he 21 may have been a joint team leader or head of 22 legal when Hugh, I think, left by then. So 23 I suppose he was a joint Head of the Legal Team 24 at the Post Office Limited. 25 Q. "I have been asked by Piero to collect 114 1 information about your matters. 2 "Could you please create a list of your top 3 5 matters including a short description of each 4 matter." 5 Yes. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Then can we go to page 2, please. Can we see 8 your reply, to Renata and to Piero: 9 "Renata 10 "Please see below Top five matters in 11 Criminal prosecutions." 12 Yes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If we scroll down, please, number 1 is "Auditors 15 Training". 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. If we go over the page, at the bottom of the 18 page, I don't think it's in bold, number 2 is 19 "Scotland". 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Number 3 is "Expert". One of the important 22 issues has been to locate a suitable expert and 23 instruct them, I translate that as. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. "Identified an expert. Accompanied [Cartwright 115 1 King] to a number of meetings with expert and it 2 is hoped expert [will] be instructed shortly. 3 "In these meetings discussed important 4 issues and assisted in briefing of the expert. 5 "By liaising with different areas of Post 6 Office Limited gathering information on 7 technical aspects and funding and Fujitsu as 8 appropriate and liaising between external 9 lawyers and internal Post Office Limited 10 departments. 11 "Feeding information to experts, who then 12 become better informed to be able to deal with 13 Horizon issues/scope. 14 "Current and ongoing prosecutions cannot 15 [recommence] until instruction [of] independent 16 [Post Office Limited] computer expert is 17 instructed and his report is [in] hand." 18 A. In hand, yes. 19 Q. Yeah? How many experts did you approach? 20 A. I didn't personally approach any. 21 Q. How many meetings did you attend of experts that 22 were approached? 23 A. That was left in the capable hands of Cartwright 24 King and, I think, Simon Clarke was basically 25 given the task but I don't know what he did but, 116 1 certainly, you know, that's what it was. 2 Q. You say here that you accompanied Cartwright 3 King to a number of meetings? 4 A. I -- 5 Q. How many experts did you attend upon? 6 A. I personally -- I think probably one or two, but 7 a lot of it was their CVs, I think they passed 8 it over to me. But it was tasked for Cartwright 9 King because they had the experts there, they 10 wanted to know what they were looking for. 11 They're the ones who will prosecute or not 12 prosecute. They're the ones who would advise on 13 those things, so it was left in their capable 14 hands. 15 So this is basically a one-to-one. I mean 16 she wanted to know five matters I'm involved in 17 and I gave her five matters. 18 Q. They're all about Horizon, aren't they? 19 A. Well, yeah. I suppose, yes. 20 Q. "4. [Post Office] Mediation Scheme." 21 Then: 22 "5. Revised Prosecution Policy and Future 23 of [Post Office Limited] Prosecutions." 24 You say: 25 "Post Office Limited has an in-house 117 1 security and prosecution team. As part of its 2 remit it undertakes investigations and where 3 deemed appropriate will undertake criminal 4 prosecutions in line with the business 5 prosecution policy. If an incident is 6 considered to have sufficient evidence to 7 prosecute, it is passed to the Post Office 8 Limited Legal team for review and consideration 9 against the evidential and public interest 10 tests. Legal teams recommendations are then 11 passed to the Head of Security and if satisfied, 12 he will then make a decision on prosecution." 13 Then you say: 14 "a) There is no doubt that this year will be 15 the most challenging in terms of number of key 16 factors; the findings of the Second Sight 17 review; the £20,000 threshold on anomalies for 18 potential audit and prosecutions policy and 19 significantly proposals have been submitted for 20 Contract Advisers not to precautionary suspend 21 as a matter of course, without first considering 22 whether or not the subject [remains] in the Post 23 Office. 24 "b) Following the Second Sight review and 25 revised prosecution policy with the resultant 118 1 cultural shift within the business, greater ever 2 assist will be placed on fraud prevention and 3 early intervention activities. It is envisaged 4 that a number of fraud risk programmes will be 5 initiated this year driven by emerging patterns 6 ... the success of these programs will only be 7 achieved by collaborative approach with other 8 Security strands and key stakeholders." 9 You're reflecting here that there was 10 a fundamental shift in 2014 to the approach to 11 prosecutions, aren't you? 12 A. That's what I put -- that's what -- 13 Q. That's true, there was a fundamental shift, 14 wasn't there? 15 A. That's what the business decided. I mean, 16 I think it was probably at other meetings, or 17 whatever it is, but it's not my decision, it's 18 what the business was going to do, or what going 19 to do. I don't know. I mean, I'm not part of 20 the management. I'm not part of the board, 21 the -- maybe one of the meetings, I was part of, 22 and that's what they decided what -- the way 23 they were going to go. 24 So all I'm doing is putting down -- putting 25 down is one of the things I'm working or part 119 1 of. 2 Q. Prior to that time, had the Post Office enjoyed 3 a culture of prosecuting cases? 4 A. Oh, was that a question, sorry? 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. You have to ask -- 7 Q. The senior lawyer within the Criminal Law Team? 8 A. Maybe I'm a senior lawyer, maybe that's just the 9 title but I didn't get involved in any of that. 10 I don't know what it is, I think it is probably 11 somebody like Rob Wilson, maybe somebody -- you 12 had Mr Marsh, who was Head of Security, maybe 13 somebody from the board, maybe -- whatever it 14 is. But I don't -- I can't answer that question 15 because I don't know. I wasn't part of it. 16 But all I can tell you is that the reason 17 why it's there, because obviously I was told 18 that's what they -- they were going to do, going 19 forward. You know, what the future looked like. 20 Q. Prior to this shift in prosecution policy, were 21 criminal investigations and proceedings launched 22 without a proper basis? 23 A. Of course not. I wouldn't -- no, no. 24 Q. Why was a change necessary, then? 25 A. I don't know. As I said to you, I wasn't 120 1 involved in the first incident of what you're 2 describing as, I don't recognise it. And the 3 second bit is I'm highlighting what I've been 4 told. You know, that's what the Post Office 5 wanted to do and I'm just saying "Well, that's 6 what the Post Office wanted to do in the future, 7 or presently", or -- but I can't answer that 8 because I was not part of any decision making, 9 wasn't part of -- in the management of. I'm 10 just a little bit, more or less a case worker, 11 in the sense I described in my statement. 12 Q. If we go over the page, please, to (c): 13 "Cases will only be raised for criminal 14 investigation once all alternative avenues which 15 may culminate in a successful outcome have been 16 explored and dismissed. The decided course of 17 action needs to be proportionate, justified and 18 necessary. Cases raised for investigations will 19 be limited to those likely to seriously damage 20 the brand or reputation of the Post Office. 21 Other cases will be considered where there's 22 a clear and obvious business need to conduct 23 a criminal investigation." 24 Who decided that cases raised for 25 investigation would be limited to those likely 121 1 seriously to damage the Post Office's brand? 2 A. I don't know. I mean, presumably the board, 3 presumably the management. Maybe the head of 4 the Legal -- Legal, but certainly this is, 5 again -- 6 Q. But this time you were the Head of the Criminal 7 Law Team, weren't you? 8 A. I wasn't head of anything, to be honest with 9 you. I just went in as a challenge, as 10 an opportunity and I can reassure you I was not 11 Head of Criminal Law. 12 I think the outside world did, probably did, 13 because I was the only criminal lawyer and 14 I think originally they wanted Rob Wilson to go 15 in, and at the last minute he dropped out, and 16 I was put forward and I think in the last 17 minute, in the last -- I think this post was on 18 1 April '12 and I think I was more or less told 19 the end of March, probably the middle of March, 20 "Do you want it?" 21 And I considered it, went to see Cartwright 22 King, I liked it and I knew it would be tough, 23 so I took that opportunity as a challenge and 24 that's what I did. 25 Q. Who at the Post Office was driving the message, 122 1 then, that prosecutions would be launched if 2 they damaged seriously the brand or reputation 3 of the Post Office? 4 A. Well, I think again, it's not down to me. 5 I don't think I was part of it. I was probably 6 told about it. It would be the Head of Legal, 7 the board, maybe Head of Security. Certainly, 8 you know, you probably have seen so much work, 9 so much is emailed. I'm not probably copied 10 into most of it. I mean, I'm copied in as and 11 when they need some advice or assistance on the 12 legal front but, even on the legal front, I'm 13 passing it over to Cartwright King because 14 they're more handle because they're actually 15 dealing, physically dealing with the prosecution 16 on our behalf. 17 Q. Why were decisions as to whether to launch 18 criminal investigations and pursuing 19 prosecutions clouded by concerns over the 20 reputation of the Post Office? 21 A. I can't help you with that because I don't know. 22 I mean, I'm not part of the -- the thing is that 23 if they flash those words out, it may have some 24 meaning but then a lot of the work at that time 25 and even now is all bullet points and -- you 123 1 know, so you need some sort of content to it, 2 some sort of background to understand what it 3 always means. But I wasn't part of any of that, 4 as to why they decided to do what they did, 5 decided to do. 6 Q. Can we turn please to POL00127280 and look at 7 page 2, please, and scroll down, please. Can we 8 see an email from you here to Angela van den 9 Bogerd, of May 2014? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In the second paragraph, you say: 12 "There will be cases in which it will be 13 clear from the outset that [Post Office Limited] 14 will need to conduct [a] criminal investigation 15 with [a] view to potential prosecution to 16 protect [the Post Office Limited] brand and 17 reputation and for business purposes." 18 Why would the protection of the Post Office 19 brand and reputation be a relevant consideration 20 in deciding whether to prosecute? 21 A. I've told -- you know, I've repeated it many 22 times. I have been told that's what they wanted 23 to do. All I'm doing is highlighting it to the 24 rest of the team, as to where they're going. 25 I mean, as to whys and hows and the purposes, 124 1 I wasn't the person to give you the answer to 2 that. I don't know who -- where you would be 3 able to get the answer now. I don't know who 4 else is coming to give evidence to the Inquiry 5 but, certainly, I can't assist you any more than 6 what I have. All I've done is highlighted 7 where -- what the Post Office wanted to do and 8 how they want to do it. 9 Q. What were the business purposes you referring to 10 there when you say that "sometimes there will be 11 cases where a criminal investigation with a view 12 to potential prosecution needs to be commenced 13 for business purposes?" What were the business 14 purposes? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. What business purposes could justify a criminal 17 investigation? 18 A. 7 May 2014 -- I don't know. I mean, I -- you 19 know, such a long time ago. I've been away from 20 this sort area of work and, certainly, the Post 21 Office, for a long time, and I've been involved 22 in other matters, other legal work. I can't, 23 you know, say hand on heart, to tell you exactly 24 what it was because I don't -- I don't remember 25 as to what the purposes were. I've forgotten 125 1 about it. That's the past. It's been left 2 there. 3 Q. Earlier in the piece, between, say, 2000 and 4 2012, were business purposes brought into 5 account when deciding whether to prosecute or 6 not? 7 A. I think the -- the -- I don't know. I mean, 8 I don't know. I mean I -- you know, it's such 9 a long time ago. You know, to try to explain it 10 all to you would be wrong of me to tell you 11 because I can't honestly answer that. 12 Q. Was one of the business purposes you're 13 referring to there the protection of the 14 integrity of the Horizon system -- 15 A. I don't know. Only the person who -- 16 Q. -- ie we'll prosecute -- 17 A. -- who made the decision would know. I don't 18 know what they were thinking, or the reason for 19 it being there. 20 Q. Was one of the business purposes debt recovery 21 using criminal prosecution in order to recover 22 debt from postmasters? 23 A. I don't -- personally, no, but I don't know what 24 the other people thought or why they did what 25 they did, but I certainly didn't think of it 126 1 that way. I mean, my thing was -- 2 Q. If we've ruled out those two things, the 3 business purpose of protecting the integrity of 4 Horizon, and the business purpose of recovering 5 debt from subpostmasters as a motivator or 6 a relevant consideration for prosecution, what 7 were the business purposes to which you're 8 referring? 9 A. I'm not referring to anything. All I'm doing is 10 repeating what I've been told to tell the rest 11 of the team. 12 Q. So just following orders, really? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR BEER: Thank you very much. 15 It's 1.20, sir. Might that be an 16 appropriate moment to break? Could I ask that 17 we come back at 2.10, please? 18 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. 19 MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir. 20 (1.20pm) 21 (The Short Adjournment) 22 (2.10 pm) 23 MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear 24 me? 25 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you. 127 1 MR BEER: Good afternoon, Mr Singh. Can we pick up, 2 please, with POL00101851, please, and start by 3 looking at pages 2 and 3. 4 Let's start on 3, and scroll down, please. 5 Can we see this is an email signed off by Nick 6 Wallis, the journalist, and scroll up, please, 7 and if we look at the date of the email it's 8 initially to Melanie Corfield, asking for 9 an interview and he says: 10 "Thank you for your help with The One Show 11 transmitted on Tuesday, 9 December. We're now 12 preparing a second film which is due to go out 13 on The One Show on BBC One at around the same 14 time next week. We would be most grateful if 15 the Post Office would be prepared to offer 16 an interview expressing its view in the 17 continuing dispute with some subpostmasters over 18 Horizon and associated issues. 19 "2) The film we're broadcasting once again 20 refers to concerns over Horizon. This time it 21 features the story of Steve Phillips from Nelson 22 in South Wales, as well as interviews from 23 a group of former subpostmasters, including Noel 24 Thomas, Jo Hamilton, Julian Wilson, who say they 25 felt under pressure to sign off incorrect 128 1 accounts even though they did not understand how 2 sums could be missing. 3 "3) In our film former postmasters say it is 4 difficult to investigate the causes of 5 shortfalls for which they are held liable, 6 because of the way Horizon and associated Post 7 Office processes and policy function. They say 8 in order to open for business the day after the 9 close of a trading period they had to agree to 10 pay back alleged shortfalls (either by settling 11 to cash or settling centrally, which implies 12 payment later). They say this put them in 13 a very difficult position", et cetera. 14 Then, if we scroll up the email, please, and 15 just a little bit more. Thank you. You'll see 16 Melanie Corfield forwards it to Belinda Crowe, 17 Mark Davies, Patrick Bourke, Rod Williams, Ruth 18 Barker, Tom Wechsler, copied to Angela van den 19 Bogerd: 20 "To see below. Can I suggest we have 21 a meeting/call to discuss please. 22 "Copying Angela to see if we can get any 23 knowledge about Steven Phillips -- looks as 24 though he is a serving subpostmaster. The other 25 allegations and accusations are all themes we 129 1 have robust lines about and also of course that 2 we are preparing for Jo S. 3 "But I think we need to be extremely robust 4 about opinion from specialists who have not been 5 involved in this and are commenting from the 6 sidelines." 7 Then scroll up a little further, please. We 8 can ignore that email. A little bit further. 9 At the top, Rod Williams says to the copy list: 10 "Please copy Jarnail." 11 Indeed, you are then added to the copy list, 12 can you see that? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Just going down to the top of page 2, please. 15 The line "The other allegations are all themes 16 we have robust lines about and we need to be 17 extremely robust about opinion from 18 specialists", is it your recollection that, at 19 this time, this is December 2014, that was still 20 the Post Office's position? 21 A. To be honest, I can't say "yes" or "no" to that. 22 I don't know. I don't know what there was. As 23 I said, at that time, I more or less was 24 an observer. There were so many things going, 25 so many people doing things. I wasn't copied 130 1 in, into -- I can't -- I don't know what the 2 answer to that is. 3 Q. Who was leading on the development of robust 4 lines within Post Office at this time? 5 A. I was told the Communication Team, presumably, 6 community -- community -- Communication Team, 7 and presumably higher management or the board or 8 Chief Executive, I presume. I certainly wasn't. 9 By that time, every time something happened, 10 I just went through our external lawyers because 11 they're the ones who were actually prosecuting 12 or deciding on issues to do with, you know, the 13 way they were going to deal with the 14 subpostmasters going forward or presently. 15 Q. This isn't about prosecuting; this is about 16 promulgating robust lines to a journalist who is 17 about to broadcast a programme on the BBC, on 18 BBC One. 19 A. I can only assume, I mean I can't assist you 20 either way, presumably it was the Communication 21 Team. That's their job, isn't it, or that's 22 what they're employed for but, certainly -- 23 Q. They're employed to communicate and to develop 24 communication strategies and they're employed 25 for media relations reasons. They're not 131 1 employed of their own volition to develop -- 2 A. No. 3 Q. -- robust lines; they've got to come from 4 somewhere, haven't they? 5 A. Yes, it's not coming from me. It's above my 6 head. I mean, I don't know how this thing 7 works. That's what I'm saying to you, sir, 8 I don't know. 9 Q. Why were you, at this stage, copied in on this 10 chain, ie the development of robust lines ready 11 for a BBC One broadcast? 12 A. Presumably from a criminal aspect, criminal law 13 aspect of it because the guy who said that 14 I should be copied in presumably had been asked 15 from a civil litigation point, this is the 16 criminal litigation side of it. So that's 17 probably why he said, well, maybe we ought to 18 get another person on board who can give you 19 other aspect of the -- you know, this side of 20 it. 21 Q. Or is it because, at this time, December 2014, 22 you would have continued to say what we've seen 23 in all of the emails we've seen this morning: 24 that subpostmasters are guilty? 25 A. No. 132 1 Q. To the extent to which they raise questions 2 about Horizon, they're jumping on a bandwagon or 3 acting to distract from their own guilt? 4 A. No, I have never held that view. Maybe in the 5 email that's how it comes across but no, the 6 answer is no, no, no. 7 Q. Every email that we've looked at shows that you 8 wrote that. There isn't a single email showing 9 you held the opposite view. 10 A. Do you think -- 11 Q. Why is that? 12 A. I don't know. You know, that's -- my answer is 13 no, that's not the view I held from the outset. 14 I never held that view. You're bringing this up 15 over and over again and my answer is no, no and 16 no. I just -- 17 Q. Can you try and engage with the question rather 18 than just saying, "My answer is going to be no 19 no and no"? If you genuinely -- 20 A. I am engaging but you're repeating the same 21 question about ten different times. The answer 22 is going to be the same, isn't it? 23 Q. If I'm doing anything wrong the Chairman will 24 intervene, so kindly answer my question, 25 Mr Singh? 133 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. If you held the view -- if you had an open mind 3 about the integrity of Horizon, rather than the 4 view we've seen expressed in countless emails 5 now, why did you not reduce it to writing? 6 A. How do you mean? What do you mean? 7 Q. Sorry? 8 A. Why did I put it in writing? 9 Q. Why did you not put it in writing? If you had 10 a genuinely open mind about Horizon, rather than 11 "Everyone's guilty, if they blame Horizon, 12 they're just jumping on a bandwagon, we'll win 13 a few cases and those people will melt away like 14 the midnight snow", why do we not see any emails 15 to say, "Look, I've got an open mind about this, 16 we need properly to investigate it"? 17 A. Because I'm not involved in that level. That's 18 why, and I've never held that view. I will 19 never hold that view. It's just unfortunate 20 that the -- I was sort of dragged into 21 prosecuting these sort of cases or this 22 particular case -- 23 Q. Who dragged you in? 24 A. Well, just it was my case, straightforward case, 25 and it turned out to be quite a complex and 134 1 difficult case. 2 Q. How did they drag you? 3 A. Well, they didn't drag me, in that sense -- 4 Q. Why did you just say they dragged you? 5 A. Dragged, in the sense that I was unfortunate to 6 have this case that had all sorts of 7 complications in it. I mean, if it wasn't 8 a straightforward case, then you would have got 9 somebody senior, like, you know, Juliet 10 McFarlane who was the principal lawyer or the 11 Head of Criminal Law. So, no, the answer is to 12 that. 13 Q. Was there, in 2014, December 2014, still a siege 14 mentality within the Post Office: "We need still 15 to be defending the robustness of Horizon"? 16 A. Not from me. I don't know what the other people 17 were thinking or whatever it was, but certainly 18 I -- by that time, I wasn't prosecuting, and 19 I think I was just assisting as and when was 20 required, as you can see from the email. 21 Somebody said, "Well, have you included Jarnail 22 Singh in?" and, all of a sudden, they remember 23 and copy me in. 24 Q. Can we move on, please, to POL00101857. Can we 25 scroll down, please. Can we see an email of 135 1 yours of 14 December 2014. You say: 2 "All 3 "My comments on Nick Wallis' One Show email 4 dated 12/12/14 to [Melanie Corfield] by numbered 5 paragraphs as relevant to criminal law are as 6 follows ..." 7 So this is a response to the email that we 8 looked at, yes? 9 A. Yes, yes, yes. 10 Q. You pick up his paragraphs in each case, so his 11 paragraph 3, and you say: 12 "Here there are more options for the 13 [subpostmaster] ..." 14 Then his paragraph 4. His paragraph 4 read: 15 "We asked one former subpostmaster why she 16 pleaded guilty to false accounting in court when 17 she believed herself to be innocent. She told 18 us that she felt she couldn't defend herself 19 because she didn't have proper records, that the 20 Post Office had taken some potentially useful 21 items and paperwork away during their 22 investigation and she felt she would be 23 prosecuted for theft as well as false accounting 24 if she had not pleaded guilty to false 25 accounting." 136 1 Your reply is: 2 "[Post Office Limited] cannot comment on 3 individual cases. We don't know which case this 4 is. Maybe it is someone who said one thing in 5 interview under caution, which entailed 6 admission of offence of dishonesty, but later 7 chooses to misrepresent the facts purposely. 8 Without knowing who it is and what she says we 9 cannot respondent further. Maybe it is 10 somebody, who we prosecuted recently, ie file 11 still exists and if the BBC provides the 12 information, we may then be able to verify this 13 or otherwise." 14 Why was your initial reaction, without 15 knowing which case Mr Wallis was referring to, 16 that the subpostmaster may have admitted 17 dishonesty and then later purposely 18 misrepresented the facts? 19 A. It wasn't my view. As I said previously, 20 I've -- I have no experience of any of these 21 type of responses to the media. I obviously 22 sought on the whole content of it from 23 an expert -- expert being a senior legal adviser 24 or the criminal barrister -- criminal 25 specialist, and I said "Well, look, this is what 137 1 I'm faced with. This is the advice I'm seeking. 2 Please advise". 3 And that's -- basically I've used that, that 4 advice, to respond to it. It's not a personal 5 response because I didn't have the expertise to 6 deal with it. So what I'd done, like everything 7 else I do, is to seek expert legal advice to 8 pass on to the business. 9 Q. So where it says, "My comments", these aren't 10 your comments? 11 A. No. They're not, they -- 12 Q. It shouldn't say, "My comments". It should 13 say -- 14 A. It should -- 15 Q. -- I don't know anything about this"? 16 A. Yes, I sought advice, yes, on Nick Wallis' One 17 Show thing. I might even have gone further. 18 Now in hindsight, from experience and knowledge, 19 I might have said "Look, I am not an expert, 20 I will seek advice and will revert back to you" 21 and the next email would have been "This is the 22 advice I've had, this is a copy". 23 That's what I'd have done now, looking in 24 hindsight, but, at that time, the pressure of 25 the time -- times -- time where you are you 138 1 haven't got the time -- and to focus on the 2 particular aspect because, you know, you've got 3 the tray full of other stuff to deal with. 4 That's what I did. So that's what I've done on 5 Sunday because Monday to Friday I haven't had 6 the energy or the time to deal with this. So 7 that's -- where are we, 11.00 on Sunday morning? 8 So this -- 9 Q. So who was the legal expert that dictated this 10 to you? 11 A. I think over the time, I've used various people 12 I've known or made contact through my workings 13 with them. But I think this is probably more 14 likely to be, you know, Cartwright King. 15 Q. So what, you get the email from Melanie Corfield 16 saying the BBC is going to go to press, go to 17 broadcast The One Show, can we have some 18 comments please? That's forwarded on to you. 19 You don't reply. You instead go off to 20 Cartwright King and say, "What should I reply?" 21 and Cartwright King dictate an email to you 22 which says this, and then you send it out as if 23 it's your own work? 24 A. Well, I think there is a -- part of it would be. 25 I mean, I would, like, any person -- I mean, I'm 139 1 not an expert at everything in the law, there 2 are certain aspects I know, personally I can 3 make a contribution towards, but this is advice 4 which I'm seeking because I'm not a specialist 5 in that area and I want the business to have the 6 best advice there is. 7 Q. So it wasn't your view that the person that the 8 BBC were referring to, who they had interviewed, 9 was somebody who may have said one thing in 10 interview under caution, in which they admitted 11 dishonesty, but then later chose to misrepresent 12 the facts. That wasn't your view at all? 13 A. I don't know. I mean, this is going back years 14 now. I mean, presumably, from past experience, 15 knowledge, maybe, maybe not. But I can't say, 16 yes, or -- I can -- I can't say "yes" or "no" to 17 that, so I don't know. 18 Q. So we should be able to find an email exchange, 19 should we, on all of these things where you're 20 going back to Cartwright King and saying, "Look, 21 I've received this. Although I'm a senior 22 criminal lawyer, I'm not expert in the criminal 23 law. Can you help me out as to what I should 24 say?" 25 Then we should be able to find a reply from 140 1 Cartwright King saying, "Jarnail, say this"? 2 A. I don't know whether it would be email or just 3 me chatting to them and they'd either dictating 4 it and me making notes. I can't -- you know, 5 it's years later -- tell you exactly what 6 happened. But I presumably, if there is 7 an email, you will be able to lay your hands on 8 it because, you know, it's there on the system, 9 wherever you got this from. 10 Q. Well, that's the problem: it's not. What we've 11 got is the email sent to you and then your reply 12 saying, "My comments are as follows". 13 A. I don't know. I don't know what the answer to 14 that, you know, this years on. You know, my 15 thing is you just -- I can't -- I can't assist 16 you further. 17 Q. But you wouldn't associate yourself with this, 18 would you? There's a case of a subpostmaster 19 blaming the Horizon system. Your response 20 wouldn't be "Well, hold on, there might be 21 someone who said things under interview, under 22 caution, in which they admitted dishonesty and 23 they're now misrepresenting the facts"; without 24 knowing about a case you wouldn't say that, 25 would you? 141 1 A. No, no -- 2 Q. Because that's just wild speculation, isn't it? 3 A. That's what it would be but then it wouldn't be 4 speculation in the sense that there may be 5 some -- you know, if you come across a case, you 6 might have formed that view, you kept it, and 7 then subsequently used it. But without any 8 knowledge or personal experience, I wouldn't 9 have just put it down to like that, or maybe the 10 person who is helping and assisting in that case 11 have come across it, and they highlighted it 12 and -- maybe rightly or wrongly, maybe 13 I shouldn't have used it. I don't know. 14 Q. Is this emblematic of the Post Office's attitude 15 towards subpostmasters who challenged the Post 16 Office's approach to prosecutions, that we 17 assume that they may themselves have done 18 something wrong; we can't countenance the idea 19 that they might actually be right? 20 A. That's not my view. But, certainly, whether the 21 Post Office has the view then I think the 22 witnesses you had in the past and the future, 23 you'll have to ask them. I can't say for the 24 Post Office. I know certainly I would -- it's 25 not my view, I didn't -- you know, I did what 142 1 I had to do -- 2 Q. Even though you're the author of an email which 3 rather discloses that state of mind? 4 A. I may be the author of it but I -- as I said to 5 you, no individual person can do this. It's got 6 to be a team effort. It's got to be a unit 7 because, otherwise, it wouldn't work. 8 Q. But you put your name to all of these emails? 9 A. Because -- 10 Q. You weren't some naive ingénue, were you? 11 A. Probably, looking in hindsight, maybe I was, you 12 know, maybe I didn't think it through, probably 13 didn't have the time to think it through. 14 Thinking it through now, I probably wouldn't 15 have. 16 Q. Can we turn, please, to POL00060974. If we 17 scroll down, please, if we just look at the 18 whole email first, you can see it's an email 19 from you to Susan Crichton, heading "Second 20 Sight and QC", 28 July 2013. Then scroll on, 21 please, so we can see the whole of the email and 22 then scroll on, and scroll on. You can see 23 you've signed it off, yeah? 24 (No audible response) 25 If we just go back to page 1, please, and 143 1 scroll down, please. So the context from the 2 heading "Second Sight and QC" appears to be the 3 review that was being undertaken at this time by 4 Second Sight, and the involvement or possible 5 involvement of a QC, and presumably that would 6 be Brian Altman QC, at that time; is that right? 7 A. That's right, yes. 8 Q. You say: 9 "I was thinking about what we have been 10 working on. Here are my thoughts." 11 You say: 12 "I was the Prosecution lawyer in the case of 13 R v Misra at Guildford Crown Court in 2009-2010. 14 As far as I am aware, this is the only criminal 15 trial where a jury has been required to consider 16 in detail the integrity of the Horizon system. 17 I can say generally about what lessons can be 18 learned from the case, in the hope that this may 19 be of some assistance to the business in 20 response to the Second Sight Interim Report and 21 proposed appointment of a QC. 22 "The lessons to be learned from the Misra 23 case." 24 Scroll down, please: 25 "There are a number of lessons that can be 144 1 drawn from Misra. I'm aware of the independent 2 nature of the inquiry and its expertise. I am 3 seeking to merely set out some lessons and 4 tentative suggestions I have derived from 5 completion of a difficult case." 6 Was this your own work? 7 A. No. It's not completely all my work. It's -- 8 as I say, I first sought the help and assistance 9 and advice from others who know -- you know, who 10 could assist with the -- 11 Q. So when you say, "I am aware", "I am seeking", 12 and you're making "tentative suggestions", and 13 "I have derived" ... 14 A. Yeah, I mean, looking in hindsight, I mean that 15 probably would have been wise to say "Look" -- 16 maybe even name -- say "Look, I've sought advice 17 from A, B, C and D, these are the thoughts of 18 a number of people, and that will help you in 19 appointing, you know, the QC, Brian Altman, or 20 who else because this is the sort of area we're 21 looking at, the complexity of the Horizon system 22 and you need to be aware of that", basically. 23 I mean, I don't think there was anything in 24 it. I mean, that's basically more or less what 25 I done previously. So -- 145 1 Q. You continue: 2 "Horizon is a complex computer system, about 3 which even eminent experts can make mistakes." 4 Can you see we've seen this before, haven't 5 we? 6 A. Yes, it's the same. 7 Q. This is a rehash -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- of another email? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. "There was no reason to doubt Professor 12 McLachlan's expertise and good faith but time 13 again he had to be corrected by Mr Jenkins." 14 A. Yes. The same. 15 Q. "... not the only expert to have misunderstood 16 ... I have spoken to colleagues", et cetera. 17 So here you're passing off as your own 18 thoughts a cut and paste on an email, which 19 itself was passing off as your own thoughts 20 something that was, in fact, written by somebody 21 else? Is that where we've got to? 22 A. It's -- yes, I suppose you could say that, yes. 23 Q. Well, I do say that and I'm asking you, that's 24 where we've got to, Mr Singh? 25 A. I think -- I mean, I was involved in it. 146 1 I needed other people's input to complete it and 2 this is just assisting legal counsel in the Post 3 Office to help her to appoint somebody. 4 Q. Can we scroll down, please. In the last 5 paragraph on this page, you say: 6 "It is very easy for a dishonest 7 [subpostmaster], as Mrs Misra was proved to be, 8 to make vague accusations against Horizon where 9 other lines of defence are closed. It is not 10 difficult to attract sympathy for such false 11 claims. A [subpostmaster] is likely to be 12 viewed as a hard-working person of good 13 character. Most [subpostmasters] who steal do 14 so because they are in financial difficulties, 15 often stealing simply to prop up their failing 16 shop business. In such circumstances there will 17 be no evidence of luxurious living. A dishonest 18 [subpostmaster] can use these factors to create 19 a false picture that he or she is the honest, 20 hard-working victim of a complicated yet flawed 21 computer system." 22 Where did that description of the dishonest 23 subpostmaster come from? 24 A. I don't know. I don't know where that came 25 from, presumably a number of cases the Post 147 1 Office -- 2 Q. You're talking about Mrs Misra here, aren't you? 3 A. Well, that's the -- well, I -- the fact that 4 Mrs Misra's case has been the one that's been 5 more detailed, then that's the reason why it's 6 been highlighted as the Misra case, but it would 7 be -- generally, it wouldn't be just one case, 8 you would assume, it would be a lot -- you know, 9 generally the picture has emerged. It wasn't 10 just my view; it was the view of the people who 11 made a contribution towards this. 12 Q. Cartwright King hadn't been involved in the 13 prosecution of Seema Misra, had they? 14 A. No, they hadn't. No. 15 Q. So was it your view that you're referring to 16 here then? 17 A. No, I didn't deal with the whole of the case. 18 As I said to you, that's because it was one of 19 those cases where it was difficult. I was away 20 quite a bit in that year because it was 21 a difficult year for me personally. So you had 22 other people picking up the case on and off, and 23 dealing with it. 24 Q. Whose view are you referring to here? 25 A. Well, all the people in the -- in our -- in the 148 1 Criminal Law Team. 2 Q. Is that the collective view of the Criminal Law 3 Team that we see revealed there, then? 4 A. No, I don't think so. It just -- 5 Q. Who within the Criminal Law Team did not hold 6 that view? 7 A. I don't think any of us did. It's just a -- 8 Q. I thought you just said that -- 9 A. Well, I -- 10 Q. -- this is the view of the Criminal Law Team? 11 A. It's not the view, it's -- when you're writing 12 something, you just -- it's something that came 13 about but I can't give you -- I can't say that 14 that's the view we generally held or -- in 15 hindsight, it was silly, stupid thing to do, 16 I suppose. 17 Q. Sorry, in hindsight? 18 A. In hindsight, it wouldn't be written like that, 19 would it? I mean, maybe at that time. 20 Q. Not with you sitting here having to justify it, 21 if that's what you call hindsight? 22 A. No, what I mean is, you know, when you had 23 reviews, and so forth, then obviously you know 24 there's something wrong. But at that time, 25 nobody was aware. Everybody was relying on it, 149 1 I think, so we assumed that everything was fine. 2 So at that particular moment in time, the year 3 2010, it was -- the system was working perfectly 4 as everybody was -- as far as everybody was 5 concerned. 6 Q. This is July 2013, when everyone knew that 7 everything wasn't fine? 8 A. Well, it's the background. Susan wanted the 9 background or something, I think she mentioned 10 something in a passing "Jarnail, can you help", 11 and that's probably why I mentioned it. 12 Q. But you're still running the line, aren't you, 13 that there's a presumption of dishonesty with 14 subpostmasters; they're to blame, not Horizon? 15 A. No, that's not the case. I never held that 16 presumption. I never assumed anything. It's 17 just the -- what it was at that particular 18 moment in -- at that particular date or time. 19 Q. Can we move on, that can come down, please. 20 You refer in your witness statement to the 21 supervision of prosecutions or investigations 22 and charging decisions, undertaken by Cartwright 23 King. You say in paragraph 7 that, in respect 24 of criminal prosecutions, Cartwright King took 25 over full responsibility for the lifetime of 150 1 a case, and that you acted as a point of contact 2 between the Post Office Limited and Cartwright 3 King and would request or forward information as 4 and when required. You made a correction to 5 that part of your statement this morning, 6 I think. 7 In paragraph 7, you give the impression that 8 you were essentially a postbox between the Post 9 Office and Cartwright King; would that be fair? 10 A. Um -- 11 Q. This is post-separation. 12 A. I think at the beginning I wanted to do things 13 in a certain way but I think, as soon as Second 14 Sight came on board, it was different because 15 I had other pressures internally. I didn't have 16 the resources. I didn't have the support and 17 I think I mentioned to you early this morning 18 that I highlighted that to Susan and Hugh, and 19 Cartwright King, basically, more or less sat in 20 the seats of the Criminal Law Team, as they were 21 before. 22 And yes, they -- that's right. I mean, as 23 and when they needed me, I was there; as and 24 when I needed them, they were there. 25 Q. What level of supervision and oversight did you 151 1 perform post-separation when Cartwright King 2 took over responsibility in the way that you 3 describe? 4 A. How do you mean -- the Criminal Law Team, or -- 5 Q. Post-separation, you're the only criminal lawyer 6 in Post Office Limited. Cartwright King, you 7 say, take over responsibility and you acted as 8 a point of contact between the Post Office and 9 Cartwright King and I'm asking what level of 10 supervision and oversight of Cartwright King's 11 work did you undertake? 12 A. I didn't. I don't -- I think you're right, 13 probably was more of a -- I can't remember, to 14 be honest. It was -- it just -- I don't know, 15 I mean, is the answer to that. I certainly -- 16 it was more like I described to you, it's 17 a relationship where they basically knew 18 I worked very well, and I think they came on 19 board on the subpostmasters' cases early 2011. 20 Q. That's what I was going to ask you. When did 21 Cartwright King take over full responsibility 22 for the lifetime of a criminal case? 23 A. I think more or less March, year 2011, something 24 like that. Because we didn't have the capacity 25 in-house and I think, more or less, some of the 152 1 cases where I did one or two initial advices, 2 that is the year -- March 2011 and I think 3 I went up to Rob Wilson and said, "Look, how are 4 we going to manage this?" 5 And I think he then -- I think, soon after 6 the decision was made to pass all the 7 subpostmaster cases to Cartwright King. And 8 I think they formalised the position even more 9 after 1 April 2012. But they'd been dealing 10 with our cases, or the subpostmaster cases -- 11 prosecution of subpostmaster cases the year 12 before, March '11. 13 Q. So between March 2011 and April 2012, who in the 14 Post Office was responsible for the supervision 15 of the conduct of prosecutions undertaken by 16 Cartwright King? 17 A. Presumably the Head of Criminal Law Team. 18 Q. Did any of the criminal lawyers take part in 19 search supervision of prosecutions conducted by 20 Cartwright King? 21 A. I don't know to that, I mean, I -- I -- 22 honestly, I don't know. I certainly -- I think 23 one of the problem was -- the reasons being, 24 I think the principal lawyer -- I think she had 25 some medical problem. I think she had to take 153 1 six months or ten months off, and I said "Well, 2 look, Rob, I can't deal with this. There's just 3 too much". I don't know what number of cases 4 were we're involved with now but that's when the 5 decision is made to -- the subpostmaster cases 6 just went to Cartwright King, from then on. 7 Q. So you can't help us as to who within the Post 8 Office was responsible for the supervision of 9 the conduct of prosecutions by Cartwright King 10 between March 2011 and April 2012? 11 A. It would be Rob Wilson, I would assume. 12 Q. Just Rob Wilson? 13 A. Yeah, I would have thought. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. It certainly wasn't me because -- it wouldn't 16 have been on my sort of, you know, grade or 17 whatever it is they call it, yeah. 18 Q. Okay. If all of the prosecutions were being 19 undertaken and they undertook full 20 responsibility for the lifetime of criminal 21 cases, Cartwright King -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- between March 2011 and April 2012, what were 24 you doing? 25 A. Well, I -- almost everything in-house. I mean, 154 1 as you know, "Jarnail, can you help with it, can 2 you help with that?" Because there's a lot 3 going on, you've got a Second Sight law, you've 4 got the mediation, you've got all sorts of 5 people reviewing it, shifting through the cases. 6 The Chief Executive period -- 7 Q. When you say "shift", do you mean sifting 8 through the cases? 9 A. Sifting, sorry -- shit, sorry about that. Yes. 10 So it was very exhausting, it was very 11 extending but it was enjoyable in the sense of 12 something new and the beauty -- the good thing 13 was that I had experts, Cartwright King, the 14 barristers, in Bell Yard, assisting and helping, 15 so, from a development point of view, it was 16 quite good, but from -- 17 Q. I'm less interested in your professional 18 development and how fulfilled you felt -- 19 A. I'm filling in, purely because, you know, there 20 were other things to do with in-house but 21 I can't list all of them because it was Susan, 22 Hugh, other team members. You've got the civil 23 litigation lawyers, again, dealing with the 24 mediation side of it. 25 Q. So would this be right, between March 2011 and 155 1 April 2012, you were engaged in work that 2 concerned the fallout from the discovery of some 3 problems or potential problems with Horizon and 4 liaison with parts of the business the Second 5 Sight review, the setting up of the Mediation 6 Scheme, and other things like that, rather than 7 the conduct of prosecutions? 8 A. I mean, with mediation and the setting up other 9 aspects, they're just on the periphery of it or 10 the outside. I wasn't heavily involved in any 11 of that because I wasn't part of that. But any 12 criminal aspect, getting data together, I think 13 they -- the board wanted some sort of sheet as 14 to, you know, how many cases are being 15 prosecuted, how many cases are not. The 16 progress side of things. 17 And I think -- I don't know what the remit 18 of Hugh -- I think he used to email me "Jarnail, 19 can you give me this? What does that mean?", 20 you know, from a criminal aspect. You know, 21 generally that. 22 Q. After then, after April 2012, post-separation, 23 where you were the only criminal lawyer within 24 Post Office Limited -- 25 A. Yes, I was the only criminal lawyer there, yes. 156 1 Q. -- who was responsible in the Post Office for 2 supervising the conduct of prosecutions that 3 were run by Cartwright King? 4 A. Well, I suppose it would be Hugh. Hugh had 5 quite an input into it. He always wanted to 6 know what was going on, and I think -- 7 Q. What was Hugh's job then? 8 A. He was Head of Legal. 9 Q. Civil? 10 A. No, overall. 11 Q. So you, as the only criminal lawyer didn't, have 12 any role in the supervision of the conduct of 13 criminal prosecutions run by Cartwright King? 14 A. I think they kept me informed as to what was 15 going on. I did ask a lot of the time, "Look, 16 Hugh wants to know that", "Susan wants to know 17 that", "Business wants to know that", and they 18 were very helpful, and they used to -- and also 19 I think I had quite a good relationship with 20 their lawyers, four or five of them, and they 21 all said, "Jarnail" -- they used to flag things 22 up for me, so I can, in turn, keep myself up to 23 date and communicate that to, you know, Hugh and 24 Susan. 25 Q. Was there a system for reviewing how Cartwright 157 1 King or indeed any other external solicitors 2 were conducting their prosecutions? 3 A. I don't know whether there was official policy 4 but I wasn't aware of it. But that would have 5 been -- I wasn't copied into anything like that. 6 I've not seen any policy as to how they've been 7 reviewed but I think they were sort of more or 8 less -- because Second Sight came in on board 9 more or less June/July '12, I think it was, and 10 I think, after that, I was -- from a different 11 position to where I wanted to be. 12 And I think then that, again, is something 13 that Hugh and Susan would have monitored or had 14 something in place to chat to them and work out, 15 do their appraisal and -- 16 Q. So it's Hugh and Susan's job, not yours? 17 A. No, no. 18 Q. Was there any system in place to your knowledge 19 to ensure that Cartwright King would be aware of 20 any potential Horizon system issues or user 21 issues relating to Horizon? 22 A. I would assume so but I can't say "yes" or "no" 23 because I wasn't part of it. I wasn't told one 24 way or the other. 25 Q. So as the only criminal lawyer, you were kept 158 1 out of the loop, were you? 2 A. Well, I think, as you can probably see from the 3 emails, that yes, most of the time, I was a bit 4 sort of -- as and when there was advice to be 5 sought, or some input, they included me in. But 6 I think a lot of it is things that have been -- 7 they've been there -- civil litigation has been 8 part of the Post Office Limited or some of the 9 people been there longer than have, I don't -- 10 before even their separation, and it was 11 business as usual. 12 The criminal lawyer side was something that 13 was new to them and we had Cartwright King in 14 place, we had the Bell Yard lawyers -- 15 barristers in place. 16 Q. What were the Bell Yard barristers doing? 17 A. Well, they were prosecuting. 18 Q. Talking in April 2012 onwards? 19 A. I think there was ongoing cases which they 20 brought forward which they were already part of, 21 and I think then, subsequently, Cartwright King 22 either decided to keep in-house or to use them 23 as and when there was London cases but I can't 24 help you with that. 25 Q. Can you just help us, I'll ask one last time: as 159 1 the person with the 15-year history of 2 prosecuting cases, as the person who was the 3 criminal lawyer, why after April 2012 did you 4 have such a limited role, even though you were 5 the only criminal lawyer in the Legal team? 6 A. Well, yeah, that was what was required, it just 7 fitted in with whatever the business wanted. 8 I mean the -- a lot of the -- you know, well all 9 of the prosecutions dealt with by outside, 10 that's the -- their model or that's the way they 11 wanted to go forward, and that's what the other 12 areas of the law were. Same with the civil 13 litigation, there was only Rodric, I think, 14 there and the same as the company commercial, 15 there was only one lawyer overseeing that, and 16 that's the model. Maybe they misunderstood how 17 it was going to work but that's how it worked 18 and then subsequently other things took over. 19 Q. Can I turn to prosecution policies and charging 20 decisions. In your witness statement, 21 paragraphs 19 and 20, you say, during the period 22 when the Post Office was still part of the Royal 23 Mail Group, so this is up to April 2012, files 24 would be prepared by Investigators and sent to 25 the Criminal Law Team for advice as to 160 1 prosecution and appropriate charges, correct? 2 A. Where are we? 3 Q. 19 and 20. 4 A. Okay. Do you know want to put it on the screen 5 or can't we put it on the screen, or there's no 6 need? 7 Q. Yes, we can put it on the screen if you want. 8 Witness statement page 8., foot of the page. Do 9 you want to read those to yourself? 10 A. Where are we, number 20 or 19? 11 Q. Both. 12 A. 19, okay. 13 Q. So my summary of that was: in paragraphs 19 and 14 20 of your witness statement, you describe that, 15 during the period when the Post Office was still 16 part of the Royal Mail Group, ie up to April 17 2012, files would be prepared by Investigators 18 and sent to the Criminal Law Team for advice as 19 to prosecution and charges; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Right. Good. That can come down, then. 22 In paragraph 3 of your witness statement you 23 say: 24 "As a criminal prosecutor, I will always do 25 my best with the knowledge and evidence that 161 1 I have in front of me, and at the time of each 2 subpostmaster case I followed the relevant 3 codes, policies and procedures and genuinely 4 thought I was doing the right thing." 5 Is that right? 6 A. Yes, yes. 7 Q. In paragraphs 12 to 15 of your witness 8 statement, you refer to policies governing 9 prosecution and charging decisions and the 10 conduct of prosecutions, and you tell us that 11 you were not involved in contributing to or 12 developing any of the policies that you list 13 correct? 14 A. That's CLT, isn't it? Are we looking at 15 Criminal Law Team now? 16 Q. Yes, we've always been looking at the Criminal 17 Law Team in this set of questions. 18 A. Yes, yes. 19 Q. I'm talking about before April 2012? 20 A. Yes. Yes. 21 Q. So you were not involved in the development of 22 any of the policies that you list in 23 paragraph 14 -- 24 A. No, not -- 25 Q. -- sorry, in paragraph 12. 162 1 A. Well, the Criminal Law Team, no. 2 Q. You were not involved in any of the development 3 of those policies nor contributing to them? 4 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. 5 Q. You tell us in paragraph 15 that, although 6 you're described as the owner of a policy, that 7 simply means that you adopted the policy on 8 behalf of the Post Office -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- on its separation from Royal Mail Group; is 11 that right? 12 A. That's right, yes. 13 Q. So, if we saw policies with you listed as the 14 owner, that does not mean that you contributed 15 to the content nor approved of the content; is 16 that right? 17 A. Apart from 1 April, year 2012, I would have -- 18 no, I'd be very surprised if there is one. 19 Q. You tell us in paragraph 16 that the aim and 20 rationale behind subpostmaster prosecutions was 21 both to hold the offender to account and to 22 deter potential offenders, yes? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. How was compliance with the policies monitored? 25 A. How do you mean? Can you sort of elaborate 163 1 a little bit so I can help you? 2 Q. There are a series of policies -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- that say when you're conducting 5 investigations and prosecutions you should do 6 these things? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. How was compliance with those things assessed or 9 monitored? 10 A. When I advised -- I think it was all to do with 11 the prosecutor's code, basically. I've 12 obviously read them, when I joined the Criminal 13 Law Team and subsequently, but, as far as the 14 monitoring side of it is concerned, that wasn't 15 part of my remit. I didn't get involved in it. 16 Certainly, I made the results known of every of 17 my cases as to how they were put together. Who 18 put them together, it wasn't part of my 19 employment or part of my role. 20 Q. What about you not as the monitor but as 21 somebody who was monitored? 22 A. If I was -- it would be appraisals. I think we 23 had appraisals every three months or every two 24 months and I think, certainly, the -- when I was 25 away, people might have looked at my files, the 164 1 advices I gave, and I think some people who went 2 to court on a certain case said it was on their 3 case and my case was, you know, for a hearing on 4 the same day or same time, they would review it. 5 That type of thing is the only monitoring I can 6 think of. I can't think of any -- 7 Q. By that, do you mean monitoring your advocacy? 8 A. No, they would physically have my file in front 9 of them and, certainly -- Rob certainly looked 10 at it because, I think, appraisal times, or 11 subsequently, as and when he looked at it, he 12 would advise on it, "You should have done this, 13 you should have done that, be careful on that", 14 you know, and I think once or twice he might 15 have even said, "Look, this is the way you 16 should have done it, why didn't you consider 17 that?" 18 So that was the sort of way it was 19 monitored. There was no set, you know, 20 procedure or -- 21 Q. So it was chats, essentially? 22 A. I don't know. I don't know what he did with it. 23 I don't know whether he in subsequently reported 24 further down to his line managers, I don't know. 25 But certainly -- 165 1 Q. I'm talking about between August 1995 and April 2 2012. So there's a 17-year period as -- 3 A. Yeah, there's -- 4 Q. I'm asking you as a lawyer how you felt, that 5 your adherence to policy was monitored and 6 assessed? 7 A. Well, certainly when the matter is before the 8 courts, then you -- we briefed council because 9 they had the right of audience, we didn't. They 10 certainly came back, you know, with their own 11 advice and opinions and then you had a lot of 12 the time, maybe a lot even of the defence 13 lawyers come up with all sorts of -- I don't 14 know, in their defence statements -- 15 Q. Are you saying that your performance was 16 monitored by defence lawyers? 17 A. Well, not monitored but then you could see, from 18 the way they're responding to it, you're 19 engaging with them in that way. But, certainly, 20 internally, it would be appraisals by the Head 21 of Criminal Law Team. 22 Q. Can I just get this right, Mr Singh. In answer 23 to my question how, over a 17-year period as 24 a prosecution lawyer, was your compliance with 25 Post Office policy monitored, you've answered: 166 1 by defence lawyers? 2 A. No, that's one of the things I mentioned and 3 several others. You know, you learn from it 4 don't you, as and when somebody is, you know, 5 reacting to it? But, certainly, it would be 6 appraisals. I think every three months, every 7 six months, I don't know now and, certainly, you 8 know, we had conferences with the barristers, 9 and they did the advocacy, they would do the 10 opinions. 11 But I don't know what my line manager did or 12 what he did with the others, or whatever, but 13 certainly it would have been the line managers 14 who would deal with it, or the team leaders -- 15 the Head of Criminal Law. 16 Q. What about from April 2012 onwards, when you 17 were the sole criminal lawyer within Post Office 18 Limited? Did you take on responsibility for the 19 ongoing review of all Post Office policies 20 relating to prosecutions and criminal law? 21 A. That -- I think that was Hugh or Susan, I think 22 they were more hands on that. 23 Q. Hugh and Susan again? 24 A. Susan Crichton and Hugh. They, in turn, dealt 25 with all that. I didn't get involved in that. 167 1 Q. Why not as the criminal lawyer? 2 A. I don't know. I can't honestly answer that. 3 I can tell you that I wasn't involved in it. 4 Q. Was it because people didn't view you as having 5 expertise? 6 A. I can't tell what the other people thought. 7 Q. Surely, as the only criminal lawyer in the 8 business, there's a suite of criminal law 9 policies here, wouldn't you put your hand up and 10 say, "Hold on, that's my job"? 11 A. I didn't. Well, maybe I should have done, in 12 hindsight. 13 Q. You're not involved in any prosecutions, you've 14 told us; that's Cartwright King. 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. You're not involved in supervision of any 17 prosecutions; that's Susan and Hugh. 18 A. Mm. 19 Q. You're not involved in maintenance or review of 20 the policies; that's Susan and Hugh. What were 21 you doing? 22 A. Well, as you say, the -- what I did do was the 23 obviously picked up on various aspects of it, 24 the training of the Investigation Officer, which 25 I did with the Cartwright King. I was involved 168 1 in getting Simon Clarke to look at the 2 prosecution policy. I was also involved in 3 getting advices on Auditors being -- you know, 4 how the Auditors ought to function, how they 5 ought to deal with their role, within the 6 criminal law. 7 There was so much there, you would not 8 believe. I didn't have -- I mean, ideally, 9 I would have -- that's what I would have done. 10 I would have basically taken over and made it my 11 own, but it didn't sort of quite work out that 12 way. 13 Q. Can we look, please, at POL00122123, please. If 14 we scroll down, please. Sorry, keep scrolling, 15 thank you. 16 An email of yours of 31 January 2013. So 17 the period that I'm referring to, ie post-April 18 2012. You say: 19 "Hugh, Susan, John and Alwen 20 "Please find copies of the following papers 21 for the above meeting. 22 "Current POL prosecution policy. 23 "Proposed ... enforcement", et cetera, 24 et cetera. 25 So a series of criminal prosecution and 169 1 investigation and enforcement policies, agreed? 2 A. Yes, yes. 3 Q. This is seemingly for a prosecutions policy 4 meeting on 4 February, looking at the title; can 5 you see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. If you had no involvement, as you've told us, in 8 investigation and prosecution policy formation 9 or development, why were you sending on 10 prosecution and investigation policies and 11 enforcement policies for a meeting that you were 12 going to attend? 13 A. Well, I -- that -- I've collected everything 14 together, sent it on to them, to -- we will 15 discuss it. I think they wanted that to be -- 16 because -- on separation, they wanted the board 17 to approve it. I mean, there was some sort of 18 process or procedure they were going through and 19 they asked me for those, so the -- as I said to 20 you, the Post Office Prosecution Policy was more 21 or less adopted from the Royal Mail and the same 22 as the other aspect of it, the Internal Protocol 23 for Criminal Investigative Enforcement. That 24 was adopted by the Investigation Team and all 25 the people who had interested party in it, Susan 170 1 or Hugh wanted it -- wanted them to be copied in 2 to it, so all I did was collected all of them 3 and sent it on to the relevant people to get -- 4 have a meeting on 4 February and then, 5 subsequently, you know, go through it and agree 6 it, or not -- 7 Q. You were just a postbox, really? 8 A. Yeah, yeah. 9 Q. A collector together of pieces of paper and 10 a postbox? 11 A. Yeah, I mean postbox in that respect but there 12 was other aspects I was involved in, as well, 13 but yeah, I suppose in -- in -- realistically, 14 maybe you're right. I agree. 15 Q. Just a postbox? 16 A. Well, I wouldn't say "just a postbox" but if 17 that's -- you say that, maybe yes. 18 Q. Can we look, please, at POL00125197. If we can 19 go to the last email in the chain, please. If 20 we scroll up from there, email from Bond 21 Dickinson, and if we scroll up, from Gavin 22 Matthews at Bond Dickinson, to Chris Aujard and 23 you in May '14: 24 "... I understand from Brian that he is 25 close to having a first draft of the POL 171 1 prosecution policy document. 2 "He does have some questions." 3 Then just looking at an example: 4 "What were the hierarchy of POL prosecution 5 decision making be in the future? Ie who will 6 be making the final decision on authorising 7 prosecution -- Jarnail or Chris (as General 8 Counsel) or will the role be split ..." 9 Then the answer comes back: 10 "Jarnail will be the decision maker for Post 11 Office Limited prosecutions. We recommend the 12 procedure be put in place to enable the 13 Investigation Officer to appeal to Chris (as 14 General Counsel) in the event that he/she 15 disagrees with Jarnail's decision." 16 Then if we scroll up, please. Your reply: 17 "Please see in blue below Chris and my reply 18 to [Brian Altman QC's] two questions on the POL 19 prosecution policy." 20 That does show you, does it not, Mr Singh, 21 involved in the formation of policies in at 22 least 2014? 23 A. No, what happened there was, I think, Brian 24 Altman was advising on it, on instructions or 25 brief from Gavin Matthews and I think he 172 1 formulated some draft. I think he sent it to me 2 to have a word with Chris, who was the interim 3 General Counsel for the Post Office and I think 4 I sent it to him. He wanted some sort of input 5 from me and I advised, and that never came into 6 fruition. It never came into being at all. For 7 some reason or another, I don't know where it 8 landed, but, when I left, I have never made any 9 decision on any prosecutions. 10 Q. I'm not asking about the substance at the moment 11 whether you, in the event, became the decision 12 maker -- 13 A. No. 14 Q. -- on prosecutions? 15 A. No, no. 16 Q. I'm just asking you the question, in the light 17 of the evidence you have had given in your 18 witness statements and today orally, that you 19 had no role in the formulation or the 20 development of policy, why we see in this email 21 Brian Altman QC asking a question and you 22 replying "Please see Chris and my reply", which 23 tends to suggest you had some role in the 24 development of prosecution policy, doesn't it? 25 A. No, no. That -- Brian Altman was asked to draft 173 1 it by Bond Dickinson, and they -- I don't know, 2 I wasn't part of that briefing. It was sent to 3 me as the only criminal lawyer. I passed it to 4 Chris. Chris wanted to discuss it or go through 5 it and various aspects of it. 6 I, in turn, advised him I think or we 7 discussed it, and there was couple of 8 points/questions he wanted to clarify or put 9 forward to Brian. I passed it on to Gavin 10 Matthews of Bond Dickinson and he passed it 11 back. And I think then Brian came to have 12 a meeting, and I think that's where it was left. 13 Nothing went forwards or backwards -- 14 Q. Mr Singh, this does not say, "Please see below 15 Chris's reply to Brian Altman's questions". It 16 says, "Please see below Chris and my reply"; 17 it's your reply, isn't it? 18 A. Well, it's my email, I suppose, but -- 19 Q. No, it's not just your email because I wouldn't 20 be asking you questions if this email just said, 21 "Please see below Chris' reply". 22 A. Well, obviously -- 23 Q. I'm asking you the questions because it says, 24 "Chris and my reply". 25 A. Well, because we discussed it. I mean, I -- 174 1 Q. Was it not your reply then? 2 A. Well, it's -- I'm working for an organisation, 3 it's a joint sort of -- I mean, he's the General 4 Counsel, he asked me to come and explain certain 5 aspects of it, and I did. And I -- and then he 6 said "Well, Jarnail, I agree, I disagree. 7 Jarnail, I don't understand point -- one or two 8 of these questions, or can you pose those two 9 questions for Brian to clarify?" That's my 10 involvement in it. 11 It wasn't something that I put forward or 12 didn't put forward. I mean, it was not -- you 13 know, nothing sinister in that, maybe -- that's 14 it, as far as I can help you with. I can't help 15 you any more than that. 16 Q. Well, you've been very helpful. Can we move on 17 please to POL00104747. This is a Casework 18 Management Policy and, if we look at the foot of 19 the page, please -- sorry, that's it. That's 20 unfortunate, it doesn't include the date. If we 21 can just go to the end of the document, please, 22 and scroll up. Thank you. 23 You can see that this is effective from 24 March 2000, with a review date of January 2001, 25 okay? 175 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. If we go back to page 1, please. We can see the 3 aim of the policy, its "Purpose" is described to 4 be: 5 "... to ensure that adequate controls are in 6 place to maintain standards throughout 7 investigation processes." 8 Would this have been a document with which 9 you were familiar back in March 2000 onwards? 10 A. It's just too long ago. I mean, I -- I probably 11 read it at some stage but I can't tell you one 12 way or the other where it landed or what we did 13 or didn't do with it. 14 Q. Can we go forward to page 4, please. Scroll 15 down, please. I'm so sorry, if we scroll up, 16 please. I'm looking for paragraph 3.2, please. 17 Thank you. 18 "Prosecution Casework", this would have been 19 a policy, whether you remember it now or not, 20 that applied to you as a prosecutor from March 21 2000 onwards, agreed? 22 A. I don't know whether this is a prosecution 23 policy because I think all I relied on, most of 24 the time, was the prosecutors code. 25 Q. By that, do you mean the Code for Crown 176 1 Prosecutors? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. The CPS document? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What about any internal Post Office policies? 6 A. Well, I think in prominence was the -- you know, 7 was the prosecutors code. I don't know the 8 other side of it, to be honest. I mean it's 9 such a long time ago as to I padded out or I had 10 any influence or input into it but that was the 11 one we concentrated on. 12 Q. Sorry, you're dropping your voice there, 13 I couldn't hear you? 14 A. It had dried up. 15 Q. If you just take a drink, thank you. 16 So this isn't something that you now 17 remember as something you worked to when you 18 were conducting prosecutions from March 2000 19 onwards? 20 A. I don't remember it now, just -- 21 Q. Let's have a look at it anyway to see whether 22 any of it jogs your memory. It says: 23 "Details of evidential requirements and 24 casework preparation and submission timescales 25 are set out in the Prosecution Guidelines, 177 1 issued to all Investigators. 2 "To maintain standards and ensure 3 consistency, official form should always be used 4 in preference to locally produced forms ..." 5 Then scroll down, looking at the fourth 6 bullet point: 7 "Enclosure envelope should be used to 8 enclose the following supporting documents: 9 "Appendix A ... 10 "Appendices B, C ..." 11 You can say the list of documents that 12 should be enclosed, I think, when a file was 13 sent to Legal Services. Does that list of 14 documents remind you of the type of documents 15 that you got when a file was sent to Legal 16 Services? 17 A. At that time, maybe there's more or less, but 18 I -- that seemed the standard, isn't it? 19 Everything is there, the search, the friend 20 form, disclosure forms, confidential report, 21 copy of a tape-recorded interview, that type of 22 thing, yes? 23 Q. The reason for asking, can I make it plain, 24 Mr Singh, is the Inquiry is interested in the 25 nature and extent of the material that a lawyer 178 1 got to see at the point on deciding evidential 2 sufficiency and public interest. I am asking 3 you: is that a list of the things that a lawyer 4 would see when they made an evidential 5 sufficiency decision and a public interest 6 decision? 7 A. I would have thought that would be the basic, 8 maybe later more would be added on to it. 9 I don't know but, certainly, that seems, you 10 know, more or less what every investigation file 11 would have or should have. 12 Q. So it included at least this, but maybe more? 13 A. I would have thought -- assumed so, yes. I mean 14 to be honest, I've been out of practice on the 15 Post Office side of it for such a long time, 16 I -- and especially the date of the document, 17 I don't know whether they modified it, there's 18 more to it. I don't know. 19 Q. When you got files, importantly, did they 20 include Schedules of Unused Material? 21 A. Yes. I would have -- yes, they should do. 22 I would hope so, yes. 23 Q. Hope is -- 24 A. Well, there should be. 25 Q. -- is a great thing. I'm asking you whether 179 1 they did? 2 A. Yeah, well, I -- yes. 3 Q. So you would be able, when you're advising on 4 evidential sufficiency and public interest, to 5 see what unused material there was, at least by 6 list? 7 A. There should -- I think -- if you look at the -- 8 yeah, I -- I didn't do the training but 9 I thought must -- it's a must, isn't it? Yes. 10 Q. But never mind whether you did the training. 11 You were receiving these things for 17 years? 12 A. I -- yes, I -- I suppose, yes, but I don't 13 recall it now, as to each and every single file 14 had it. I don't know to that. But that looks 15 like it should be in the file, yes. 16 Q. Which documents did you have regard to when 17 making a decision on evidential sufficiency? 18 A. Well, I -- all of them. Well, I mean, 19 disclosure forms, confidential report, 20 interview, tape recorded interview, 21 investigators report. I mean they're all 22 relevant, aren't they? The search records, 23 friend forms, they should all be there, 24 shouldn't they, because, if they're not, then 25 how can you advise without them? 180 1 Q. So you wouldn't just read the investigation 2 reports, you would read the underlying material; 3 is that right? 4 A. I think so. Well, yes. Yeah. 5 Q. Never mind the documents that you should 6 receive, thinking about the approach that you 7 should take or the test that you applied, you've 8 told us, I think, that you had regard to the 9 Code for Crown Prosecutors? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Was there any Post Office Limited document that 12 helped you on how to apply that test in the 13 context of a private prosecution? 14 A. I don't know. I don't know, unless it was 15 the -- with the Inquiry papers, I can't -- 16 I don't know. 17 Q. Because the Code for Crown Prosecutors is 18 written for Crown Prosecutors and it's written 19 at a level and aimed at an audience that is 20 broad and diverse, because it involves 21 shoplifting in Newcastle and murder in Bodmin. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Was there anything that applied that to private 24 prosecutors in the context of the Post Office, 25 carrying it into effect, in your business? 181 1 A. Well, that's the way I was trained, that's the 2 way the other lawyers I worked with, and we 3 adopted the same. I mean, the evidential test, 4 the public interest test and the disclosure. 5 And an alternative way of dealing with it, 6 in view of the, you know, the public interest 7 test. That's what we applied. I don't know 8 what more you are asking me about. I don't know 9 any more than that. 10 Q. Can you recall any case in which you concluded 11 that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, 12 to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, 13 ie meeting limb 1 of the full code test but, 14 nonetheless, you decided that prosecution wasn't 15 in the public interest under the second limb? 16 A. I think so. I think a few, I think, in -- well, 17 quite -- probably a few. I mean, I -- I can't 18 give you the names, but I think I -- 19 Q. Can you remember -- sorry, this document can 20 come down so the Chairman can see you. 21 What was the context, even if you can't 22 remember the names, full code limb 1 met, but 23 it's not in the public interest to prosecute? 24 A. Well, there was the -- I think there's a figure 25 of 5,000 somewhere, health -- 182 1 Q. Sorry, just taking them in turn. There was the 2 figure of some 5,000 somewhere? 3 A. I think it was 5,000. I think -- from the back 4 of my mind, if there's less than 5,000 or around 5 about 5,000, was the figure, it's not in the 6 public interest of the Post Office -- 7 Q. When did that criterion apply? 8 A. I think -- I can't say whether it's always been 9 there but I can't tell you the precise date. 10 Certainly, the health -- 11 Q. Hold on, so, on that one, the alleged loss was 12 £5,000 or less? 13 A. I think the -- yeah, it's about that -- I think 14 it was about 5,000, around about that time. 15 I can't tell you as and when but that figure, 16 for some reason, comes to mind. 17 Q. Okay, and so health: that's the health of the 18 defendant? 19 A. The health of the defendant, his family, the 20 circumstances, the period of offending, was it 21 a one-off offence? Whether they -- I think part 22 of it was the -- whether they repaid the money 23 back and, also, I think the cost of prosecution 24 in light of the overall -- you know, the overall 25 case. 183 1 Q. Thank you. 2 A. There's about five or six of them, I think -- 3 Q. In your time -- 4 A. Yeah. 5 Q. -- in the 17 years before separation? 6 A. Yeah, I think what I did have a template, I had 7 a habit of actually, on the side of it, the 8 public interest test about six or seven 9 different bits I used to look at, and sometimes 10 even go round chatting to people and saying, 11 "Look, this is what I've got, it's sort of 12 marginal, what do you think? What else should 13 I need to do to, you know, either prosecute or 14 not?" That sort of thing, yeah. 15 There was various aspects. I mean, I'm sure 16 there was number of cases -- but, certainly, 17 there has been where we'd not prosecuted because 18 of the public interest test. 19 MR BEER: Thank you. 20 Sir, I don't know whether that is 21 a convenient moment for you. It is in terms of 22 the topics I'm addressing. Might we break for 23 15 minutes until 3.35? 24 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, fine. 25 MR BEER: Thank you very much, sir. 184 1 (3.20pm) 2 (A short break) 3 (3.35 pm) 4 MR BEER: Sir, good afternoon, can you see and hear 5 me? 6 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you. 7 MR BEER: Thank you. 8 Mr Singh, if, as a Criminal Law Team lawyer 9 reviewing a file, you took the view that the 10 Full Code Test was not met, would you, 11 nonetheless, refer the case to a nominated 12 decision maker within the business for 13 a charging decision or would your advice that 14 the Full Code Test was not met have been 15 decisive without the need for the case to then 16 be referred to a decision maker within the 17 business? 18 A. No, it'd be closed. I wouldn't take it further. 19 It's closed, there's no evidence. Why would it 20 go to a decision maker? There's no decision to 21 be made, is there? Well, that's my view. I 22 mean, I would say no. 23 Q. So, in that case, the lawyer was the decision 24 maker? 25 A. Well, the decision in the sense there is no 185 1 evidence. 2 Q. Or no sufficient evidence? 3 A. Yeah, there's no sufficient evidence, there's no 4 realistic prospect of conviction, so what 5 decision is there made? There is no decisions 6 to be made is there? 7 Q. So an individual within the business, 8 a non-lawyer, could not form the view that there 9 was sufficient evidence, if the Criminal Law 10 Team member had advised that there was not? 11 A. Well, I -- I would have assumed -- well, I -- 12 well, I -- yeah, that would have been my view. 13 I would have just probably taken it to the Head 14 of Criminal Law Team and say, "Look, this is 15 where it is, we're closing the file, what do you 16 want to do with it?" But I don't know how it 17 padded out but, certainly, there's no evidence, 18 there's no case, is there? 19 Q. If you, as the Criminal Law Team lawyer 20 reviewing the file, decided that it was not in 21 the public interest for there to be 22 a prosecution, would your advice be 23 determinative or would the case then need to be 24 referred to a nominated decision maker within 25 the business to actually decide the issue? 186 1 A. Again, the test has not been met, so there would 2 be -- well, I don't know physically where it 3 lands but, certainly, as far as the prosecution 4 team is or Criminal Law Team is concerned, it 5 finishes where, I would have thought, yes. 6 Q. In your statement, you tell us that cases were 7 kept continuously under review in accordance 8 with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, by the 9 lawyer with the conduct of the case and by 10 counsel instructed in the case; is that right? 11 A. Yes, where are we, have we got -- 12 Q. I'm not taking you back every time. 13 A. Oh, sorry, yes. 14 Q. If you can just trust me, for the moment, to 15 summarise what you're saying. It's paragraph 21 16 of your witness statement. 17 A. Sure, sure. 18 Q. Does that mean that, even after a decision was 19 made to charge someone with an offence, the case 20 was kept under review to ensure that the Full 21 Code Test remained met? 22 A. Yes, continuous. It's an obligation, I think, 23 and a duty, yes. 24 Q. Would such continued duty be discharged into 25 both the evidential sufficiency part of the Full 187 1 Code Test and the public interest element of the 2 Full Code Test? 3 A. Those two elements have got to be in existence, 4 hasn't it, for there to be a prosecution case? 5 Q. Was that formalised in any way, ie periodic 6 review? 7 A. I don't know. I mean, I can't say one way or 8 the other. I don't know whether there was -- 9 I would have thought the only person, certainly 10 within the Criminal Law Team, would be the Head 11 of Criminal Law. I don't know whether -- what 12 sort of -- what he did with it or whether he had 13 a file or paper trail or something, but 14 certainly he did review the cases, I know for 15 sure, because he did amend one or two of my 16 advices and, also, it would be taken up at the 17 appraisals. 18 Q. I'm talking about you as the criminal lawyer 19 with conduct of the prosecution. Did you 20 periodically review whether both elements of the 21 code test were met, ie a set period of time, 22 we're three months in, we're six months in, 23 we're nine months into the investigation or the 24 prosecution, let's conduct a review; let's have 25 a stocktake, let's stand back and see where we 188 1 are. It sounds not ... 2 A. No, it's -- it's the way we were structured. 3 Certainly, when the case was continuous, I -- 4 there was letters -- there was physical letters 5 coming in at that time, Rob will look at it, 6 he'll pass it to me. If it was already in the 7 Crown Court, the file would be with the legal 8 executives and I would pick it up and there was 9 times when I would go through it really 10 thoroughly. 11 There was a period -- I can't say every 12 three months, every six months, I don't know -- 13 but there was a period when I would look at 14 every single file, you know, as to -- I can't 15 say, you know, every three months, every March, 16 every June or every September, I can't say for 17 sure -- but there was a period when I would look 18 through quite a few of the prosecution files. 19 Q. Was there any record kept of that, ie the 20 continuous review at periodic stages in the life 21 of a prosecution? 22 A. I didn't keep any records. I -- to be honest, 23 I didn't. As to whether Rob did, as Head of 24 Criminal Law Team, I don't know. 25 Q. I think it's right you conducted some of the 189 1 advocacy, is that right, in the Magistrates 2 Court? 3 A. In the Magistrates Court, yes. 4 Q. Was that just for your own cases or did you 5 conduct the advocacy on the behalf of the Post 6 Office for other case holders? 7 A. I think at the beginning, when I first started, 8 the first two years, or maybe longer, I did 9 advocacy and the KCs, and the conferences, Crown 10 Court cases for the free case holders, and also 11 mine, and depending on if there was my case 12 listed or somebody else's case listed at the 13 same time, and it would be one of the guys -- me 14 or somebody else would deal with somebody else's 15 case as well. 16 Q. So when did you stop doing advocacy? 17 A. I think towards the end because we didn't have 18 the bodies. We didn't have the lawyers to do 19 it. 20 Q. So towards the end, you mean by reference to 21 April 2012; how close to that? 22 A. I don't know, probably when I think -- Debbie 23 Stapel started working from home, then we had 24 our local agents or the barrister from Bell Yard 25 would do the advocacy. They would deal with it. 190 1 Q. To what extent were local agents or the 2 barristers from Bell Yard told that they should 3 conduct a review of the continuing merits in 4 evidential terms of a prosecution? 5 A. I think when they were briefed. Once the matter 6 was committed for -- committed to the Crown 7 Court for trial or plea -- you know, when the 8 pleas have been entered, we had a committal 9 bundle, where we sent everything to them and 10 they were asked to advise on evidence and settle 11 the indictment. 12 Then I think, you know, at that stage, they 13 would -- I would assume they would read all the 14 papers and they would advise whether those two 15 tests are met or not. 16 Q. Did you understand the advice on evidence to be: 17 (a) an Advice on evidential sufficiency, 18 pursuant to the Full Code Test of sustaining 19 an allegation or allegations under the criminal 20 law; or (b) an Advice on what evidence should be 21 obtained? 22 A. I think they would have contained both. I mean 23 sometimes -- well, it would be evidential, 24 importantly only and, secondly, they would 25 advise whether further evidence is required. 191 1 Q. So when you were sending instructions to counsel 2 to advise on evidence, you expected them to 3 advise on evidential sufficiency in maintaining 4 the proposed allegations? 5 A. I -- yes. 6 Q. Did you expect them to advise in writing? 7 A. I think most of the time they would do, but 8 there was the odd occasion where they'd just 9 phone up because they're dealing with the case 10 or long trial, two or three -- but most of the 11 time it would be an email or, I think when they 12 settled the indictment, assume they'd read the 13 papers, and they thought there was sufficient 14 evidence for the case to be, you know, put 15 forward to the -- in the Crown Court, to 16 progress in the Crown Court. 17 Q. That was my second question. 18 A. Sorry, yes. 19 Q. We're going to come on to what settling the 20 indictment meant to you. Can we just stick with 21 what the advice on evidence meant to you? 22 A. Yes, yes. 23 Q. You took your instructions to counsel to settle 24 an advice on evidence to be, "Please advise us 25 whether the evidence meets the Full Code 192 1 Test" -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- "in respect of the proposed allegations"? 4 A. Yeah, I would enclose the draft indictment or 5 the copy summons, yeah. 6 Q. Did you receive back advices on evidence saying, 7 "Charge 1, I've read the witness statement of 8 Mr A, the witness statement of Mrs B, and it 9 seems to me that, if you take those two 10 together, plus some exhibits, there's a case 11 disclosed that meets the Full Code Test"? 12 A. Sorry, say that again, sorry? 13 Q. Did you actually receive advices back from 14 barristers which said, "I've looked at the 15 papers, I've read them, and this is the evidence 16 that discloses that the Full Code Test is met"? 17 A. We had opinions, we had advice. I mean, I can't 18 tell you exactly what that -- you know, that's 19 what it said. Sometimes, you just had the 20 indictment back. But there was occasions where 21 they advised that, you know, further evidence is 22 required for this -- 23 Q. That's a slightly different issue, that further 24 evidence is required. I'm asking you what 25 advice you got back from barristers that said, 193 1 "I've looked at the papers, I've analysed them. 2 In my view, there is a realistic prospect of 3 a conviction", or "In my view there is 4 a realistic prospect of a conviction because", 5 A, B and C? 6 A. I can't recall, to be honest, if it was like 7 that. But certainly -- yes, I can't recall. 8 But there probably was occasion, such -- you 9 know, it's a while ago. 10 Q. What about settling the indictment. You send 11 instructions to a barrister to settle the 12 indictment. You get back by email a hard copy, 13 an indictment, did you infer or take from the 14 sending back of an indictment anything as to 15 evidential sufficiency? 16 A. Two ways they could have done, they done the 17 opinion plus they settled the indictment, saying 18 "We agree with it but you need to do A, B, C or 19 D", or they say, "We're happy with the 20 paperwork, lodge the indictment, here is 21 a copy". So I'd assume from that that 22 everything was in order. We got the -- we 23 complied with the witness statements and 24 whatever the barristers were, they were happy 25 with it. Yeah, yeah. I think that, you know -- 194 1 Q. So you would infer from the act of sending back 2 an indictment -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- that counsel believed that there was 5 a realistic prospect of maintaining each of the 6 counts in the indictment? 7 A. Yes, because you -- yes. That's -- yes, and the 8 other thing is sometimes I would -- well, most 9 of the time I would draft the indictment for 10 them and say "Counsel, here's a draft 11 indictment", and they would say "Jarnail, your 12 draft is fine, lodge it". So there would be 13 just one line in an email or they would even 14 attach a copy or put a copy in the post 15 depending on, you know, what period we're 16 talking about. 17 Q. When you were providing legal advice on 18 prosecution decisions and evidential 19 sufficiency, when you were assessing whether to 20 recommend a prosecution or not, did you give any 21 consideration to the accuracy of Horizon data? 22 A. I think the way it was worked out was that we 23 had a witness statement or I always asked for 24 a witness statement to say that the Horizon 25 system had been properly installed, it was 195 1 working in order, how did it operate? That was 2 the initial and then, I think subsequently, if 3 there was, in the interview, they mentioned the 4 fact that, you know, the -- there was a -- in 5 the interview, the subpostmaster mentioned the 6 fact that, you know -- pointed to say the -- you 7 know, "It was the Horizon, it wasn't me", then 8 certainly I would ask the Investigation Officers 9 to, you know, actually find out what the problem 10 is. 11 Q. So in the first of those instances where 12 somebody had not raised an issue in interview, 13 or otherwise in a defence case statement or the 14 like, you nonetheless believed it was important 15 or necessary to be able to prove that the data 16 produced by Horizon was accurate and reliable? 17 A. Yes, absolutely, yes. 18 Q. Why was that? 19 A. Because it's -- it's -- it's a machine, isn't 20 it? It's a machine. So there was a standard 21 line I certainly put in when I worked with the 22 other people when I did the advocacy, or the 23 barristers in conference used that line always 24 and they always had someone come back to say 25 that it's properly working, it was properly -- 196 1 you know, how it operated and it was working. 2 I think there was two or three things I always 3 used to put in, because it's a machine. It can 4 go wrong. So we need somebody to say, "Look" -- 5 how it operated, whether it worked or it didn't. 6 Q. So it was your view that it was a necessary 7 element -- 8 A. I -- absolutely. 9 Q. -- of the prosecution case right from the 10 beginning, irrespective of whether a prospective 11 defendant had raised a Horizon integrity issue? 12 A. Well, it was a standard one that everybody 13 agreed with and I used. I didn't look behind 14 it, or maybe I should have done. That's what we 15 did. And then we had somebody, I don't know 16 who, actually had a witness statement to that 17 effect. And then, you know, subsequently, if it 18 was raised, like the Mrs Misra case, it would 19 have been investigated and further enquiries 20 made and further documents obtained. But that's 21 the way, you know, the -- our advice was 22 structured. 23 Q. How did you satisfy yourself that there was 24 an actual loss in each case? 25 A. Well, it would be the interview, then you had 197 1 the -- 2 Q. Sorry, the interview? 3 A. Not -- well, they -- interview in the sense 4 that, you know, what's the subpostmaster's 5 explanation, what he's saying. Then you firstly 6 have the Auditors. The Auditors would go in and 7 they would sort of audit the, you know, the 8 branch and they find a shortage. Then there was 9 the interview. Then it was the operation of the 10 system itself. Then you had witness statements. 11 The access, who actually, you know, put the 12 figures on the system itself. 13 You know, that type of -- that's the sort of 14 evidential side of it, I would have looked at, 15 initially. Then as the matter progressed, you 16 got more and more evidence that adds to it. 17 Q. Was audit data or were transaction logs sought 18 as part of the initial investigation or only if 19 the subpostmaster raised the Horizon integrity 20 issue? 21 A. Well, looking back on it now I think that was 22 essentially done -- that should have been done 23 right from the outset, but it wasn't. That was 24 if the subpostmaster raised the issue or 25 subsequently Section 8 application, or -- you 198 1 know, that's when it was triggered off. But 2 the -- initially, that's -- those are the way 3 the, you know, the case actually progresses from 4 the outset. 5 And then, as and when the case progressed 6 further, further evidence -- the Horizon Issues, 7 if they came about, that's when the data 8 transaction logs were requested but they weren't 9 requested by -- I requested from the 10 Investigation Officer and the Investigation 11 Officer obtained it from whoever, and now we 12 know there they -- where they should have got it 13 and maybe they should have got it from the 14 outset, I don't know. But we didn't at that 15 stage, at that time. 16 Q. Was it your view that it was a matter for the 17 defence to raise an issue with the working of 18 the Horizon system for the defence to ask for 19 ARQ data? 20 A. I don't know whether -- it was not my view. 21 I think that's the way we operated. If it was 22 raised in interview, it certainly would have -- 23 the officer should have done that from the 24 outset. But, looking back on it now, I'm 25 surprised that nobody picked it up that that 199 1 should have been obtained, you know, initially 2 from every single case. 3 Q. Can we look at a passage in your witness 4 statement, please? 5 A. Where are we. 6 Q. It's page 34, paragraph 99 and 100. 7 A. Sorry, say it again? 8 Q. It will come up on the screen, Mr Singh. 9 Page 34, paragraphs 99 and 100. 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. Thank you. 12 A. 99, yeah. 13 Q. And 100. You're here dealing with Mr Blakey's 14 case and it's just something you say. You say: 15 "From my recollection and from reviewing the 16 documents, the workings of the Horizon system 17 were never raised as an issue and ARQ data was 18 never requested by the defence. I cannot 19 comment on any investigation as this would have 20 been carried out by the Investigation and 21 Security Team, prior to me receiving the file. 22 "Mr Blakey was represented by solicitors and 23 Counsel who were entitled to request any 24 evidence that they needed to support his 25 defence. In addition, the Defence are able to 200 1 make a Section 8 application for disclosure 2 should his legal representatives have thought 3 that evidence was being withheld from him. 4 Mr Blakey pleaded guilty and no such request was 5 made." 6 The ratio, the essence of the Court of 7 Appeal's decision in Hamilton is that obtaining 8 the evidence that the Post Office relied on to 9 prove that it had sustained a loss was not 10 something to be subcontracted to the defence to 11 raise. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. It was a necessary step for the prosecution to 14 prove the case. I think you understand that now 15 having read -- 16 A. Yes, of course, yes. 17 Q. -- the Court of Appeal's decision. Aren't you 18 here in these paragraphs throwing the obligation 19 back on the defence? Isn't that what you're 20 doing by these paragraphs? 21 A. Well, obviously I'm wrong. I mean, it should 22 have been done from the outset. I mean, yeah, 23 I agree. It should have been done from the 24 outset. That's what we did. It was wrong and, 25 I think, certainly counsel's opinion/advice 201 1 didn't come -- said that we should. Maybe one 2 of us should have done, and, you know, sort of 3 said, "No, we're not having it, we need that", 4 and that is a sad reflection of where we are 5 today, and we shouldn't be. 6 Q. Is what you express here in these paragraphs, in 7 99 and 100, essentially the view that was 8 operative throughout your time in the Post 9 Office when you prosecuted, that the obligation 10 was on the defence to raise Horizon integrity 11 and proof of loss, ie essentially reversing the 12 burden of proof? 13 A. Well, otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in, 14 would I? I mean, that's my witness statement, 15 to the best of my -- you know that's the 16 statement I made. That's what we did. But as 17 to the -- your second bit, I'm not sure I would 18 go as far as that. I mean, I don't -- I think 19 we're sort of -- I mean certainly from my point 20 of view, I'm a normal person, if I thought there 21 was something wrong, we needed to obtain it, 22 I would have done it. But, obviously, I didn't 23 and I was wrong. 24 Looking back on it, you know, it's in black 25 and white why the Court of Appeal have -- and 202 1 I accept that wholeheartedly, and I -- 2 Q. It's just that you were still saying it in your 3 witness statement here, which is 6 October 2023. 4 A. I'm saying it because that's what we did. 5 I mean, if I put it like that, how could 6 I actually say that? I can't say that, can I? 7 This is how we worked. This is how we did 8 things in the year -- you know, from the year 9 2000 to 2012. I mean, if I put -- you know, all 10 that sort of stuff, you'd be taking me to the 11 contrary view. You didn't do it, why didn't you 12 do it? Mr Blakey, why didn't -- 13 You know, maybe I'm saying too much but I do 14 feel it very strongly, I do feel really hurt 15 that we didn't, that we let 12 years go by and 16 nobody picked that up and said "Where are the 17 ARQ, how the hell are we proving this?" You 18 know, but that's the way we did and that's why 19 we are here today, and we shouldn't be here. 20 Q. That can come down, thank you. I think it's 21 right, therefore, as you tell us -- I'm not 22 going to ask for these to be put up, but it's 23 paragraphs 89, 109, 123 and 146 -- that audit 24 data was not requested in a number of criminal 25 proceedings which ended up in a conviction? 203 1 A. Please explain to me, it's late in the day, I'm 2 not as young as I used to be. Say that again, 3 slowly, please? 4 Q. You tell us passages in your witness statement 5 when you're referring to case studies that we're 6 looking at, and it's paragraphs 89, 109, 123 and 7 146, so four cases -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- that audit data was not requested in criminal 10 proceedings? 11 A. Is that what I say? Where do I say that, audit 12 data? 13 Q. Let's have a look, if you want to look at it -- 14 A. Are you talking about whatever it is, AQ, 15 whatever it is? 16 Q. ARQ data. Paragraph 89. 17 A. Sorry, yeah, hang on. 18 Q. On page 30. 19 A. 89. (The witness read to himself). 20 Yeah. 21 Q. There is no data -- 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. So what I've done is I've looked at each of the 24 passages in your statement, over four different 25 cases, where you say, "We didn't seek ARQ data 204 1 in those cases". 2 A. We didn't, no. Whether the officers did at the 3 outset, but we didn't get copies and, as I say, 4 if I'm making this statement I wouldn't be 5 saying that, would I? Certainly in the Blakey 6 case, you had Jayne Kaye explaining the system, 7 the workings of the Horizon system and the 8 operation of it, but as to the logs, they 9 weren't there. 10 Q. If we look forward to page 37, paragraph 100, 11 that's Suzanne Palmer's case, yeah? No Horizon 12 data was requested in this case, yes? 13 A. Did you say page 37? 14 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I think Mr Beer means 15 paragraph 109 -- 16 MR BEER: Oh, I'm so sorry. 17 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: -- on page 37. 18 MR BEER: Thank you. 19 A. Yeah, yeah sorry, yeah, yeah, well, that's what 20 it says. I mean, I looked at the paperwork you 21 supplied, and it wasn't there, so if it wasn't 22 there, we didn't request it or the officers 23 didn't request it. 24 Q. Page 41, please, paragraph 123. This is dealing 25 with Susan Rudkin's case, no Horizon data was 205 1 obtained in this case or requested in this case, 2 correct? 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. Paragraph 146, on page 46, at the foot of the 5 page on page 46. 6 A. Yeah, well -- 7 Q. Just scroll down, thank you: 8 "No Horizon data was requested from Fujitsu 9 in this case. However in my advice note [it 10 says] I have requested further witness 11 statements, including a statement addressing the 12 IT system? 13 A. That's the Julian Wilson case, isn't it? 14 Q. It is? 15 A. Yeah, I think that's -- I think he mentioned 16 that there's a problem with the Horizon. 17 I think I did, in my advice, ask for it but 18 subsequently counsel confirmed it. I did sort 19 of send counsel's advice and requested it but 20 it's -- subsequently Mr Wilson/counsel, they 21 pleaded guilty for the data was in hand. But 22 I -- that case was -- I think there was advised, 23 or whatever it is, subsequently, by Rob Wilson 24 and I think he also amended the charges and 25 I think also the basis of plea was agreed by him 206 1 and maybe it's something -- I don't know the ins 2 and outs of it. 3 Q. So in these cases, and there are many, many 4 more -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- the Post Office did not obtain audit data, 7 correct? 8 A. Yes, correct. 9 Q. Thank you. That can come down. 10 Why did the Post Office not routinely obtain 11 audit data to inform investigative and 12 prosecutorial decisions. 13 A. I don't know. I mean, I am not the part of the 14 team to make that decision and, like I explained 15 to you, the initial advice was formulated the 16 way I explained to you. 17 Q. At the time, why did you think it was 18 appropriate for the Post Office to launch 19 criminal proceedings against branch staff 20 without first confirming, through audit data, 21 that there was proof of an actual loss? 22 A. Well, I -- in the whole business, including the 23 lawyers -- now, of course, we were wrong, should 24 have been requested -- we didn't. We were led 25 to believe that the system was perfect. We had 207 1 training and I think even the trainer said it 2 was a foolproof system. Firstly, I think when 3 the system was first put in place, I went to 4 training and then I think when I moved to Old 5 Street on 1 April, I took a lot of our 6 barristers from the southwest, I think it was, 7 and the Midlands, for the training, and he 8 explained it in such a way that he said "Well, 9 it's foolproof. You put in what you get out", 10 type of thing. 11 Q. Sorry, who told you the system was foolproof? 12 A. The trainer. The trainers from -- who trained 13 everybody on the Horizon system, including the 14 Legal team. And I -- because I had been through 15 the Misra case, I was conscious of the fact that 16 every person who dealt with the -- with any of 17 the subpostmasters should go on that training. 18 I went on it, I took some of the barristers 19 chambers, prosecutors, and we wouldn't -- nobody 20 would prosecute unless they'd been on that 21 training. So we were obviously misled, or 22 whatever you like to call it, that the system 23 worked very well. 24 Q. Was it the Post Office's strategy to put the 25 onus on subpostmasters to request audit data in 208 1 prosecutions, rather than the Post Office 2 obtaining it and disclosing it as a matter of 3 practice? 4 A. Not that I'm aware of but, certainly, what 5 I explained to you, the way the initial advice 6 was formulated to the Investigation Team, it 7 should have done. They should have -- I mean, 8 it wouldn't have taken very long to put in 9 a paragraph instead of saying "Get in somebody 10 to do a witness statement", to actually say "No, 11 get this data". But nobody picked it up, and 12 certainly people above me, who had more 13 experience and knowledge of it didn't, and 14 I don't know whether I was in a position to do 15 it or not to do it, but certainly we didn't. 16 Q. Can we look at the way you approach things by 17 using Ms Misra's case as an example, and look at 18 POL00053746. We see this is a letter dated 19 11 January 2010 to Coomber Rich -- 20 A. Oh, yes. 21 Q. -- foot of the page, written by you. 22 A. Yeah, that's me. 23 Q. Then if we scroll up, thank you. You say: 24 "I have now reviewed the papers in the above 25 case, particularly your request for disclosure, 209 1 and comment as follows. 2 "We will respond to all reasonable requests 3 and seek material that may undermine the 4 prosecution case and support your client's 5 defence. We understand in general terms that 6 you are seeking to challenge the integrity of 7 the Horizon system. We feel obliged to point 8 out, however, that you have not as yet served 9 a defence statement which raises any issue 10 whatsoever with the Horizon system. If any 11 apparent errors were occurring in the indictment 12 period, your client should have a good knowledge 13 of what they might be, simply because she would 14 have regularly been checking the stock against 15 the Horizon records. We take the view that 16 a detailed defence statement is required in this 17 case which fully particularises any problem with 18 Horizon upon which your client would seek to 19 rely at trial. The defence statement should 20 obviously make clear what the issues in the case 21 are. At the moment, we do not know whether your 22 client still claims she was hiding thefts by 23 members of staff and to what extent those 24 alleged thefts contributed to the deficiency at 25 the office. We are handicapped in fulfilling 210 1 our disclosure obligations by the absence of 2 an adequate defence statement. The credibility 3 of your client may be also damaged at trial if 4 no adequate defence statement is served." 5 But was it the Post Office's general 6 strategy, looking at this document, to require 7 subpostmasters to fully particularise the 8 problems with the Horizon system in their 9 defence? 10 A. I can't give you an answer that but, certainly, 11 in this particular case, it's the view we took, 12 yeah -- I mean, the view I took, and I think 13 I took it on the advice of the -- I think it's 14 gone to the Crown Court, hasn't it? Where are 15 we? 16 Q. By this time it had. It was in the Crown Court. 17 A. In March, and what's the date of this email, is 18 it -- 19 Q. It's a letter and I think, if we scroll to the 20 top, we'll see it's January 2010? 21 A. That's early -- earlier in the year. I think -- 22 hmm. I don't know the details of it, from what 23 my recollection is, that it would help us to 24 assist all parties if we knew where the starting 25 point was, and I think the whole idea of 211 1 a defence statement is exactly that: what is the 2 issues? What is your client saying there about 3 the Horizon system or the operation of the 4 apparatus? 5 Q. But you were placing a burden here on the 6 subpostmaster of particularising flaws in the 7 Horizon system, weren't you? 8 A. No, I don't think so. I think the -- my 9 approach, in any case I dealt with, is always 10 incorporation, working together, and here, 11 I think -- I don't know who -- was it Issy Hogg? 12 I used to have a long conversation with her, you 13 know, and -- you know, well, not longest 14 conversations, but one or two long enough, and 15 say "Look, you know, we need to -- can you help 16 with this? Can you help with that?" And 17 I think, in turn, returned a lot of favours and 18 said to her: "Look, I can do this, I can do that 19 and then we can actually agree on certain 20 aspects of it, so that I can start sort of 21 moving or progressing this case forward". 22 So I -- the way this pads out was the 23 defence statement was, if they particularised -- 24 is it not the -- I mean I don't know -- I mean, 25 I -- going back now, I mean, trying to think on 212 1 it, is it not that the idea of the defence 2 statement is exactly that? What is your 3 client's defence? What are the issues? What 4 are the -- what are you saying that we did wrong 5 or what's -- you know, that's the way 6 I understood it, and that's where we were with 7 it. I mean, it wasn't -- 8 Q. At this time, the Post Office hadn't disclosed 9 any audit data or call logs to Mrs Misra, 10 correct? 11 A. I don't know. I mean, I -- 12 Q. Take it from me, the Post Office had not 13 disclosed any call logs or audit data to 14 Mrs Misra by 11 January 2010? 15 A. Yeah -- 16 Q. How was Mrs Misra to fully particularise the 17 Horizon Issues experienced at West Byfleet 18 without at least access to that information? 19 A. It's a while ago. I mean, I -- I can only go by 20 what I've read and what the paperwork you sent 21 me -- I think there was no ulterior motive in 22 that. I think that the only way would be -- is 23 to try to assist and agree, you know, the 24 starting point more than anything else. I mean, 25 if it was up to me, I would have more or less 213 1 said, "Look, from the moment she started work, 2 or even the year before, here's the data and 3 even the year after", but the thing is it wasn't 4 as simple as that, and that's -- probably my 5 mistake in this case was that I thought it was 6 straightforward. 7 You know, the Post Office would want to 8 provide it but, then they had all sorts of 9 contract and agreement with the third party. 10 That's where the problem laid. But that here, 11 it wasn't what you're suggesting. I mean 12 certainly not when I read that email. It was 13 really a starting point with a view to 14 progressing it and trying to assist the defence 15 any which way I could. 16 Sorry, it's a long answer, I shouldn't 17 really -- no, that's not what this is about. 18 Q. You tell us in your witness statement at 19 paragraph 256 that you played a role in 20 obtaining the audit data in the criminal 21 proceedings against Mrs Misra because it was 22 required by the Investigation and Security Team; 23 okay? 24 A. To -- 156? 25 Q. Again, I'm sure your solicitor will say 214 1 something if I missummarise? 2 A. No, no, sorry, I take it. Sorry, about that. 3 Of course. 4 Q. It slows it down if every time we have to go 5 back and -- 6 A. No, no, no, sorry, of course. 7 Q. I'm just summarising, so we don't have to get it 8 up on the screen. 9 A. No, perfect. 10 Q. You tell us that you played a role in obtaining 11 the audit data in the proceedings against 12 Mrs Misra because it was required by the 13 Investigation and Security Team, okay? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can we look, please, at UKGI00014895, please. 16 It's an email from the defence solicitor, Issy 17 Hogg, to you, saying: 18 "We refer to Judge Critchlow's order ..." 19 There's a problem with their office system. 20 "We ... enclose a request for disclosure." 21 Third paragraph: 22 "We note that your response ... makes 23 a suggestion that our expert meets with your 24 investigating officer and representatives of 25 Fujitsu. Can we endorse that and emphasise that 215 1 we have, since July last year, been requesting 2 that our expert has access to data records, 3 a request that has been repeatedly rebuffed on 4 the grounds of cost and the work involved." 5 Why was the Post Office refusing to provide 6 Mrs Misra's defence expert with access to audit 7 data? 8 A. I don't know now but I -- certainly, it was out 9 of my hands. I think I did as much as I could, 10 but then there was that contractual commercial 11 relationship that the Post Office had with 12 Fujitsu, but it wasn't something that I didn't 13 want, or obstructing. I mean, obviously I'm the 14 lawyer in the case. I did all I could to 15 progress it, help it along, but it was -- 16 Q. You knew that the only way to test whether 17 a problem had arisen at a particular office was 18 for a detailed analysis to be undertaken of the 19 relevant transaction logs, the audit data, at 20 a particular branch, didn't you? 21 A. Yes. No, I accept that but, I mean, it was not 22 lack of trying and not obtaining it. I wanted 23 to obtain it. I mean, I think if you go back -- 24 you know, I don't know, September, October, 25 November, the first thing I did was to actually 216 1 copy -- copied in the investigation and said, 2 "Look, this is what the defence want disclosed. 3 This is their enquiries. Please deal with it". 4 Then I think subsequently matters transpired 5 that it did. 6 Q. If we fast forward a couple of years, three 7 years or so, to POL00060974, and look at page 3, 8 please. Sorry, it's the bottom of page 2. If 9 we scroll down, please, four lines up from the 10 bottom, you say: 11 "The only way to test whether a problem has 12 arisen at a particular office is for a detailed 13 analysis of the relevant transaction logs to be 14 undertaken as happened in the Misra case." 15 Then over the page: 16 "I imagine that the independent inquiry will 17 be examining some, perhaps all, of the cases on 18 Second Sight's requested schedule. In none of 19 these cases were the transaction logs ever 20 examined? This is time consuming and expensive 21 though it may be the only way to investigate the 22 concerns raised by these former 23 [subpostmasters]." 24 So you knew that the only way to test 25 whether a problem had arisen at a branch was for 217 1 a detailed analysis of the transaction logs, 2 didn't you? 3 A. Yes. Well, I said so in black and white. 4 Q. So if that was the only way to test whether 5 there were Horizon Issues at a branch, why 6 wasn't that obtained in each investigation and 7 in each prosecution case? 8 A. Well, I -- you know, as you -- as previous, 9 we -- that's the way the Post Office operated. 10 That's the way they dealt with it, like 11 I previously advised -- as I previously told 12 you. 13 Q. Do you accept that expense and time is not 14 a sufficient reason to obtain the audit data if 15 it was the only way to determine whether there 16 were problems at a branch? 17 A. That, the expense and the time consuming bit, 18 didn't affect me at all. I wanted it but it 19 was -- 20 Q. That's an answer to a different question. Do 21 you accept that time and expense is not 22 a reason -- 23 A. No, it's not a reason. 24 Q. -- to not obtain the data? 25 A. Not when somebody's liberty is at stake and the 218 1 other things that I read from the impact 2 statements, no. 3 Q. Okay, we'll go back to the story, then, back in 4 February 2010. FUJ00122713. We've looked at 5 the defence requests already for disclosure, 6 from Issy Hogg, of audit data. Can we look now, 7 please, at an email to you from David Jones, if 8 we just scroll down a little bit further. 9 Thank you. You can see he's the Head of 10 Legal in Fujitsu. 11 A. Yeah, yeah. 12 Q. If we scroll up we can see the date of this, 13 February 2010. 14 "Jarnail, 15 "Thanks for your email ... 16 "I met this morning with Gareth Jenkins who 17 came back into the office briefly to meet with 18 me. Gareth will help with this matter." 19 Next paragraph: 20 "Attached is a first draft of a statement 21 from Gareth ... 22 "You will see that there are some areas 23 where Fujitsu cannot deal with the Defendant's 24 expert's criticisms as they are about POL's 25 procedures or requirements and it seems evident 219 1 there will be a need for a POL internal 'expert' 2 who can work with Gareth to deal with these 3 areas." 4 Then this: 5 "One concern is that the [Post Office 6 Limited] have not apparently requested 7 transaction data for West Byfleet for the period 8 and transactions in question. This would 9 normally be provided in previous cases and would 10 include Fujitsu extracting log files from the 11 system to enable us to provide details of 12 transactions. Surprisingly, this has not been 13 requested in this case. Perhaps you would 14 consider the need for this." 15 So it wasn't just the defence that were 16 saying to you that you need to obtain the audit 17 data; it was the people who developed, operated 18 and ran the system were telling you it too, 19 weren't they? 20 A. Yes, yes. There's no dispute about that. Yes, 21 of course. You need them. It's essential. 22 It's a must. 23 Q. Was audit data ever requested before a person 24 was suspended or dismissed? 25 A. I don't know. That's a question for the 220 1 Investigation Team. I didn't get involved in 2 that. 3 Q. Did you ever see a case in which audit data was 4 obtained before a person was suspended or 5 dismissed? 6 A. As I said to you, the Legal team saw the 7 investigation file. We -- what happened prior 8 to it, it didn't -- I can't say. 9 Q. Was audit data ever obtained before the file was 10 submitted to you for advice? 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Did you ever see an advice file that contained 13 audit data where you were asked to advise on 14 evidential sufficiency, ie before the lawyer was 15 asked to advise? 16 A. Not any of my files, no. 17 Q. Is the answer to the question, I was about to 18 ask why, the same as before: "It's just because 19 we didn't do it that way"? 20 A. Yeah. Are you asking specifically about 21 Mrs Misra here or are you asking generally? 22 Q. Generally. 23 A. Yeah. Well, you've read the papers. That's 24 what it is. 25 Q. Can we move forwards, please, to FUJ00122735. 221 1 This is the same day. Mr Jones, Head of Legal 2 at Fujitsu, forwarding you an email from 3 Mr Jenkins, saying: 4 "Please see attached and Gareth's comments 5 on the need for an examination of the underlying 6 log files and timing of this." 7 If we scroll down, please. 8 Mr Jenkins said: 9 "The simple answer is that without 10 retrieving the logs everybody is speculating and 11 as discussed this morning nobody has bothered to 12 ask us for any logs. At this stage it is not at 13 all clear what transactions are thought to be 14 missing at what time or even in what time 15 period. Analysing logs over a long period is 16 very, very time consuming. This is not going to 17 happen by Monday." 18 So again, the defence solicitor was asking, 19 the Head of Legal for the firm that developed 20 and operated the system was asking, and 21 Mr Jenkins, the proposed witness, was asking for 22 the logs -- the ARQ data -- to be obtained. Why 23 hadn't it happened by now? 24 A. Well, I think you've got the emails. 25 I certainly requested it. It's really 222 1 an internal matter for the other departments. 2 I think if you -- from the emails you've 3 provided me with, there's a lot of emails which 4 I'm not copied into, whereby the Head of Fujitsu 5 Legal, David Jones, is having conversations 6 about that with the Commercial and Contract 7 Teams of the Post Office. And I think, at the 8 same time, the Investigation Officer says all he 9 can to get authority. And I think when we do 10 obtain authority, we got Penny Thomas, who was 11 the Prosecution Support Team, who -- Fujitsu 12 work with the Post Office, asking it's got to be 13 done in a certain way by a certain person within 14 the Post Office. 15 So that's where the answer is. It's not 16 because I don't want it or didn't request it; 17 it's the way the whole system operated. 18 Q. Can we see what you did when you were confronted 19 with this three-pronged request: defence 20 solicitor, Fujitsu and Mr Jenkins. 21 FUJ00152957, look at page 2, please. 22 I should just look at page 1, so you can see the 23 date of this, and scroll down. That's it. 24 Yes, your email, your secretary, on behalf 25 of you, to David Jones, 8 February. We've just 223 1 been looking at email exchanges of 5 February, 2 so we're three days later now. Over the page, 3 please, you say, fourth paragraph: 4 "We are keen that the defence are given 5 suggestions as to how they can efficiently test 6 their theories against the Horizon data. We 7 don't want them to say they will not have time 8 before the trial. We anticipate that it would 9 not be very difficult to test their theories 10 against a short but ..." 11 I think that's supposed to be 12 "representative"; is that right? 13 A. Yeah, represented, yeah. 14 Q. "... but [representative] span of data [for] 15 example from the months when Mrs Misra has 16 admitted false accounting, (15 November to 17 14 December 2006, 16 May to 16 June 2007, 18 14 November 2007 to 15 December 2007 and 19 9 January 2008). It would be helpful if 20 Mr Jenkins could consider practical and 21 efficient ways in which the defence might be 22 able to test their theories." 23 So you said that the Post Office essentially 24 was keen for a short but representative span of 25 data. Where did you get these dates from? 224 1 A. Well, I'm now working with the barrister in the 2 case. I'm conscious of the fact of the 3 complexity of the case. So what I'm doing is 4 two things: firstly saying, "Look, this is where 5 we are. What do we do?" and I think his advice 6 has been, "Well, let them start with this", and 7 that's more or less what I have asked. 8 Q. These dates seemed to be dates for the months in 9 respect of which Mrs Misra admitted to false 10 accounting. 11 A. I think -- 12 Q. What was the relevance of those months? 13 A. I don't know. I mean, looking -- the problem 14 I have today is that -- or generally has been, 15 is -- because I can't go back in time. I mean, 16 at that time, obviously I had more detail, a lot 17 more information as to where we are. Today 18 I can't give an explanation as to where I got 19 the dates. 20 But, certainly, you know, it would have been 21 from advice and discussions with the trial, you 22 know, the barrister who had been briefed or 23 instructed on that, because that's the way 24 I worked. I have always -- before I'm making 25 these sort of decisions, I would always get 225 1 a formulated, constructive advice before I move 2 forward. And I was given those dates, "This 3 would be helpful, and suggest that". Then 4 I did. 5 Q. So do you think you got those from Mr Tatford? 6 A. Yes, I would have, yes. 7 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 8 Sir, that's a convenient moment to break for 9 the day. 10 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. Thank you very much. 11 I don't suppose you will want to talk about 12 this case overnight, Mr Singh, but if you do, 13 please don't. All right? 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. 15 SIR WYN WILLIAMS: We'll resume again at 10.00 16 tomorrow morning. 17 MR BEER: Thank you, sir. 18 (4.27 pm) 19 (The hearing adjourned until 10.00 20 the following day) 21 22 23 24 25 226 I N D E X JARNAIL SINGH (sworn) .........................3 Questioned by MR BEER .........................3 227