11 January 2024 – Stephen Bradshaw
Hide video Show video
(9.59 am)
Sir Wyn Williams: A very important part of my task is to ensure the chair is at the right height, otherwise you won’t see me, which may be a good thing.
Before we ask the witness to be sworn there’s just a few things I’d like to say, so if you’d sit down for the moment, Mr Bradshaw.
First of all, I’d like to express the hope that those of you who are regular participants in the Inquiry have had a good break and you’re refreshed and ready for action, so to speak. Over the next three weeks, we will be finishing Phase 4 of the Inquiry, and it will finish with evidence from Mr Bradshaw today, evidence from a number of employees and ex-employees of Fujitsu next week, and then, following that, we will look at one or two of the cases in other parts of the United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland and Scotland, and then we’ll hear oral submissions from some of the Core Participants no doubt and receive written submissions from others.
There will then be a bit of a break. That, I’m afraid, is inevitable because in between phases my extremely hard working Inquiry Team need to be preparing for the commencement of each phase, as of course do all the Core Participants.
I wish I could tell you today precisely how long that break will be but I can’t do that, not least in part because it is dependent upon the disclosure issues carrying on smoothly and, as everyone will know, from time to time, we have hiccups about that. I should remind everyone that, in the phases to come, it is not just the Post Office who will have an important obligation in relation to disclosure because we will be delving in the phases to come, in the activities of Government departments and civil servants and senior people of that kind. So there will be important disclosure to be made by Government as well as Post Office.
So that’s why I can’t be precise about the length of the break before the start of Phases 5, 6 and 7. But you’ll have seen on our website that we intend that those phases should be in the spring and summer of this year, and that is my hope. My wife was extremely alarmed to hear a news report yesterday that suggested that Phase 6 would not start until the spring of next year, and I was under severe pressure over that, I can assure you. It is certainly my intention that that phase starts long before the spring of next year.
I am pleased to report that the Inquiry has appointed an expert witness to deal with the governance issues. In fact, there are two. It’s Dame Sandra Dawson and Dr Katy Steward. They will be advising the Inquiry in much the same way as Mr Atkinson KC did over criminal and prosecution matters and Mr Cipione did about some of the technical aspects relating to Horizon. They are now busily engaged in looking at all the relevant documents and preparing their evidence.
So we are doing our best to comply with the – I won’t say promise but hope that I’ve always expressed that we would proceed diligently and expeditiously and as quickly as reasonably practicable, but I’ve proved to be very bad at predicting these things, as you will all realise, but there it is.
We have to do a thorough job and, in the end, doing a thorough job and hopefully getting it right is more important than a few months here or there.
So thank you very much for listening to those opening remarks and I now invite Mr Bradshaw to be sworn, and Mr Blake to ask him questions.
Stephen Bradshaw
STEPHEN BRADSHAW (sworn).
Questioned by Mr Blake
Sir Wyn Williams: Mr Blake, I think before you ask Mr Bradshaw questions, he is in a category of witness where it is appropriate for me to give what’s called the self-incriminating warning; is that correct?
Mr Blake: That is correct, sir, yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Can I ask you first of all, Mr Bradshaw, are you legally represented today?
Stephen Bradshaw: (Unclear), yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Right, thank you. So you probably know that under our law a witness at a public inquiry has a right to decline to answer a question put to him, either by Counsel to the Inquiry or by any legal representative or, for that matter, by me, if there is a risk that the answer to that question would incriminate the witness. This legal principle is known in shorthand form as the privilege against self-incrimination.
Mr Bradshaw, I have decided that it is appropriate that I remind you of that principle before you begin your evidence. However, it is for you to make clear to me, in respect of any question put to you, that it is your wish to rely upon the privilege and not for me to keep interrupting, if you understand.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: If, therefore, any questions are put to you by any of the lawyers who ask you questions or, as I have said, by me, which you do not wish to answer on the ground that to answer might incriminate you, you must tell me immediately so that I can consider your objection and then, after, rule upon whether your objection should be upheld.
Now, you have just told me that you’re represented here today by a lawyer or lawyers, so if the issue relating to self-incrimination arises, I will permit those lawyers to assist you. So if at any stage during the questioning you wish to consult your lawyers, then you must tell me and then I will consider how it is appropriate to proceed. All right?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Do you understand all that?
Stephen Bradshaw: I understand, thank you.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you very much. Over to you, Mr Blake.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. Can you give your full name, please?
Stephen Bradshaw: Stephen Bradshaw.
Mr Blake: Mr Bradshaw, can I ask you to come slightly forward towards the microphone, the stenographer is also taking a note, so if you could speak as slowly and carefully as possible?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: Thank you. You have produced two witness statements in this Inquiry so far. They should be in a bundle in front of you. The first witness statement we have a URN of WITN04450100 and that should be behind the first of those tabs. Do you have that in front of you?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do, yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you. Is that statement dated 26 June 2023?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct.
Mr Blake: Thank you. Can I ask you to turn to page 14 of that statement, please?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Do you see your signature there?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Blake: Can you confirm that statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Stephen Bradshaw: That is my signature, yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
We have a second witness statement, the Unique Reference Number is WITN04450200. That should be in a tab behind that statement.
Stephen Bradshaw: It is.
Mr Blake: That is dated 16 October 2023; is that correct?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct.
Mr Blake: Thank you. If I could ask you to turn to page 8.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Do you see your signature there?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Blake: Can you confirm that that statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Stephen Bradshaw: It is. That’s my signature.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much. Those statements will be published on the Inquiry’s website and they’re now in evidence.
I want to begin just by asking you a little bit about your background at the Post Office. You’ve been employed by the Post Office since 1978; is that correct?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct.
Mr Blake: You’ve held a wide range of roles.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: We’ve seen something called a telegraph officer, and a counter clerk in the 1970s and 1980s; is that right?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct.
Mr Blake: You were something called a Television Enquiry Officer in the mid-to late 1980s?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: You held various roles in the Royal Mail Transport section?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct.
Mr Blake: Then in 2000, around the time of the rollout of Horizon, you became part of the Post Office Investigations Team?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct.
Mr Blake: We see your role variously described as a Fraud Investigator and a Security Manager. Can you please assist us with which of those you were at a particular time, insofar as you’re able?
Stephen Bradshaw: From the beginning, in 2000, the role was always there as an Investigation Manager, Fraud Advisor. The role remained the same – investigation – but the job title changed and, as it’s rolled on towards the present day, it’s been changed to just Security Manager.
Mr Blake: So you’re currently employed by the Post Office as a Security Manager, having held a number of roles in the Investigations Team, I think it was first called a Fraud Investigator?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you. You’ve spent over 45 years at the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: I have.
Mr Blake: We’re going to deal in due course with what you knew at any particular time but, just in terms of your career, is it right to say that you’ve been at the Post Office from the beginning of complaints about the Horizon system through to the Justice for Subpostmasters campaign, the Group Litigation, Court of Appeal overturning of convictions and up to and including this Inquiry itself?
Stephen Bradshaw: I was employed within Post Office Limited, yes.
Mr Blake: I’d like to bring on to screen your first witness statement and that is WITN04450100. Can we please turn to page 15 of that statement. We see from page 15, and if perhaps we could scroll over the page, and over and over, we see all the documents that you were provided with in order to produce that statement. I think there are over 200 documents in total; do you recall?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, I’ve seen the documents and I’ve done my best to try to look at fully on each one.
Mr Blake: If we look at page 14, it stops at 14, so there are 14 pages of evidence in that statement. The statement itself addresses various case studies, case studies that we’re going to be looking at today.
Can we just turn to page 7, please. At the bottom of page 7 we begin with a case study of the case of Janet Skinner. If we go over the page, page 8, paragraph 21 and 22, 21 says:
“There were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times.”
22:
“I do not have any other reflections about this matter.”
Page 9, over the page.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: We have Hughie Thomas, Hughie Noel Thomas. Again, paragraph 25:
“There were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times.”
26:
“I have no other reflections about this matter.”
Next, scroll down the page, the case of Khayyam Ishaq.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: If we scroll over the page, same form of words, 28 and 29:
“There were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times.
“I have no other reflections about this matter.”
Further down that page, we get to the case of Lisa Brennan, paragraph 33:
“There were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times.”
Over the page, please:
“I have no other reflections about this matter.”
Lynette Hutchings, another case study. Paragraph 37:
“I could see no concerns about the conduct of this case.
“I have no other reflections about this matter.”
Scrolling down to Joan Bailey, paragraph 40:
“There were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times.”
Scroll down:
“I have no other reflections about this matter.”
The case of Angela Sefton, paragraph 43:
“… no concerns …”
Paragraph 44:
“… no other reflections …”
Scrolling down, case of Anne Nield, if we keep on going down, paragraph 46:
“… no concerns …”
Paragraph 47:
“… no reflections …”
Susan McKnight, paragraph 49:
“… no concerns …”
Paragraph 50:
“… no reflections …”
Can we go over the page, please, to page 14, paragraph 54:
“I do not know what technical issues were investigated by [the Post Office].”
Paragraph 56:
“I cannot recall, if any, what information I received concerning bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system.”
Paragraph 57:
“I do not have any reflections on these matters or other matters relevant to the [Terms of Reference].”
Do you think that you have given enough thought, over the past 20 years, as to whether you may have been involved in what has been described as one of the largest miscarriages of justice in British history?
Stephen Bradshaw: It would appear that, through not being given any knowledge from the top downwards, that if any bugs, errors or defects was there, it’s not been cascaded down from Fujitsu, the Post Office Board, down to our level, as the Investigation Manager.
Mr Blake: So it’s your evidence that because you didn’t receive any information about bugs, errors and defects from somebody higher above you in the Post Office, you don’t have any reflections on that?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would see the Horizon system – I have no reason to suspect at the time that there was anything wrong with the Horizon system because we’d not been told.
Mr Blake: That’s over the time of your entire career at the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Up until the date when you drafted this witness statement and perhaps even up to today’s date?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Do you think that the approach that you’ve taken to providing information to the Inquiry, what looks like giving the bare minimum, was quite similar to the way you approached your investigations?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all. I tried my best with the statement over what to put – I can’t put something down – if I wasn’t told about any issues with the Horizon system, I can’t put that down. The investigations were done correctly.
Mr Blake: That’s because you weren’t told anything about problems with the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: The investigation was done at the time, no problems were indicated by anybody that there was issues with the Horizon system.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00325402, please. This is an email of February 2010 from Christopher Knight, he is a lawyer, to yourself, entitled “Horizon challenges”; that’s 15 years ago now. Could we scroll down that page, please. He forwarded to you a list of articles.
Stephen Bradshaw: No –
Mr Blake: Talking Retail, we have BBC, the Taro Naw, that’s the report on Noel Thomas’ case; an article from The Grocer; and the article that is well known to this Inquiry, the Computer Weekly article written by Rebecca Thomson in 2009. You were, of course, aware in 2010 –
Stephen Bradshaw: Mr Knight, who’s an Investigation Manager at the time, I’d seen them and then send them on for information to people.
Mr Blake: So you were aware in 2010 of a body of reporting in the public domain about problems with the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: That didn’t cause you to reflect a little bit more?
Stephen Bradshaw: The only reflection is that, during any investigation, if the issue of Horizon – issues would have had come up, it would have been explored with the person.
Mr Blake: Can we look at FUJ00154879, please.
Can we begin on page 5. This 9 February 2010, page 5., so the same year as those reports were forwarded to you. We have an email from yourself to somebody called Valerie Lipscombe, who was Valerie Lipscombe; do you remember?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m not sure whether she was part of the Horizon call centre where you would get any – because calls made into the business, you would have the business side of POL and then Horizon had their own call centre so you needed two types of the calls to see whether anybody had called.
Mr Blake: You say there:
“Valerie
“Thanks for the logs.
“I was wondering if you could help me further. I require logs of all calls in relation to Horizon problems, am I right in thinking the attached log is due to transactional queries?”
If we go to page 3 of the same email chain, at the bottom of page 3, please, we have an email there from Mark Dinsdale, Security Programme Manager at the Post Office. Can we scroll up slightly, to Penny Thomas, who is at Fujitsu. Do you recall Penny Thomas?
Stephen Bradshaw: Penny Thomas was there, yeah.
Mr Blake: You’re copied into that email?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right.
Mr Blake: He says:
“Penny, can we set up a process for these requests, because we are getting more and more of them.
“Would you be able to provide the information Steve has requested …”
That’s about the Rinkfield case.
So in 2010 and 2011 you were certainly aware of a body of cases relating to the Horizon system that were building up, were you not?
Stephen Bradshaw: From that information, yes, and, as I said, if it’s come up within the interview, I took the actions to try to find out what the issue with the Horizon was, hence the logs. In this case, Mr Dinsdale had set up all contact with the Fujitsu – at Fujitsu would be done by the Casework Team.
Mr Blake: Yes, but in 2010 you had received those articles relating to problems with Horizon. You are aware from this communication that there was a body of cases relating to concerns about the Horizon system. Didn’t that cause you pause for thought?
Stephen Bradshaw: The pause for thought is that when you would speak to the person being interviewed, you would take that into account. So if you’re informed that there’s an issue within Horizon, you would look, you would do your best to find out what the issue was –
Mr Blake: But –
Stephen Bradshaw: – and whether –
Mr Blake: – you began today by saying that nobody from above had been telling you about bugs, errors or defects?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, I don’t count Mr Knight as somebody from above. He was just equal and he’s taken it from the papers.
Mr Blake: So you were told by your equals that there were newspaper articles, you were told by your equals that there was a growing body of cases but that in itself was not sufficient for you to question the reliability of the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: Because I’m not technically minded with that. I would expect that to come from the people above. If there was an issue I would expect Fujitsu to inform the Post Office and for the Post Office to let us know what the issues are.
Mr Blake: These documents from 2010, we’re going to go through a number of different case studies in due course. How early would you say you were aware of Horizon being raised as an issue?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, it was raised during these – as you say, from 2010, people were raising it from between there and over the next few years.
Mr Blake: Would you say 2010 is the starting point or is there an earlier point?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m not – I think they may well have even – some may have mentioned it earlier.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00120723, please. This relates to the case of Kim Wylie. This isn’t a case study that we’re going to be looking at but this is a document of February 2013. So that’s three years after you received those articles from Computer Weekly, et cetera. It’s a letter from Cartwright King to Ms Wylie’s solicitors, and it says:
“Please find enclosed a Notice of Additional Evidence which includes two statements from Stephen Bradshaw dated 20 November 2012 and 19 February 2013 as well as an exhibit … which is an extract from the subpostmasters’ contract.”
At the bottom of the page here, it says:
“The Crown’s position on the integrity of the Horizon system is set out in Steve Bradshaw’s statement dated 20 November 2012. There is no further disclosure in relation to this matter.”
You’ve just said that you’re not very technically minded, do you think that the submission of a witness statement from you, purporting to go to the integrity of the Horizon system, do you think that was appropriate?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, because it depends on which statement it is. The use of putting a statement through explaining the basics of Horizon, that it was a keyboard, a scanner, a printer and the basic workings of Horizon, is that you scanned – if you’ve got a document with a barcode you would scan the barcode and the transaction would go through. That’s all that’s normally explained in the statements I give.
Mr Blake: So you usually give a statement about the hardware, about –
Stephen Bradshaw: – hardware – sorry.
Mr Blake: – there is a computer that’s plugged into a keyboard but you don’t address the reliability of the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all. Just the basic workings as most people who have used the system that if we record the transaction, money due to customer, money due from customer: just the basic working knowledge of the thing, not the technicalities of the system.
Mr Blake: That’s because you didn’t have the technical knowledge to know whether there were bugs, errors or defects in the system, you don’t feel confident to address those kinds of things?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not at all.
Mr Blake: Can we scroll over a couple of pages, then, to page 5, please, and this is the witness statement that you submitted.
We have your name at the top there and it says, as follows:
“After a number of meetings between the 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 the Member’s 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. In order to provide assurance to the interested parties, it was proposed that the review be undertaken by independent Auditors, Second Sight”, et cetera.
So you’ve there said in a witness statement that the Post Office continues to have absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of its Horizon system. Having given the evidence that you’ve just given about your lack of knowledge of the system, your lack of knowledge of technical matters, do you think it was appropriate for you to write that in a witness statement that the Post Office has absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: I was given that statement by Cartwright King and told to put that statement through. In hindsight, after I’d put further in my previous statements there probably should have been another line stating, “These are not my words but the statement is produced as a business statement”. I did not write that statement. We were told by Cartwright King to put that in.
Mr Blake: Who told you to put it in?
Stephen Bradshaw: It would be one of the three members of Cartwright King: Martin Smith, Andrew Bolc or Rachael Panter. It would have come from one of them.
Mr Blake: So they drafted the entire statement and sent it to you, did they?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: You didn’t question it, you just signed it off?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, whether it was questioned at the time, you know, I would have been concerned but we were given the assurance that everything was fine to put that through and they wanted us to put it through. Nowadays, I wouldn’t have put it at all, with what’s known, but the hindsight.
Mr Blake: We began half an hour ago, or 20 minutes ago, by looking at your witness statement for this Inquiry and looking at what appears to be a lack of reflection in that statement. Might having produced something like this have caused you to reflect on your involvement in some way?
Stephen Bradshaw: It may have done at the time but it is some 12 years – 11 years ago.
Mr Blake: You didn’t think to yourself “Ooh, I produced a witness statement in criminal proceedings that could cause somebody to go to prison and I signed off the robustness of the Horizon system”; that wasn’t something you thought you should reflect on in your witness statement?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, you know, this statement was given to me by Cartwright King and we were told to put the statement through.
Mr Blake: How many times –
Stephen Bradshaw: On reflection, yes, when you look at it but, as I say, it’s some 11 years ago and a number of statements have been produced since.
Mr Blake: You were at the Post Office in a significant role during the Group Litigation, during the Court of Appeal proceedings, throughout this Inquiry, and you didn’t think back and perhaps regret having submitted a witness statement such as this and in criminal proceedings?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, with hindsight, you know, it’s regrettable that the statement went through like that, as if it’s my words, which is not correct.
Mr Blake: But it hasn’t caused you any moment of reflection?
Stephen Bradshaw: Of course it causes moments of reflection because you look at it and go that’s completely wrong, because somebody’s told me to put a statement through like that.
Mr Blake: Do you know how many times you submitted statements like this?
Stephen Bradshaw: Like that one, I couldn’t say. Probably – that statement could have gone in from everybody within the Security Team to just about whatever case enquiry was ongoing at the time.
Sir Wyn Williams: Sorry, are you saying that a statement in this form was probably made by other members of the Security Team in other cases and, on each occasion, it was a statement drafted for them by a firm of solicitors and they just put their name to it?
Stephen Bradshaw: Sort of, sir, yes. What it would be is that, as these cases – when the file has gone to the Criminal Law Team or, in this case, Cartwright King, they’ve given that statement to draft to put through as the integrity of the Horizon system at the time. That come from the lawyers.
Mr Blake: Could we scroll down on the page, please. I’ll just read another paragraph on this statement. It says at the bottom:
“All of the above is accepted based on the terms of 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.”
That’s a 2013 witness statement.
Mr Bradshaw, in a request that was sent to you for a witness statement, there were a series of general questions. You have them in the bundle in front of you but I can read them out. For example:
“To what extent, if any, did you consider a challenge to the integrity of Horizon in one case to be relevant to other ongoing or future cases?
“To what extent, if any, do you consider the investigation into bugs, errors or defects in Horizon was sufficiently carried out by the Post Office? Please set out your reasons in detail.
“To what extent, if any, do you consider information regarding bugs, errors and defects in Horizon was sufficiently passed to the Post Office by Fujitsu? Please set out your reasons in detail.
“To what extent if any do you consider you had sufficient information regarding bugs, errors and defects in Horizon? Who provided you with information? And, if not, who should have?
“Looking back, do you have any reflections on these matters or any other matters relevant to the Inquiry’s terms of reference?
“Are there any other matters that you wish to bring to the attention of the Chair of the Inquiry?”
Could I ask for your first witness statement to be brought back on screen, please, WITN04450100. It’s page 14, please, of that first statement. If we could scroll down slightly, these are your answers to that general section. We’ve been over them already this morning:
“I don’t know what technical issues were investigated …
“I cannot recall, if any, what information I received concerning bugs, errors or defects.”
As somebody who wrote a witness statement in criminal proceedings in such strong, confident terms as we have just seen, might it have been sensible to have attempted to answer those questions that I’ve just gone through in a bit more detail?
Stephen Bradshaw: If I’d remembered fully that statement – now I’ve seen the statement and remembered, you know, Cartwright King had given us – gave us that statement to produce, I just didn’t – you know, for them sort of questions with that, it’s just completely – it’s a statement that – that’s one of the few times, I would say, I don’t recall that statement.
Mr Blake: So when you came to draft your witness statement with those 200 documents that were provided to you by the Inquiry, that statement, you didn’t think, “Ooh, I’ve submitted some statements in criminal proceedings, may have caused somebody to go to prison, I signed off Horizon”?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, I went through as many documents and tried to think but it was an awful lot of documents to try to put together with the statement.
Mr Blake: Thank you. That can come down.
You’ve said that that statement came from Cartwright King who asked you to sign it. Do you know how that statement came to be drafted?
Stephen Bradshaw: It was drafted by Cartwright King and the Post Office.
Mr Blake: And the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: And the Post Office, above – you know, whether it’s Head of Security upwards, I’m not sure.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00058155, please. If we could turn to the final page, we have there a proposed form of words from Jarnail Singh. Do you remember Jarnail Singh?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Blake: He was the Post Office lawyer responsible for criminal matters, was he?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Do you recall somebody called Hugh Flemington?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t know him at all.
Mr Blake: So Mr Singh has sent Mr Flemington a form of words and, if we scroll up, we see an email from somebody called Simon Baker it’s above that one. Thank you. Do you recall somebody called Simon Baker?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t know a Simon Baker.
Mr Blake: No? So he says:
“Alana
“Please can help us craft our message around the Second Sight review. We need to combat the assertion that the review is acknowledgement that there is a problem with Horizon.
“Jarnail has drafted some words below. Do they strike the right tone?”
If we scroll up, we have an email from Ronan Kelleher, who is the Head of PR and Media at the Post Office at the time. Do you remember Alwen Lyons, who is copied in there?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t know her, no.
Mr Blake: Alwen Lyons was the Company Secretary.
Susan Crichton?
Stephen Bradshaw: I remember Susan Crichton.
Mr Blake: She was the General Counsel?
Stephen Bradshaw: General Counsel, yes.
Mr Blake: Mr Flemington, I believe, was a lawyer. You don’t recall him?
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Blake: Ronan Kelleher says as follows, he says:
“As this message will most probably find its way into the media, we do need to get the message across from the start that we continue to have full confidence in the robustness of the Horizon system and then reinforce it so I suggest the following tweaking to the proposed wording from Jarnail.”
Now, I’ll go through this form of words and I’ll highlight to you the additional words that were added by the Head of PR at the Post Office. 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 the Members’ constituents.”
Now, it’s the next sentence that has been added dart by Mr Kelleher:
“As the Post Office continues to have absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of its Horizon system and it’s branch accounting processes, it had no hesitation in agreeing to an external review of these few individual cases.”
Next paragraph:
“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 [Members of Parliament] as well as reviewing the accounting procedures, processes and reconciliations undertaken in relation to the cases in question. Before formal instructions are given to the Independent Auditors, agreements will be sought from all interested parties, namely the Members of Parliament and Justice for Subpostmasters. The subpostmasters have requested a Forensic Accountant of their choice be appointed to oversee the cases being reviewed by Second Sight.”
Over the page:
“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.”
Now, we get to another sentence that was added by the Head of PR:
“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 defend.”
I think the last sentence there was Jarnail Singh’s but the one before was added in this chain of emails.
Were you aware that the contents of your witness statement that we’ve seen reflected there was drafted by, among other people, the Head of PR at the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not at all. All I’ve seen was the final version when they come from Cartwright King.
Mr Blake: Do you think it was appropriate for your witness statement to have been drafted in the way that it was?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not really, no.
Mr Blake: You say not really?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not really because it’s not my words. That statement is normally what – what you would say to me and I would write that down, rather than this is – appears to be a business statement drafted by PR and approved by the lawyers.
Mr Blake: Did you have any conversations with the lawyers at Cartwright King or Jarnail Singh about the contents of the witness statement that you were signing?
Stephen Bradshaw: If I did, I can’t currently remember what was said because, as I say, it’s 11 years ago. Whether I bought up saying why are you putting this in or whatever, but we were just given assurance that everything was okay and had been approved.
Mr Blake: You gave, no doubt, other witness statements throughout the lifetime of your career at the Post Office. Was it your usual practice to sign a statement that had been drafted for you by others?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t recall any that have been drafted by others. There may have been one or two but it’s normally, you know, I would have produced me own witness statement or it would have been taken by a third party.
Mr Blake: In those circumstances, did this not stand out to you as somewhat unusual?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, yes, and then, if it was queried, you know, the assurance was it’s come from the lawyers and everything is fine with it.
Mr Blake: Do you remember any conversation you had querying it?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t at all.
Mr Blake: I’m going to move on now to some case studies and I’m going to begin by looking at the case of Lisa Brennan. This is a case where the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and I’ll just start by looking at what the Court of Appeal had to say and that’s POL00113278. Thank you.
This is the Court of Appeal judgment in Jo Hamilton and Others. Can we please look at page 59 which addresses the case of Lisa Brennan. It’s the bottom of page 59, it says there:
“… Lisa Brennan (who had [been a Post Office] counter clerk when she was 16 years old) was convicted on 27 counts of theft representing a shortfall of £3,482.40.”
Just pausing there, was it usual to have so many counts of theft representing what is a relatively small shortfall?
Stephen Bradshaw: The difference with this one, it’s a P&A – it’s a pension and allowance docket or voucher. In this case was – the vouchers were overstated. There was a number of different types of fraud that took place concerning these vouchers and this was an overstated voucher, ie the value had been increased, and it was first found and detected during a routine check by the DWP in their branch in Lisahally.
Mr Blake: So what you’re saying is it’s 27 –
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s –
Mr Blake: – possibly 27 vouchers to the total of £3,000?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: The Court of Appeal says as follows:
“On 6 September 2003, she was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years … As a result of the proceedings against her, she was forced to file for bankruptcy.
“[The Post Office] decided to pursue criminal charges against Ms Brennan in relation to events in 2001 – close in time to the rollout of Horizon [which we know rolled out from 2000 onwards]. According to the limited available documentation, the prosecution case was that she paid out cash for allowance and benefit vouchers, she removed more cash than was permitted by the voucher and kept the difference herself. The evidence of theft depended on the difference between the amount Horizon showed had been entered onto the system and the lesser amount of the voucher.
“Ms Brennan admitted the discrepancies. She said that they were errors on her part because of problems at home and pressures of work. She denied theft and said she did not know what had happened to the money.
“[The Post Office] accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence from Horizon was essential to Ms Brennan’s case. Her explanation was she must have made keystroke errors when entering voucher amounts onto Horizon. The prosecution did not consider whether a bug, error or defect could have affected this process. There’s nothing to indicate that any ARQ data …”
That’s Fujitsu audit data; do you recall that?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Blake: Yes.
“… was obtained at the time of the criminal proceedings. There was no evidence to corroborate the Horizon evidence. The issue at trial was dishonesty, but there was insufficient proof of an appropriation.
“[The Post Office] concedes only that Ms Brennan’s prosecution was unfair, but we are bound to conclude that her prosecution was, in addition, an affront to justice.”
Could we please look at POL00047322, and this is the record of interview. If we scroll down slightly, you were the interviewing officer in Ms Brennan’s case, alongside somebody called Anthony or Tony Gardner; is that correct?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct.
Mr Blake: Was Mr Gardner a similar role to you in the Investigation Team?
Stephen Bradshaw: Mr Gardner was – he’d been part of the Post Office, the old Post Office Investigation Department for about 20 years.
Mr Blake: Thank you. It begins addressing introductions made, caution issued. The caution was explained to Ms Brennan. Legal rights explained and the presence of legal representation was declined. So it seemed as though she turned down legal representation but she had a union representative in that interview; is that correct?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct.
Mr Blake: Can we please turn to page 11 – sorry, page 10, even. We’ll start from page 10. I’m going to read to you some extracts from this interview. We have there AG, that’s Mr Gardner. He says:
“We’ve got a choice of 2 things, haven’t we, Lisa, either you’re totally incompetent and you’re costing the Post Office £300 or £400 a week and therefore we can’t afford to keep you.”
She says:
“Don’t sack me.”
He says:
“Or you’re fiddling the pensions deliberately and you’re pocketing the money.
“No, I haven’t got it, I haven’t got it, I haven’t.
He says: “Someone’s got it”.
She says: “I haven’t got it”.
If we scroll down the page, you then become involved in the interview here and you say:
“It equates to about £5,000. No, I don’t think it’s carelessness. I don’t think Tony thinks it’s carelessness.”
She says: “I haven’t got it”.
It’s summarised:
“Ms Brennan explained her financial and personal circumstances.”
You say as follows:
“So you actually earn a little bit more than £180. Okay. If we just go off this, not that you’re saying these are all mistakes, carelessness, isn’t it a bit charge that they’re just happening in the pensions and not in your other work?
She says: “Like in what?”
You say:
“Well, your giros have not been provided to be wrong, your savings bank has not been proved to be wrong. It’s only pensions that have been proved to be wrong by £100 or £200 at a time.”
She says: “I don’t know”.
Then Mr Gardner says:
“I think it’s a question of not whether you’ve done it but why you’ve done it.”
She says: “I haven’t done it”.
He says:
“I think you’ve done it deliberately.”
She says:
“I haven’t done it. I haven’t done it. I’ve had pressures … the work’s been dead, the work we’re doing …”
Then he says this:
“No one else is making mistakes like you.
She says:
“They don’t work as fast as me. I’ve been working dead fast.”
Can we go back, please, to your witness statement, that’s WITN04450100. It’s page 6, paragraph 19a. You’re addressing a different case study in 19a. You’re addressing the case of McDonald in this particular paragraph but you say here:
“… I can categorically state that I have never said to anyone that I have interviewed and definitely not to Jacqueline McDonald that she was the only one in that position.”
Should we take that statement to mean that, I, Stephen Bradshaw, have never said to anybody that they were in that position but the person sitting next to me in the interview may well have?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t be – I wouldn’t expect anybody sitting next to me to say “You’re the only one in that position that this has happened to”. I’ve never heard that be said.
Mr Blake: Perhaps we’ll return back to the interview then, POL00047322?
Stephen Bradshaw: May I just clarify I think I know what you’re going back to, if it’s saying, “You’re the only one in that position”, that would be for in that particular branch, nobody else is having the same issues.
Mr Blake: Let’s have look at page 11 of the interview that we were just looking at, please. It’s halfway down. Mr Gardner said:
“No one else is making mistakes like you.”
You were in that interview. You were sitting next to him. Did you correct him? Did you say “That’s not an appropriate thing to say”?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I explained, it has to be taken in the right context. In this case for pension and allowances, everybody’s pension and allowance submissions in that branch were checked. The only issues within – I think it was B stock unit that Ms Brennan had, they were the only issues. She was the only one in that Post Office that had the issue for pension and allowance. No other work was affected.
And when you – and the reason – after you’ve cashed the pension and allowance vouchers, you get a printout and either Ms Brennan or another member of staff would check the number of vouchers against the printout and that’s where you would identify any error.
Mr Blake: Quite a number of people have given evidence to this Inquiry saying that they were told that they were the only ones that this was happening to. A fair reading of that is surely that she is being told that no one is making mistakes on the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, it has to be taken in the right context within that branch, that she was the only one that was having issues with the pension and allowance submissions.
Mr Blake: Do you think that that was therefore an appropriate thing to say to her, that nobody else was “making mistakes like you”?
Stephen Bradshaw: In that branch nobody else was having them mistakes.
Mr Blake: So you have no concern about that form of words being used in that interview?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, because her pension and allowances were checked and it was found that only her submissions had shown overstated vouchers.
Mr Blake: You have no concerns about Mr Gardner and his approach to asking questions in interview?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s a PACE interview.
Mr Blake: It’s what, sorry?
Stephen Bradshaw: It was an interview in accordance with PACE.
Mr Blake: Did you call it a “police interview”?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, “PACE”, sorry. And the questions are difficult.
Mr Blake: Do you think you were professional during the course of the interviews that you carried out?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do, yes.
Mr Blake: Do you think Mr Gardner was professional in the interviews that he carried out?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do, yes.
Mr Blake: I’d like to move on to the case of Janet Skinner, please, and that’s POL00113278. Ms Skinner was another appellant in the Josephine Hamilton Court of Appeal case. She had her conviction quashed. Could we look at page 45, please, which details what the Court of Appeal said about Ms Skinner. They say:
“On 5 January 2007 … Janet Skinner pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting … We understand that the alleged shortfall was [£59,000]. On 2 February, she was sentenced … to nine months’ imprisonment.”
Paragraph 191 says:
“During a [Post Office] audit, Mrs Skinner had volunteered that there would be a £40,000 shortage of cash. In her interview under caution, she stated that the losses had begun in January 2006. She [believed] that she did not declare them as she could not afford ‘to put it right’. She believed that one of her members of staff had stolen the money, a belief in part predicated on the belief that such a large amount of money ‘just [couldn’t] go missing’. The prosecution relied on the evidence of three of the four other members of staff but were not persuaded that their evidence was capable of materially advancing the prosecution case. Between 1 January 2004 and 31 January 2005, Mrs Skinner made 116 calls to the National Business Support Centre. Some of those calls concerned Horizon faults and balancing.”
The next paragraph, about halfway through that paragraph, it says:
“It appears that there was no evidence to corroborate the Horizon evidence. There was no proof of an actual loss as opposed to a Horizon generated shortage. There was no investigation into the various Helpline calls made by Mrs Skinner. We are struck by the fact that [the Post Office] failed to take these steps despite Mrs Skinner’s long service to [the Post Office] and her professional progress (doubtless reflecting her trustworthiness) from counter clerk to permanent [subpostmistress] of the North Bransholme Post Office.”
It says there:
“[Post Office conceded that it] was unfair … but we are bound to conclude that her prosecution was … an affront to justice.”
I’d like to look at a transcript of interview in her case and that’s at POL00112971, please. Thank you. Can we turn to page 3. You were the interviewing officer in Ms Skinner’s case, alongside a colleague, Diane Matthews; is that correct?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes, Ms Matthews was the Lead Investigator.
Mr Blake: Can we start by looking at page 6. I’m going to take you through a few parts of this transcript. About halfway down that page and to the bottom there is her explanation. So she says:
“It’s just been going up and up for the past 5 months.”
She was asked by your colleague:
“Do you want to give us an account of why there is over £59,000 short in your account?”
She says:
“If I had the answer I would give you it but I haven’t. It started off £7,500 and it’s basically gone up and to be honest I just thought that whoever was taking it would be putting it back. I mean I can prove to you, I’m here because I want to prove that I am innocent. If you want to search my house you can, if you want to search my banks you can. I have nothing to hide whatsoever, I am not a thief.”
There is another interview at, if we go over to page 18, please. Sorry, actually, could we go to page 10. About halfway down page 10 there’s a question from you. You say:
“Did you know it was a criminal offence to falsify your accounts?”
She says:
“Yes. Like I’ve said it sounds draft really. It’s a large amount of money and I hope it gets found. I can be investigated in any way and I have nothing to hide.”
There’s a second interview and we can see that at page 18. Again, it’s conducted by Ms Matthews and yourself. Can we look at page 25, please. It’s about halfway down and to the bottom of page 25. This is a conversation about a member of staff was paying money back to Ms Skinner from a discrepancy that she had identified. You say, as follows:
“Sorry, who is the subpostmistress? Who is responsible for making losses …”
I’ll start slightly above, actually. You say:
“By your own admission you have not made your shortages good. £1,400 has been outstanding since November 2004.”
She says:
“But it wasn’t my outstanding shortage.
You say:
“Sorry, who is the subpostmistress? Who is responsible for making the losses good?
She says:
“That is the only thing that I’m bothered about. You can investigate me as much as you want, I don’t care. I have got nothing to hide. You can search my house, you can rip it apart, you can do the same in my bank account for the past 5 years, I have got nothing to hide whatsoever. The only thing that bothers me is the fact that somebody going to be held responsible for that and that somebody is me.”
She’s asked: “And why is it going to be you?”
She says:
“Because it should have been my responsibility and it should have been something I dealt with in the beginning and I know that and that goes through my head every day. And if I could answer for that sort of money, I would answer. I know that I can prove I haven’t stolen any money. I ain’t a thief.”
Then you ask:
“How do we know you haven’t stolen that money?”
She says:
“I know I haven’t. I can sleep at night knowing I haven’t.”
You say:
“We’ve got £59,000 shortage in your accounts. You have offered no explanation as to where that money has gone. You’ve got a £1,400 loss, everything is hunky dory for 12 months.”
She says:
“No, it isn’t hunky dory. I couldn’t force the woman to pay the money that she didn’t have cos that’s all it is. I couldn’t force her, she didn’t have the money. All she kept saying was she didn’t have the money.”
Then you say:
“But you rewarded her by giving her the keys come into the office.”
She said:
“Yeah, I know only because the customers were complaining that I was arriving at work late.”
You say:
“Get up earlier. Your responsibility, you took the role of being subpostmaster. Diane will go through the rest. We are up to £9,000 and we have another £50,000 to find.”
She said:
“The rest just went missing through the year. I can’t explain it any other way. You can break it down into pounds, pennies or whatever you want but I cannot explain it. If I had an answer I wouldn’t be sat here.”
“Get up earlier”: did you consider it to be part of your job to offer lifestyle advice to subpostmasters?
Stephen Bradshaw: Maybe not, but they were contracted to open up the Post Office at a certain time. And, you know, if you can’t get up, you know, fine. I can’t help my terminology. We all come from different parts of the country and we all have different ways of expressing it. I apologise if they don’t like that sort of terminology. It wasn’t meant as any – to be detrimental towards her. It was just, sort of thing – if you’re forever arriving late at work, people say to you about getting up earlier to arrive on time.
Mr Blake: My question was: do you think it was appropriate to give lifestyle advice because your evidence yourself has been that you were carrying out an interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a very serious interview. Do you think it is appropriate for somebody who is questioning somebody in relation to a criminal offence to tell them they need to get up earlier?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, you know, if it’s my terminology and it’s not liked, I apologise for that, you know, it wasn’t – the lifestyle is she’s there for 9.00, she identified the person that she suspected of stealing the money. So to save her coming in, she gave that person the keys. That’s all that conversation is. It has to be taken in the context of as it go – when you read something it can sound better or worse than when it’s actually spoken at the time.
Mr Blake: Mr Bradshaw, you still work for the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Blake: In the Security Department?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Blake: Do you consider still that it is appropriate to say to somebody in an interview that is very similar to a police interview, that they should get up earlier?
Stephen Bradshaw: Some people may say yes, some people may say no. Fine, I’ll concede and say no, it’s not appropriate.
Mr Blake: Some people may say yes, some people may say no. What do you say? Is it appropriate, is it not appropriate?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, it needs to be given the context of, you know, how the conversation goes. That, to me, at the time, appeared to be okay. If you can’t get up and you’re always late, you could lose the Post Office just by opening too late.
Mr Blake: If you were still carrying out this role, if you were still interviewing people, if you work interviewing somebody tomorrow, would you have any concerns about using that language –
Stephen Bradshaw: I may phrase it a different way.
Mr Blake: But you may still give similar advice?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s a very difficult question, isn’t it, to advice. It’s not really advice and advice-wise, you know, if you – as I say, if you’re always late, most people from being a small child and the school saying, you know, you’d need to get up earlier to get in on time.
Mr Blake: Is it appropriate?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t see a great deal wrong with it if you can’t get in on time.
Mr Blake: What’s its purpose though? What purpose does it serve in an interview of this kind?
Stephen Bradshaw: The purpose there, was that she was always – what she said in – she gave the keys to somebody else to open up, and that’s fine. She can do that. But the keys were given to somebody she suspected of stealing money, which is a bit – to me, is a bit strange.
Mr Blake: What does it matter to you whether she opens or somebody else opens? You’re carrying out a criminal investigation here. You’re not actually assisting her with the smooth running of her Post Office, are you?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, the smooth running would be that if she would be there to see what was happening from the post office – from start to finish.
Mr Blake: Is it still your evidence that you were professional during the interview?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, I have – I do.
Mr Blake: I’m going to move on to the case of Jacqueline McDonald. Can we please look at POL00113278, please.
Thank you very much. We’re back again to the Court of Appeal. I’d like to look at, it’s paragraph 179. I don’t have the page number, unfortunately but if we can scroll down – scroll up a little bit more, thank you.
Jacqueline McDonald:
“On 8 November 2010, in the Crown Court at Preston, Jacqueline McDonald pleaded guilty to theft. She pleaded guilty on 5 July 2010 to six counts of false accounting. On 21 January 2011, she was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 18 months. A confiscation order was made … As a result of the proceedings against her, Mrs McDonald was forced to file for bankruptcy.
“An audit of her post office … had revealed a total shortage of [£94,000]. In interview [she] said that she had experienced problems with Horizon and, when she contacted the Helpline, she received no assistance. She denied theft but accepted she had unintentionally made false accounts.
“Mrs McDonald’s defence statement made reference to problems experienced with Horizon. The defence made a number of disclosure requests but the prosecution made no disclosure in respect of any Horizon reliability difficulties. Mrs McDonald had made 216 calls to the National Business Support Centre about transaction and balancing problems. The pre-sentence report recorded her as saying that she had not stolen the money but admitted to accepting the system balances as correct in order to roll over into the next trading period.”
If we scroll down, I’ll read the bottom half of paragraph 182 and then into 183:
“Nevertheless, as [the Post Office] concedes, this was a ‘Horizon case’. The prosecution case was dependent on data generated by Horizon and yet there is nothing to indicate that any [Fujitsu audit data] was obtained at the time of the criminal proceedings. There was no evidence to corroborate the Horizon evidence. Issues raised by Mrs McDonald were not investigated. There was no proof of an actual loss as opposed to a Horizon-generated shortage.
“[Post Office] concedes only that [her] prosecution was unfair but we conclude that [the] prosecution was … an affront to justice.”
I’d like to look at her interview. That can be found at UKGI00014889. In this case, you were the interviewing officer. Are we to assume that the person who comes first is the main interviewer?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: So you’re assisted there by a colleague, Suzanne Winter. Were you the officer in charge of the investigation of Ms McDonald?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. Were you the Disclosure Officer in her case as well?
Stephen Bradshaw: All papers that I would have had would have been disclosed to our Criminal Law Team, who would then in turn disclose it to the defence.
Mr Blake: I’m not asking about the quality of the disclosure but, in terms of your role, I think you signed schedules of material purporting to be a Disclosure Officer?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, I think we take the role as Disclosure Officer as well. There’s not an independent person.
Mr Blake: Thank you. If we, please, could turn to page 5. I’m going to read to you a section of her interview transcript. I’m going to begin with you, who says:
“You have just admitted that you falsified your balance because you have inputted figures to enable you to balance.”
She says, “Yes”.
You say:
“Do you know that’s a criminal offence?”
She says: “No, I didn’t”.
Then there’s a summary. It says that:
“[You] stated the accounts had possibly been falsified from either November or March. [You] produced [some sheets] and asked [her] to state who had written the figures on the sheets. [She] said that some were hers and [her colleague’s] and some just [her colleague’s].
“[You] asked if [she] had any time off. [She said] she had two days off in June. [Her colleague] was off in May.”
Then it says:
“[You] discussed the last sheets starting 27 September and [she] confirmed it was her writing. [You] asked [her] to explain what the figures are. [She] stated the figures were what was in the safe in the roller cash in the tills. She also stated they were wrong and not worth the paper it was written on.”
It says:
“SB asked where she would have got the figure of £65,000. [She] said it would have been from the balance from the computer.”
Then it stops summarising and goes into the actual words spoken. It says:
“Would you like to tell me what happened to the money?”
She says:
“I don’t know where the money is. I have told you.”
You say: “You have told me a pack of lies”.
She says:
“No, I haven’t told you a pack of lies [because] I haven’t stolen a penny.”
Again, concentrating on words used in interview, “pack of lies” sounds somewhat like language you might see in a 1970s television detective show. Was “pack of lies” something you would say to defendants?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s the same language sort of come out here. It’s a PACE interview and it’s not a nice interview. Normally, before entering interview, the majority of times I speak to people and say to them, “You know, it’s not personal, the questions have to be asked. You won’t like the questions”. That’s what it is. It is a criminal – it’s a criminal interview in accordance with PACE.
Mr Blake: You have no difficulty with using those words in –
Stephen Bradshaw: It went through the court system afterwards and nothing was picked up by her defence team to say that it was oppressive or aggressive.
Mr Blake: So because the defendant’s representatives didn’t say it was oppressive, you think that it is therefore appropriate language to use in an interview?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, it’s a difficult interview.
Mr Blake: Sticking with the same case, can we look at POL00141259, please. We’re now in November 2010, it’s the same case. It’s a memo to you from Phil Taylor, who is a legal executive in the Criminal Law Division. Can you scroll down, please. Can you assist us with who Phil Taylor was? Was he a lawyer?
Stephen Bradshaw: I think he was a legal executive. He worked in the Criminal Law Team.
Mr Blake: Does that mean that they’re somebody who is not necessarily –
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m not sure whether he was like the paralegal.
Mr Blake: Does it sound a bit like a paralegal?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: Something like that?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. He says, as follows:
“Steve,
“The file has gone dead since Jarnail did the attendance note on 15 July 2010. I have written to ask the Defence if they intend to serve an Expert’s Report but I’ve not mentioned the Misra case to them. They can find that out for themselves.”
What was your understanding of the duties of cross-disclosure, so the duty to disclose information from one case in another case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, I would have expected the Criminal Law Division to disclose fully what’s going on.
Mr Blake: So did you turnaround, on receiving this letter, and say, “No, you’ve got it wrong, it’s disclosable?”
Stephen Bradshaw: As far as I recall, the defence team were notified of the Misra case. At some stage –
Mr Blake: That wasn’t the question that I asked –
Stephen Bradshaw: At some stage – all I can answer is that at some stage they were informed about the Misra case –
Mr Blake: At some –
Stephen Bradshaw: – and whether it’s through me sort of going back to them or whatever.
Mr Blake: Did that form of words that was used by somebody from the Criminal Law Team, that they haven’t mentioned the Misra case, “They can find that out for themselves”, did that cause you any concern?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s not very good, is it, at all? You know, it’s like sort of saying – throwing something away, “Oh, go and find it for yourself”. It’s not what I would expect from a set of lawyers, to behave.
Mr Blake: This particular individual wasn’t necessarily –
Stephen Bradshaw: No, he was part of the Division and acting on the – for a lawyer from the Criminal Law Division.
Mr Blake: Did that cause you to send an immediate memo back saying, “You’ve got it wrong”?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, I can’t – you know, we were talking some 13 years ago now. But – and, as I say, I know that it did come up and the defence team were informed of the Misra case but I don’t know when they were – when they were told.
Mr Blake: Do you think disclosure was made, full disclosure of expert reports in that case, for example?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, because Ms McDonald, she put her own – I think it was Charles McLachlan – they put their own defence experts in.
Mr Blake: They put their own experts in that particular case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: But from Seema Misra’s case, do you know what was disclosed?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t.
Mr Blake: No. If we look at POL00169419. This is a month letter, a month before that email. We have an email from Jon Longman to yourself and it includes some documents from the Misra case, including the final technical expert’s report and it’s that document I would like to take you to. That can be found at POL00169420. Thank you.
Could we please look at page 17, which are the conclusions in the expert report that was obtained by Seema Misra. Thank you very much. Mr McLachlan says as follows:
“It is evident that trial balances … and period balances … showed a continuous pattern of discrepancies throughout the period for which transactions were provided. It appears that no action was taken by the Post Office to investigate these discrepancies or to ensure that Ms Misra was competent to prevent them from arising. Instead, Misra removed an employee under suspicion of theft and implemented independent stock units for [either] counter. Neither action appears to have had resolved the issue.”
If we look at 3.3, he says as follows, he says:
“The Horizon system has had problems in the past as acknowledged by [Mr] Jenkins [Gareth Jenkins from Fujitsu] in relation to Callendar Square. Unfortunately, the Post Office has not provided us with the opportunity to independently assess the possible impact on West Byfleet nor have they provided a list of known defects in Horizon. The ‘travellers cheque’ problem is an illustration of the known defects we independently identified but Jenkins confirmed that Fujitsu maintain a list, a full list which has not been released.
“The Horizon system is a component of the full Post Office Operating Environment. Other elements of this environment can result in changes to the cash balances recorded at the branch. Both Transaction Corrections and Remittances will act in this way. Jenkins was unable to provide any opinion as to the integrity of these systems and I was provided with no opportunity to investigate them. The Post Office has provided no evidence as [to] the integrity of these systems and the processes used to manage them.”
So this is a report that you received that contains quite clear criticisms of the Horizon system; do you agree with that?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. From your evidence, where we began today about not knowing about bugs, errors or defects, in the system, it does seem that you received at least a defence expert report that did identify those kinds of issues with Horizon?
Stephen Bradshaw: People have said about bugs, errors and defects but, if you ask me what bug was there or what error or what defect, I couldn’t tell you, and that’s why I say I don’t know of any bugs, errors or defects. People are quoting bugs, errors and defects but nobody has said this particular bug, error or defect. That’s what I’m saying. Nobody has ever come or cascaded it down to say what particular bug, error or defect was in the system.
Mr Blake: But this kind of information presumably is pretty pertinent to the case of Ms McDonald that you are charged with?
Stephen Bradshaw: And it would be passed to the prosecution, the Criminal Law Team.
Mr Blake: Why do you say it was passed to – you say it would be, I think, you didn’t say was.
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, was.
Mr Blake: How do you know that?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s my terminology again. Well, they were sort of added because the nature of coming out – Jon Longman has sent that to us for information and it would have been passed – the Criminal Law Team would have been there at the time for the case.
Mr Blake: When you say Criminal Law Team, who do you mean? Do you mean the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: The Post Office solicitors.
Mr Blake: So Mr Singh, for example?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, at the time, it probably – Mr Singh come more on board in 2012 when they split from Royal Mail. When Royal Mail Group become defunct and Royal Mail Letters were becoming independent, as a private company, that’s when Mr Singh was attached to the Post Office Limited. Before that, there was number of lawyers in London in the Criminal Law Division.
Mr Blake: So somebody in the Criminal Law Division would have been aware of this and what your expectation was that they would be responsible for disclosing that in another case?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: That wasn’t something that you needed to apply your own mind to?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, all information I will have had will be sent down to our Criminal Law Team and they made the actual disclosure to the defence.
Mr Blake: Did you expect the Criminal Law Team themselves to take information from one of their cases and disclose it in another one of their cases?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would expect to with something like this. Anything that’s relevant to something else we’d expect the Criminal Law Team, as lawyers, to let other people know.
Mr Blake: When you were signing the disclosure statements of the Schedule of Unused Material, Schedule of Used Material, Schedule of Sensitive Material, did you cast your mind to that issue as to whether there was information that didn’t appear on your schedule but that was held in relation to another case?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t say I did.
Mr Blake: Do you reflect on that at all?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t say – as I say, I can’t say I did. I would, you know, look for the Criminal Law Team to deal with. If I’d put anything on, you know, with the – it would have been filled in properly. If I hadn’t have filled it in properly, I would have expected the lawyers to come back to me to say I’ve filled the form in incorrectly.
Mr Blake: Can you not see a problem with signing a disclosure statement or a schedule of disclosure and, at the same time, assuming that there is other information not listed on there that was going to be disclosed to a party?
Stephen Bradshaw: Of course. There’s always issues if something is not told but, as I said, you know, my understanding at the time, I had disclosed everything that was available to me, to them.
Mr Blake: Do you not see a problem, though, in you creating a schedule of material that doesn’t include material that you think, for some reason, is going to be disclosed by somebody else?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, all the information I had in that file was sent to the Criminal Law Team and –
Mr Blake: But this wasn’t in that file, was it, this was in another case?
Stephen Bradshaw: And it was held by the Criminal Law Team. So I would expect them to disclose it.
Mr Blake: So were they the Disclosure Officers in the case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, ultimately, they are the Disclosure Officers because if they asked me to do any further work, it would be put in the statement to be sent down, and they would disclose it to the defence. I did not disclose anything directly to the defence.
Mr Blake: But you’re signing schedules of material purporting to be the Disclosure Officer; are you saying that you nevertheless assumed that there was some other Disclosure Officer?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s the process the Post Office put in for the file. All my paperwork would be put there, the unused, the exhibits would be signed off in the committal file and sent to the Criminal Law Team, who would then close everything to the defence.
Mr Blake: Can you see a problem with the assumptions that are being made here?
Stephen Bradshaw: Of course. There’s always problems if too many people are involved, or so on, they think somebody else may have done it. But I would have expected the Criminal Law Team to do – to be the full Disclosure Officers.
Mr Blake: Saying that there’s always problems, I mean, are you not troubled by that in the context of a criminal prosecution where somebody could go to prison?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, this Inquiry is dealt with on its own merits and what I had would be sent to the Criminal Law Team.
Mr Blake: But do you not reflect on it and say, “I’m producing a schedule for criminal proceedings where somebody could go to prison and I’m not including all the material on that schedule”?
Stephen Bradshaw: I have produced a schedule of all the relevant information I had to hand concerning that enquiry.
Mr Blake: But you’re saying that there was other material outside of that schedule that you assumed –
Stephen Bradshaw: You said to me –
Mr Blake: – was disclosed?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, you said to me there was other material and I said the Criminal Law Team would have a copy of that and, if it had to be disclosed, I would have expected them to do it.
Mr Blake: So if we look at the disclosure schedule in this particular case that was signed by you, do you think we will find this particular report?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t think so.
Mr Blake: You don’t think so?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, because I – I may have done but I don’t think so.
Mr Blake: Okay.
Sir Wyn Williams: But isn’t that the problem, Mr Bradshaw? I think – forget about the technicalities of it – the whole idea of having a disclosure statement signed by someone is to make that person responsible for its contents, yes?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct, sir, but, as I say –
Sir Wyn Williams: Now, invariably, as I understand it, the Chief Investigating Officer becomes the Disclosure Officer and, for the moment, let’s assume that’s fine. Okay?
So the chief Investigating Officer has the responsibility for ensuring that all that should be disclosed in that statement is disclosed because he or she is putting their name at the bottom.
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct.
Sir Wyn Williams: So, at the very least, before you put your name to the bottom, if you are going to assume that Mr X, a lawyer in the Criminal Law Department, is going to provide some documentation to the defence, should you not liaise with him to ensure that that is done?
Stephen Bradshaw: I understand what you’re saying and what I’ve said is that every – all the information I had to hand was sent to the lawyers. I agree with you –
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, putting it simply –
Stephen Bradshaw: I agree with him –
Sir Wyn Williams: Putting it simply, you’ve agreed with Mr Blake that it was correct for the information in the Misra case to be disclosed in subsequent cases, because it was potentially helpful to the defence. Therefore, in a case where the Disclosure Officer was going to sign the disclosure form, should he or she not ensure, before the form is signed, that the information in the Misra case is there and ready for disclosure?
Stephen Bradshaw: Ultimately, yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thanks.
Mr Blake: Thank you. Just two more documents before we take our mid-morning break. Can we look at POL00099689, please. We’re sticking with the case of McDonald. This is a case that Ms McDonald made to Second Sight in 2013, so after her case. Can we please look at page 4. She says as follows, she says:
“Shortly after I had been audited and my post office was taken away from me, I read an article in a magazine which highlighted other people who had suffered or were about to suffer the same hell I was going through. I then got in touch with the writer of the article who then put me in touch with the [Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance]. This was a very big surprise to me as I was led to believe by the Investigator for the [Post Office], Steve Bradshaw, that I was the only one in this position and this has never happened before. Steve Bradshaw is a liar and he knew the whole time as I am friends with another person he has prosecuted that was a member of the [Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance]. It is just unbelievable how I was made to feel like I was the only one and it made me isolated and paranoid about what was going on with the whole situation.”
Had you mentioned the Seema Misra case, Ms McDonald might have realised that she wasn’t the only one.
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve never said that to her. That’s incorrect, that statement.
Mr Blake: Well, we’ll look at that, because we’ve seen Lisa Brennan this morning being told in her interview that nobody else is making mistakes, haven’t we?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’d explained that, that in that particular branch, she was the only person in that branch that was having that particular issue.
Mr Blake: We’ve seen the letter from the lawyer at the Post Office taking a conscious decision not to tell Ms McDonald about Seema Misra’s case. You remember that document, don’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right and that’s after the interview.
Mr Blake: Yes. So Ms McDonald’s complaint there that she was told that she was the only one, that rings true, doesn’t it?
Stephen Bradshaw: It doesn’t. I have never said that to her, that she was the only one, and the context –
Mr Blake: Wouldn’t that be consistent, though, with not raising Seema Misra’s case with her?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, in the context of the interview at the time, I have not said to Ms McDonald that she was the only one. And also, with that, I don’t know who she’s friends with and I did not know whether she was a member of the JFSA.
Mr Blake: Did you think that Ms McDonald’s case was an important case to win?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, it’s a case. It’s a case and that’s important whether it’s – you know, each case is treated on its own merit.
Mr Blake: So this one is just like any other case?
Stephen Bradshaw: All I do is interview, gather the information, send the file off and –
Mr Blake: Treat everybody fairly and equally?
Stephen Bradshaw: As far as I’m concerned, I do, yes.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00165946, please. This is, I think, a self-appraisal form for 2010/2011; is that right?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: If we scroll over to the next page, we have, at the bottom of that page, your position “I own performance”, and it says as follows:
“I take ownership of the objectives I agree for myself and my team that will help to deliver the business goals. I regularly discuss my team’s progress against their objectives. I ensure that business goals and current team performance are highly visible to my whole team. I address poor performance and recognise achievement.”
Could we scroll down to the bottom of that page, please. It’s number 5.
“On 5 July 2010 at Preston Crown Court the offender pleaded guilty to false accounting but would not accept theft. I challenged the recommendations of the barrister and persuaded him that a trial would be necessary as the reasons given by the defendant (Horizon integrity) would have a wider [impact] on the business if a trial did not go ahead.
“I also advised that a new trial date should be fixed as there are current issues ongoing regarding the Horizon system.
“He agreed with me and consequently the Judge accepted these points and fixed a new trial date.”
It seems, certainly from your own feedback, from your own appraisal, that you saw it as, in some way, career boosting to press on with Ms McDonald’s case because of problems with the Horizon system having a wider impact on the business. Do you not accept that?
Stephen Bradshaw: The issue would have been discussed with the prosecution barrister and, as you’re probably well aware, when you’re filling in one-to-ones sort of thing, there’s always a flamboyant way of putting the words across.
Mr Blake: “I challenged the recommendations of the barrister and persuaded him that a trial would be necessary as the reasons given by the defendant (Horizon integrity) would have a wider [impact] on the business if a trial did not go ahead.”
Are you saying that – you’re saying you had more of a role in things than you actually did?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all. As I said, that’s a flamboyant way of explaining what happened had gone on on the day.
Mr Blake: But why would a barrister be concerned about the wider impact on the business though?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t know. It will have been discussed with the prosecution barrister and, again, everything of that enquiry has to be taken into context. I mean, so it’s not just one little piece of it, it’s a full inquiry of how the money possibly went missing, et cetera. And they had their defence expert, the – and it was sort of put in, prosecution spoke to defence barrister at the second time.
Mr Blake: Is it right or wrong to say that you were concerned that that case would have a wider impact on the business of the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s wrong but, as I say, it’s a flamboyant way of explaining what had gone on on the day in the court –
Mr Blake: Sorry, when you say it’s wrong, what do you mean? Was that a thought that was in your mind during this case?
Stephen Bradshaw: The wider impact is sort of, you know, it were – at the time, it wasn’t proven, as far as I recall, 100 per cent that Horizon was so faulty.
Mr Blake: Your concern in this particular case was that, if you lost the case, that would damage the reputation of Horizon?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, the damage would always come because once one part has gone – and, as I say, you look at the case, the case – the shortfall was found by a Business Development Manager, the audit was done following. They declared the amount of cash that they’d done the night before when the Business Development Manager went. There was only 17,000 in they’re, so you need the full case to be able to judge it properly.
Mr Blake: You, playing the role that you did, managed to persuade a barrister that a trial would be necessary because of the impact on the business?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, the way it’s written is completely wrong. I wouldn’t write it like that now but it’s a self-appraisal for the way the business wanted things doing –
Mr Blake: So was it true or was it not true?
Stephen Bradshaw: There’s probably truth in it but not maybe to the extent of what it is.
Mr Blake: We’ve heard from some evidence about bonuses being paid in relation to successful prosecutions. Are you aware of anything along those lines?
Stephen Bradshaw: Bonuses have always been paid around Royal Mail Group, Post Office/Royal Mail. Bonuses have always been there.
Mr Blake: Would positive feedback relating to something like this, might that impact on bonuses?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, it’d impact depending on what score they want to give you, whether you’re 1, 2, or 3 or 4 or whatever numbers they go to.
Mr Blake: Does your success in a criminal case impact on the amount that you’re paid?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all.
Mr Blake: Does the number of cases that you successfully –
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all. I’m paid whether one case is done, 1,000 cases or no cases.
Mr Blake: Your standard pay, yes, but in terms of a bonus –
Stephen Bradshaw: No, I’m sorry.
Mr Blake: – you are, I think you’ve accepted, paid a bonus depending on how well you do?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, a bonus becomes part of your pay, what’s agreed by the business.
Mr Blake: Yes.
Stephen Bradshaw: And you don’t get any extra bonus because of this. It’s all how well or not well you do your job, is how your bonus is given.
Mr Blake: If you’re considered to have, for example, protected the business, prevented the wider impact on the business, do you think that that might lead to a bonus?
Stephen Bradshaw: It may do and it may not do, depending on who looks at the forms that they put in.
Mr Blake: Thank you, sir, that might be an appropriate moment to take our mid-morning break.
Sir Wyn Williams: What time shall we restart?
Mr Blake: If we restart at 11.55 – let’s say 11.50.
Sir Wyn Williams: 11.50.
Mr Blake: I’ve quite a lot to get through.
Sir Wyn Williams: Let’s have a break.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
(11.34 am)
(A short break)
(11.51 am)
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, Mr Blake. There may be a few latecomers but we won’t wait for them.
Mr Blake: Thank you, sir.
I’m going to move on to the case study of Khayyam Ishaq. Can we please go back to the Court of Appeal judgment, that’s POL00113278. It’s page 49. This is another case where the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Am I right to say that you were the Lead Investigator in Mr Ishaq’s case.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: I’ll just read some of the Court of Appeal judgment. They say that:
“On 7 March 2013, Mr Ishaq changed his plea to guilty to the theft of £17,000. On 22 April 2013 he was sentenced to 54 weeks imprisonment.
“The defence challenge to the Horizon system was clear from a very early stage in the proceedings. Mr Ishaq’s solicitor had informed [the Post Office] of the issue and of the defence intention to instruct an expert at an earlier Magistrates Courts hearing on 25 July 2012. A defence statement of 29 August 2012 repeated the defence challenge to Horizon and made a series of disclosure requests targeted at the Horizon system.
“Mr Ishaq denied theft but admitted altering items on Horizon out of necessity in order to reconcile the amounts and due to the system malfunctioning. The defence repeatedly sought disclosure in relation to Horizon and instructed an accountancy expert to analyse the accounts.
“[The Post Office] produced evidence to demonstrate the integrity of Horizon and relied in particular upon the involvement of Mr Jenkins, who provided witness statements and contributed to a joint expert report. In a served witness statement, Mr Jenkins defended the integrity of the Horizon system.
On 5 February 2013 the defence made a formal application to a judge for further disclosure on Horizon. The application was refused. The defence served an addendum defence statement which alleged Horizon malfunction and set out reports of technical faults which Mr Ishaq had made to the Horizon Helpdesk. He had also made reports to the National Business Support Centre about shortfalls and discrepancies.
“[The Post Office] accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence from Horizon was essential to Mr Ishaq’s case. [The Fujitsu audit data] for the indictment period was provided to the defence on 26 October 2012. It is unclear what, if any, analysis was performed with it. There was no examination of that data for bugs, errors or defects or for evidence of theft. It appears there was no evidence to corroborate the Horizon evidence. The fact that Mr Jenkins provided witness statements in itself suggests that [the Post Office] did not disclose the full and accurate position regarding the reliability of Horizon. There was no proof of an actual loss as opposed to a Horizon generated shortage.
“[The Post Office] concedes only that Mr Ishaq’s prosecution was unfair but we are bound to conclude that his prosecution was an affront to justice.”
Can we please return to your witness statement, that’s WITN04450100, at page 9. Thank you. If we look at page 9, that’s where you address the case of Ishaq and we can see at the bottom there, we have at footnote 3, a large number of documents that were provided to you in relation to his case; do you recall that?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve seen that, yes, and I’ve looked at them.
Mr Blake: If we scroll down we have the rest of your evidence on his case.
Can we please look at POL0046224, please. This is the investigation report. Is this a document that you drafted?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct.
Mr Blake: Yes. That’s dated 13 May 2011, it’s your investigation report. I’d like to begin on page 6, please. Thank you. If we scroll down, there’s a section on business and procedural weaknesses. You say there:
“Due to the circumstances given in explanation of the audit shortage, at this moment in time I can see no failures in security supervision, procedures or product integrity that should be brought to the attention of Contract Manager.”
Is it possible to bring on screen, side by side, your witness statement that we’ve just taken you to, page 14 of that witness statement, please. Thank you. So, on the left-hand side, if we could go to page 14, you will recall that that is the page that addresses the general questions that were put to you in your request for evidence to the Inquiry. You say there, for example:
“I do not know what technical issues were investigated by the Post Office.
“I cannot recall, if any, what information I received concerning bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system.”
We heard this morning that you were aware of those magazine articles in 2010 and there was an email correspondence from the same year where there was discussion about a number of challenges to Horizon integrity. What investigation had you carried out in relation to product integrity?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s – when the product come around you would see – in this particular case, it was a case of sheets of stamps would have been reversed out the system, which outweighed what was being sold.
Mr Blake: But you’ve said here in your investigation report that you can’t see any failures in product integrity. What investigations had you carried out into product integrity to satisfy yourself –
Stephen Bradshaw: Whatever the product was, whether that would show up any – anything wrong with it, you know, that’s all I can say is that you would look at each one at the time. I didn’t go in and look at each individual product because that’s another member of – another team within the Post Office.
Mr Blake: You were aware at this particular time of significant allegations against the integrity of the Horizon system, weren’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, with this particular inquiry, it didn’t appear to be anything to do with Horizon because it was reversing out stamps that created the surplus.
Mr Blake: But, at this particular time, do you accept that you had significant knowledge of allegations about the integrity of the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: There was knowledge at the time that people were stating that there was issues with Horizon.
Mr Blake: It was your knowledge at that time?
Stephen Bradshaw: People had told us, so yeah, I guess I probably will have known.
Mr Blake: You say probably would have known. Let’s have a look at UKGI00015101. This is another case around a similar time, 2 March 2011. This is the case of Damian Owen; was that a case that you were also the Investigating Officer?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all.
Mr Blake: You weren’t involved in that case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not at all.
Mr Blake: You didn’t see this defence statement, if we scroll down?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all.
Mr Blake: No knowledge of that?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not Damian Peter Owen, no.
Mr Blake: Okay. Let’s return to Mr Ishaq’s case, then. Can we look at POL00058254, please. We have the defence statement. We’ve just seen the defence statement in Mr Owen’s case, let’s look at the defence statement in Mr Ishaq’s case. This is August 2012. Can we please turn over the page. This is a document you would have seen at the time, isn’t it?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you. If we scroll down, this is a case management that is produced to set out the nature of the defendant’s case and, if we look at paragraph 7, that’s over the page, please, he states as follows:
“The nature of the Defence in relation to this allegation is:
“(i) There was no appropriation of monies. The Post Office ‘Horizon’ software/hardware system had in the past on numerous occasions malfunctioned causing difficulties in reconciling sales, receipt and stock figures. The Defendant had reported the same to the Post Office helpline seeking assistance but little or no successful assistance was afforded to him despite the said requests.
The defendant had of necessity to make certain adjustments by way of ‘reversals’ on the Horizon system so as to ensure the sales, receipt and stock figures reconciled.”
If we carry on, please, over the page, we have a number of disclosure requests that were made by the defence in Mr Ishaq’s case. If we scroll down a little more, we can see at 11(ii), for example, they request:
“All the material to the knowledge of the prosecution in existence (whether in the hands of the prosecution or third parties) that reasonably supports (or is reasonably capable of supporting) the contention that the Post Office Horizon software/hardware system has proved to be unreliable and/or inaccurate and/or unstable and/or susceptible to well function and/or otherwise prone to the production of erroneous results …
“(iv) The full results (whether provisional or final) of all internal and/or external investigations and/or enquiries and/or reviews (whether instigated by the Post Office or any other body) into the correct functioning of the Post Office Horizon hardware/software system.”
Over the page:
“(v) Any in internal memoranda and/or guidance notes and/or material dealing with the correct or incorrect functioning of the Post Office Horizon hardware/software system …”
This is a case that you were the Investigating Officer?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00119430, please. An email from September 2012 from Martin Smith, he is a lawyer at Cartwright King; is that correct? Do you recall? If we scroll down, we see his –
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, if it’s come from Cartwright King.
Mr Blake: Yes. Thank you. This is an email sent – you’re included on the distribution list. Who was Sarah Porter, do you recall?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m not sure whether she’s somebody that actually works with – in Cartwright King or it’s somebody else. I don’t really recall that name.
Mr Blake: He says:
“Good morning, Sarah,
“Please find attached copies of a letter from the [defendant’s] solicitors and the Defence Case Statement.”
That’s the document we’ve just been looking at:
“The Defence are clearly aware of the current Horizon issues and are on a fishing expedition. This in my view is a red herring. The stamp sales which had been reversed thereby increasing the stock and lowering the amount of money needed to achieve a balance were clearly not there at the time of the audit.”
So he has described it as a fishing expedition. What’s your understanding of a fishing expedition?
Stephen Bradshaw: Can I just go back there? I think Sarah Porter way well be the agents – it’s either – she either worked for Cartwright King or they’re agents from the Yorkshire area known to look after that case. It’s only a possibility but I think that’s where it may be.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much.
Stephen Bradshaw: A fishing expedition is just throwing anything around to see what comes out from it.
Mr Blake: We’ve seen a number of requests made in that defence statement for disclosure; did you seek and obtain the information that was sought?
Stephen Bradshaw: If Cartwright King, either via Sarah Porter, if it’s from our prosecution agents of Cartwright King, didn’t do it, and Cartwright King have asked me for anything, I will have done whatever they requested.
Mr Blake: You would have done whatever they requested?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: We spoke earlier about, for example, reliance on the Post Office’s own Legal Team to cross-disclose from other cases.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: Here we have Cartwright King, so an external firm, perhaps a lawyer who doesn’t have sight of every case, and you have also, as you said, Sarah Porter, who is potentially yet another external firm. Who is best placed out of all of you?
Stephen Bradshaw: Cartwright King took over from Jarnail Singh. Cartwright King become the Post Office lawyers so, as the Investigation Officer, whatever information they required, they will have asked and I would have provided, if possible, the information back to them that they would have shared back towards the defence.
Mr Blake: So, in terms of your assumption that somebody would have been disclosing additional documents that weren’t on your schedules, what do we assume now in relation to Cartwright King, that they are then responsible for this further material?
Stephen Bradshaw: Cartwright King would have taken it over as the people who would deal with the defence solicitors.
Mr Blake: What about the defence report in the Seema Misra case, for example, and other complaints that we’ve seen those, even those 2010 magazine articles that you were sent? Did they form your disclosure in this case?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, as I explained earlier, I will have disclosed everything I had, appertaining to whatever case, whether it be Mr Ishaq’s or whatever, to our lawyers and I would expect them, as the people dealing directly – because I wouldn’t deal direct with any defence solicitors.
Mr Blake: Who do you think was responsible for disclosure?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would say our lawyers, acting on behalf of the Post Office.
Mr Blake: What do you think your duties were in relation to disclosure?
Stephen Bradshaw: To let our lawyers know everything that I had possibly got.
Mr Blake: So your duty is to provide them with everything you have in a specific case but not in relation to your broader knowledge?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would say so, yes.
Mr Blake: Then you saw it as their duty to make disclosure in relation to the broader context?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, that’s correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00056596, please. This is at an earlier stage in the case, this a memo from Maureen Moors in the National Security Team at the Post Office, and it’s about this particular case, Mr Ishaq. It’s sent to you.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right, yeah. Maureen Moors was part of the Casework Team. She was the Postal Officer in the Casework Team.
Mr Blake: So she was the caseworker, you were the Investigator –
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: – and she gives an opinion as to sufficiency of evidence or –
Stephen Bradshaw: Not at all. All she’s basically done is forwarded on – that’s been addressed from Legal Services because this was around about the time of the crossover between the Criminal Law Team, ie Jarnail Singh, and Cartwright King taking over completely. So the Legal Services, that’s where they were based, as Royal Mail Group, when the split come, lawyers stayed with Royal Mail Letters.
Mr Blake: Yes.
Stephen Bradshaw: Jarnail Singh become Post Office and they would then send it to the Casework Team and in this case Maureen, and Maureen would forward that on to be attached to the file.
Mr Blake: So for whose attention was this particular document?
Stephen Bradshaw: I think it’s to let the Security team know and it’s forwarded on to me and I would put it in the file.
Mr Blake: So, as the Investigating Officer, is this – if we scroll up, it’s a memo, so it’s not a letter.
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Blake: Is this effectively a memo for your attention?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: Yes? Can we scroll over the page, please. We can see at the very bottom it’s from Rob Wilson, who is, at that stage, Head of the Criminal Law Team?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr Blake: If we look at the very top of the current page we’re on, he says as follows:
“You will be aware of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 concerning disclosure. Please confirm whether there is any material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the Prosecution case or assisting the Defence case and which has not already been disclosed. Please also let me have [various forms].”
So that is a test that you were aware of?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right. They’re all the forms for the committal – for a committal.
Mr Blake: Yes. So that is a test that is being repeated to you by the Head of the Criminal Law Team.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right.
Mr Blake: Do you still say that it was the responsibility of Cartwright King to ensure appropriate disclosure and not your responsibility?
Stephen Bradshaw: Cartwright King for the – if you’re talking about the Misra part, for Cartwright King, I will have disclosed everything that I had appertaining to that case. Anything above and beyond that I would expect the lawyers to disclose it to the defence.
Mr Blake: There’s no caveat in that paragraph though, is there? There’s nothing that says in that paragraph “in the particular circumstances of this particular case”?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, and I wouldn’t expect there to be any sort of thing. It’s – you know, any caveat to be put in for there. As I say, all internal work that I had I would disclose to our lawyers.
Mr Blake: All internal work that related to this particular case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: Where did you get the impression from that that’s all you needed to do?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s the way I’d been told from the business from when I started.
Mr Blake: Told by who?
Stephen Bradshaw: The way it’s come down from when I started and from the training school to whoever is sort of like Mr Gardner at the beginning, when you first done them all – and the lawyers. The lawyers haven’t said we’ve done anything incorrect.
Mr Blake: So was it part of your training that you only needed to disclose matters relating to a particular case and not be concerned with wider issues?
Stephen Bradshaw: As far as I recollect, yes. That’s what it was.
Mr Blake: Do you have any reflections on the “fishing expedition” comment?
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Blake: Do you still see it as a fishing expedition in this particular case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Again, as I said, you know, it’s – people sometimes send emails as if they’re having a telephone conversation and it’s probably not the correct word to use, “fishing”, but part of the time it’s probably a prevalent way of people to speak to one another.
Mr Blake: But do you think that wider disclosure about problems with the Horizon system experienced by other subpostmasters is not a reasonable thing to need to disclose?
Stephen Bradshaw: If there was issues there, and the lawyers knew about it, they should disclose it.
Mr Blake: You knew about it?
Stephen Bradshaw: The lawyers. As I said, I expect the lawyers to do that not me. I’ve disclosed all relevant work I had appertaining to whatever case and the lawyers would deal with the defence lawyers.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00059652. We’re in 6 February now, we have an email from Martin Smith of Cartwright King to yourself. I’m just going to read from this email. It says:
“The defence were unable to persuade the judge to order any further disclosure.
“The defendant’s solicitor told me that the defendant still operated the store in which the post office is situated. The defendant had instructed them that both subsequent subpostmasters had told him that they had experienced problems with the Horizon system. Although you have said in your final statement that ‘During the subsequent transfer of cash and stock after Mr Ishaq’s suspension in February 2011, no problems or discrepancies have been reported’, the defence may well suggest that this does not necessarily mean that no problems were encountered by the subsequent subpostmasters. I think it would be sensible to obtain statements from both subsequent subpostmasters confirming that they experienced no problems with the Horizon system, et cetera.”
Just looking at the words in speech marks that were in a statement that you had produced for that particular case – so you had said in a statement “During the subsequent transfer of cash and stock after Mr Ishaq’s suspension, no problems or discrepancies have been reported” – what investigations at that stage, so prior to speaking to the subpostmasters, had you conducted in relation to problems post-dating Mr Ishaq.
Stephen Bradshaw: Sorry, can you repeat that?
Mr Blake: You subsequently, and we’ll see, took a statement from a subpostmaster that followed from Mr Ishaq’s suspension. You included in a witness statement a statement to the effect that no problems or discrepancies have been reported. Now, are we to read into the fact that you’ve said “have been reported” means that, in order to make that statement, all you looked at was whether a problem or discrepancy had been reported?
Stephen Bradshaw: A statement was taken from the interim postmaster who was – he had another one in West Yorkshire, in Dewsbury, and he’d stated in his statement that the equipment was exactly the same, he hadn’t changed anything, and he had no issues whatsoever.
Mr Blake: We will come to look at that –
Stephen Bradshaw: That was the statement.
Mr Blake: – but this particular statement is telling you that we would like to approach the subpostmasters to take a statement from them, so this pre-dates that statement?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s when he’s asking me to go down and take the statement.
Mr Blake: Absolutely but, by that stage, you had already said in a witness statement that no problems or discrepancies had been reported subsequent to Mr Ishaq. My question to you is: how did you form that conclusion?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, again, I can’t say 100 per cent but my knowledge would have been, at the time, that I would not have found any issues that he’s reported any problems with the Horizon.
Mr Blake: Is that an assumption?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, again, without having the case file, you know, and whether the call logs had been obtained from both the NBSC and Horizon, but there was nothing at the time to indicate any issues from Mr Ishaq. You know –
Mr Blake: You said no problems or discrepancies had been reported and, really, what I’m asking you is: are we to read that very carefully that you’ve referred to being reported because, in fact, you weren’t aware whether there were, in fact, any problems with –
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, if they’re not reported, you know, to me, there’s no issue.
Mr Blake: So you were relying on, for example, call logs or something along those lines?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, if –
Mr Blake: Rather than an investigation of the system?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, if you’ve got anything to – because I had no reason to investigate the system.
Mr Blake: Can we, please, look at POL00059629. We’re going to start at page 14. This is the statement that is referred to there, and it’s a statement from you, and it says:
“The call logs for the period of 8 July 2010 to 11 February 2011 were requested from the National Business Support Centre. Those logs have been examined and show that no calls were made by Mr Ishaq during that particular period.”
If we look over the page, please, and we can see the line that I’ve just taken you to, it’s at the bottom of that page, it says:
“During the subsequent transfer of cash and stock after Mr Ishaq’s suspension in February 2011 no problems or discrepancies have been reported.”
So we have a statement that says, “I have obtained the call logs from July 2010 to February 2011”, and Mr Ishaq hadn’t reported during that period, and then you have at the bottom that no problems or discrepancies had been reported. By this particular stage, you hadn’t, in fact, spoken to the subsequent subpostmasters.
Stephen Bradshaw: No, that will have been done in the transfer from the old postmaster to the new postmaster, so, in effect, if you say there’s £10,000 of cash, the incoming postmaster, Mr Patel, has agreed there’s £10,000 of cash, there’s ten stamp books, there’s so many of these, so many of these, he’s agreed with everything that’s in the office at that time, so that’s what that refers to.
Mr Blake: If we scroll back to the first page please, I just want to ask you about the call logs that were obtained, it’s page 14. Where you say the call logs were requested from the National Business Support Centre, we’ve heard quite a lot of evidence about the separate Horizon System Helpdesk. Was that something that you obtained calls from?
Stephen Bradshaw: It may well have done, yeah. You know, initially I thought there was only one and then, as you quite rightly say, there was a separate Horizon call, and normally, the National Business Support Centre would get them call logs, as well, for you.
Mr Blake: You’d have to obtain the Horizon System Helpdesk calls from Fujitsu –
Stephen Bradshaw: From Fujitsu, correct.
Mr Blake: You’ve said that you thought there was only the National Business Support Centre?
Stephen Bradshaw: I did at the time, yes.
Mr Blake: For how long?
Stephen Bradshaw: It was – afterwards, I would either have been told by the National Business Support Centre that “We don’t have the Horizon ones, you would have to go to Fujitsu”, or sometimes they have got them on my behalf.
Mr Blake: So are you saying that it was as late as 2013 that you found out about the other help?
Stephen Bradshaw: It could well be, yes.
Mr Blake: Thank you, can we please look at POL00059675. Just in terms of the statement that we’ve just seen, can you assist us? You’ve said before that Cartwright King sent you a statement to sign. Was that one that we’ve just looked at? Was that drafted by you or drafted by somebody else?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, that was drafted by me that one, that wasn’t Cartwright King.
Mr Blake: That one was drafted by you, thank you. This is a letter from Mr Ishaq’s solicitors and, if we could scroll down, they’ve picked up on the particular wording, the careful wording, at the end of your witness statement, and they say as follows:
“Further to the service of the additional evidence at page 43 Stephen Bradshaw’s penultimate sentence states that no problems or discrepancies have been reported since the transfer to a new interim subpostmaster since the suspension of Mr Ishaq in February 2011, with regards to this could you please clarify whether further enquiries were made, ie as [I think it may be ‘has’] a full audit been taken since 2011 and if so what was the outcome of that audit.
“If no discrepancy has been highlighted from a subsequent audit then please be on notice that we will require the data to commission our own audit.”
So they’re asking you there for what further enquiries were made as to the accuracy of the system post-Mr Ishaq and whether an audit has taken place; do you agree with that?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, but I’m not sure whether there was an audit put on by the – by Post Office, or whether – technically, what you’ve got is that each time the interim postmaster, Mr Patel – every time he balanced, whether it be weekly or the branch trading statements every month, that’s actually an audit of what he’s got in the branch. I’m not sure if an independent audit took place.
Mr Blake: Mr Ishaq is simply – his solicitors are simply asking there, could you clarify what further enquiries were made to justify the words that you had included in your witness statement?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I explained, the interim postmaster has not reported any issues. He’s used the same equipment and he’s said – and he’s stated, as was put in the statement, that he’d been balancing okay.
Mr Blake: They are effectively trying to test that. They want to test that and they want to see for themselves evidence of the actual figures being looked at by the Post Office.
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, yeah, but the Post – you know, you’d have to – the Post Office would have to put another independent audit on. Now, whether that took place, I’m not sure.
Mr Blake: Well, they’re only asking a question, aren’t they?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: They’re saying can you clarify whether further enquiries have been made, ie has a full audit been undertaken?
Stephen Bradshaw: And I expect they will have been answered by Cartwright King either with help from myself or directly by them.
Mr Blake: Let’s have a look, POL00059692, please. It is an email from Martin Smith of Cartwright King, to yourself, and to Mark Ford. He says:
“Just to keep you in the loop, please find attached a copy of a letter which we have received from Musa Patel today.”
That is the letter we have just looked at.
“Steve is in the process of taking statements from the subsequent subpostmasters who have not experienced any problems with the Horizon system. They have not had any significant shortages.
“I do not propose to ask Steve to obtain the data for the period following Ishaq’s removal. Given that there were no problems with the system and there were no significant shortages, it would not assist the defence or undermine the Crown’s case.”
Were Martin Smith or indeed yourself well placed to tell whether there were any problems with the system after Mr Ishaq had been suspended?
Stephen Bradshaw: As previously explained, you know, the technical issues of the workings of the Horizon System, no, me and Mr Smith would not be. But, based on what they were saying were there any issues with the balancing and the cash and stock that’s in the branch at the time, the postmaster that was in place at the time suffered no issues.
Mr Blake: So you have the subsequent postmaster, who you’re taking statements from at this time, you’ve been asked very clearly by the defence whether an audit has taken place because front and centre for their defence is the Horizon system and the reliability of the Horizon system. In what sense are we to understand that Mr Smith has any idea whether obtaining data for that period would have or would not have assisted or undermined the Crown’s case?
Stephen Bradshaw: I think Mr Smith is going – based on the question, was, you know, the postmaster in post at the time was – had balanced each and every week, each and every month. So I think Mr Smith has made a decision where, you know, there is no issues shown – no data would show any loss because –
Mr Blake: How would you know that without looking?
Stephen Bradshaw: Because the data is only about the transactions. If you’ve got the data, all the data would show what transactions you’ve taken in, so what receipts you’ve had and what payments you made and if it’s balancing, everything is balanced out. The left and right is an equilibrium.
Mr Blake: Can you see any issue with relying on what a subsequent postmaster has told you and not investigating whether, in fact, there were any technical issues?
Stephen Bradshaw: In this case, no, because he’s stated he’s balancing okay, and he was an experienced postmaster because he had another branch in Dewsbury. So he was stating he had no issues with his balancing.
Mr Blake: So you don’t think it was incumbent upon the Post Office to, in fact, check whether there were or were not bugs, errors or defects affecting Mr Ishaq’s Post Office after his termination?
Stephen Bradshaw: In that particular case, with the postmaster, I don’t know what you would expect to find, because he’s – everything has gone through correctly.
Mr Blake: Sorry?
Stephen Bradshaw: Everything has gone through correctly because he has balanced.
Mr Blake: We’ll look and see what he says. Let’s look and see what he says now. Let’s look at UKGI00014921, please. First of all, is this your writing or his –
Stephen Bradshaw: It is, yeah.
Mr Blake: It’s your writing?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: So you took the statement.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: Can you assist us with how you would go about taking statements, focusing on this particular statement?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’d make the arrangements to go and see Mr Patel and then sort of go through and ask him, as I go through, the questions –
Mr Blake: Is this verbatim as you spoke to him?
Stephen Bradshaw: I wouldn’t say verbatim to the extent of every word but it’s the – what is basically, you know, sort of said to him, and then he would read it and check it afterwards at the end of it, before signing it.
Mr Blake: Let’s have a look towards the bottom of the page, please. Just returning to your evidence much earlier today where you said that you signed a statement that Cartwright King had sent you, no questions asked, at this stage, had you had any training or understanding about the duties that relate to the obtaining of statements and how important it was that they were accurate and –
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: – full and true?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, that had come from the training, I’d been taking statements for a number of years and there had never been any issues.
Mr Blake: He said:
“I balanced the cash and stock on a weekly basis and produced a branch trading statement at the end of the balancing periods. The weekly balancing and branch trading statement would be done mainly by my son-in-law …”
So I think his evidence was that his son-in-law mainly did the work.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: “… but if he was unable to produce these, either myself or my son would go to [the] Post Office to do the balance.
“During my time as interim subpostmaster I did not have any balances that caused me any concern and when the Branch Trading Statement was produced, I cannot recall making good any shortages above £20.”
So, first of all, are we to read into that that he did have some shortfalls but they just weren’t –
Stephen Bradshaw: It could, yeah – the way it reads and what he said, he would have been asked whether he had any surpluses or shortages, and he’s come up with the figure of around about the £20. He doesn’t – he can’t – he could not recall any shortage that was above the £20 mark.
Mr Blake: Are we to read anything into the words “I cannot recall”? I mean, why wouldn’t he say, “I didn’t have any shortages above £20”?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s probably the way I’ve written it.
Mr Blake: Yes, because, as you said, it’s not verbatim.
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s not.
Mr Blake: Do you think those words were yours or his?
Stephen Bradshaw: His. You know, he would have been asked – I might have said to him “Do you recall any shortages?” No, or not above thing, and that’s how I’ve written it. As I said, it’s not verbatim saying, “I don’t” or “I didn’t have” what he’s saying there is yeah, he’s probably had – as you’ve quite rightly said, he’s had shortages within the account, however, there’s nothing that’s caused him any concern because he says it’s up to about £20.
Mr Blake: He carries on:
“During this time I employed two members of staff … to work behind the counter. Whilst I was the interim subpostmaster, the Horizon system remained the same. I have never requested any piece of the Horizon kit to be replaced.”
Now, why is that bit in capitals, “I have never requested any piece of the Horizon system kit to be replaced”?
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s not really in capitals. It’s just the way I’ve written it.
Mr Blake: But it’s different to the rest of the writing.
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s just the way I’ve written it. You could use other, you know, “the” has come up – the line above it, which, you know, you haven’t picked up is I’ve got “the” in capitals. It’s just the way I’ve written the statement. There’s nothing untoward. It’s just the way that statement is written by me.
Mr Blake: Did you see it as an important part of his evidence?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not at all.
Mr Blake: – for him to have said that?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not at all. As I said, it’s the way I’ve written the statement. Sometimes it’s in capitals, sometimes it’s the way, you know, the shorter notes.
Mr Blake: Was this the sum of the evidence from the subsequent subpostmaster –
Stephen Bradshaw: All I was asked was to go and get a statement from the postmaster and see whether they had any issues with the system in the Post Office.
Mr Blake: We had read that there were two subpostmasters – subsequent subpostmasters?
Stephen Bradshaw: I think Mr Liaquat, is it? I think a statement was taken from him as well.
Mr Blake: Did it say similar things?
Stephen Bradshaw: I think so. Without seeing it, you know …
Mr Blake: Is this the sum of this statement, though, that in fact, the author of the statement didn’t generally do the weekly balance and branch trading statement. He can’t recall making good any shortages above relatively small ones and that he hasn’t requested any part of the actual physical kit to be replaced. There was no consequent evidence to this, for example, an investigation of somebody looking at the data during this particular time to see if it was accurate or not?
Stephen Bradshaw: We had no reason to disbelieve that Mr Patel was not – hadn’t checked the work within the post office.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00059729, please. This is a letter to Cartwright King, 15 February 2013; this is within a matter of days from the correspondence that we’ve just seen and it says as follows, it says:
“We enclose in duplicate copies of a Notice of Additional Evidence, the statement of Stephen Bradshaw and Abdullah Patel, and an up-to-date page count. There is no further disclosure to be made in this case.”
Pausing there, it seems as though, in fact, it was only your statement and this statement we’ve just seen that was served on Mr Ishaq?
Stephen Bradshaw: The other statement might have been served earlier. I do remember, recall that name, Mr Liaquat.
Mr Blake: We will have a look for that additional statement. It then says:
“We note that your client has said in his defence case statement that, ‘The Post Office Horizon software/hardware system had in the past on numerous occasions malfunctioned causing difficulties in reconciling sales, receipt and stock figures’. Please let us have particular of the numerous malfunctions to which your client has referred.”
Do you think that was a sufficient response to the various issues that Mr Ishaq had raised with the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, they’re the lawyers. They will respond in their way.
Mr Blake: That wasn’t really the question I was asking.
Stephen Bradshaw: No, but they’re the lawyers, aren’t they? I can’t control how they reply to anybody. In this case, I just read that as they’re asking for what particular issues, what the malfunction was. That’s how I read that.
Mr Blake: As somebody who was the Investigating Officer, the Disclosure Officer, who had been reminded of their duties under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, do you think that that was a sufficient response in the particular case to the serious allegations about the Horizon system –
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, that’s the lawyers answering that, not me.
Mr Blake: That’s not an answer though?
Stephen Bradshaw: But I don’t have any control over what they say.
Mr Blake: You can have a view on what they say and what is your view –
Stephen Bradshaw: My view on that is I don’t see anything wrong with it. They’re just asking what the malfunction was on any particular occasion.
Mr Blake: By 2010, we’ve established, you’re aware of all those computer articles, you’re aware of a growing body of allegations about the Horizon system, you were aware of the Seema Misra defence expert’s report. A whole host of evidence. Do you think that the response in this letter in Mr Ishaq’s case was sufficient?
Stephen Bradshaw: It seems sufficient because they’re asking what the malfunction was. So they’re just asking what went wrong on a particular occasion. That’s how I read that letter.
Mr Blake: Could we keep this letter, please, and can we look at it side by side with POL00059675. This is the letter you received questioning about whether further enquiries were made and whether a full audit had been undertaken since Mr Ishaq had finished at the Post Office. If we scroll down on the left-hand side you can see. Do you think that letter was sufficiently addressed in this response?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, I’m the small cog in this with – as the Investigation Officer. The lawyers would deal directly with the defence lawyers and it’s, you know, is it up to me to sort of say? I don’t see anything wrong in what they’re replying in the letters.
Mr Blake: If we could keep the one on the right-hand side but on the left-hand side can we please put up POL00058254. It’s page 4 of that, please, paragraph 11. So if we scroll down, these are all the paragraphs I took you to about all material to the knowledge of the prosecution that reasonably supports the contention that Horizon software/hardware system has proved to be unreliable; full results of any internal investigations, et cetera.
I mean, looking at that request that was set out in the defence statement, do you think that that answer on the right-hand side is sufficient?
Stephen Bradshaw: As explained on numerous occasions, I will act on any instructions from the solicitors.
Mr Blake: This is 15 February, on the right-hand side, very shortly before the trial; the trial was ten days later. Do you think that that final sentence “Please let us have particulars of the numerous malfunctions”, placing the burden on Mr Ishaq to identify the malfunctions, do you think that that was an appropriate approach to take so close to the trial?
Stephen Bradshaw: As you’re well aware, things go straight on up to the trial day, and sort of thing. As I say, I will act on any instructions from these solicitors. Cartwright King are asking for any malfunctions and, you know, whether – I don’t see anything wrong in that paragraph, as I’ve said.
Mr Blake: You’re the Disclosure Officer. You’ve received a defence statement requesting quite a lot of material relating to the Horizon system. Very shortly before the trial, the answer is “You’re not getting anything else, please let us know what you say the problems are”. Do you see a problem with that?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s from the lawyers. As I’ve explained previously, I will disclose all information I have, and Cartwright King in this case, they’re the ones who deal directly with these defence solicitors and, if any information is required, I will assist Cartwright King in obtaining the information on their instructions.
Mr Blake: One thing that you haven’t passed to them is wider knowledge of problems with the Horizon system that’s been passed to you over the many years in post, 13 years by that stage?
Stephen Bradshaw: And, as I explained before, as far as I was aware, the Criminal Law Team, Cartwright King are all well aware of this, as you’ve showed me in previous documents.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00059869, this was an addendum defence statement that was filed in Mr Ishaq’s case. He there, if we scroll down, responds to the letter requesting further particulars and he has set out there problems:
“(i) The Horizon Online system would often crash and freeze and would give inaccurate total figures at the end of trading and/or balance periods;
“(ii) As A result of these problems the defendant called the Horizon Helpdesk …”
So this isn’t the NBSC, this is the Horizon Helpdesk:
“… in the region of 8 to 10 times a month on the telephone number [and then gives a telephone number]. Those calls were made over the period of about 12 months.”
He then gives a series of references. If we scroll down, scroll down to the bottom of the second page. It says:
“When a balance and/or trading report produced by the system showed there was a shortage of cash, the system would give the defendant an option to make good the discrepancies.”
If we scroll down:
“On occasions the defendant did not accept that he’d made an error and requested the issue be dealt with centrally by the Post Office. On such occasions he received a letter from Chesterfield.
“Approximately twice the defendant called Chesterfield to discuss the discrepancies and shortfalls and in order to explain the problems he was encountering with the system. No references were provided by Chesterfield staff but he was assured that the matter would be investigated.”
Then he gives some further details.
Could we please turn to POL00166405. This is an email from Martin Smith to yourself. He says:
“Please find attached a letter which we have received from Messrs Musa Patel today enclosing an addendum defence case statement.”
That’s the document we’ve just been looking at:
“I note that the Addendum Defence Case Statement sets out the reference numbers of numerous reports which the defendant apparently made. It is the last working day before the trial and I am somewhat suspicious that the information was not disclosed at an earlier stage. Steve, could you please go through the Addendum Defence Case Statement and make such enquiries are as you are able to today.”
Just pausing there, we saw the letter which asked for further information. The Addendum Defence Case Statement seems to have been submitted in response to that letter. Were you suspicious about the detail that was provided in that defence statement?
Stephen Bradshaw: Sorry, can you just clarify that? I’m not quite sure.
Mr Blake: Yes, we’ve seen an additional addendum statement, giving more detail. Were you, as Mr Smith seems to have been, suspicious about the production of that defence statement?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, in the addendum, these ones there’s ones there where the Horizon reference numbers are – sort of thing.
Mr Blake: Yes.
Stephen Bradshaw: So that possibly indicates that the Horizon call logs were obtained from Fujitsu, hence, why the – you know, you’ve got the reference numbers and what have you.
Mr Blake: Sorry, we’ll get to the investigation into the information that he gave.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, in terms of – and, you know, from that statement, you know, again, that’s an instruction and I’ve – I’m dealing with whatever he wishes me to sort of go on. And again, you know, that’s a decision he’s made about whether – unsuccessful challenge. I can’t say what type of conversation went on with Mr Smith regarding whether they should tell or shouldn’t tell.
Mr Blake: Did you have any suspicions about the information that was provided?
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Blake: No.
Stephen Bradshaw: I would look at the information that’s received.
Mr Blake: If we scroll down, in this email, he says as follows, he says:
“I have no intention of providing details of previous cases in which there has been an unsuccessful challenge to Horizon. That information does not undermine the Crown case or assist the defence.”
Now, your evidence throughout today has been that you relied on Cartwright King to disclose that information.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right.
Mr Blake: Here you’re being told by Cartwright King that they’re not going to be providing that information. Did you have any concerns about the approach that they were taking?
Stephen Bradshaw: At the time, probably not. You know, as I say, I can’t really answer because I don’t know the type of conversation that went on at that time with Cartwright King over that.
Mr Blake: Well, do you recall any conversation in which that was challenged, in which –
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s ten plus years ago.
Mr Blake: Do you really think you did have a conversation with Cartwright King?
Stephen Bradshaw: I had numerous conversations with Cartwright King over the years. So whether that was part of one of them, I – it’s 10 years. I can’t honestly say, “Yes, I spoke to them about Mr Ishaq” or “I spoke to them about this”. Unfortunately, that’s just the passing of time with that one.
Mr Blake: So your evidence is you can’t remember?
Stephen Bradshaw: In this particular – yeah, I can’t remember whether any conversation took place regarding that. I’m not saying it didn’t but, on the same token, I can’t say it did.
Mr Blake: Do you think it’s likely that, if you had received this and had an objection to their approach to disclosure, you might have written it down?
Stephen Bradshaw: Something will – may well have been said, yeah, regarding it.
Mr Blake: Do you think it was?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, I can’t categorically say it did or it didn’t. You know, it’s likely to have taken place. If you’ve got an unsuccessful challenge and saying “I’m not going to deal with it”, the passing of the conversation would have been “Well, why not?” sort of thing. They’re making the choices as the lawyers.
Mr Blake: Did you not see as Disclosure Officer the duty falling to you to make the –
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, I disclose everything what I’ve got from the Post Office side of the investigation. Everything else after that for disclosure is done by Cartwright King to the defence.
Mr Blake: Could we please look at POL00046280. Here we have you chasing up some of the references. If we could look at page 3, please. These are chasing up some of those references that are in Mr Ishaq’s defence statement. The bottom email is from you. Sorry, its – yes, it’s from you, and it says – sorry, is that the final page? Can we go over the page? I think there’s one more page. Thank you.
“Please see below from Steve Bradshaw …”
That’s forwarding your email:
“Fujitsu advise that a request for the HSD call logs for the branch need to go via our Security team into theirs.”
So there needs to be a conversation between yourselves and Penny Thomas and Andrew Dunks.
“Would it be possible for you to progress this and have the logs sent to Steve Bradshaw?”
If we go to the page before we have an email from you, that says as follows:
“I have been speaking with Julie who tells me that NBSC call logs begin with the letter H and Fujitsu call logs begin with the letter A.
“Sorry to be a pain but can you identify the following reference numbers and what problems they relate to?”
If we go to the first page, we see there an email from the Post Office Service Desk saying that they’ve checked, they’ve had problems locating those particular references, and the email continues:
“The only remaining alternative is to run all incidents logged at the NBSC for each month of the date ranges given in the hope that they’re listed somewhere. I have been processing your request since 2.00 …”
This email is indictment at 4.14, so for 2 hours 16 minutes:
“… this afternoon and have yet to successfully extract a monthly report due to the volume of calls.”
So there is obviously a very high number of calls being made to the NBSC during this period:
“Without further clarification of branch code or the correct dates this request becomes considerably more complex.”
So it seems as though the Post Office themselves are not having much luck in finding these calls; is that a fair summary?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, it indicates that I’ve done on behalf of what the defence requested and what Martin Smith is instructing me to do so, that I’ve (unclear) and then they’re struggling because the numbers aren’t correct.
Mr Blake: And that further work is complicated or complex, as they’ve described?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, and that would be trying to associate the numbers. If the number’s incorrect, you’re trying to balance the number out of when were the dates and the number into the call centre.
Mr Blake: Do you remember any conversation that you had with the Horizon Helpdesk team?
Stephen Bradshaw: Normally, everything for Horizon always went through the Security Team, the Casework Team. We were not called directly.
Mr Blake: Could we look at POL00059861. This is the same day and it’s comments received from Mr Jenkins on the Addendum Defence Statement. Do you recall Mr Jenkins’ involvement in this case?
Stephen Bradshaw: I know Mr Jenkins, yeah. I know of him.
Mr Blake: Did you have direct contact with Mr Jenkins?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t recall any direct contact. I’ve met him on a couple of occasions and I think this was one occasion in Bradford Crown Court when he was listed for witness. At the most I’ve met him about once or advice, and no real – no telephone conversations with him.
Mr Blake: He says there:
“I have been asked to comment on the Addendum Defence Case Statement in the case of Mr Ishaq.”
If we scroll down we can see his comments. So there’s a section there, “The Horizon Online system”, and this is in the defence statement. It says:
“The Horizon Online system would often crash and freeze and would give inaccurate total figures.”
He says as follows, he says:
“I am aware that there were some issues in the early days of Horizon Online however I don’t believe these impacted the overall accounting at the end of the periods provided recovery was carried out correctly.”
So that’s somewhat caveatted: provided recovery was carried out correctly, it shouldn’t have impacted on the figures. He says:
“The migration date was well into the full rollout and the branch was not operating Horizon Online during the pilot.”
If we scroll over the page, he then addresses all of those reports and he says as follows, just below, if we scroll down slightly. He says:
“I have no easy visibility of these reports. It is possible to retrieve them from the system and examine them but I’m not aware of them having been provided in evidence. I have certainly not been asked to examine them but I am happy to do so. If the details of the reports have not yet been provided then there is a process to ask for them to be provided by Fujitsu.”
He says:
“I am checking to see if these reports have been retrieved and submitted as evidence. If so I’ll try and get hold of them. However as the period of the calls outlined above has little overlap with the period for which detailed transaction logs have been obtained, it is likely that there is not much that can be done to tie them together without getting more information.”
Can we now turn to FUJ00153997, please. We have an email from Gareth Jenkins to the Legal Team. He says:
“Thanks for the update [on another case].”
He says:
“I’ve added some comments to the Defence Case Statement Addendum …”
That’s the comments that we’ve just scenes. He says:
“I have now had confirmation that Fujitsu have not supplied details of any Helpdesk calls to Post Office Limited regarding this branch. Therefore, there is nothing I can easily do to address any specifics.”
The suggestion there is that the call logs and Fujitsu have not been obtained at this point.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s a possibility but I’ve never seen that email. It’s – I’m not on it. It’s got –
Mr Blake: You yourself didn’t have any contact with Fujitsu –
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Blake: – requesting the call logs?
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Blake: What do you recall you did once you received the defence statement, in terms of investigating underlying issues with the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I’ve explained, when the defence, any defence statement comes, I will act on any instructions from, in this case, Cartwright King. Whatever work they want to do.
Mr Blake: Total reliance on Cartwright King?
Stephen Bradshaw: On Cartwright King, what they want doing. I wouldn’t go off on a tangent to go to do my own investigation.
Mr Blake: We have, as we’ve seen, the 2009 media articles, Seema Misra report, growing cases challenging Horizon, by this time Second Sight’s involvement. Were you not concerned that there was more investigation that should be carried out in relation to –
Stephen Bradshaw: And that would be done by the relevant people, not me as the individual.
Mr Blake: Were you asking anybody to carry out a greater investigation?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would not ask because, again, when the Second Sight and everything come on board, the business as the Post Office would have instructed people or put people in place to do that, not me as the individual.
Mr Blake: But you were the Investigator?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yes, and, as I’ve explained, I will have passed over everything I had in my possession to the lawyers –
Mr Blake: Disclosure is one thing but you were the Investigator. Were you not investigating the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would not be investigating everything. The Horizon – I’m not technically gifted to investigate any errors within the – any technical issues within the Horizon system. That would be done by other people within the business.
Mr Blake: Before we break for lunch, I’d like to take you to the opening note in the Ishaq case. That’s at POL00059890.
This is the opening note from counsel for the prosecution in Mr Ishaq’s case. Could we please look at page 5., paragraph 19:
“That being the case it may be that the defendant will accept responsibility for the transactions but claim that there is some sort of problem with the Horizon system. If so he has yet to produce any evidence to demonstrate that is so. The Crown will call evidence from the designer of the system to prove that there is no fault in the system at all.”
Do you think that that was accurate?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s their advice. As I’ve said numerous times, you know, as Mr Ishaq was asked for, what was the malfunction? That’s the advice from the lawyers, and I am assuming that the last bit, “The Crown will call evidence from the designer”, they’re referring to Mr Jenkins.
Mr Blake: He would say there is no fault in the system at all?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s their opinion.
Mr Blake: We’re now in 2013. You had all those years of complaints about Horizon. All that evidence put before you relating to problems with Horizon. Were you in court hearing the opening?
Stephen Bradshaw: I was in court for that because I was called as a witness.
Mr Blake: You heard the words being said, that the claim is that there is some sort of problem with the Horizon system. If so, he has yet to produce any evidence to demonstrate that is so.
Stephen Bradshaw: I –
Mr Blake: Were you not a bit worried at that stage?
Stephen Bradshaw: I was in court on the day. I was not in the actual court when the trial begins because I was a witness, so I would be outside.
Mr Blake: But knowing that was how the prosecution was putting their case, were you not a bit nervous?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, I was outside the court waiting to be called as a witness.
Mr Blake: Paragraph 20:
“The defendant was suspended from his duties at the Birkenshaw post office and a new subpostmaster was introduced in his place, Abdullah Patel. For more than a year he has run the post office and in that time there have been no problems reported at all, no unexplained Horizon malfunctions, no stock discrepancies requiring huge reversals, no mysterious disappearances of cash.”
I think we did hear/did read in Mr Patel’s statement that at least there were some discrepancies, weren’t there?
Stephen Bradshaw: In Mr Patel’s words, there were minor and I think most postmasters would say they had minor discrepancies.
Mr Blake: Do you think the summary of the position that’s the being put in these paragraphs is a fair summary –
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s the advice –
Mr Blake: – having, for example, not investigated the underlying issues with the Horizon system.
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, Cartwright King, that’s their advice and that’s what they put for the courts.
Mr Blake: You were a witness in that case and you provided a witness statement in that case?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right.
Mr Blake: Were you not at all concerned, in 2013, about the state of the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: I gave my evidence and I was cross-examined by the defence and nothing untoward come from it.
Mr Blake: There was something untoward. There was a prosecution, a conviction and then a subsequent successful appeal.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s from now. At the time of the case, when I gave my evidence, nothing – nothing untoward come back to me in 2013 from the defence, when cross-examined.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
Sir, might that be an appropriate moment to take lunch?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, of course.
Mr Blake: Thank you.
Sir Wyn Williams: 2.00?
Mr Blake: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine.
(12.57 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(2.02 pm)
Sir Wyn Williams: Over to you, Mr Blake.
Mr Blake: Thank you, sir. Moving on to the case of Angela Sefton and Anne Nield, can we please look at POL00113343, please. This is returning to the Court of Appeal but now we’re in a different Court of Appeal case, in the case of Roger Allen and Others, could we please look at paragraph 23. It’s on the fourth page. If we scroll down, we can see the cases of Angela Sefton and Anne Nield, paragraph 23. Thank you very much.
I’m going to again read briefly from the transcript, to refresh our memory as to this case.
“On 11 April 2013, the Crown Court at Liverpool, 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.
“On 13 May, Ms Sefton was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months. Ms Nield was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment which was also suspended for 12 months.”
If we scroll down to paragraphs 27 and 28, please:
“The Post Office audited the branch on 6 January 2012. During the audit, 40 giro deposit slips and number of cheque envelopes were recovered from a cupboard which showed suppressed deposits in the sum of £34,000. Ms Sefton and Ms Nield handed the auditor a jointly signed letter in which they said they had tried to repay shortages by using their own credit cards and holiday money. They eventually ran out of funds. As a result they began to cover up shortages by delaying the processing of business deposits to Santander and one other bank. They cannot explain the shortages. They had reached ‘breaking point’ in that their lives and health had been deeply affected.
“On 20 January 2012 Ms Sefton and Ms Nield were each interviewed. Ms Sefton said they had only ever delayed payments and never withheld them. Animals In Need had been significantly affected …”
If we scroll over the page. It says:
“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 she did not know where the shortages were coming from.
“Both submitted defence statements which questioned whether the losses were genuine or Horizon generated. They requested relevant disclosure and access to Horizon for the purposes of examination by a forensic accountant. Solicitors on behalf of the Post Office asserted that material relating to Horizon was not disclosable because the case turned on the deposit slips which formed no part of Horizon.
“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.
“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. 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 solicitors that he had ‘no information regarding complaints or 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. 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.
“In those circumstances, the Post Office accepts that their prosecution was unfair and an affront to justice.”
Can we, please, look at POL00328743. This is the audit report into their branch, the Fazakerley branch, and it says as follows:
“Fazakerley is a busy branch in the suburbs of Liverpool. We have visited this branch more than any other branch during the last few years and always find it to be well run and welcoming. On 6 January 2012, accompanied by my colleague Richard Cross, I conducted an audit of the above named branch. Also present were Steve Bradshaw and Kevin Ryan from the Security Team.”
Just pausing there, we have two Auditors, two Investigators, arriving at the branch on 6 January 2012. Why was it necessary for four people to attend that branch?
Stephen Bradshaw: The audit was put on – the Auditors arrived before that. Me and Mr Ryan, we attended because the audit had been put on because Ms Sefton previously telephoned me to say that she wanted to speak to me and that’s why we attended. It’s normal for the Auditors to attend to audit the branch while we looked into this customer complaint from the Animals in Need charity.
Mr Blake: So is it normal for four individuals to attend what is a relatively small branch?
Stephen Bradshaw: We were there to do the – two were there to do the audit, we were there for the enquiry regarding the non sort of – the cash deposit slips that weren’t being credited to the customer account.
Mr Blake: It says:
“This was a special request audit by the Security Team and the purpose of this audit was to verify financial assets due to the Post Office.
“The audit revealed a surplus in the branch”, et cetera.
If we go over the page, it says:
“We arrived at the branch at 8.15 am and introduced ourselves to a member of staff on the shop counter, she referred us to the Post Office Counter where a member of staff was sat in the dark behind the counter. I knew this was one of the members of staff I had previously met but she was not her normal welcoming self. The other members of staff arrived at 8.45 am and she was slightly upset. As I had very little information of why we were completing an audit so soon after a similar audit, I told them that and advised that we were there to perform an audit on behalf of the Post Office. They told me that they knew why the audit was happening and that they were sorry for causing us problems and sorry for misleading us at previous audits (there were tears).”
Do you remember them being in tears when you were there?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, I don’t recall them being in tears at all.
Mr Blake: Do you remember them being upset?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would say that they didn’t seem particularly upset. They had contacted me, even on the day of the audit, Ms Sefton phoned me to inform me the Auditors were there and I told her that I was coming down to the branch shortly.
Mr Blake: Do you have any reason to doubt what the Auditors are reporting there?
Stephen Bradshaw: When they arrived no, I had no reason to doubt what they said.
Mr Blake: “At around 11.00 am Steve Bradshaw asked us to check around the branch as the staff had told us had they had concealed some Transcash paperwork in the cupboards. We spent about 10 minutes looking but couldn’t find anything. One of the staff members was led through the secure area and immediately located the paperwork which she handed to Steve Bradshaw.
“The staff agreed to leave with the Security Team and before they left they were allowed to collect any personal items from behind the counter. Again, they apologised and said sorry for all they had done and that they felt terrible.”
Was that your recollection as well, that they were apologising and felt terrible.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes, Ms Sefton and Ms Nield apologised sort of all the way through. It was Mr Ryan who went with Ms Nield to recover the deposit slips, and they brought them back. He counted them up and there was 40 that was, give or take a bit, the £35,000.
Mr Blake: Is this, again, a case where you were the Leader Investigator?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00328734, please. The second email on the page is an email from yourself to Andrew Bolc, I believe he was – we’ve heard from him. He was a lawyer at Cartwright King. You say as follows:
“On another point, regarding the case of Bramwell, has the court decided anything regarding the trial date? Also in light of the Post Office instructing independent experts to look at the Horizon system, would this have any bearing on the case? The reason I ask is that one of the witnesses would like to book some leave and the date in question is 13 August?”
Is this is an email in the context of the case of Sefton and Nield but you’re referring to another case, the case of Bramwell, and you’re raising the issue of independent experts having been appointed. Is that Second Sight?
Stephen Bradshaw: It probably would have been at the time. The Bramwell one was – is a case that was allocated to the South Team and there was a big change in the South Team, when most of them left and I ended up with their cases. I was not involved in any of the interviews or the investigation of the South Team ones but I had to liaise with the solicitors and the court to follow the due process.
Mr Blake: But, as at June 2012, you were aware that the Post Office had instructed independent experts to look at the Horizon –
Stephen Bradshaw: Which is Second Sight, yes, I think.
Mr Blake: If we scroll up to the response from Mr Bolc, he says, in the context of this particular case “John is away”, and he gives you certain weeks, dates to avoid, et cetera. Then he says:
“My understanding is that the Post Office line remains that the system is a robust one. The defence could presumably raise the issue but have not done so yet. Do we know when the review is going to conclude, as this could affect a judge’s decision to adjourn for this reason.”
Mr Bolc is there saying that that is the Post Office’s line. That’s not particularly reassuring, is it, in terms of the –
Stephen Bradshaw: Crawley(?) – and he would be more likely to know when the review would conclude rather than myself.
Mr Blake: But in terms of the reference to the Post Office line and an email to yourself, did that cause you any concern that it seemed to be a line coming from the Post Office, rather than, in fact, the correct position?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, as I say, that’s come from them. I was just at the very end of the Bishops Hull, the Bramwell case, the one underneath the London Road, Sunningdale. I was just sort of like a liaison for these, everything would sort of go in and I just say yes. To me it shows that Mr Bolc knew about the issues and should have taken it up accordingly, if he felt.
Mr Blake: But it also shows that you were aware of a corporate position, a particular line that’s being taken by the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: He’s informed me but, as I say, these are all cases that were well ongoing and I was just a liaison man to sort out the very end. If the South Team hadn’t have changed, them emails wouldn’t have been – wouldn’t have even been on there.
Mr Blake: Mr Bradshaw, you weren’t a liaison man, you were the Investigator charged –
Stephen Bradshaw: I was.
Mr Blake: – with investigating the Sefton and Nield case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, correct, Sefton and Nield.
Mr Blake: So, at this particular time, you were investigating a particular case, in relation to discrepancies on Horizon, and you were aware that there was a Post Office line that is that the system is a robust one?
Stephen Bradshaw: In there but also, as I said before, about taking into context, the context of this one was to do with people’s – whether they be a private individual, a business, the treasurer of a charity, this was all to do with cash deposits not being credited to that person’s account. That’s the enquiry I was looking into.
Mr Blake: But weren’t you also looking into the fact that these people were complaining, concerned, in tears, et cetera, that they had discrepancies that they couldn’t account for?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, there was no tears. Ms Sefton handed me a note on the morning explaining fully what they had done, how they withheld the giro slips. They withheld them ones because they were the last, I think, business where they used deposit slips. My enquiry to look into was the non-credit of giro – of people’s cash deposits.
Mr Blake: We have an audit report that says they – it’s always been a well-run and welcoming branch. You have the subpostmistresses, assistants, et cetera, very concerned about a discrepancy. You have Second Sight carrying out their investigation at this particular time. Did you not think to yourself “Maybe I should think about wider problems with the Horizon system”?
Stephen Bradshaw: If they’ve shown all paperwork is correct in the balance, like there the balance – the balance is correct, they showed the surplus of £559 but, in reality, it should have been £34,000 short, if them deposits had gone through. If it’s not reported, it’s very difficult to try and find something that isn’t there.
Mr Blake: But their very case was “We have these discrepancies, we don’t know how they’re arising, we’ve had to cover them by delaying those other payments”?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s what they’ve said in their mitigation of why – of –
Mr Blake: It’s not mitigation though, it’s actually –
Stephen Bradshaw: It is.
Mr Blake: – their account.
Stephen Bradshaw: No, in there, that enquiry was about the non-credit of the deposit slips. That’s what I looked into initially. Any losses that they didn’t – they couldn’t tell me “I lost money this time and I lost money that time”. They did bring up in interview where it’s something to do with a £4,000 also but that was something between them and the postmaster, some five years earlier.
Mr Blake: If you were told, as at 2012 that there was a software bug that caused a significant discrepancy in their account and you had been told by them that they had been trying to cover that up would you still have prosecuted them?
Stephen Bradshaw: They were prosecuted for the giro deposit slips not going in.
Mr Blake: If you were sure that the underlying problem was a bug, error or defect in the Horizon system that caused that discrepancy, would you still that have prosecuted them for covering that up?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s not my decision, that decision would be made by the Criminal Law Team or Cartwright King.
Mr Blake: Did you not think that was something worth investigating?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not in this inquiry. This inquiry was solely about the non-receipt – sorry, the non-credit of people’s money being paid into their account, which, ultimately, caused the charity to have difficulty with their cash flow problems. That’s the inquiry I looked at.
Mr Blake: Did you not think about looking into the reasons for that discrepancy?
Stephen Bradshaw: This discrepancy was quite simple: they did not – when the customer come in to deposit money, they did not deposit the money. That was the inquiry. Whatever happened before, as I say, to use the word “mitigation”, they haven’t brought up to say “This happened on this day”, they just said they were covering up losses but no substantiation with it. The inquiry was solely about the non-credit of people’s money.
Mr Blake: You were aware that an important part of their case in the criminal proceedings was that the underlying discrepancy was caused by bugs, errors or defects in Horizon?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s – as I said, not in this case. This case was solely that they did not credit somebody’s deposit. You as an individual, me as a business, or somebody else as a treasurer, they’d made the complaint saying “I’m paying money to a Post Office and it’s not in my account”. That’s what was looked into on this occasion.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00044036, please we’ve seen defence statements in other cases. This is the defence statement in Ms Sefton’s case. This produced by her in the criminal proceedings that were brought against her. Can we please look at paragraph 5, it’s on the first page, the bottom of that page, please. 18 July 2012, she says as follows:
“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.”
Over the page, if we could scroll down to paragraph 11:
“The defendant also prays in aid of her defence the fact that the Post Office’s 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, are acting on behalf of 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.”
They continue down the page, at the bottom:
“They seek 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, please, paragraph 4:
“It is believed that certain Members of Parliament have become involved on behalf of their constituents and possibly on behalf of complaining subpostmasters generally in connection with the apparent problems arising out of the Horizon computer system, and therefore disclosure is sought of a list of those MPs. This would be of great assistance in enabling the defendant, through her solicitor, to contact them and obtain further information as to the present state of play in the investigation of those complaints by senior officials in the Post Office.”
I’m going to take you now to Ms Nield’s defence statement, that is at POL00044042. At the bottom of this first page, Ms Nield says as follows:
“The defendant accepts that the 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 failures in the Horizon computer system.”
If we scroll over the page there’s a request for disclosure.
“The defendant requests disclosure of the following …
“(c) Details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon computer system.”
Could we please turn to POL00058300. It’s page 8 that I’d like to look at. Is it fair to say that, from those defence statements that we’ve seen, the Horizon system, the reliability of the Horizon system, was front and centre of their defence?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s what they’re indicating but, however, they weren’t having permanent shortages because the audit showed a surplus and, as I’ve explained, this inquiry concerned the non-credit of deposit slips. That’s the initial inquiry what we’d were looking at.
Mr Blake: So you didn’t think that it was necessary to look beyond your case and look at their defence, and look at the allegations they had made about the Horizon system and provide them with disclosure as to issues with the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t explain it any other way. The inquiry was not the non-credit of people’s cash deposits. The other is a second issue of why they committed that offence.
Mr Blake: And, for you, that didn’t matter?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m there to gather the evidence and pass it to the solicitors. They still committed the offence. Ms Sefton gave me a note explaining fully what they’d done, why they’d done it.
Mr Blake: Did you consider it necessary to pursue reasonable lines of inquiry in respect of a defence case that somebody had raised?
Stephen Bradshaw: The inquiry concerned the non-crediting and everything – every line of inquiry was done regarding somebody not being credited with the cash that should have been deposited some weeks or months earlier. So –
Mr Blake: So no lines of inquiry went to the reliability of the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: The Horizon system is another issue.
Mr Blake: But it’s the central issue in their defence statement, that’s why I’m asking.
Stephen Bradshaw: Again, they’re saying they’ve had that but they’ve still committed that offence of not crediting the giros.
Mr Blake: For you, the reasons for the discrepancy was simply irrelevant?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all. They say it’s losses but it’s very difficult to try and find the losses. They make the paperwork and the accounts look correct, as was shown on the audit done on the day, that was £550 surplus.
Mr Blake: One of the aspects, one of the things that people will think about when they’re deciding whether to charge somebody with a criminal offence is the public interest in pursuing that charge. Do you think the reliability of the underlying system that causes a discrepancy of a significant value, do you think that is important for considering the public interest in pursuing a criminal allegation?
Stephen Bradshaw: The public interest in this case is that a charity did not get credited with nearly £35,000 of people’s money that they’d donated to it.
Mr Blake: You can close your eyes entirely to the reason for that?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s their rationale but it doesn’t affect that inquiry of the charity not being credited with £35,000 over a period of time.
Mr Blake: Did you see any burden on yourself as the Investigator to pursue those lines that had been raised by the defence in that case?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, that’s mitigation. They’ve said they’ve committed that offence because they were having losses but they never said, “I had a loss of this day”, because they’re making the paperwork correct.
Mr Blake: If they were making the paperwork correct because a significant discrepancy had been caused by the Horizon system that the Post Office had put into their offices, would you still have pursued a criminal prosecution?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s on the advice of Cartwright King. The inquiry was done based on giro deposits from people, members of the public, donating to a charity not being credited to that charity. That’s the line Cartwright King had taken.
Mr Blake: You were the Investigator in the case. You must have had a view. Did you have a view if, for example, it could be shown that there was a significant discrepancy in that branch caused by the Horizon system, would you not have offered a view as to whether it’s in the public interest to prosecute that case?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve explained, in this case the public interest is the people not getting the – their funds what they’ve given to the charity, credited to the charity. I can’t say anything further. That’s another – that’s their mitigation, as I keep using, that they were having losses, but I’m unable to try to find what the losses were. They couldn’t tell us they had a loss on this day, that day.
Mr Blake: So the cause of a discrepancy would not feature in the assessment as to the public interest in prosecuting a case?
Stephen Bradshaw: As previously explained to you, everything has to be taken into context.
Mr Blake: Can we look at page 8 of this document that we’re currently on, please. It’s a letter from Cartwright King to Ms Nield’s solicitors. If we scroll down, please:
“Disclosure of Prosecution Material under Section 7 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act.
“I have considered your defence statement dated 9 August 2012. Under section 7 I am required to disclose to you any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed and which might reasonably be expected to assist your defence as described in your statement.
“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.”
Over the page, it says as follows:
“Your client is charged with false accounting by failing to make entries onto 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.”
Was that something that you therefore agreed with?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s – as I said, the lawyers are the ones that do all disclosure. Whether I agree or disagree with it, that’s the lawyers doing sort of that. My understanding and my way would be that whatever you have, you disclose. That’s up to the lawyers.
Mr Blake: Did you, as at the date of this letter, pass on to the lawyers any concerns that you had about the reliability of the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: I would say no because the lawyers would know of any concerns that are involved in the Horizon system.
Mr Blake: We’ll see that in Ms Nield’s case the solicitors pushed further and made an application for disclosure. Can we please see POL00044041, please. If we could scroll down, it sets out the application. It says:
“The defendant has sought, and been refused disclosure of the following:
“Details of complaints and investigations into the Horizon computer system;
“Access to the system used by the defendant …”
If we scroll over the page again, on to page 3, please, there are submissions within this application. Paragraph 15, 16 and 17:
“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 at paragraphs 12-14 above.
“It is submitted that access to the Horizon system by a defence forensic accountant is necessary …
“Furthermore, if a forensic examination of the Horizon system used by this defendant reveals that the losses were incurred as a result of computer error it may be that the prosecution review the decision that pursuance of this case is in the public interest.”
That’s the point that I was making before: that might it not be relevant to the public interest as to whether there was a problem with the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: I fully accept what you say but also the public interest is you have a charity where donations have been given and they have not received them over a period of weeks or months, which caused cash flow problems for that charity. The charity made the complaint and that’s why it was – an inquiry was raised.
Mr Blake: Might there be number of different public interests to take into account?
Stephen Bradshaw: No doubtedly there would be, depending which person of the public is looking at it. People who give readily to charities, or whatever, would probably find it – that maybe they should be prosecuted because there are then monies going over and not being credited to the charity. Other people may take your view.
Mr Blake: You’re the Prosecution Authority in this particular case. Did you not think it worthwhile thinking, casting your mind to that particular public interest?
Stephen Bradshaw: I am not the Prosecution Authority. I gathered all the information and passed it to the lawyers. They decide whether a prosecution ensues, not me.
Mr Blake: Can we please bring up on to screen your witness statement again, WITN04450100. It’s page 12, paragraphs 42 to 44. This is what you’ve said in relation to this case:
“I have been asked to set out my recollections of these proceedings and been referred to a number of documents. This enquiry concerning suppression of deposit dockets was assigned to me. On the date of the audit the letter was handed over which had been jointly prepared by Ms Sefton and Ms Nield stating they had been withholding customer deposit slips. Slips had been kept in a cupboard behind the counter.
“There were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times.
“I have no other reflections about this matter.”
In light of our discussion just now, do you have anything that you would like to reflect on in this particular case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Concerning that inquiry, I have explained, it sets about, as it says in there, the suppression of cash deposit slips. I can’t say no further than that. That’s what the inquiry was about.
Mr Blake: So are we to take it that you have no further reflections about this matter?
Stephen Bradshaw: If you wish to take it that way, yes.
Mr Blake: I’m going to move on to the case of Grant Allen. Can we please look at RLIT0000039, please. Thank you, back to the Court of Appeal. This another appeal. We’ve got Grant Allen named on the front of this, if we scroll down. Can we please turn to page 4 and I will briefly read from the judgment in his case. I think you were the Lead Investigator in Grant Allen’s case; is that right?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct.
Mr Blake: Paragraph 16, please. We have there:
“Mr Allen pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud. The particulars of the count were that he had falsely represented that his branch had more cash on the premises than was actually the case resulting in a shortfall of £11,000. He pleaded guilty on the basis accepted by the Post Office that he could not account for the loss but admitted covering it up.”
If we go over the page, please, to paragraph 18 it describes his account. It says:
“He gave a detailed description of his financial difficulties which had been caused in the main by the relocation and refitting of his branch. 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 loss but disputed that the sums represented actual loss to the Post Office and maintained that they had been caused by issues with the system.
“A number of logs retained by the Post Office demonstrate that he reported the relocation problems and his concerns about faults with Horizon.
“During the course of criminal proceedings on 2 November 2012, his solicitors requested disclosure of an independent review of the Horizon system, believed to be the Second Sight report. The Post Office’s agents, Cartwright King, responded by indicating the view 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.”
Paragraph 21 says:
“The Post Office served a witness statement from Gareth Jenkins. Mr Jenkins stated that he had been shown extracts from Horizon reports from which he had concluded that there were communication difficulties with Horizon. He stated that provided all operational processes were properly followed no data should be lost. 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 account 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.”
At paragraph 23, it says:
“None of the evidence that is now available suggests that the Post Office made any disclosure relating to Horizon reliability or that it provided Mr Allen with branch data. The evidence to prove the existence of a shortfall was wholly dependent on Horizon reliability.”
Over the page:
“In these circumstances, the Post Office accepts that the prosecution was both unfair and an affront to justice.”
Can we now look at the offender report. It’s POL00089464, please. Am I right to say that this report was written by yourself?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. Looking at the final page, it’s dated 1 May 2012. Can we please go to page 2. It says there:
“An audit was undertaken at the branch on Thursday, 2 February 2012 and conducted by Richard Cross, Field Support Advisor of the Network Support Field Team. Mr Cross was accompanied by his colleagues Rob Lyon, Jane Timms, Paul Hayhurst and Tim Gordon-Pounder. The purpose of the audit was to verify assets due to the Post Office and confirm compliance”, et cetera.
We have there five named individuals. Again, is it your evidence that it was not unusual for a large number of people from the Post Office to attend individual post offices?
Stephen Bradshaw: For an audit, it depended on the size of the branch. There’s some branches that may only have one, some three.
Mr Blake: Did it strike you as unusual to have five people attending?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, it’s about the size of the branch and that will be done by the Audit Team. They will take into account the amount of stock, cash and stock that’s in the branch, and they will put the number of people accordingly to get it done as quickly as possible.
Mr Blake: Could we please turn to page 4. It sets out there a summary of the account in interview. I’m going to briefly read from that. It says:
“Mr Allen said that they relocated in March 2010 and the cost of the refurbishment and other costs amounted to £100,000. He further said that during the first four weeks after the move the branch was not ‘running at full capacity’ as the works carried out by Romec were not up to standard and a number of terminals had been wired incorrectly.
“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 amount can be seen in his business accounts.
“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 over from each branch trading period to the next until the audit took place in February 2012.
“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.”
Can we turn to page 8, please. We then have your analysis. It says:
“Post-interview, the non-polled report for the Horizon system was requested after the branch relocated. The report shows that an engineer attended. The engineer completed a base unit build and BT fixed a fault.”
It has a copy:
“A telephone call was also made to the branch confirmation team and they report that they had not been contacted in relation to any £3,000 discrepancy.
“The call logs were also requested from the National Business Support Centre for the period. No calls are listed in connection with any discrepancies at the branch.”
Now, there’s no reference there to the Horizon System Helpdesk. If somebody had a software issue or, in this case, a polling issue, so possibly a connectivity issue, we have heard evidence that it is the Horizon Helpdesk you should be calling, not the NBSC.
Stephen Bradshaw: My understanding at this time, when Mr Allen relocated, there was issues with building the base unit and whether it had something to do, I think it’s something like, I don’t know the wires that use DSL, what you’d link – like your telephone wires, but there is a Property Project Manager who would oversee all that. By the time it was done and he was up and running and working, my understanding is that everything was working correctly.
Mr Blake: That was your understanding?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s my understanding.
Mr Blake: Now you’re carrying out an investigation into a very serious matter and you have requested from the NBSC certain call logs. Did you think about requesting call logs from Fujitsu?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said earlier, at that time, that’s when my understanding was that you’d request the call logs and get them all. But, again, in there there’s been no calls to report any discrepancies on Mr Allen’s own admissions.
Mr Blake: In terms of software problems or hardware problems, the NBSC wasn’t the correct hotline to call. Are you saying that you weren’t aware of the difference between the two at that time?
Stephen Bradshaw: At that time, I don’t think I was. Between the call logs, one or the other. Eventually you, as discussed previously, you knew that Horizon call logs come from Fujitsu, and call another way.
Mr Blake: Thank you. Can we please look at POL00089380. This is an email from yourself to Andrew Bolc, dated 12 December 2012. If we could actually start on page 3. Bottom of page 2 onto page 3. It’s an email from Andrew Bolc to you. If we could scroll down a little bit more. Thank you. This is to Gareth Jenkins, and he says:
“Dear Gareth,
“I’ve just spoken to the solicitor for Grant Allen.”
It’s about a re-listing. He says:
“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 had 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 any implication may be seeking to blame the system for those losses as well.”
Do you think that it was appropriate for Mr Bolc to email Mr Jenkins to say that, ultimately, we would need to discredit the defendant’s allegation?
Stephen Bradshaw: Again, you know, whether my opinion says right or wrong, in this way, that’s Mr Bolc’s way of speaking to Mr Jenkins. At that time I have – you know, I only got sight of all this when it’s finally come to me at the top end of the email.
Mr Blake: Yes, so it’s an email chain that you received the entire chain?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, and I’m right at the end of email chain.
Mr Blake: Let’s look one email above that, to begin with, a response from Gareth Jenkins to Mr Bolc. He says as follows:
“I think I understand what he is claiming. However, where there are comms problems, it’s normal to recovery any missing data once the comms are sorted out so this shouldn’t be a reason for a loss. Also, there are processes in place to retrieved outstanding data where there are extended comms issues lasting more than seven days.”
He says:
“I could just make a general statement relating to that or, if we retrieve data from the time, I could check out exactly what happened in this case.”
He continues:
“I’ve checked with Penny …”
I think Penny Thomas.
Stephen Bradshaw: Penny Thomas, I think so, yes.
Mr Blake: “… in our prosecution support team and Post Office Limited have not credited any audit data relating to this case. She has 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?”
Just pausing there, is this the email that caused you to think about the differences between the NBSC?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t say for certain, whether it’s just been a conversation with other members of the team, you suddenly find when you were asking for call logs, and, you know, “Where’s me Horizon logs? What’s this?” and then you find you have to go a different way, and when we requested Horizon call logs, it always went via the Casework Team or the Security Team.
Mr Blake: It continues:
“Note that the data retrieval is part of the standard service that Fujitsu provides to Post Office Limited but any time I spend examining the data (say a couple of days) would be chargeable to Post Office Limited and so there are commercial considerations for you or Post Office Limited to consider. As we are nearing the Christmas break, I cannot commit to doing any such analysis before the New Year.”
Were you aware of commercial considerations and concerns about having to spend money on Fujitsu’s assistance?
Stephen Bradshaw: There’s always been commercial concerns because I think part of the contract was you got so many – when you requesting – sorry, requesting the ARQ data, there was so many sort of like free ones any more, so you would look at what data is required because, sometimes, you meet get a blanket “I want five years’ worth” and you have to look at the consideration of that.
However, if it’s required for the case, the cost does not come into it. If it’s needed, it should be applied for.
Mr Blake: If we scroll up, we then see a response. Mr Bolc says as follows, he says:
“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 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 two days analysis would cost would assist in that decision.”
Just pausing there, why would the cost assist in the decision as to whether to seek the data or not?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t say for that, that’s between – I’m not subject to – party to all this about costs backwards and forwards. That would be solely between them.
Mr Blake: I mean, Mr Bolc would, of course, have had to have taken instructions from the Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: From the Post Office itself, not from me.
Mr Blake: Who would provide him with instructions on costs?
Stephen Bradshaw: Probably – whether it would be the Casework Team or something, it wouldn’t be taken from me.
Mr Blake: He then says:
“With regard to Helpdesk calls, I also assume that this information available freely to the Post Office, and therefore would request that enquiry is carry out. I attach the Horizon non-polling report obtained by the Investigator in this case previously.”
Could we scroll up to the very top of this chain, please. Mr Bolc emails you and says:
“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 has 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 the 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 will be chargeable to the Post Office at £2,500 approximately. 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, this is an email to you from Mr Bolc, just the two of you involved in this. Why, if you’re not responsible for making decisions about the cost of retrieval, is he asking you whether to pursue that?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t really know but, in the case for this email, I would – it would either be replied to via an email back to him or a telephone call but, as I said, if it’s required that the data is required, 2,500, by the sounds of that, in the greater scheme of things, isn’t and, if it’s required, they have to go ahead with it. It’s almost as if –
Mr Blake: Was that your answer to Mr Bolc: that if it’s required, it’s required, and I don’t care about the cost?
Stephen Bradshaw: Basically, that’s my stance on it. It’s as if he’s trying to put it on me to sort of say “Oh it’s too dear, don’t bother with it”. But my stance is, if it’s required for any inquiry or prosecution, you have to get it.
Mr Blake: It’s your evidence that you clearly communicated that to Mr Bolc?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, because have you ever been asked to do something? You know, I don’t know how the communication has gone back whether it’s been an email or a telephone call, but I would have answered him, and I do not let things just go off as if it’s got to be buried away. I will have answered him.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00089380, please. This is the response to this particular issue from Mr Bolc to Mr Jenkins – sorry, it’s FUJ00153884. He says:
“Dear Gareth,
“The Investigator is happy with the report as it stands. Please could you proceed as before.”
So absolutely no questioning there that further investigations, further data, was going to be obtained. It implies that you, the Investigator, was happy as it stands.
Stephen Bradshaw: Can I explain how he said that? As I said, it indicates that I have spoken to him about it but, whatever the conversation is, I can’t say at this time. It’s whether it’s, you know, whether it’s me towards him or him towards me, so I think he’s made the decision in the end. My stance would always be that, if it’s required, irrespective of the cost.
Mr Blake: Why isn’t that reflected in this email?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t speak for Mr Bolc. I don’t know.
Mr Blake: He said the Investigator is happy; you were the Investigator. It says the Investigator is happy with the report as it stands.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s probably be – it could well be based on whatever he’s explained to me.
Mr Blake: Mr Bolc has given evidence to this Inquiry. His suggestion, in fact, was that the Investigator, the words “the Investigator” was, essentially, in speech marks because he didn’t think you were much of an Investigator?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, that’s Mr Bolc’s opinion.
Mr Blake: What are your views on his opinion?
Stephen Bradshaw: I could say the same about Mr Bolc but I’m not going down that line. That is the thing. That’s Mr Bolc. If he wants to say that, that’s fine.
Mr Blake: You say you can say the same about Mr Bolc.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah.
Mr Blake: What was your opinion of Mr Bolc and his abilities?
Stephen Bradshaw: Mr Bolc was a lawyer for Cartwright King, and that’s –
Mr Blake: What was your view –
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m not prepared to get into somebody’s character.
Mr Blake: Well, their abilities to carry out, for example, effective enquiries and effective prosecution is important in the context of this Inquiry, so we would be grateful for your views on Mr Bolc and his ability to carry out the job that he was tasked with?
Stephen Bradshaw: Okay, Mr Bolc works for Cartwright King. That’s all I’m prepared to say on it.
Mr Blake: That’s not really an answer as to his abilities?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, there was no other issues with any other of the solicitors on my work, work effort, from any other solicitor within Cartwright King. So it can only be Mr Bolc’s opinion.
Mr Blake: Who was in charge of deciding whether to retrieve audit data?
Stephen Bradshaw: They would come as a request. Sometimes you may do it to identify something.
Mr Blake: Who do you see as being ultimately responsible for requesting the underlying audit data in this case?
Stephen Bradshaw: It depends on the Inquiry. When you are looking at the inquiry of sort of the – to try to establish something, you may – or the ARQ data via the Casework Team, or you may be requested from the solicitors as the defence required the ARQ data. It’s a two-way street. It could be either party.
Mr Blake: In this particular case, who do you see as having responsibility for taking the decision as to whether the data was requested or not?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, without the file, I can’t say for certain whether the data was ordered or not.
Mr Blake: Well, the email there is very clearly Mr Jenkins said “I can carry out more of an investigation. The decision has been taken not to carry out that further investigation”.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s what the email implies but I will have discussed that with Mr Bolc.
Mr Blake: Who is responsible for the ultimate decision?
Stephen Bradshaw: Mr Bolc. He’s the one putting the evidence together for the defence, for answers for the defence.
Mr Blake: Can we, please, look at POL00089381, please. This is the statement from Gareth Jenkins that was put forward in that case. I’m going to read to you from the first paragraph. It says:
“I am Gareth Idris Jenkins. I am employed by Fujitsu Services Limited who have been contacted by Post Office Limited 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 to represent the views of my employers or Post Office Limited.”
If we go over the page, please, I’m going to read some of that statement. He says:
“I have been asked to provide a statement in the case of Grant Allen. 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 extract from the Horizon non-polled reports for the period 8 to 17 March, which shows that the Winsford Branch was included in the report for 12 days up to and including 17 March. This in itself is unusual as if a branch appears on the non-polled report for more than a few days, an attempt is made to retrieve the data by other means before Day 10 (I have no knowledge as to whether this occurred in this case or not). This confirms the fact that there were indeed communications issues between Horizon and the data centre at this time. However, it should have had no impact on data recorded locally within the branch provided all operational processes were followed correctly. Also, once communications were restored, all historical data should have been sent from the branch back to the data centre as normal. I have not had an opportunity to examine the detailed logs from the 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, those final words in that final sentence,” I have not had the opportunity to examine the detailed logs”, do you request that to be a fair and accurate statement of the position that we’ve seen from those emails?
Stephen Bradshaw: It looks that way and that goes back by the previous document you’ve shown, whatever – whoever made the decision has come through – not to ask Mr Jenkins to look at it. But my stance still stays the same: that if money is required to sort something out, it’s paid.
Mr Blake: Do you think it’s important to have a fair and accurate witness statement produced in criminal proceedings?
Stephen Bradshaw: Of course it is.
Mr Blake: Is your view that Mr Jenkins didn’t have the opportunity to examine the detailed logs, do you think that’s a fair and accurate –
Stephen Bradshaw: Based on the first – the email from Mr Bolc, yes.
Mr Blake: It is a fair description?
Stephen Bradshaw: Sorry, no, based on the first email, Mr Jenkins should have been given the opportunity, if it was required, to examine further data.
Mr Blake: Because there was the opportunity present, it just wasn’t taken up?
Stephen Bradshaw: Based on the email, yes, you’re correct.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at the very final page of this witness statement. He ends the statement by saying:
“I have been involved personally in a number of challenges to the integrity of the original Horizon system and produce 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.”
Just pausing there, that’s very similar to the wording of your statement that we looked at, at the very beginning of today, in terms of not being aware of any successful challenges in court. Were you or anybody in your team involved in the drafting of this witness statement.
Stephen Bradshaw: No, not at all.
Mr Blake: “The main challenges in the cases where I have been involved were presented as ‘hypothetical issues’ and my previous witness statements went through each of these hypotheses and showed that there is 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, I 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).”
Can we please turn to POL00089065, please. This is your post-conviction report. I think you drafted this report.
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s what is known as a – the final report. It’s trying to summarise fully what had happened in the court.
Mr Blake: Thank you. If we scroll down, it explains that Mr Allen had previously indicated that he would be willing to plead guilty on the basis that he cannot account for the loss but admits covering it up.”
It says that Jarnail Singh considered that to be an acceptable plea. We then scroll to the bottom, and it says:
“No costs or compensation was ordered as the defendant was due to declare himself bankrupt. There is a loss of £11,705 to Post Office Limited and the civil route should be considered to recover the outstanding amount.”
Having not considered the underlying data in this particular case, how could you be satisfied that there was an actual loss of £11,705?
Stephen Bradshaw: Again, without going through all that data, at the time, that’s what it showed and that last sort of paragraph, normally the judge, when summing up, would sort of – when you’re asked for costs, would normally say “Any outstanding things to be done by the civil route?”
So Mr Allen admitted there was a shortfall, you know, the part in question is where the loss comes from. But he admit it because he told the auditors right at the beginning it’s going to be £10,000 out, and that’s where that’s come from.
Mr Blake: The basis for his plea, as we’ve just seen, is that he couldn’t account for the loss but he admits covering it up. So his admission was “I covered it up, I don’t know how it happened”. How could you be satisfied that in fact that money had been lost and it wasn’t just simply a paper loss?
Stephen Bradshaw: At the time, we were told, as you’ve said on numerous occasions, while he was – for the Horizon, where we’re told, as Mr Jenkins said in his statement, you know, that – the system was okay. 100 per cent you couldn’t, based on certainly what’s known now, and sort of thing, that it’s a paper loss. But also, whatever cash is in the Post Office would still always be there.
Mr Blake: I’m going to move on to the case of Noel Thomas, please, and that can be found at POL00113278. We’re looking at paragraphs 149 to 155. I’m afraid I don’t have the page number. I think in Mr Thomas’ case, I think, you assisted Diane Matthews in that investigation?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct.
Mr Blake: I’ll read briefly from the Court of Appeal’s judgment. They say:
“Hughie Thomas worked as a postman between 1965 and 1992. He became a subpostmaster in 1994. On 29 September 2006 he pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting. Mr Thomas’ written basis of plea stated that no blame was attached to Horizon and that he accepted there was a shortage which he was contractually obliged to make good, but he did not know how it had come about.
“The Post Office accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence from Horizon was essential to Mr Thomas’ case. Mr Thomas had stated that he was having problems with Horizon. In particular, his online banking reports showed several transactions with a nil amount. These were occasions when he paid money to a customer but the system did not record the value of that transaction. This led to losses so he altered the cash-on-hand figures in order to balance the accounts. In his interview under caution, Mr Thomas said that the alleged loss was due to mistakes on Horizon and that he did not understand the system. He had made 13 calls to the Horizon Helpdesk.
It says:
“Although some ARQ [that’s Fujitsu audit data] was obtained, it was a dip sample and it was only checked for evidence of zero transactions. The data was not checked for bugs, errors or defects or for evidence of theft. The prosecution produced a witness statement from Mr Jenkins explaining the Horizon system and producing some ARQ data. Mr Jenkins produced three schedules from that data to explain the zero transactions were normal occurrences.”
At the next paragraph, paragraph 152, they say:
“These factors are sufficient for the court to quash Mr Thomas’ conviction on both Grounds 1 and 2. We were, however, present with further information which bolsters our conclusion that Mr Thomas’ prosecution should not have been brought and which forms the basis of the Post Office’s concession under Ground 2. An attendance note, written by a Post Office prosecution lawyer on the case, recorded a conversation with an external solicitor. The note is dated 25 September 2006, four days before Mr Thomas entered his plea at the Crown Court on the basis that Horizon was not to blame for the shortage. It records:
“‘We discussed whether he should plead guilty to false accounting. I mentioned instructions that we would proceed with false accounting provided the defendant accepts that the Horizon system was working perfectly … Further instructions are that the money should be repaid. Ann could inform Jack that some agreement should be reached taking into account the above instructions.’
“As POL accepts, there was no justification for imposing such a condition before accepting Mr Thomas’s plea.”
Then it continues in paragraph 155:
“In our judgment, these additional factors are in themselves bound to bring the justice system into disrepute, providing further strong reasons to allow the appeal under Ground 2.”
Was it, in your experience, unusual for the Post Office to offer a plea on the basis that the defendant had to accept that the Horizon system was working perfectly?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, either has happened, that’s – this case as well, but normally the prosecution and defence barristers normally speak to one another. Normally when you might have the two charges, basically always theft or false accounting, and you may get the answer, they’re willing to plead to false accounting or to theft, and instructions will be taken from the Post Office solicitors and it’s accepted. But I think that’s the angle. They went down round about that time with the issues regarding Horizon.
Mr Blake: In your experience, were there circumstances where the Post Office, in order to accept a plea, said that the defendant had to accept that the Horizon system was working –
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, I believe it has happened.
Mr Blake: Has it happened in a case that you were involved in?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t say for definite that it has, sort of thing, but on Mr Thomas’ – during his interview, he did say he didn’t like the Horizon system because he kept getting error notices, which indicated he was actually making the error, rather than it being the system, and that could be a reason why they may have gone down that line.
Mr Blake: Can we, please, look at POL00017903. This is a different case, case of Katherine Jane McQue. Were you the officer in that case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct.
Mr Blake: You’re named, I think, as Disclosure Officer on the schedule. I think you were the interviewing officer, as well, in that particular case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: I’m going to read from this memo. The memo has your name at the top, sent to you by the principal lawyer. It says:
“The above case was heard in Carlisle Crown Court when the matter was listed for trial.
“Prior to the case being called on there was some discussions between all parties with a view to establishing whether or not the pleas offered by the defence would be acceptable.
“An indication was given that a plea to Count 2 fraud might be acceptable so long as the Defendant stipulated in her Basis of Plea that there was nothing wrong with Horizon and that she was responsible for the loss and recognised the confiscation would be sought should the loss not be repaid.
“In the afternoon the matter was called on and the indictment was put again to the defendant. She pleaded guilty to the charge of fraud accepting that there was nothing wrong with Horizon and that she was responsible for the loss.”
Just pausing there, there’s nothing there suggesting that this came from the defence. This is, it seems clear, doesn’t it, from this memo, that it was –
Stephen Bradshaw: It looks that way but again, at the time, the defence and the prosecution would be talking. It’s one part of – it’s not the full story, so to say, of what’s happening on the day in court.
Mr Blake: Do you think it’s appropriate for the Post Office to say to a defendant that “We might accept the second count on the indictment as long as the defendant, in their basis of plea, recognises that there’s nothing wrong with Horizon”?
Stephen Bradshaw: It may well be taken because of whatever was said during the interview and I believe –
Sir Wyn Williams: Just answer Mr Blake’s question.
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m trying to, Mr Williams.
Sir Wyn Williams: But it’s a simple question: is it appropriate for someone representing the Post Office to say, “We will accept your plea but only if you don’t blame Horizon”?
Stephen Bradshaw: Probably not.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you.
Mr Blake: This was a case where you were the Investigator and the Officer in the Case.
Stephen Bradshaw: As I was trying to explain, there was also a defence expert that they put in, and that will have been part of the discussion within the court as well, whatever the defence expert case has said.
Mr Blake: It may have been something that was accepted but I think your evidence is you accept that it would not be appropriate for the Post Office to make that condition in the first place?
Stephen Bradshaw: Certainly with today’s knowledge, no.
Mr Blake: Well, what about the knowledge you had then: 2011?
Stephen Bradshaw: Well, as I said earlier, that’s the way some of the cases were going, that – because of – whether the instructions come from the solicitors, and that’s where – because that’s true.
Mr Blake: Whose idea was it? We’ve seen it now in two cases –
Stephen Bradshaw: It wasn’t mine.
Mr Blake: – in Noel Thomas’ case we have it; we have it in Ms McQue’s case?
Stephen Bradshaw: Noel Thomas, I was the second officer, so I had very little before and afterwards dealing with Mr Thomas so that’s done by the other officer and this is what’s coming out from our solicitors.
Mr Blake: Lawyers obtain instructions from their client on the whole. Was the Post Office providing instructions to the lawyers in this respect? Where was this coming from?
Stephen Bradshaw: The – I’ve explained the Investigator will put all the papers together and send it sort of off to the lawyers. The lawyers made the bulk of every decision. That would sort of come back to us. We wouldn’t say, “Oh yeah, we’ll have the plea as long as they say this or say that”. That would have been decided on higher level than me and that’s where it comes from, whether it’s Mr Singh in charge or any of the other lawyers.
Mr Blake: Can we look at POL00013661, please. This Ms McQue’s interview. You were, in fact, the interviewing officer so, at that stage, you were the main officer; is that right?
Stephen Bradshaw: The inquiry was assigned to me, yes.
Mr Blake: Yes. If we scroll down, she didn’t have a lawyer present but she had, I think, a friend from the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Could we go over the page, please. It says:
“Mrs McQue was asked to explain further the losses at the branch as she had only been inflating the cash to cover the losses since August 2008. Ms McQue said that she had losses all the time she did not know what was causing the losses.”
It says:
“I haven’t taken it as far as I’m concerned I don’t think the staff have.
“Mrs McQue had kept the losses to herself and not informed staff, she thought they were errors and would come back.”
If we scroll down, it says:
“Mrs McQue said she had not felt 100% with the Horizon system.”
You were aware at the time that central to her defence was issues with the Horizon system?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Blake: Yes, and does that – did that impact in any way on your thinking about whether it was appropriate or not to ensure that any plea was on a basis that the Horizon system was working perfectly?
Stephen Bradshaw: Of course it does, and as I say, I reported the facts of the interview and any enquiries made to the Criminal Law Team.
Mr Blake: Could we look at POL00141225, please. Could we scroll down to page 5, please. If we could scroll down to the bottom email we have an email from Andrew Daley to a number of people, including yourself, and if we keep on scrolling down it relates to duplication of transaction records in the Fujitsu audit ARQ returns.
Can you see there that there is an email about concerns that there may be duplication of transaction records in certain ARQ returns and, if we scroll down over the page, we have the Rinkfield post office, which is Ms McQue’s Post Office.
This was the year before the plea was accepted, on the basis that there was nothing wrong with Horizon. Do you recall being informed that there might be issues with the duplication of transactions?
Stephen Bradshaw: If it says so in there but I’m sure that the ARQ data was obtained for Rinkfield.
Mr Blake: Yes, and the issue here is, where it is obtained, there may be a problem with the actual data itself?
Stephen Bradshaw: But you – the data would have been looked at to see whether there’s are duplicate data in there because they – the transaction would show the same. You would have two perfectly sort of – say, a cash withdrawal with the same number and the same number at the same time.
Mr Blake: This is 2010, so quite a bit of time before that plea was accepted. Knowing that these kinds of issues can arise, even with audit data, in her case and in Noel Thomas’ case, do you think that it was appropriate for the Post Office to be insisting on conditional pleas on the basis that there was nothing wrong with the system?
Stephen Bradshaw: Probably not no.
Mr Blake: Sir, I have, I’d say, about 15 more minutes of questions before we move on to questions from Core Participants. We usually have an afternoon break at around this time.
Sir Wyn Williams: Can I get some idea of the participation of the Core Participants, if I can put it in that way?
Mr Stein, are you going to ask some questions or Mr Jacobs?
Mr Jacobs: Sir, it will be me today, I think probably ten minutes.
Sir Wyn Williams: All right, that’s fine. The pillar is intervening.
Mr Moloney: The same, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Mr Henry or Ms Page?
Mr Henry: Fifteen minutes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Right okay. Good, well anyone else, I should say I’ve looked at the – right, thank you.
So that’s, on my calculation, 35 minutes?
Mr Blake: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: What’s the time now?
Mr Blake: It’s now 3.20.
Sir Wyn Williams: So we will have a 10-minute break, and then I will hold each of you to your time estimates.
So you first, 15 minutes, Mr Blake; then Mr Jacobs 10; then 10 for you; and 15 for Mr Henry, and that will be it.
Mr Henry: In fact it was agreed between the parties that I would go first on this occasion.
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, even more reason to hold you to 15 then. I’ll see you in ten minutes.
(3.20 pm)
(A short break)
(3.31 pm)
Mr Blake: Thank you. Mr Bradshaw, I’m going to move on from the case studies and look at some contemporaneous complaints that were made by some subpostmasters. Can we please look at POL00108851, please.
It’s page 52. This is a letter to yourself that was ultimately exhibited in a County Court case of Azfar Syed; do you recall?
Stephen Bradshaw: I recall the name.
Mr Blake: If we could please look at page – scroll down, so it’s for your attention, “Dear Mr Bradshaw”, and Mr Syed has produced what is called a Record of Investigation, and if we scroll down, it’s essentially a complaint from him. If we scroll down further, we see he says:
“The document investigation is a document of history of events and chain of activities carried out and conducted by the Investigators known as Mr Steve Bradshaw …”
He doesn’t know the name of the person from Royal Mail and over the page he says “Mrs Diane”, presumably that is Diane Matthews or is there another Diane who you worked with?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, it’s probably Diane Matthews.
Mr Blake: He says:
“This document is based on unpleasant experience, inappropriate exercise, and improper code of practice, unbearable attitude, harassment, and victimisation bully faced by Mr Syed and the family during the unfair and undue suspension and investigation process.”
Can we turn over to page 57, which is where the substance of the allegation is. It’s the second half of the page. He says:
“I entered into the house Mr Bradshaw with one of his lady colleague called Diane was waiting for me, Steve Bradshaw stood up shook the hands. Mr Bradshaw showed me his identity, offer them to be seated. He pulled out some forms from a file he had and asked me to sign.
“The forms were not ordinary, they were legal forms consent to search my house. Mr Bradshaw told me that they came to search my house whether I stashed money, Post Office paperwork or financial documents, I was astonished and very unhappy and reluctant. Mr Bradshaw threatened me if I do not consent, they will call the police who will arrest, DNA, detained me and ruin my house by digging and lifting floorboards.
“I was confused, lost and very disappointed, however consent in the meantime Mr Bradshaw called his 3rd colleague waiting outside in the car. I let them to carried out the search, my house, my car was fully searched. [I think that says ‘In fact’] I assist and the areas where even they didn’t want to after 1 hour and 15 minutes search nothing was found, some financial details of my bank accounts were noted.”
If we go over the page, please, towards the bottom of the next page. He says:
“Because the discrepancy were not exist physically, no cash was over or short so both were left unresolved stare into local suspense I represent the training book …”
He says:
“Since then Chesterfield, helpline and trainer were notified and involved to clear the discrepancy error and the process was arrange by the training department”, etc.
Over the page, he says:
“After a detailed dialogue and analysis some documents prepared by Mr Steve [I think that’s a reference toy yourself], the discrepancy was found quite unrealistic, and absolutely unnatural …”
He says:
“During the interview Mr Bradshaw stressed, shouted and tried to put words into my mouth that I stole the upon, that was very offensive, and unacceptable but I replied and reject his attempt to make me say the words no, never.”
If you go to page 64, about halfway down the page of 64, he said:
“As I have already said repeatedly and reiterate again and again from the day one of the problem raised that the discrepancy shortage is a genuine paperwork mistake, remittances, computer error or human error by staff.”
Moving on to another letter it’s UKGI00014839. This is a letter sent in 2009, from a Katie Noblet, I believe she was the subpostmistress in Preston in Lancashire. She says as follows, I’ll just read half of this letter, it says:
“I write to complain about the unprofessional disgusting behaviour and actions of two of you employees, these being Caroline Richards, a Business Development Manager in Lancashire, and Steve Bradshaw a Post Office Investigator.
“The Post Office I work for is under investigation and I am now working all hours there. I received a phone call from Steve Bradshaw asking me to make a statement. He wanted my mobile phone number but I don’t use it for work. He asked me if I had any free time, free during working hours, which I replied no, as I’m working. I asked if giving the statement was something I had to do. He said no, but it could get me in the clear. He phoned again the same day wanting to know if he could meet me to take a statement. I haven’t decided and wanted to seek legal advice, so I told him I needed to think about it.
“The following day, Mr Bradshaw and Ms Richards came to my place of work and asked if I wanted to make a statement without introducing himself. I told them I didn’t know because I hadn’t had a chance to seek legal advice in under 24 hours when I work nine to five, six days a week. I found Steve very confrontational. I told Steve that I wouldn’t make a statement without legal representation and he told me that I wasn’t allowed one, which is a complete lie.”
She says:
“After a very confrontational five minutes and after Steve didn’t get what he wanted, Steve told Caroline to close the post office, which is not his authority to do, as I understand Steve and Caroline left the store.”
Now, as I say, these aren’t case studies, we haven’t looked into these cases at all or in any depth whatsoever but can you assist us with why it is that your name seems to crop up again and again?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can understand, because they’re not totally accurate. Certainly Mr Syed, he would have been informed – the forms would have been explained to him over the phone and we would have arranged to go and meet him. The business at the time, I was supposed to ask people for a voluntary search of their home address, and that’s what that was for, before any interview. It was always a requirement of three people to do a search if possible of that and that was due to an Investigator in the past who was shot and killed while undertaking a search. So where possible, there was always three people.
Mr Blake: Simply reflecting on the evidence that we’ve been through today, from the interviews that we’ve looked at, looking at these letters, do you think you might not have been quite as professional as you think?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, I don’t think that at all. I will stand – my stance is they’re taken out of context.
Mr Blake: I’m going to move on to a few miscellaneous topics, some of which have been raised by Core Participants.
The first is contact with Gareth Jenkins. Can we please look at FUJ00122938, please. It’s page 7 of that document. It’s the bottom of page 7. We have an email from yourself to Gareth Jenkins, and you say:
“Gareth
“Can you please see the attached report and our Criminal Law Team ask that you consider the report and let us have your initial views as to the contents of the report and also your comments on the disclosure.”
If we scroll up, we have his response. He says:
“I’m not aware of this case, but when I spoke to Charles McLachlan (who is the ‘Defence expert’ for a number of cases) last week he did mention that he was now involved in a case in Cumbria, so perhaps this is it.”
We then have an email on the previous page, page 6, from Penny Thomas. It seems to be a bit of a telling off from Penny Thomas to you. If we scroll up, she says as follows:
“Steve
“Your request to Gareth Jenkins and his response to you have been copied to me.
“Please be aware that it is against process for investigators to approach Fujitsu employees direct for assistance with litigation issues. Please direct all your requests via Jane Owen or her team at Salford.”
Can you assist us, first of all, in terms of Gareth Jenkins, I think you’ve said in your witness statement that you didn’t really recall any –
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s one of the – that’s one of the – maybe once, twice, maximum. There is another email from Penny Thomas who explains why I contacted Gareth Jenkins direct, and that was on the – at the request of the Criminal Law Team. Normally, everything would be done via Jane Owen and her team in Salford. This is an exception of why it’s done and there is an email from Penny Thomas that explains that why I done it, and –
Mr Blake: Yes, and that’s higher up in this chain.
Stephen Bradshaw: Correct, yes.
Mr Blake: Can you assist us, what was your knowledge of Penny Thomas’s role?
Stephen Bradshaw: Penny Thomas is something to do with the prosecution part of Fujitsu. I only ever spoke to her a few times.
Mr Blake: What did you understand the problem to be with Investigators contacting Mr Jenkins directly?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t know what – they put a process in that we were to go via the Casework Team for any – they were the engagement – the Casework Team had the engagement with Fujitsu; probably to stop every Investigator bombarding them with what’s required.
Mr Blake: Do you think that you had enough contact with Fujitsu?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, all contact with Fujitsu was always via the Casework Team. Anything that was required would go via the Casework Team.
Mr Blake: Thank you. If we go, please, to FUJ00122939, please. We have there some comments that Mr Jenkins made, he says:
“I’ve been asked to comment on the expert witness report produced by Charles McLachlan in the case of Katherine McQue associated with Rinkfield.”
Can we bring onto screen, please, your statement at page 5, paragraph 10 so your first statement. That’s WITN04450100, it’s page 5, paragraph 10. You say as follows, in relation to Gareth Jenkins, you say:
“I did not know that Gareth Jenkins was considered to be an expert witness. My understanding of an expert witness is a person who has greater knowledge in their particular field than the ordinary person. I may have spoken with him when at the same court, but I do not recall having any discussions with him regarding his role.”
Had you received any training in relation to the role of an expert –
Stephen Bradshaw: I can’t recall any training to expert witness. I think Mr Jenkins was considered by the business to be an expert witness and, as I say, all requests went via the Casework Team for anything from Fujitsu.
Mr Blake: You said that “My understanding of an expert witness is a person who has greater knowledge” is that still –
Stephen Bradshaw: I would say that, yeah, somebody that had more knowledge of a particular field than somebody else would be considered an expert.
Mr Blake: Mr Bradshaw, you’re still employed by the Post Office in the Security Team. You have had a career had spans all of the issues that we have discussed, including the Bates litigation, including the Hamilton appeals. Do you think it’s surprising that you don’t have a greater understanding of the role of an expert in proceedings?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, Mr Jenkins – as the business, the business had him down as Fujitsu’s expert witness. My understanding, and I still stick by it, is a person who knows more in that particular field than the ordinary man.
Mr Blake: But do you not think that, given everything that’s happen at the Post Office, you perhaps should familiarise yourself a little bit better with what the role of an expert witness is?
Stephen Bradshaw: Maybe but, as I say, considering investigation-wise, we haven’t done anything for 10 years I haven’t. The last time I will have had any investigation through to prosecution is probably some time between January or July 2014.
Mr Blake: Do you think it is unfortunate that, at that time, you were not aware of what the role involved?
Stephen Bradshaw: With hindsight yes, of course it is. You know, there’s always a learning process.
Mr Blake: Can we please look at POL00323641, please. This is an email from Andrew Bolc to yourself in relation to Chris Bramwell’s case. If we could look at the final paragraph there, he says:
“With regard to your statement which is in effect being treated as an expert 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.”
So you had written a statement in this particular case that was in effect being treated as an expert’s report; is that right?
Stephen Bradshaw: It depends which statement it is because I do recall seeing a statement when I said “I am not an expert”, and I’ve clarified whatever the statement says. So whatever this statement is, I would need to see it first before sort of seeing it, or they’ve taken the statement when I explained what we explained earlier about, no, the workings, the actual hardcore machine, you know, the screen, et cetera, and what the – if it’s working correctly, what happens about transactions from start to finish.
Now, if they’ve taken that as being an expert, I’m no expert. I have a working knowledge of Horizon but I’m certainly not an expert.
Mr Blake: Do you think it is a little odd, perhaps, that you’re being described as being treated as, in effect, an expert –
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s –
Mr Blake: – and haven’t had any kind of discussion with anybody as to the role of an expert?
Stephen Bradshaw: Completely and, as I said, in one of the statements where they’ve got me down as an expert, the beginning of the statement says, “I am not an expert”.
Mr Blake: In terms of your training more generally, can you assist us, did you have any qualifications whether it relates to giving expert evidence or if it relates to –
Stephen Bradshaw: Certainly not for giving expert evidence, no.
Mr Blake: How about carrying out investigations?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve done the courses and I’ve done advanced interviewing courses both with the Met – search courses with the Met – Thames Valley Police, advanced interviewing by the Metropolitan Police, I’ve attended them type of courses over the period of time, and Cartwright King used to have sessions where they go through whatever’s there.
Mr Blake: We heard at the very beginning about your progression from Telegraph Officer, Television Inquiry Officer, up to the Security Team; do you think you were provided with sufficient training and qualifications?
Stephen Bradshaw: I think at the time when we sort of – you know, for each role, the training has been – when I took the role as the Security and Investigation Manager, it was done by Royal Mail Group trainers, and it was a course with the pass marks that had to go.
Mr Blake: Do you think it was sufficient?
Stephen Bradshaw: At the time, I had no reason not to think it wasn’t sufficient for a start.
Mr Blake: What do you think now?
Stephen Bradshaw: I can still cover more – I’ve always said, there’s always opportunities to learn more. So from there, if that wasn’t considered sufficient, maybe it should be a three-week or a four-week course with extra added on.
Mr Blake: How many weeks do you think you have been trained on things like disclosure?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, over the period of time, there’s always been the odd day or two days’ seminars where you’ve gone through.
Mr Blake: Thank you. I’m going to move on to –
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, Mr Blake, you’ve had a generous 15 minutes and I think, to be fair to those that are following you, unless there’s something critical, and I mean critical, I think we can hand over to the CPs now.
Mr Blake: Sir, I’m certainly happy, if there are any questions from Core Participants or should they have any questions that arise –
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, I’ll be the arbiter now of what’s critical or not and that includes you and them.
So I say you stop and someone starts.
Mr Henry.
Questioned by Mr Henry
Mr Henry: Thank you, sir.
Mr Bradshaw, contrary to what you say, you and your department, the Security Department, were drenched in information that Horizon wasn’t working from the very beginning.
Stephen Bradshaw: Information had come through, yes.
Mr Henry: Hmm. That information came from scores and scores and ultimately hundreds and hundreds of innocent subpostmasters who were suffering an epidemic of shortfalls?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Henry: It came from what they told you but, even before that, it came from the thousands of calls they made to the Helpdesk at the National Business Support Centre.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Henry: You would have been aware of those calls, wouldn’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not all of them. If there have been calls made, it all depends on which inquiry. You know, what inquiry are we talking about at the moment?
Mr Henry: Well, I’m talking about the thousands upon thousands of calls, anguished and perplexed calls made by subpostmasters that they could not balance, that the system didn’t balance, and your department would obviously have to have been communicating with the NBSC and also the Horizon Helpdesk.
Stephen Bradshaw: They would have been – the callouts would have been requested from them to see what issues were raised.
Mr Henry: You have to communicate with that department because, integral to your duties in the Security Department, was the enforcement of the contractual duties of subpostmasters, wasn’t it?
Stephen Bradshaw: The call logs would have been accepted, they would have been requested and there’s nothing on the call logs to indicate that there was any issues with the Horizon. I would not be communicating with the NBSC team all the time over that. That’s their role.
Mr Henry: But you would have obtained, surely, as part of your investigations, the call logs?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right and the call logs would have been interrogated to see what issue was there, and a lot of the time you would say call logs where they’ve shown about how would they do a passport, DVLA disc, et cetera, anything that would they – relating to Horizon would be further interrogated.
Mr Henry: You say that?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Henry: You and your department, I suggest, on the contrary, ignored anything that didn’t fit the narrative that Horizon was working.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s your suggestion.
Mr Henry: Time and time again, when somebody ended up under your gaze, each solitary, quite often terrified subpostmaster, sitting across an interview desk from you or one of your team, would have been told that they were the only ones with a problem; isn’t that right?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, that’s not correct at all. I don’t know where that saying the only one is right. As I explained earlier, depending on the branch, as one of the examples given, is that person was the only one in that branch that had any issues. I don’t know what – I’ve never said that to anybody I’ve interviewed, that “You’re the only one that has this issue”. I have never said that and I will stick to that.
Mr Henry: What I’m going to suggest, as well, that you claim that you weren’t getting the messaging from the top that you were, as it were, not getting any information fed to you about unreliability with Horizon from the top but that isn’t right either, is it, Mr Bradshaw?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct, yeah. I was not aware of any bugs, errors or defects. They’d come down to it but nobody sort of said anything. Second Sight was put in, and the message was that, once they put a subject matter expert in, everything would be back to normal. That had come from the top. From top down or bottom up.
Mr Henry: By 2012, when you were either giving or prepared to give expert evidence, Mr Bradshaw, the problems with Horizon were obvious, weren’t they?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve said before and I will say it again. I am not an expert on the Horizon system.
Mr Henry: The lawyers may have written your statement but you signed it Mr Bradshaw, didn’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: That was one statement about the Horizon issues that had come – that is approved that come from the business.
Mr Henry: You would have been aware, surely, of the pressure building up from the 2009 Computer Weekly article by Rebecca Thomson?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve seen sight of it but I didn’t follow the Computer Weekly.
Mr Henry: That MPs then became involved enquiring about their subpostmaster constituents and Parliamentary questions, mounting pressure: you would have been aware of all of that by the time you signed that statement?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I said, that statement come from the business.
Mr Henry: You would have been aware, of course, by that time, and you’ve already mentioned them, Second Sight. So, again, Mr Bradshaw, I ask you to reflect very carefully on this because I don’t want to have to put to you something which I haven’t put to any other witness before in this Inquiry, but it is obvious that you would have received briefings from those above you, whether they still exist or not remains to be seen, but you would have received briefings from those above you that it was going to be business as usual, keep prosecuting, don’t admit anything.
Stephen Bradshaw: Prosecutions stopped and the – once the subject matter expert – they were relying on a subject matter expert to come down, and they said once the subject matter expert had done his part, that they expected it all to go back to normal. But that never materialised.
Mr Henry: Right. Janet Skinner, who sits beside me, whom you interviewed together with your colleague Diane Matthews, she made 116 calls to the NBSC about Horizon. You heard that when Mr Blake was questioning you today?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, and I also said to Mr Blake I had limited input into that. I was there on the day of the interview but Ms Matthews would have had the pre-interview and post – she dealt with everything there. I was there on the day. So anything to do with calls and anything would have been done by Ms Matthews.
Mr Henry: So you had absolutely nothing at all to do with the investigation?
Stephen Bradshaw: I – I was there on the day. I didn’t do any of the pre-work or the post-work. That would be done by Ms Matthews.
Mr Henry: The Court of Appeal Criminal Division pronounced, when clearing Mrs Skinner of any wrongdoing, that there had been an extraordinary failure to investigate the 116 calls she made to the NBSC in a relatively short space of time. You didn’t look, did you Mr Bradshaw?
Stephen Bradshaw: I personally didn’t because the Inquiry was Ms Matthews. I was there on the day of the interview.
Mr Henry: Mrs Skinner was persuaded by her lawyer to plead guilty to false accounting in return for the theft charges being dropped and was advised that she wouldn’t go to prison if she pleaded to false accounting but was jailed for nine months immediate custody.
Now, you’ve heard the catalogue of failures that Mr Blake put to you. The woman who sits beside me, completely innocent of any wrongdoing, goes to prison for nine months. Do you have anything to say to her?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I’ve said, Ms Matthews was the one who dealt with that thing. If Mrs Skinner has been dealt a wrong blow, that is completely wrong but I had very little input into the case.
Mr Henry: Diane Matthews, your colleague, didn’t think there was a case on theft. She’d have discussed that with you, wouldn’t she?
Stephen Bradshaw: Not necessarily, no.
Mr Henry: She didn’t think that Janet Skinner had stolen anything at all and was of the clear view that there was no evidence of theft. Are you saying that she would not have discussed that with you?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, no, she would have reported that to the Criminal Law Team. It was Ms Matthews’ inquiry. I had little input into that inquiry. I was there on the day of the interview but any pre-work or post-work would have been by the person looking after that inquiry.
Mr Henry: So you had nothing to do, for example, with endorsing the contents of the report?
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Henry: Diane Matthews told the Inquiry that she was shocked when Janet Skinner was charged with theft; were you?
Stephen Bradshaw: As I say, Ms Matthews is the one that saw to her. I just accept whatever the lawyers, if they’ve put that charge in –
Mr Henry: You accept what the lawyers do, do you?
Stephen Bradshaw: On that particular case, the lawyer that – Ms Matthews looked after that case. I had very little input, even afterwards. If I’d – any charges would only have come in passing if Ms Matthews had told us.
Mr Henry: Juliet McFarlane has been described to this Inquiry as a gentle person; would you agree?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Henry: So was she malleable? Were you able to persuade her to do things?
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Henry: Because theft was a wholly unmeritorious charge, wasn’t it?
Stephen Bradshaw: Of course but, as I can say, Ms Matthews dealt with that inquiry. I had little input –
Mr Henry: Did you press Juliet McFarlane, Mr Bradshaw, to charge theft?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, because I had little input in that inquiry.
Mr Henry: So this gentle person charges theft, contrary to the view of the Investigating Officer who has complete responsibility, according to you, for this investigation, and that decision on theft has nothing to do with you, you say?
Stephen Bradshaw: Nothing whatsoever.
Mr Henry: What I’m going to suggest, Mr Bradshaw, is that whoever’s responsibility it was, theft was a nasty jemmy or crowbar to leverage pleas to false accounting, wasn’t it?
Stephen Bradshaw: That was the suggestion but, again, I can only say I had nothing to do with the inquiry. That was done by the other officer who dealt with the lawyers.
Mr Henry: But you knew from a point of view of your long service and your reputation in the Security Department, that that was a legitimate ploy, wasn’t it: charge theft, a bankrupt charge of theft to squeeze a plea to false accounting? You were aware of that, weren’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: The lawyers, nine times out of ten, would have had two charges down: theft and false accounting.
Mr Henry: Thank you very much, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you, Mr Henry.
Is it going to be Mr Moloney or Mr Jacobs?
Mr Jacobs: I’m happy to go. I’m not sure if my microphone is on.
Sir Wyn Williams: I think everybody will want to hear you, Mr Jacobs.
Questioned by Mr Jacobs
Mr Jacobs: Let me raise my voice until it’s on.
Mr Bradshaw, I represent 156 subpostmasters and mistresses and one of whom is Shazia Saddiq, who sits to my left today. This morning at about 11.25, Mr Blake took you to the statement of Jacqueline McDonald, given in the mediation case; do you recall that?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yes.
Mr Jacobs: I don’t want to turn it up but, essentially, the accusations that Ms McDonald made against you, she said:
“Stephen Bradshaw told me I was the only one in this position and that this has never happened before.”
She said that after your first visit to your branch, you returned with a lady called Caroline Richards and spoke to Katie Noblet, who was running the branch on their behalf, and you made threats relating to wage deductions and jail time.
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s incorrect.
Mr Jacobs: Now, I know you’ve denied this.
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, it’s incorrect for the simple reason – if you let me explain why it’s incorrect – is that when – we were going for a statement, as normal because she worked in the branch. The people running the branch were a firm called Poulton Solutions. They’re responsible for paying the wages. I have no control to take any wages or deduct any money or even – and I wouldn’t threaten her with any jail.
Mr Jacobs: I have a different question for you.
Stephen Bradshaw: Okay.
Mr Jacobs: My question for you is: have you been following this Inquiry? Did you watch the subpostmasters and mistresses and assistants give evidence in the Human Impact hearings between February and March –
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve seen some of it. I haven’t followed it 100 per cent.
Mr Jacobs: Well, Mr Bradshaw we act for 156 subpostmasters and, of those, 49 of them have told us that they were told by the Post Office, by Investigators like yourself and other officials, that they were the only one: 49. 61 of our clients have told us that they were threatened with prosecution.
My question to you is that what Mrs McDonald says about you is pretty standard practice in relation to how the Post Office behaved towards subpostmasters?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s what it sounds like but when I’ve done anything I will – sorry, sir, can you just go back? Part of it is I’ve never threatened anybody with prosecution. At the end of any interview, the people being interviewed, are informed of the next course of action or next steps. And that is that whoever is the Lead Investigator would do a report and that would be sent off to the Criminal Law Team or then Cartwright King and they make any decisions on the next progression of the case.
Mr Jacobs: I can see what you’re saying is that the decision to prosecute wasn’t necessarily made by an Investigator, it was done by the lawyers. But my question to you – and I ask it again – was that do you accept that telling postmasters that they are the only one – and we have 49 clients who say that’s what they were told – and telling subpostmasters that they could be prosecuted or go to prison – and we have 61 clients who have said that is how they were treated – that was pretty typical, wasn’t it?
Stephen Bradshaw: If people in the Post Office, the Investigators have said that, that’s completely wrong. I can categorically say I have never said that to people, that “You’re the only one”.
Mr Jacobs: Well, let’s look at your behaviour, shall we? If I could ask to have a document put up on screen it’s the statement of Shazia Saddiq, which is WITN02230100, and page 13 of 16, starting at paragraph 72.
While we’re waiting for that to come up on screen, Ms Saddiq was the subpostmistress of two branches in Newcastle. She had to pay over £10,000 of shortfalls, which weren’t due to be paid but she did anyway. The Post Office demanded a further £20,000. She was then a victim of cyber fraud, in relation to MoneyGram, and the Post Office wanted to recover nearly £34,000 from her after an audit and the cyber fraud had also affected 11 other branches but she wasn’t told about that at the time. Do you recall that case?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’m not sure about cyber fraud. I do remember a case of MoneyGram fraud and that was when a bogus engineer – is probably the best way to describe him – was phoning branches up saying they were coming to test the equipment, could they just input certain amounts and when they were put in the end, they’d say “That hasn’t worked try 20,000, that hasn’t worked try 30,000”. That was the case that was dealt by MoneyGram, for their reasons that, once you do it, they will make a payment straight away.
Mr Jacobs: Let’s go to Ms Saddiq’s statement, paragraph 72. It’s on the screen. She says:
“After losing my post offices, my children and I were abused in the street. I went to the Ryton Post Office, which had been my home. I was near the entry to my home when a group of men began shouting at me and threatening me and calling me a thief. They threw eggs, flour and stones at me and my children.”
Then at paragraph 76, scrolling down, please, she goes on to say:
“On the evening of the day the eggs, flour and stones were thrown at me and my children, and I was called a thief, we fled our home with just my children’s teddy bears.”
If we could go to paragraph 82, she says:
“I have received threatening calls to my mobile phone and emails from Stephen Bradshaw and Brian Trotter. Mr Bradshaw was a Post Office Security Officer and Mr Trotter was a Post Office Contracts Manager.”
Then she goes on to say:
“I have received particularly intimidating telephone calls from Stephen Bradshaw who began calling me before I knew he worked for the Post Office. He didn’t identify himself in his calls, he just made demands of me.”
Now, what I want to put to you is what you did. You would introduce yourself sometimes, you would say, “Where has the money gone? Why won’t you talk to me? Why won’t you meet me at the branch? I’ve got people who I want to defund the branch”. She would find you aggressive and hang up on you and you would call her back repeatedly and you called her over 60 times during this period; is that right? Do you recall that?
Stephen Bradshaw: I wouldn’t say that is completely accurate. The two audits, one took place on 26 October, one took place on 27 October. I called Mrs Saddiq on 4 November and left a message. I always, on any phone call, I would say who I am and leave my mobile phone. I called again on the 8th because I hadn’t received a call back.
On 10 November Mrs Saddiq called me because I’d sent her an email later on, with the words “Our telephone conversation refers”, and on that email is I explained who I was, and it was about arranged in a time or place, as per what my contract was as a role to do an interview.
Mr Jacobs: That’s not true: you hounded her, didn’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, I didn’t.
Mr Jacobs: Well, then let’s go to the next paragraph, shall we, let’s go to paragraph 84, because this is what happened:
“On 29 November 2016 at 13.44 Stephen Bradshaw called me and I refused to speak to him because I did not know who he was or who he worked for. In that telephone call, which was witnessed by my husband on loud speaker core, he called me a ‘bitch’, which I found extremely distressing.”
That’s how you behaved towards my client.
Stephen Bradshaw: Completely untrue. I did not call anybody that type of name and she did know who I was because she received an email from me on 10 November.
Mr Jacobs: You have shown in your evidence today that you are prepared to be aggressive. You tell people interviews to get up earlier, other people have described you as very confrontational. This is the way you behaved, isn’t it, Mr Bradshaw?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s not correct, no.
Mr Jacobs: Do you accept you behaved unprofessionally?
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Jacobs: Do you accept that it was part of the culture within the Investigation Team to intimidate –
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Jacobs: – and abuse subpostmasters?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, no, a phone call will be made to arrange an interview, at a convenient time and date.
Mr Jacobs: Well, let’s move to another client, Rita Threlfall. She was the subpostmistress of the Ford branch in Liverpool from 1988 to 2010. Can we go, please, to another document. It’s POL00107683 and, while we’re waiting for that, I’m just going to ask you if you recall her. You interviewed her at the Liverpool North Delivery Office on 10 March –
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s right. I work in Royal Mail Delivery Office.
Mr Jacobs: That’s right, and you recall that?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Jacobs: Well, then perhaps we don’t need to go to that document just yet. If we could go to Ms Threlfall’s witness statement and I’m going to ask you about the circumstances of the interview. If we go to WITN02360100, page 7 of 15, please. If we go to paragraph 46. Just waiting for it to come up. So Ms Threlfall is disabled and she is wheelchair dependent. She said:
“In August 2010 I had to go for an interview under caution with the Post Office Fraud Investigator, Stephen Bradshaw. The interview took place at a Post Office sorting office in Liverpool.”
She goes on to say, at paragraph 48:
“Upon arrival they left my husband and me in a hallway. We asked for a chair and never received one. I ended up having to sit down on the stairs.”
This is a disabled lady who uses a wheelchair. She goes on to say at paragraph 49:
“The interview room was upstairs. I told them there was no way I could make it up the stairs. In order to make it to the interview room I was placed in a tiny parcel lift.”
Do you recall that happening?
Stephen Bradshaw: I recall her going in a lift and that’s untrue. In the – it’s a Royal Mail Delivery Office. The chances of being given a chair would be slim because, as you walk in the delivery office from outside, you are what’s known as the Callers Office where members of the public collect the mail. The door facing you is where the sorting office floor is, where – so you have postmen coming backwards and forwards.
During the interview letter, they would have been asked to make themselves known to Royal Mail, because that’s who it was, either Royal Mail would have brought them upstairs, Mr Knight or myself will have come down to collect Ms Threlfall, but it wasn’t a small tiny parcel lift. It’s an actual lift, designated wheelchair lift, with the thing, you know, that takes five people.
Mr Jacobs: Mr Bradshaw, Rita Threlfall is still shaken by this experience. She is watching today. She suffers, she says in her statement, from crippling anxiety and depression which arises, in large part, from the way you treated her. She was too traumatised to give evidence before this Inquiry and Mr Stein, King’s Counsel, who sits to right read out these very passages of her evidence on 23 February 2022.
The Post Office has not challenged this account. Mr Bradshaw, this happened, whether you want to admit it or not, this happened.
Stephen Bradshaw: It’s not a small parcel lift. I can prove it to you now.
Mr Jacobs: You still work for the Post Office, don’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Jacobs: Would the Post Office put a disabled person in a small parcel lift to attend an interview that was – that had been arranged on a floor which they couldn’t access today? Is that current practice?
Stephen Bradshaw: Prior to the interview, I was not made aware of any special requirement and I can only keep repeating that it is not a small parcel lift. It is wheelchair accessibility and I can prove it to you now, if you wish.
Mr Jacobs: Well, I have to say, and Rita Threlfall would want me to say, that you’re not telling the truth, are you?
Stephen Bradshaw: I’ve got a photograph here that shows the lift.
Mr Jacobs: We’ll move on then –
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, you’ve had a generous ten minutes, if I may say so, Mr Jacobs, and I know these points are of importance to your clients but I have to be even handed amongst everyone. So unless it’s critical that you put further questions, can I ask you to come to a close.
Mr Jacobs: I can. I do have a couple of questions then, some very brief questions about Joan Bailey but I will be very quick, and I have gone on a little longer, and I apologise, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: You have got three more minutes.
Mr Blake: Can I just interrupt, just before Mr Jacobs begins, can I just say, and it’s a matter that’s been made clear throughout this Inquiry, that evidence given at the Human Impact hearings has not been challenged because it doesn’t hold the same legal weight as perhaps other evidence. There was no need for anybody to challenge –
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, although it’s cutting into your three minutes, Mr Jacobs, it would have been impossible for challenges in the proper sense to be made at the Human Impact evidence. I think we all accept that.
This is not a trial, it’s an inquiry, and I have to make up my mind from hearing competing accounts, without sometimes the benefit of adversarial cross-examination, as to what I need to make findings about. Because, obviously, if I would try to make a finding about what happened in every individual case, we would be waiting for a very, very long time for my report.
Mr Jacobs: Sir, I have to say I do have very firm instructions from my client.
Sir Wyn Williams: No, I follow and I understand. Anyway, let’s move on now.
Mr Jacobs: Sir, if we could then move to the investigation report, which is at POL00107683, page 8 of 9, please. If we could scroll down to the bottom of that page 8 of 9, please. This is the investigation report in relation to Ms Threlfall. You say in that section, it’s page 8, please –
I think we’ll move on to Joan Bailey, if that’s all right.
Can I ask you to go to POL00057198, page 4 of 8. This is your investigation report in relation to Joan Bailey, who was the subpostmistress at the Howey branch. Do you recall her?
Stephen Bradshaw: Oh, yes.
Mr Jacobs: You say in that document that – can we scroll down, please. You say in the document that Ms Bailey claimed that she had problems with the system. If we go to page 5 of 8, you say:
“The merits of the Horizon system were discussed and it was explained that in a number of court cases the integrity of the Horizon system had been questioned, however nothing had been proven in court by the expert witnesses and that any of the discrepancies were the result of failings within the Horizon system.”
You go on to say at page 7 of 8, if we could go down, you go on to say:
“Ms Bailey could not produce evidence to satiate her claim in relation to the Horizon system.”
So what you’re doing is you’re looking at a subpostmistress who has alleged that the shortfalls that she had were to do with the Horizon system and problems and errors in that system. Your response to her is “There have been a number of court cases where that has been rejected, so I’m not going to investigate that and you can’t prove that the system wasn’t working”. That was your approach, wasn’t it? You required the subpostmistress to prove that the system wasn’t working?
Stephen Bradshaw: That was the – that response was what come from the business, as has been previously explained on a number of occasions with that statement. That’s the business response what we were told to say. But also to assist me to try to find what issues may be with the Horizon system, I would require somebody to say, for example, “If you press the F3 key this happens or that happens”. So just to blatantly say “It’s the system”, it’s very difficult to try and find the starting point to see what’s gone wrong.
Mr Jacobs: Okay, can we scroll down to the conclusion, please.
I’m coming to an end – and I’m aware, sir, of my time allocation.
You give conclusions and you say:
“Whilst a prima facie case for false accounting could be established against Mrs Bailey, it may be prudent when all the circumstances are considered and the explanation offered by Ms Bailey at the interview that if all the monies are repaid to the Post Office then consideration may be given to the issue of a caution in this instant.”
So what you’re saying is, effectively, you took into account all of the circumstances, the fact that she’d alleged there were problems with the Horizon system but she couldn’t prove it, and you didn’t investigate whether there was a problem with Horizon and she was offered a caution simply because you thought she’d made an offer to pay the money back?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, that was put in as an opinion to the lawyers, because there is a prima facie case of false accounting, because she covered up a loss. That can’t be denied, can it? So from –
Sir Wyn Williams: All right, I’ve got the point from the document.
Thank you, Mr Jacobs. All right.
Mr Jacobs: Thank you, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Mr Moloney.
Questioned by Mr Moloney
Mr Moloney: Mr Bradshaw, I act for 73 subpostmasters, all of whom have been prosecuted and convicted and all of whom have had their convictions overturned. I want to ask you about three people: Khayyam Ishaq, Della Robinson, who sits next to me, and Ms Jacqueline McDonald – all three people in whose investigation you were involved.
Khayyam Ishaq, first of all. This morning Mr Blake asked you about the issue of whether subpostmasters who came after Mr Ishaq, after he was suspended, experienced problems with the Horizon system; do you remember?
Stephen Bradshaw: I do.
Mr Moloney: The Post Office position was that they had not?
Stephen Bradshaw: That’s correct.
Mr Moloney: Mr Blake took you to a number of documents, and I’m not going to bring up those documents but I’ll remind you of the substance of the questions. Essentially, ultimately, a Notice of Additional Evidence was served on 15 February 2013 and that was referred to in a letter from Mr Smith to the defence, saying:
“We enclose in duplicate copies of a Notice of Additional Evidence the statements of Stephen Bradshaw of 11 February 2013 and Abdullah Patel of 13 February 2013.”
Mr Patel was a subpostmaster who came after Mr Ishaq?
Stephen Bradshaw: He came to another branch, yes.
Mr Moloney: Yes. You said that statements had been taken from both subpostmasters and the other statement could have been earlier from a man called Liaquat; do you remember?
Stephen Bradshaw: Yeah, I do recall that name and there was a statement from him.
Mr Moloney: Yes. Now, the opening note for the case only referred to Mr Patel as well. Mr Blake showed you that, didn’t he?
Now, I’m going to try and assist your memory as to who took over after Mr Ishaq, Mr Bradshaw.
There was a Liaquat who featured in the case and he did make a statement, as you say, but that Liaquat, do you remember, was Mr Ishaq’s assistant in Birkenshaw Post Office?
Stephen Bradshaw: That was correct, yes.
Mr Moloney: Absolutely. He wasn’t a subsequent subpostmaster.
Stephen Bradshaw: No. Sorry, the postmaster was Mr Patel.
Mr Moloney: Yes.
Stephen Bradshaw: He was taken on as what was known as the interim postmaster. He was there and I think he put Mr Liaquat as the officer in charge.
Mr Moloney: Right, but there were two subpostmasters, you see, Mr Bradshaw, weren’t there? I don’t want to take time on this but in an email that Mr Blake showed you from Mr Smith, to you and counsel Mr King, it said:
“Steve is in the process of taking statements from the two subsequent subpostmasters who have not experienced any problems with the Horizon system.”
You thought that Liaquat was a subsequent postmaster. To save time, I’m just going to remind you now, if I may, and try and assist your memory, Mr Bradshaw, as to subsequent subpostmasters. The first, there was actually somebody there, for a very short time, called Mary, whose surname I don’t have, I’m afraid, then Mr Patel. Then the second subpostmaster was a Mr Mohammed Sarwar. Did you speak to him, Mr Bradshaw?
Stephen Bradshaw: Shortly after that. What date are we on, because around in 2014 –
Mr Moloney: Between Mr Bradshaw’s suspension – sorry, between Mr Ishaq’s suspension and the trial, Mr Bradshaw, because that’s what we’re concerned with. Did you speak to a Mohammed Sarwar between Mr Ishaq’s suspension and the trial?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t recall speaking to Mr Sarwar. My only recollection is that Mr Patel was the interim subpostmaster after the – when Mr Ishaq stopped being the postmaster, Mr Patel took over and what I was saying was Mr Patel was still in charge, as far as I’m aware, when I went off long-term sick.
Mr Moloney: Okay. I’d suggest to you that all of the emails suggested that there were two interim subpostmasters, and it would perhaps be a matter of evidence, but Mr Patel first, and then Mr Sarwar. But you did not speak to Mr Sarwar then, Mr Bradshaw?
Stephen Bradshaw: I don’t recall speaking to a Mr Sarwar.
Mr Moloney: Thank you very much.
Secondly, Ms Della Robinson. You interviewed Della Robinson. She sits next to me here. You were with Mr Andrew Wise and you took the lead; do you remember it?
Stephen Bradshaw: I remember Mrs Robinson. I am sure that at that inquiry I did interview Mrs Robinson. I’m sure the person I interviewed Mrs Robinson with was a Mr Michael Stanway and a search was conducted by Mr Wise and Mr Ryan with Mr Robinson. They went back to Mr Robinson – sorry, Mrs Robinson’s – home address.
Mr Moloney: Mr Ryan sits next to Ms Robinson now. Do you remember him?
Stephen Bradshaw: From?
Mr Moloney: From these events. That’s Mr Ryan.
Stephen Bradshaw: No.
Mr Moloney: That’s her partner, Mr Ryan –
Stephen Bradshaw: I am sorry, the Ryan – I got mixed up. It’s Kevin Ryan, the Security Manager. Anyway, he went back with Mr Wise to conduct the search at the home address.
Mr Moloney: In any event, it was at a Royal Mail office in Salford that you interviewed Mrs Robinson?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, it was a post office. It was Salford. Salford Quays, I think it was called.
Mr Moloney: A post office. When you interviewed her, in Hamilton and Others, the Court of Appeal said the following about the interview:
“In her interview under caution Mrs Robinson said that the losses had started about two years before. She stated that she and her partner initially made good the losses from their own funds but, as the losses accumulated, this became unsustainable. From around August or September 2010 she instead declared the amounts on the mutilated, ie unusable, cash line of the accounts. In her defence statements, she said any errors or deficiencies were as a result of her difficulties in using Horizon.”
Now, I just want to ask you one thing about events after the interview, please, Mr Bradshaw. After the interview, you spoke to Ms Robinson and her partner Michael within that building – in a canteen, it may assist you – where there was nobody else around. But you were sympathetic to Ms Robinson and you said to her and Michael, her partner, off the record:
“We know you haven’t taken the money but worst-case scenario is that you’ll be prosecuted.”
Stephen Bradshaw: No, I wouldn’t say anything like that because it’s not my decision.
Mr Moloney: Right. Then, finally, Mrs Jacqueline McDonald. I’d like to take you to your self-appraisal form, one document only to take you to, Mr Bradshaw, and that is POL00165946. It’s a document that Mr Blake took you to this morning. Thank you.
Now, Mr Blake took you to page 5 and asked you about the interests of the business. I want to ask about page 9, please. It’s where we see, “I support, develop & challenge”. Thank you very much:
“I support, develop & challenge.”
At number 2, it reads as follows:
“On 5 July 2010 at the court case for [and the reference is given] I challenged their reasoning for accepting only a guilty plea for false accounting and not one for theft.”
This refers back to the same case that Mr Blake was asking you about this morning:
“I explained the reasons for continuing with a trial for theft (the integrity of the Horizon system was in question) and that problems would occur for future cases. The defendant denied theft and the money was missing due to the Horizon system …”
Then this:
“… and if this was accepted, then this argument would give credence to the current campaign by former subpostmasters.”
Now, you were very explicit there, Mr Bradshaw, about your motives in seeking to ensure that no credence was given to the postmasters’ campaign, weren’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: No. As I said, and I explained earlier, that’s a –
Mr Moloney: It was a flamboyant way of explaining what had gone on on the day?
Stephen Bradshaw: Of course, yes.
The Stenographer: One at a time, please.
Mr Moloney: Yeah. It can’t be, can it, because that’s a motivation; it’s not a fact. In fact, it’s clear from the document that ensuring that no credence was given to the former subpostmasters’ campaign was something you were proud of, wasn’t it, Mr Bradshaw?
Stephen Bradshaw: No, it wasn’t. As I said, it’s a flowery way of putting your one-to-one type notes. Everybody gets PDRs in these days and have done for a number of years.
Mr Moloney: Jacqueline McDonald, a mother of no previous convictions, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, aged 47, after having no option but to plead guilty to theft after her offer to plead guilty to false accounting was refused on essentially the decision of you, Mr Bradshaw. You know that, don’t you?
Stephen Bradshaw: Mrs McDonald pleaded guilty to false accounting and then, at a later court, they pleaded guilty to theft.
Mr Moloney: Yeah, she’d wanted to plead guilty to false accounting. You persuaded them not to accept that plea –
Stephen Bradshaw: No, she pleaded guilty to theft. Sorry, she pleaded guilty to false accounting first.
Mr Moloney: Thank you very much, Mr Bradshaw.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you, Mr Moloney.
There’s a loose end which I’ve been mulling over, over the photograph that Mr Bradshaw wanted to adduce into evidence. We don’t have a situation, Mr Bradshaw, where I just accept evidence just like that, so to speak. So if you wish to produce that in evidence, the correct procedure would be for you, assisted perhaps by your lawyer, to make a statement explaining precisely when the photograph was taken and matters of that kind. That can be sent to the Inquiry and I will determine whether or not it’s accepted in evidence.
It won’t be accepted in evidence without me giving the opportunity for Mrs Threlfall herself to consider it, since she has an interest in it. It can then be shown to her and I will determine thereafter what status, if any, it has. So the ball is in your court, so to speak, as to whether you wish to have this introduced in evidence.
So thank you for coming to give evidence, and that concludes a very busy day, I believe, Mr Blake.
Mr Blake: Thank you very much.
Sir Wyn Williams: Tomorrow we revert to the thorny issue of disclosure; is that correct?
Mr Blake: That’s correct. You’ll be hearing from Mr Jackson from Burges Salmon tomorrow.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine. Thank you all very much.
(4.30 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 10.00 the following day)