15 December 2023 – Andrzej Bolc
Hide video Show video
(10.00 am)
Mr Blake: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear me?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, I can, thank you.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much, sir. This morning we’re going to hear from Mr Bolc.
Andrzej Bolc
ANDRZEJ KONRAD BOLC (sworn).
Questioned by Mr Blake
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. Can you give your full name, please?
Andrzej Bolc: Andrzej Konrad Bolc, known as Andrew.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much, Mr Bolc. You should have in front of you a bundle containing a witness statement behind tab A.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Is that statement dated 28 November 2023?
Andrzej Bolc: It is.
Mr Blake: Can I ask you to turn to the final substantive page, that’s page 19?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can you confirm that is your signature?
Andrzej Bolc: It is.
Mr Blake: Is that statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Andrzej Bolc: It is. Can I say I need to make an amendment in relation to one aspect of it. It relates to paragraph 29 and 46.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. Are those the paragraphs relating to your knowledge of bugs, errors or defects in the Horizon system? Can you just clarify for us what is the amendment that you would like to make?
Andrzej Bolc: Subsequent to this statement, I received further documentation including an email I was copied into. It related to the case of Wylie, in that it mentioned that in the instance of a terminal failure, the transaction, that incident transaction, wouldn’t be recorded. To that extent, I suspect that would be counted as potentially a defect in the system.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. That witness statement, WITN09670100, is now in evidence and will be published on the Inquiry’s website in due course.
I want to begin today by asking you about your background. You joined Cartwright King in 2006 as an assistant solicitor; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Mr Blake: Were you a solicitor somewhere else before or was that your first job as a solicitor?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I worked as a solicitor from qualification in 1995 at a different firm.
Mr Blake: Up until you joined Cartwright King?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Was that a role involving prosecution or defence or something else?
Andrzej Bolc: Criminal legal aid defence work.
Mr Blake: Thank you, you were promoted to senior associate shortly before you joined Cartwright King –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – and you spent several years in the Higher Courts Advocacy Department; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Mr Blake: Then you joined, I think, what you’ve called the Private Prosecutions Department; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can you recall what year it was that you joined that Private Prosecutions Department?
Andrzej Bolc: 2012.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. Were there a number of different private prosecutions that were carried out by Cartwright King within that department?
Andrzej Bolc: So one of the directors of the firm had previous experience of prosecutions with the Royal Mail Group, and RSPCA, Environment Agency and maybe some others.
Mr Blake: Thank you. How many of you were involved in Post Office prosecutions?
Andrzej Bolc: There was a director overseeing matters, myself, Martin Smith, and a couple of in-house counsel. Throughout the period other people would come and out to do pieces of work.
Mr Blake: You said there was somebody supervising. Who was that?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I don’t know about supervising but the director was Andy Cash.
Mr Blake: Thank you. Do yous report directly to Andy Cash –
Andrzej Bolc: Um –
Mr Blake: – or was there somebody in between the two of you?
Andrzej Bolc: Potentially Martin Smith and then Andy Cash –
Mr Blake: Thank you.
Andrzej Bolc: – maybe in that order.
Mr Blake: In terms of people who were directly involved in Post Office prosecutions, we have yourself, you’ve mentioned Andy Cash, I think you’ve mentioned Martin Smith; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Mr Blake: We’ll see the name Rachael Panter?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can you assist us with who she was?
Andrzej Bolc: I believe she was an assistant solicitor at the time. She helped with the evidence provided by Gareth Jenkins, primarily, I believe, and some casework assistance.
Mr Blake: Did you supervise her or was there a working relationship between the two of you?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, we worked together. I wasn’t her supervisor.
Mr Blake: You were the senior associate; she was, I think you said, an assistant solicitor at that time?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Was there somebody who you both reported to or supervised the two of you together?
Andrzej Bolc: I don’t recall a specific supervision structure.
Mr Blake: That’s three, four names. Were there more people involved in Post Office prosecutions?
Andrzej Bolc: On an ad hoc basis there were some others, I don’t recall. There were some in-house counsel, Mr Clarke, Mr Bowyer, some other in-house counsel, on occasion, I believe.
Mr Blake: One of those is Harry Bowyer; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Mr Blake: What was your relationship with Mr Bowyer?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, in what respect?
Mr Blake: Did you work next to each other, in the same room?
Andrzej Bolc: So I worked out of the Leicester office by myself primarily, and Mr Smith worked in Derby. I believe the others were based in Derby, certainly from July 2013. I can’t be certain where they were based before that.
Mr Blake: Was there a reason why you were based in a separate office at all?
Andrzej Bolc: I had always worked in Leicester.
Mr Blake: Were there others working on the Post Office prosecutions in Leicester with you?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I believe my trainee at that time, at some point, got involved and assisted with attending court on one or two cases potentially.
Mr Blake: Thank you. Were there regular meetings between those who prosecuted on the Post Office’s behalf?
Andrzej Bolc: There were meetings. I can’t say that they were regular. Most of the communication would have been potentially via email or over the phone.
Mr Blake: Was there somebody who took responsibility for training you all or informing you all?
Andrzej Bolc: Not that I’m aware of, no.
Mr Blake: You’ve described in your witness statement as acting as an agent for the Post Office?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: What did you understand acting as an agent to mean?
Andrzej Bolc: I think I said in my statement that the role was quite unspecified and it wasn’t clear exactly where our duties started and ended in terms of the overall prosecutions.
Mr Blake: Was there somebody who informed you about the role that you were to play?
Andrzej Bolc: In what respect?
Mr Blake: Well, let’s take Cartwright King on the one hand. Was there somebody at Cartwright King who said that you, as an agent, played a particular role or were governed by a particular policy?
Andrzej Bolc: No, not that I recall.
Mr Blake: Who did you consider to be the prosecutor for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, the prosecuting authority I considered to be Post Office Limited.
Mr Blake: Did you consider yourself to be bound by the same regulatory framework and standards when you were acting for the Post Office, as when you were acting for other private prosecutors?
Andrzej Bolc: I would have thought so, yes.
Mr Blake: Can you assist us with understanding the relationship between Cartwright King and the Post Office in terms of delineation of responsibilities at all?
Andrzej Bolc: As I say, I think that was very blurred, as far as I was concerned.
Mr Blake: Let’s take as an example a disclosure schedule. Did you see that as your responsibility or the responsibility of the Post Office?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, the disclosure schedules in the cases I dealt with were sent to me, so I took responsibility for them, yes.
Mr Blake: In terms of your relationship with the Post Office, was there somebody in particular who you liaised with?
Andrzej Bolc: The Head of the Criminal Law Team was Jarnail Singh, so he was my main point of contact with the Post Office.
Mr Blake: Were there others who you liaised with that you can recall?
Andrzej Bolc: The Investigators.
Mr Blake: Thank you. Do you remember when you first met Jarnail Singh at all?
Andrzej Bolc: I remember where I met him. It was at the Derby office. I’d been called there for a meet and greet session, I believe, with him.
Mr Blake: I think you said you joined in 2012. Was it February/March 2012?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, from the documentation I’ve seen it was around that time, yes.
Mr Blake: Is it around that time that you met Jarnail Singh for the first time?
Andrzej Bolc: It must have been pretty soon afterwards. I can’t say when.
Mr Blake: Did you have any views as to his abilities?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I did.
Mr Blake: Can you assist us with what those might have been?
Andrzej Bolc: I wondered how he was in the position he was.
Mr Blake: Why do you say that?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure he was suited to the responsibilities that he had.
Mr Blake: Can you elaborate a little more?
Andrzej Bolc: It’s difficult to say, really. I just –
Mr Blake: You’re being quite diplomatic.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Was there anything about his abilities as a lawyer as you had concerns about?
Andrzej Bolc: I wasn’t sure about his abilities, no.
Mr Blake: How about his conduct as a lawyer?
Andrzej Bolc: Again, at times, it did raise an eyebrow.
Mr Blake: Can you give us an example?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m struggling to give you a specific example but perhaps some of the language he used.
Mr Blake: What do you mean by that?
Andrzej Bolc: He liked to keep things very simple. In terms of his understanding of the computer system, he described it as, I believe, a “fancy computer”: “It adds money in, it deducts money going out. What could go wrong?” I think was the phrase he used, which I thought was somewhat of an oversimplification.
Mr Blake: Sometimes we’ve heard in this Inquiry we’ve heard reference to a calculator. Did you mean computer or calculator?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, yes, a calculator. A “fancy calculator” is how he described it.
Mr Blake: Thank you. At paragraph 2 of your statement you say, “I was told I would be assisted by experienced Investigators”. You say that you were told that you would be assisted by experienced Investigators. Are we to read anything into your choice of words in your statement?
Andrzej Bolc: No, exactly that.
Mr Blake: But was the reality any different?
Andrzej Bolc: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Well, they were certainly experienced, I believe. Yes.
Mr Blake: I think you’re suggesting perhaps that experience doesn’t equate to competence; is that what I’m to read into –
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure I would go that far but perhaps they were set in a certain way of doing things, yes.
Mr Blake: Which way was that?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, in terms of their investigation of the cases perhaps wasn’t as thorough as it could have been.
Mr Blake: Was that something that you were concerned about at the time or is that a later realisation?
Andrzej Bolc: I think it became a later realisation, yes.
Mr Blake: You also have said in your witness statement that the Post Office regularly instructed counsel that were familiar with the prosecutions?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Did that also turn out to be incorrect or was that a fair summary of the position?
Andrzej Bolc: In the cases I dealt with, the counsel instructed was John Gibson and I understood he had dealt with a number of these cases before.
Mr Blake: Do you have any views as to his conduct of the cases that he dealt with for you?
Andrzej Bolc: Not particularly that I recall. I never met him in person.
Mr Blake: I want to ask you in general terms about the prosecutions you had conduct of. You say that the first Green Jacket files were passed to you in March 2012. Can you assist us with what a Green Jacket file is?
Andrzej Bolc: I believe it was the Investigator’s investigation file, essentially. It contained what I believed to be the documents that had been amassed during the course of their investigation, including an investigator’s report and a letter from the business unit.
Mr Blake: Would you receive that directly from the Investigator, from the business unit or from a lawyer?
Andrzej Bolc: It just arrived on my desk, I don’t know –
Mr Blake: In hard copy?
Andrzej Bolc: In hard copy, indeed, yes.
Mr Blake: I think you said your first case was in March 2012; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: I believe so, yes.
Mr Blake: We’re going to come to case studies probably later this morning, Sefton and Nield and also the case of Allen.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Were they your first or was there an earlier case you were involved in?
Andrzej Bolc: They were the first – the very first handful of cases I gave advice on. There was a case of Bramwell, which seemed to be coming to its conclusion and that was included with the pile of cases that I was given.
Mr Blake: Do you think Bramwell was probably the first prosecution you were involved in, in that case?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Let’s start by looking at a Bramwell chain of emails. Can we look at FUJ00156530 and if we could start looking at page 3, please.
Thank you very much. We have there an email from Emma Haley at Stone King. Can you assist us with what the relationship was at Stone King?
Andrzej Bolc: I think they’ve been instructed by the Post Office to deal with the case locally.
Mr Blake: So despite both having the name “King” in your titles –
Andrzej Bolc: No relation, yes.
Mr Blake: – no relationship at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Did you, as a firm, assist Stone King? Did they assist you? Did they pass cases on to you?
Andrzej Bolc: As far as I can recall, this was the only case that we had any dealings with them.
Mr Blake: Okay. This email, 13 March, that’s pretty early on in your time?
Andrzej Bolc: Absolutely, yes.
Mr Blake: It’s about the case of Bramwell, and she says:
“Counsel would, bluntly, like Fujitsu, like to pour as much cold water as possible on the defence report. If the expert is saying we cannot disagree with anything at all, then we are potentially in some difficulty. I have asked Counsel to provide a specific list of questions, but really the essence is: how much, if anything, can we rebut? And can we explain the accounting system to a jury in a way they will find easy to understand?”
So it looks as though, from a very early stage, you’re being made aware that there are issues raised in a prosecution regarding the Fujitsu Horizon system?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, you could say that, yes.
Mr Blake: There’s then reference to barrister training in Cardiff. This is an email we’ve seen before in this Inquiry. Are you aware of what that involved at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: If we scroll up, you then send the email to Graham Brander, who is the Security Manager at the Post Office.
Andrzej Bolc: I think he was the Investigator.
Mr Blake: Thank you. You say:
“Could you see if Fujitsu can work with these rather vague instructions, otherwise I think the only way forward is for you to meet with Sue as soon as possible to help her understand the system and iron out the specifics … “
If we scroll up on the second page, thank you. There is then an email from Graham Brander to Penny Thomas at Fujitsu, who points her to the email below, and he says:
“Counsel would like Gareth to advise on what from the defence expert report faxed to you last week that he is able to rebut if anything.”
So quite early on in your career at Cartwright King it seems as though you are having some sort of involvement with Gareth Jenkins; is that right?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, it is.
Mr Blake: Thank you. I’d like to move on to another email, and that’s POL00096464. We’re sticking still with the case of Bramwell. Thank you.
If we look at the bottom email on that page, we have Rachael Panter. So you’ve said she was the associate solicitor at Cartwright King, or assistant solicitor, sorry?
Andrzej Bolc: I think so. I’m not sure exactly what her title was.
Mr Blake: 10 April. She is sending you emails regarding Chris Bramwell and if we scroll down, that includes, if we scroll down to the bottom of the second page, a chain from Gareth Jenkins who says:
“I was asked a couple of weeks ago about papers covering Horizon integrity.
“I have a couple of such papers and it has now been agreed I can pass them on to you.”
There are two papers that he is attaching there, one on Horizon integrity and the other on Horizon Online integrity.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: One further document I’d like to look at and that is POL00058016. We’re now moving to June 2012. I’ll take you to the case studies in due course but I’m just looking in very broad terms at the kinds of issues that were cropping up quite early on in your time at Cartwright King. The bottom of page 1, we have an email of 12 June from Rachael Panter, to yourself, Andy Cash and Martin Smith. She says:
“Dear All
“I have saved a copy on my personal file of a Fujitsu report which covers all aspects to do with the integrity of the Horizon system. I think we forgot that we had this and they are very expensive to have done. Luckily it is a generic report that is not specific to one particular case and will be able to assist you when drafting advices where the integrity of the Horizon system can be called into question.
“I will scan and save a copy of the [Post Office] file for you to access when needed. We have the case …”
This the case of Wylie. I know it’s redacted there, we actually have an unredacted version that will be uploaded to the document management system in due course for Core Participants to view:
“… in Newcastle at the moment where counsel has encountered problems with defence solicitors in the past where they had questioned the Horizon system and unfortunately due to not having any evidence to rebut such criticisms, had to drop the case against them. This report should hopefully prevent [that] from happening.”
If we scroll on the first page to the substantive email halfway down that page – just pausing there actually, the Horizon integrity, the report that she is referring to, do you recall that document?
Andrzej Bolc: No. No, I’m not sure if it’s the same one that was subsequently served or not.
Mr Blake: There’s a later document that we will come to but this is June 2012. How about the case of Wylie and the Newcastle case? Was that something you were aware of?
Andrzej Bolc: Only in the sense of being referred to it in this email chain but otherwise not.
Mr Blake: Issues about the cost of obtaining a report from Fujitsu, is that something you were familiar with?
Andrzej Bolc: Certainly became aware of that, yes.
Mr Blake: You became aware of that?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: We’ll see in due course various emails on that, approximately when do you think you became aware of the cost issues?
Andrzej Bolc: It could have been triggered by this email, I suppose.
Mr Blake: Did you have a view or do you have a view on using a generic report to rebut the criticisms of the Horizon system?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I think each case was specific. So I would have thought any report would have needed to address those specifics to be of any worth.
Mr Blake: If we look at that top email we have from Andy Cash to “all.Prosecution”, so was that a generic email address for everybody involved in Post Office prosecutions or was that the prosecutions team in general at Cartwright King?
Andrzej Bolc: I think they would have overlapped, yes.
Mr Blake: He says:
“I copy this to all prosecution team for info. Rachael, Martin and Andy B have most of the work in hand now and we are building some good relationships with officers.
“Rachael Excellent, well done on securing this resource.”
Then he talks about a chat with Jarnail Singh. It seems as though Rachael, Martin and yourself are identified as those with most of the work in that area, is that a fair –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – description?
Andrzej Bolc: It is.
Mr Blake: I’d now like to move to July, so the next month in 2012. Can we look at POL00026567, please. This is an Advice written by Harry Bowyer who I think you’ve said was an advocate, he was a barrister employed by Cartwright King?
Andrzej Bolc: In-house barrister, yes.
Mr Blake: An in-house barrister, thank you. Do you remember this advice at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: I’d like to take you through the advice and see what you recall of the contents of the advice in terms of broad picture, having been at Cartwright King at the relevant time.
Andrzej Bolc: Can I just say, I’ve just seen this, this morning.
Mr Blake: Yes. We’re going to start on paragraph 1. This is talking about the Wylie case, so that’s the Newcastle case that we’ve just been looking at in emails. He says as follows. He says:
“In interview she attempted to blame the shortfall on the Horizon accounting system. In my early advice I advised that we would need to prove the integrity of the Horizon system as there was apocryphal evidence on the Internet and elsewhere that the system was leading to injustice.”
Now, I had to look up the word apocryphal. It means “doubtful authenticity”. Do you recall that being the view of your colleagues at Cartwright King at the time, that around summer of 2012, there was evidence of doubtful authenticity on the Internet and elsewhere that Horizon integrity was –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I would have been aware of that. I can’t say exactly when but yes. Pretty soon into the process, yes.
Mr Blake: Was the view of your colleagues, and perhaps yourself, that that evidence on the Internet was not of substance?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure if I had a view on that. I tried to deal with the evidence that was presented to me, rather than rely on what the Internet said.
Mr Blake: But if you believed what was on the Internet, no doubt that would have been a very serious matter, wouldn’t it?
Andrzej Bolc: Of concern, absolutely, yes.
Mr Blake: So were you not concerned about it as at the summer of 2012?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes, you were concerned or weren’t concerned?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: You were concerned about problems with Horizon in the summer of 2012?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Paragraph 2, please.
“The position of Post Office Ltd has, up until now, always been robust. When the system has been challenged in the criminal courts the system has always been successful defended. I understand that the Post Office has announced that it has appointed independent forensic accountants, Second Sight Limited to conduct an interpreter review of 10 cases based on the Horizon system. Whether this announcement was well considered or not is not an area that I intend to address but the bell cannot be unrung and there will be consequences that will have to be dealt with.”
Were you aware, at that time, of concerns at Cartwright King about the consequences of the Second Sight investigation?
Andrzej Bolc: I don’t recall exactly when I knew that that Second Sight investigation had begun.
Mr Blake: If we say broadly the summer of 2012, so six months or less into your time at Cartwright King, were you aware of concerns about the impact of the Second Sight investigation or potential impact of the Second Sight –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, at some point, yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you. If we could now look at paragraph 3. He says:
“The first consequence is that we have now given new ammunition to those attempting to discredit the Horizon system. The argument will be that there is no smoke without fire and we would not have needed to audit a bomb proof system. We can expect this to go viral in that any competent defence solicitor advising in a case such as this will raise the integrity of the Horizon system and put us to proof as to its integrity.”
Is that a concern that you shared at that time?
Andrzej Bolc: It was a concerned that was filtered through to me and hence the need to get a report from someone to say that the system was robust, yes.
Mr Blake: Are you able to assist us with how it was filtered to you?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall.
Mr Blake: We look at paragraph 4, please. Paragraph 4 says:
“The extra evidence which we will be obliged to gather will be as nothing in comparison to the potential disclosure problems that we may face. Until the Second Sight investigation is concluded we will be in a limbo.”
Was that a concern that you had at that time?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry?
Mr Blake: Did you consider that there may be implications as to whether or not to actually proceed at all with prosecutions whilst the Second Sight investigation was ongoing?
Andrzej Bolc: In terms of staying the proceedings and the like; is that what you mean?
Mr Blake: Yes.
Andrzej Bolc: I have to be honest, it’s not something I’d considered personally. I would have thought that would have been a decision taken at a higher level within the Post Office.
Mr Blake: The disclosure problems that we may face, though, were something that you were aware of. The potential implications for disclosure of Second Sight’s investigation, was that a firm-wide concern?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t be sure.
Mr Blake: Can we look at paragraph 5, please. Paragraph 5 says:
“I assume that we still contend that the system foolproof in which case we should defend it aggressively.”
Pausing there, did you consider that it was appropriate for a prosecutor to defend the Horizon system aggressively? Do you think that’s an appropriate term to use for a prosecutor?
Andrzej Bolc: Possibly not, no.
Mr Blake: “I understand that the manufacturers have not been helpful up until now. My understanding is that they will not provide expert evidence without large fees being sought.”
That’s something we discussed earlier about costs of –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – of assistance.
Andrzej Bolc: It certainly was an issue, yes.
Mr Blake: “This will not do. If the integrity of the system is compromised then the consequences will be catastrophic for all of us including them.”
Just pausing there: “all of us”. Were you aware at that time of general concerns within Cartwright King of the implications with the firm itself?
Andrzej Bolc: I think I was aware it was a hot potato, if I could put it that way.
Mr Blake: “The financial consequences of convictions and confiscation orders being overturned and confidence in the Post Office bookkeeping being restored for future prosecutions will be astronomical. They should be made to understand that this is a firefighting situation and it’s not just our house that would be burned down if of the system were compromised.”
Again, “our house”.
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure exactly what he’s referring to.
Mr Blake: Absolutely. I’m not asking you to interpret his words but the feel of this advice is that there were serious concerns within Cartwright King about the implications for the firm. Did you understand that feeling at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure that I did, in that sense. I knew that this was a serious issue.
Mr Blake: If we go down to paragraph 6, please. He makes three recommendations of things that he considers should be done. The first is:
“We should identify the contested cases, civil and criminal, in which the Horizon system has been challenged. We should identify the areas of challenge and how we neutralise them. Any expert reports should be retained for evaluation. An expert should be identified and instructed to prepare a generic statement which confirms the integrity of the system and why the attacks so far have been unfounded. This expert should be deployed in all cases where the Horizon system is challenged and he should be prepared to be called to reply to defence experts on a case-by-case basis.”
Is that something at that time that you were aware of, that there was a proposal for a generic statement to be obtained from an expert?
Andrzej Bolc: I was aware that they needed to get a statement. I wasn’t sure if it was supposed to be generic or not.
Mr Blake: The second recommendation:
“The material gathered should be monitoring and added on a case-by-case basis for disclosure. It would be sensible to have a nominated individual in charge to whom the case officers can come. There is little point in weaving a web without having a spider in it.”
“The material should be monitored and added on a case by case basis for disclosure”; were you aware of a central hub that was developing for disclosure purposes?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Third, he said this:
“We should ascertain why we have decided to instruct Second Sight limited.”
Just pausing there, we’ll see the use of “we” and “our” quite often there. At Cartwright King, was it quite common to refer to “us” when talking about Post Office prosecutions or was there something …
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure, to be honest, no.
Mr Blake: “I presume that it was not because of any doubts that we had in our system. If so, we should be robust in stating that is so. I presume our thinking was that as we have nothing to hide, we have no objection to our practices being scrutinised in which case we should say so.”
He finishes on paragraph 7 by saying:
“I can appreciate that the above might be expensive but it will be as nothing should the integrity of the Horizon System be compromised.”
It seems from this advice that a colleague of yours was seriously worried about the Horizon system being undermined.
Andrzej Bolc: Mm.
Mr Blake: Was that a concern that was widely shared with your small group of colleagues?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, in what sense?
Mr Blake: The concern set out in quite strong terms in this advice, but irrespective of the terms, was the challenge to the integrity of the Horizon system something that featured quite prominently amongst the team at Cartwright King?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I would have thought so because a lot of the prosecutions were based on the evidence of the system.
Mr Blake: Let look briefly at another email. It’s POL00141396. This is an email from Andy Cash passing on this advice from Harry Bowyer to Jarnail Singh. It’s the same day. He says:
“Dear Jarnail,
“I enclose advice from Harry Bowyer. I know it will be unpalatable, but for what it may be worth I share his view.”
So you have Andy Cash and Harry Bowyer, both of the views expressed in Harry Bowyer’s advice. Presumably that was a view that was shared throughout your team?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, the view being?
Mr Blake: The serious concern about challenges to the integrity of the Horizon system and the need to rebut that as strongly as possible?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, the system was crucial to the prosecution, so, yes, in that sense.
Mr Blake: I mean, in that email there’s almost a sense of – sorry in the advice, there’s almost a sense of fear, really, for the future. Was that something that was shared throughout your team?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure the word “fear” would be appropriate: concern.
Mr Blake: Concern?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Concern for the Post Office, concern for Cartwright King or concern for something else?
Andrzej Bolc: I don’t know. Concern that the system worked.
Mr Blake: Concern that the system didn’t work?
Andrzej Bolc: Or didn’t work, yes, yes.
Mr Blake: Can we look at UKGI00001432. This is an email about the case of Ishaq. I’m not going to ask you in detail about that case because I think you’ve said in your witness statement that you don’t really recall very much.
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: But this is just over a month later. It’s another case that’s challenging the Horizon system. So, when I say a month later, a month after the previous case that we looked at.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: It’s in the same kind of period that the advice had been written and sent on. We have there an email from Martin Smith to Rachael Panter copied to Andy Cash and, in relation to this case, he says:
“The defendant’s solicitor made it clear that the functionality of the Horizon system would be an issue. The defendant has instructed them that the correct amount of money will be there in the accounts somewhere and that there is an error with Horizon. ‘Everyone has heard about the problems with Horizon!’.
“This is going to be another one of those cases where we will have to anticipate and deal with the Horizon issue and consider our approach.”
Talking to Andy Cash, he says:
“Andy – I think we should draw up a separate list of cases in which we anticipate Horizon arguments so that we can ensure that we have appropriate answers/material and agreed tactics with the [Plea and Case Management Hearings] the dates of which will undoubtedly arrive well before the Post Office are likely to have obtained any reports.”
If we scroll up, please, this is an email, I think, from Andy Cash. You’re an addressee of that email.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: It says:
“Martin, please talk to Andy and Rachael to get a list up. Please also advise Jarnail when reporting, that we have another one.
“We need to consider counsel in the Bradford case as well. We can’t expect HB …”
I think that’s Harry Bowyer?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: “… to take them all. Rachael please check available with [two other people].”
Do you recall the request to get a list up? Do you recall at this period a coordination of the various cases and various Horizon challenges?
Andrzej Bolc: A list was gathered shortly after this, I believe, yes.
Mr Blake: Were you involved in gathering the list?
Andrzej Bolc: No. Contributing to it, I suppose, by identifying those particular cases to Martin or Rachael.
Mr Blake: Did you see the list once it had been compiled?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I’ve been copied into emails. I think there’s a list of cases, relevant cases, yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you. My final document on your general knowledge in the 2012/2013 period, I’m going to take you to just some minutes from a “Regular Call re horizon Issues”, that’s POL00083936.
This is just an example. We have many different notes from what’s called “Regular Call re Horizon Issues”. Do you remember when those calls started happening?
Andrzej Bolc: They were back on the advice prepared by Simon Clarke to generate some kind of meeting for information to go sideways through the business, rather than up and down, I guess.
Mr Blake: You’re there listed as the representative from Cartwright King. Is there a reason why you were chosen to take that role?
Andrzej Bolc: So I sat in on a handful of these hearings when Martin Smith wasn’t available in conference calls.
Mr Blake: Martin Smith was the main attendee at these meetings, was he?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: If we look at page 3, please, can you give us an approximation of how many of these calls you think you attended.
Andrzej Bolc: A handful.
Mr Blake: A handful being five or thereabouts or?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yeah. If you look at page 3, just by way of example, we have Rhigos branch there, the third entry. It says:
“Debt of £24k. Subpostmaster blaming Horizon.
“Live subpostmaster and therefore internal processes need to be exhausted. Push through normal processes to see if a Horizon issue identified.
“May be some challenges around the subpostmaster refusing to follow standard process (ie wants solicitor to attend meetings, etc). This is to be managed in the usual way.”
Was this typical of the kinds of things that were discussed in those meetings? So issues where subpostmasters had blamed the Horizon system for losses?
Andrzej Bolc: My understanding of these conference calls was that it was supposed to raise across the business all the Horizon Issues, so that people were aware.
Mr Blake: Do you recall this particular issue at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Thank you. That can come down. Just by way of an overview, consolidating all of those documents that we’ve just been looking at, you started working on Post Office’s cases in February or March 2012?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: By March, there was liaison with Fujitsu about the Bramwell case?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: April/May, there were references to reports on Horizon integrity that we saw?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: We’ve seen in June 2012 the Horizon integrity report that is circulated by Rachael Panter –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – and a body of Horizon cases that are being dealt with by your team?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: In July we have the advice from Mr Bowyer and we then have, by 2013, those regular calls that you case occasionally attended?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Was concern about the Horizon system, in effect, a constant from the beginning of your time at Cartwright King to the end of your time?
Andrzej Bolc: The end of my time in that department?
Mr Blake: Yes.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
I’d like to move on to a different topic and that is –
Sir Wyn Williams: Mr Blake before you do that, and I may have missed it, so I apologise if I am asking for information about something that has already been given, but do we know, and when I use the word “we” I mean the Inquiry, so have any documents, for example, been received which that show who commissioned Mr Bowyer’s advice in July 2012? It’s in the context of the Wylie case, I appreciate that –
Mr Blake: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: – but do we actually know why he was asked to write it?
Mr Blake: I think my answer to you will be: we’ll come to you on that one.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine. That’s fine. I was just interested to see – interested to know, if possible, why an in-house counsel had been asked to write in the terms that he ended up writing, in, so to speak.
Mr Blake: Mr Bolc, are you able to assist us at all.
Andrzej Bolc: I’m afraid I can’t, no.
Sir Wyn Williams: No. Okay, fine.
Mr Blake: Moving on to the role of an expert, and we’ll see how it plays out in various case studies in due course, but can we begin by looking at POL00020489. We are now in September 2012, so after the advice had been written by Mr Bowyer.
Can we start on the second page, please. Thank you. There’s an email from Jarnail Singh to Andy Cash and yourself and it says:
“Andy/Andrew.
“Please see Helen Rose disclosures final draft report on her analysis of Horizon cases. I look forwarded to receiving your comments before forwarding the data for an expert report.”
We know and we’ve seen advice from Helen Rose, or a report that was written by Helen Rose, a year later, June 2013, and it’s a separate piece of work.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Do you recall this piece of work at all?
Andrzej Bolc: I think I’ve seen it when reviewing the documents that were sent to me, yes, or reference to it.
Mr Blake: Do you recall your involvement or receiving it at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: Not specifically, no.
Mr Blake: Could we turn to the first page, please, and we’ll start at the bottom. Andy Cash to Jarnail Singh.
“Jarnail,
“Harry [I think that’s Harry Bowyer] advises that the report, provided it is comprehensive, is what is needed and we now need the expert’s report on it as soon as practicable in view of the current cases timetables.”
If we scroll up, we have a response from Jarnail Singh, you’re copied in. He says:
“Andy
“Thinking about the choice of expert in this case. I have in the past instructed Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu in the case of Misra which incidental was the only challenge on Horizon, he provided expertise in dealing with defence’s boundless enquiry into the whole Horizon system. Perhaps we need to reconsider whether to instruct him as he may be viewed too close to the system but instruct somebody entirely independent? Your thoughts please and also whether you or Harry have anybody in mind.”
If we scroll up, we have a response from Harry Bowyer. He says:
“I would have preferred somebody entirely independent but this is such a specialist area that we would be hard put to get a report in the timescale that we require – we might open our expert up to allegations of partiality but his expertise will be unlikely to be challenged.”
Were you aware of the discussion about the identity of the Post Office’s expert witness?
Andrzej Bolc: The identity of the expert, sorry?
Mr Blake: Yes. So these discussions about whether to use Gareth Jenkins, was that something – you’re certainly on this chain, you’re not in the final email, but –
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: – were you aware of discussions about, for example, Gareth Jenkins’ independence?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall but, yes, it’s clearly an issue, because he worked for Fujitsu.
Mr Blake: Did you understand him to be an expert witness in the sense that he was subject to, for example, common law duties and requirements of the Criminal Procedure Rules?
Andrzej Bolc: I certainly understood him to be an expert in his field. I didn’t know if he’d been trained as an expert witness or had any training in that regard.
Mr Blake: I think in your witness statement, it’s paragraph 8 of your witness statement, you say:
“I understood that Jarnail Singh was ultimately responsible for instructing Gareth Jenkins.”
What do you mean by that?
Andrzej Bolc: In terms of giving instructions to him to do a piece of work, ie prepare the report.
Mr Blake: In terms of identification of his various obligations to the court and duties, whose responsibility did you see as that falling on?
Andrzej Bolc: Mr Singh’s.
Mr Blake: In general terms, did you see the Post Office or Cartwright King as being responsible for the instruction of experts, irrespective of whether it’s Mr Jenkins or somebody else?
Andrzej Bolc: Again, I come back to my previous comments about these lines being very blurred. Yes.
Mr Blake: Did you, at that time, have any concerns about Mr Jenkins acting in that role?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, clearly, he worked for Fujitsu, so that was a concern. Ultimately, that kind of thing does happen. Police investigations, police officers write reports on valuations in drug cases. They’re deemed to be experts but they’re still part of the police, so it does happen.
Mr Blake: Do they write reports on cases that they have personal involvement in?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, they will – yes, look at the drugs and assess them regarding quality, weight and the rest of it.
Mr Blake: Was that something that you had previous involvement in, the instruction of an expert, prior to joining the Post Office team?
Andrzej Bolc: So, yes. We would instruct experts. The case management system we used would have a template letter setting out all of the obligations an expert would be obliged to consider.
Mr Blake: So is that – I mean, you don’t have to give the name of a particular client but you mentioned you worked for the RSPCA and other organisations. Generally, when you instructed an expert, would you use a standard template explaining the role –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – and duty of an expert?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, you would, yes.
Mr Blake: Did such a template exist in the case of Post Office prosecutions?
Andrzej Bolc: I don’t know. Not a separate template. I don’t know.
Mr Blake: Did you ever see formal instructions to an expert?
Andrzej Bolc: I did not.
Mr Blake: No. Did you ever question yourself as to why you didn’t see any instructions to an expert?
Andrzej Bolc: I didn’t consider them to be that – that part of it to be my responsibility. I accept when we actually got the report from Mr Jenkins it didn’t include those relevant paragraphs; it should have done.
Mr Blake: Did you query that with anybody at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: I did not, no.
Mr Blake: Did anyone discuss that with you at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00141416, please. This is an email from Harry Bowyer to Jarnail Singh. You’re not copied in so I don’t expect you necessarily to have read that at the time. But I’d like to know whether you were aware either of its contents or in broad terms.
Andrzej Bolc: Sure.
Mr Blake: Here he sets out what is expected from the expert. He says:
“Hopefully Helen will confirm that the Horizon system has never been successfully challenged. I have yet to see any sign of any experts briefed on behalf of the defence.
“When she has completed her exercise she should prepare a summary of those cases where there is a proper attack on the system rather than a gripe that the system is at all (although she should record those cases so that we can say that they have been kept under review – they will become more numerous as it bandwagon picks up speed).”
Just pausing there, “bandwagon”, was that a phrase you were familiar with?
Andrzej Bolc: I seem to recall it was a phrase used repeatedly, yes.
Mr Blake: Repeatedly by who?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t be specific, certainly Mr Singh. I can’t say who else.
Mr Blake: It then says:
“The expert will need to address the report to the following issues:
“1) A description of the Horizon system …
“2) A declaration that it has yet to be attacked successfully.
“3) A summary of the basic attacks made on the system concentrating on any expert reports served in past cases. If there are none then state that no expert has yet been found by any defence team civil or criminal to attack the system (at the moment there seems to be little more than griping by defendants that the system must be at fault without saying how).
“4) Plainly, like all accounting systems, there is room for human error (keying in wrong amounts etc) but the expert should be able to state that innocent human error is unlikely to produce the types of discrepancies of many thousands of pounds over many months.”
He then says:
“A decent report along those lines will go a long way to putting this issue to bed.”
Were you aware that that was going to be forming the basis of a statement?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Looking at it now, how appropriate do you consider those issues and the way they’re put to be?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, it’s a bit difficult to take it all in. Which – are you –
Mr Blake: For example, there seems to be a focus on litigation and how it has yet to be attacked successfully, rather than, for example, asking the expert to comment in detail about the existence of bugs, errors or defects in the system. Do you consider those topics that the expert will need to address to be the right topics, appropriate topics?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, it’s a bit difficult for me to say on the spot like that. I would have thought concentrating on the system itself would have been more appropriate.
Mr Blake: Were you involved in any discussions about what the expert might put in the report?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00096997, please. Can we start on the second page. Mr Jenkins produces a report and it’s then sent, in the middle email, from Martin Smith to William Martin, Harry Bowyer, Andy Cash, Rachael Panter. Who was William Martin?
Andrzej Bolc: I don’t know. He didn’t work for Cartwright King, as far as I know.
Mr Blake: Let’s scroll up and that will hopefully assist us. So you’re not on that email distribution list but, if we look at that email at the top of this page from Harry Bowyer to Martin Smith, copied to Andy Cash, he says as follows:
“Martin,
“At first sight this/these look like a good base upon which our reports can be based (as most our fishing expeditions they will do in their current form).”
Down that email, he says:
“If there is a specific challenge in a case then the statement and the report can be tweaked to cover the eventuality.
“My view is that most challenges to the Horizon system should now vanish away before the trial.”
Were you aware of the production of a statement that could be tweaked to cover various different eventualities?
Andrzej Bolc: Ultimately, yes, because the statement he produced, he was then provided with the case summaries and defence statements and asked to address those issues.
Mr Blake: So were you aware that it was a generic statement that would then be tweaked, as appropriate, to the particular case?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s how it panned out, yes.
Mr Blake: Are you able to assist us with who at Cartwright King had carriage of the statement, if anybody, so who it was that, for example, put it in statement form rather than in the form that it may have been sent in?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I thought that had been done by Mr Jenkins, rather than by Cartwright King.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. I’m going to come back to the generic statements in the context of those specific case studies that we’re going to get to after the break.
But just one last document before the break on the topic of expert evidence, and that is POL00323641. We’re moving back to the Bramwell case. We’re now in May 2012 in the Bramwell case, and it is an email from yourself to Steve Bradshaw. Steve Bradshaw was, I think, the Investigator in that case; is that right?
Andrzej Bolc: I believe so, yes.
Mr Blake: It’s that substantive paragraph that I would like to ask you about, the bottom one. It says:
“With regard to your statement which is in effect being treated as an expert’s report about the Horizon system, the Judge has directed that you are to liaise with Mr Jenner the author of the defence report, in the usual way between experts, to identify the issues of disagreement between you. This could be done by telephone [et cetera]. The purpose would be to identify prior to trial what can be agreed and what is disputed about the Horizon system, narrowing down the issues and making evidence quick and relevant!”
It seems there as though the suggestion is that his witness statement is being treated, in effect, as an expert report. Would it be possible for the person who is, in fact, investigating an offence to write a report and for it to have the status of an expert report?
Andrzej Bolc: No, so I think when he actually served his statement he made it clear that he wasn’t an expert, but a lay witness talking about the system. In this email, I’m obviously referring to the fact that he’s being asked to discuss what he says with the defence expert, in a way that would have been done by an independent expert witness.
Mr Blake: We’ve spoken already about a blurring occurring in terms of who had responsibility for instructing the expert and the instructions that were provided to the expert. Was a particular witness’s status also something that there was some degree of blurring?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I’d agree with that.
Mr Blake: Why do you think that was?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure. The system was obviously quite a unique one, so the only people who really understood it were the people who were involved in it, on a daily basis, either because they were developing it or were using it or investigating it.
Mr Blake: Do you recall communications with experts being, for example, recorded in the disclosure schedule?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: I think you say you hadn’t, in fact, seen any formal instructions to an expert at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Do you recall any conversations that you had with Mr Jenkins or others within your team about the duties of an expert?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Thank you, sir. That might be an appropriate moment to take a mid-morning break, before we move on to the case studies.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, certainly. What time shall we resume?
Mr Blake: If we come back at 11.20, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yeah, fine.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much.
(11.05 am)
(A short break)
(11.22 am)
Mr Blake: Thank you, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes.
Mr Blake: Moving on to the case study of Angela Sefton and Anne Nield.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: I want to begin just by taking you to the Court of Appeal judgment in Allen and others, which is the case that contains their appeal. Can we look at POL00113343, thank you very much, and it’s paragraph 23, I think it should be at page 6. The Inquiry has looked at this before, so I’ll only very briefly take you through some brief facts of this case. It says there at paragraph 23 that:
“… Angela Sefton and Anne Nield each pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting with which they were jointly charged. The allegation against them was in short that between 1 January 2006 and 6 January 2012 they had falsified giro deposit entries on Horizon in relation to the receipt of [£34,000] in donations made to the charity Animals In Need.”
Thank you very much, if we could scroll down to the bottom of that page, at paragraph 28, we see it says there that:
“On 20 January 2012, Ms Sefton and Ms Nield were each interviewed. Ms Sefton said that they only ever delayed payments and had never withheld them. Animals In Need had been significantly affected because the charity had continued to use giro deposit slips which needed a date stamp rather than (as in nearly all other cases) moving to a swipe card or barcode system. She and Ms Nield did not report the losses because they were ‘too terrified’. It appears that Ms Nield gave a broadly similar – or at least consistent – account. She said that she did not know where the shortages were coming from.”
Scrolling down, it says at 29:
“Both Ms Sefton and Ms Nield submitted defence statements which questioned whether the losses were genuine or Horizon generated.”
Next paragraph, paragraph 30:
“Ms Nield repeated the disclosure request with the result that [the Post Office] agreed that a defence expert should be allowed to attend the branch to analyse the data. [The Post Office] served a witness statement by Gareth Jenkins in which he maintained that there was no problem with Horizon.
“Call logs show that some difficulties with Horizon had been sporadically reported to the Post Office between 2005 and 2011, other records show numerous difficulties with Horizon in 2009.”
It says at paragraph 32:
“[The Post Office] accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence from Horizon was essential to the prosecution of both Ms Sefton and Ms Nield. The Post Office failed to carry out a proper investigation into Horizon Issues and failed to disclose full call logs and other records indicating that there had been problems with Horizon at the branch. In addition, Mr Jenkins had informed the Post Office’s solicitors that he had ‘no information regarding complaints or investigations into Horizon and it has already been established that it is not possible to examine the original Horizon system that was operational until 2010. Similarly, I have not been presented with any audit data relating to any of these cases to examine’. These defects in Mr Jenkins’ evidence were not disclosed. Nor were two earlier, relevant reports disclosed.”
The Court of Appeal concludes in the paragraph below:
“In these circumstances [the Post Office] concludes that the prosecution of Ms Sefton and of Ms Nield was unfair and an affront to justice.”
They conclude that the convictions were unsafe.
Now, if I could take you to your witness statement, that’s WITN09670100, paragraph 11, that’s page 6. You introduced the case of asset and Nield on page 6, paragraph 11, and you say you received a Green Jacket file between 3 February and 1 March 2012. At the bottom of that page you say:
“The file contained no separate instructions to me, either identifying my specific role, or anything else. I believed I was acting as an agent for [the Post Office] in the prosecution. I was not supplied by way of introduction with any policy documents in relation to the conduct of prosecutions by [the Post Office], disclosure or anything else. I was not supplied with any information in relation to the Horizon system, the details of any data it generated, issues relating to its reliability, any relevant cases, or details regarding any civil actions or otherwise.”
Having worked on other private prosecutions, not Post Office prosecutions, did you consider that to be unusual?
Andrzej Bolc: So this case was the first private prosecution I’d dealt with.
Mr Blake: Were you expecting to receive the information that you’ve listed there?
Andrzej Bolc: I was expecting to receive some kind of briefing, yes.
Mr Blake: Did you see your role in this case as advising on, for example, which lines of inquiry the Post Office should pursue?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, the letter that was addressed from the business unit asked for an analysis of the sufficiency of evidence. I don’t recall it saying any more than that.
Mr Blake: Did you see your role as being involved in any way in the investigation strategy, for example?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, the investigation part of it should be left to the investigator, to some extent, but, yes, I would imagine a prosecutor would assist with that if he felt appropriate.
Mr Blake: How about meeting the Post Office’s disclosure obligations? Did you see your role as being involved in helping meet its disclosure obligations?
Andrzej Bolc: Ultimately, yes.
Mr Blake: Having received an inadequate amount of information, did you say, “Where’s my letter of instruction? Where are the policy documents? Please provide me with sufficient information”?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I just tried to get on with it.
Mr Blake: Looking back, was that the right or the wrong thing to do?
Andrzej Bolc: That was unwise.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00044013. This is the letter I think you were just talking about, 2 February 2012. It’s a letter from Maureen Moors in the Fraud Team or Security Team. She says there – and it’s addressed to the Royal Mail Group Criminal Law Team:
“The outcome of enquiries in this case are reported by Steve Bradshaw Fraud Advisor at pages 2 to 14 together with the taped interview summary …
“It is the Business Unit recommendation that prosecution should be pursued provided the evidence is sufficient to do so. Would you therefore please advise on the sufficiency of evidence in this matter.”
You’ve said in your witness statement that this immediately struck you. Why did it immediately strike you?
Andrzej Bolc: Because there was some sense here that the interests of the business were involved in the decision to prosecute.
Mr Blake: Was this a letter that was sent to you or received by you on top of your green file or?
Andrzej Bolc: It was just contained within the file. I came across it because it was probably on top of the documents inside.
Mr Blake: The request, “Would you therefore please advise on the sufficiency of evidence in this matter”, did you understand that to be an instruction to you or to somebody else?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, it was addressed to the Royal Mail Group Criminal Law Team but I understood that this was now my job. So, yes, this is the sum total of my instructions.
Mr Blake: The fact that Business Unit had recommended that prosecution should be pursued, you’ve said that struck you. Did you raise that with anybody?
Andrzej Bolc: I did ask about this. I think the explanation I was given related to their service requirements for having a Post Office within a certain geographical distance of a population source or something like that. So, for example, if something awry had gone on at an isolated Scottish island where there was any one subpostmaster available and hard to replace, there might be – the Post Office might be less inclined to prosecute them, as opposed to an inner city environment where a replacement would be easily obtainable.
Mr Blake: Who told you that?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall.
Mr Blake: So somebody told you that, whether or not a Post Office was busy or whether a postmaster was replaceable or not, fed into the prosecution decision?
Andrzej Bolc: I believe so, yes.
Mr Blake: Did that strike you as concerning at all?
Andrzej Bolc: I was surprised, yes.
Mr Blake: Did you raise it with anybody?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall.
Mr Blake: You said that Mr Singh considered the public interest test was always met whenever there were losses to the public purse that were over a certain threshold; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Was that something that you agreed with?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I thought the test was wider.
Mr Blake: Did you question it?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: The letter asks whether the evidence is sufficient and I think in your statement you’ve said that you weren’t sure whether the test was one of a realistic prospect of conviction or something else. It wasn’t clear to you; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Did you, at the time, consider that this was not sufficient to properly instruct you?
Andrzej Bolc: You could say that, yes.
Mr Blake: Did you raise that with anybody?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I just did the best I could and adopted the Code.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at your advice, that’s POL00057495. This is dated 1 March 2012. First paragraph, you say:
“In my opinion the evidence is sufficient to afford a realistic prospect of conviction in respect of the draft charges attached. In light of their admissions in interview, the prospects of success are good.”
You then say:
“In view of the nature of the charges, the amount involved which has not been repaid and the breach of trust aspect, this not a case suitable for a caution.”
Prior to taking up your post involved with prosecuting Post Office cases, had you ever been involved in giving people cautions or the provision of cautions?
Andrzej Bolc: No. As I said, this was the first case I was involved in where I’d been asked to provide charging evidence – or advice, sorry.
Mr Blake: Had you ever received training in the principles underlying the issuing of a caution?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I was aware of them from a defence perspective, yes, but –
Mr Blake: Had anybody in Cartwright King talked to you about the matters that you would take into account in order to issue a caution?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: What did you understand to be the power of the Post Office to issue a caution?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure that I considered that.
Mr Blake: If we look at the various advices that you gave in Post Office cases, will we ever see you having recommended a caution?
Andrzej Bolc: I don’t believe so no.
Mr Blake: The fourth paragraph says, as follows:
“Whilst there remains a suspicion that both Sefton and Nield were involved in theft of the losses concerned given their prolonged attempt to cover these up, they could blame each other, making individual responsibility difficult if not impossible to ascertain, and at present there is insufficient evidence surrounding the handling of cash at a branch to rule out the possibility of a third party being responsible. On the other hand they have made clear admissions to false accounting, admitting intent to cause loss, even if only for a temporary period. The prospect of them ever making good the losses of course dwindled as the losses increased.”
If a third party might be responsible, how did you have sufficient information to consider that they had been dishonest?
Andrzej Bolc: The dishonesty arose from the method of the false accounting, in the sense that they were suppressing the Giro cheques, so that’s what I was considering.
Mr Blake: Did you take into account, for example, the admissions that they made interview? Did that have any effect on your assessment of whether dishonesty was involved in this particular case?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: You did take that into account?
Andrzej Bolc: I did.
Mr Blake: Is that set out in this advice?
Andrzej Bolc: No, it’s not.
Mr Blake: We’ll get to the issue of call logs but might the fact that, for example, they called a help line be relevant to an issue of dishonesty?
Andrzej Bolc: Potentially, yes.
Mr Blake: Is there any assessment of that issue?
Andrzej Bolc: Not in this advice, no.
Mr Blake: Do you think that this advice in itself is a sufficient advice or do you think it’s too brief?
Andrzej Bolc: It’s far too brief. As I said, it was the first one that I dealt with, I believe, and I tried to improve them subsequently.
Mr Blake: Were you copying a format from colleagues? Was this something you’d been told to do?
Andrzej Bolc: I think I copied a format from either the Bramwell case, or another one that I’d seen, with the initial files that had been sent to me.
Mr Blake: Were you provided with any training from anybody at Cartwright King as to what to do on receipt of instructions from the Post Office?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Was it effectively a baptism of fire on joining that team?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Did you voice any concerns about that at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: On reflection, why do you think that was?
Andrzej Bolc: I think they just assumed I should get on with it.
Mr Blake: Were you overloaded with work? Were you insufficiently supervised? Was there some other reason why the level of work is not up to the standard that you would expect?
Andrzej Bolc: Just lack of experience.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00057496. These are the proposed charges. Was that something that you drafted?
Andrzej Bolc: I believe so.
Mr Blake: Can we please turn now to POL00166331, please. It’s an email from you to Steve Bradshaw, the Investigator, on 3 July 2012. Thank you.
You say there:
“Andrea mentioned at the hearing that both Solicitors indicated that they were intending to plead not guilty to the charges despite their apparent admissions.
“I don’t think that this could have anything to do with the independent Horizon review as this case relates to simple cheque suppression as opposed to any audit trail, etc.”
Now, the independent Horizon review, is that what we know as the Second Sight investigation?
Andrzej Bolc: It must be, yes.
Mr Blake: So you’re there giving thought to whether the Second Sight investigation might be relevant to the issues in this particular case –
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct.
Mr Blake: – and, at that stage, concluding that they weren’t?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes. The Giro credits were kept in a drawer so I assume that was outside of the system.
Mr Blake: The comments they made interview, did they not influence your decision at organisational?
Andrzej Bolc: They ought to have done, I couldn’t see past the offence of false accounting that I had seen.
Mr Blake: But you say that they ought to have done.
Andrzej Bolc: With hindsight, yes.
Mr Blake: You say there:
“However in light of this indication it may be prudent to fill any potential gaps in our case at this time and to that end a statement from Animals In Need would be useful”, et cetera.
I now want to move on to the defence statement, that is POL00058300, and it’s page 5. This is the defence statement from Ms Nield and it says, as follows, at the bottom of the page, it says:
“The defendant accepts that losses were shown on the Horizon computer system from 2005. The defendant does not know how the losses were incurred. The defendant now believes that such losses may have shown as a result of the failures of the Horizon computer system.”
If we scroll down to (c), about halfway down that paragraph, it says:
“… this was not done with a dishonest intent or with any intention to make a gain or cause the complainant any loss. Rather, it was a desperate attempt to make good the apparent losses on the system. At no stage were Animals In Need ever deprived of the money”, et cetera.
We have a response from you. There are certain disclosure requests at the bottom, so that’s page 7. I think it’s over the page. Three disclosure requests;
“(a) Any material that points towards other suspects …
“(b) Details of any bad character of any prosecution witness;
“(c) Details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon computer system.”
So, within her defence statement, she has requested details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon system.
We then have your response over the page, please, 28 August, and this is a response to her solicitors. You say, as follows:
“On the basis of the defence statement you have provided, I have not identified any further prosecution material which is disclosable to you in accordance with the CPIA.
“Specifically, in relation to the points raised in your statement:
“1. There were no [known] other suspects in the case, and no material relating to the same.”
(2), which is details of bad character, you say, “None known”.
(3), which was the request for details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon computer system, you say as follows:
“Your client is charged with false accounting by failing to make entries on to the Horizon system, regarding the deposit slips found, and thus the offence has occurred outside of the system. Material relating to the Horizon system is therefore not deemed disclosable at this time.”
Do you accept now that what was going on in the system was relevant to the issue of dishonesty?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: The phrase “outside of the system”, was that a phrase you had heard used by others or was that your own phrase?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure. Possibly my own. I can’t …
Mr Blake: Do you recall this decision – the decision not to disclose information relating to the Horizon system, was that your decision or was that somebody else’s decision?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure.
Mr Blake: Why is it that you’re not sure?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t remember if I discussed that with anyone beforehand or not.
Mr Blake: As the solicitor with carriage of the case corresponding with the solicitors for the defendant and criminal prosecutions, do you see yourself as responsible for the decision?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. When you say you’re not sure who made the decision, was that, again, a blurring of the lines or something else?
Andrzej Bolc: Potentially, yes.
Mr Blake: Were there cases that you recall where the disclosure decisions that you passed on to defence solicitors was a decision that had been made by somebody else?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, absolutely.
Mr Blake: In respect of material relating to the Horizon system, did you ever question the responses that had been provided?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, they were provided by our client, essentially. So no.
Mr Blake: We’ve seen the Harry Bowyer advice, for example. We’re here in the, I think it was August 2012. Do you think at that time you should have thought more about the disclosability of material relating to the Horizon system?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we go to POL00044036. This is the defence statement in relation to the co-accused, Ms Sefton. Again, paragraph 5 of her defence statement, she says:
“The defendant asserts that significant shortages/losses had been a common experience in the past. Losses started to occur from 2005. The defendant had to make good a great deal of those losses out of her own pocket, but as the losses increased the defendant could not afford to repay them from her own resources.”
If we go over the page, please, paragraph 11, it says:
“The defendant also prays in aid in her defence the fact that the Post Office computer system known as Horizon installed sometime in 2005 has been the subject of criticism in the press. A firm of solicitors in the Midlands Shoosmiths is acting on behalf of over 100 subpostmasters who in the past have wrongly been accused of fraud and false accounting, and have been compelled by the Post Office to repay significant sums of money, or face criminal prosecution presumably. At the heart of their complaint is the fact that the Horizon computer system is to blame for these apparent losses due to some form of technical malfunction.”
Her request, at the bottom, she requests at number 3:
“Details of any complaints made to the Post Office regarding the operation of the Horizon computer system from 2005 onwards, and details of the steps taken to deal with those complaints.”
Over the page there’s also a request in relation to correspondence with Members of Parliament or from Members of Parliament.
Can we please bring up on screen POL00166335, please. If it’s possible, can I have alongside this document on screen POL00044036 at page 2. So this is the defence statement we just looked at and we have those three requests at the bottom there. You are contacting Steve Bradshaw, the Investigator, and you say:
“Dear Steve,
“Please find enclosed defence case statements served on behalf of Angela Sefton. Please can you see if there is any material to disclose on points 1 and 2 raised on page 2 …”
So we see there (1) is “All notes, statements and other materials” concerning any other suspect and (2) “All such notes, statements and other materials relating to any other witness”, et cetera.
Then you say in your email on the left-hand side:
“John Gibson has been advised of the developments so far as the Second Sight review is concerned.”
Now, it doesn’t look there as though you’ve tasked Mr Bradshaw with looking into the request 3, that is details of any complaints made regarding the operation of the Horizon system.
Andrzej Bolc: Mm.
Mr Blake: Can you assist us with why he wasn’t tasked with that?
Andrzej Bolc: Is it because there was a separate Disclosure Officer tasked with those specific areas?
Mr Blake: That’s what we’d like to know?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: I mean John Gibson, who was he?
Andrzej Bolc: That was the prosecuting counsel in the case.
Mr Blake: So he has been advised of the developments so far as Second Sight is concerned. Is that you providing Mr Gibson with advice?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure. I can’t remember who.
Mr Blake: When you refer to a second person looking into issues, are you talking about Helen Rose there?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I believe so, yes.
Mr Blake: Did you see Helen Rose as responsible for compliance with the disclosure requirements under the criminal –
Andrzej Bolc: Seem to remember seeing an email from Jarnail Singh appointing her as a Disclosure Officer to do with the previous Horizon complaints.
Mr Blake: I’d like now to look at a specific application for disclosure that was made in this case. Can we look back at POL00058300. Ms Nield makes an application for specific disclosure. Thank you very much. That’s 13 September 2012. Can we please look at page 2. This is the application. Is says there at paragraph 4:
“The defendant has sought and has been refused disclosure of the following …”
So this is what was sought by Ms Nield and what was not provided:
“Details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon computer system;
“Access to the Horizon computer system used by the defendant …”
So if there had been a separate Disclosure Officer, it appears that, certainly at this stage, there had been no – in fact no disclosure of details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon computer system; would you agree with that?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Could we scroll over the page, please, paragraph 8. It says as follows:
“The defence are aware from articles in the press and communications from the House of Commons that the Horizon system has been the subject of much controversy over the past few years and that a significant number of subpostmasters allege that the Horizon system published incorrect losses on the system. Further, that they have in many cases been wrongly convicted of False Accounting. The issue is serious enough to have warranted the involvement of a Member of Parliament”, et cetera.
If we scroll down to paragraph 9, please, it says:
“The defence are therefore confident that the Prosecution have in their possession, or easily accessible to them, records of complaints and investigations into the Horizon system.”
Then the application gives the reasons for the application. First is that it goes to the issue of dishonesty. At paragraph 12, it says:
“When the Jury consider whether the attribution of monies in this way by the defendant was dishonest, it is a relevant consideration whether or not the losses were ‘real’ and whether they were attributable to her. If the losses were the result of a computer error then the Jury may well take a very different view of the defendant’s mental state than they would if she had taken the money.”
It also, they say, goes to the issue of intent to gain or cause loss:
“The second relevant issue is the question of the defendant’s intention; whether she intended to make a gain for herself or cause a loss to another.”
Further down, they make submissions. Paragraph 15 says:
“It is submitted that material which suggests that the Horizon system has accounting faults is therefore relevant to, and of potential assistance to, the defence for the reasons outlined and paragraphs 12-14 above.”
I’d like to look at the response to this. Can we please look at POL00058303. If we can go to the bottom of page 2, thank you. So we have an email there from yourself, 14 September, to Andy Cash, and you say:
“Following discussion with Harry …”
So that, it seems, is Harry Bowyer; is that right?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr Blake: 14 September 2012, so we’re now two months after Mr Bowyer’s advice that we saw this morning:
“… please see draft email to Outside Counsel in this case.”
Then if we look below, we have the draft email.
“Dear Sir,
“Please place the attached Section 8 application together with the brief already held by counsel John Gibson.”
So that’s the disclosure application that we’ve just seen; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: “Counsel is invited to contact instructing Solicitors to discuss the prosecution response and should be aware of the following:
“1. Post Office Limited have appointed one of their Investigators, Helen Rose as Disclosure Officer dealing with Horizon challenges.”
That’s exactly as you said a moment ago:
“She has prepared a document/spreadsheet detailing all such cases past and present, approximately 20 in total, although none thus far successfully argued in court. It is felt by in-house counsel that this currently a working document and currently undisclosable as it contains some personal opinion.”
Now, pausing there, in-house counsel, is that Harry Bowyer or is that somebody else?
Andrzej Bolc: It must be him.
Mr Blake: So it’s not to be disclosed because it’s a working document and contains some personal opinion. Do you think that that’s a fair assessment?
Andrzej Bolc: Of what it says? Yes.
Mr Blake: Do you think that the fact that something is a working document or contained opinion is relevant to whether it should be disclosed or not?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t remember the content of what her report said.
Mr Blake: How about the detail, some of the detail that was contained, that there were 20 cases and perhaps some of the detail of those 20 cases. I mean did you, for example, for yourself, look at the document that had been compiled and assess for yourself whether the information contained within it was disclosable?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t – I can’t recall if I did or not.
Mr Blake: Do you think you did or didn’t?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall.
Mr Blake: Would you agree that that document that is referred to, or drafts of it, would be disclosable, irrespective of whether it contains personal opinion or not?
Andrzej Bolc: Without looking at it, I can’t say. I don’t know the extent of the personal opinion –
Mr Blake: Well, isn’t personal opinion a bar to disclosure of a Horizon document of about 20 Horizon cases; are you able to answer that without seeing the content of that document?
Andrzej Bolc: Repeat the question, sorry.
Mr Blake: Are you able to say whether a document about the Horizon system, about 20 cases, should not be disclosed because it contains some personal opinion? How is the fact that it contains personal opinion relevant or not to whether it should be disclosed?
Andrzej Bolc: Surely that must depend on what the personal opinion was.
Mr Blake: Can you give me an example of where personal opinion might make something not disclosable?
Andrzej Bolc: Where the personal opinion wasn’t appropriate or supported by evidence, for example.
Mr Blake: So, if something isn’t appropriate or isn’t supported by evidence, it shouldn’t be disclosed?
Andrzej Bolc: Depending on what that is, yes.
Mr Blake: Where do you get that from? Is that from a rule, a procedure, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, or where do I see something that might make that as a rule for disclosure?
Andrzej Bolc: Without seeing the document, I can’t say.
Mr Blake: “2. In addition to the Second Sight review, [the Post Office] have been advised to obtain and are in the process to of doing so, an expert’s report from Fujitsu UK, the Horizon system developers, confirming the system is robust.”
Is that what we will come to see the statement of Gareth Jenkins?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Do you think it is appropriate to tell prosecuting counsel that you are obtaining a statement from Fujitsu that confirms the system is robust?
Andrzej Bolc: With hindsight, I can see what you’re saying. It should be the other way round. It should be looking at whether the system works properly.
Mr Blake: “3. [Post Office] maintain the system robust, but in light of adverse publicity, the view of in-house counsel is that defence should be given an opportunity to test system, should they still wish to do so, on consideration of our report.”
If we scroll up on the page before, we can see that you’ve sent the email to Jarnail Singh at the Post Office, and you say:
“Please see below draft email I am proposing to send out to [counsel].
“Andy Cash has asked me to seek specific instruction from [the Post Office] in two issues.
“1. Would we allow a defence expert direct access to Horizon system.
“2. Is a 6 week timetable realistic for Fujitsu to prepare the report proposed.”
Can you assist us with what level of involvement Jarnail Singh had in this matter and why it is that you are contacting him?
Andrzej Bolc: Because he, in my mind, was responsible for commissioning the report from Fujitsu in the first place and he would be able to clarify the Post Office’s stance on this access to the system by a defence expert.
Mr Blake: Can we scroll up to the first page, the bottom of the first page, please. We have a response from Jarnail Singh. He says:
“1. As you may be aware in the past defence expert has attended the relevant sub post office and has been able to analysis the relevant data, etc. However this vague is very vague and general, are you able to clarify specifics.
“2. Gareth Jenkins has previously provided reports in the past, he is presently on holiday for two weeks are you able to wait for his return?”
The email before that, please, you say:
“You are right. I will explain that defence experts have attended sub post offices in the past to analyse data, but access to the system beyond that would need to be clearly specified and approved by [the Post Office] before being allowed.”
Are you able to assist us with what you meant by “clearly specified”? What level of detail would they have to –
Andrzej Bolc: I think it was in response to him saying that the request was vague and needed clarifying.
Mr Blake: Would the Post Office ever, in your experience, provide assistance to a defendant in criminal proceedings as to what it is that they may need to show or may need to be looking at in the Horizon system?
Andrzej Bolc: I wasn’t aware of instances where defence experts had been to the Post Office before, sorry.
Mr Blake: I’m going to now look at your letter Ms Nield’s solicitors. Can we look at POL00058306, please. We’re now on 18 September, and this is the information that you are providing to them pursuant to their application for disclosure. You say, as follows:
“Over the years, some post offices under investigation for losses have claimed that the Horizon system is at fault. A number of these cases have made their way through the courts but to date none have been successful. Notwithstanding this, a review of the number of cases is due to take place and details of this are attached.”
We’ll come to see that attachment.
“b. In addition to this review, it is understood that a further report from Fujitsu UK, the Horizon system developers, confirming the integrity of the system is being prepared. At present the working assumption is that it will take six weeks to prepare but the timescale may change. Defence experts have in the past attended the relevant post offices to be able to analyse the relevant data. Access to the system beyond that would need to be specified and approved by the Post Office before being allowed.”
Over the page we have the level of detail that is provided in respect of the challenges through the courts – sorry, over the page again. This is detail that’s provided and I’m just going to read that. It says:
“After a number of meetings between Post Office Management and Members of Parliament in relation to the court cases, it was agreed that the Post Office would undertake an external review of the cases which had been raised by Members’ constituents. As the Post Office continues to have absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of its Horizon system and its branch accounting processes, it has no hesitation in agreeing to an external review of these few individual cases.”
So this is referring to the Second Sight review, isn’t it?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: So it says there “a few individual cases.” Were you aware of the Second Sight review involving a few individual cases?
Andrzej Bolc: I thought there was more, yes.
Mr Blake: Yes.
“In order to provide assurance to the interested parties, it was proposed that the review be undertaken by independent Auditors, Second Sight. The review will be specifically restricted to the cases raised by the MPs as well as reviewing the accounting procedures, processes and reconciliations undertaken in relation to the cases in question”, et cetera.
Then in the final paragraph it says:
“All the above is accepted based on the terms of the Review being carried out, but this is in no way an acknowledgement by the Post Office that there is an issue with Horizon. Over the past ten years, many millions of branch reconciliations have been carried out with transactions and balances accurately recorded by more than 25,000 different subpostmasters and the Horizon system continues to work properly in post offices across the length and breadth of the UK. When the system has been challenged in criminal courts, it has been successfully defended.”
Are you aware of who drafted this document?
Andrzej Bolc: So from the email chains I think I’ve seen, this was the considered response of the Post Office and was drafted in conjunction with Jarnail Singh and others above him in the hierarchy.
Mr Blake: Four days earlier, we have the email that we’ve seen, the discussion about a spreadsheet with 20 cases challenging Horizon. Am I right in saying this is all they’re getting in response to their disclosure request?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. What is your view as to the adequacy of that response?
Andrzej Bolc: It’s not adequate.
Mr Blake: How is it that an inadequate response was sent to these defendants?
Andrzej Bolc: It was the response that the Post Office had scripted and had asked to be sent to them.
Mr Blake: Do you take any personal responsibility insofar as that disclosure is concerned?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I should have challenged it but it was the client’s response, so we forwarded it on.
Mr Blake: Did you yourself look at those 20 cases that were on that list to see if there was any overlapping information that might be disclosable?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall.
Mr Blake: You can’t recall?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall that, no.
Mr Blake: Would you recall having taken that kind of step in these proceedings?
Andrzej Bolc: I beg your pardon? What kind of step?
Mr Blake: If you had seen a list of 20 cases involving challenges to Horizon, would that be something that was memorable or is that something that is forgettable?
Andrzej Bolc: I don’t know.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00097138, please. Can we please start at the second page. It’s an email from Rachael Panter to Gareth Jenkins. Were you working closely with Rachael Panter in relation to – I mean, two of your cases at least are mentioned –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – three cases, in fact, that we know you had involvement in, Ishaq, Sefton and Nield and Allen?
Andrzej Bolc: Ishaq would have been Martin Smith’s case but, yes, I was aware of it.
Mr Blake: Were you closely involved with the work that Rachael Panter was doing in relation to those cases in which you had conduct?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, she assisted in obtaining the report, in that respect, yes.
Mr Blake: You say that she “insisted”?
Andrzej Bolc: Assisted, assisted.
Mr Blake: She says in the email to Gareth Jenkins:
“As you may already be aware, your expert report detailing the reliability of the Horizon system has been served as evidence in a number of Post Office cases that are at various stages of the court process, most of which are listed for trial in the early part of next year.”
She says:
“As we already have your detailed report, I would like to serve it in each case listed below. All of the following cases have raised issues with the reliability of the Horizon system.”
We have there the case study that we’re currently talking about, Sefton and Nield.
The final paragraph there, she says:
“I would like to stress that I do not anticipate that all of the above cases will reach trial stage. Please could you read the case summaries attached and send 5 original signed and dated copies of your report to me as soon as possible.”
Were you aware then that there was a request to Gareth Jenkins to tailor what was a generic report to those six cases, or to at least the cases that you were involved in, amongst those six?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s what he did, ultimately, so yes.
Mr Blake: You were aware of that at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: I became aware, certainly, yes.
Mr Blake: I mean, you had conduct of the case, presumably –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – you played a part in that decision making?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we scroll up to page 1, please. These the response from Gareth Jenkins. He says:
“Rachael,
“Can’t you use the report I have already send you? There is no mention of the case on the report.
“You should really be addressing such requests through Post Office Limited rather than directly to myself.
“As far as I know there is no commercial cover in place for me to spend any time on such activities (and that includes [and he gives the name of a case]).”
Can you assist us, we spoke earlier about financial issues, cost of assistance, was that something you recall at this particular time?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, around this time, certainly.
Mr Blake: What do you recall the issue being?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, the issue of finance.
Mr Blake: Was it, for example, seen as a better use of finance to tailor a generic report than to commission individual reports on each occasion?
Andrzej Bolc: I see. I’m not sure if that was the purpose. Potentially, yes, I can see that now.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at FUJ00156677, please. This is an email on 30 November from Rachael Panter to Gareth Jenkins. You are copied in on this email. She says:
“Hello Gareth
“Hope you are well. Further to my previous email, please can you consider the attached and provide a signed and dated report which deals with each individual case. I would also like to update you on the developments on a couple of cases.”
Sorry, if we zoom out a little bit you can see the attachment so the attachments there are Dixon, Ishaq, Sefton and Nield and one other case.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: So she is sending, as you say, case summaries and indictments in those cases to Gareth Jenkins and asking him to provide a signed and dated report which deals with each individual case; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, and to comment on the – on those enclosures.
Mr Blake: She says further down this email:
“The remaining cases of Grant Allen, Ishaq, Dixon and Sefton & Nield all require a report, with the most pressing one being Grant Allen. I am hopeful that I can get a form from the court which will allow you to claim some of your expenses for attending to give evidence, although this more commonly used when acting from a defence perspective, so I do not anticipate receiving a considerable sum.”
Is it fair to say that there were no meaningful instructions provided to Mr Jenkins, save what we can see here; certainly no formal instructions?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Did this, at the time, raise any issues for you?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure I was copied into this email, is that right?
Mr Blake: If we scroll out, I do think you were copied into that, yes.
Andrzej Bolc: I beg your pardon.
Mr Blake: Would you have –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I –
Mr Blake: – seen this as a standard email sent to Gareth Jenkins?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure if there’d been any instructions prior to this email. I wasn’t sure at that point.
Mr Blake: But I think you’ve said that you didn’t see any instruction at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I hadn’t seen any.
Mr Blake: Was this typical of the kind of correspondence that would go between yourselves and Gareth Jenkins in respect of a request to produce a witness statement?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we look at FUJ00153865, please. This is an email from yourself to Rachael Panter and copied to Gareth Jenkins. You say:
“Dear Rachael/Gareth,
“Please find enclosed outlines of the two cases which involve me.
“Of the two, I would say that the Sefton and Nield case is the more urgent, and therefore Gareth I would be grateful if you could concentrate on that one first. It is listed for trial in Jan”, et cetera.
Again, was that a typical kind of correspondence from yourself to Gareth Jenkins requesting a statement?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we now move to POL00089394, please. Thank you. We’re now into December, 5 December, and I’d like to start on page 2. If we look at page 3 on this chain, we have that email we’ve just looked at, and then there’s a response from Gareth Jenkins on page 2. He says as follows:
“My understanding from Rachael was that all that is required is a signed version of a standard report I produced a couple of months ago (attached – together with 2 related documents). If that is the case then I can get that produced, scanned and emailed to you in a couple of days.
“However having read through the info you’ve given me, perhaps you want me to cover some further things. Some observations:
1 in the case of Nield and Sefton, it is stated losses started in 2005 and this is linked to the installation of Horizon. My report shows that Horizon was rolled out between 1999 and 2002, so 2005 doesn’t seem to tie in with Horizon being installed. NB I have no records as to exactly when Horizon was installed in any branch and I don’t know if Post Office Ltd have any such records. Similarly I have no idea if this mismatch of dates is material.
“2. At some point in 2010 the post office would have been migrated from the original Horizon system to the new Horizon Online system. This is mentioned in the Grant Allen case but not in the Nield & Sefton case.”
He says at the end there:
“Note that I have no information regarding complaints and investigations into Horizon and it has already been established that it’s not possible to examine the original Horizon system that was operational until 2010.”
If we could scroll up, please. At the bottom there you have a response from yourself to Mr Jenkins, and you say:
“The only clarification I think I need at the moment relates to the timeline, 2005 removal of cash account. Could you clarify what this means and discount it as a possible explanation for the losses beginning to occur at the time in the Sefton and Nield case.
“The audit reports will simply show the money is missing, so will not take things further.”
Just pausing there, can you assist us. You say “The audit reports will simply show the money missing, so will not take things further”; why did you say that?
Andrzej Bolc: Potentially for a couple of reasons. I may have been confused with the financial audit reports conducted by the Investigators when they attended for the audit, financial audit, as opposed to what I think he is talking about, which is audit data.
Mr Blake: Yes. So that’s one explanation.
Andrzej Bolc: One explanation.
Mr Blake: Is there another explanation?
Andrzej Bolc: The second explanation may be that, in his report, he talks about transaction logs being available, and I may have come to the conclusion that, simply looking at the transaction logs, would simply get him back to the same point where the financial audit indicated that losses had been incurred.
Mr Blake: Do you think you were qualified to make that decision?
Andrzej Bolc: Absolutely not.
Mr Blake: Do you think you were sufficiently informed about the Horizon system to make that decision?
Andrzej Bolc: I was not, no.
Mr Blake: If we look at the top email, from Gareth Jenkins to yourself, he says:
“I have now amended my witness statement to refer to the specific case and to mention the removal of the cash account in 2005.
“Does this provide sufficient detail?”
He had told you in his email that he had no details of the complaints or investigations into Horizon, et cetera. Did you think at the time that that might be something that was worth including in the witness statement?
Andrzej Bolc: I think, in paragraph 3 of his reports, Horizon integrity, he goes on to say that he’d been involved in a number of cases personally where issues had arisen. So I’m not quite sure how that matches with that comment.
Mr Blake: So when you considered that statement and considered the communication between yourselves, did you think to yourself “Hang on a minute, these two things don’t match up”?
Andrzej Bolc: Possibly, I can’t recall.
Mr Blake: You possibly did think that there’s an inconsistency –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I can’t recall it at the time.
Mr Blake: Pardon?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall at the time if I did or not.
Mr Blake: Would it not have caused you serious concern to have seen such a significant inconsistency?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, potentially.
Mr Blake: Would you not remember such a significant –
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t, no.
Mr Blake: You can’t remember?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t remember.
Mr Blake: In the bottom email you say:
“Could you clarify what this means and discount it as a possible explanation for the losses?”
Do you think it’s right to have asked somebody who is seen by some people as an expert witness to discount something as a possible explanation, rather than, for example, explore it?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, it’s inappropriate, yes.
Mr Blake: The conversation reads a little like you’re asking Mr Jenkins to narrow his report or to keep it within narrow confines. Do you think that’s a fair –
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure that’s what I was attempting to do but, yes, it can be read like that.
Mr Blake: What do you think you were attempting to do?
Andrzej Bolc: To explain the issue around the 2005 removal of cash, cash account.
Mr Blake: Let’s have a look at the witness statement that was produced. It’s POL00059424. Some bits are a little hard to read, they’re a little faint, but I just want to start by looking at the first paragraph. It says:
“I am employed by Fujitsu Services Limited who have been contracted by the Post Office to provide the Horizon systems operating in post offices around the country. However I understand that my role is to assist the court rather than represent the views of my employers or Post Office Limited.”
Are you able to assist us with how that final sentence came into being?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I’m not.
Mr Blake: Could we scroll over the page, please. It says in the middle of that page:
“I have been asked to provide a statement in the case of Angela Sefton and Anne Nield. I understand that the integrity of the system has been questioned and this report provides some general information regarding the integrity of Horizon.”
There’s then a paragraph below that which says:
“I note that in the Defence Statement there is a statement that losses started in 2005 and a statement that Horizon was installed at that time. As I mention below, Horizon was rolled out between 1999 and 2002, so I am surprised at the reference to 2005. However there was a significant change to Horizon that was implemented late in 2005, namely the removal of the weekly Cash Account report and the mover to the monthly Branch Trading Report. These changes were thoroughly tested at the time (as is the case with any change to Horizon) and there has been no indication of there being any issues regarding this change. In particular the changes had no impact on the overall integrity of the system as outlined in this statement.”
Then, if we zoom out, it goes on to talk about the Horizon system in general, in general terms. Am I right in saying those two paragraphs that we’ve looked at, are those effectively the tailoring of that generic statement –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – in this particular case?
Do you consider that that bottom paragraph, about the Horizon system, do you consider that to be expert evidence or is that Mr Jenkins’ personal experience of matters that he was involved in? Or what did you understand or do you understand that to be?
For example, “These changes were thoroughly tested at the time (as is the case with any changes to Horizon)”; is that expert evidence from what you can see or is that something else?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure. I’m not sure I’d be able to make a determination whether that’s expert evidence or something else.
Mr Blake: What to did you see it being at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: Expert evidence, probably.
Mr Blake: Can we please scroll down to the penultimate page. We have at the bottom “Horizon Integrity”. This, I think we will see in another witness statement, it seems to be part of the generic statement but do correct me if I’m wrong on that.
Andrzej Bolc: Mm.
Mr Blake: It says:
“This is described in the separate integrity documents … which I now produce [and he exhibits them].
“I have been involved personally in a number of challenges to the integrity of the original Horizon system and produced Witness Statements for a number of cases where the integrity has been challenged. I am not aware of any cases where the integrity of Horizon Online has yet been successfully challenged in court.
“The main challenges in the cases in which I have been involved were presented as ‘hypothetical issues’ and my previous Witness Statements went thorough each of these hypotheses and showed that there was no specific evidence for any of them in the data presented.
“In summary, I would conclude by saying that I fully believe that Horizon will accurately record all data that is submitted to it and correctly account for it. However it cannot compensate for any data that is incorrectly input into it as a result of human error, lack of training or fraud (and nor can any other system).”
Those final bits sound very much like the requirements that we saw from Mr Bowyer earlier on of the things that he said he would like to be included in a witness statement. Are you aware of how these paragraphs came to feature?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not no, no.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00323672. We’re now in 2013, April 2013, and there’s a disclosure request.
“Dear Steve,
“Please see attached request received today. As discussed please could you indicate a timescale, cost for dealing with these queries so Mr Gibson can consider the position …”
I’ll very briefly just take you to the request itself, that’s POL00323673. This is yet another disclosure request in this particular case. The solicitors for Ms Nield are asking for a number of different things and, if we look at paragraph 12, over the page, request 12, they ask for:
“The set of system issues recorded for consideration by Fujitsu during the tenure of our Client across the Horizon system and those systems it interfaces to, together with those systems issues unresolved at the commencement of our Client’s tenure.”
Are you aware of anything in this case being disclosed to the defendants relating to issues with the Horizon system along those lines over and above what we’ve seen?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: I’m going to move on now to the Grant Allen case study.
Sir, I wonder whether – I can continue until 1.00 today, or we could take another break and it might be possible that we continue through the lunch period. I am in your hands. We will certainly finish by 3.00. We can either do it by me continuing for half an hour now and taking a lunch, or we can take a slightly longer break now instead of lunch.
Sir Wyn Williams: Let’s canvass what the people in the room with you, Mr Blake, what they’d prefer? I’m really essentially neutral about it but, if the consensus is that we should have less than a full lunch break but a reasonable break now, and then forego a lunch break, if that’s the consensus, I’m happy with that.
Mr Blake: There may be quite a few questions, actually, on behalf of Mr Jenkins, so perhaps we’ll continue going now.
Sir Wyn Williams: All right, fine.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
The case of Mr Allen. I’d like to very briefly take you through the case summary.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: It’s at RLIT0000039. Can we go, please, to page 4, and it starts at paragraph 16. I’m going to very briefly summarise this because, as I say, those in this room have seen these case studies on a few occasions:
“On 24 January 2013, in the Crown Court at Chester … Mr Allen pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud … [He] entered a guilty plea on a basis (accepted by [the Post Office] and the court) that he could not account for the loss but admitted covering it up. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order.”
If we look over the page very briefly, I’ll just take you through a few brief paragraphs. Paragraph 18, halfway down, it says:
“He described inexplicable small losses as well as some large losses which had been attributed to one member of staff. He denied that he had stolen any money. He expressed a willingness to repay the losses but disputed that the sums represented actual loss to [Post Office] and maintained that they had been caused by issues with the system.”
Next paragraph.
“A number of logs retained by the Post Office demonstrate that Mr Allen reported the relocation problems and his concerns about faults with Horizon.”
Next paragraph, please:
“During the course of criminal proceedings, on 2 November 2012, Mr Allen’s solicitors requested disclosure of an independent review of the Horizon system.”
So here we get into the Second Sight issue.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: “[Post Office’s] agents, Cartwright King, responded by indicating that the review was still pending. Cartwright King stated that, on receipt of the report, the Post Office would consider their continuing duty of disclosure and provide a copy if appropriate.”
The next paragraph says:
“[The Post Office] served a witness statement from Gareth Jenkins …”
It says this, about halfway down that paragraph:
“Mr Jenkins made clear that he had not seen detailed logs to see whether Horizon could be responsible for the losses at Mr Allen’s branch. He concluded that Horizon ‘will accurately record all data that is submitted to it and correctly asked for it’. Correspondence between Cartwright King and Mr Jenkins indicates that Cartwright King instructed Mr Jenkins not to analyse the detailed logs, in order to avoid incurring additional costs.”
Then over the page:
“[The Post Office] accepts that the prosecution was unfair and an affront to justice and the Court of Appeal says POL is right to do so.
“In our judgment, notwithstanding his guilty plea, Mr Allen’s conviction is unsafe.”
Your involvement in this case, I think, began in May and June 2012; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I believe so.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00089426. This is the investigation report produced by Mr Bradshaw; is that right?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. Is this the kind of document that you would receive in your green pack?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. Just pausing there, do you have any view as to the abilities of Mr Bradshaw?
Andrzej Bolc: There was a consistent failure to investigate the losses properly in relation to the cases that I dealt with with him.
Mr Blake: Was that a feeling you held at the time or is that a subsequent feeling?
Andrzej Bolc: Subsequently.
Mr Blake: At the time, did you think that he was thoroughly investigating those cases that you were involved in?
Andrzej Bolc: Not in relation to the Grant Allen case when I had a communication from Mr Jenkins indicating that he would be able to delve more deeply into the issue about the data loss, and I had previously instructed, in my advice, for enquiries to be made into that precise issue and it clearly hadn’t been.
Mr Blake: So, in your view, Mr Bradshaw hadn’t carried out an instruction to –
Andrzej Bolc: An advice.
Mr Blake: An advice to what, to look at particular logs?
Andrzej Bolc: I believe the advice is in the papers somewhere, if you could bring that up, then it will help with –
Mr Blake: We will have a look at it shortly.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: But is your view that that investigation was insufficient in some way –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – because of a lack of thoroughness?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: That was something that you had advised on at an early stage of the prosecution?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I’d asked them to look into this issue.
Mr Blake: Was it seen as important to you at the time?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at the bottom of page 3. This is the interview with Mr Allen. This summarised by Mr Bradshaw. It says:
“Mr Allen said that between the period of November 2009 and March 2010 he had to make good losses in the region of £1,400 and this … can be seen in his business accounts.”
If we go over the page, please. If we could highlight the top 3 paragraphs, it says:
“Mr Allen explained that during the period of March 2010 and April 2010 there was a discrepancy in the accounts of £3,000, he said that he had checked all the paperwork but could find no explanation for this discrepancy. He then made admissions that this £3,000 was never made good and had been rolled offer from each Branch Trading Period until the next audit took place …
“Mr Allen’s explanation for this discrepancy was that due to the relocation of the branch the Horizon system was not communicating, (ie polling) and the data on the Horizon system was not being sent.
“Mr Allen also explained that for each subsequent Branch Trading Period, unless the discrepancy in the accounts was small … the discrepancy was added on to the original £3,000 discrepancy …”
It seems as though he gives quite a straightforward explanation or description of the problem with Horizon in interview; would you agree with that?
Andrzej Bolc: Absolutely, yes, he had what he believed to be a data loss issue during his installation process.
Mr Blake: Certainly, your initial advice is at POL00089454. Having read that investigation report, you then give what is a very brief advice that says:
“In my opinion the evidence is sufficient to afford a realistic prospect of conviction. The draft charge is attached. In light of his admissions in interview, the prospects of success are good.
“In view of the nature of the charge, amount involved and breach of trust element, this is not a case suitable for a caution.”
We’ve dealt with cautions already.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Then it goes on to talk about mode of trial but would you accept that this is even briefer than the advice that we saw before, in respect of the sufficiency of evidence?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, because it – I mean, it says there “Please see attached charging advice for further information”, yes.
Mr Blake: Yes, so there is, attached to this, a substantive advice that we’re going to come to.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we, before we look at that, look at POL00089455, please. This is a draft of the proposed charge. Was that drafted by you?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Now we’ll look at the separate charging advice, POL00089057. Can you assist us with why, in this case, there was charging advice but in the previous case study that we saw, there wasn’t?
Andrzej Bolc: As I said, as I took on more of these advices, I developed my approach.
Mr Blake: So this is you gaining experience on the job?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, yes.
Mr Blake: You refer there to the prosecution case. In the audit, paragraph 2, you say that he admitted that his stock would be short:
“He hoped for an ‘overscale’ payment to … make good the shortages”, et cetera.
If we go over the page, there’s reference to the interview. If we look at, say, paragraph 4(iii):
“In the first 4 weeks there were wiring problems with the terminals, which he believed meant Horizon was not sending out (polling) data.”
So this is his account in interview. He says at (iv) that:
“In that period a £3,000 discrepancy arose in the accounts which could not otherwise be explained.
“v) He never made good the loss believing a transaction correction would resolve the issue in due course.
“vi) In each subsequent balancing period, anything other than insignificant discrepancies of £50 or less were added on to the original £3,000 loss.
“vii) All such discrepancies were transferred across to his stock unit
“viii) He inflated the cash-on-hand to achieve a balance …”
Then (ix), it says:
“When cash was checked independently during migration to Horizon Online in 2010 he reintroduced cash already counted into his stock unit to make it balance.”
Then you say at paragraph 5:
“Enquiries conducted subsequently confirmed:
“The non-polled report following the branch relocation showed that an engineer attended on 16 and 17 March 2010 to complete a base unit build and that BT fixed a fault. However as of 17 March 2010 the number of days not polled is shown as 12.”
It certainly shows there is some consistency between his in interview and the facts here.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: There were at least 12 non-polled days?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: “The Branch Confirmation Team has not been contacted in relation to the £3,000 discrepancy.
“No calls were made to [what we know as the NBSC].”
You reference to the defence case and you say:
“The only avenue open to him to defend either of these potential charges then would be to deny that he had the necessary mens rea, ie to say that he had not done so dishonestly.”
You then give advice on the statements. Could we scroll over the page, please. You say this, you say:
“With regard to the non-polled report, a separate statement will be required explaining in layman’s terms, why this does not show the data could have been lost during the 12 day period identified thus generating the £3,000 loss as claimed by the defendant.”
You then say:
“Subject to a satisfactory answer to the above query about the possibility of lost data then I would advise that a charge of fraud by false representation would suit the circumstances …”
So it seems as though what you’re asking for in the paragraph above is a statement to show why it doesn’t show that the data could have been lost. Were you aware of any basis for saying that it couldn’t have been lost, as in similar problems to the ones we’ve identified above, it seems as though what’s being sought is a statement confirming something –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, absolutely –
Mr Blake: – rather than a statement investigating something?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Do you accept now, looking at it, it would have been better to have said –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – “Investigate the non-polling”, rather than, “Please give us a statement” –
Andrzej Bolc: Absolutely, yes.
Mr Blake: – “that explains why it doesn’t prove the defendant’s case”.
One thing this advice doesn’t address is disclosure. Did you advise on disclosure? Did you provide written advice on disclosure?
Andrzej Bolc: No, no.
Mr Blake: Whose job did you consider it to be to consider the implications for disclosure in respect of this?
Andrzej Bolc: Again, I’m not sure whose responsibility that should have been.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at FUJ00153881. If we could start on the third page, please. It’s correspondence between yourself and Gareth Jenkins. You say there:
“I attach an extract from Mr Allen’s interview. As in the case summary I sent you, he is trying to suggest that an initial loss of £3,000 is attributable to lost data which has not reached Head Office because of installation problems. Are you able to comment on this scenario at all? Ultimately we would need to discredit this as an explanation that holds any water. He denies stealing the subsequent losses and therefore by implication may be seeking to blame the system for these losses as well.”
Do you think it was appropriate to say to an expert witness –
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: – that they needed to discredit an explanation?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Why did you think this was happening over and over again?
Andrzej Bolc: I think it was an approach that had been adopted that I’d seen in other documentation and used the same approach, and it wasn’t right.
Mr Blake: Was it a particular culture at Cartwright King or was it something else?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t say.
Mr Blake: You said you adopted it from documentation. Do you mean documentation from the Post Office, from Cartwright King or from somewhere else?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, even if you go back to the very first email from the other solicitors, Stone King or something, it’s a similar approach right there from the outset, isn’t it?
Mr Blake: Can we please look at the second page and there’s a response from Gareth Jenkins. Mr Jenkins says, as follows, and I think it – I’m sorry, I have read out quite a lot this morning but I’m going to read out a bit more. I’m going to read out the contents of this email. It says:
“I’ve had a look at the statement here and I think it might be helpful to have a dig as to exactly what went on in the branch at the time of the initial loss. I think I understand what he is claiming. However where there are comms problems it is normal to recover any missing data once the comms are sorted out (provided it is within 35 days), so this shouldn’t be a reason for a loss. Also there are processes in place to retrieve outstanding data where there are extended comms issues lasting more than 7 days …
“I could just make a general statement relating to that or if we retrieved the data from that time I could check out exactly what happened in this case.”
He says:
“I have checked with Penny in our prosecution support team and Post Office Limited have not requested any data relating to this case (she’s checked back as far as April 2010), nor have we been asked about Helpdesk calls (which would probably have occurred if there were comms issues).
“Is it worth asking Post Office Limited to request such data for me to examine before putting together a specific statement for this, or is a simple generic one sufficient?
“Note that data retrieval is part of the standard service that Fujitsu provides but any time I spend on examining the data, say a couple of days, would be chargeable so there are commercial considerations for you or Post Office to consider.”
Now, it seems there from his response that the advice that you pointed us to earlier, as suggesting that investigation should be carried out, has not, in fact, been carried out.
Andrzej Bolc: Indeed, yes, yes.
Mr Blake: I think you said that it was important, you saw it as sufficiently important to put in that advice?
Andrzej Bolc: It was a clear, reasonable line of inquiry.
Mr Blake: If we turn to the first page, at the bottom of the page, we have your response. It’s an hour later: 12.50, we’re now at 1.54. You say:
“Thank you for considering the position so promptly. I can now confirm that the case has been put back … I would appreciate if you could add your general comments at this stage regarding the safeguards in place for comms problems to your statement, and send this to me as before and I will refer back to the Post Office to consider whether we go on to request the retrieval of data for your further analysis. I say so on the assumption that the data is available for 7 years. An idea of what 2 days’ analysis would cost would assist in that decision. With regard to Helpdesk calls I also assume this is freely available to POL and therefore would request that enquiry is carried out. I attach the Horizon non-polling report obtained by the Investigator in this case previously.”
Mr Jenkins responds above, six minutes later, 2.00, he says:
“Okay, I will put together some general comments later this week.
“A look at the non-polled report shows that the branch was offline for 12 days …”
So, again, confirming something that was said in the defence.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: “… assuming it was okay after the last entry.
“The data should have been fully recovered assuming base units were swapped correctly and I’ll cover that in what I say.
“Yes, data up to 7 years is freely available”, and he gives you the cost.
So we have unexplained shortfalls or discrepancies critical to the defence in this case, clearly raised in interview. Mr Jenkins has flag that analysis of non-polling incidents would be useful. You responded, you raised possible cost concerns, and that you would ask the Post Office.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, there’d been an email from Mr Singh, not directly sent to me but to Cartwright King, about getting authorisation for any costs before they were incurred.
Mr Blake: Did you, in this particular case, make enquiries about the cost or did you dismiss it?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, in this case?
Mr Blake: Yes. So we’re talking about a particular case, Grant Allen, and we have Mr Jenkins saying he can carry out an analysis for you?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I have gone back to the Investigator, Mr Bradshaw, about that.
Mr Blake: Can you assist us with that correspondence?
Andrzej Bolc: There’s an email. If you could bring it up then it will assist me, yes.
Mr Blake: Let’s have a look at POL00089380, please. Is this the email chain that you’re referring to?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, it is.
Mr Blake: Yes. Is it on the first page, is it the email of 12 December, 12.54 that you’re referring to?
Andrzej Bolc: 12.54, that’s the email from Mr Jenkins.
Mr Blake: Yes.
Andrzej Bolc: Then, subsequent to that, I think I’ve forwarded it to Mr Bradshaw, the email above.
Mr Blake: Okay, so we have here an email from Gareth Jenkins in the middle saying, “Sorry for the delay”. He’s amended the statement to cover the specific case of Grant Allen, so it looks as though he’s put in –
Andrzej Bolc: The issue –
Mr Blake: – a couple of paragraphs into the generic statement?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: “Is that sufficient for you at this stage or do I need to cover anything else? When you confirm it is all complete I can arrange to get it signed and sent to you as before.”
Then we have your email to Steve Bradshaw. You say as follows:
“Please see the attached report from Gareth regarding this case which I propose to serve on the defence. I had asked him to look at the non-polling issue raised in Mr Allen’s interview and I believe that he had dealt with it adequately for our purposes. Gareth tells me that it is in fact possible for him to retrieve the actual data from this time to see what actually occurred at this branch and that the retrieval of data is free to the Post Office. However he estimates that it will take approximately two and a half days for him to look at it and analyse what it means and this would be chargeable to the post office at approximately £2,500. I have told him that at present we do not wish to pursue this option unless it became unavoidable. Can you let me know your thoughts before I get him to sign it off?”
Now, it doesn’t look very much as though you’re open to that possibility, does it, in that email? That’s “I have told him we don’t wish to pursue it unless it’s unavoidable”, is that on instructions or –
Andrzej Bolc: Yeah, I’ve had to look very hard at this email to try to understand what I was meaning. I’ve said, “I had asked him to look at the non-polling issue raised interview. I believe that he had dealt with it adequately for our purposes”.
I’m not sure that that’s correct. It was still inadequate because he’s saying that there still might be some issue because of the installation. So, although he said, in theory, the data should have polled once it was reconnected, he is saying that might not be the case because of installation and the process of that reinstallation.
And then I’ve gone to say:
“Gareth tells me that it is in fact possible for him to retrieve the actual data at this time to see what actually occurred.”
I think at this point I’m becoming exasperated with him because I’ve understood now that he hasn’t done this and, clearly, this is something that was possible and should have been done. And then I think I’ve lost my temper with him and said “I have told him at present we do not wish to pursue this option unless it becomes unavoidable”, in the sense of is this how we’re really approaching this, we don’t want to do anything unless we have to?
“Can you let me know your thoughts before we get him to sign it.”
I think it has become an angry email.
Mr Blake: So your reading of this email is that you were angrily, effectively, telling off Mr Bradshaw for not doing enough?
Andrzej Bolc: It’s the only way that it makes sense because here I’m asking him to look at it: we can do this, there’s actual data, see what actually occurred, imploring him to do that and then saying, “Actually don’t bother, unless it’s unavoidable”.
It’s kind of – it’s conflicting.
Mr Blake: Can I suggest to you another interpretation to consider. You say, for example, “I believe that he had dealt with it adequately for our purposes”. That’s –
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I say –
Mr Blake: – present tense –
Andrzej Bolc: I say “adequate” because in the sense that, in theory, he’s addressed the issue but he’s still left open the possibility of data loss having occurred because of the incorrect reinstallation of the equipment.
Mr Blake: You then say “Gareth tells me it’s in fact possible to get it but it’s going to cost this much, and I’ve told him at present that we don’t wish to pursue this option unless it becomes unavoidable”, as in “I don’t think it’s sensible at the present time, and we’ll any do so if it becomes unavoidable”.
That seems to be something that you have said to Gareth Jenkins. It doesn’t, it may be suggested, read like somebody who is frustrated at Mr Bradshaw. It reads, perhaps, it might be said, to be –
Andrzej Bolc: It’s not clear, I agree.
Mr Blake: Well, it may be said that it is, in fact, clear and that it is clearly telling Mr Bradshaw that you had told Mr Jenkins that it was not required at present and would only be required if it became unavoidable.
Andrzej Bolc: I think if you look at the later email, where I respond to Gareth – Mr Jenkins – and say “the Investigator is happy with the report”, the choice of the word “Investigator” perhaps wasn’t accidental and was rather in an ironic sense: the Investigator, who is supposed to be doing this, isn’t investigating.
Mr Blake: So you think there’s another email that suggests that the Investigator is happy and that, in some way, there is a hidden meaning to it?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I think so.
Mr Blake: Perhaps we’ll look at that email after the lunch break?
Sir, might that be an appropriate point at which to take a lunch break?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, certainly. So what time shall we resume?
Mr Blake: I’m just going to make it a quick – if I can be allowed by the transcriber I would say 1.50.
I think that’s a yes. I’ll take that as a yes. 1.50, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: 1.50, all right.
(12.57 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(1.50 pm)
Mr Blake: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear me?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, thank you.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. Could we look at POL00323665. It’s the same email as we were looking at just before the break but this one just has a little more information on screen.
Do you recall we were looking at this document and I think you were suggesting that it was Mr Bradshaw rather than yourself who was effectively pushing not to carry out more investigations; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not suggesting he was pushing not to. No.
Mr Blake: No? What are you suggesting?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, in what respect?
Mr Blake: Well, let’s have a look. So we’re Wednesday 12 December, 2.12 pm. We then have the document you mentioned just before lunch, FUJ00153884.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: I think this is the email that you were referring to. It is an email from yourself to Gareth Jenkins –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: – not very long after, 3.29. So an hour later.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Saying:
“Dear Gareth,
“The Investigator is happy with the report as it stands. Please can you proceed as before.
“Many thanks.”
Now, I think you said that “the Investigator” was said in an ironic sense.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: How are we to read that email?
Andrzej Bolc: That I’m displeased with him because he hasn’t carried out his investigations.
Mr Blake: How are you showing in that email that you were displeased with Mr Bradshaw?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m – instead of just saying “POL are happy”, I’m using the word “Investigator” specifically, I think, because I’m not happy with the way that he’s carried out that role.
Mr Blake: Do you think that a reasonable person, reading that email, would infer that you –
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: – were displeased with the Investigator?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: So is it just something that you yourself would have known?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: I mean, isn’t it entirely consistent with the suggestion that you made to the Investigator in the previous email?
Andrzej Bolc: Also, yes.
Mr Blake: Can we look, please, at POL00089374. I think this is another email that you were referring to before the break and it’s an email from Jarnail Singh about cost. So he says in an email to Rachael Panter:
“The cost of obtaining data, statements is very expensive which simply results from Post Office’s contractual obligations to Fujitsu and also legal, compliance and budgetary obligations puts further restraints on obtaining such data from Fujitsu. Therefore it is very important due process is strictly followed. I need to be notified if anything is required from Fujitsu.”
I think that’s the email you were referring to before.
Andrzej Bolc: It is.
Mr Blake: Was there anything – I mean, this is in November, so this isn’t in the particular context of that particular discussion that you were having with Gareth Jenkins. Is there anything over and above that that led you to believe that the Post Office didn’t want to obtain the data?
Andrzej Bolc: No, it was simply Mr Bradshaw’s inactivity in getting it.
Mr Blake: One of the things that Mr Jenkins said that you could obtain is the data itself, he said it was free, but it’s his time analysing it that costs money.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Did you consider obtaining the data itself?
Andrzej Bolc: I think I did and I think I thought that, without his analysis, it wouldn’t be worth much.
Mr Blake: What about to the defendant? Might it be worth something to the defendant to have the raw data?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, absolutely. I agree with you.
Mr Blake: Do you think that was another mistake?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at FUJ00124200 and this is the statement from Mr Jenkins in the Allen case. Paragraph 1 again, same as the previous statement we looked at, and it’s over the page, please, that we get to the specific part about Mr Allen’s case. He says:
“I have been asked to provide a statement in the case of Grant Allen.”
So similar form of words to the previous case, just now reflecting the specifics of this case study.
“I understand that the integrity of the system has been questioned and this report provides some general information regarding the integrity of Horizon.
“I note that in the Summary of Facts, it is stated that during the period of relocation in March 2010 that Mr Allen believed that a £3,000 discrepancy was due to Horizon not sending out data (non-polling). I have been shown extracts from the Horizon non-polled reports for the period in March which shows that the Winsford Branch was included in this report for 12 days up and to including 17 March. This in itself is usual as if a branch appears to be non-polled report for more than a few days, an attempt is made to retrieve the data by other means than before day 10. (I have no knowledge as to whether this occurred in this case or not.)”
Just pausing there, is that something that an enquiry could have been made into?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, repeat that?
Mr Blake: Where he says, “I have no knowledge as to whether this occurred in this case or not”, he may have no knowledge but do you think that an Investigator could have been tasked or he could have been tasked to make further enquiries within Fujitsu as to whether any attempts were made to retrieve data?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, it could have been, yes.
Mr Blake: “This in itself is unusual …”
Again, do you see this as expert evidence or speaking from his own personal knowledge of his own company’s processes?
Andrzej Bolc: Probably both, is it?
Mr Blake: Then he says:
“This confirms the fact that there were indeed communications issues between Horizon and the data centre at this time. However it should have no impact on data recorded locally within the branch provided all operational processes were followed correctly.”
Andrzej Bolc: That’s the caveat, isn’t it?
Mr Blake: Absolutely. So, had he looked at the data, he may have been in a better position to say, one way or another; would you agree with that?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: “Also, once communications were restored, all historical data [again] should have been sent from the branch back to the data centre as normal.”
So do you agree that, if a thorough investigation had taken place into the actual underlying data, there may have been more clarity in that regard?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: He says:
“I have not had an opportunity to examine the detailed logs from this period to see whether there were any issues and any justification in the claim that this resulted in apparent system losses of £3,000 as claimed.”
Now, “Not had an opportunity to examine”, do you think that is a fair and accurate description of the correspondence that we’ve been going through before lunch?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, it’s suggesting that he was told not to do that, which is correct, but, equally, he would have had access to the data working within Fujitsu, so he could have chosen to do that himself, and I believe in fact Fujitsu went on, or his managers went on to task him with that.
Mr Blake: The correspondence that we saw between yourself and Mr Jenkins, and also the correspondence with Mr Bradshaw, do you think that Mr Jenkins had an opportunity to examine the logs but was told not to or was told that it wasn’t necessary?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, he was told it wasn’t required at that time, yes.
Mr Blake: If we go to the penultimate page, we have the words, the same as the previous statement on Horizon integrity. Scrolling over the page, we have the final paragraph that says:
“In summary, I would conclude by saying that I fully believe that Horizon will accurately record all the data that is submitted to it and correctly account for it. However it cannot compensate for any data that is incorrectly input into it as a result of human error, lack of training or fraud.”
So “I fully believe that Horizon will accurately record all data”. In circumstances where there was an opportunity to actually look at the actual data in this case, do you think it is fair that a statement was submitted in this case with a belief that Horizon will accurately record all of the data?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, he’s saying that he believes it would do. He’s not saying that it did and he’s making it clear that the data is there and available for consideration.
Mr Blake: But as the solicitor with conduct of the case, do you think that it was fair to submit a statement that had a belief in the accuracy, without a proper assessment of what actually happened in the particular facts of this case?
Andrzej Bolc: I accept what you’re saying.
Mr Blake: Both of those case studies that we’ve been looking at, the Sefton and Allen cases, were being considered by you in 2012, and we’ve looked at documents up until December 2012. As at this period, late 2012 going into 2013, what was your view as to the number of Horizon challenges?
Andrzej Bolc: That Cartwright King were dealing with, you mean?
Mr Blake: Yes.
Andrzej Bolc: It was, as far as I understood, the same ones in the list you’d previous flagged up with the names.
Mr Blake: What did you think about the rising challenge to the Horizon system at that time, late 2012 into 2013?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, clearly there was widespread concerns about it.
Mr Blake: Were you concerned about it?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00108074. This is advice in a case of Farzana Akhter, and if we look at the final page, page 5, this is an advice that was written by you, 31 August 2013.
If we go to the page before, “Horizon Issues”:
“The case is based on data provided by the Horizon system. Given the defendant’s denial of any wrongdoing, the inference that could be drawn is that she and the complainants are both telling the truth that the system at fault. One would therefore expect the defence to jump on the Horizon bandwagon.”
If you were concerned about the Horizon system as at 2012/2013, why in advice were you writing about defendants jumping on the Horizon bandwagon?
Andrzej Bolc: It’s the repeated use of that word that I’ve come across and I’ve just adopted that same phraseology.
Mr Blake: By that stage, you were aware of the Second Sight report, for example?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: Why do you think that you were referring to the Horizon bandwagon, rather than referring to genuinely believed cases?
Andrzej Bolc: As I say, I was subjected to hearing that word used repeatedly and I’ve adopted it myself.
Mr Blake: Subjected by who?
Andrzej Bolc: “Subjected” is not quite right but I’d been hearing it repeatedly.
Mr Blake: Who from?
Andrzej Bolc: People around me; people in POL; Investigators.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00108114. Another advice, this case Tirath Chahal. Could we look at page 8. We’re now September, so a month later, September 2013, page 7, paragraph 12. Again, we see there:
“It is likely that this defendant will grasp at any potential defence available to him, and therefore an attempt to jump on the Horizon bandwagon must be anticipated.”
So this was just a phrase that was routinely used at Cartwright King, at the Post Office and which you adopted as your own?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: I’m going to move onto a slightly separate topic and very briefly. Can we look at POL00038538. There came a time in 2013 where you were involved in a review of previous cases involving Horizon; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Mr Blake: This is the General Review advice written by Brian Altman. Did you have any interaction with Mr Altman at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I didn’t, no.
Mr Blake: Can we look at page 27. Top of page 27, he says during a telephone call in which representatives of the Post Office, Bond Dickinson, Cartwright King and himself participated, it was agreed that a particular start date was proportionate.
Then further down the page, at 75, he says the question that’s been posed is:
“‘Had POL been possessed of the material contained within the Second Sight Interim Report during the currency of any particular prosecution, should/would we have been required to disclose some or all of that material to the defence?’”
This was an exercise, I think, that you took part in; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, the review – an initial sift of all those prosecutions, yes.
Mr Blake: If we look at page 32, paragraph 94 of Mr Altman’s advice. Can you briefly tell us, what did that “sift” involve?
Andrzej Bolc: It was taking – all the files that had been prosecuted were transporting to the office in Derby where I was relocated and we were given a question which had been posed by Mr Clarke to capture any cases where Horizon might have been an issue – I think was the phrase he used – so a very wide definition to ensure that all of those cases were considered subsequently.
Mr Blake: Mr Altman notes here that:
“At the conference [he] did make the observation … that lawyers should not be engaged in sifting or reviewing a case if they were responsible for conducting the case at trial …”
Sorry, at the paragraph above, 93, he says that he had been told that you and Martin Smith had been involved in sifting some of your own cases.
Andrzej Bolc: That’s right. The Sefton and Nield file was one that I was obviously aware of and that’s on Mr Clarke’s desk for him to consider.
Mr Blake: Are you able to assist us with whether there was any change to the processes after Mr Altman’s advice, in terms of how the sift was carried out?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall.
Mr Blake: Did you continue to review cases that you had been involved in?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure. Most of them were not related to me.
Mr Blake: Did you review cases that close colleagues had been involved in?
Andrzej Bolc: The vast majority of them were from pre-Cartwright King involvement.
Mr Blake: What proportion of them, would you say, were Cartwright King cases?
Andrzej Bolc: Less than 5 per cent.
Mr Blake: Were they the kinds of cases that we’ve been looking at today, prosecuted by Mr Bowyer, or somebody like that?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Blake: One other document from slightly later, 2014 now. Can we look at POL00323681. We’re now in March 2014, and this is an email from you to Rodric Williams, subject “Horizon – Expert Instruction”, and you say:
“Martin is at a funeral. He has asked me to forward these documents.
“Also I spoke to a consultant about 15 minutes ago who rang to run a position statement by us for the board on Monday relating to not commenting on turning points in criminal cases that have gone to trial. I am waiting to speak to Simon on the subject, but have yet to receive an email from the consultant with her details to respond.”
Are you able to assist us with your recollection about that issue?
Andrzej Bolc: No, I’m afraid I can’t. I can’t remember who the consultant was or what happened consequently.
Mr Blake: Do you recall the Post Office liaising with yourself or your colleagues about public responses to issues relating to Horizon?
Andrzej Bolc: So I picked up this call because Martin Smith is not available. Normally, he would be the first point of contact and take all these kind of calls, yes.
Mr Blake: Apart from this particular incidence, do you recall any conversations or discussion of any conversations where the Post Office was running position statements by your firm?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: The two documents that are attached, very briefly, we’ll just have a quick look at those. Can we look at POL00323682. You’ll see there are two attachments: one is “Draft Scope for computer experts” and the second is “Horizon Core Audit Process”, executive summary.
This is the “Draft Scope for computer experts”. I’m not going to go through it in any detail but, can you assist us, is this a document that you are aware of the purpose?
Andrzej Bolc: I was aware that Mr Clarke and Martin Smith were engaged in trying to source a new expert and it looks like this document was for their purposes.
Mr Blake: Thank you. If we could scroll through that document, we can see the draft scope. So this was an expert to replace Gareth Jenkins after Mr Clarke had given his advice on the use of Mr Jenkins.
Andrzej Bolc: That’s right, I believe they went on a number of meetings to a number of computer departments at universities to try to source someone.
Mr Blake: Were you involved in that process at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: The next document is POL00323683. This was also attached to that email. This is a document entitled “Horizon Core Audit Process”, from December 2013. If we scroll over the page, it has an executive summary there that refers to what we know as remote access, I think it says:
“When a transaction is conducted at a counter, an auditable mechanism has been built in to ensure these transactions are taken from the counter, stored in the Horizon main branch database and then copied to an audit database.
“This mechanism can be considered a ‘closed loop’ where information is securely exchanged from the counter to the Horizon branch database and then on to the audit database.
“Whilst copies of transaction data are provided to numerous external systems from the main Horizon database, the Core Audit Process is segregated, its records are securely sealed and audit records cannot be accessed for changed through external interfaces.”
Is the issue of remote access something that you had to deal with at all?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: Is this a document that you recall having any involvement in, other than forwarding?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Blake: No. Thank you. I’m going to pass on to Ms Dobbin in a moment.
Is there anything else that you would like to address at all or would like to say to the Chair?
Andrzej Bolc: Simply to reiterate the apology I’ve made in my written statement.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
Sir, do you have any questions?
Sir Wyn Williams: No, thank you.
Mr Blake: Thank you. I think Ms Dobbin has some questions.
Sir Wyn Williams: Is it just Ms Dobbin? Just so I know what’s happening?
Mr Blake: It is, yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine.
Questioned by Ms Dobbin
Ms Dobbin: I’m grateful. Thank you, sir.
Mr Bolc, my name is Clair Dobbin and I represent Mr Jenkins. I want to ask you some questions about the provenance of his generic witness statement and I’m going to take you to some documents to do that but if, at any stage, I go too fast will you please let me know, in case the documents you’re not familiar with.
Andrzej Bolc: Okay.
Ms Dobbin: I wanted to start, though, if I can, at the beginning with the document POL00141416. You’ve seen this already, Mr Bolc, it is the questions that Mr Bowyer framed with the expert’s report, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: You did look at those earlier. I wonder if we could just please highlight those questions. Thank you.
I just wanted to focus on them, if we may, a little more, Mr Bolc. So we can see that what the expert was to address was a description of the system in layman’s terms, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: A declaration that it had yet to be attacked successfully?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: A summary of the basic attacks made on the system concentrating on any expert reports served in past cases, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: I won’t go through all of it but then, plainly, the last we see at 4, the question asking about human error, correct? In other words, could discrepancies be caused by human error, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: As I understand your evidence, Mr Bolc, you hadn’t seen these questions; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: Do you agree that those questions are narrow in their compass?
Andrzej Bolc: Repeat that, sorry.
Ms Dobbin: Do you agree that the questions are narrow in their compass?
Andrzej Bolc: Oh, narrow. Erm … yes.
Ms Dobbin: I think you said earlier that you agreed that they were focused on litigation, rather than on the system itself, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So, in other words, that the expert wasn’t going to be asked to give an account of previous errors or issues that had affected the Horizon system, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure if it goes that far.
Ms Dobbin: Well, let’s look at it again. It certainly doesn’t go that far:
“3) A summary of the basic attacks made on the system concentrating on any expert reports served in past cases.”
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: The focus is on issues that have been raised in litigation, isn’t it?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Then the fourth question, the question about whether or not human error could account for discrepancies, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: The question is?
Ms Dobbin: Well, again, it’s quite a narrow question, isn’t it?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I understand what you’re saying, yes.
Ms Dobbin: So you agree with me, Mr Bolc, that these questions were not intended to elicit an expert report that, for example, set out the history of, for example, past issues or errors that had arisen in the Horizon system?
Andrzej Bolc: Isn’t that covered in question number 3? A summary of the basic attacks made on the system?
Ms Dobbin: But, as we can see, concentrating on any expert reports served in past cases, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Were you aware – and I think the answer to this must be that you weren’t – that the statement you ultimately served in the cases of Ms Sefton and Ms Nield and in the case of Mr Allen, that that statement was responsive to those four questions?
Andrzej Bolc: You’re correct. I wasn’t aware.
Ms Dobbin: Had you been aware of that, do you think you would have viewed that statement in a different light?
Andrzej Bolc: Quite possibly, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Because, again, you would have understood that the statement was narrower in its compass than you understood, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I would have understood it was in relation to these specific questions, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Right. It’s right, Mr Bolc, and you would know this, wouldn’t you, that the instructions that an expert has been given are part of the necessary inclusions on an expert report or statement, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, that is correct. Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So, in other words, that these questions ought to have formed part of the statements that you served in those cases, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: They should have done, yes.
Ms Dobbin: But you didn’t know about them?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct.
Ms Dobbin: Again, had that happened, then anyone who was reading that statement would have understood that, in fact, it was responsive to four quite narrow questions, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Indeed they would.
Ms Dobbin: Do you also agree, Mr Bolc, that this sort of background is part of the material that ought to have been recorded on a disclosure schedule? In other words, that this formed part of the background of the statements that you went on to serve?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct.
Ms Dobbin: But, again, it didn’t go on a disclosure schedule because you didn’t know anything about these communications –
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct.
Ms Dobbin: – is that right?
I think, again, it follows from your evidence, Mr Bolc, that you didn’t know that these four questions had resulted in a report being prepared by Mr Jenkins; is that correct?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct.
Ms Dobbin: I just want to show you the first page of the report, just to ensure that you’re not familiar with it. If I may, that is document FUJ00123914. Is that a document that you’ve seen before?
Andrzej Bolc: Is it one of the two attachments to the –
Ms Dobbin: It’s not, Mr Bolc.
Andrzej Bolc: Oh.
Ms Dobbin: So perhaps if we could just scan through that document quickly.
Andrzej Bolc: If it’s not one of the two that would have been attached to his other statement, then I’m not sure I would have seen it, no.
Ms Dobbin: All right. That report becomes Mr Jenkins’ generic witness statement, Mr Bolc, and it was edited or cut and pasted into a witness statement. I think you’ve said you weren’t involved in that process –
Andrzej Bolc: I was not.
Ms Dobbin: – is that right?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct.
Ms Dobbin: So, for example, you wouldn’t have known that this report set out that Mr Jenkins didn’t know anything about 21 of the cases that Helen Rose had dealt with in her report?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, repeat the question.
Ms Dobbin: You wouldn’t have known, for example, then, that Mr Jenkins had set out in this report that he didn’t know anything about 21 of the cases that Helen Rose dealt with in her report?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: All right. Do you agree, Mr Bolc, that the fact that this sort of report existed and became a statement was also relevant to your disclosure duties –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: – and that follows because a draft report or – it’s not a draft report – a report like this, that serves as a foundation for another report or a witness statement ought to be listed on a Schedule of Unused Material; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, an Investigator’s notebook or something like that.
Ms Dobbin: But, again, that didn’t happen because you didn’t know anything about this report?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: In terms of your interactions with Mr Singh and his involvement in commissioning this witness statement from Mr Jenkins, did he ever discuss with you what had happened in the Misra case?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Did he tell you that, in the Misra case, in fact, there had been evidence about the Callendar Square bug?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Did he tell you that, in Misra, Fujitsu had explained that there was a locking issue that caused transactions to be lost?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Did he explain to you that, in Misra, Fujitsu had explained that there was a record of around 200,000 faults, both in the testing and live system on Horizon?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Was that something he explained? Did he explain anything to you about an error log?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Did he tell you that, in fact, the approach in the Misra case had been that Mr Jenkins had been asked to examine the data for about a year for that post office, in order to ascertain whether or not there were any issues with Horizon at that branch?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: He didn’t ever suggest to you that it might be worth commissioning a broader report into Horizon to canvass those sorts of issues?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Just, if I may, going back to how the report changed, my learned friend Mr Blake took you to the line that appeared in the statement which set out “my duties to the court”; do you remember that line in the generic witness statement?
Andrzej Bolc: Very brief sentence, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Did you have anything to do with the insertion of that line into the draft witness statement?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: You didn’t explain to Mr Jenkins, for example, the sorts of duties that an expert was subject to and what duties to the court encompassed?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Were those things that you anticipated or thought had been explained to him by Mr Singh?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: We know that that report ultimately became the generic statement and we’ve seen the email discussion with Ms Panter where she mentioned that she had found it; do you remember?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: I’m not going to go back to it because it doesn’t matter.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I do.
Ms Dobbin: In terms of Ms Panter, can I just check with you, please, she’s been referred to by one witness as a paralegal. Can you assist us as to whether or not she was, in fact, a solicitor at your firm?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t. She may have been a paralegal, I can’t recall.
Ms Dobbin: She was certainly very junior, wasn’t she?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, she was.
Ms Dobbin: I think we’ve seen some reference to her just having been out of Bar School, possibly. Does that accord with your recollection of how junior she was?
Andrzej Bolc: It’s possible, yes.
Ms Dobbin: I want to pick up, then, if I may, in the chronology and, if I could go to a document POL00097061. Please may we go to the entry for the 19 October, page 3. So can you see Mr Jenkins is saying:
“Sorry, but I’m not aware of this case …”
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I see it.
Ms Dobbin: If we just scroll up, please, a little bit more. It’s the bottom of page 1. Thank you. I think we can see from the bottom of this page, this is in relation to the original generic statement, that Mr Jenkins hadn’t understood that it related to a specific case, that he thought it was just a general statement.
So –
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, where are you –
Ms Dobbin: I’m so sorry, if we’re looking at 19 October, it’s been highlighted and drawn out. It’s from Mr Jenkins.
Andrzej Bolc: To Sharron Jennings?
Ms Dobbin: Yes. This is in relation to the generic statement, the original generic statement.
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, your question?
Ms Dobbin: You’re looking a little puzzled?
Andrzej Bolc: I am, sorry, I’ve lost the thread.
Ms Dobbin: All right. We can see from the earlier emails that Ms Panter referred to a statement that she had found, a generic statement, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: I understand, yes.
Ms Dobbin: I had just wanted to pick up the chain here to see if you’re familiar with this, that Mr Jenkins hadn’t understood that that report or statement was for any specific case. Was that something you were aware of or understood?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: So what was your understanding?
Andrzej Bolc: Of, sorry?
Ms Dobbin: Of the status of the generic report, Mr Bolc. Did you understand that it had just been prepared or provided for a case or for any specific reason?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, I’m not sure what it’s been provided for.
Ms Dobbin: The original generic report that you took in your cases and served, so the original document, the original statement.
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, I’m getting confused. Apologies.
Ms Dobbin: All right. Mr Bolc, you understand that in the cases that you were involved with, there was a generic statement that you served, in Ms Sefton and Ms Nield’s case –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: – and in Mr Allen’s case –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: – and that started out life as a generic statement, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Right, okay.
Ms Dobbin: Did you understand that?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure that I did.
Ms Dobbin: So where did you think that this statement had come from?
Andrzej Bolc: I assumed he’d prepared it.
Ms Dobbin: Well, let’s go a little further into the emails and see if we can make sense of this. Can we please go to POL00097137. Page 2, please. You were taken to this before, Mr Bolc, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So this is Ms Panter telling Mr Jenkins – so we can see this from the first paragraph, she suggested to him that his statement, so the expert report – yes – has been served as evidence in a number of Post Office cases; do you see that?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I do.
Ms Dobbin: Now, we saw not very long before that Mr Jenkins was saying he didn’t know that his report was for any specific case, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So can you help us with whether or not what she was suggesting there was actually true?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m sorry, I’m still a bit confused.
Ms Dobbin: Ms Panter, your colleague, was suggesting that Mr Jenkins’ report had been served in other cases.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: I’m sorry to interrupt, Ms Dobbin, but is that actually right? As I read it, she’s saying it’s been served in the Nemesh Patel case and she’s seeking his permission for it to be served in cases 1 to 6. I may have misread it but, at the moment, I think that’s what it means.
Ms Dobbin: Sir, that’s really what I’m trying to get Mr Bolc’s help with because the first paragraph says:
“As you may be aware, your expert report has been served as evidence in a number of Post Office cases.”
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes. I follow but it just seemed to me that the substance of it, once she actually (unclear), says something different. But I agree, it’s unclear, shall we say?
Ms Dobbin: Yes. That’s really what I’m seeking your help with, Mr Bolc: whether or not you know that was, in fact, correct, that the statement had been served?
Andrzej Bolc: Oh, I see. In November?
Ms Dobbin: Yes.
Andrzej Bolc: Well, it hadn’t been served in either of the two cases that I was dealing with. I can’t say if it had been served in any others.
Ms Dobbin: Yes, and if it hadn’t been signed, for example, then it’s very unlikely that it would have been served in other cases; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I do, yes.
Ms Dobbin: So, to the extent that she was giving the impression to Mr Jenkins that his report had been served in other cases, it does look like that was wrong; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: I see what you’re saying, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Then what she goes on to tell him is that:
“It should be noted [and this is the second paragraph] that to date most, if not all cases raising the Horizon system as an issue, have been unable/not willing to particularise what specific issues they may have had with the system, and how that shapes the nature of their defence.
“As we already have your detailed report, I would like to serve it in each of the cases listed below …”
Yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Then, as has been pointed out by the Chair, she goes on to say that the report had already been served in one case, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So saying:
“I would like to serve your report in the remaining cases and have attached a case summary of each case so that you can familiarise yourself with the facts.”
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, that’s what it says.
Ms Dobbin: So, in other words, what she was saying here is “I intend to serve your report in cases where they haven’t raised a specific issue with the Horizon system”, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, that’s – yes, I think that’s what she’s saying but, clearly, in some of the cases specific issues had been risen (sic), as in for Mr Allen.
Ms Dobbin: I’m going to go on to deal with that, Mr Bolc?
Andrzej Bolc: Okay.
Ms Dobbin: What I’m trying to set out is the background by which the statements came to be given.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So you agree with me, there are no meaningful instructions in this email, are there?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: She’s telling him “I want to serve your report in these cases and I’ve attached a case summary”, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: She’s not asking him to comment on the detail of the individual cases, is she?
Andrzej Bolc: She’s not, no.
Ms Dobbin: You wouldn’t instruct an expert, would you, by just sending them a case summary, would you?
Andrzej Bolc: No, you wouldn’t, no.
Ms Dobbin: If you were instructing an expert, you might set out what the issues were in each individual case, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: You would, yes.
Ms Dobbin: You might provide all of the documentation that’s relevant to the expert’s opinion, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Just to be clear, this was the position in relation to two of the cases that you had conduct of, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Can we please go to the next document in the sequence. This is POL00097137. Page 1, please.
I think you were taken earlier to the email that appears on the second part of this page.
Andrzej Bolc: The bottom part.
Ms Dobbin: Yes. So Mr Jenkins, in reply, is asking why the general statement that he made couldn’t be sent, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, he is.
Ms Dobbin: So the statement that doesn’t refer to any specific cases at all, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: Then what she goes on to say at the top, if you could just have a look at that – now, first of all Mr Bolc, before you answer, you’ll notice that the addressee list has been redacted.
Andrzej Bolc: I see.
Ms Dobbin: Apparently it’s email addresses, so this is a document which you may not have been sent, okay?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: But I want to look again at what Ms Panter is suggesting her approach was going to be.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So one can see:
“I half expected to receive such a response. I can clarify with Gareth that it doesn’t matter that specific cases are not quoted in his report as not one of them has raised a specific issue with the Horizon System itself, they have all been generic to date.
“I will confirm with him I intend to use the same report, but I have had to run it past him first as a matter of course …”
Yes?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s what it says.
Ms Dobbin: So, in other words, to be clear about this, Ms Panter’s approach is: none of these cases have raised a specific issue, so Mr Jenkins doesn’t need to deal with any of the underlying –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: – facts or information or relevant material, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: If we could then go on to see what she tells Mr Jenkins, and this is FUJ00153856. Page 1, please. So this is the email that Mr Jenkins is sent, setting out what the approach – what approach is going to be taken. So, first of all, she apologises for approaching the cases in an unconventional way; do you see that?
Andrzej Bolc: I do.
Ms Dobbin: Then we see, if we go down a couple of paragraphs:
“In response to your email, Gareth, I do intend to use the report that you have already provided. It doesn’t matter that you have not mentioned a specific case in your report, as there has not been any specific criticisms raised by any of the defendants provided in my list of cases. It would be [different if a specific criticism was made] as your report would have to respond to that particular issue.”
Perhaps, if you just read on. I won’t read it out, Mr Bolc, but if you were just to read on down a bit, in terms of what she says about the approach that’s going to be taken.
(Pause)
Andrzej Bolc: Do you want me to read to the end?
Ms Dobbin: Well, I think if you could just read to “That’s why it’s important for you to consider the case summaries”.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Mr Bolc, having read that, do you think that there’s anything troubling or problematic about the approach that Ms Panter was taking these cases?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, yes, each case is individual and unique. They should have all been addressed specifically, not just in a generic way, as suggested in this approach.
Ms Dobbin: May I run through a number of things that might be thought wrong with this approach.
First of all, do you agree, Mr Bolc, there’s the lack of formality. Again, this didn’t constitute the instruction of Mr Jenkins as an expert, did it?
Andrzej Bolc: No, it didn’t.
Ms Dobbin: She was telling him again, wasn’t she, that it did not matter that his report did not address any of the facts of the cases; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: I do.
Ms Dobbin: She was proposing this approach providing him with only the barest amount of information about each case; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Then she appears to have the idea that it’s proper for the prosecution by this route to put the onus on the defence, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: But then seemed to envisage that, if that happened, Mr Jenkins might have to give evidence at the trial, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Might not have to give evidence, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Might have to give evidence at a trial?
Andrzej Bolc: Might have to?
Yes, suggesting it’s a possibility he would have to give evidence, yes.
Ms Dobbin: That’s not an approach that makes very much sense; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: He should have been properly instructed by either Ms Panter or Mr Singh, yes, in a formal way, as an expert witness, with all the requirements therein.
Ms Dobbin: It was wrong to tell him that he didn’t need to consider the facts of any individual case; do you agree –
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: – that was the wrong approach?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Precisely because, as you say, it’s the responsibility of the prosecutor to consider each case on its facts and merits, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: By this approach, Ms Panter was essentially abrogating that responsibility; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: It’s almost as though Post Office wanted to have it both ways: that they want to present this evidence as an expert report but absent any expert instructions or any of the material that an expert would need to see in order to be able to provide a proper opinion; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I agree that he should have been properly instructed and given all the information he needed, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Can you explain why he wasn’t?
Andrzej Bolc: I cannot.
Ms Dobbin: But it’s part of a deliberate strategy, isn’t it, Mr Bolc?
Andrzej Bolc: I couldn’t say.
Ms Dobbin: It’s a deliberate litigation strategy not to engage with any of the facts in a given case, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: I’m not sure that I would suggest that that’s what she’s trying to achieve.
Ms Dobbin: Well, she’s telling him in terms, isn’t it, that it doesn’t matter that he doesn’t know anything about the facts of a given case?
Andrzej Bolc: She is, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Well, can we just look, then, at how this develops. Can we go, please, to FUJ00156677. So again, this is what follows and, if we just look at the documents that are sent, it’s only the summary of the case and the indictment, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Again, if we look at what the instructions, such as they are, are, you can see it’s:
“… could you consider the attached and provide a signed and dated report which deals with each individual case.”
Then some information by way of update.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, that’s correct.
Ms Dobbin: So, again, no instructions; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: No formal instructions, no.
Ms Dobbin: So no instructions to an expert?
Sorry, by that, Mr Bolc, I mean that those are not the sort of instructions that would be given to an expert, are they?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Again, on the basis of only the barest amount of information, correct –
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: – and not a proper instruction to consider the issues or the facts of a given case, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, he had some information but, yes, not the complete package, yes.
Ms Dobbin: Well, some information?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: It’s a case summary and an indictment.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: There’s no attempt, is there, on the part of Ms Panter, to set out in relation to any of these cases what the individual facts or circumstances or issues between the defence and the prosecution are.
Andrzej Bolc: I think what I’m trying to say is it’s not – I’m not sure that it’s a deliberate strategy by her. It’s probably out of inexperience that she’s doing this, rather than because she’s trying to achieve something.
Ms Dobbin: Mr Bolc, why is she doing that in respect of cases that you have conduct of?
Andrzej Bolc: She’d been tasked to coordinate getting the expert reports.
Ms Dobbin: Can we turn then to the instructions that you gave, and this is FUJ00153865. You don’t add any detail, do you, Mr Bolc to those instructions or substance?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I don’t know what I mean by “outlines” but probably case summaries.
Ms Dobbin: So you’ve provided some more information but you don’t provide anything more by meaningful instruction, do you?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, some of my case summaries would have been quite detailed but I can’t say what papers they actually were. It says “Allen – Sefton & Nield papers”, I’m not sure what that includes.
Ms Dobbin: A case summary is not instructions to an expert, is it?
Andrzej Bolc: Again, no.
Ms Dobbin: Again, this isn’t the sort of instruction one might expect to see to an expert in a given case, setting out the issues, setting out what you want their opinion on, anything like that, is it?
Andrzej Bolc: No, that’s right. As I say, I wasn’t aware of what previous instructions had been received or whether he’d been formally instructed before this email.
Ms Dobbin: I think Mr Blake put to you that Mr Jenkins hadn’t received any meaningful instructions in the materials you had been taken to and I think you said he hadn’t been given any formal instructions but Mr Blake was right, wasn’t he: Mr Jenkins wasn’t provided with any meaningful instructions in these cases, was he?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, although I wasn’t aware, as I said, that he hadn’t been formally instructed in the terms I’ve described.
Ms Dobbin: Yes, but Mr Bolc, what you suggested in your evidence was that Mr Jenkins had been instructed in each case to amend his generic report in order to deal with the facts of the individual cases?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Correct. But we haven’t seen any instructions thus far that actually even ask him to deal with individual cases; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct.
Ms Dobbin: May I then please take you to FUJ00124105. You were taken to this, Mr Bolc, so I don’t want to retread ground that we’ve already been over but, again, one can see from that that Mr Jenkins was still of the understanding that all he was required to do was sign the standard version of his report, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: He’s asking you in this email, isn’t he, whether or not, in fact, now that he’s looked at it, whether he ought to go further, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, he is.
Ms Dobbin: So he’s asking you for guidance about his role in this litigation; do you agree?
Andrzej Bolc: In his role or specific information?
Ms Dobbin: Well, he’s asking you about the approach that he was supposed to take to these cases. He’s saying to you:
“However, having read through some of the info you’ve given me, perhaps you want me to cover some other things.”
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, he’s pointing to the detail.
Ms Dobbin: Yes. He’s saying to you, “Well, here are things that could be explored in these cases”, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: He is, yes.
Ms Dobbin: I think we may have missed this, just for completeness, at the very end, but it’s there that we see he points out to you that he hadn’t been provided with any of the ARQ data, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Sorry, what?
Ms Dobbin: So if we look at the very final paragraph in that email.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, so he’s said audit data, not ARQ data.
Ms Dobbin: Sorry, that may be our familiarity with it.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: But that’s what he’s flagging up, correct, that he hadn’t looked at any audit data, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: It is. As I say, at that stage, I wasn’t sure what he was referring to.
Ms Dobbin: I want to – sorry, Mr Bolc, I didn’t mean to speak over to you?
Andrzej Bolc: It’s just that I wasn’t aware of what ARQ data was or that it existed.
Ms Dobbin: I wanted to ask you about that, Mr Bolc. Does that mean you were prosecuting these cases without Post Office having even provided you with some basic information about how the Horizon system worked, the ARQ data that was available –
Andrzej Bolc: There’s references –
Ms Dobbin: – that sort of information –
Andrzej Bolc: – to data in all different shapes and forms but nowhere does it say ARQ data in the papers that I was given or dealt with, yeah, or an explanation of what that was.
Ms Dobbin: What I mean is, Mr Bolc, that when your firm took over this – got this role or – I don’t know – did you have a contract with Post Office to do this work or was it a more informal arrangement?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, I couldn’t tell you because – yes.
Ms Dobbin: All right. But, at the point in time when you became solicitor in these private prosecutions, you hadn’t been provided with any sort of briefing or material that explained to you about Horizon, how Horizon worked or what ARQ data was available?
Andrzej Bolc: Correct, yes.
Ms Dobbin: May I also just touch again on one small point, and it was the reference in this email to Mr Jenkins having no information about complaints and investigations, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: I think in answer to questions by Mr Blake, you accepted that, on the face of his witness statement, Mr Jenkins had set out or provided information about challenges in previous cases, correct?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: So you couldn’t quite understand what he was referring to when he said, “I don’t have information about complaints and investigations”?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Am I right in thinking you didn’t go back to him to try and understand what he meant by that?
Andrzej Bolc: That’s correct, yes.
Ms Dobbin: You didn’t try and resolve why that appeared different to what he was saying –
Andrzej Bolc: I did not, no.
Ms Dobbin: – in his statement. So, even though it looked clear that there was a misunderstanding between you, you didn’t think you ought to resolve that before his statement was served?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Ms Dobbin: Again, is there a reason, Mr Bolc, why you wouldn’t want to make sure there’s common understanding between you before the witness statement was served?
Andrzej Bolc: I can’t recall.
Ms Dobbin: I just want one last question, if I may, please.
Mr Bolc, you ultimately decided in the case of Ms Sefton and Ms Nield that you weren’t going to obtain any of the data, correct, and you’ve explained that you didn’t understand that there was ARQ data and what that was, yes?
Andrzej Bolc: Well, in the case of Mr Allen, I’d referred it back to POL to see if they wanted to get the further data.
Ms Dobbin: All right, I’m just dealing with Ms Sefton and Ms Nield for the moment?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, in her case, yes.
Ms Dobbin: You decided and you said that you thought there were two explanations, but I think they came to the same thing, that you didn’t understand what the significance of that data might be?
Andrzej Bolc: Absolutely, yes.
Ms Dobbin: But is another explanation that, in fact, the prosecution was proceeding on the basis that that data didn’t matter because their case was being treated as false accounting and outside the Horizon system? Do you recall that you were taken to your reply to the request for disclosure and that’s what the response was?
Andrzej Bolc: Initially, yes, but I think the case progressed after that and they – the defence made clear that it was a Horizon challenge.
Ms Dobbin: All right. So this was simply your misunderstanding at that time –
Andrzej Bolc: I believe so, yes.
Ms Dobbin: – of what that data might demonstrate?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Ms Dobbin: Thank you. I’m grateful.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much.
Sir, I’m told that Mr Moloney has two minutes of questions.
Well, Mr Moloney is one of the persons who tells me he is going to be two minutes and I have reasonable faith that he means it!
Questioned by Mr Moloney
Mr Moloney: I’ll try to maintain that reputation, sir.
Just a few questions, Mr Bolc, if I may.
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Moloney: You said in answer to the questions from Ms Dobbin that the four questions asked of Mr Jenkins by Mr Bowyer should have been included in this report?
Andrzej Bolc: You’ll have to point me to them, sorry.
Mr Moloney: I wanted to save time. You remember the four questions essentially saying “Please detail the attacks that had been made on the Horizon system in previous cases”, and so on, those four questions. You said that those four questions, essentially the instructions to Mr Jenkins, should have been included within his report. Do you remember that now?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes, I do now, yes.
Mr Moloney: Right, because the instructions to an expert of that kind should be included within the report?
Andrzej Bolc: They should, yes.
Mr Moloney: You obviously knew that an expert report should include the usual declaration, including the expert’s duties to the court, primarily, and that the expert was required to disclose anything they were aware of that might undermine the opinion they expressed?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Moloney: Yes. Now, you said to Ms Dobbin that you assumed that Jarnail Singh would have educated Mr Jenkins in his role as an expert, as he’d used him in the Seema Misra case?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Moloney: Yes. Now, you’ve spoken today of how you weren’t particularly impressed with Mr Singh, that you didn’t know how he had the job that he had, at the start of your evidence; do you remember that?
Andrzej Bolc: Yes.
Mr Moloney: When Gareth Jenkins wrote statements that didn’t include the usual declaration, did that not ring alarm bells for you –
Andrzej Bolc: It should have done.
Mr Moloney: – of the quality of the education that might have been provided by Mr Singh?
Andrzej Bolc: It should have done.
Mr Moloney: Did you not ask yourself, for example, where is the declaration?
Andrzej Bolc: So when I received those reports, I was focusing on the content, rather than the presentation and the proper requirements.
Mr Moloney: Right. Okay. So when you signed off, Mr Jenkins’ report in Mr Allen’s case in the correspondence with Mr Bradshaw that we’ve seen, saying it was sufficient for what you needed, you didn’t think about the expert’s declaration then?
Andrzej Bolc: No.
Mr Moloney: Thank you very much. That’s all I ask.
Sir Wyn Williams: I take it that’s it, Mr Blake?
Mr Blake: That is, yes, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: So thank you, Mr Bolc, for providing your witness statement and for giving evidence before me today. I am grateful to you.
We’re sitting on Monday next week, are we not, Mr Blake?
Mr Blake: We are, yes, with Mr Atkinson.
Sir Wyn Williams: I’ve said that we’re starting at 10.30 on Monday. There’s an outside chance – and it is only an outside chance – that it may be a few minutes later than that because I have to be somewhere for a little while on Monday morning, but if there is a delay, it won’t be very much of a delay. All right?
Mr Blake: Thank you very much, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: So 10.30 on Monday morning, or as soon as thereafter as I appear.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
(3.02 pm)
(the hearing adjourned until 10.30 am on Monday, 18 December 2023)