25 January 2024 – David Teale
Hide video Show video
(10.00 am)
Mr Beer: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear us.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, thank you very much.
Mr Beer: May I call David Teale, please.
David Teale
DAVID SUTHERLAND TEALE (sworn).
Questioned by Mr Beer
Mr Beer: Good morning, Mr Teale.
David Teale: Morning.
Mr Beer: As you know, my name is Jason Beer and I ask questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Can you give us your full name, please?
David Teale: David Sutherland Teale.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to the Inquiry today and thank you for the provision of a witness statement addressing the questions that we asked you. Can we look at that witness statement to start with, please, it’s WITN10550100. That will be displayed on the screen and I think you have the hard copy in front of you too.
I think there are four corrections that you wish to make to your witness statement, the first of which is on page 4. If we can turn to that, please, and four lines in, do you see the words “a list of productions”?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Is there an amendment you would like to make to those four words?
David Teale: That to be deleted.
Mr Beer: Thank you. So we can understand the effect of that, you’re here talking about the material that you would have received from the Post Office in the Procurator Fiscal’s office in Lochmaddy in early 2009 and you’re providing a list of the documents or species of documents that you say you would have received, and you’re deleting from that list the list of productions?
David Teale: That’s right.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
Can we turn, please, to page 7, and the very first line at the top. You’re addressing the sentence that was passed upon William Quarm, and you say that he was sentenced to 150 hours community service and you say “reduced from 2,000 hours” for a guilty plea. Should we delete one of the zeros?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: That’s just a typo; correct?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Do you see the third line starting “It would have been difficult”?
David Teale: Yes, I do.
Mr Beer: Then the ninth line, ending with the words “previous years”; can you see that?
David Teale: I do.
Mr Beer: I wonder whether they could be highlighted. Thank you.
Is there an amendment that you wish to make to all of the words between the two highlights?
David Teale: Deletion, please.
Mr Beer: You would like to delete those. You were saying in your statement that:
“It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to prove the actual amount embezzled [by Mr Quarm] given that the Horizon audit depended largely on the bogus figures [inputted by him]. If the case had given to trial, [you] would have had to rely on evidence from [his] admissions as to how much he considered he had embezzled and the period over which he considered he had been operating falsely and other evidence such as average takings over previous years.”
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Why do you now wish to delete that?
David Teale: On consideration, I just realised that that wasn’t the case.
Mr Beer: You’d previously thought that proof of the case at trial was reliant on Mr Quarm’s admissions?
David Teale: That’s right.
Mr Beer: What caused you to think that proof of the case at trial was not reliant on Mr Quarm’s admissions?
David Teale: Just once I got into the – into considering in more depth, as I was mulling it over, since I first made this statement in December, I realised that that was probably not the situation.
Mr Beer: Okay, well, we’ll come to what other evidence there was to prove the amount alleged to have been embezzled by Mr Quarm a little later. Then is the fourth amendment that you wish to make on page 8, and that’s paragraph 19. You’re here dealing with Mr Quarm’s interview; is that right?
David Teale: That’s right.
Mr Beer: You say the things that he said:
“… it is difficult to treat them as serious challenges given that Mr Quarm admitted taking cash coming into his post office branch …”
Then the words:
“… equivalent of around £4,200 every week for an unknown period but conservatively estimated to be 10 or 11 months, and without putting it through his till.”
Do you wish to delete those words?
David Teale: I do.
Mr Beer: Is that because you realised that, in fact, Mr Quarm did not make such admissions in his interview?
David Teale: That’s effectively right.
Sir Wyn Williams: So that I can be clear, there should now be a full stop after “branch”, is that it, and then the rest of that sentence deleted?
David Teale: That’s right.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you.
Mr Beer: Is that because you re-read his interview and realised that the admissions that you attributed to him there he hadn’t, in fact, made?
David Teale: Effectively, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
With those four amendments brought into account, are the contents of the witness statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
David Teale: They are.
Mr Beer: Is your signature there on page 12 to attest to that fact?
David Teale: It is.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much. That can come down, the witness statement.
Now, Mr Teale, you’re the first Scottish prosecutor that the Inquiry has heard from who has been involved in the prosecution of a subpostmaster, where evidence provided by the Post Office was the basis for the prosecution. I want to ask you, therefore, some questions about the approach that the Procurator Fiscal Service and you took to such cases.
David Teale: Indeed.
Mr Beer: I think you’re no longer a Procurator Fiscal; is that right?
David Teale: That’s right.
Mr Beer: That role ceased for you in June 2015; is that right?
David Teale: That’s correct, when I retired.
Mr Beer: But you remain a practising solicitor; is that right?
David Teale: That is right.
Mr Beer: In terms of your background, you qualified as a solicitor according to Scots Law in 1980?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: You then went into private practice, is that right, but then in 1982 you joined the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as a Procurator Fiscal Depute?
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: In 2000 you were appointed, is this right, Procurator Fiscal for the Western Isles?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Does that include, within its jurisdiction, the Sheriff Court District of Lochmaddy?
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Within that jurisdiction, was the Post Office owned and operated by William Quarm situated?
David Teale: It is.
Mr Beer: Can I turn, then, to your involvement in prosecutions involving subpostmasters before the prosecution of William Quarm. In your witness statement, there’s no need for it to be displayed, you say over the years you would have received and considered many reports from the Post Office regarding criminality by their workforce.
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: You say that:
“I found their reports were straightforward and I cannot recall any instances where there was any suggestion that the information provided was misleading. I cannot recall any other Post Office case considered by me which relied on data from the Horizon system.”
So are you referring there, to receiving and considering many reports about the Post Office workforce, to your many years’ of experience as a Procurator Fiscal Depute?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Was that in busy offices in Glasgow, for example?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: And Greenock as well?
David Teale: And Greenock.
Mr Beer: With that experience in mind, and also borrowing some of your knowledge on some legal issues, can you help us on these four topics: firstly, the law of corroboration in criminal proceedings in Scotland. We’ve had described to us – the cross-reference is paragraph 4 of the witness statement of Kenneth Donnelly, I think you would know Mr Donnelly; is that right?
David Teale: I do.
Mr Beer: He is presently the Deputy Crown Agent for Specialist Casework at the Procurator Fiscal office?
David Teale: (The witness nodded)
Mr Beer: He says:
“There must be evidence from at least two separate sources (corroboration) to establish that a crime known to the law of Scotland was committed and that the accused was the perpetrator.”
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Is that a fair summary?
David Teale: Very fair.
Mr Beer: So for all of the period that we’re looking at, say from 2000 onwards until your retirement in June 2015, was that the position?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Would you, therefore, expect that to be something which was addressed in the reports submitted to you by Specialist Reporting Agencies, including reports from the Post Office?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Because if that’s the law, it needs to be confronted, doesn’t it, it needs to be addressed?
David Teale: It does.
Mr Beer: Just on Specialist Reporting Agencies, is it right that that’s a term of art within Scotland: an SRA, a Specialist Reporting Agency?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Are there a number of those?
David Teale: Quite a number.
Mr Beer: I’ve seen a figure of 172, presently; does that sound about right?
David Teale: That wouldn’t surprise me.
Mr Beer: One of those is the Post Office.
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: So if that’s the evidence that satisfies the Scottish law of corroboration that you would expect to be addressed specifically in a report submitted to a Procurator Fiscal, that would be something which you, adds the Procurator Fiscal, would wish specifically to address in your decision making?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: So when you’re deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings against an individual, you’ll want specifically to address the issue of where is the corroborative evidence?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Although I’m getting ahead of myself a bit here, I think it’s right that that issue was not addressed in the report submitted to you in the case of William Quarm?
David Teale: No, I think it was addressed.
Mr Beer: Head on, did it say, “We understand that there is requirement for there to be corroborative evidence and the at least two pieces of evidence that we rely on to satisfy that test are as follows”?
David Teale: I don’t think it said that in these words but the body of the report indicated that there were two sources of evidence.
Mr Beer: Were there two sources of evidence?
David Teale: From the reports, yes.
Mr Beer: Again, we’re getting ahead of ourselves a bit but, just at this point in time, can you identify what the two sources of evidence were?
David Teale: Yes, there was the audit, the evidence of the shortfall, and –
Mr Beer: What did that show?
David Teale: That there was a shortfall of £40,000.
Mr Beer: Which crime did that show had been committed?
David Teale: Altogether, the evidence was –
Mr Beer: No, just that one: which crime did that show that that had been committed, the fact that there is a shortfall?
David Teale: Embezzlement.
Mr Beer: So, on its own, the fact that there’s a shortfall is evidence that there has been embezzlement?
David Teale: No, maybe it would be easier if I just explain what I took from the report. Of course, I was looking for corroborated evidence, evidence from two sources, pointing (a) to a crime having been committed and (b) that it was the accused who was the perpetrator. Now, the evidence for both of these came from the evidence that an audit had disclosed a shortfall of £40,000, and the second source of evidence was his admission that he had been taking funds from the Post Office and using them to prop up his retail business.
Mr Beer: How much had he taken and how?
David Teale: He’d taken £40,000.
Mr Beer: He admitted to taking £40,000, did he, in your mind?
David Teale: It would probably be easier to look at precisely what he said, rather than –
Mr Beer: Okay, we’ll come you to the interview.
David Teale: – rather than taking it as a generality.
Mr Beer: But in your mind, there was an admission to taking £40,000, correct?
David Teale: No, the overall – the audit had indicated that there was a shortfall of £40,000.
Mr Beer: Now, am I right that none of the available documents that you have record contemporaneously what the two sources of evidence that you considered to exist to amount to corroboration were?
David Teale: No, I’m sorry, could you repeat that question?
Mr Beer: Yes, there’s no contemporaneous document recording your decision making on why this was a case that should go for prosecution?
David Teale: No, you mean my minutes, which I would have made on the case file; is that what you’re getting at?
Mr Beer: Yes.
David Teale: No, there isn’t, at least as far as I know. I haven’t been presented with any such documents.
Mr Beer: You mention minutes on a case file. At this time, would this have been electronically or would it have been by paper that you make a minute of your decision making?
David Teale: As this date by paper.
Mr Beer: By paper?
David Teale: This is 2008, we’re talking about.
Mr Beer: So how much of your decision making would you reduce to writing in a case like this?
David Teale: Anything that I considered to be important in the decision-making process. Sometimes it’s perfectly obvious and you don’t have to say anything.
Mr Beer: So there would be nothing?
David Teale: Well, I don’t know whether there was anything or not –
Mr Beer: No, no, no. In such a case where it was perfectly obvious that you don’t have to say anything, you would literally just write nothing down?
David Teale: You would just write “Proceed share(?) of summary” or “Proceed by petition”, or whatever.
Mr Beer: What about in a case like this, would you isolate the evidence in the way you’ve just done, “There were two pieces of evidence that amounted to corroboration here, they are the shortfalls shown at audit plus the admissions interview”; something like that?
David Teale: Possibly something like that.
Mr Beer: But we should be able to, if those minutes still exist, we should be able to find a record of your contemporaneous thought process?
David Teale: There might be something, this might – it seemed to me pretty obvious, on re-reading it in December of last year, what the evidence was to proceed. So whether or not I would have been equally satisfied in 2008, I just don’t know.
Mr Beer: Can we turn to the second issue I want to ask for your assistance on, please, namely the test that a Procurator Fiscal applies when deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings against an individual or not. Is it right that that’s governed by a document called the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Prosecution Code or the “Prosecution Code” for short?
David Teale: I don’t know if there was a Prosecution Code in 2008.
Mr Beer: I think we have got one that starts in 2001 –
David Teale: Okay.
Mr Beer: – the first edition of it. Was that a document that you would have at your fingertips?
David Teale: You mean physically or just know what it’s about?
Mr Beer: Yes, either or both.
David Teale: Yes, of course.
Mr Beer: Can we look at the one that has been provided to us, WITN10510101. Thank you. You can see this was first published on 1 May 2001 but it was updated last year in July, and it’s not possible to tell which parts have been the subject of amendment between those two dates. I’m not saying that this was in these precise terms applicable when you made your decision in 2008 but I just want to get your evidence, please, on the test that Procurators Fiscal applied.
If we scroll down, please, and look at “Criteria for decisions”, thank you:
“In considering the action to be taken in relation to reports of crime the prosecutor must take account of both legal and public interest considerations.”
Is that a familiar distinction to you?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So is it right that in Scotland, too, there were two elements to the test?
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Then under the heading “Legal considerations”:
“In considering cases the Procurator Fiscal must decide whether the conduct complained of constitutes a crime known to the law of Scotland and whether there is any legal impediment to prosecution. For example, it may be necessary to consider the effect of any delay”, then something about international law.
Then “Evidential considerations, Sufficiency of evidence”:
“The Procurator Fiscal must be satisfied that there is sufficient admissible evidence to justify commencing proceedings.
“In general, for there to be sufficient evidence there must be corroboration, that is evidence from at least two separate sources to establish the essential facts of the case, ie
“that the crime was committed; and
“that the accused was the perpetrator.”
Then we see reference to the burden and standard of proof:
“The prosecution must prove these matters beyond reasonable doubt.”
Then there’s a bit about the sources of evidence and then, if we move on, please, we then see that the prosecutor, under these next three headings, before we get to “Public interest considerations”, is directed to consider admissibility, reliability, and credibility. So “Admissibility”:
“The laws of evidence determine whether a court can consider certain types of evidence … the prosecutor will assess whether, having regard to the laws of evidence, the court will allow the evidence to be considered in the case.”
Then “Reliability”:
“Although there may be sufficient admissible evidence to justify proceedings, consideration must also be given to the reliability of that evidence. This involves an assessment of the quality of the evidence.”
Then “Credibility”:
“As with reliability, the assessment of credibility of evidence is ultimately a matter for the court. However, there may be doubt about the credibility, or truthfulness, of a witness’s evidence”, et cetera.
Are those three things – admissibility, reliability and credibility – things that, when you were making decisions as a Procurator Fiscal, you consistently addressed?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: On reliability, would you accept that, if your case is founded on evidence that’s produced by a computer, then it’s necessary for the prosecutor to consider the reliability of the evidence produced by that computer?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Now, the document then turns to consider public interest considerations, which I’m not going to address with you. What the Prosecution Code does not do is describe the test that a prosecutor must apply when deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings or not; do you understand?
It says the things you must address are evidential sufficiency and public interest but it doesn’t say what the test is that a prosecutor must apply. What was the test that the prosecutor must apply?
David Teale: I don’t know. I’m sorry, I just don’t know what you’re saying, what you’re asking me.
Mr Beer: Well, in England and Wales a prosecutor is directed, and has been for the last two decades, to be satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction, and the Code in England says that a realistic prospect of a conviction is an objective test and it explains that realistic prospect of conviction means that a jury or a bench of Magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.
So there’s an explanation of the standard that must be achieved in the prosecutor’s mind in order to commence criminal proceedings.
David Teale: Well, that doesn’t exist in that form in Scotland.
Mr Beer: What test was applied?
David Teale: Public interest.
Mr Beer: Now, the public interest is addressed, separately in the document, whether, for example, proceeding is in the interest of the victim, the accused and the wider community, and matters of that sort. I am asking about the evidential sufficiency part of the test. What test was applied?
David Teale: Well, there isn’t a test as such, as I understand it, from what you’re asking me.
Mr Beer: Well, what approach was taken, then?
David Teale: Well, we look at the evidence, we look at the evidence, is it admissible, is it reliable and is it credible?
Mr Beer: Overall, is there a compendious approach that you take when you’ve done those things: I think there’s enough evidence to go ahead; I believe there’s enough evidence to go ahead; I guess there’s enough evidence to go ahead; I think it’s more likely than not that the accused will be committed; I’m fairly sure that that’s so; I’m certain that that’s so.
Was there no fulcrum around which the issue turned?
David Teale: No, you’re very much guided by what the report tells you and, on that, you assess the quality of the evidence and whether there’s sufficient evidence, sufficient corroborated evidence, from two sources pointing to the facts that the crime has been committed and committed by the accused.
Mr Beer: What I’m trying to probe is: it’s correct, then, that in Scotland there was no test that was applied across the Procurator Fiscal Service, so far as you are aware, that ensured consistency of decision making, so that everyone had a datum point past which the evidence must pass, in the prosecutor’s mind, before proceedings were commenced?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: What test in your own mind did you apply: I think this case will succeed; I believe this case will succeed; I suspect this case will succeed; I’m pretty convinced this case will succeed?
David Teale: No, likelihood of success doesn’t come into the decision of whether to prosecute or not.
Mr Beer: That was an irrelevant consideration, how likely it was that the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt?
David Teale: There’s some cases that you would take up that you would think – you wouldn’t say, “I’m bound to succeed in this case” or “I’m doubtful whether I’ll succeed so I won’t take it up”, if they’re sufficient and it’s in the public interest to prosecute then, by and large, you would take that decision to prosecute.
Mr Beer: Very well.
Thirdly, can I ask you about computer evidence in Scotland. What was the law regulating the admissibility of evidence produced by a computer before 2015, the year that you left?
David Teale: I don’t know of any such evidence.
Mr Beer: You don’t know to of any such law?
David Teale: Law, I beg your pardon.
Mr Beer: Is that because you never addressed your mind to it –
David Teale: Um –
Mr Beer: – or that you know positively that there isn’t such a law?
David Teale: It’s because I haven’t addressed my mind to it.
Mr Beer: You’ve told us that, in a number of cases, you considered files by the Post Office as a specialist prosecuting agency?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Did a number of those rely on computer evidence?
David Teale: I don’t think – I can’t think of any that did.
Mr Beer: Other than this one?
David Teale: Other than this one.
Mr Beer: What were the other cases about?
David Teale: Theft, theft of mail.
Mr Beer: So would they be Royal Mail Group cases, so to do with the post rather than the Post Office?
David Teale: I suppose, as you make that distinction, yes.
Mr Beer: I think you were going to go on and describe some other species of case?
David Teale: I can’t – I can tell you that I can’t remember any other case which positively relied on computer evidence. I started, in Lochmaddy, or the Western Isles, in 2000, and I certainly didn’t receive any Post Office cases between 2000 and 2008.
Mr Beer: You referred in your statement to receiving and considering many reports from the Post Office regarding criminality by their workforce –
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: – which is in paragraph 6. What were the other cases of criminality by the Post Office workforce?
David Teale: Well, as I say, theft of the mail came into it.
Mr Beer: So was that by postmen, as opposed to subpostmasters?
David Teale: Correct. I can’t remember any other postmaster that I was involved in the prosecution.
Mr Beer: Did you, outside of the cases involving prosecution of subpostmasters, prosecute any other cases that relied on evidence produced by a computer?
David Teale: I can’t think of anything.
Mr Beer: So that would have been from 1982 until 2015, no computer evidence in any of your cases?
David Teale: Well, all I’m saying is that I can’t remember whether there were any or not. I’m not saying that there wasn’t.
Mr Beer: I mean, in that 33-year period it’s likely that there were some, weren’t there?
David Teale: I don’t know.
Mr Beer: You don’t think that there would have been, in a 33-year period, a case involving computer evidence?
David Teale: Listen, I can’t remember whether there were any cases involving computer evidence or not.
Mr Beer: But, in any event, in that 33-year period, you can’t recall ever checking what the law was on admissibility of evidence produced by a computer in Scotland?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Can I turn to the fourth topic, then: the duty of disclosure. What’s your current understanding – and obviously we’re talking now, but it would have applied to when you were a Procurator Fiscal – of the Procurator Fiscal’s duty of disclosure or revelation?
David Teale: That everything must be – that everything that a Procurator Fiscal receives must be transmitted, must be revealed to the defence.
Mr Beer: Do you mean that, that everything that a Procurator Fiscal receives must be transmitted?
David Teale: Pretty well everything. I’m being broad but, yes, broad terms.
Mr Beer: What’s the exclusion, then, that isn’t within the “pretty well everything”?
David Teale: I suppose, if there was something that the police provided that was deemed –
Mr Beer: Sensitive?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: So public interest immunity material?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Can you remember – appreciating it’s eight years or so back since you left the PF – can you remember the test, the approach to disclosure that was the law in Scotland?
David Teale: No, I think things changed in 2010. I think the 2010 Act provided that there was effectively going to be far greater disclosure than there had hitherto been. It was closely regulated following that.
Mr Beer: Well, if I suggested to you that, for the entirety of the period we’re looked at, say 2000 until after the prosecution of William Quarm, there was a duty to review all of the evidence and information that the Procurator Fiscal had received, would that be right?
David Teale: Oh yes, absolutely it would.
Mr Beer: And that you would have to reveal/disclose information, even if it would materially undermine or weaken the evidence led by the prosecution –
David Teale: Of course.
Mr Beer: – and if it would materially strengthen the accused case?
David Teale: Equally.
Mr Beer: How did the Procurator Fiscal, in a case involving a Specialist Reporting Agency, go about ensuring that that legal duty was discharged?
David Teale: Well, they have a duty, when they report a case, to ensure that they’re disclosing to the Fiscal everything that should be disclosed.
Mr Beer: So you’re dealing with the report stage at that point; is that right?
David Teale: Well, no, I’m dealing with the case as a whole, yes.
Mr Beer: Okay. We’re going to come on, in a moment, to the process by which cases were reported from Specialist Reporting Agencies and then prosecuted, and then it seems that there are essentially two stages: one is the submission of a report; and then the documents come later –
David Teale: That’s right.
Mr Beer: – in stage 2. Is that a fair, very high-level summary?
David Teale: That’s fair.
Mr Beer: At the first stage, that’s when the decision to prosecute is made?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So that’s taken – we’re going to come on to this in more detail in a moment – not on the basis of the Procurator Fiscal looking at the documents; he or she is looking at a report?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: So looking at the Investigator’s summary of the evidence?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: At that stage, did the Specialist Reporting Agency owe a duty to reveal to the PF material of the kind that we’re talking about –
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: – ie material that undermined the proposed prosecution’s case or may assist the proposed defendant?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So that was something that has to be in the report?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then when it came to providing documents to the Procurator Fiscal at the second stage, the later stage, again, was that duty of disclosure one that applied to the Specialist Reporting Agency at that stage too?
David Teale: Of course.
Mr Beer: So it was a continuing duty throughout the life of the prosecution?
David Teale: Correct, and even after your stage 2, throughout the life of the case.
Mr Beer: Yes.
David Teale: That duty –
Mr Beer: So right up until trial. I’m not going to come at the moment to duties post-conviction.
David Teale: Okay.
Mr Beer: How, in the report stage, was that duty of disclosure, as a matter of practice, discharged?
David Teale: It was – the reporting agency was under a duty.
Mr Beer: That’s a restatement of the existence of the duty. So to give you an example, in England and Wales there are a series of forms that the police service have to fill out, and one of them is specifically in relation to this issue. Was there an equivalent in Scotland –
David Teale: Prior to 2010, no, as far as I can remember.
Mr Beer: – ie a part of the report or a separate document given over to the identification of material that may undermine the proposed prosecution case or advance that of the proposed defendant?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: So, in the report you got, there wasn’t a box, a section, an area of the report that forced the Specialist Reporting Agency to address that?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we look, please, at the relationship with the Post Office. I just want to try to tap into your long experience as a Procurator Fiscal to hear about the way in which the Post Office and the Procurator Fiscal interacted when the Post Office was acting as a Specialist Reporting Agency. Now, we’ve been told by Kenneth Donnelly in this witness statement that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has been unable to identify any document at all issued by the Procurator Fiscal to the Post Office about prosecutions before the 5 September 2013. Are you aware of any document, policy, a protocol, something written down, by which each organisation set out the expectations of the other?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Mr Donnelly has told us that no specific internal guidance was issued before 2013 that’s now been identified advising how prosecutors were to assess reports and evidence submitted to them by the Post Office. Again, does that accord with your recollection?
David Teale: Yes, it does.
Mr Beer: So for the three decades or so that you were doing this work, nothing was ever written down as to how the Procurator Fiscal is going to address proposed prosecutions by the Post Office?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Now, as we’ve just discussed, I think it’s right that, when the Post Office Investigator wrote a report to you, I think that was known as a Standard Prosecution Report; is that right?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: An SPR. I think after 2006, they were submitted via a web portal; is that right?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: You’ve explained that that would not attach the witness statements to it?
David Teale: It may have but, by and large, not.
Mr Beer: It wouldn’t attach the exhibits or the productions to it?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: So your decision was based solely on what the Investigator chose to reveal in the report?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Did, to your mind, the Investigator have a duty of candour to you, in the same way as in England and Wales when one lays an information before a Magistrates Court seeking a summons, there’s such a duty of candour?
David Teale: Of course.
Mr Beer: In other words, they owed a heightened responsibility to tell you of anything adverse to their case?
David Teale: Of course.
Mr Beer: So that would ensure, would it, if discharged, that your decision was made in the interests of justice, rather than just the interests of, in this case, the Post Office?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: What safeguards were in place to ensure that the Procurator Fiscal was getting the full picture from the Investigating Officer in the report?
David Teale: I don’t know if there was – if there were any safeguards. It was understood by the reporting agency that they had to have a duty of candour.
Mr Beer: They may not summarise all of the evidence, mightn’t they?
David Teale: That’s a possibility that they might not, yes.
Mr Beer: They might missummarise the evidence?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: They might not fully summarise what an exhibit or the exhibits showed?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: They might missummarise what an exhibit showed?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: They may not summarise what happened in the interview?
David Teale: Correct. Properly, yes.
Mr Beer: Sorry?
David Teale: They may not properly summarise what happened –
Mr Beer: Yes.
David Teale: – in the interview, yes.
Mr Beer: Ie getting over to you the full nuances of what happened in an interview?
David Teale: If there were vital nuances, correct.
Mr Beer: Yes. You wouldn’t have any means of knowing that?
David Teale: At that early stage, no.
Mr Beer: So you would have to take it on trust that everything was being done correctly by all Investigators in all cases?
David Teale: At that stage of report, yes.
Mr Beer: Were the Post Office cases directed within the Procurator Fiscal Service to one specific team to consider?
David Teale: Not in the sort of offices that I worked in, which are remote and manned really just by me.
Mr Beer: So they weren’t all directed to a central office; they were spread across whichever jurisdiction the Procurator Fiscal covered, according to where the branch was situated?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Okay. So there wasn’t a process of allocation, that just naturally followed jurisdiction; is that right?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: So there wouldn’t have been, is this right, any sort of cross-sharing of information within the Procurator Fiscal about issues or problems that the Post Office cases may have presented?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Do you recall taking cases involving subpostmasters before the introduction of the Horizon computer system in 2000?
David Teale: No, I can’t recall.
Mr Beer: I think you told us that the only one that you took post-2000 was this one: William Quarm?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: How would you describe the Procurator Fiscal’s relationship with the Post Office when it was acting as a Specialist Reporting Agency, so far as you could see from your, as you’ve said, quite remote jurisdiction?
David Teale: Yeah, it was fine.
Mr Beer: Would you take any steps to interrogate the suggestions and findings presented to you in a Post Office Investigator’s report?
David Teale: You mean the SPR?
Mr Beer: Yes.
David Teale: I could, yes.
Mr Beer: Would you ordinarily engage with the Investigation Manager at the Post Office in a dialogue? This is pre-decision to prosecute.
David Teale: Yes, I could and would, if it was necessary.
Mr Beer: What might make it necessary?
David Teale: Lack of clarity.
Mr Beer: Would you typically go back with questions or ask for further enquiries to be conducted?
David Teale: When you say “typically”, I’ve said that I hadn’t had any cases between 2000 and 2008, so typically is quite a difficult question to answer.
Mr Beer: What about the cases involving the post, rather than subpostmasters?
David Teale: They’re in the ’90s, ’80s, I can’t remember.
Mr Beer: Did you ever engage with anyone other than the Investigation Manager within the Post Office?
David Teale: Not that I can remember.
Mr Beer: Taking your evidence on this as a whole, would it be fair to say that you worked on an assumption that the Post Office Investigator had pursued all reasonable lines of inquiry, including those that point away from the guilt of the accused and had fully and fairly summarised all of the witness and exhibit evidence, documentary evidence, in their report?
David Teale: Yes, of course.
Mr Beer: You took that on trust?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Within the last couple of weeks, Mr Donnelly has made a public statement on behalf of the Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to the Horizon cases that were prosecuted in Scotland, and he said that the estimation of the service is that up to 100 cases involving Scotland may be affected and that that is a lower number than in England and Wales, due to the Procurator Fiscal’s policy decisions made in response to awareness of Horizon system issues.
Before 2013, were you aware of any – what he describes as Procurator Fiscal policy decisions made in response to awareness of Horizon system issues?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: When did you first learn of possible issues or challenges to the accuracy of Horizon data?
David Teale: I can’t recall, I’m afraid.
Mr Beer: Can you remember how you learned it?
David Teale: Equally, I can’t recall.
Mr Beer: Was it before or after you left the service in June 2015?
David Teale: I can’t recall.
Mr Beer: Were there communications within the Procurator Fiscal Service before you left in June 2015 in relation to the accuracy and reliability of Horizon data?
David Teale: Well, I personally can’t recall. That’s not to say that there weren’t. I know that the Lord Advocate addressed Scottish Parliament recently on 16 January and I think she said in that that Procurator Fiscals were advised by Crown Office to desist from prosecutions.
Mr Beer: In 2015?
David Teale: I can’t remember the date –
Mr Beer: Yes, we’ll come to that in a moment, I’ll give you a bit of detail to help on that. But, at the moment, from your memory, can you recall whether any announcement was made before you left in June 2015 –
David Teale: I can’t remember.
Mr Beer: – by the service to all Procurator Fiscal Deputes, for example making them aware of possible issues with the reliability of Horizon data?
David Teale: Well, I can’t remember.
Mr Beer: What about the other way round? Were you ever asked by the Service of your experience of reviewing cases? It would have been limited, I think, to Mr Quarm’s.
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Can we look then, please, at WITN10510100. This is Mr Donnelly’s statement to the Inquiry, the relevant parts of which were read into the Inquiry record earlier. I’m just going to use this as a basis for asking you some questions about these issues rather than what the Lord Advocate said to the Scottish Parliament on 16 January.
If we can go to page 13, please, and paragraph 43. I should say that this is a statement made on behalf of the Service, the Procurator Fiscal Service. Mr Donnelly, on behalf of the service, says that:
“Between 2000 and 2013, [the Procurator Fiscal Service] was not institutionally aware of the bugs and errors in the [Post Office Limited] Horizon … system that significantly impacted the reliability of evidence submitted by the Post Office.”
Then paragraph 44, he says:
“On 14 May …”
At that time, 14 May 2013, you would still be employed; is that right?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: “… [Post Office], via their Scottish agents, BTO Solicitors, contacted [the Procurator Fiscal Service] to request a discussion about issues with the Horizon Online system … On 29 July 2013, solicitors for [the Post Office] explained to [the Procurator Fiscal Service] that as a result of the ‘Second Sight’ and ‘Helen Rose’ reports, [Post Office Limited] had instructed their … solicitors, Cartwright King, to carry out a review of all cases reported against subpostmasters/mistresses, dating from the rollout of Horizon Online in January 2010. In cases where an [subpostmaster] had raised an issue with either Horizon Online or their training of the system, both the ‘Second Sight’ and ‘Helen Rose’ reports were being disclosed to the defence by [Post Office Limited]. BTO then advised [the Procurator Fiscal Service] that it would be reviewing all the Scottish cases that could be affected by the issues identified in these two reports. On 9 August 2013, [the Procurator Fiscal Service] Policy Division made Senior [Procurator Fiscal Service] officials aware of the developments and asked that information regarding the issues with Horizon Online be passed to prosecutors dealing with ongoing reported cases.”
So, in summary, Mr Donnelly is telling us that, in 2013, Post Office solicitors told the Procurator Fiscal Service about some challenges around the Horizon evidence, yes?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: You were not, I think, present in any of these meetings. Were you told about the fact that they were taking place or the issues that came out of them?
David Teale: Not that I recall, no.
Mr Beer: Were you told about the Second Sight review –
David Teale: No, not that I recall.
Mr Beer: – and the Helen Rose report?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: The last sentence, “[The] Policy Division made Senior … officials aware of the developments and asked that information regarding issues with Horizon Online be passed to prosecutors dealing with ongoing Post Office reported cases”; did that happen to you?
David Teale: I can’t recall.
Mr Beer: Okay. Were you, in fact, in 2013 dealing with an ongoing Post Office case or not?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: You weren’t? Okay. Were you aware of the instruction of BTO Solicitors in 2013?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Can we move on, please, to paragraph 45. If we just scroll down, we’re moving to later in the year, in 2013:
“On 5 September … a meeting took place between [Post Office], BTO Solicitors [that’s the Post Office’s Scottish solicitors], Cartwright King [that’s their solicitors for England and Wales] and Crown Office Policy Division officials at the Crown Office in Edinburgh. Cartwright King senior counsel, Simon Clarke, was in attendance. At the meeting BTO Solicitors explained that it had carried out a review of all live Scottish cases and had determined that the Horizon system defects identified in the ‘Second Sight’ and ‘Helen Rose’ reports did not play a part in any live Scottish cases save for one. BTO’s review processes assessed cases as either ‘Type A’ or ‘Type B’; ‘Type A’ … in which Horizon had provided the information as to wrongdoing but was not the provider of primary evidence. In almost all of these cases the [subpostmaster] had admitted to the taking of monies belonging to [the Post Office] for their own unauthorised purposes. ‘Type B’ … where Horizon or the training of its use had been raised by the [subpostmaster]. Cartwright King and BTO Solicitors advised that only ‘Type B’ cases were cases which, in their view, required disclosure of [those two reports]. BTO’s review concluded that all but one live Scottish case was ‘Type A’ and that all concluded cases were ‘Type A’ cases which did not necessitate further review or disclosure.”
Was that communicated to you, that this distinction between cases existed, that they were to be treated differently?
David Teale: Not that I can recall, no.
Mr Beer: You didn’t have a case on your books at the time?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: You can’t recall any memorandum or edict coming out from the centre about the treatment of a Post Office case, if one was to land on your desk?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Okay. Were you equally asked to provide any details of all cases which you had as ongoing?
David Teale: No, I don’t think so.
Mr Beer: If we move on to paragraph 47, please.
“[Post Office Limited] advised [the Procurator Fiscal Service] that a full examination of the Horizon system would be undertaken and would be completed within 6 to 8 months.”
I take it that kind of information wasn’t fed down to you either?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Paragraph 48:
“In the light of these revelations, an instruction was thereafter circulated within [the Procurator Fiscal Service] for prosecutors to consider [Post Office] reported cases on their facts and circumstances in determining whether they should be adjourned pending the outcome of [Post Office’s] review. [The Procurator Fiscal Service] did not terminate all Scottish [Post Office] cases.”
Can you remember that kind of instruction or memorandum coming out?
David Teale: No, I can’t.
Mr Beer: Paragraph 50:
“Ultimately, it is understood that [Post Office] did not commission a second report [as had been discussed]. [Post Office] subsequently advised [the Procurator Fiscal Service] that despite consulting with academics, a further interrogation of the Horizon Online system was not possible.”
Moving on to paragraph 51, please. 6 October, there was a meeting. By then you’d left; is that right?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So 6 October, you had left the service by then. I’m not going to ask you about anything there.
It seems that, up until the point you left, from when – the first date that this statement talks about a revelation occurring in May 2013 – there was a form of ongoing dialogue between the Post Office and its various solicitors, on the one hand, and the Procurator Fiscal Service, on the other. Was any of that revealed to you as a Procurator Fiscal?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: As I’ve said, you weren’t asked to make a return to establish whether or not you were prosecuting any cases?
David Teale: Not that I –
Mr Beer: In fact, you weren’t.
In fact, you weren’t prosecuting any such cases then?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Okay. The system that was, by then, in operation, a web-based portal, as I’ve described it, for submission of reports, I think that had, is it right, a unique identifier for each of the Specialist Reporting Agencies?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Would it be possible for somebody at the centre, as I’m calling them, ie in the Procurator Fiscal Service, to identify how many cases there were that were being put before Procurators Fiscal by the Post Office?
David Teale: I can’t answer that question. I don’t –
Mr Beer: I’m just trying to understand whether it required positive action by the centre to come out to each of the Procurators Fiscal to find out whether you had a case on your books or whether they could tell from the computer?
David Teale: I don’t know.
Mr Beer: You don’t know. Okay, thank you.
Can we turn, please, to the prosecution of William Quarm. That can come down from the screen, that witness statement.
I think overall in your witness statement – would this be fair – you seek to convey the view that the prosecution of Mr Quarm was carried out entirely in accordance with the applicable law and practice in Scotland and raised no concerns for you whatsoever?
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Does that remain the case?
David Teale: It does.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at your witness statement at paragraph 11, which is on page 4. If we scroll down, it’s at the foot of the page. You say:
“It goes almost without saying that the Procurator Fiscal will inevitably rely on the accuracy of any such report …”
There we’re dealing with the report submitted by the Specialist Reporting Agency to the Procurator Fiscal:
“… inevitably rely on the accuracy of any such report on which to base his decision and it is well accepted that he is entitled to rely entirely and absolutely on its accuracy for justification of any consequent actions taken by him.”
So that is reflection, I think, of the evidence you’ve given to us already about total and utter reliance on the Post Office Investigator.
Does that mean that the level of scrutiny that the Procurator Fiscal could, in practice, apply at the point of deciding whether to prosecute was somewhat lacking?
David Teale: I wouldn’t go as far as that. It’s certainly got the potential for problems arising, if there is lack of candour.
Mr Beer: But in England and Wales, for example, police officers produce a summary of the evidence to a prosecutor on a document called an MG5, and many, many prosecutors, indeed members of the Bar as well, would say, and indeed are taught, “Don’t rely in what a police officer says the summary of the evidence is. Go and read the evidence. Look at the witness statements. Read the exhibits. Read the documents. See for yourself what the evidence actually shows. Not rely on what somebody who might have a vested interest in presenting a rosy picture might say”. That was an impossibility for you, at the point of prosecution?
David Teale: At the point of raising the prosecution, it’s not an impossibility because, if there was some doubt about any aspect, you would, of course, go back to the reporting officer and ask for clarification.
Mr Beer: But that’s – only if the way they had written the document –
David Teale: I beg your pardon?
Mr Beer: That would any be if the way they had written the document raised an issue.
David Teale: Well, no, it might be apparent by virtue of a lack of saying something.
Mr Beer: You continue:
“If there were ever any concern by a reporting officer in any agency whether police, DWP, SSPCA [I think that’s Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] or Post Office that any part of their report was open to doubt then that should be brought to the attention of the Procurator Fiscal in the body of the report.”
Is that the safety net, then? Is that what you’re describing there?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So have I understood this correctly, that it places responsibility on the author of a document to identify anything in his or her document, if there is anything in that document, that they’re writing isn’t accurate or open to doubt?
David Teale: They should have, they should make the Fiscal aware, yes.
Mr Beer: Are they the best person in the world to identify whether what they’re writing might be inaccurate?
David Teale: Well, I can’t answer that, but that’s what happened.
Mr Beer: You continue:
“If, in this case, had there been any doubt as to the accuracy of the data produced by Horizon known to the reporting officer, then, of course, that should have been made very clear since it would have seriously affected the decision made by the Procurator Fiscal.”
Can I understand what you’re saying there? It appears to be that doubt as to the accuracy of the data produced by Horizon had to be shown before the accuracy of the data produced by Horizon needed to be checked?
David Teale: Give me that again, please?
Mr Beer: Yes. Is what you’re saying there that doubt as to the accuracy of the data produced by Horizon had to be shown before the accuracy of the data produced by Horizon had to be checked?
David Teale: No, I didn’t mean that.
Mr Beer: Okay, what did you mean?
David Teale: I meant that, if the reporting officer had known that there was some doubt, generally, about the accuracy of the Horizon system, then that should have been – the sort of doubt that came to light later on.
Mr Beer: I see. If you were relying on data produced by Horizon, or a document which is made up of data produced by Horizon, or an analysis which relies on documents produced on the back of data produced by Horizon, like an audit, to prove that a loss had occurred, to prove that certain transactions had been conducted by a subpostmaster, wouldn’t you have to establish the accuracy and reliability of those data, in any event?
David Teale: Well, at what stage are you talking about? Are you talking about the reporting stage?
Mr Beer: Yes. Remembering the Prosecution Code, which says, in deciding whether to prosecute, you must have regard to admissibility, reliability, and credibility. On reliability, if you’re relying on data produced by a computer to prove a loss, to prove transactions, don’t you have to establish the reliability of those data first?
David Teale: Well, I think you’re entitled to expect that the reporting officer will have satisfied themselves as to the reliability, in the same way that you accept the evidence from a forensic science laboratory, that their DNA analysis is accurate and hasn’t been tainted, in the same way that you expect a police officer who’s operating a speed gun to be satisfied that it’s operating accurately. There are certain things that, at that stage, you simply, almost as a matter of course, accept.
Mr Beer: So you would proceed on the basis of an assumption that the computer was operating properly?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: But if somebody, a suspect, the defendant, had said the system is not working properly, would that be sufficient to trigger what you speak about in paragraph 11?
David Teale: It would certainly trigger concerns in my mind.
Mr Beer: You go on later in your witness statement to say that no Horizon ARQ data was sought in this case?
David Teale: I didn’t seek it.
Mr Beer: Yes, I mean, I think what you say, this is paragraph 24:
“I have been asked whether any Horizon data and in particular ARQ logs was requested from Fujitsu in this case. No Horizon data was requested from Fujitsu.”
David Teale: By me, no.
Mr Beer: Or by anyone, so far as you’re aware?
David Teale: Well, I’m not aware of that, by me.
Mr Beer: All right, have you seen any positive evidence, even now, that Horizon ARQ data was sought by anyone?
David Teale: No, I haven’t seen any such evidence.
Mr Beer: Okay.
David Teale: But that’s not to say that there hasn’t been. I just haven’t seen it.
Mr Beer: Well, we’ve heard from Mr Daily and Mr Grant, the Investigators, and they’ve told us from your chair that no such data was sought in this case.
David Teale: That’s fine.
Mr Beer: So let’s work on the basis that no ARQ data was sought.
David Teale: All right.
Mr Beer: Were you aware of the facility to ask for ARQ data?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Even if you didn’t know that it was called ARQ data, were you aware of the facility to ask for information, material evidence, to establish to some extent whether transactions conducted in a branch were attributable to a subpostmaster?
David Teale: Sorry, go back to the beginning of that question.
Mr Beer: Were you aware, when you were prosecuting this case, of the facility to ask for information, for evidence, that would establish to some extent whether transactions conducted in a branch were attributable to the subpostmaster?
David Teale: No, I wasn’t aware as such but I was aware that, if I had need to find that information, I would have asked the Investigating Officer.
Mr Beer: What about this: were you aware of a facility to find out information, to get data, to see whether any system faults had occurred that were material to the transactions that had been carried out or the process of balancing?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Were you aware of something called the Horizon Helpdesk?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: So I think it follows that you weren’t aware of the facility to ask for Horizon Helpdesk records?
David Teale: That is correct.
Mr Beer: Similarly, a body called the National Business Support Centre, the NBSC, were you aware of that when you were prosecuting this case –
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: – and, therefore, its records about issues that may have been phoned in by a subpostmaster concerning Horizon or balancing?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Were you aware, was it revealed to you, a species of documents called PinICLs or PEAKs –
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: – which recorded faults or suggestions of faults with Horizon –
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: – that either related to an individual specific branch or to a type of problem or to the system generally?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Okay. Was it revealed to you that there was a species of documents called a KEL, a Known Error Log –
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: – that recorded, amongst other things, known bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system, and the steps that might be taken or had been taken to seek to resolve them?
David Teale: No, remember, at this stage, I’m only reading the report and I think we’ve got the report here.
Mr Beer: Yes.
David Teale: I don’t think any of that was mentioned.
Mr Beer: No.
David Teale: If it wasn’t mentioned then I wouldn’t know about it.
Mr Beer: I think that applies to the rest of the prosecution as well, all of the categories of material that I have mentioned, ARQ data, records of calls to Helpdesk, records of calls to the NBSC, PinICLs, PEAKs and KELs, they weren’t revealed to you in the course of the prosecution at all?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: You tell us that the investigation appeared to have been conducted thoroughly and fairly?
David Teale: As far as I could you see, at that stage, yes.
Mr Beer: Everything was addressed promptly and properly by the Post Office?
David Teale: It seemed to be, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much. I wonder whether we can take a break there, please, until 11.30.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, of course. So we’ll resume at 11.30.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much.
(11.16 am)
(A short break)
(11.30 am)
Mr Beer: Good morning, sir, can you continue to see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, thank you very much.
Mr Beer: Just before we move on with the questions that I was proposing to ask Mr Teale, I’ve been asked to display a document.
It’s not relevant to the answers that Mr Teale gave but should be displayed in any event: WITN10510200. It’s a second witness statement from Mr Donnelly, it’s dated 15 January and it’s a correction to his first witness statement. If we go down the page, please. In the first paragraph, he says:
“This [statement] seeks to clarify and correct an inaccuracy in my first statement …”
Paragraph 2:
“In my first statement, at paragraph 46 [this was a paragraph I read to Mr Teale], I [said this]”, and you can see what’s there.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you remember it said that the Second Sight and Helen Rose reports did not play a part in any live Scottish case, save for one? He says:
“The final part of this passage is incorrect.
“At the meeting … BTO explained to [the Service] that the review of live Scottish cases had determined that the defects identified in … ‘Second Sight’ and ‘Helen Rose’ … did not play a part in any live Scottish cases.
“It is not the case that BTO advised [the Procurator Fiscal Service] that one case had been reviewed and the defects identified in the two reports had been determined to ‘play a part’ in the case.”
Then just read page 2, paragraph 5:
“The single case … had been determined to be a ‘Type B’ case. It is not the position system defects identified [I think there’s an error in this correction statement] in the ‘Second Sight’ and ‘Helen Rose’ reports impacted this case.”
Thank you, I don’t think that affects the answers that you’ve given, because you weren’t told about this at all. Thank you.
David Teale: (The witness nodded)
Mr Beer: Can we go back to your witness statement, please. At paragraphs 20 and 21, which is on page 8, please – page 8, paragraph 20 – you say:
“At the time of taking my decision to prosecute [and we’re dealing here with the section of your statement that deals with Mr Quarm] I can safely say that I would not have had any doubts as to the reliability of the evidence provided in the Post Office report.”
Why would you have no doubts as to the reliability of evidence?
David Teale: Because none were raised by the Investigating Officer.
Mr Beer: So, again, you were relying on this sort of self-policing fairly to summarise and identify issues about the reliability/credibility of evidence?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So there’s nothing in there where the reporting officer identifies that there may be an issue with this evidence or that, for example, in the interview, there may be nuances to what Mr Quarm was saying?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: You continue:
“Certainly there was no suggestion at all that the Horizon IT system had produced or was producing unreliable data. [Had there been] I would have seriously considered proceeding further against the accused.”
By that, do you mean that, if it had been identified to you that the data produced by Horizon, which had been used to produce the audit report, was unreliable or may have been unreliable, you would have considered seriously not proceeding further?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: We’ve got some evidence from William Seaton, who I think you will remember was Mr Quarm’s solicitor, a local solicitor; is that right –
David Teale: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Beer: – who says in his evidence, looking back, it was assumed that the Post Office IT system was faultless. The Procurator Fiscal’s position was the same. He was a bit like “How dare we challenge it”, is what he says. Does that fairly reflect your approach to the system at the time? It just wasn’t an issue?
David Teale: That doesn’t reflect accurately. That suggests that I was approached by him to say that there was something wrong with the system, it can only be the system, and I’ve refused to listen to him, and that was certainly not the case.
Mr Beer: What was your approach to the system then?
David Teale: What was my approach?
Mr Beer: Yes.
David Teale: That, as far as I could tell, there was nothing to indicate it was working – that it was not working.
Mr Beer: Did you, so far as you can remember, go through thought process that “I’m relying on an audit report as one of my two sources of corroborative evidence”?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: “I need to be satisfied that the data relied on to produce that audit report is itself reliable”?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: “Where is the evidence of that?”
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Where was the evidence the positive evidence that the data relied on was reliable?
David Teale: Well, it would have come from an examination, presumably, of a detail of the audit, and a comparison with the bank statements.
Mr Beer: When you say a comparison to the bank statements, had you got those at the time that you made your decision to prosecute?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: Were they summarised, in any way at all, in the report?
David Teale: I would have to look back at the report and I’m prepared to do that.
Mr Beer: In your witness statement, I don’t blame you for this at all, you refer to a report as being the report that you were sent. I think you know that that’s probably erroneous. That was an internal report to within the Post Office and that the report that you were sent on the system is a rather different document. Have you now realised that?
David Teale: Well, I think it was me that brought it to the Inquiry’s attention.
Mr Beer: Right. Good, excellent, then.
David Teale: Thank you.
Mr Beer: So if we look at your witness statement and if we look, please, at paragraph 9 on page 3, if we scroll down, you say:
“I have been asked to describe my role in … this case. The report from the Post Office was received … in early 2009. [You say] I read it and considered it. [They] follow a standard form … There follows a summary of the evidence against the accused …”
Over the page: submitted by the officer in the case who you expect to have been Raymond Grant, given the contents of the document. Then you refer to the report as POL00166596. If we can look at that, please.
That’s the report you speak about in your witness statement; can you see that, yes?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: That’s not the report you received, is it?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: That’s an internal report within the Post Office.
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: So you never got to see this report?
David Teale: I never got to see which report?
Mr Beer: The one we’re looking at.
David Teale: I think it was part of the bundle, was it not?
Mr Beer: When you say “the bundle” –
David Teale: Oh, you mean did I see it at the time of taking my decision?
Mr Beer: Yes.
David Teale: No, I wouldn’t have seen that.
Mr Beer: Okay, so we can correct your witness statement when it says, “I read the report and this is the report”; this is not the report at all, correct?
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: All right. Well, let’s have a look at the report that you did get to see.
David Teale: I have to say I didn’t – when I was writing paragraph 9, I didn’t – I knew that it wasn’t the report that I did receive and I made that clear. And if you look at my paragraph 31.
Mr Beer: Yes, got it.
David Teale: I wonder if that could be shown.
Mr Beer: Yes, that’s on page 11.
David Teale: That might just explain the position.
Mr Beer: Page 11 of the witness statement. You say you don’t have access to the papers, missing is a copy of the case report. It’s important because it contains a summary of the evidence. I can only surmise that the summary of evidence would have been roughly similar to the document we’ve just looked at.
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: So let’s look, then at COPF0000002. If we just skip over that page, the second page, and then go to the third page; is that the report –
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: – that was submitted to you?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Is this, if we just go back to the first page, please, in the standard form that, by this time, 2009, it’s April 2009, the document was received –
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: – that they were submitted?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: If we go forwards to page 3, we see a summary of the evidence. Go to page 4., the summary continues. Then over to page 6, please, some Branch Trading Statements are produced – yes –
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: – or referred to. They’re not actually produced to you?
David Teale: Correct, referred to, yes.
Mr Beer: Then, at the foot of the page:
“Since the interview Mr Quarm has disclosed financial details.”
Then I think there is a reference to Alliance & Leicester bank statements, Bank of Scotland statements with one account number, a credit card statement with another account number, RBS statements with another account number and a loan.
Then, over the page, reference to some more documents that he has, since the interview, produced because the interview was back on 7 August 2008 and this is April 2009.
David Teale: That’s right.
Mr Beer: There wasn’t any analysis of those documents in this report, was there?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: And they weren’t provided to you?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: What was your understanding of what was alleged to have occurred in terms of the transfer of money by Mr Quarm from the Post Office to either his Royal Bank of Scotland account or his Alliance & Leicester accounts?
David Teale: Well, I wonder if I could just look at the document which I have. Can you identify which number it would be in my bundle so I can access it quite easily?
Mr Beer: You have to tell me a bit more than that.
David Teale: How do I find the document that you’re looking at in the bundle which I’m holding in my hands?
Mr Beer: Oh, right. It’s tab E1.
David Teale: Thank you. I’ve only got to D35.
Mr Beer: We can look on the screen. It’s a short document.
David Teale: It’s what?
Mr Beer: We can look at it on the screen, we can scroll backwards and forwards.
David Teale: It’s easier if I can see it in its entirety.
Mr Beer: Okay, you can have mine. (Handed)
David Teale: Thank you. I’ve been told that, actually, I have them but they’re in the shelf here.
Mr Beer: Maybe take them out of the shelf then I can have mine back.
David Teale: Good.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
David Teale: E1. Thank you. (Handed)
Mr Beer: Thank you.
David Teale: No, I’m sorry, but could you ask me again, please?
Mr Beer: Yes, what was your understanding of how it was alleged that Mr Quarm had transferred money from the Post Office accounts into his Alliance & Leicester and/or Royal Bank of Scotland accounts? (Pause)
David Teale: It starts at the bottom of – it starts with the paragraph “When asked how he removed money from the Post Office”.
Mr Beer: So which page of the document?
David Teale: I beg your pardon, 4.
Mr Beer: Yes, so let’s display that on the screen, COPF0000002, page 4. You’re referring to the last paragraph on the page, yes?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: “When asked how he removed the money from the post office Mr Quarm was at first very hesitant to give details of how the [£163,000] came to be missing.”
David Teale: No, it’s not 163,000, it’s 40,000.
Mr Beer: Yes, £40,277.76, so that’s some extra digits and an ampersand added to that line, yes?
David Teale: Which appears to be a function throughout the document.
Mr Beer: Anyway, that amount of money came to be missing. He then gave an explanation, I think, that he would credit his A&L account number:
“… with sums of money equivalent to around £4,200 every week without putting the cash in the till. He would then use this money by means of drawing on this account by cheque payments to pay his suppliers.”
Yes?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So is the summary of what is alleged based on, and only on, what Mr Quarm said?
David Teale: Well, the details of the mechanics of how he went about it are based on that.
Mr Beer: Did you understand what’s being alleged is that he fictitiously created the receipt of a sum of money – yes – into the post Office?
David Teale: Partly that. If we go over the page it continues. We can go through that if you want.
Mr Beer: Let’s just stick with this bit at the moment.
David Teale: Okay.
Mr Beer: So he fictitiously created the receipt of sums of money in cash, yes?
David Teale: That’s right.
Mr Beer: Using his Post Office Horizon system?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: “I’ve received £1,000 here, £2,000 there, £4,000 there”, so that on the post office account it would show money in credit?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Then he transferred that money from what?
David Teale: From his accounts to –
Mr Beer: No, no, from what? How did he transfer money out of the post office account into this own bank account?
David Teale: Well, the summary doesn’t tell you that.
Mr Beer: Well, okay, looking at all the papers, how did he do that?
David Teale: I don’t know the answer to that.
Mr Beer: It doesn’t emerge, does it?
David Teale: I’m sure it doesn’t.
Mr Beer: No, because one would expect to see some document which showed the money leaving the post office account, I’m going to call it, wouldn’t you?
David Teale: Eventually, that – you’d have to do that to prove the case.
Mr Beer: Yes, and you’d expect to see on the Alliance & Leicester and the Royal Bank of Scotland bank statements money coming in from a post office account, wouldn’t you?
David Teale: Yes, you would.
Mr Beer: So that’s where you would look, wouldn’t you?
David Teale: You would.
Mr Beer: Did you?
David Teale: I can’t remember whether I did or not. The bank statements would be there and, remember, we’re talking about different times. You’re asking me – you asked me a moment ago when I’m reading the report, do I know precisely how he was – how the money was being transferred? And the basic report doesn’t tell me that.
But what I am interested in is, in broad terms, is there evidence that he’s taking Post Office money, he’s misappropriating it? And the audit seems to show that, I’m told that it does. At this stage, of course, I can’t say exactly what the audit tells me.
Mr Beer: Did you ever establish how it was said that the money was transferred from the post office accounts into his bank account?
David Teale: I can’t remember whether I did or not. I think maybe it might –
Mr Beer: To be fair, is that because this ended up as a guilty plea?
David Teale: Effectively, yes.
Mr Beer: Therefore, there was not the need for you to do that?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Is that a fair way of looking at it?
David Teale: Yes. I think maybe you should also be aware what was happening in the case. He – a plea of not guilty was tendered and immediately a devolution minute was lodged, and that is a challenge to the fairness of – that’s a human rights issue, challenge to the fairness of the trial, no legal representation during the interview. Now, had that –
Mr Beer: That was heard by the court –
David Teale: It was heard by the court.
Mr Beer: – and dismissed.
David Teale: It was. Now, that was – the outcome of that would determine whether the case would have proceeded further. If the evidence –
Mr Beer: Just stopping there, sorry to interrupt you, does that mean that if the evidence which was being relied on as admissions was excluded, you had insufficient evidence to proceed?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Why couldn’t you prove the case without Mr Quarm’s admissions?
David Teale: Because they were one of the sources.
Mr Beer: Yes, but why couldn’t you prove the case without his admissions?
David Teale: Because there wouldn’t be corroborated evidence.
Mr Beer: Why not?
David Teale: Because one of the strands would be missing. For corroboration here, there are two strands: there’s his admissions and there’s the evidence of the audit. Take one away – it’s like a page being held up by two pillars: audit, admissions. If one of them goes, the whole page collapses.
Mr Beer: If the evidence actually showed this –
David Teale: Sorry, if the evidence actually showed what?
Mr Beer: If the evidence actually showed the following, that I am outline to you, amounted to corroborated evidence, documents from the Horizon system showing credits of cash, documents from a Horizon account showing payments of sums of money into Mr Quarm’s private bank accounts, bank statements showing the receipt of those sums of money into his private account –
David Teale: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: – and then the use of those funds to pay his suppliers on the grocery business –
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: – that would be sufficient sources of corroborated evidence, would it not?
David Teale: It would prove that money was taken from the Post Office, yes, for his own purposes.
Mr Beer: Yes, that would prove embezzlement, wouldn’t it?
David Teale: It would.
Mr Beer: So why was the admission key?
David Teale: Well, that would only be one source.
Mr Beer: But you’ve just told us that, without the admissions, the case could not proceed?
David Teale: Correct. You need both.
Mr Beer: Why did you need the admissions if the underlying evidence would prove the case?
David Teale: It wouldn’t prove the case. It would be just one strand of the case.
Mr Beer: Okay.
David Teale: Am I understanding it correctly that corroboration doesn’t exist in England?
Mr Beer: Well, there is a law of corroboration but it’s different to that in Scotland.
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, I think you’re right to the extent that, when you and I started to practice, Mr Teale, there was a significant law of corroboration in England and Wales but, over the years, it’s been whittled away to be very insignificant and, in most cases, doesn’t exist.
Mr Beer: Almost non-existent.
David Teale: Right. Thank you.
Mr Beer: What was the point you were making there about the absence of an equivalent law of corroboration in England?
David Teale: Because I get the impression that you haven’t accepted what I’m saying, you haven’t understood what I’m saying, and –
Mr Beer: Both of those things might be true in any given case. What I’m asking is, I understand that, in fact, you had two pillars –
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: – audit and admission –
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: – and you’re viewing this as, if admission is taken away, I’ve only got one pillar –
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: – and therefore the case can’t proceed?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: I’m saying, if there is all of this underlying evidence about the dishonest inflation of cash figures, the transfer of money from a post office account into a private account and the dishonest use of that money to pay grocery suppliers, why is that not sufficient evidence?
David Teale: You would have to then prove that it was him who had done it.
Mr Beer: You’d have to prove that?
David Teale: It was him who had transferred that money.
Mr Beer: So who were the other alternative people?
David Teale: Haha. Well, I don’t think I can explain it very much more than I have. I’m saying in Scotland –
Sir Wyn Williams: I think I’ve got the point of difference between you but the reality, Mr Teale, is that, at the stage we are now talking about, the stage where there is evidence of an audit shortfall and evidence of admissions, if you knocked one of those out, I fully understand that, even though the other one existed, that wouldn’t be enough because of the law relating to corroboration.
Mr Beer’s point, I think, is that, even without the admissions, there were lines of inquiry which could and perhaps should have been followed which would themselves have produced evidence which, if they had turned out in a particular way, would have been capable of being corroboration. We’ll never know because nobody followed those lines of inquiry, isn’t that it, in reality?
David Teale: That is perfectly right. But can I just add to that, we didn’t need to pursue those lines of inquiry because we had enough corroboration, given his admissions.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, you didn’t need to, once the judge refused to rule inadmissible the admissions.
David Teale: Absolutely.
Sir Wyn Williams: That’s what you’re telling me, isn’t it?
David Teale: Yes, that’s exactly right.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, fine.
Mr Beer: Did you read the transcript of Mr Quarm’s interview?
David Teale: Have I read it?
Mr Beer: No, did you?
David Teale: Yes. At the time, you mean?
Mr Beer: At what stage of the process did you read it?
David Teale: When the statements had come in.
Mr Beer: Sorry?
David Teale: When the full statements – when the – when the full statements and the transcription would have come in to the office.
Mr Beer: So I think that’s August 2009, we can see.
David Teale: All right.
Mr Beer: So, again, for the purposes of the decision to prosecute, you’re relying on this summary we’ve just looked at –
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: – which that can in fact come down from the screen.
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: In his interview, Mr Quarm raised some issues about training on Horizon; do you recall?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Was that investigated or does that fall into the same category as, because you had admissions and an audit shortfall, there was no need to?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: In his interview, Mr Quarm raised issues about seeking help from the Helpdesk because of difficulties in the operation of Horizon. Does that fall into the same category, not investigated to your knowledge, because of the admissions and the shortfall?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: In the interview, Mr Quarm identified that he had sought help in relation to an ATM error resulting in an unexplained loss of money: the same question, same answer?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: So does it amount to this: because there was an admission, as you saw it, in interview and because the Post Office audit –
David Teale: Hold on. An admission by a letter that in his interview he had admitted writing.
Mr Beer: Did you see this as a case that did not, in fact, require further investigation?
David Teale: I couldn’t have said that at the time of the report coming in. Things – once the devolution minute had been refused then the case was proceeding – would have proceeded to trial, and it’s at that stage that my investigation would have taken a more serious – in fact, a very serious turn. I would have had to have investigated everything to show the court, to demonstrate to the court, what has been happening.
Mr Beer: So do you think, if it had reached that stage, you would have then scrutinised the underlying evidence and asked for further enquiries of the type that I’ve mentioned to be pursued?
David Teale: Yes, and I can say that, having read the court minutes, I can see when the – the date of the –
Mr Beer: By “court minutes”, just so that we all understand, that’s a record in summary terms of an appearance in a court?
David Teale: Correct, and they show that the debate of the devolution minute was held on a certain date and I see from Mr Seaton’s statement that he approached me, and, I suspect, immediately after the court hearing, to begin negotiations which resulted in the guilty plea. So he would be indicating at that stage that this was going to be a guilty plea.
Mr Beer: A plea case, okay. Just on those negotiations, you were negotiating with him the amount of money that was said to have been lost?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: I’m not going to go through all the correspondence but you liaised with your Post Office client, essentially –
David Teale: No, not a client.
Mr Beer: Okay, your Specialist Reporting Agency –
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: – who sought to persuade you to hold out for a higher sum of money?
David Teale: Yes, slightly higher.
Mr Beer: Yes. They wanted you to agree to state that £30,000 had been lost, whereas the proposal was £27,000.
David Teale: I think the proposal was 24.
Mr Beer: And it got negotiated up to 27?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Beer: Is that normal, that you negotiate an agreement as to the amount of money that has been lost?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Beer: Is there anything that regulates that kind of plea negotiation?
David Teale: Nothing formal: experience and good sense, and a realisation of what happens if a guilty plea is accepted, which doesn’t reflect the seriousness of the offence.
Mr Beer: For you and for the SRA the difference between £24,000, £27,000 and £30,000 was not sufficient, is that right, to affect the seriousness with which the court might view the offending?
David Teale: Correct. I think it was the difference between 40,000, which the Auditor showed as the shortfall, and the eventual outcome, 27,000.
Mr Beer: How do you go about that, then? What’s the thought process? Is it that the evidence shows that I might not be able to prove a loss of £40,000?
David Teale: No.
Mr Beer: So why do you ever accept an amount less than £40,000?
David Teale: Haha. Pragmatism to a certain extent, a certainty of plea, a certainty of outcome.
Mr Beer: So you can do a deal, essentially?
David Teale: No, that’s not the way to put it.
Mr Beer: How would you put it, then?
David Teale: Well, I would put it that the Fiscal is always considering whether you’re going to cause difficulties for the sheriff, for the judge, when it comes to sentencing. I mean, if I were to accept a plea of guilty to £5,000, that would have been a considerable difference. As it stood, the difference between 27,000 and 40,000 would really not have affected his sentencing powers. If he’d have wanted to send Mr Quarm to prison, he could just as well have done it to the basis of 27,000 as 40,000.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
Mr Teale, they’re the only questions I ask.
I think there are some questions from Mr Stein.
Questioned by Mr Stein
Mr Stein: Mr Teale, I’ve just got a few questions for you.
I represent subpostmasters and mistresses. I’m instructed by a firm of solicitors called Howe+Co, okay?
Can you just help me a little bit by way of the procedure in Scotland. You were appointed the Procurator Fiscal for the jurisdiction of the Western Isles, is that correct, in 2000?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Stein: You left that post in 2015?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Stein: Okay. Above you, in terms of the system, who would be the next person, if you like, as a line manager? Would that be the Lord Advocate?
David Teale: Oh, no, no, no.
Mr Stein: Okay. Help us, please, with the system going up hierarchically above you?
David Teale: Above me directly would be the Area Procurator Fiscal and that would cover the whole of the Highlands and the Islands and, above him, would be a Deputy Crown Agent, I presume, and then, after that, the Crown Agent.
Mr Stein: Okay. So your work, as the Procurator Fiscal for the jurisdiction of the Western Isles, would it be fair to say that, operationally, you were in charge of prosecutions within that area of the Western Isles?
David Teale: That’s correct.
Mr Stein: Right. So Mr Beer has examined some of the material in relation to another statement that deals with the question of contact from the Post Office with the Lord Advocate’s office, yes?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Stein: Okay. Would it be fair to say that any issues that may have had an impact on your decision making for prosecutions within the Western Isles area, should have been, therefore, provided to you?
Shall I try that again?
David Teale: Please.
Mr Stein: All right. If the Lord Advocate’s office is provided with some information about issues that related to the prosecution of Post Office cases, should that have come down to you?
David Teale: It would depend entirely on what the information is and whether the Lord Advocate thought it appropriate that Procurator Fiscals on the ground should be aware of it.
Mr Stein: Right. Well, if it is of the nature of information that relates to, say, the reliability of the Horizon system, should that have come to you?
David Teale: If it’s of the level that the Lord Advocate has indicated that it was, yes, and I understand that it did come down.
Mr Stein: All right. Did it come to you? Mr Beer asked a number of questions and you’ve used the term – many a time you used the term, “I can’t recall, I can’t remember”?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Stein: Did it or did it or not come to you?
David Teale: How can I answer that? I can’t recall whether it did or not.
Mr Stein: Right. So it’s a lack of recollection?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Stein: Right. So you’re saying, essentially, that you do not know whether or not it was sent to your office?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Stein: Okay. How do we check?
David Teale: I suppose your first port of call would be Crown Office.
Mr Stein: Okay. Right. Now, moving on to Post Office cases, so concerning the prosecution of subpostmasters, mistresses, managers of post offices and employee staff at post offices, okay. In police cases, you get information from police officers; is that correct?
David Teale: They’re often the reporters of cases, yes. The reporting officers, yes.
Mr Stein: Because in police cases, the police themselves are the investigators, they’re the reporters, normally to your office when you were in charge at the Western Isles as a Procurator Fiscal; is that correct?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Stein: Okay. So with police cases, you’ve got a basic understanding that these are police officers who have been trained in their job; is that correct?
David Teale: Correct.
Mr Stein: They’ve been trained in the work of an investigator; is that correct?
David Teale: As far as I know, yes.
Mr Stein: Well, when you say as far as you know, you should know, shouldn’t you, Mr Teale, because of your work?
David Teale: They are.
Mr Stein: They are, precisely. You’re also aware that, therefore, their training will include how PACE works – yes – the Police and Criminal Evidence Act?
David Teale: I don’t know if that applies in Scotland.
Mr Stein: All right.
David Teale: I think there’s an equivalent.
Mr Stein: Equivalent in Scotland, the system of prosecutions, the checks and balances in relation to the collection and presentation of evidence?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Stein: Okay.
David Teale: I think it’s a 2010 Act –
Mr Stein: I’m very grateful.
David Teale: – that regulates that.
Mr Stein: Also you’re aware that, as regards the police, that they have systems in place, so that they have – operationally, there are police officers, there are Sergeants, Inspectors, there’s an entire system of checks and balances in relation to police work; do you agree?
David Teale: I’m not certain if that would be checks of balances, but there is that range of authority, yes.
Mr Stein: Okay. Now, as far as you can recall, were you ever given any information about the training and experience of Post Office Investigators?
David Teale: No.
Mr Stein: As far as you can recall, was there any protocol or guidance as to how your office should deal with Post Office cases?
David Teale: There was guidance from COPFS to the reporting agencies indicating what COPFS required of them, by way of reports and investigations. Does that answer your …
Mr Stein: Perhaps it does. Did that guidance go to the question of the quality of the information that was being provided; do you recall?
David Teale: Yes, in fact, I think the document we have here, it was provided to me yesterday, I think.
Mr Stein: Just helping one step further, if we can, please. In relation to the Post Office, do you agree that one of the factors that’s different to the police cases for the Post Office is that, in the Post Office cases, the Post Office is the victim?
David Teale: Yes.
Mr Stein: Did you ever give that any pause for thought and think to yourself: have we got something here in relation to post offices that is, say, different from a police case?
David Teale: Yes, it’s certainly something that, yes, I have considered.
It’s a commercial organisation and that has been apparent to me throughout my career. Other reporting agencies have got their own priorities, like DWP, loss of funds to the public purse. But, yes, you’re always considering that, whenever you’re looking at a case, is there any reason to suspect that something might not be as straightforward as it appears?
Mr Stein: As you say, in relation to a commercial organisation, something like the Post Office, which also has a reputation to uphold, how would you apply that thinking to the analysis as to whether a case should go ahead?
David Teale: You’ve – you’re deciding on the basis of the evidence that’s being supplied to you and I suppose, if you had some doubt that it was being manipulated or that it wasn’t accurate, you would be very careful about proceeding.
Mr Stein: Now, Mr Teale, you held a senior position in the system of prosecutions within Scotland for many years. You must have been following the progress of the proceedings in relation to Post Office cases. First of all, you’re aware that 555 individuals took on the Post Office in the High Court; and, secondly, after that, in the Criminal Court of Appeal – the Criminal Court of Appeal in England and Wales overturned many convictions later on; you’re aware that, in Scotland, its own procedures are taking place in relation to convicted individuals; and, finally, of course, here you are at the Post Office Inquiry giving evidence in relation to your recollection of events that you were party to in Scotland when you were in post.
You know now that defects, errors, bugs were found within the Horizon system. As we understand your evidence, you were never told about those bugs, errors or defects; is that correct?
David Teale: I can’t recall being told about them.
Mr Stein: Do you think you would have recalled, if you had been told?
David Teale: I can’t say.
Mr Stein: What do you think now about the fact that, as far as you know, you weren’t told about bugs, errors and defects within the Horizon system? Do you think that’s a matter that is of any concern to you now?
David Teale: Being told by COPFS?
Mr Stein: Well, being told by all of the events that I’ve just described having taken place, the judgment in the High Court, the judgment in the Criminal Court of Appeal, the sheer fact that we’re at the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Does it give you any cause for concern that you weren’t told, it seems, that there were bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system?
David Teale: Well, I think the Lord Advocate made the position quite clear and, really, I don’t think I can say anything further than that.
Mr Stein: Do you think it would have been a good idea for your office to have been told about those bugs, errors and defects, Mr Teale?
David Teale: I don’t know.
Mr Stein: Thank you, Mr Teale.
Sir Wyn Williams: Anyone else?
Mr Beer: No, I don’t think there is, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Right.
Well, thank you, Mr Teale, for providing your evidence in written and oral form.
Just in case I wish to become a little better acquainted with the Scottish law of corroboration – I’m not saying I will but just in case – am I right in assuming that it’s part of the common law of Scotland, it is not based on a statute?
David Teale: I think that’s correct, yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: So if I wanted to have a greater understanding of how it operates, I’d probably need to look at a few leading cases from the High Court, yes?
David Teale: Stretching back many years, yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes. Fine, all right. Thank you very much.
David Teale: Thank you.
Mr Beer: Sir, if it assists, you are right in that belief. Indeed, there have been – I wouldn’t call it watering down, but there have been tweaks made to the approach to corroboration by the Appellate Courts in Scotland over time.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes. Well, since we are not rushed for time today, I did notice that in the most recent Prosecutor Code you showed Mr Teale, the words “in general” were used in advance of corroboration being necessary.
Mr Beer: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: So it looks as if there are some tweaks, as you say. Fine.
All right then. 10.00 tomorrow morning.
Mr Beer: Yes, please, sir. Thank you.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine.
(12.19 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am the following day)