25 April 2024
Hide video Show video
(9.44 am)
Mr Beer: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: I can, thank you very much.
Mr Beer: Thank you, may I call Ms van den Bogerd, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, of course.
Angela van den Bogerd
ANGELA MARGARET VAN DEN BOGERD (affirmed).
Questioned by Mr Beer
Mr Beer: Good morning, Ms van den Bogerd. My name is Jason Beer and I ask questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Can you tell us your full name please.
Angela van den Bogerd: Angela Margaret van den Bogerd.
Mr Beer: You have provided two detailed witness statements to the Inquiry, for which many thanks, and thank you for attending to give evidence today. Before we get into the detail of those two witness statements, I think there’s something you wanted to say; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: It is, thank you. If I may.
Saying sorry, I know, doesn’t change what happened but I do want to say to everyone impacted by wrongful convictions and wrongful contract terminations that I am truly, truly sorry for the devastation caused to you, your family and friends. I hope my evidence will assist this Inquiry with getting to the answers you and so many others deserve.
Thank you, Mr Beer.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we look at the two witness statements, please. The first is 114 pages long, dated 20 March 2014, and the URN, if we can display it, please, is WITN09900100.
I think there are seven corrections that you wish to make to that statement?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we start with the first of those, please, which is page 21, paragraph 36. I think there’s an addition that you would like to make to the end of paragraph 36 to insert the following words.
“Further disclosure (POL00142481 and POL00178171) shows I initiated the provision and analysis of the Horizon logs in respect of the unexplained loss at the branch.”
So I’ll read that back without the two URNs:
“Further disclosure … shows I initiated the provision and analysis of the Horizon logs in respect of the unexplained loss at the branch.”
Is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct, thank you.
Mr Beer: The second amendment, page 31, please, paragraph 62, in line 8, which reads.
“This was the first time I had ever attended an interview with a subpostmaster …”
I think you want to add the words “this type of” after the words “attended” so that it reads:
“This was the first time I had ever attended this type of an interview …”
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Is that correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: Thank you.
Mr Beer: Page 38, please, paragraph 77, line 7. The date, the first date – I think you would like to amend 10 March 2012 to 10 May 2012; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct, yes.
Mr Beer: At page 65, please, line 1, I think you would like to delete the words “as the terms of reference have not been disclosed”?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct because I’ve seen them since I put this together.
Mr Beer: So it would read “From memory, the purpose of Project Sparrow was to oversee”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: Page 104, please, paragraph 223(b), which is at the foot of the page. I think you would like to add the words “from memory” at the beginning of the paragraph so it reads “From memory, my involvement”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: Then, at the end of the paragraph, add the following words:
“However further disclosed documents show I was involved in discussions regarding overlaps between witness statements.”
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct. Thank you.
Mr Beer: Page 109, please, at paragraph 229. At the end of the paragraph, I think you would like to add the words:
“Further disclosure shows me raising my concerns to Andrew Parsons of Womble Bond Dickinson.”
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: So:
“Further disclosure shows me raising my concerns to Andrew Parsons of Womble Bond Dickinson.”
Can you turn to the final page of the witness statement, page 114; is that your signature?
Angela van den Bogerd: It is, yes.
Mr Beer: With those corrections brought into account are the contents of that witness statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Angela van den Bogerd: They are.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we turn to the second witness statement which is seven pages long, WITN09900200. I think there’s one correction you would like to make to that, which is on page 6., paragraph 16. I think you would like to delete the words, starting three lines from the bottom, “whilst I cannot”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: Right until the end of the paragraph?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s right.
Mr Beer: So all of that page from “whilst I cannot” and then over the page to the words “the Scheme”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: And instead insert the words:
“Helpline calls were not audio recorded at the time. It was the call logs that were used for the scheme investigations.”
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct, thank you.
Sir Wyn Williams: I’m sorry, Mr Beer, there are two sentences ending with “scheme”, there’s the first line and the third line. Where do I stop deleting, is it right to the end, or the first “scheme”?
Mr Beer: It’s right to the end, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine. Could you just tell me again what the correction includes, by way of additional words?
Mr Beer: Yes:
“Helpline calls were not audio recorded at the time. It was the call logs that were used for the scheme investigations.”
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you very much.
Mr Beer: Thank you, sir.
Is that your signature on page 7?
Angela van den Bogerd: It is, yes.
Mr Beer: Are the contents of the witness statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief with that correction brought into account?
Angela van den Bogerd: They are, yes. Thank you.
Mr Beer: Thank you, that can come down.
Can I start, please, with your career at the Post Office. You had an extensive career at the Post Office spanning some 35 years; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: You first joined the Post Office in 1985 straight from school; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: You began as a Post Office counter assistant, so working the counters, and were a person who rose up through the organisation, holding, in the end, numerous managerial roles; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Can I outline your career path, as I’ve understood it: in summary, as follows, you were a counter assistant between 1985 and 1987?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: You were a Branch Manager between 1987 and 1996?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: You were a Retail Network Manager between 1996 and 2001?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: You were the Head of Area for the rural agency in Wales between 2001 and 2005?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: You were the General Manager for the Community Network of branches between 2005 and 2006?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: You were the national Network Development Manager between 2006 and 2009?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: You were the Network Change Operations Manager between 2009 and 2010?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: You were Head of Network Services between 2010 and 2012?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: You were Head of Partnerships between 2012 and 2013?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: You were Programme Director for the Branch Support Programme between 2013 and 2015?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: You were Director of Support Services between 2015 and 2016?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: You were People and Change Director between 2017 and 2018?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: You were People Services Director in 2018?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: And you were the Business Improvement Director between 2018 and 2020?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Given the length and breadth of your career, do you accept you had extensive contact with and an understanding of the position of subpostmasters?
Angela van den Bogerd: I did yes.
Mr Beer: Do you agree that you lived through the development, the rollout of Horizon?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I accept that.
Mr Beer: You lived through the rollout of the IMPACT Programme?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, the IMPACT Programme?
Mr Beer: Do you not remember the IMPACT Programme?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: 2005?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not familiar with the IMPACT Programme.
Mr Beer: Do you accept that you lived and worked through the move to Horizon Online in 2010?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I did.
Mr Beer: The production of the Ismay report in 2010?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: The production of the Detica report and the Deloitte reports?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I’ve seen that, yeah.
Mr Beer: All of the prosecutions of subpostmasters based on evidence produced by Horizon happened when you were –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I wasn’t involved in those but, yes, they happened during my time.
Mr Beer: You were involved intimately in the Second Sight initial investigation –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and with the Mediation Scheme –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and you were extensively involved in the Group Litigation?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you accept that your managerial roles permitted and, indeed, required you to raise issues faced by subpostmasters to senior management and then, latterly, to the Board?
Angela van den Bogerd: When I became aware of them, yes. In terms of the Board, whether it was directly by myself, probably not, but via my reporting line.
Mr Beer: Who was your reporting line?
Angela van den Bogerd: It depends at what time. So my reporting line in terms of managerial roles tended to be Sue Huggins, Kevin Gilliland, Al Cameron, and then my last role was reporting into Jane MacLeod.
Mr Beer: So if we just go through, when you were Head of Partnerships in 2012 to 2013 who was your reporting line?
Angela van den Bogerd: I believe that was Kevin Gilliland.
Mr Beer: Programme Director for the Branch Support Programme, ‘13 to ‘15?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think that was Kevin again.
Mr Beer: Director of Support Services, ‘15 to ‘16?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, that was Al Cameron.
Mr Beer: People and Change Director, ‘17 to ‘18?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I had a dual reporting line, Al Cameron and Martin Kirke, who was the HR Group Director at the time.
Mr Beer: People Services Director in 2018?
Angela van den Bogerd: Al Cameron.
Mr Beer: Business Improvement Director, ‘18 to ‘20?
Angela van den Bogerd: Jane MacLeod.
Mr Beer: So you wouldn’t have had direct access to the Board, is that what you’re saying, but, through each of those reports, indirect access?
Angela van den Bogerd: So what used to happen is, if you took anything to the Board, you would normally have a sponsor who was an Executive Director and that would have been my reporting line. But I would be called sometimes just to give updates, so on the Branch Support Programme, for instance, I might be called to go and give an update on the paper but, normally, your Exec Director, as a sponsor, would introduce you into that session and you would take over and update, through the paper.
Mr Beer: How many times did you attend the Board?
Angela van den Bogerd: Oh, over my length of career, not – I wasn’t a regular attender of the Board. So we had the Board and then, below that, we that the Executive Team, so I would probably have spent more time updating the Executive Team and, occasionally, go to Board for whatever I was doing at the time.
So there were other things I will have updated the Board on because I was involved in other things other than what we’ve discussed as well.
Mr Beer: How many times do you think you attended the Board?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’d say between 10 and 20 over the length of my career, probably. I can’t be exact.
Mr Beer: You left the Post Office in May 2020; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: You describe leaving the Post Office in your witness statement, if we can turn that up, the first one. It’ll come up on the screen. Page 110, please. At the foot of the page, please, paragraph 233. You say:
“With the settlement being reached on the [Group Litigation] in December 2019, my role came to an end. As a result, I was made redundant.”
Is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Can we look please at PVEN00000280 and, over the page, please. This is a copy of text messages exchanged between you and Paula Vennells in May 2020. Can you see that the one at the top is Ms Vennells asking you how you are and what lockdown is like for you, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then your reply is at the foot of the page:
“Hi Paula. Good to hear from you – we are all keeping well thank you. I hope you … are too? Lockdown has been 24/7 working on [Covid-19] crisis management for me in recent weeks. However I leave [the Post Office] on Monday. Just finalising the details of my agreement and it’s not common knowledge in work yet but the time is right for me to leave. The last year has reinforced that for me. Don’t know what I’ll do going forward … but I’m looking forward to pastures new. I’m glad some things I said have been useful for you. Take care”, et cetera.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: You say it wasn’t common knowledge in work that you were leaving but the time is right for you to leave, the last year has reinforced that for you. It seems from this that it was what had happened in the previous year that was relevant to your decision to leave; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: In that time, the Post Office had lost the Common Issues Trial –
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: – the Post Office had lost the Horizon Issues Trial, the Post Office had failed successfully to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Post Office had reached a settlement of over £50 million with the Group Litigation claimants. You had been significantly and deeply criticised by a High Court judge.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Were those relevant to your reasons for leaving?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not really. It was what came after that. So –
Mr Beer: What came after that?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think, to set the context, so the only – when I moved into the branch improvement – sorry, business improvement role, that was the first time that I’d been exclusively working on that role, so, throughout the whole of my career, including the investigations of Second Sight at the start of the scheme, that was on addition to my day job. So it was additional responsibility.
So when I moved into the business improvement role, that was full time, supporting the GLO. So, technically, when that ended my role was redundant but I didn’t leave straightaway because that was in the December and I left in the May. So, after the settlement, then I started to – I was asked, then, to look at the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, what that would look like, and I spent some time working with the lawyers – it would have been HSF at that time – and, I think, for me, I got a bit disillusioned, in as much as we had settled and, therefore, my view is we should now push on and deliver what we said we would, which was Horizon Shortfall Scheme, as quickly as we should, and it just wasn’t happening.
Mr Beer: Why wasn’t it happening?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because there was lots of discussions around what that should look like, how long it should take, and I just got very disillusioned. I mean, so my comment to the business at the time was that the Horizon –
Mr Beer: Sorry, the document can come down and can you move forward slightly to make sure those two microphones are angled towards your mouth.
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay, is that better?
Mr Beer: A bit better. If you can keep your voice up.
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay, I’ll try. Sorry, I do tend to drop my voice, so just let me know and I’ll raise it.
Mr Beer: You said that you said to, and then I missed who you said it to?
Angela van den Bogerd: So it was a general conversation within the business. I said, you know, the success would be measured by how quickly we pay out compensation, how much compensation we pay out and how little we spend on solicitor costs in doing that, and I was concerned that all of that was reversed so we were spending quite a lot of money on solicitor costs and we weren’t progressing applications through that scheme as quickly as we should. So by the time I left in the May, no payments had been made and we weren’t any further forward, so I just got very disillusioned with, I suppose, the intent of the business to resolve what we’d agreed that we would do.
Mr Beer: Who was driving the intent of the business, to not do the three things that you’ve identified?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not really sure, because the lawyers were heavily involved at the time. It just didn’t seem to get the traction I thought we should have.
So my view was, you know, we’d come through very difficult trials, we’d agreed the settlement and, therefore, we accept that’s the position and we should move on and do what we should do as quickly as we should.
Mr Beer: So it wasn’t the loss of the trials and the criticisms of the judge that prompted you to leave; it was disillusion with the Post Office delivering on its commitments?
Angela van den Bogerd: For me personally, yes. I mean, I had had a conversation with Paula before we went into the trials that I was thinking of leaving the business and that was because I felt, at the time, I was being pigeonholed into the litigation and I wanted to explore other things, from a career perspective. So it wasn’t something I hadn’t discussed previously but, at that time, Paula had asked me to stay because of my extensive knowledge of the business and the fact that I’d, you know, been close with the initial investigation with Second Sight and the scheme. So I agreed to stay but, yeah.
But it was a personal thing for me. As you say, we weren’t delivering on what we said we would, as quickly as I thought we should do.
Mr Beer: Did the revelations made by the Horizon Issues judgment not have any impact on you in terms of your career and decision to leave at all – the fact that, for the first time, a person in authority, a High Court judge, had found the existence of, say, 30 bugs, errors and defects that either had or had the potential to cause shortfalls, a fact that the Post Office had been denying for decades – have some impact on you?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think – well, that was, obviously, that was the final position. But, I think, as we went through the GLO, it was obvious as we were going through that things were – in terms of what I was seeing, it was stuff that I wasn’t aware of before. So, for me, it was kind of we were on that journey anyway. The extent of the judgments, I think, was a surprise but, having gone through the whole process – and I was – you know, I did attend the two trials every day, you know, so I could see that coming together, as I went through. So it wasn’t a complete revelation but – and that actually didn’t – that wasn’t the reason for me leaving the business. From my perspective, it wasn’t my reason. It was the fact that, you know, we just weren’t delivering on what we said we would deliver and I felt quite strongly about that.
Mr Beer: Even though you had been directly involved in the Second Sight initial investigation and in the mediation process, neither of which had uncovered the bugs, errors and defects –
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm, yeah.
Mr Beer: – that the judge found to have existed; that didn’t have any impact on you at all?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I wish we had uncovered it but the evidence – from our investigations, the evidence just wasn’t there to support it. But what I wasn’t aware of and my team weren’t aware of at the time, was the, you know, the amount of – so the Known Error Logs, for instance, we weren’t aware of the KELs at the time. So those things came out later as we were in the GLO process.
Mr Beer: I think that’s one of the five main things you say in your witness statement. I’m going to summarise your witness statement, if I may.
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
Mr Beer: Firstly, I think you make no concessions or admissions that you did anything wrong, correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I didn’t knowingly do anything wrong and I would never knowingly do anything wrong.
Mr Beer: You don’t apologise for your role in any of the events being examined in the Inquiry, do you?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think – and I’ve reflected on this quite a bit and the disclosure that I’ve seen through this process, there are things that – documents that I’ve seen that I don’t remember some of them, from the time, but clearly, knowing what I know now, I would give further weight to some of those documents than I did at the time. So they would have more significance.
So things like – things that I might have missed at the time, that I am – I really regret that and wish I’d been able to see that back then.
Mr Beer: But, still, knowing what you know now, in your witness statement you don’t apologise for anything that you did wrong, do you?
Angela van den Bogerd: I apologise for not getting to the answer more quickly but, with the evidence I had and the parameters of my role at the time, I did the best I could and to the best of my ability.
Mr Beer: What you say is you blame Fujitsu for not being transparent with you and the Post Office?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: That’s the third thing you say: you lay the blame at Fujitsu’s door?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, from my perspective, because, you know, we’d set up the Mediation Scheme, we had reached out to Fujitsu in terms of being able to get the information from them for us to be able to do the investigations. They’d put a project manager in place that we funded to be able to get access to the information that we needed. They knew what we were doing, yet we didn’t get sight of any KELs. Now, I didn’t know KELs existed and nobody that we were working with in the business knew that at the time.
What I’ve subsequently seen through the disclosure and what some of this did come out, as we were going through the GLO process, is that there were people within the organisation –
Mr Beer: Within the Post Office?
Angela van den Bogerd: – within the Post Office, that were aware of, I presume, Known Errors Logs, but I’m just talking about the Service Management Department, where they would be dealing with Fujitsu at that level on a daily basis and working that through. Now, that wasn’t available and I certainly wasn’t aware of that when we were going through the scheme.
Mr Beer: That’s the fourth thing you say: the first you knew about Known Error Logs, KELs, was in the course of the Group Litigation?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: When in the course of the Group Litigation?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not really sure but – and it wasn’t the detail of the KELs; it was more KELs. So as we – Andrew Parsons particularly was preparing the case and bringing papers to – I think it was the PLSG, then that’s probably the first time, and we started to have some queries coming in from the Legal team into me and then out to my team to be able to go and find some information on it. But that was the first time but I really can’t put a date on it.
Mr Beer: You say, lastly, that you had no knowledge of any material bugs in the Horizon system until the Second Sight investigation reported in July 2013?
Angela van den Bogerd: So at the point that we were feeding information to Second Sight for the construction of that interim report, then we disclosed two bugs, and that was a surprise to me. I wasn’t aware of those until that point.
Mr Beer: Can I, before we get into the detail, just look at some of the language you use and go back to your witness statement at paragraph 29, on page 14, please. It’ll come up on the screen. The top paragraph, which is paragraph 29, and the word before “memory”, on the previous page, is “From”, you say:
“From memory, Second Sight were putting together their report and the Legal Team said that they had been made aware of a couple of anomalies which they needed to disclose. This was the first I had heard of any bugs, so it was a surprise …”
Which is what you’ve just told us there.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: Then looking down the page, at paragraph 30, about three or four lines from the bottom:
“As mentioned in the paragraph above, it was only when [the Post Office] disclosed to Second Sight that there were two anomalies within Horizon in 2013, that there was any suggestion that the system was not foolproof but, even then, a rational explanation was provided by IT experts.”
You refer in this statement in a number of places, as we’ve seen here, to “anomalies”.
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Did you choose that word because you wanted to characterise bugs, errors and defects in Horizon as something which is odd, peculiar or strange, ie the definition of the word “anomaly”?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, it was simply that’s what – that was the word used at the time. So when – I think it was Simon Baker was involved and brought that to my attention, and I say the Legal team, I think it was Andrew Parsons and Rod Williams, that was the conversation that – it was just the word that was used at the time.
Mr Beer: Do you remember a diktat that the word “anomalies” should be used?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, I missed that question.
Mr Beer: Do you remember a diktat, an instruction, a suggestion that the word “anomaly” should be used –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – over and above “bugs, errors and defects”?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00380985. We can see this is an email from Paula Vennells to you, at about this time, July 2013. We can see you are on the distribution list there –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: – in which she says:
“My engineer/computer literate husband sent the following reply to the question:
“‘What is a non-emotive word for computer bugs, glitches, defects that happen as a matter of course?’”
“Answer:
“‘Exception or anomaly. You can also say conditional exception/anomaly which only manifests itself under unforeseen circumstances …’”
Do you remember this?
Angela van den Bogerd: I hadn’t remembered this but I have seen this. I think it was brought up yesterday or in the course of this phase, so I did remember it at that point.
Mr Beer: Was this acted on by you, that, rather than referring to things as “bugs, glitches, defects”, you should use the words “anomaly” or “exceptions”?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I don’t believe I ever used the word “exceptions”. Anomalies – so Simon Baker pulled together the information to provide to Second Sight and he headed it up “Anomalies”, and that’s why I just adopted the word “anomaly” but, in my statement, I’ve referred to “bugs”.
Mr Beer: Yes, you have in other places where we’ve asked you a question about bugs, errors and defects.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah. So I think from – and I’m sure there is a technical categorisation for each of bugs, errors and defects; I don’t know what that is.
Mr Beer: Reading this now, can you see this is an attempt, through the use of language, to control the narrative; Mr Blake might call it Orwellian?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Is that what it was like working in the Post Office at this time, that language was controlled to lead the narrative?
Angela van den Bogerd: We certainly had, in all my time at Post Office and Royal Mail prior to that, then we always had agreed messaging so, you know, in terms of consistency of messages and words that we would use. I didn’t think too much of this at the time. It was – you know, the important thing for me at the time was there were two bugs, errors or defects, however you want to determine them, that I wasn’t aware of up until that point. They were explained to me as – you know, this – you know, every system has these things, it’s – how you deal with it is important and we just moved on from there. But it didn’t strike me as something really unusual at that point.
Mr Beer: What didn’t strike you as unusual that –
Angela van den Bogerd: The terms that we were –
Mr Beer: A preferred use of language?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes. So the agreed language that we wanted to use there, this has come from Paula’s note, was “anomaly” and that’s what Simon had put. So when he shared that information, they were headed up “Anomaly”.
Mr Beer: Looking at it now, can you see what perhaps sits behind this?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: What do you think sits behind it?
Angela van den Bogerd: As you said, it’s about controlling the narrative. It’s about using a consistent – I don’t think it actually worked here because –
Mr Beer: Well, that’s a different issue.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah, because, you know, I’ve defaulted straight to “bug” but it was – I agree, it was an attempt to control the narrative, in terms of what we were saying.
Mr Beer: What do you think the intended effect was to use language of “exception” or “anomaly” rather than “bug” or “glitch” or “defect”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I think from Paula’s note she says, “non-emotional” was that what she said there, but – a “non-emotive word”. I didn’t think too much of it at the time. I mean –
Mr Beer: Do you think it’s about emotion?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I don’t think it’s about emotion.
Mr Beer: It’s trying to suggest something materially different, isn’t it? An “exception” or “anomaly” carries with it the implication that it’s odd, that it’s strange, that it’s peculiar.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Whereas a “bug”, what does that suggest, or a “defect in your system”; what does that carry with it?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think, for me, it carries that – it would be, could be exceptional, in that we – because we hadn’t seen many of them but I think the word of a “bug” is a bit more routine. So there’s, you know, that’s what we expect from that situation. As I say, I didn’t give it too much thought at the time. “Anomaly” is the word that Simon put on to the information he shared and that’s why I’ve picked it up in my witness statement because – when I was referring to the documents but, as I say, I’ve instinctively defaulted to “bug”.
Mr Beer: Can I turn to a different aspect of information handling, that of legal professional privilege. To your knowledge, did the Post Office, from 2011 onwards, at least 2011 onwards, seek to use claims of legal professional privilege as a tool to cloak communications in privacy?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t think so at the time.
Mr Beer: Does that mean, looking back, you can see how it sought to do so now?
Angela van den Bogerd: So, again, from the information I’ve seen as part of this process, then I think there’s – there was a tendency to do that.
Mr Beer: Did it seek to regulate its conduct and carry out its communications in a way that maximised the possibility of cloaking its communications in privacy, so that they wouldn’t have to be disclosed?
Angela van den Bogerd: Again, I wasn’t aware of that.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00176467. Can we look, please, to start with page 2. This is an email of 20 October 2011 to you, amongst others, from Emily Springford. If we look at page 3, please, and scroll down – thank you – we can see she was a Principal Lawyer in Dispute Resolution, I think, in Royal Mail Group?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you remember Emily Springford?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I’d never met her. This was the first –
Mr Beer: Go back to page 2, please. It’s about disclosure and evidence gathering in the context of the JFSA claims, and it addresses three topics: document preservation, document creation and the information that’s needed to respond to the letters of claim. I think you’ve seen this?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I have.
Mr Beer: Thank you. We’ve seen it before and recently, so I’m not going to read it out. Can we go to something new, which your communication on page 1, please. Can we see that you send this on to a collection of people: Mr Breeden, Ms Norbury, Ms Richardson, Mr Wales, Mr Lawrence, Ms Buchanan, et cetera. Yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, that was my lead team, my direct reports.
Mr Beer: So you were sending it on to your team, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I was.
Mr Beer: What did, in broad terms, the people who were in your direct reports do?
Angela van den Bogerd: So there was a mix. John and Lin were contract, they managed the Contracts Advisers team. The rest then were – so this, just to give a bit of context, so this, when I took over – I took on additional responsibilities, I think it was December, towards the end of December 2010. This was the new team that came together, so it was bringing different areas of responsibility at the time. So Lin and John were Contracts – Contract Management Team, the rest had been my existing team, which were managing the network of provision of post offices opening, closures and also, I think at this point, I think I brought in the training and audit function into this as well.
Mr Beer: Okay, and they would have had people working under them –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and people working under them, and would you expect them to distribute that to the people working to them?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So it would be cascaded down through the business in that way?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, it would, yes.
Mr Beer: If we see, you forward Ms Springford’s email and, in the second line, you say:
“With the litigation being strong possibility our Legal Team has issued some advice, guidance and directives in the email below. Once you have read the email below yourself I then need you to action the relevant sections … but I want everyone in our team to be aware of the need to:
“[1] Preserve all documents which might potentially be relevant to these claims”, and you set them out.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then 2:
“Mark communications in relation to these cases and as detailed below as ‘legally privileged and confidential’ …”
Did you think that message really reflected Ms Springford’s advice –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I did.
Mr Beer: – ie mark all communications in relation to those cases “legally privileged and confidential”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: But that wasn’t Ms Springford’s advice, was it?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I thought I was just simply passing on Ms Springford’s advice because, as I said, this was a fairly new team coming together, Lin and John particularly would have been aware of this, these type of requirements where the rest of the team wouldn’t have been. So that was just me simply passing on the instruction and the requirements from Emily Springford.
Mr Beer: What she had said, we can see it on page 3, second paragraph from the top, third line:
“As litigation is now a distinct possibility, a document will be privileged if its dominant purpose is to give/receive legal advice about the litigation or to gather evidence for use in the litigation. This also applies to communications with third parties …”
Then first bullet point:
“If the dominant purpose of the communication is not to obtain legal advice, try to structure the document in such a way that its dominant purpose can be said to be evidence gathering for use in litigation.”
Now, without for the moment addressing the question of whether or not what Ms Springford advised was correct or appropriate, she was saying that, only where the dominant purpose of the document was evidence gathering, in connection with the litigation, might a document be said to enjoy privilege. That qualified her advice, didn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: What you advised, page 1:
“Mark communications in relation to these cases [ie the list of cases] ‘legally privileged and confidential’ …”
You dropped the bit about only if the dominant purpose of the communication can be said to obtain or receive legal advice.
Angela van den Bogerd: That was me just summarising because I’d asked them to familiarise themselves with Emily’s note, asked them to read it, and it was me just actually bringing their attention to this is important, I need you to be aware of what Emily is asking us to do and asking them to comply with that. So there was nothing else other than me just summarising.
Mr Beer: Let’s look at it this way: at the very least, you understood all communications in relation to those cases as now being legally privileged and confidential?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, that’s not what I’ve said. I’ve said “mark communication”, I didn’t say “all” but this was a new situation for me. I’d not been involved in disclosure before and a number of my team wouldn’t have been involved in disclosure before. So this was me just passing on the requirements and the request from Emily –
Mr Beer: You’re not passing on it, are you? You’re passing it on and then you say you want everyone in the team to be made aware of the need to do these three things –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and the second of those things is materially different from what she advised, isn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: So it – that wasn’t my intention. This was just – my intention was just to bring it to the fore of people’s minds, in this newly formed team, so that they were aware of what we needed to do. And the other – the third bullet point was making sure that they treated all of this as a priority because that, I think at the time, as it was played out to me, is the Legal team sometimes struggled to get the information they needed out of the business in the time –
Mr Beer: You’re talking about a different thing now, which is about the priority of communications.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: I’m talking about the second bullet point. So if we just focus on the second bullet point, you at least understood that all communications were to be treated as legally privileged and confidential, didn’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: That wasn’t – that’s not what I was saying in here. As I said, I just tried to summarise what Emily had asked.
Mr Beer: Why did you tell them to mark communications in relation to those cases as “legally privileged and confidential”, when that’s not the advice that had been received?
Angela van den Bogerd: I can’t remember back that far but, as I say, my intention was only, really, to pass on what Emily had asked and in terms of summary. I’d asked them to read what she’d said. I can’t remember any further discussions after this and – yeah, I can’t remember anything further after that, just in terms of whatever we did, but, if there were any queries about what they were doing, then they would have raised it at the time and I can’t remember any.
Mr Beer: Thank you. That can come down.
Can I turn, please, then to issues of substance and, firstly, the question of remote access.
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
Mr Beer: Can we turn to your witness statement on page 10, please, at paragraph 19. I just want to examine what you say in your witness statement about remote access, and then go and look at some of the underlying documents. You say:
“[A document] is [an] email from John Breeden to me on 5 December 2010. I cannot recall this email or the content of the pack he attaches. Having reviewed the email, I have noted that Lynn Hobbs … advised Mike Granville and Rod Ismay that she had ‘found out that Fujitsu can actually put an entry into a branch account remotely’.”
Yes? So you’re saying that, in an email that was sent to you on 5 December 2010, you were told that it had been discovered that Fujitsu can put an entry into a branch account remotely, yes.
Angela van den Bogerd: So Lynn had said that to John and then John had forwarded Lynn’s email to me.
Mr Beer: So it’s the equivalent of you being given that information?
Angela van den Bogerd: Secondhand, yeah.
Mr Beer: Does that make a difference?
Angela van den Bogerd: In as much as he was bringing it to my attention, for information, so I think it was a slightly different thing.
Mr Beer: Different thing to what?
Angela van den Bogerd: To actually getting it directly with, you know – to action. As I think I said in here, this was something I wasn’t aware of and hadn’t been aware of previously, and I don’t actually remember receiving these emails. And I did ask for – you know, Post Office for “Can I have my response to this”, because –
Mr Beer: And there isn’t one?
Angela van den Bogerd: There isn’t one.
Mr Beer: Okay. Well, put it this way: you got an email on 5 December, which said in terms that Fujitsu can actually put an entry into a branch account remotely, agreed?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s what Lynn had dropped into her email, yeah.
Mr Beer: Let’s try again. You had been given information on 5 December 2010 that Fujitsu can actually put an entry into a branch account remotely, agreed?
Angela van den Bogerd: In that email chain, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we go forwards please to page 15 of your witness statement, at paragraph 31. You say:
“Pre-2011, I had no knowledge of the ability of Fujitsu employees to alter transaction data or data in branch accounts without the knowledge or consent of [subpostmasters].”
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: That’s not right, is it, because you had been told about it in the email of 5 December?
Angela van den Bogerd: But, as I said, I don’t ever remember seeing that in December.
Mr Beer: That’s a different thing, whether now you remember, 14 years later, receiving an email. You’re saying in the witness statement here “I had no knowledge of the ability”, whereas, in fact, you did have knowledge because you’d been sent that email, hadn’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: But without seeing that email as part of this, I would have no knowledge, that’s all I’m trying to say, is the first conscious knowledge of that was the email from Tracy Marshall, which would have been several weeks after so. So the John Breeden email was, I think, 5 December and a month later this information came from Tracy Marshall.
Mr Beer: So the lightbulb moment for you was not the Breeden email of December 2010, it was the Marshall email of January 2011?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look at the Breeden email of 2010, then, please. POL00088956. The first page is from Mr Breeden to you and copied to a number of other people, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: He forwards a chain, if we look at the bottom of the page. Ms Hobbs: do you remember who Ms Hobbs was?
Angela van den Bogerd: Lynn Hobbs, I do, yes.
Mr Beer: Tell us?
Angela van den Bogerd: Oh, sorry, she was the – I think it was the General Manager of the Support Network. John Breeden at this time, and I can’t remember the switch of responsibilities to me, but John Breeden would be reporting to Lynn, and had done for quite some time, as did Lin Norbury.
Mr Beer: So did Lynn Hobbs indirectly report to you?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, Lynn was more senior than me.
Mr Beer: I see. She says:
“This is the last email exchange I had with Mike Granville about the BIS meeting. The attached documents were what Mike was proposing to send to BIS. I haven’t seen anything further but I did have a conversation with Mike about the whole ‘remote access to Horizon’ issue … The view being expressed was that whilst this may be possible it’s not something we have asked Fujitsu to provide. I don’t know what the final outcome was.
“I am also forwarding two further emails.
“One from Rod Ismay which is the final report he produced as a [result of] a request from Dave Smith …”
Then, over the page, please: “
“The second from Mike [Griffiths] with a document that was sent to BIS in August as a briefing in advance of Ed Davey’s meeting with JFSA.”
Angela van den Bogerd: So that’s Mike Granville.
Mr Beer: Sorry?
Angela van den Bogerd: Mike Granville.
Mr Beer: Yes.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, you said “Griffiths”.
Mr Beer: Then cut into Lynn Hobbs’s email is her reply to Mike and Rod, saying:
“I found out this week that Fujitsu can actually put an entry into a branch account remotely. It came up when we were exploring solutions around a problem generated by the system following migration to [Horizon Online]. This issue was quickly identified and a fix put in place but it impacted around 60 branches and went meant a loss/gain incurred in a particular week in effect disappeared from the system. One solution, quickly discounted because of the implications around integrity, was for Fujitsu to remotely enter a value into a branch account to reintroduce the missing loss/gain. So [the Post Office] can’t do this but Fujitsu can.”
I think you’d agree that’s very significant information, isn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes. But, prior to this, I would have had no awareness of any of this stuff.
Mr Beer: Which makes it even more significant, no?
Angela van den Bogerd: In as much as I said this was something I wasn’t aware of and I don’t recall seeing this, and then looking at Lynn’s note, which is quite a strange note, the way she’s dropped this into an email chain, which I find quite strange.
Mr Beer: Strange for us too because we can find no record of it anywhere else.
Angela van den Bogerd: I’ve never seen an email like this before, where something was just cut in. You’d normally forward that email or attach it, so I find this really strange. But I think at this point – so Lynn left the organisation shortly after, I think – in looking at this, I think this was just Lynn passing over to John things before she left and John was coming into my team.
Mr Beer: Just taking a step back from this, this is an email chain forwarding to you the Rod Ismay report, correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: At the same time, it’s forwarding you the Rod Ismay report, it’s telling you something about remote access?
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Yes? The beginning and end part of this bit that’s cut in is about the remote access and the bit in the middle is about the context in which remote access has arisen, correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So it’s saying that there is a facility to put entries into branch accounts remotely, it provides the context in which that issue had arisen, 60 branches, and a fix, and how do we correct the error that has occurred? Shall we use this? No, let’s not use this remote access because that has issues of integrity about it but, in any event, Fujitsu can do this?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: That’s what it’s telling you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, it is.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to paragraph 16 of your witness statement, please. It’s on page 9, please. Scroll down, please. You’re dealing with the Ismay report here. You say:
“Whilst I cannot recall receiving the report, I assume I would have been reassured by its content at the time.”
You then say some stuff about knowing what you know now –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and you say, in the last three lines:
“… notably the report says there is an ‘absence of backdoors’ …”
Yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then you set out some information you now know. So you’re saying that you would have been reassured by the contents of the Ismay report, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, but I don’t – I mean, I don’t remember seeing that in December. I definitely saw the Ismay report. I’m not sure when. I thought it was a later date than that.
Mr Beer: Well, we know you got it on 5 December 2010 because we have just looked at the email chain?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, what I’m saying is I don’t remember it from that point but I do remember reading the report and I thought it had it separately but not at the time that Rod put that together, which I think was August.
Mr Beer: You say that you would have been reassured and, seemingly, you would have been reassured because the report said there was an absence of backdoors, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: But the very email chain that brought this report to your attention said something very different, didn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not sure, for me, that registered as different. I think –
Mr Beer: Let’s look at what your reaction was, as a separate question, to what the facts are. You would agree that the very email chain that brought the Rod Ismay report to your attention said something very different about the absence of backdoors, didn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, it didn’t mention backdoors. It said that they could inject –
Mr Beer: Fujitsu could remotely access –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes –
Mr Beer: – and inject transactions?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think the backdoor bit is quite different, I think. So, for me, the absence of backdoors feels that that’s done in an uncontrolled way, whereas, if they could inject, you know, which I later learnt about the balancing transaction, which is that kind of scenario, so I think for me the two just didn’t – they’re not the same thing to me.
Mr Beer: What’s the difference?
Angela van den Bogerd: So, as I say, I think the backdoor is, I think, more of an uncontrolled way, whereas the injecting is done in a controlled way.
Mr Beer: So do you think you made that distinction at the time?
Angela van den Bogerd: Probably not.
Mr Beer: This you rationalising it now?
Angela van den Bogerd: And because I know more now than I knew then. So I think, at the time, then, as I say, I didn’t – I don’t remember getting that email from John. So that didn’t register with me at the time. And the fact that Lynn, who was more senior – so just to put it into context, Lynn – so my direct report most into Sue Huggins at the time, Sue and Lynn were peers, so Lynn was senior to me. The fact that she’d mentioned in there that she’d raised it with Andy McLean, who, again, was at that level but in IT, and I think Mark Burley was a Project Manager within that space as well, the fact that she’d raised it and they were looking at it, but she didn’t have an update, I mean, when I look back, there wasn’t a sense of urgency about that that I would have expected had she been really concerned about what she’d learnt.
Mr Beer: That can come down, thank you. The importance of Mr Ismay saying that there were no backdoors into Horizon was that it meant all data entry or acceptance was at branch level, correct –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and was tagged against the logon ID of the user, correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: The significance of that was the ownership of all accounting was truly at branch level, correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: The email that we looked at was saying that ownership of accounting was not at branch level, wasn’t it? It was saying that Fujitsu can remotely inject transactions, can alter it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Did that not undermine, in your mind, what Mr Ismay had said?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think the difference – and I think this is the important bit for me – was, if something were to be injected into a branch accounts, was it with the knowledge of the postmaster whose accounts they were? And I think that’s a really important aspect of it.
Mr Beer: The email didn’t say anything about the knowledge of the postmaster did?
Angela van den Bogerd: It didn’t say either way, whether they were aware or not, no.
Mr Beer: It was saying that, if we did do it, there would be issues about integrity –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – didn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Do you think that was hinting or suggesting that this was all being done above board with the knowledge of subpostmasters?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t really think about it at the time.
Mr Beer: Can we go to the email, please, POL00088956. So this is the chain that forwards you the Ismay report in December 2010. How well did you know Rod Ismay?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not very well at that point. So he was – we were part of the senior leadership team and we periodically got together for conferences and things like that, but –
Mr Beer: Would you meet him on a monthly basis?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: How frequently was your contact?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wouldn’t have met him, in terms of the course of my role prior to this. So this was the first time – so stepping into this role was the first time that I really started to work with Chesterfield, which is where – Rod was in charge of Chesterfield. Prior to that, I wouldn’t have had much involvement with Rod at all.
Mr Beer: So he was Head of Product and Branch Accounting at that time?
Angela van den Bogerd: That later became Finance Service Centre but, yeah.
Mr Beer: If we go to page 2, please, we can see that Lynn Hobbs’ email went to Rod Ismay originally, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Because it’s addressed to Mike and Rod and she has written in to her own email “My reply to Mike and Rod”. You say you think this is a very strange way of writing emails –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – the cutting and pasting something into your own email, rather than either attaching that email or forwarding it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: As I’ve said, we haven’t had disclosed to us, there’s no trace whatsoever, of the email in Mr Ismay’s inbox. Are you saying that, at the time, you would have regard it as suspicious that this had happened?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes. As I said, I don’t recall seeing this and that would have struck me as being really strange. I just find it a very strange way to do something because my – whatever – and how I saw things during my time at the Post Office is you either had the email forwarded or it was as an attachment. So you had the complete chain of communication regarding whatever the topic of that was. So just coming back to that, so I think, had I seen this, this would have struck me as being really odd, which is why I think I didn’t see it.
Mr Beer: Are you saying you did not see an email that was sent to you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah, I don’t recall –
Mr Beer: That’s a different issue. If we just go back to page 1. Whether 14 or so years on, you can now remember receiving an email is one issue.
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: You were tending to suggest a moment ago that you did not see this email?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: How are you able now to say positively you did not see this email?
Angela van den Bogerd: So what I’m saying is I don’t remember seeing it and the fact that the way it’s constructed is really strange, and I think that I would have remembered that at the time because it strikes me as a bit – being really, really strange.
Mr Beer: Did you read your emails?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah, normally.
Mr Beer: Would there be any reason not to read an email?
Angela van den Bogerd: Volume of work.
Mr Beer: What about one that’s about briefing the sponsor department, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills?
Angela van den Bogerd: So, as I said, this was a new work area for me, I hadn’t been involved in this type of work before. I think 5 December, I think, was a Sunday because I’ve looked to see why, you know, I’ve not picked this up, but I tended to – I tended to read all my emails but I also tended to respond to all my emails as well, and this is what strikes me as really odd because I didn’t have a response to this one.
Mr Beer: In any event, the Ismay report was brought to your attention in the context of a discussion about what had been said to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, earlier in 2010. Would you agree, looking at it now, that Mr Breeden’s emails did not make it clear whether the Department had been told about Fujitsu’s ability to tamper with branch accounts?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Would that not have been a very important issue for you to have got to the bottom of?
Angela van den Bogerd: I said at the time this was a new area for me and I wouldn’t have given it that much attention. So the people who would have been involved in that would be Mike Granville, that was his role, and Sue Huggins, who was my boss and I think mike Granville reported into Sue at one point, as well. That was her area. So it wouldn’t have registered with me at the time.
Mr Beer: But there was a possibility that the single shareholder had been told that the Post Office had got a significant issue on its hands namely its supplier could tamper with branch accounts?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Wouldn’t that be something that you would want to get to the bottom of: what has Government been told?
Angela van den Bogerd: As I said at the time, this didn’t register. One, I don’t believe I saw it but, actually, it didn’t register because, prior to this – I mean, this was the first time of me getting involved in anything to do with Horizon integrity. Prior to that, from the time –
Mr Beer: I’m sorry, Ms van den Bogerd, the point I’m making is that it’s in the context of the single shareholder, the Government –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – being briefed and, therefore, it’s very important to find out what has been said to Government and what the true position is.
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: What you tell us – you’ve told us today and what you’ve said in your witness statement – is that there might be good reasons why there’s no follow-up to this –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – on paper, because Lynn Hobbs left the organisation shortly afterwards?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, or that it was – it had been dealt with. I saw nothing coming out after this to tell me, well, actually what had happened to it or that there wasn’t a problem.
Mr Beer: Was this dealt with offline, ie so as not to leave a paper trail?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not that I’m aware of.
Mr Beer: Was it dealt with by verbal discussions only?
Angela van den Bogerd: I say, I’m not – not that I was aware of. Whether those conversations happened – because I would have expected the follow-up to that to have happened with Lynn, Andy McLean, who she said she’d referred it to, and Mike Granville, and also Mark Burley. So I’m not aware of anything as a result of this email pack.
Mr Beer: Thank you. That can come down.
The email, as we’ve seen, referred to the context in which the discovery of remote access had been made.
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Remember? The incident that had been discussed in a meeting involving 60-odd branches back in October 2010.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Yes? Can we look, please, at that. POL00028838. This is, I think, the only record that we have of either what happened or what was to happen at that meeting in October 2010. If we look at the attendee list, I think we can see that there are six members of the Post Office present and they’re the first six on the list.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Did you have responsibility for any of those?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Can we turn to page 3, please?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, not at the time I didn’t.
Mr Beer: Yes. Nor in December 2010 or January 2011?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Can we go to page 3, please, and scroll down. Can you see the proposals for how the bug was to be addressed in relation to the affected branches? Can you see under “Solution One”, the proposed solution one was to alter the branch figure at the counter to show the discrepancy. Fujitsu would have to manually write an entry value to the local branch account.
The “Impact” would be when the branch comes to complete the next trading period they would have a discrepancy that they would have to bring into account.
The “Risk” was:
“This has significant data integrity concerns and could lead to questions of ‘tampering’ with the branch system and could generate questions around how the discrepancy was caused. This solution could have moral implications of the Post Office changing branch data without informing the branch.”
Would you agree that this record, even though that solution was not, in the event, adopted, makes it clear, firstly, that Fujitsu could tamper with branch accounts remotely?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: And, secondly, they could do so without the branch being able to see it or to know about it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Did you speak to any of the six people on the attendee list after receiving the Lynn Hobbs email?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Did any of those people draw subsequently those two material facts – Fujitsu can tamper with branch accounts remotely and they can do so without the branch being able to see it or to know about it – to your attention?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Would you agree that those two facts, if they were to have emerged, would have significantly undermined the reputation and integrity of Horizon?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: At this time, October 2010 into January 2011, the Post Office was wedded to maintaining the reputation of Horizon, wasn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not to my knowledge. I mean, I wasn’t aware of this document until much later in the GLO –
Mr Beer: How has it happened that this additional record, in addition to the December 2010 email chain, hasn’t found its way to you; what’s gone wrong?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I think back in 2010, then I wasn’t involved in any – anything to do with Fujitsu or Horizon issues; it was only – I only started to get involved in ‘20, so there was the Tracy Marshall email which was in advance of the Ferndown meeting that I intended and, again, that was me just coming into that because my boss, Sue Huggins at the time, was out on holiday, and then we came into the Shoosmiths letters about the individual branches. So this wasn’t my domain at all.
Mr Beer: But you were beginning to look into Horizon integrity at the end of 2010/beginning of 2011, weren’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, not – no, I wasn’t really. So it was really only when Second Sight became – came into the business when I started to work with them around the Spot Reviews. So that’s where I would say I stepped into looking at this type of – these type of issues. Prior to that, I wasn’t.
Mr Beer: Or was it that you and others within the Post Office studiously avoided lifting the lid on what had happened at the meeting of October 2010, when the receipts and payments mismatch bug was not only discovered but also was revealed Fujitsu’s ability to tamper with the branch accounts?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t aware of this and I wish I had been aware of this at the time because that fundamentally changes what my understanding was to do with Horizon system and, even just the language used in here, clearly it was known. And the fact – and you can’t get away from this on this document, that they were consciously deciding what to do and what not to do and not to share, and that’s hugely alarming.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Sir, that might be an appropriate moment for our new system of two 10-minute breaks to take the first of them. Can we say until 11.10, please?
Sir Wyn Williams: Certainly, Mr Beer.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
(11.03 am)
(A short break)
(11.15 am)
Mr Beer: Sir, good morning. Can you see and hear us.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, thanks.
Mr Beer: Ms van den Bogerd, can we turn to the second series of correspondence relevant to the issue. We’ve seen that you referred, in your paragraph 19 to an email that you received from Tracy Marshall, dated 5 January 2011.
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s right.
Mr Beer: Can we turn that up, please. POL00294728. Can you see at the top it’s an email dated 5 January to you and others from Tracy Marshall?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Her title was Agents Development Manager. Can you explain what that was, please?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t actually remember what she was doing at the time.
Mr Beer: What relation did she have to you and your work?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not an awful lot, at that point.
Mr Beer: Why was she writing to you?
Angela van den Bogerd: So it was to Kevin really. So I think Kevin had asked her – I think she was part of Kevin’s team. I think Kevin had asked her to do something. I don’t remember having any conversation with Tracy about this until I got the email.
Mr Beer: Do you know what the context was for Kevin asking?
Angela van den Bogerd: It was the Ferndown meeting. So I’d been asked to, as I said earlier, to attend this. It wasn’t something I would normally do but Sue Huggins, who was my line manager at the time, who reported to Kevin, was on holiday; she’d asked me to step in.
Mr Beer: So the subject is, “Horizon system issues”, and item 2 reads “[The Post Office] or Fujitsu having remote access to individual Horizon systems”. The first paragraph:
“[The Post Office] cannot remotely access systems and make changes to specific stock units etc. Fujitsu can remotely access systems and they do this on a numerous occasions on a network wide basis in order to remedy glitches in the system created as a result of new software upgrades.
“Technically, Fujitsu could access an individual branch remotely and move money around however this has never happened yet. The authority process required and the audit process are robust enough to prevent this activity from being undertaken fraudulently. The authority process itself would take several days and would require a number of representatives from the business to provide concurrence to the activity (including Head of Network Services). If a change were made remotely and to an individual branch it would be flagged on the business data ledgers and would appear as a ‘mismatch’ in P&BA in Chesterfield. P&BA would then investigate to determine whether the mismatch was authorised internally or not.
“So although changes can be made remotely, they would be spotted and the person making the change would be identified.”
Now, the Inquiry has heard evidence that suggests that the claim that Fujitsu had never used its capability to access individual branches and move money around is incorrect. By the time you received this email, did you know that?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: The Inquiry has received evidence that the authority process/audit process to prevent the activity from occurring was not robust and that there wasn’t sufficient assurance that it was not being used fraudulently. At that time, did you know that –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – receive evidence to that effect?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: The Inquiry has heard evidence that Fujitsu would sometimes use a subpostmaster’s user ID to inject transactions into branch accounts, so that the standard ARQ data produced subsequently could not distinguish between injected transactions and those made in the branch. Did you know that at the point of receiving this email?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: The Inquiry has received evidence that there was unauthorised and unauditable privileged user access by Fujitsu. Had you heard about that by the time of receiving this email –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – or how long it had been in operation for –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – and what a concern it had been within Fujitsu that this privileged user access existed and was unregulated?
Angela van den Bogerd: I had no knowledge of any of that.
Mr Beer: I’m told that you need to speak up –
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m sorry.
Mr Beer: – significantly, please?
Angela van den Bogerd: Significantly. Okay.
Mr Beer: The month after you received this email – sorry, within the month, I think it’s the next day – you interviewed Mrs Rachpal Athwal in Old Street London, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: This is the Ferndown branch with which she was concerned in Dorset; is this right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That is correct.
Mr Beer: She was the subpostmaster of that branch, wasn’t she?
Angela van den Bogerd: She was.
Mr Beer: Can you summarise what had happened to Mrs Athwal?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, I wasn’t involved in what had happened. From memory, there had been an issue on audit and she had been suspended. The first I became aware of it and I put this in my statement, was when Lynn Hobbs contacted me because my role at the time was providing, as I said, network services, branches, opening and closings, but also providing mobile Post Office services as well, and she’d asked me if – would I be able to provide a mobile post office outside this branch or close to this branch, if she needed me to.
And that was the first I became aware of anything to do with – and I can’t remember when, it would have been a few months or leading into this because I don’t remember when the audit and the suspension actually took place. But that’s the context, that’s what I was aware. I knew it was high profile because Lynn had told me, and I believe Dave Smith was the MD at this point and he had got involved. Paula would have been the Network Director at this point, I think.
Mr Beer: That can come down. Thank you.
The issue at Ferndown had involved an unexplained loss shown on a dormant stock unit –
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s right.
Mr Beer: – do you remember?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: A relatively small amount of money, I think –
Angela van den Bogerd: I think so. I think it was hundreds, as opposed –
Mr Beer: £700, I think.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So you attend this interview at Old Street. Can we look at the transcript of the interview, please. POL00294743. What was the purpose of the interview?
Angela van den Bogerd: So from my – my understanding, it was to re-establish the relationship because, I think, as a result of the suspension and some of the issues around that, that there was a breakdown in the relationship. So that’s what I thought the purpose of the meeting was.
Mr Beer: To re-establish the relationship between the Post Office, on the one hand, and the –
Angela van den Bogerd: And the subpostmistress.
Mr Beer: – sub –
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, Mrs Athwal was the subpostmistress but it was actually Val, her husband, who was the most vocal in the meeting and I understood, at this time, that Val had been talking to the press, and things like that. But it was essentially to, you know, so – Mrs Athwal had been reinstated and – at this point, and it was really just about reestablishing that relationship, which is what Kevin was looking to do.
Mr Beer: If the purpose was to re-establish the relationship, why was the meeting tape recorded?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know, actually. Because it wasn’t typical that we would have recorded these type of meetings. I don’t know, but it was, and that would have been, I think, probably at Kevin’s – I’m not sure. I didn’t really question it.
Mr Beer: If we look, we can just see the explanation given by Mr Gilliland. Thank you:
“So just for the record again the purpose of recording the interview is to make sure we’ve got a factual record of the meeting and we’ve agreed that the content of this meeting will remain confidential and the information discussed is not to be shared with other parties unless the expressed permission of all [attendees] around this room is given.
Mr Athwal says:
“… I have a problem with that …”
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Again, can you help us, if you’re trying to re-establish the relationship between a husband and wife postmaster/mistress team, why do you tape them?
Angela van den Bogerd: As I said, that wasn’t my decision and it’s something that didn’t normally – we didn’t normally do. The only time we would have recorded interviews is where it was one person, from Post Office perspective, having a meeting with somebody else, is what we would normally do. Otherwise, we would take notes. So I don’t know.
I mean, I don’t recall having any kind of pre-meet with Kevin on this. As I say, I’d stepped into this because my boss wasn’t available. So, as I say, I can’t add anything further to that, I’m afraid.
Mr Beer: We can just scroll up and see had was present: Mr Gilliland and you, Helen Rose; why was Helen Rose there?
Angela van den Bogerd: Helen Rose was part of the Security Team and I think she was an analyst, I’m not sure – I’m not sure whether I’d asked her or Lynn had asked her to look at the information so that we could establish what had happened in the branch, and that was Helen’s role.
Mr Beer: Then Mr and Mrs Athwal and Mark Baker from the Federation. Can we go forward to page 3, please, the top of the page and this Mr Baker speaking.
“So have you moved forward from where we left with Andy Bayfield when he did the appeal and he accepted, he accepted during the interview that the initiation of the stock unit that had been closed down some months prior that came in, to use Rachpal’s words, came back into life with money in it, he said that could only be caused by one or two ways and that was either by a human physically doing that within the branch or it has been generated by the computer itself for one reason or another and he was going … away and get to the bottom of that and as far as I’m concerned on a technical issue that’s where I still am waiting to find out how this happened.”
That was accurate, wasn’t it, that Mrs Athwal had been reinstated but there remained a mystery how on a closedown of a dormant stock unit, how money had suddenly appeared in it –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and there needed to be some technical explanation of investigation of that, didn’t there?
Angela van den Bogerd: You say, “AB”, that’s you:
“Helen has looked at the information from the logs … and has taken that information and put it into a working file for herself so she can, ‘cos as you appreciate that’s an awful lot of data that would be for that branch and put it on there and can track where that amount of money has moved through the system in your branch so she can talk you through that and we can do that [right] now.”
Mr Baker, if we can see what he says, about four lines in, he asks the question:
“… was it something that someone did in the branch or was it something the system has done …”
Can you see that?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I can.
Mr Beer: Then if we can go forward, please, to page 11. I’m just reading these to give you a bit of context of what the issues are, towards the foot of the page, about eight lines in, starting with the item 152, Mr Gilliland says:
“Well we can pinpoint where the figures have come from that’s not true, we can pinpoint where every figure comes from.”
Mr Athwal: “Can you manipulate those figures from behind the scenes?”
Mr Gilliland: “No, we can’t.”
Mr Athwal “No, you can’t get into the system …”
Answer: “No.”
Mr Athwal: “You cannot get into the Horizon system?”
Mr Gilliland: “No.”
Over the page he says: “Yes, you can?”
Mr Gillibrand says: “No, we can’t, no, we can’t.”
Then you say:
“Nobody in [the Post Office] can get into the system, anything that you’ve seen on the screen has been logged against a user, logging in on the system against a password that only that individual should have in office, we don’t want to know what passwords are so we cannot access those systems at all.”
In the light of the email that you’d received the month before on 5 December, what you said there wasn’t true, was it?
Angela van den Bogerd: So on 5 December Lynn said Post Office can’t, Fujitsu can, and that’s what I’ve said there, that nobody in Post Office can get into the system.
Mr Beer: Oh, come on, Ms van den Bogerd. Are you saying that what you said overall there is accurate?
Angela van den Bogerd: So that is accurate. We go on to talk later about Fujitsu, I believe, but, in terms of what I said there, that was accurate: post Office – nobody in Post Office can get into the system then and I still don’t think anybody can now, even today even four years after I’ve left the business.
Mr Beer: It was inaccurate by not being a full account, wasn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: So –
Mr Beer: “Nobody in Post Office can do this but we found out that people in Fujitsu can”, that would be the open and transparent thing to say, wouldn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: So, at the point here, as you can tell from the notes here, it’s quite – it was quite confrontational between Val and Kevin, and I came in at this to try and calm, so that we could actually start having a proper conversation there. But what I’ve said there is correct: nobody in Post Office can get into the system, and then Val went on to say about Business Development in the Chesterfield team and still nobody in Post Office can get into the system.
Mr Beer: Did you think that was the honest thing to do, to only talk about Post Office, when you knew very well about Fujitsu’s facility remotely to access branch accounts?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think it was important in terms of the distinction. Nobody in Post Office can, and that’s what I was saying. The conversation goes on but all I was doing at that point was distilling the confrontation exchange between Kevin and Val.
Mr Beer: It carries on:
Mr Athwal: “Okay you probably can’t but your Business Development or whoever they are in Chesterfield can.
“No nobody in [the Post Office] can do that”, you say.
Mr Athwal: “Are you sure about that do you want to go back and ask somebody.”
You: “I’ve already asked.
“You have well, I’ve got some contacts as well within Fujitsu and I’ve asked them okay and these will come out in the open later on.
“And what did they tell you did they tell you that people in [the Post Office] can access?
“Yes.
“[The Post Office] cannot categorically access information in branch because it’s all done against a user ID.
“Fine I’m not going to argue with you over it, I’m not going to argue over it.”
Then Mr Gilliland: “But it’s a fact nobody in [the Post Office] can access Horizon, they can’t manipulate any of the data.
“Fine.”
Why were you not being open about Fujitsu access?
Angela van den Bogerd: All the information I had was what Tracy had put into the email the day before.
Mr Beer: So you had the email from Mr Breeden of 5 December?
Angela van den Bogerd: But what I’ve said is that I didn’t remember seeing that email from John Breeden at the time, so this is really my first recollection of anything to do with questioning the system.
Mr Beer: This is within a month of receiving that email, almost to the day. It’s about the very same subject matter.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Are you saying you airbrushed it from your mind?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I don’t remember even seeing it, so unless – and that’s what I struggle with, because –
Mr Beer: Maybe we struggle with it too. Is what is truly happening here that you’re telling us that you don’t recall it because you know that the email of 5 December 2010 presents you with a problem?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, not at all. I mean, I wish I had remembered that information, because that, coming into this meeting with the further information would have been – I would have known a lot more but, in this meeting, I came in on the back of the email that came in the day before from Tracy into this meeting. So that was my first recollection of that information. So the December note from John had no bearing on me in this meeting.
Mr Beer: Why? It’s about remote access, this is about remote access.
Angela van den Bogerd: But – because I said I don’t remember seeing that email. So that – if I hadn’t seen it, then I wouldn’t have taken that knowledge into this meeting. This, for me, was the first time that I’d actually seen – in my head, seen anything to do with remote access and, as I said previously, in my other roles, this hadn’t come up as an issue.
Mr Beer: Can we go forwards to page 47, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: Can I take it, Mr Beer, that, in the parts of transcript which immediately follow the exchange you’ve been looking at, the issue of whether or not Fujitsu could gain remote access doesn’t arise?
Mr Beer: That’s correct, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, fine.
Mr Beer: Can we go forward, please, to page 47 and scroll down to entry 857. You say:
“You claim there’s a glitch in the system in reference to the £436.81.”
I think that’s part of the £700 that showed up on the stock unit. Mr Athwal says:
“And the £400 on the audit that they carried out.”
You say: “We have demonstrated for the information that we have.”
He interrupts and says:
“No, you haven’t you’ve satisfied yourself you haven’t satisfied me.”
You say: “Well I have satisfied myself yes because I have seen the information and that is down to a user at Ferndown under a password only known to that person who has accessed that system, nobody else could have done that so therefore I am satisfied that that was not a glitch in the system.”
He says: “But the £400 transferred out of the safe into a stock unit with a recipient on that stock unit wasn’t even logged on, didn’t even work that day, how do you explain that?”
You say: “Well I haven’t looked at the evidence so I can’t but I’m sure given that I am confident in the system.”
You started this interview by asserting to the subpostmaster and her husband that the security of user ID was important, didn’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: You knew, on the basis of both the email of 5 December 2010 and the email of 5 January 2011 that Fujitsu could remotely access the system?
Angela van den Bogerd: So, as I said, I don’t remember the 5 December one but on the email that Tracy sent to me, that was all the information that I’d been provided with on that – at that point.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to page 41, please. Mr Baker says:
“As you can appreciate it is a very simple computer at the end of the day sitting at the end of an ISDN line and if someone knows what they are doing, they could hack [it], if they’ve got the access rights but of course records would be kept to that somewhere ‘cos you can’t even look at a computer without it keeping a log of what’s gone on.”
You say: “As an audit trail.”
He says: “But you know it is technically ultimately someone within Fujitsu could get into a unit and do whatever they need to do.”
You say: “Not without being seen to have done that Mark.”
Mr Gilliland says: “… this is military level security we’ve got [with Horizon], it’s highly encrypted, it’s very safe, it meets all the external tests …”
Why didn’t you reveal what you had learnt in the email of 5 December?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because, as I say, I didn’t remember seeing that email and, therefore, that had no bearing on my discussion at this meeting, so the information I took into this meeting was from the Tracy Marshall email that came in the day before.
Mr Beer: So this is a month after you received the Hobbs/Breeden email. Why wasn’t that ringing any bells for you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because, as I said previously, I don’t recall receiving that email and the contents of that email hadn’t registered, if I had seen it, and I don’t believe I did because, as I’ve said earlier, it would have stuck in my mind because of the way that email was constructed, because it’s very strange. So I do not believe I had seen the contents of those emails coming in to this meeting.
Mr Beer: How was Tracy Marshall qualified to tell you about the integrity of the Horizon system?
Angela van den Bogerd: So Tracy Marshall herself was passing that on from – I forget who she said. I think it was Andy McLean again. I think it was referenced he would have been the very senior person in IT.
Mr Beer: She says that she had had conversations with Andy McLean and Dave Hulbert?
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay, so Dave Hulbert, again, is a very senior person in the IT function so whilst Tracy – and I can’t speak for Tracy’s knowledge of Horizon or for IT capability, she wasn’t an IT person, but Tracy would have had the experience and known that, if Kevin had asked her to get some information, that it would have been really important that she got the information and passed it on as she had received it, which is what I believe she did in the email.
Mr Beer: You were being challenged here by a trusted subpostmaster and her husband, weren’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t know them and I had no doubt to dispute that they were other – anything other than trusted.
Mr Beer: Did you do anything to investigate whether what Tracy had told you was right, in the light of this interview?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I didn’t. I took it at face value and, as I said, it came in – I forget the time on the email but it was all kind of back-to-back coming into this meeting.
Mr Beer: It’s at 4.59, I think, on the Monday and – sorry, on the Wednesday, and this is on the Thursday.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah. So, as I said, this wasn’t my meeting, it was Kevin’s meeting. He had asked me to come in and support him, I thought more from an operational perspective, because I think Kevin did work in a branch at some point but he didn’t have the relevant and up-to-date experience that I had, and I thought that’s why I was there, and then the email from Tracy came in very late and I took that at face value. And I had no reason to doubt what Tracy was saying, I trust her in terms of her – professionally, I haven’t worked with her a number of years since, mostly after this, but I had no reason to doubt what she said or passed on, anyway.
Sir Wyn Williams: That’s what is going around in my head: at 4.59, if I’ve got what Mr Beer or you just said, you get information from her to the effect that, in certain circumstances, Fujitsu can access the branch accounts. You have no reason to doubt what she’s told you.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: The following day, you’re being challenged about whether the Post Office can do the same, in effect, and you’re saying, unequivocally, no, they can’t. But what you’re not saying is – even if it’s only saying to yourself, as I understand you, “But, hang on a minute, Fujitsu can do this, so shouldn’t I be looking at that?”
Angela van den Bogerd: So what I didn’t do in this meeting and I accept is I didn’t volunteer that information but I have said –
Sir Wyn Williams: Why is that?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think this, for me, I was – I wasn’t really – from my understanding, on solid ground, because I hadn’t talked to anybody about it. I took it at face value. I didn’t understand the technical aspects and, therefore, I was relaying. Kevin was the more senior person. He’d obviously been involved in those discussions with Tracy and I was basically answering some of the questions. Mark had said somebody in Fujitsu can and I basically accepted by saying, “But not without being seen to have done that, Mark”, which is what Tracy had said.
Mr Beer: Thank you. That can come down.
Can I move forward a number of years to the evidence that you gave in the Horizon issues trial.
I should say immediately that I’m going to leave the question of your role in the build-up to the trial and your role in the Group Litigation, generally, to others to ask questions about and, in every other respect, the evidence that you gave, to others to ask questions about and the findings that Mr Justice Fraser made to others to ask you questions about. This is the only thing I’m going to ask you about.
Can we look please at FUJ00163744. Can you see that this is 18 March 2019 in the High Court and this is a transcript of the evidence that you gave.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Yes? If we go forwards, please, to page 53. You’re being asked questions here by Mr Patrick Green King’s Counsel on behalf of the claimants. He’s asking you about a witness statement you made in November 2018, if we just scroll down. He says:
“And you made this witness statement in November 2018. This was something that you were aware of when you made this witness statement, isn’t it –
“Answer: Yes.
“Question: – the possibility of inserting transactions?
“Answer: The possibility but I’ve never actually seen this happen. The possibility of it yes.
“Question: How long have you known about that possibility [ie that’s the possibility of inserting transactions]?
“Answer: This I something I have not – because have not experienced it myself, I have not known of it that long, actually.
“Question: Could you give the court a rough idea of how long you have known it was possible?
“Answer: In terms of inserting transactions, last year or so.
“Question: Who told you about it?
“Answer: Fujitsu.”
Yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So just go back to the bottom of that page. You’re telling the court that the first time you knew of the possibility of inserting transactions was in the last year?
Angela van den Bogerd: Or so, yes.
Mr Beer: That was false, wasn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, at the time I didn’t think it was.
Mr Beer: No, that was false, wasn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: So – if I can just explain. So what had been happening in Post Office was there was – the message on remote access kept changing. So we would ask – so there would be some information that said, you know, there were claims of this happening, and then we get push back that it didn’t happen and, coming in to the GLO, we were still asking questions of Fujitsu and still getting changing messages.
So, for me, this was about the balancing transaction, which was the first formal recognition I knew of inserting a transaction, other than the Legacy system. But it was the balancing transaction that I’ve since learned had been used in March 2010. So when I answered the question, that’s what I had in my head, which was – and that was – I couldn’t remember the date and I still don’t know the date, but it was leading into the trial that I became aware that that was actually something that had happened.
Mr Beer: You’ve used the word “formally” and “actually” in the answer that you have just given.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: In what respect were the communications of December 2010 and January 2011, the latter of which you took at face value, not formal or actual communications of the position?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because the position changed after that, from what I understand, is that we were asking – and I never actually spoke to Fujitsu myself about this and I never actually spoke to the IT guys directly, in terms of Andy McLean. The position was changing and, therefore – and there was very strong messaging coming from within Post Office that these things weren’t possible, so it was only really when I had the balancing transaction information confirmed that that really registered with me that that was the formal position and there was evidence of that having taken place in March 2020 – sorry, March 2010.
Mr Beer: You were suggesting here that you’d only come to know about Fujitsu’s ability to insert transactions in mid-2018, or so –
Angela van den Bogerd: So this –
Mr Beer: – ie in the last year or so, weren’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: So, yeah, that would have been about, as I say, going into – my recollection is coming into the GLO prep, so working that back, about 2017 would have been my recollection but I couldn’t put a date on it, and I still can’t put a date on the balancing transaction.
Mr Beer: So why didn’t you say, “Well, hold on, I was told about it in December 2010” –
Angela van den Bogerd: Um –
Mr Beer: – “or January 2011”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because I think at that – as I say, at that point, the imagining had been changing, and –
Mr Beer: I’m not that concerned about messaging. I’m more interested in the facts.
Angela van den Bogerd: That was my recollection at the time: that it was the balancing transaction that – for me, was that formal recognition from Fujitsu that that could be done.
Mr Beer: Just by way of side issue at the moment, in paragraph 223 of your witness statement, you say that you recall discussions between the Post Office Legal Team and possibly the Post Office IT Team, Fujitsu and Gareth Jenkins in the course of the preparation for the civil litigation but you were not involved in those discussions and, therefore, you can’t assist as to the extent to which Fujitsu or Mr Jenkins provided assistance in the Group Litigation; is that correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Can you confirm that you had no contact with either Mr Jenkins or Fujitsu in relation to the provision of the witness statement that you gave in the High Court?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think from – there was any two – I think there might be two but there was – I’d spoke to Gareth about the Lepton issues at the time that Helen Rose was looking at that.
Mr Beer: So that was back when the events were happening –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – not in preparation for the GLO; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s right, yeah. Although the Helen Rose report was part of the GLO, so I don’t remember if I spoke to Gareth again about that.
Mr Beer: Sorry, to be clear, you can’t remember whether you spoke to Mr Jenkins again –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah –
Mr Beer: – in preparation –
Angela van den Bogerd: – I don’t think I did. I mean, I don’t know Gareth Jenkins, I’ve not met him. There was some email correspondence, I definitely remember, and I think I might have spoken to him maybe once, maybe twice but I don’t remember the detail. So there was the – there was the – I did speak to – had some correspondence with him about the Lepton issue but I think that was previously and I’m not sure if I spoke to him about the Angela Burke information. I don’t remember if I spoke to him directly or not.
Mr Beer: Did you ever meet with Gareth Jenkins?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I’ve never met Gareth Jenkins.
Mr Beer: You say that in your evidence under cross-examination in the Horizon Issues trial. Just for the note, FUJ00163744 at page 25.
In paragraph 214 of your witness statement, if we turn that up, please, which is on page 101, please, paragraph 214, you’re dealing with your Common Issues witness statement here and you say in the second line:
“For the most part this was derived from my own knowledge …”
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: “… some of which will have been drawn documents that [you] had read over the years.”
So that wasn’t derived from any conversations you had with Mr Jenkins at that time?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, what – sorry, I missed –
Mr Beer: The contents of your Common Issues statement?
Angela van den Bogerd: So most of my Common Issues statement was more broadly about Post Office and how it operated.
Mr Beer: Yes. Then what about the Horizon Issues witness statement? Any of that derived from communications with –
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t believe so.
Mr Beer: – or conversations with Mr Jenkins?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think I had a conversation – I can’t remember, but I don’t believe I spoke to Gareth so –
Mr Beer: Thank you. That can come down.
For the Group Litigation, were you asked to participate in any disclosure exercise?
Angela van den Bogerd: No. Not that I remember.
Mr Beer: So you weren’t asked to look at your emails to turn up, for example, the email of 5 December or the email of 5 January?
Angela van den Bogerd: No. So I think the disclosure exercise was done within the business and everything was pulled that way. I don’t remember being asked to go back and look at anything or to search on my particular laptop for anything.
Mr Beer: Did you yourself go back and look at your emails or other document repositories, so that you could consider your state of knowledge on the issues relevant to the Horizon Issues trial for the purposes of preparing either your witness statement or your oral evidence?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: So you didn’t think, “I’m going to be asked about Horizon integrity, I should look at my email account to see what I have received over time about Horizon integrity, so I can give straightforward and open evidence”?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I never searched back. I don’t remember the December emails and I wouldn’t have even known where to look for that because I don’t even remember receiving them, and the Ferndown interview really was – for me, it was less about the Horizon integrity and the remote access; it was more about that – supporting Kevin in that meeting and it was about the relationship reset.
So I didn’t – going into the two trials, I didn’t search through my emails regarding that and I would have forgotten about those emails anyway; as I say, I don’t even remember having the one from John.
Mr Beer: Isn’t that the reason that, if you’re giving evidence in an important case to the High Court on oath, you might conduct an exercise in self-reflection and say, “I’m going to check my emails and see what I knew when”?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wish I had but I didn’t.
Mr Beer: So you maintain that the emails that we’ve looked at of December 2010 and 5 January 2011 were not either shown to you by solicitors preparing your witness statement, or found by you as part of an evidence readying session?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I don’t remember. I mean, it was only coming into this exercise that I remembered the Ferndown – having been involved in it at all.
Mr Beer: Did you conduct any exercise of self-reflection on what you knew about the live issues in the Horizon Issues Trial? Search your own diaries, search your own email inbox and sent items? Look through any notes that you may have made?
Angela van den Bogerd: For the Horizon trial?
Mr Beer: Yes.
Angela van den Bogerd: So the – most content for the Horizon trial is – I pulled from the investigations that my team had done in the cases. I didn’t do any – again, didn’t do any searches on my laptop and, in terms of my diary, not that I can recall.
Mr Beer: Why not?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know because I didn’t think it was relevant in terms of what I was – information I was giving. I just didn’t give it a thought and nobody suggested at all to me that that was something I should be doing.
Mr Beer: When giving evidence today in preparation, you seem to have researched whether 5 December was a Sunday or not?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Why didn’t you give that care and attention to the previous occasions when you gave evidence?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because I think the difference with this Inquiry approach is I had a list of documents to review, I had a list of questions to consider and I did research that really well, as far as I could. That was a very different approach to when I gave evidence in the two trials, and I think, looking back and coming into this, I’ve come into this with – knowing what more to expect, and I’ve made sure that, you know, I’ve familiarised myself with everything I’ve been provided with and requested more information when I think there was more. I didn’t have that same approach going into the two trials.
Mr Beer: Can we go back, then, in time, still looking at remote access, and look at POL00115919. This is a briefing note, as we can see, prepared for Paula Vennells in relation to the Second Sight review into Horizon and, in particular, the implications of their interim report. It’s draft and it’s dated 2 July 2013. If we look at the foot of page 2 for some context, please.
I should say that this is all part of the background being briefed to Ms Vennells. At paragraph 7, it records that:
“Susan Crichton, Lesley Sewell, Alwen Lyons, [you] and Simon Baker met [Second Sight] on 1 July at 3.00 pm to obtain a clearer pure of [Second Sight’s] interim findings and timing for delivery.”
So you’ve seen Second Sight the day before this document –
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
Mr Beer: – to work out what they’re going to say, essentially, in their interim findings, agreed?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t remember but yes, it’s there.
Mr Beer: If we go forwards, please, to page 4, under the heading “The 2 Anomalies”, the document says:
“We also understand [Second Sight’s] Interim Report will discuss two anomalies in Horizon’s operation.
“These were found by Post Office Limited and voluntarily communicated to [Second Sight], ie neither was identified by [Second Sight] as part of its review.”
The first is badged up as the “62 Branch Anomaly”. This is the receipts and payments mismatch bug, if you remember, the thing that was discussed at that meeting in the autumn of 2010, at which it had become apparent to six Post Office people, including Messrs Marwood, Trundell and Winn, that remote access was possible and allowed Fujitsu to tamper with branch accounts without a subpostmaster’s knowledge.
Then a summary is set out. If we just read the first part, (a), it affects 62 branches; concerns the receipts and payments mismatch in Horizon Online, when discrepancies were moved into the local suspense account; appeared first in March 2010; majority of incidents occurred between August and October 2010; the losses ranged from those two amounts; identified by Horizon’s built in checks and balances; could have been identified if the subpostmaster had carefully scrutinised their final balance report; 17 branches were adversely affected; subpostmasters notified in March 2011 and, where appropriate, reimbursed; subpostmasters who made a gain through the anomaly were not asked to refund this; pre-date separation would have been dealt with by Royal Mail Legal.
Then it sets out the reason for delaying notification to subpostmasters.
Then it continues on the “14 Branch Anomaly”, which is something else, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Who was responsible for this summary of the 62 branch anomaly?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think it was Simon Baker that pulled that together.
Mr Beer: Did you contribute towards this?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Did you read it before it was submitted to Ms Vennells?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t recall, I don’t remember seeing that before but I can’t be sure.
Mr Beer: Do you know why it doesn’t pick up, in this context, the remote access issue?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Do you know why it doesn’t reference what you knew was a result of the December 2010 email and the January 2011 email?
Angela van den Bogerd: As I said, I don’t remember the December 2010 anyway, but no, I just don’t remember this at all. Simon was pulling this together, if I remember correctly. Simon was part of the IT and Change space and Simon would have been best placed to have that information but, sorry, I can’t answer anything further than that.
Mr Beer: Can we move on, then, to 2014, please, and look at POL00304439, and start by looking, please, at page 3. There’s an email in 2014, 10 April 2014, from you to Andrew Winn and Alan Lusher so, by this time, I think you were Head of Partnerships; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Yes, we can see that on the footer. The Mediation Scheme is up and running now, yes –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – Second Sight has produced its report? You say to Alan and Andy:
“As part of a Mediation Scheme case submission the Applicant is referring to an email a copy of which I’m trying to track down. You have been mentioned in respect of this email:
“’… with the Andy Winn/Alan Lusher email in the case of Ward which explicitly states that Fujitsu can remotely change the figures in the branches without the [subpostmaster’s] knowledge or authority …’.”
You ask them, as a matter of urgency, to send you a copy of that email, associated emails and any other associated information. So you’re asking them for a copy of the Winn/Lusher email, essentially, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, that’s right.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at the Winn/Lusher email. POL00117650, foot of the page, please. Scroll down a bit, please. Thank you. Mr Lusher to Mr Winn.
“I spoke to you a few days ago about a suspension at Rivenhall.”
Over the page:
“[Got] a good understanding of the problem …”
Skip the next paragraph. Mr Ward, the subpostmaster, raised:
“1. … that on a number of occasions figures have appeared in the cheques line of his account. He suspects these have been input into his account electronically without his knowledge or consent. He is certain that he has cleared and remmed out cheques in the correct we and tells me that cheques must be properly cleared on the system to progress to a new account.
“2. He has made good about £10,000 and not made good about £11,000 of the shortages … He claims that because of the abnormal nature of these entries, the shortages have just not rolled over from one branch trading statement to [another].
“The subpostmaster’s contract remains suspended.”
Then the reply on page 1, please:
“The only way that [the Post Office] can impact branch accounts remotely is via the transaction correction process. These have to be accepted by the branch in the same way that in/out remittances are I guess. If we were able to do this, the integrity of the system would be flawed. Fujitsu have the ability to impact branch records via the message store but have extremely rigorous procedures in place to prevent adjustments being made without prior authorisation – within [the Post Office] and Fujitsu.
“These controls form the core of our court defence if we get to that stage. He [the subpostmaster] makes a casual accusation that is extremely serious to the business. As usual he should either produce the evidence for this or withdraw the accusation.”
You see that?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So that’s the email you’re after, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Correct.
Mr Beer: Can we go, please, back to POL00304439. If we scroll down to page 2, please, bottom of the page:
“Angela
“Please find attached an email which may be the one referred to?”
I believe it is the one we just referred to:
“I have records of a significant number of documents [et cetera]. Would you like me to send everything to you?”
Top of the page:
“Thanks for sending this email through – very helpful.”
So in 2014, you were being told, as well, that remote access by Fujitsu was possible?
Angela van den Bogerd: From Andy Winn’s note, yes.
Mr Beer: Did you reveal that to the High Court when you gave evidence?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t believe I did, on the –
Mr Beer: Did you forget about this email too?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think I’ve raised that internally to get to the bottom of it but I can’t recall. But –
Mr Beer: You told the High Court that you only learned about the facility to insert transactions about a year before giving evidence. So far, we’ve looked at the December 2010, the January 2011 and now an April 2014 series of emails that are telling you about that facility, agreed?
Angela van den Bogerd: As I’ve said, the balancing transaction was the first formal notification that I recall of being made aware of. Before that, there were a number of – and you’re quite right – the emails but I have – and the Andy Winn I did something, I can’t remember exactly what, in terms of getting under the skin of that because there did seem to be a number of almost throwaway lines on Horizon integrity, or things like that, that just weren’t being evidenced, and it was the balancing transaction for me, that was the first time it was proof that it did exist and it had actually been used.
So I’m not sure exactly. I mean, when I gave my evidence to the trials, it was on the basis of what I understood to be true at the time. There will be, like December 2010, as I say, I didn’t remember, and there are things I will have forgotten about but there are things that have moved on from some of the information that’s been shown, I just can’t remember exactly thought the outcome of that was.
Mr Beer: Sir, might we take our second morning break there, please?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can I just check the time precisely. Can we reconvene at 12.25 past, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes. Certainly, and will you give some thought to then going on until, say, about 1.15 because, if we only have one break in the afternoon, it’s probably better if we have a slightly later lunch.
Mr Beer: Thank you sir, yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine.
(12.14 pm)
(A short break)
(12.25 pm)
Mr Beer: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, I can.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
Ms van den Bogerd, we were looking at the email exchange of 10 April 2014 where you were tracking down a keep of the Winn/Lusher email exchange.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00304478. If we look at the first page, we can see we’re now on 9 May and there is a whole chain sent to you by Andrew Parsons, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we can look at the chain, please, to see what it contained and start on page 6, please. If we scroll to the bottom, please, we’ll see an email from Rodric Williams of 14 April to James Davidson of Fujitsu, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: “James,
“Could Fujitsu please answer the questions below so that we can respond to a specific challenge put to us by Second Sight in connection with a Mediation … complaint …
“‘the [Winn/Lusher] email in the case of Ward … explicitly states that Fujitsu can remotely change the figures in the branches without the subpostmasters knowledge or authority’.”
He attaches the Winn/Lusher email:
“The part of the email in question is:
“‘Fujitsu have the ability to impact branch records via the message store but have extremely rigorous procedures in place to prevent adjustments being made without prior authorisation – within [the Post Office] and Fujitsu these controls form the core of our defence if we get to that stage’.”
Then Mr Winn sets out a series of questions:
“Can Post Office change branch transaction data without a subpostmaster being aware of the change?
“Can Fujitsu change branch transaction data without a subpostmaster being aware of the change?
“If not, where is the evidence for this conclusion?
“If so:
“How does this happen?
“Why was this functionality built [in]?
“Why would Fujitsu need to use this functionality?
“When has branch data been accessed in this way …
“In relation to the Winn/Lusher email:
“What is ‘message store’?
“Can this be used to access and change branch [accounts]?
“What is the ‘impact’ of this change on branch [accounts]?
“Would the subpostmaster be aware of this change?
“Why would this method of access be used?
“What controls are in place to prevent misuse of this method of access?”
All penetrating questions, do you agree?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: They necessarily arise from the two lines in the Winn/Lusher email that we’ve seen?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: They’re logical questions that arise from it. Can we go, please, to page 4. Halfway down the page, Mr Davidson of Fujitsu replies to Mr Williams:
“Please see [the] response below.”
Then if we go to 2:
“Can Fujitsu change branch transaction data without a subpostmaster being aware of the change? [Answer] Once created, branch transaction data cannot be changed …”
Then this:
“… only additional data can be inserted. If this is required, the additional transactions will be visible on the trading statements but would not require acknowledgement/approval by a subpostmaster, the approval is given by Post Office via the change process. In response to a previous query Fujitsu checked last year when this was done on Horizon Online and we found any one occurrence in March 2010 which was early in the pilot for Horizon Online and was covered by an appropriate change request … For Old Horizon, a detailed examination of archived data would have to be undertaken to look into this across the lifetime of use. This would be a significant and complex exercise to undertake and discussed previously with Post Office but this counted as too costly and impractical.”
Then he gives a series of answers that I’m not going to read out to Mr Williams’ questions at 4(a) to (e) and then 5(a) to (f).
Then, before we move on from that, you would agree this is Fujitsu saying that Fujitsu can insert branch transaction data?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: This is Fujitsu saying that they, Fujitsu, could do so without approval by a subpostmaster?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, they’re referring to the balancing transaction, although they’ve not specifically said that here.
Mr Beer: You think this is all about balancing transactions, essentially?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think so, yes.
Mr Beer: Can we go to page 2, please, foot of the page. Mr Williams says he’s producing a first draft of the note, noting that he has intentionally not referred to the Winn/Lusher email, as it distracts from what is otherwise a very clear picture. He hopes this will put the matter to bed and the matter need not be escalated to the Working Group, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: Then page 1, please, that whole chain is provided to you, and the interim or the proposed interim answer to Second Sight’s question as to whether it is possible for anyone to access Horizon Online and amend transaction data without the knowledge of the subpostmaster or their staff, second line:
“There’s no functionality in the Horizon system,
(through either a front-end terminal or back-end server)
Mr Beer: to edit or delete transaction data once it has been transmitted from a branch to the central branch data centre. [This] is encrypted, transferred to the branch data centre and stored in a separate audit server where they are sealed using industry standard secure protocols to ensure the data’s integrity. Although it is possible to input additional transactions into a branch’s accounts … a subpostmaster will always that have visibility of these extra transactions as they are shown separately in the branch’s accounts. A more detailed note will follow …”
Did you approve this holding response and pass it to Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t approve it.
Mr Beer: Why was it being sent to you?
Angela van den Bogerd: To pass on.
Mr Beer: I’m sorry?
Angela van den Bogerd: To pass on, I think.
Mr Beer: To Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think so because I tended to be passing things on to Second Sight at the time, rather –
Mr Beer: Keep your voice up please?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, I tended to be passing things on to Second Sight at the time for that information. But, just going back to what you’ve – what this doesn’t say, it doesn’t mention balancing transaction and, looking at this now, this should have mentioned balancing transaction.
Mr Beer: You’re ahead of me of the things that it fails to mention.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry.
Mr Beer: It fails to set out that Fujitsu had confirmed that Fujitsu could insert additional transaction data outside of transaction corrections, doesn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, it does.
Mr Beer: And that that didn’t require the approval or acknowledgement of the subpostmaster; it doesn’t say that either, does it?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, it doesn’t.
Mr Beer: It failed to inform Second Sight that the Post Office could not address the extent of any use of remote access in Legacy Horizon, something that had been used for 10 years, because a detailed examination of archived data was needed, and that would be costly and impractical. It doesn’t say that, does it?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, it doesn’t.
Mr Beer: Can you explain why the Post Office chose not to include those three pieces of information?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know. I mean, it says a more detailed not will follow but it won’t be ready before the fact file. But on the basis – I don’t know what further work Andy expected to be done on this because – just reading, you know, what we’ve just gone through, even though – sorry, James Davidson – I think it was, wasn’t it – didn’t actually mention balancing transaction by name. That is what it took from reading this but, at the time I wouldn’t have known about a balancing transaction, it’s just that I know about that subsequently and we should have – it should have been put into this.
And I think I’ve just forwarded this on to Second Sight as that’s our position at the moment, expecting something else to follow but I don’t know what.
Mr Beer: Do you agree the answer that has been drafted by Mr Parsons, by comparison to the information provided by Fujitsu is materially incomplete?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we move on, please, to POL00091394. Can we start with page 2, please.
We’re in October 2014 now. If we just look at the foot of page 1 to get the context, an email from Jessica Barker to a wide range of people, including you. It’s about one of their cases that has been referred to mediation, yes –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – MO53:
“Second Sight have released a revised version of their draft CRR for M053.”
Can you remember what CRRs were?
Angela van den Bogerd: Case review reports, and that’s Second Sight’s investigation into the scheme applications.
Mr Beer: So it’s essentially a draft of what Second Sight propose to say about an individual case; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: Just read the rest of that to yourself because it’s not completely material. If we go back to page 1, please, middle of the page, Belinda Crowe, what role was she performing in late 2014?
Angela van den Bogerd: So Belinda was the Programme Director for Project Sparrow. She also was the Secretariat for the Working Group, the scheme Working Group.
Mr Beer: She asked the question:
“Is this the first [ie the first CRR] which references remote access? I think we need to pick this up very robustly in our response as this could become public and Second Sight seem to be asking for proof that something didn’t happen.
“Could we dust off our lines on this?”
Then if we scroll up the page, please. Melanie Corfield, late 2014, what role was she performing?
Angela van den Bogerd: She was part of the Comms Team.
Mr Beer: So a media and communications expert –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – or professional?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: She replies to the same group, including you:
“Our current line if we are asked about remote access … being used to change branch data/transactions is simply: ‘This is not at never has been possible’.”
You knew that was false from multiple sources by now, didn’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, because we – well, what we’ve just seen was injecting transactions in, branch – balancing transaction.
Mr Beer: We’ve got the 2010 email that you don’t recall, we’ve got the January 2011, we’ve got the earlier exchanges in April and May 2014. That first statement, “This is not and has never been possible”, is false.
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, she’s talking about change in branch data. Yeah, I think it’s a stretch. I mean, I’m talking about inserting a transaction, I’m not sure what – I mean, that’s what it says, change branch data and transactions.
Mr Beer: You wouldn’t want a Post Office line to dance on the head of a pin, would you?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I wouldn’t.
Mr Beer: Which I think is what you were doing a moment ago, weren’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m just trying –
Mr Beer: Contemplating the possibility that, because this doesn’t refer to injecting new data –
Angela van den Bogerd: I suppose I’m just trying to rationalise why, you know, that’s been said when what we’ve just come out of is the balancing transaction information.
Mr Beer: It continues:
“This line holds but if we are pressed regarding [Second Sight’s] point about ‘admitting’ there is remote access we can say ‘There is no remote access for individual branch transactions’.”
You knew that was false, as well, from multiple sources, didn’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, do you mind – so the James Davidson email, what date was on that?
Mr Beer: Davidson email was 9 May.
Angela van den Bogerd: 2014?
Mr Beer: Yes.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, your original question was I knew this was false on the back –
Mr Beer: Yes, that line that there is no remote access for individual branch transactions?
Angela van den Bogerd: On the back of the email from James Davidson, then clearly I was aware of that and I just didn’t pick this up.
Mr Beer: Ms Corfield continues:
“We might get pushed further on it and be asked by media to confirm whether or not there is any remote access. We will need to make the distinction re access as straightforward as we can so suggest: ‘There is no remote access for individual branch transactions. Fujitsu has support access to the “back end” of the system used for software updates and maintenance. This is of course is strictly controlled with security processes in place but could not, in any event, be used for individual branch transactions – there is no facility at all within the system for this’.”
You knew that was false as well, didn’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: It didn’t register with me at the time but, obviously, from what we’ve discussed, then this was incorrect in terms of a flow of information, yes.
Mr Beer: So the three lines, which seemed to be a “main line” in paragraph 1, an “if pressed” line in paragraph 2 and then “if really pushed” in paragraph 3, all three of them contain statements which you knew to be false, didn’t they?
Angela van den Bogerd: Although I didn’t recognise it at the time, yes.
Mr Beer: Did you do anything to correct these three false lines to take?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t remember. I note that we’ve got Rod and Andy Parsons on here, as well. So I don’t remember if anything else came out of this.
Mr Beer: Mr Parsons’ time will come in due course. I’m asking you at the moment.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, my answer was I don’t remember.
Mr Beer: Well, can you help us? We’ve seen a slew of emails now that informed you, in one way or another, of the facility of Fujitsu remotely to access individual transactions in branch accounts and change them by inserting data. Why wouldn’t you put your hand up and say, “Hold on, this is all wrong, what we’re proposing to say”.
Angela van den Bogerd: I just can’t recall. To me, I just – it couldn’t have registered with me in terms of the flow of information that had gone before. As I said, the messaging was constantly changing but, on the back of the James Davidson email, I think that – you know, which had come from Fujitsu, other information had come from within the business or from different sources, but that had come from Fujitsu and, therefore, that, for me, should have been registering as that and, notwithstanding, you know, the note that Andy put together, but it should have been registering that that is what Fujitsu were saying could happen, which is the balancing transaction.
Mr Beer: If we scroll down a little bit – thank you – Belinda Crowe says:
“I think we need to pick this up [that’s the suggestion of remote access] very robustly in our response as this could become public …”
Is that the reason why you didn’t pick any of this up and say, “Hold on, there are three false statements – the only statements we’re proposing to make are each false”?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Because the business wanted to respond robustly?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wouldn’t have – it just didn’t – if it had registered with me, I would have challenged it because, you know, we had one of the applicants to the scheme, which is what’s triggered all of this anyway, that was already in the public domain, because we were not openly in the public domain but we were already dealing with that. So if that’s what our position should have been, then we should have been saying that, and I must – I just must have missed it.
Mr Beer: It’s you and quite a lot of other people, isn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: In terms of who else had missed it, is that what you’re saying?
Mr Beer: Mm.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah, and I just –
Mr Beer: Well, is it a case of everyone missing it or is it that the overriding objective is to defend very robustly the position that there is no remote access?
Angela van den Bogerd: That was never my position. I mean, if – I came into the scheme originally, at the start, to get under the skin of was there any substance in the claims and I took that role on voluntarily, on top of the day job I was doing at the time, because I really wanted to understand. There is no way that, if I’d thought there was something in that, that I would have – I was certainly not trying to cover up or suppress or do anything along those lines and that’s the bit I’m struggling with because it wasn’t just me; there are other people being party to the same information at that point.
Mr Beer: Thank you. That can come down. Can we must have forward to the next year then, 2015, still dealing with remote access, and look at POL00089010.
This is, as you can see at the top, a briefing for you, in relation to an internal film re Panorama. It relates, to give you some context, to the BBC Panorama episode that was called “Trouble at the Post Office”; do you remember that?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I do.
Mr Beer: That was eventually aired on 17 August 2015.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: The document itself isn’t dated but it was sent, we can tell from other evidence, to you from Mel Corfield by email on 18 June 2015.
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
Mr Beer: Okay? If we just familiarise ourselves with it because I don’t think we’ve seen this before:
“Background – Film for use through internal channels throughout the business to deliver key messages and facts about allegations likely to be made in the BBC Panorama programme. It will be alongside and supplemented by the full internal communications plan currently in development.
“Although an internal film, it will of course be ‘in public’ so available to external audiences.
“It will be 3-5 minutes of hardhitting question and answer session between you and Kim Fletcher from Brunswick.”
Is Brunswick a media and public relations consultancy?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So this was going to be a Q&A where Brunswick, the media and comms people, put questions, hardhitting questions, to you –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and you answered them. This was intended for internal consumption principally; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That was the intention, yes.
Mr Beer: “Whilst we will focus on some key rebuttals regarding the content of Panorama, this messaging should likely address concerns or questions from a Network perspective so people feel confident re the Post Office position, reassured regarding the system and, importantly, they are being kept well informed … will include some ‘signposting’ to other communication materials. We appreciate your guidance about the messaging for the Network on this subject.
“Panorama: you’ll have seen the latest email sent on Friday.
“Theme appears to be an allegation of potential miscarriages of justice thorough inappropriate conduct by Post Office, especially regarding alleged ‘pressure’ on postmasters to plead guilty to false accounting.
“Focusing on three criminal cases (Jo Hamilton, Noel Thomas and Seema Misra), aspects of which they are likely to attempt to ‘illustrate’ wider allegations and which will, of course, supply significant ‘human interest’. The key aspect of this will likely be allegations to try to create the perception that people were prosecuted for ‘getting in a muddle’ and for the recovery of money.
“They are likely to refer heavily to Second Sight’s reports throughout (as ‘evidence’).
“They are likely to have contributors who will continue to ‘cast doubts’ about Horizon through ‘technical opinions’/supposed ‘revelations’ about aspects of the system highly likely to include at least one ‘stunt’ in the programme and could well be on the subject of alleged remote access but indications are there will also be selectively ‘leaked’ material that will be used out of context.
“They are likely to include allegations that the Post Office has not run the Mediation Scheme fairly and has hampered it to avoid [the risk of] compensation.”
I’m not going to read the rest of that page. Can we go to page 3, please. The “Key messages”, would you understand these are the key messages for you to get out?
Angela van den Bogerd: As this is written, yes.
Mr Beer: Number 1:
“This is about missing money, which we have a duty to protect.
“Trust is vital.
“We have a duty to protect the money in our branches. If cash goes missing and this is covered up we must investigate and act on this.
“We don’t prosecute people for making mistakes – many never have and we never will. Prosecutions are very rare and only ever in the light of all the available evidence and circumstances.”
Then the second message:
“We do not control the legal process.
“If we do prosecute, this is done with numerous checks and balances – ultimately scrutinised by defence lawyers and the courts themselves.
“We do not bring charges or prosecute without evidence and we do not pressure anyone regarding their plea to a charge. The decision to plead guilty or not guilty is always one for the defendant only, having taken advice …
“Criminal cases are kept under continual review – that is our absolute duty. In none of our investigations, nor through that of the independent accountants, has any evidence emerged to suggest that a conviction is unsafe.”
I’m going to come back to that this afternoon.
“Such matters cannot be assessed in the media on partial – and often inaccurate – information and nor should it be in any circumstances.”
Those two messages: is all about missing money stolen by subpostmasters; and we, the post office, don’t control the legal process, it’s defence lawyers and the courts.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Did you understand in mid-2015 they were the key messages that the Post Office wished to get out?
Angela van den Bogerd: I hadn’t seen it all put together in one place but, given that this was put together as a briefing document for me, then yes.
Mr Beer: The third key message is:
“There is nothing wrong with the computer system.”
So before I ask you about that, if we just scroll up, please: this is all about missing money that we’ve got a duty to protect. We heard evidence earlier this week from Susan Crichton, the General Counsel of the Post Office, and she told the Chairman that you were amongst a group of people who had been in the Post Office for a very long time, who held the view that this was public money that was being stolen, it needed to be protected and it needed to be recovered through prosecutions; is that correct?
Angela van den Bogerd: In terms of taxpayers’ money, I was always made aware that this is taxpayers’ money, when I came into the Post Office, so that was a consideration and, therefore, we had a duty to protect it and make sure that we had the right checks in place. Recovery through prosecution, that wouldn’t have been on my radar at all. So it was really about, from an operational perspective, just having the consideration and it was always the consideration, actually, that this is taxpayers’ money, and not just in the context of subpostmasters but as a business as a whole.
Mr Beer: Ms Crichton held the view or seemed to hold the view that there were a group of people that were particularly long serving, which group included you, that emphasised this point, rather than it just being a fact or matter as you’ve described it today that is part of the background. Is it something that you emphasised, that this is public money that we’ve got a duty to protect?
Angela van den Bogerd: No. I don’t ever remember doing that. As I said, I had been in the business a long time, I’d worked – I’d started working in branch and it was always part of the consideration that we are a – not a – well, we were – the shareholder was Government but we were in that kind of quasi-state where we were required to make a profit as well. But it was – we should have consideration for the taxpayers’ money but not against – you know, as if it was a real emphasis against anything else. It wasn’t the be-all and end-all, is what I’m trying to say. It was a consideration and I don’t ever remember emphasising that to Susan or anybody else.
I mean, Kevin was Network, he’d been in the business, I think, longer than me actually, and there would be other people in the network that would have been in as long as me or even longer. But I don’t remember ever it being emphasised, but it was a consideration.
Mr Beer: There wasn’t a cabal of long-serving, up through the ranks, started off as counter clerks or similar, who a held the belief this was just “subbies” with their hands in the till?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not at all. Not at all. I mean, my position, I’d worked very closely with postmasters for a number of years and, you know, I said on a number of occasions into the organisation, where people did think postmasters had their hand in the till, is that, in my view, postmasters were hardworking, honest, decent people and they didn’t come into the Post Office to defraud. That wasn’t why they came into the Post Office. It was quite the opposite: they came in to serve the communities that they lived within.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to the third key message at the foot of the page.
“There is nothing wrong with the computer system.
“We have never said Horizon is perfect or infallible. It’s a computer system so of course things can go wrong. But this is about facts not theories and there is not a single example of Horizon causing losses in any of the cases we’ve examined exhaustively during the past few years.
“I’ve gone through these cases, every single one and I have looked at all the facts. That means all the facts, not just Horizon records.”
Over the page:
“What we found and what the independent accountants reviewing the cases have found is that the majority of losses were down to human error, and some were, regrettably, down to dishonesty. We cannot get away from that.”
Is that what you thought the outcome of the initial investigation by Second Sight and the Mediation Scheme was?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, our investigations didn’t find there was any evidence that the losses were caused by Horizon system and that is what Second Sight concluded as well, and some of it would have been the majority of losses. I can’t remember that we ever pointed to dishonesty but it would have been one of the potential outcomes of the investigations.
But I think, just going back to this, this is a brief that’s been put together for me. I can’t remember what we did as a result of this because I did try and get some further disclosure to say did we film – because I don’t remember. Certainly, film didn’t go out but, in having a brief prepared for me, I would have then, if I was going to use this, I would have fine-tuned it to (1) how I speak and, if there was any corrections in the facts, then I would have corrected it.
Mr Beer: Can we go forward to page 7, please. And scroll down to that main heading, “Second Sight’s evidence”. This is part of the briefing which addresses the main allegations that Ms Corfield believed would be made by Panorama and the suggested replies:
“Second Sight’s evidence that remote access to branch data is possible in spite of Post Office denials.”
Reply:
“This is about facts, not theories. There’s been a lot of inaccurate things said in the media about ‘remote access’ but there’s not a single example in these cases of Horizon causing losses, whether through remote tampering or anything else.
“The most important points sometimes get lost in the technical explanations: once a transaction is recorded by the branch it cannot be changed remotely; everything that happens leaves a ‘footprint’, so there is an audit trail that shows every keystroke, every transaction, everything that has happened. We’ve looked at all of that.
“Of course we have transaction corrections and acknowledgements and the other tools needed to make sure that branches can stay in balance but these must be accepted by the branch and they do not make changes to the original transactions themselves; they are recorded separately.
“The system is independently audited, monitored and managed and meets or exceeds industry accreditations.”
Irrespective of the state of Post Office knowledge, would you accept that this response to the allegation regarding remote access does not actually address whether remote access is possible?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, it doesn’t. I mean, this is – I think you’ve said this was 2015, isn’t it, June 2015?
Mr Beer: Yes, 18 June 2015.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, okay. No, it kind of skirts around things.
Mr Beer: It sidesteps it, doesn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, it does.
Mr Beer: Do you know why it sidesteps it?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think this is because it’s been put together by a comms person.
Mr Beer: Why would a comms person want to sidestep –
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not –
Mr Beer: – the main allegation?
Angela van den Bogerd: – sorry, I’m not necessarily saying they would want to do that or intended to do that it’s just that, if I’d written this myself, I would have used different language and would have pointed to different things, because, in the mix of all of this, we had the scheme case that was the Bracknell issue, that Ron and Ian had been trying to get to the bottom of, and hadn’t. So, you know, there were issues in the scheme that we were dealing with.
So this is different – I would have written this differently.
Mr Beer: By mid-2015, was it the Post Office’s position that it’s best to avoid answering directly the question of whether remote access was possible because it will open us up to greater scrutiny?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t believe so because we did an interview with Panorama around this time as well – sorry, a meeting that we had taped, so it was slightly different language that was used in that. So, to answer your question, no, I don’t think it was.
Mr Beer: Lastly on the issue of remote access, then, in your witness statement, paragraph 161, you say that you were engaged with subpostmasters regarding investigation issues in the Mediation Scheme, any business as usual queries and other general queries within Post Office relating to subpostmasters, and where concerns related to remote access issues, the Post Office had a pre-approved wording for what you were to say, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, to the documents you refer to as the pre-approved wording of what you were to say. POL00022659.
It’s an email from Amy Prime of Bond Dickinson, then a trainee, to, amongst others, you, in July 2016:
“Please find attached the remote access wording for your review.
“We shall provide any comments that counsel may have on this wording in due course.”
This appears to be being provided in the context of the response to the letter of claim?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s my understanding, yes.
Mr Beer: So the people who were to become the GLO claimants had written through Freeths solicitors a letter of claim –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and this is part of the process by which the reply to that was being constructed it; is that right?
You, in your witness statement, said that the Post Office had a pre-approved wording of what you were to say to subpostmasters or within the Mediation Scheme or within any business as usual questions about remote access.
Are you saying that this document that we’re about to look at had been developed by the Post Office before it was distributed on 27 July 2016?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I’m not saying that. What I was trying to do in my witness statement is kind of give a flavour of the strong messaging that was coming from POL over my time, in terms of Horizon and the remote access. So, no, I’m not saying that, in regard of this.
Mr Beer: Can we look at the attachment, please, which is POL00022665. As we can see, it’s a rider, ie something to slot into the response to the letter of claim:
“Response to the factual allegation that Horizon does not record transactions accurately and/or the Post Office has been manipulating Horizon data.”
You will see what is set out, I’m not going to, given the time, read through it. Are you saying that we should understand that what is set out in here was pre-approved wording by Post Office of what you were to say before this document was produced?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I’m not – sorry, I didn’t mean that, and apologies for that – how it’s been taken, but this document and the information within the document will have and did pull from information within the organisation that we’d had over time and had been sense checked, and I think, if I remember this correctly, there was further sense-checking that needed to be done on the back of this note. So I don’t think this was the absolute final version but it wasn’t – it wasn’t pre-approved wording but it’s something that – the information had come from within the organisation.
Mr Beer: Can we just look at your witness statement, then, please, at page 80, and paragraph 161 at the bottom. You say:
“In respect of concerns raised by [subpostmasters] from 2012 onwards I would have normally been the person to engaged with [subpostmasters], for example investigating issues raised as part of the Scheme dealing with ‘Business As Usual’ queries (those raised outside the scheme and after the scheme had closed) and dealing with general queries … that related to subpostmasters.”
Then this:
“Where concerns relate to remote access issues, the Post Office that pre-approved wording for what we were to say, for example see [and you cross-referenced the two documents I just shown you] which confirms the approved wording as at July 2016.”
You told us already that what we see in the July 2016 document is not the approved wording that would have been given before then.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So where are these approved wordings from the Post Office that were given from 2012 onwards, as to what you were to say as to remote access?
Angela van den Bogerd: So that would have been in the comms messaging.
Mr Beer: What do you mean by that?
Angela van den Bogerd: So –
Mr Beer: Ms van den Bogerd, we’ve looked at a series of direct emails to you, setting out what was said to you about remote access –
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: – from 2010 onwards. You appear to be suggesting here that the Post Office was, by contrast, giving you pre-approved wordings of what say. I’m asking, where are they, the pre-approved wordings?
Angela van den Bogerd: So what I’ve – what I’m trying to say is, so there’s – the information that we’ve walked through today, this morning, some of which I remember, some of which I don’t and I think I’ve said that, and then what – there was a constant messaging from the business around remote access and Horizon and this is – you know, these are the lines that have been approved by the business for us to use. So there was this constant use of messaging around what we should say and – so that it’s consistent.
But what we’ve seen here, obviously in terms of where we’ve walked thorough this today, is the disconnect between a number of things that I’ve seen that I clearly haven’t registered in terms of the messaging in parallel to that.
Mr Beer: Is it that you didn’t want to register the disconnect, as you put it –
Angela van den Bogerd: No, absolutely not.
Mr Beer: – and that, instead, you were part of the messaging, weren’t you? This wasn’t something that was happening to you; it was something that was caused by you?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think so. So I’m – I don’t have the technical expertise in IT and, therefore, I was very much receiving a lot of this myself, which is why it hasn’t registered on some of the occasions, and where it’s been changed, the messaging has been changed because it’s coming from a different source. So I was absolutely not trying to massage this in any way; quite the opposite. But, as I said, you know, I’ve missed some stuff coming thorough here.
Mr Beer: Can you point to a single email or other communication in which you correct any messaging which says there is no remote access or no remote access that a subpostmaster will not know about?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, can you repeat that? Sorry?
Mr Beer: Yes, can you point to a single email or other communication from you which corrects messaging, which says there is no remote access or no remote access about which a subpostmaster will not know about?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think so. I can’t recall doing such an email.
Mr Beer: Sir, it has just gone past 1.10, I’m about to move to another topic, namely bugs, errors or defects.
Sir Wyn Williams: Of course, yes.
Mr Beer: Could we say 1.55, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, all right.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much.
(1.10 pm)
(The short adjournment)
(1.55 pm)
Mr Beer: Good afternoon. Can you see and hear us, sir?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, I can.
Mr Beer: Good afternoon, Ms van den Bogerd, can we pick up the issue of bugs, errors and defects, please, by turning up your witness statement to page 13, at the foot of the page, and you say in paragraph 29:
“The first time I recall becoming formally aware of any bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon IT System (‘BEDs’ – although this wasn’t the term used at the time) is when [the Post Office] disclosed to Second Sight two anomalies – ‘Receipts and Payments Mismatch Problem’ and the ‘Local suspense Account Problem’ which were detailed in the Interim Report 8 July 2013.”
Then paragraph 30 over the page, please, first few lines:
“Prior to this, I was aware of general ‘rumblings’ of complaints and concerns about the integrity of Horizon, and when [you] took over responsibility for the Contract and Administration Team I became aware of claims the Horizon system itself was generating discrepancies in branches.”
Okay?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: So going back to paragraph 29, at the foot of the page, what did you mean by becoming “formally aware”.
Angela van den Bogerd: So in terms of the bugs themselves, that was the first time I became aware. I say “formally aware”, you know, I said “rumblings”, so I was aware that people were claiming that there might be something wrong with the system but it was only when those two bugs were disclosed that I became aware of bugs.
Mr Beer: But we’ve looked already – I don’t want to go back to it unless we have to – at the December 2010 email, by which email you were notified of the receipts and payments mismatch bug?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, I was notified in December 2010?
Mr Beer: Yes, December 2010?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t, I don’t recall that. So the – the document you took me to, which was that record of the discussion, I wasn’t aware of that at the time.
Mr Beer: Can we look then, please, at POL00088956, second page. The remote access issue, second line of the quotation:
“… came up when we were exploring solutions around a problem generated by the system following a migration to Horizon Online. This issue was quickly identified and a fix put in place but it impacted around 60 branches, which meant a loss and gain incurred in a particular week in effect disappeared from the system.”
Angela van den Bogerd: As I’ve said, I don’t recall seeing this at all. So, for me, the first time of bugs, errors or defects, or whatever word that was being used, was when there were two disclosed to Second Sight as part of that work.
Mr Beer: Again, are you shutting your mind to the receipt of this information because you know the difficulty that it creates for you?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, not at all. I would – if I’d seen these and remembered seeing it, I would have certainly – it would have been part of my consciousness going forward. I really cannot see – remember seeing this at all and it was – the first time was when Simon Baker produced those two anomalies, as he called them.
Mr Beer: That can come down, thank you. Were you not aware, at the time, then, ie in October 2010, that Fujitsu formally notified the Post Office of the receipts and payments mismatch bug?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t aware of that.
Mr Beer: The cross-reference for that – it needn’t be displayed – is FUJ0008117. Were you not aware at the time that it happened, then, again in October 2010, of a meeting – I showed you the agenda or the plan for the meeting earlier on – between the Post Office and Fujitsu to discuss the receipts and payments mismatch bug?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t aware of that.
Mr Beer: Sorry?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that. I said I was in a different role in October. It was only when I came into the Head of Network Services role, which brought in Lynn and John, that I started to get involved.
Mr Beer: At the time, then, you were not aware of the provision of notes concerning the receipts and payments mismatch bug to members of the Legal team, the POL Legal team, Jarnail Singh, Rob Wilson and Julian McFarlane –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – in the context of the Seema Misra case?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: You didn’t know about that at the time?
Angela van den Bogerd: It was much later that I heard about the Seema Misra case.
Mr Beer: Did you know that a meeting was arranged in November 2010, including Dave Hulbert, Mark Weaver, Mark Burley, Rod Ismay, Dave King, Will Russell, Ian Trundell, Emma Langfield, Lynn Hobbs and Anita Taylor(?), to discuss how to resolve the discrepancies generated by branches or at branches by the receipts and payments mismatch bug?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I don’t believe I was. I can’t –
Mr Beer: So this all came as very significant new news to you in mid-2013; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: In terms of the BEDs being disclosed, yes.
Mr Beer: Yes. Were you aware, at that time in mid-2013, of any discussions within the Post Office senior management as to how high up within the organisation knowledge of the now three-year-old receipts and payments mismatch bug had gone?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: On the publication of the Second Sight Report, did you seek to ascertain when the Post Office first became aware of that bug?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, the report that the two bugs were put into, the interim report we’re talking about?
Mr Beer: Yes.
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Did you seek to ascertain which departments or which individuals within the Post Office knew about that bug?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Why not?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because the way it was presented was that we’ve got these two bugs, so that was a surprise to me, and I was reassured that it’s routine, we’ve dealt with them, it’s been sorted, and I didn’t push any further on it.
Mr Beer: Were you aware that the suspense account bugs, which is the second of the two bugs which you say Post Office made a disclosure about to Second Sight had, in fact, been discovered by the Post Office in February 2012 before Fujitsu?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Again, did you ask similar questions: what did we know about this bug? When did we first become aware of it? How high up within the organisation did knowledge go?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: In fact, Second Sight mentioned a third bug, as well, the Callendar Square or Falkirk bug. That was known, we have evidence by the Post Office, way back in 2006. The cross-reference for that is FUJ00083721, no need to display that. Was your first knowledge of that when reading the Second Sight Report?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t remember. So it was the two bugs that were disclosed was my first knowledge. I was aware of a third because it is some exchange in what’s been disclosed that I was querying why we’d only given Second Sight two, if we already knew about a third, but I didn’t know about that third at the time.
Mr Beer: If it was really the case that the Second Sight Report revealed three bugs that you personally were not previously aware of, surely you would have wanted to know how that had happened?
Angela van den Bogerd: So, for the third one, I did question how have we only now realised that there’s a third and we hadn’t at the time because, if we had become aware – and I wasn’t involved in these conversations but if we’d become aware that there were two bugs, which we were and we disclosed, then surely at that point we should have asked “Are there any more?” But I wasn’t involved in those discussions.
Mr Beer: Was there any kind of post-mortem which examined “When did we, the Post Office, corporately, know about these bugs for the first time and what has been done with the knowledge that we had?”
Angela van den Bogerd: Not that I was aware of at the time. So the information that came it was given to Second Sight, I’m not sure if anything else – I think I’ve seen something since in disclosure that said we did something but I don’t remember. I wasn’t involved in those conversations.
Mr Beer: What was your role at the time of the first Second Sight Report?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I’d been working alongside Ron mostly and Ian, on the Spot Reviews. So my role was really to facilitate the provision of information to Ron that they needed, and that’s what I was doing, was going into the business to find out where the information was that we needed for that. In doing that, I was also looking at the situations myself, which is why I got involved in the Lepton case, and understanding what had gone wrong in that case.
Mr Beer: Were you leading for the Post Office?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, leading?
Mr Beer: Yes, were you the lead in the engagement with Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not the lead. I was there to assist in terms of provision of information to them.
Mr Beer: Who was the lead in terms of the engagement with Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, in terms of – they were engaged by Alice, Paula, and Susan was there at the time. So it was Susan, really, in terms of the overall lead, I would have said.
Mr Beer: But you say you were in charge of or responsible for the provision of information to Second Sight from the Post Office?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not formally. I was there to help them but –
Mr Beer: Who was in charge of the provision of information?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know that we ever defined that because, at the start, this – the whole engagement of Second Sight and the initial Inquiry and then into the scheme, it kind of evolved over time. And, even when we started in the scheme, we were developing it through the Working Group as we were going forward. So I don’t believe there was anything – any roles defined at the start.
Mr Beer: At this time, this is before 8 July 2013, did you yourself consider what impact, if any, the revelation of the existence of three bugs in the system may have had on the criminal prosecutions that the Post Office had mounted sometime successfully over the previous decade?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I didn’t. I had no knowledge of – I mean, I knew we had – obviously, I knew we had a Security and Investigation Team and I knew that we were bringing the prosecutions ourselves, I knew – well, it wasn’t always known to me but that became known to me quite early on. But I had no – other than being reassured that everything done, you know, there was a proper process for prosecutions, that it was done in line with the Code for Prosecutors, I had no insight into that. So I made no connection from those bugs to the previous convictions.
Mr Beer: Whose responsibility was it to make a connection between the bugs and the prosecutions?
Angela van den Bogerd: That would be the Legal Team.
Mr Beer: Who within the Legal Team?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not really – I mean, in terms of my contact with Legal was mostly Rodric Williams and I had very little contact with Jarnail, and then Andrew Parsons from WBD, or Bond Dickinson, or whoever they were at the time.
Mr Beer: Just to be clear, on the publication of the Second Sight Report, which mentions the three bugs, you’re not aware of any investigation or introverted look by the Post Office of as to “When we found out about these bugs and what did we do in relation to them”?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think I was at the time. I’ve seen things through disclosure that we were looking at past cases but I wasn’t involved in that.
Mr Beer: You tell us in paragraph 30 of your witness statement, we’ve read it already, that you were aware before July 2013 of general rumblings of complaints?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Had that been for the entirety of your time in the Post Office –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – since Horizon was introduced in about 2000?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, so it was really around the 2010 – around that time. So I think it was really when I took on responsibility for the Contracts team and I think at that time or there or thereabouts there was the Inside Out programmes, so there were a couple of TV programmes, one in the south and one in the Midlands, I think.
Mr Beer: So the rumblings that you speak about, as you call them, is from about 2010 onwards?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I mean, there had been some postmasters saying that it must be the system but not that I could have put my finger on at the time.
Mr Beer: What do you mean not – what could you not put your finger on?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not that I can remember where I’d heard that, in terms of there are some issues. It was really around the 2010/2011 when I started really getting involved.
Mr Beer: Let’s have a look, then. Can we start by looking at POL00178171. If we can look at the foot of the page, please. This is 2004, and just remind us, in 2004, your job would have been?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I was Head of Area for the rural network in Wales.
Mr Beer: So the rural agency in Wales?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: There’s an email from Jill Camplejohn, the Contract Support Centre Manager, under the heading “Lower Eggleton”, and she says:
“I have passed the file you sent to Richard Ashcroft in problem management for one of his team to look at and request information from Fujitsu Services.
“I do think that a telling point in this case is that there are no calls to the helpline logged. I would have thought that if he [I think that’s the subpostmaster] believed he had a problem, he would have done that quite promptly. Isn’t it amazing that the accountant from a couple of doors away knows enough about Horizon to put his name to the assertion but it’s a system problem. However, whilst I believe there is no evidence to support system problems, I don’t want to make sweeping assumptions and would rather be certain when the circumstances may lead to termination of contract.
“Richard or one of his team will be in touch in due course.”
Then, top of the page, Mr Ashcroft emails you and says he agrees with Jill. He’s got one of his team onto it who he’s asked to put together a checklist of obvious things that have caused this discrepancy in the branch:
“If we can discount those it gives us a greater level of confidence that it really is postmaster error.”
He asked you whether you have any timescales on this.
First of all, why was this being raised with you?
Angela van den Bogerd: So Lower Eggleton, even those it was not in the Wales, it was Wales and the Marches, so that would have come under the area that I was responsible for.
Mr Beer: So this is a subpostmaster raising an issue of Horizon system error as a possible cause of a discrepancy and had seemingly deployed the view of an accountant to support his view?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I’d forgotten about this until I had this in disclosure. I do remember meeting with Steve Morgan, and this brought it back. I can’t remember – I didn’t get disclosed his initial request, whether it came in in writing but, back then, I would have had somebody working more closely with the branches and I was overseeing.
Mr Beer: Does this fall into the category of a rumbling?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I mean, this was – back in 2004, Mr Morgan has obviously raised concerns and I didn’t know where to go with those concerns, and then I’ve reached out, because I didn’t know Jill Camplejohn at the time, and that was me trying to – so he’d raised – he wanted some information from the system, and then I’ve reached out to see where can – you know, where can we get that information for him, and I provided that to him.
Mr Beer: So would this be an early rumbling?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you know what was done as a result of it?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I’ve, obviously – I’d sent a letter to him, which I saw in disclosure. I’ve provided him with the Horizon logs, as he requested, and I don’t remember – I mean, I’d asked him to then make good the loss, unless he could establish something within that but, from the information I had from this team, there was nothing in those logs that pointed to the Horizon system. But I don’t recall what happened after that.
Mr Beer: Let’s have a look then at POL00142481. Is this the letter that you wrote to Mr Morgan –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, that’s the one I’ve seen, yes.
Mr Beer: – of the 1 March 2004, saying:
“You have been supplied with a copy of the transaction log and event log to enable you further to analyse the cause of the discrepancy of £1,400-odd. I initiated a further analysis of these logs which reaffirmed that there is no evidence of a Horizon created discrepancy.
“The Horizon system will not create a discrepancy solely by the user correcting an error they’ve previously made, in this specific case, reversing an incorrect remittance out of cheques provided that the cash figure declared is correct, the cheque figure held in stock is correct and the remittance out cheque figure is correct against the physical cheques dispatched to Data Central – all of which appear to be in order.
“My letter previously gave you [until a date] to make good the loss or provide supporting evidence that this discrepancy was generated by a systems error and not a user error. Please provide the evidence or make good the loss.”
Yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: When you were asked to become involved in this, did you wish to understand what the root cause of the discrepancy was?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I wanted to provide the information that Mr Morgan had requested so that he could understand what had gone on in his branch.
Mr Beer: That’s a slightly different thing. I’m asking did you want to seek to understand the root cause?
Angela van den Bogerd: So back in 2004, there wasn’t a facility to investigate branch issues like we introduced in the scheme. It was very much the postmaster was required to produce the evidence to dispute the loss that he – had been sustained in his branch so –
Mr Beer: How would a postmaster produce evidence to dispute the loss in relation to a computer system to which he had no access?
Angela van den Bogerd: So he did have access to the computer system, it would have been for a – it would have been for 42 days, back in those days, and then he reached out to me to be able to get some more information for him, which is what I’ve done. So, at this point, I’ve assisted as much as I could. I say, I did meet with Mr Morgan, so I don’t know if I’ve done anything further because I can’t see any – I’ve had nothing else disclosed from him and I really don’t remember but I do remember going to his branch and meeting with him.
Mr Beer: So you asked Fujitsu to produce the logs for the case, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I asked our team, because Jill Camplejohn isn’t Fujitsu, and then they’ve reached out to Fujitsu. So they – so when I made some – because I said I didn’t know where to go with this, when I made some enquiries about where do I go to get the information, I was directed towards Jill Camplejohn and her team, I assumed at the time, were that liaison point into Fujitsu.
Mr Beer: Do you accept, knowing what you know now, that it’s not possible to identify system errors from the logs that were produced alone?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think, if there was something in the logs, that, you know, missed a transaction or something, but I think, you know, from a postmaster’s perspective, they wouldn’t have known what to look for. In 2004, I wouldn’t have known what to look for either.
Mr Beer: I was about to ask, were you qualified to look at the logs?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, so my –
Mr Beer: Who was?
Angela van den Bogerd: So it was the team, Jill and – sorry, I think it was Richard – again, who I don’t know that person. That was the team. I was looking to them for the expertise to be able to provide the, you know, the information to Mr Morgan and, when I referred to, you know, I’ve initiated further analysis, it was from them that that information came.
Mr Beer: How were they qualified to analyse the logs to identify whether a system error caused the discrepancy?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know. I don’t know, even if they were. But that was –
Mr Beer: Do you think that they were qualified –
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know if they were or not but that was the – that was the point of contact I was directed to within the business.
Mr Beer: Okay, I’ll move on. Can we look, please, at POL00178219. We’re still in March 2014, we will see in a moment. Can we look at pages 3 to 4, please. If we look at the foot of 3, thank you, there is an email to you – we can just see at the end, if we scroll right to the end – from Clive Burton, from the Former Subpostmasters Accounts Team, Agents Debt 3 in Chesterfield. Just help us with what they were? What that team was?
Angela van den Bogerd: It was within the P&BA team in Chesterfield.
Mr Beer: Do you know what the agent debt –
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t at the time. I mean, I have since because I –
Mr Beer: Okay, let’s see what Mr Burton says.
“Mrs Pugh was the subpostmistress at Chirbury post office from 21 April ‘99 to 3 September ‘01 when her contract for services was suspended.
“The final audit resulted in a deficiency of £9,000-odd but many error notices were later issued, which increased the overall debt to £31,000-odd.
“Recovery has been referred to Jim Cruise of Legal Services to pursue. Case management conference was heard on 8 January 2004 and some directions have been made.
“Our Legal Services Department have asked us to prepare a number of statements regarding various accounting errors that formed part of the debt. We are in the process of preparing these.
“There are a number of other issues that our Legal Department require clarification on and statements are needed.
“It would be very much appreciated if you could provide assistance with the following items or say who to contact.
“(1) the defence alleges that the introduction of the Horizon system itself caused problems and evidence is needed about the training given to Mrs Pugh and, if possible, evidence of the call logs to show whether Mrs Pugh was seeking help in relation to the operation of the system.
“Telephone link was cut between February and June ‘01 and a statement about closure of the office.”
Then over the page:
“General statements are required as to how the accounting system works at a sub post office and how documents are created.”
Going back to the previous page at the foot, point 1, the defence alleges that Horizon itself caused problems, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Would this be amongst the category of “rumblings”?
Angela van den Bogerd: From my memory, yes, because this – and, again, I didn’t remember this and I did request further disclosure to see what I did with this, and I’ve concluded that this, for me at that point, was just a routine request for information. So I forwarded on to a Contracts Manager that was part of my team –
Mr Beer: So if we just go up on page 3, please. Is that the email, “Emlyn, could you deal, please”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes. So Emlyn Hughes was a Contracts Manager working within my team at the time and he was more familiar where to go for the information, which is what he’s done. He’s reached out to a number of places.
Mr Beer: I think we can see further up the chain that you, on 23 March and then on 8 April, appear to have received a list of call logs from NBSC in relation to Chirbury between 2000 and 2004, yes? So if you look at the middle of the page 1?
Angela van den Bogerd: Middle of page 1, yes, so the Emlyn –
Mr Beer: If we scroll down, “Attached are the call logs between those two dates from this office”, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, so this was the provision of information. I was – I’ve been copied into some and not all of them, I think.
Mr Beer: Can we then see what Mr Hughes did at POL00178225, top of the page, so we can see your email:
“Emlyn, can you deal?”
He says:
“Having spoken with Glenn regarding the issue below and, in particular, regarding the Horizon question, he suggested I contact you … mentioned you supported several offices within the former Chester cluster so if it is possible you went to Chirbury and provided assistance to Mrs Pugh in the early days.”
So the question was somebody who went out to the former Chester cluster to provide assistance as to whether or not he went to that branch; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: From – that I can see from that email, yes.
Mr Beer: Do you know what happened after this, in relation to this subpostmistress, Mrs Pugh, who had raised, in her defence in County Court litigation Horizon being the problem because of a system fault?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know what happened after this.
Mr Beer: Was this not the kind of issue that ought to have triggered some investigation, a full and thorough investigation?
Angela van den Bogerd: So the investigation would have been done by the Investigation Team, at this point. So anything into a criminal case, it was the Security and Investigation Team that would have done that –
Mr Beer: This isn’t about a criminal case; this is about a civil recovery –
Angela van den Bogerd: Oh, sorry –
Mr Beer: – seeking to recover £31,000 from Mrs Pugh?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know. I mean, this was the first – this, for me, was a routine request because, in 2001 we’d moved from a regionalised structure into the Head of Area structure. I don’t know what date, I think it was probably around this date and then all the branch files were distributed into the Head of Area and then they were reaching out for information. The information they required didn’t sit within my team, which is why I’d asked Emlyn to facilitate the provision of information. So I’m not aware of what or, if any, investigation was done into that at the time.
Mr Beer: Do you think some sort of investigation should have been done if, in legal proceedings, the subpostmistress is saying “The loss that you’re seeking to recover from me, £31,000, was, in fact caused by the Horizon system”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: This was as early as 2004?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, it should have been done.
Mr Beer: Do you think it should have been an independent investigation, ie independent of the Post Office?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I’m not sure about independent of the Post Office but there should have been an investigation within the Post Office. But, from my working knowledge and my memory, there wasn’t, certainly wasn’t a function that did that back then and, it was only when we started working with the Second Sight and I started to bring that team together, that we pooled together – from my perspective we pooled together knowledge and the know-how to be able to put – to be able to deal with this type of request in terms of what, you know, what has happened and can we understand what the cause of the loss is? But I don’t think it would have been done back then.
Mr Beer: But why not, is my question. We’ve seen a couple of examples now that happen to concern you in the roles that you performed, relatively early on in the life of Horizon, with subpostmasters raising the suggestion that the loss attributed to them is in fact caused by Horizon?
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Why was something not done to investigate that?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think it would have depended upon the particular area, that that was in at the time. So this would have been Chester, at the time that she was raising issues, then I would have expected the Chester cluster to have done something with it, but there wasn’t a formal approach, there wasn’t anything documented, there wasn’t any policy on it. It was very much, you know, it’s up to the postmaster to show that they’re not responsible for the loss. That’s very much how it was.
Mr Beer: Why was it like that? Who decided that it should be like that?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because that was what was in the contract. That’s how the contract was –
Mr Beer: What are you thinking of, in particular, in the contract?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think – so when I game into – so I’d started –
Mr Beer: That document can come down, by the way.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, I started in the directly managed or Crown Network so I came in through that route and then, when I came out of the branch structure and came into working with subpostmasters, there were lots of things that weren’t documented, they weren’t policies, there weren’t approaches, and then there was change of structures and I think it very much depended upon the people within those areas in terms of the level of support that were given to postmasters at the time.
So, you know, when I came out of that directly managed and came into my area of postmasters, then I was able to assist in some cases because I had the knowledge.
With the Horizon in terms of providing the information, I had to go to where I was directed to get the information but my view is there should have been a function to do that back then and there wasn’t.
Mr Beer: What in the contract did you think placed an obligation on the subpostmaster to show that a loss was caused by the system rather than him or her? You said a moment ago it was the wording of the contract?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, so there’s nothing in the contract that mentioned the system at all. I mean, the contract had been in place for some time before the Horizon system was introduced.
Mr Beer: Did you know that the contract only required subpostmasters to make good losses if it was through their error or negligence?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I mean –
Mr Beer: So why did they have to prove anything? Why does the Post Office not have to prove that the loss was through the subpostmaster’s error or negligence?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think back then, the assumption was that, if there was a loss in the branch, that it was the responsibility of the postmaster.
Mr Beer: Why was there an assumption?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because it was assumed it was user error.
Mr Beer: I’m sorry?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because it was assumed it was user error.
Mr Beer: Yes, but why? There’s a lot of assuming going on.
Angela van den Bogerd: Absolutely. I agree. There was.
Mr Beer: But why? Why does a multimillion pound business make assumptions when it’s got a written contract that prescribes the circumstances in which a subpostmaster is liable?
Angela van den Bogerd: So looking back, there was no provision for the Horizon system, there was no change to working practices. As I said, when I – you know, for Mr Morgan in Lower Eggleton, there was no process for me to go and get information. I had to find a contact to do that. So there was no change in terms of policy or process or working practices that I was aware of at the time.
Mr Beer: That, with respect, Ms van den Bogerd, doesn’t really answer the question. Did nobody read the contract and think: hold on, this contract says we can only recover money from subpostmasters in these limited circumstances? The subpostmasters have to prove nothing?
Angela van den Bogerd: That was the advice that we were getting from Legal at the time.
Mr Beer: Who in Legal?
Angela van den Bogerd: From our – well, back then, it would have been Royal Mail.
Mr Beer: Yes, who in Royal Mail?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t get involved in the early days but I think when I first started getting involved, it was around 2011 which is when we had the Shoosmiths case, and it would have been – and I didn’t know – I have never met any of them, actually, but it would have been those on the copy list, it would have been Mandy Talbot, I think Rebekah Mantle, probably Rob Wilson, I think. But these are people I didn’t have routine contact with at all.
Mr Beer: Was it the case that you very well knew that the contract did not entitle the Post Office to recover money from subpostmasters in any or all circumstances but that’s what the Post Office pretended it said? We’ve seen in the Inquiry, Ms van den Bogerd, many letters to subpostmasters, which say just that: “You’re responsible to make good any losses”, ignoring the terms of the contract completely?
Angela van den Bogerd: So if I go back to – I was in Network and that’s where I was, and it was the management of the letters and the breaches of contract was managed within Network – well, it changed over time but it was primarily the Contract Managers, but it was always under the direction and the instruction of the Legal team. So there was a very close working relationship between the Contract Managers and that Legal team around what they should and shouldn’t do.
Mr Beer: You mentioned what happened or what changed in 2011 when the Shoosmiths claims were threatened?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: Can we turn to that, please. POL00294879. This is a briefing document or proposed response to challenges regarding the Horizon system. It’s from Mr Ismay, we can see, it’s dated 12 October 2011, and it’s addressed to you, yes –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and others, and copied to others. We can see the heading is “The JFSA and Shoosmiths/Access Legal”, which was essentially part of Shoosmiths, “Response to Challenges Regarding the Horizon System Proposed Steering Group and Purpose”. You, I think, at this time, held a very senior position: Head of Network?
Angela van den Bogerd: It was quite senior, it wasn’t very senior but it was quite senior. So I reported in to Sue Huggins at this point, who reported into Kevin Gilliland. It was two levels down below Exec Director.
Mr Beer: We can see what Mr Ismay is proposing:
“To define and manage a coordinated response plan which defends existing challenges and deters future challenges in the most pragmatic and efficient manner.”
Do you know why that was the proposed strategy: to deter future challenges?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t, actually. As I said previously, this was me coming into this – into this space quite new and I think the only reason I was in this was because of my involvement with the Ferndown case, which was – and my moving in to the role that took on responsibility for the contracts.
Mr Beer: Do you know why a business would not instead have as its purpose to examine on their merits any challenges that its agents may bring?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, it should have. I mean, this is a very biased kind of view from Rod when he’s put this together.
Mr Beer: Just looking further up on the distribution list, do you know whether any of those people, many of whom we’re familiar with, said, “Hold on Rod, this a biased view”?
Angela van den Bogerd: So the senior people in here, Mike Young, Exec Director; Kevin Gilliland – sorry, the format has gone, I can’t obviously read it – obviously, Susan –
Mr Beer: Mike Young, COO?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah, Susan, Legal and Compliance Director, but General Counsel as I knew her; Chris Day, Chief Finance Officer. Sue I think was my line manager at the time. John Scott was very senior. So these are all very senior people in here and I don’t recall that anybody challenged anything here but they might have. I don’t know. As I said, this was me coming –
Mr Beer: Did you challenge it?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t. This was me stepping into this as a new person in this arena.
Mr Beer: That purpose, that strategy that’s set out there, that was the strategy that the Post Office maintained largely until you left, wasn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know. I disagree. I think, you know, what I tried to do, especially, was try to get under the skin of what had gone – happened in branches and to investigate those cases. So I wouldn’t say I was in this space at the start in this anyway; I didn’t challenge it because, as I said, I came into this new. But as I left, I was clearly into a different space.
Mr Beer: Let’s look at what Mr Ismay said under “Background”:
“Throughout the last 10 years the Horizon system has been subject to a number of unfounded criticisms in the national press.”
Reading this at the time, would you have known what that suggestion was based on –
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I mean –
Mr Beer: – that criticisms were unfounded?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, which bit?
Mr Beer: That criticisms were unfounded?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I think this comes back to my earlier comment about rumblings. You know, I was aware of some things, very few, I – certainly this was me coming more into a national view of this because everything prior to this had been very contained within my area of work, as opposed – because there wasn’t anything on a kind of business level at that point, so this was me seeing this at the national level for the first time, I think.
Mr Beer: “It has also faced questions in the Houses of Parliament and allegations in court by former subpostmasters and their legal defence teams. Post Office has consistently won its prosecutions and presiding judges have made statements which had been expected to deter further baseless allegations, however the challenges continue to be made.”
Do you know whether the statement “The Post Office has consistently won its prosecutions” was true or false?
Angela van den Bogerd: I would have no understanding of that, at the time.
Mr Beer: Would you have just accepted that on its face, that the Post Office –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – had consistently money its prosecutions?
Angela van den Bogerd: I would have taken that at face value, yes.
Mr Beer: Did you know of any presiding judges that had made statements that it had been hoped might deter ‘baseless allegations’ but, despite the work of the judges, the challenges continued to come?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not that I could recall.
Mr Beer: Again, would you have taken what Mr Ismay said as being true?
Angela van den Bogerd: At this point I would have, yes.
Mr Beer: “The situations have arisen in a minority of cases where the Post Office has dismissed the subpostmaster for financial irregularities and the subpostmaster has claimed that it was the accounting records that were wrong due to IT issues, rather than the money had been stolen.
“Shoosmiths are acting for several former subpostmasters who have come together in the JFSA. [The Post Office] has received commonly worded letters before action, these are precursors to claims for damages, they request significant materials.
“The Post Office had around 20 cases which it wished to take to court where the defence blamed Horizon.”
Do you know what that’s a reference to, “cases that the Post Office wanted to take to court”?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I would have no knowledge of the cases at that point.
Mr Beer: “The Post Office is confident that the Horizon isn’t at fault.”
Do you know on what basis that statement was made, the confidence that Horizon was not at fault?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, other than that was the understanding within the business.
Mr Beer: You refer in your statement to that, the messaging coming from the business, the messaging from the Post Office; which person, which individual person, was given you that messaging?
Angela van den Bogerd: There wasn’t an individual person. I remember when Horizon was installed and rolled out, so that the message was this is the most secure – the largest and the most secure system in Europe and I don’t know who said that but I always remembered that and that, in itself, gave confidence in that system, but I can’t say that I ever remember a particular person but that was the general messaging and certainly the feeling what was believed within the organisation.
Mr Beer: So you can’t identify an individual?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, and it would have been over a number of years. It wouldn’t have been, you know, just one person. It was that was the – that was the understanding, general understanding, within the organisation at the time, that I was aware of. I mean, there’s parts of the organisation I wasn’t aware of that I’ve since seen quite damaging documents on but I wasn’t aware of that.
Mr Beer: What are you referring to there?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, just the comments in, you know, the receipts and mismatch, those type of “We need to keep this quiet, we don’t want the Horizon integrity to become known”, those are the things I’m referring to.
Mr Beer: When we asked questions of those people at those levels, they say: it was the people that above us that were telling us that Horizon is the largest system outside defence in Europe; it’s very secure; processes X million transactions a day; Y billion transactions a year; there’s no faults with Horizon; it’s been independently assessed; auditors have given it a clean bill of health; it was the people above us – ie you, people of your level – that were passing that message down to us.
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, it wasn’t me at my level then, because I wasn’t at that level. But just looking at – I mean, if you look at the distribution lists on here I was one of the more junior people on this list. As I said, I’d just started to come into this and, therefore, I wouldn’t have challenged and I would have taken everything at face value at this time because I was new to this space.
Mr Beer: I think you were responsible for communicating the Post Office’s messaging to ministers or Members of Parliament?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, not at this time.
Mr Beer: Did you not attend meetings with MPs?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I would have, but not at this time, so my – in terms of the –
Mr Beer: This can come down.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, in terms of the meetings I attended with MPs, it was as we – it was 2012, as we were getting into that – the Second Sight investigations and, obviously, we’ve got documents that refer to those. Prior to this, I would have been working in a regionalised role. I might have had some local meetings with MPs but it would have been other normal kind of business that I can’t remember exactly but it was in 2012 that I really started getting involved in this.
Mr Beer: You met, I think, with MPs twice on 10 May 2012 and 18 June 2012?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: That was prior to the Second Sight Interim Report, obviously, a year before then?
Angela van den Bogerd: It was before Second Sight had been engaged, actually.
Mr Beer: Can we look at the second of those meetings, which you attended, with, I think, six MPs, including James Arbuthnot, by looking at JARB0000001. Can you see the attendee list?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we scroll down a little bit, we see it includes you and this is the minute of the meeting of the 18 June. Can we look, please, at the foot of page 1. Alice Perkins, then the Chairman of the company, gave background information and the Post Office’s perspective: it’s a completely separate entity; she became aware of the issue when she joined in August 2011; it was very serious; the Post Office recognised full well that the matter was very serious for the subpostmasters and mistresses.
Over the page, second paragraph:
“She said that the matter involved treading a tightrope regarding questions of money. The Post Office and its staff are stewards of large quantities of cash. The cash does not belong to the Post Office. It’s in transit as it comes through the Post Office. There is the issue of trying not to put temptation in people’s way.”
Then Ms Vennells begins by saying that temptation is an issue but that trust in the Post Office as a brand is absolutely paramount.
Were you involved in briefing Ms Vennells or Ms Perkins for this meeting?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not in relation to the narrative you’re seeing here. So my – what I’d been asked to do for the May meeting was there were two cases that they wanted me to be able to pull the information together on, to be able to talk through at the first meeting, and the two cases – it was the Jo Hamilton and Tracey Merritt cases, because they were the constituents for both of those MPs. That’s what I was asked to do.
Then that flowed – the June meeting was a follow-up to the – that May meeting, and with the an extended audience. So my involvement was not in pulling together the briefing information other than my specific slot on the agenda, as it were.
Mr Beer: Were you party to any discussion with either or both of Ms Perkins or Ms Vennells beforehand, in which it was decided that the thing that should be mentioned is the temptation that faces subpostmasters?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: “We should try and drop a little poison in the MPs’ ears – drip a little poison in the MPs’ ears”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not at all. I wasn’t party to that conversation.
Mr Beer: Was there a deliberate strategy to put that idea in the MPs’ minds, right at the beginning of the meeting, focusing on the temptation faced by subpostmasters?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think there was but I can’t comment. I mean, if I go back to the May meeting, I wasn’t in all of the meeting with the MPs, so the format or the running order was that Alice – it was Alice and Paula, and I’m not sure if Alwen actually met with James Arbuthnot, as he was then, and Oliver Letwin, both MPs. The agenda had a number of people on there, I was one of them, and I had a slot.
So, basically, we were waiting outside the meeting room or in the café area of the building, I think, and we were called in to do our slot. So I wasn’t party to the preamble for that meeting.
Mr Beer: Ms Vennells continues:
“Of the 11,800 employed only a tiny number are presenting cases where there’s an issue of alleged fraud … the problem is therefore relatively very small.
“The Horizon system is very secure. Every keystroke used by anyone using the system is recorded and auditable.”
Did you know that that was the case?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not firsthand, no.
Mr Beer: Did you believe what she said: that every keystroke –
Angela van den Bogerd: I did.
Mr Beer: – used by anyone using the system is recorded and auditable?
Angela van den Bogerd: I believed that was – that was my CEO. I had no reason not to believe her.
Mr Beer: Do you know who briefed her?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t. What would normally happen is that the briefing would come from the relevant departments, I would have expected it to come from our IT function and that would have been, I think, Lesley was the Chief Information Officer at the time.
Mr Beer: Would you expect, therefore, that to come from Lesley Sewell, the Chief Information Officer?
Angela van den Bogerd: That would be my expectation but I don’t know if that happened.
Mr Beer: Can we must have on in the meeting please, to page 3. One of the MPs, Andrew Bridgen, at the top of the page, asked if there had been any case where the discrepancy was the fault of the system. Do you see, three passages up from the foot of the page that’s being displayed there:
“Paula Vennells said that going back to Andrew Bridgen’s question, there had not been a case investigated where the Horizon system had been found to be at fault.”
Did you know whether that was true or false?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t know either way. I believed it to be true because that’s what she said but I didn’t know either way.
Mr Beer: Do you know who briefed her, if she was briefed to say that, to say that?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know. I mean, if it – it depends what she’s referring to as the case. If she’s talking about a criminal case, then I would have expected that briefing to come from someone in the Legal Department. But it’s not specific and I really – I don’t know, I’d be speculating.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to page 2 in that connection, please. At the foot of what Ms Vennells said there:
“Every case taken to prosecution that involves the Horizon system thus far has found in favour of the Post Office.”
Did you know whether that was true or false?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t know either way.
Mr Beer: Would you believe it because your CEO was saying it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you know who briefed her, if anyone, to say that?
Angela van den Bogerd: Again, I don’t know who but I would have expected that to come from the Legal Team, given it was talking about prosecutions specifically.
Mr Beer: I think it follows that you wouldn’t have been aware at this time, in June 2012, that at least three subpostmasters had, in fact, been acquitted?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wouldn’t have known.
Mr Beer: Did you know about the case of Nichola Arch, accused of stealing £32,000 and unanimously acquitted by a jury at Bristol Crown Court –
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s not a name I’m familiar with.
Mr Beer: – having said the system was at fault for the alleged shortfall and that she had repeatedly reported the matter to the helpline but had got absolutely nowhere with them?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t aware of that case.
Mr Beer: Were you aware of the case of Suzanne Palmer, who’d been acquitted by a jury in Southend Crown Court in January 2007 and had said in her defence that the Horizon system was responsible for the loss and simultaneously prevented her from challenging any Horizon figures with which she had not agreed?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, and, again, it’s not a name I’m familiar with.
Mr Beer: Were you aware that in 2006 in Northern Ireland a lady called Maureen McKelvey was acquitted by a jury –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – and that, in the course of her trial, it had come to light that an Area Manager, her Area Manager, had experienced problems with balancing Horizon at her terminal when she had come in to examine the system?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t aware of that at all.
Mr Beer: Who would be responsible for – putting it neutrally – fact checking the type of information that Ms Vennells is telling a collection of MPs here – every case involving Horizon that’s been taken to prosecution has found in favour of the Post Office – when that’s just false? Who’d be responsible for putting together information that would allow a CEO to say something like this?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not sure whether there was one person overall – with overall responsibility. My experience of how the business worked was that there might be somebody holding the pen on the brief but they would then reach out to the relevant directors or heads of, in those particular areas, to get the appropriate response. So looking at this, I would have expected this to go into the Legal Team.
Mr Beer: Put it another way Ms van den Bogerd: would you expect careful and diligent checks to have been made before going on the front foot?
Angela van den Bogerd: Absolutely.
Mr Beer: Because that’s what this is: this is going on the front foot, isn’t it? It’s facing the MPs down?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: It’s saying, “Move along, MPs, there’s nothing to see here”. That’s what this –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: That’s what that line is saying, isn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, if it’s saying every case, that’s quite a strong opening statement. So I agree.
Mr Beer: It’s the kind of information where she’s using the court system as a prop, almost, “It’s not just us bringing cases; it’s the juries and the court system that’s finding them guilty. You can be assured, MPs, that there’s nothing to see here”.
Angela van den Bogerd: I can’t disagree with that.
Mr Beer: It’s consistent with Mr Ismay’s plan, as well, of 2011, isn’t it: robustly defend in the hope of deterring further challenge?
Angela van den Bogerd: In terms of his purpose, his opening, yeah, I agree.
Mr Beer: You can’t help us to establish the steps that were taken to confirm the veracity of information given to Members of Parliament here?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t involved so I don’t know where the information has come from. I’m not actually sure who held the pen on the brief.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Sir, I wonder if we could take a break there. I think it’s between 2.55 and 3.00. I wonder whether we could break until 3.10?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, certainly.
Mr Beer: Thank you, sir.
(2.57 pm)
(A short break)
(3.10 pm)
Mr Beer: Ms van den Bogerd, can we look at the briefing for the meeting that we were just talking about on 18 June 2012 by looking at POL00027722. I think you’re familiar with this document. Was it common for a briefing pack like this to be put together for any significant meeting, in particular with MPs?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, it was.
Mr Beer: This is, I think, 33-odd pages long. You can see that there’s an index at the front, if we go to page 2. The attendee list is set out and then proposed agenda is set out with the lead from the Post Office or the MPs being identified and the minutes to be allocated to their speaking part. As you’ve said already, you were slated to deal with two cases?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s correct.
Mr Beer: If we go over the page to the third page, please. We can see Mr Arbuthnot was going to give an introduction and then, as in fact happened, Ms Perkins was to speak.
Would you understand these to be – it’s entitled “Key Messages”, it’s essentially a speaking note?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we could look at that page, please, as well as looking at JARB0000001. Thank you. So we can see that the overall introductions were, indeed, given by Mr Arbuthnot and then Alice Perkins did speak and you can see, to an extent she follows the briefing or the speaking note, you can see second bullet point on the right, “Take this issue very seriously”, her second paragraph of the minute “Very serious one for the Post Office”; mention of reputation, which equates to the second bullet point, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then you can see her last line of the minute, “Very serious for subpostmasters and mistresses involved as it was invariably life changing”, equates to the second bullet point “This impacts the lives of individuals”, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then go over the page on the left side, please:
“Enormous change at the Post Office. Tightrope regarding questions of money.”
Money is mentioned on the second bullet point on the right, “Public money is at stake”. Then there’s the line, there is the issue of trying not to put temptation in people’s way. That doesn’t appear to be something that she was briefed to say, does it?
Angela van den Bogerd: It wasn’t included in the briefing, the initial briefing pack.
Mr Beer: Was there another version of this briefing pack then?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not that I’m aware of.
Mr Beer: I think this is the latest iteration of the one we’ve been given?
Angela van den Bogerd: That’s what I believe, yes.
Mr Beer: Just help us with these things. When you’re going into a meeting like this, is there, in addition to the formal briefing, a kind of a scrum-down beforehand, in which people exchange ideas and come up with additional lines?
Angela van den Bogerd: There might be on some occasion, if there was one on this one I wasn’t involved in. But, as ever, these are briefing packs, they’re not meant to be scripts, they’re meant to be “This we would like you – think you should be covering”.
Mr Beer: I’m just going to examine the three things I’ve highlighted in the meeting – the temptation spoken to by Ms Vennells and Ms Perkins; the line “Every case taken to prosecution involving Horizon has founding in favour of the Post Office” –
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: – and the line “There’s never been a case investigated where Horizon has been found to be at fault” – and just see whether any of those three big claims appear in any of the briefing notes that were distributed before the meeting?
So, if we go to what Ms Vennells says, so if we could turn over to the page on the right-hand side, please: confirm above; postmasters are key to our business; support our branches we have a Helpdesk; Horizon is used in branches to manage accounting; subpostmaster has any questions or concerns; she’s confident about the integrity of Horizon built on robust principles of reliability and integrity; undergone many external audits and no problems of this nature have ever been raised.
“On a technical level …”
Then there are three bullet points:
“Occasionally we get incidents of fraud, this is unfortunate as it is public money at stake, it is important that we protect it.
“Even in cases of fraud we do try to keep the agenda with care and respect.”
So the line about “Every case taken to prosecution that involves the Horizon system has found in favour of the Post Office”, was not part of her briefing either, was it?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Then, if we go to page 3 on the left-hand side, please, the line in the middle of the page:
“Paula Vennells said that going back to Andrew Bridgen’s question, there had not been a case investigated where the Horizon system had been found to be at fault.”
That doesn’t seem to have been part of her briefing either, does it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not from the other argument, no.
Mr Beer: So I’ll ask again, to your recollection, was there anything done outside the preparation of this 33-page briefing pack for Ms Perkins and Ms Vennells to give them information to deploy at the meeting?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not that I’m aware of or can recall. Paula and Alice might have decided to meet themselves –
Mr Beer: Sorry, say again?
Angela van den Bogerd: I said Paula and Alice might have decided to get together themselves, if they wanted to discuss kind of what they were going to cover but I don’t recall – I don’t remember being in another meeting because, normally, you know, you’d had a prep meeting and then you would go into the actual meeting. So, sorry, I –
Mr Beer: I’m just trying to examine where these three big claims come from?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: It’s all about the temptation; we’ve never lost a case; Horizon never been found to be at fault: where they came from.
Angela van den Bogerd: I can’t see from the information that they’ve come out of this. I mean, this seems to have been from –
Mr Beer: You were in the meeting. Did you think “Hold on, goodness me, Paula Vennells has gone off the reservation here”?
Angela van den Bogerd: So for this meeting, which is different to the May meeting, I was in the whole of this meeting. So it wasn’t as if I just came in for the slot. I was actually in all of this meeting. It’s not unusual, from my experience, for, you know, there to be a briefing pack or speaking note that the person who’s then – that was directed at might change it, without feeding back to the rest of the attendees – as in the rest of us. It’s not that wasn’t unheard of. So –
Mr Beer: Freestyling?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I wouldn’t say freestyling but I suppose adding their own potential emphasis or –
Mr Beer: These aren’t points of emphasis, are they? They’re big claims, aren’t they?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m saying in terms of how they would normally approach. I’m not saying in this case, I’m saying in general terms.
Mr Beer: Let’s look at this case. You couldn’t really say these are points of emphasis, can you?
Angela van den Bogerd: They’ve chosen to shine a spotlight on to certain aspects of the briefing pack and bring it more to the fore, is what I’d say, but –
Mr Beer: None of these are in the briefing pack?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, well, it touches on some of it, the general theme, but …
Mr Beer: Go back to the left-hand side, please on page 2:
“Every case taken to prosecution involving Horizon thus far has found in favour of the Post Office.”
Where is that touched on in the briefing pack?
Angela van den Bogerd: Other than the reference to occasional incidents of fraud.
Mr Beer: That’s a completely different point. That’s about the incidents of fraud. What Ms Vennells is recorded as having said is, when the cases get to court, we always win.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, I just – I was involved it briefing, the briefing pack. I was involved in that. I don’t recall anything in between to get to the final version. So I think I would just be speculating. But I don’t – I don’t remember any further conversations to say, “We’re actually going to dial this up or dial this down”.
Mr Beer: That’s what I’m asking, largely in advance of Ms Vennells and Ms Perkins coming to give evidence to us: was there an occasion, to your knowledge, at which the information we see, “Let’s tell them about temptation, let’s tell them about Horizon always winning in court – the Post Office always winning in court – let’s tell them that when any Horizon case has been examined, it’s never been found to be at fault”.
Angela van den Bogerd: So I remember this meeting. I remember the May meeting. I remember the prep meetings. I don’t remember anything else in between and just going back to what we’ve said, out of the three things, the bit about the temptation is the one that I would have said something on. I mean, I wouldn’t have been aware of the other information.
Mr Beer: Why would you have said something about temptation?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because, as I said earlier, my view and very strong view, is that postmasters were very honest, hardworking, decent people. They didn’t come in to defraud the business. They were – there were occasional situations where, as I would say, the situations got the better of the postmaster, and I’ve got, you know, live examples of that from my own experience, and I would have said, at that point “Well, look just remember these are very rare occasions”. The other two, I wouldn’t have been able to comment on, and that’s why I’m saying I don’t remember a conversation in between those two things.
Mr Beer: Then, lastly, you were in the meeting when Ms Vennells said these things: every case taken to court, we win –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: – and Horizon, when examined and investigated, has never been found to be at fault. Did those things strike you, in the course of the meeting, “Hold on, the Chief Executive has gone off-piste here”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not really. I mean, I would have taken that as she has a broader knowledge than I have and she has information that I don’t have, and that wouldn’t be unusual, given my role. I mean, if you think my role in here was to talk to two cases, then that wouldn’t – I wouldn’t have seen that as being unusual.
Mr Beer: Can we take both of those down, please, thank you, and turn to the Second Sight initial investigation. I’m going to move through and not examine the process by which Second Sight conducted its initial examinations, and investigations or the provision of information to it by the Post Office but, instead, look at the response to the first Second Sight Report?
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00115919. This is the briefing note to Ms Vennells again, yes, do you remember, in readiness for the Second Sight Report?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: To what extent were you involved in formulating this briefing?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t really remember, other than – I’m trying to think of the timeline. So when – with Project Sparrow and Belinda, who was the Programme Director for the project, then her and her team typically would have held the pen but, in terms of aspects that I was involved in, I would have fed into that. So it would have been a collective – usually a collective approach to getting to the content of such a briefing. But I actually can’t remember exactly on this one.
Mr Beer: If we look at page 7, please, a passage that we haven’t looked at before. So it’s the foot of page 6, in fact. Can we see the forward strategy heading –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and then, if we go on to the following page, page 7, those four paragraphs. To what extent were you involved in formulating this forward strategy?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I was aware – I was involved in conversations. In terms of was I a driving force in the strategy for this? No, I don’t believe I was.
Mr Beer: Who was the driving force in the strategy?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m trying to remember. So if we look at, in terms of meeting with James Arbuthnot, I think that would have been Alice, Paula, possibly Mark from the Comms Team, Mark Davies, possibly. But definitely, in terms of the 38 –
Mr Beer: Can you speak up a bit, please.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, definitely in terms of the 38, in terms of the comms strategy. I don’t know, my recollection of the early days of the conversations we had – so it would have been Alice, Paula, Susan, Lesley Sewell would have been in at the start as well and Simon Baker and myself, would have been early conversations. But as in terms of driving this through, I’m really – I can’t recall exactly who – we had our areas of responsibility.
Mr Beer: So Plan A was to try to persuade Mr Arbuthnot to postpone a meeting with Second Sight; Plan B was to prepare what’s described as a full communication strategy with rebuttal and tactics in line with an approach aimed to minimise reputational impact on the Post Office, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Was that the strategy that was in fact adopted: rebuttal and tactics aimed to minimise reputational impact?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think, in terms of the reputational impact, because the feeling was, with Second Sight, at this point, that they weren’t evidencing quite a bit of what they were claiming. So I think –
Mr Beer: Who was saying that they weren’t evidencing what they were claiming?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry?
Mr Beer: Who was saying they were not evidencing what they were claiming?
Angela van den Bogerd: So that was in terms of looking at what they were saying, they hadn’t – so if I just – so this is the interim report, isn’t it? This is the 8 July Interim Report.
Mr Beer: Yeah.
Angela van den Bogerd: So, prior to this, there were 47 cases that were really feeding into this, and that’s through the Spot Reviews. By the time we got to the Interim Report, if I remember correctly, there were only four Spot Reviews that Second Sight were speaking to and my memory of that is not one of those four cases has actually been concluded. So there wasn’t an absolute outcome and I think that’s what was driving, you know – and it was a collective view. I’m not saying anybody – it was a collective view that there’s an issue being raised or an allegation being made. There’s some investigation work being done but, actually, they’ve not concluded that yet.
Mr Beer: The Interim Report at least highlighted problems with Horizon, didn’t it, including the two anomalies as they were described?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: In fact, a third as well. Was there any consideration given within Post Office: should we look deeper into Horizon to see if there are any other problems with it?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think there was.
Mr Beer: Was, instead, the first priority to be damage limitation and reputational management?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think it was as stark as that. I think –
Mr Beer: Protect the brand at all costs?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, that wasn’t my sense at the time. My sense was: this was the – this was the precursor to the scheme. We had done – this was almost a – well, it was a year on from when Second Sight had been engaged and we’d had an awful lot of effort put into the investigations but we had very little output. So this was about the fact that the rebuttal would be in as much as there’s claims, allegations, but they’re not being substantiated with the evidence because the investigations aren’t concluded.
I think that was the approach here, more than just an absolute brand limitation, that wasn’t the driving – the driving force behind this, from my recollection.
Mr Beer: Let’s get rid of the independent investigators and get one of the big four involved: paragraph 40.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yeah.
Mr Beer: Why was that the plan?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think it was because – and my early recollection of before we engaged Second Sight, I remember being in some of the early conversations about what we should do, in terms of approach and, at that point, it was kind of one of the big four. But that was dismissed in terms of preference going with Second Sight, and I –
Mr Beer: Why was the preference for Second Sight before they’d done their work?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, why did we go with Second Sight?
Mr Beer: Yes, before they’d started their work, what made you go with them?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not exactly sure. My take would be that that would have been less costly than getting one of the big four in. But, also, I think around addressing some of the other issues that were being claimed, that would be outside of the Horizon system itself, because, as you’ve seen, the focus or the scope expanded when Second Sight got going and said, “We have to expand the scope”, which is what we went with.
Mr Beer: Why, after the independent reviewers had produced their independent report, was consideration being given to replacing them?
Angela van den Bogerd: From my view, that was simply around cost and lack of output.
Mr Beer: So one of the big four would be cheaper than Messrs Henderson and Warmington?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not saying they’d be cheaper but I think we might get to a conclusion more quickly than we were seeing at this time because this was a year on and we had very little output but had spent quite considerable amounts of money.
Mr Beer: Or was it that they were proving to be a little too independent for the Post Office?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, that certainly wasn’t my take.
Mr Beer: Well, was it the take of anyone else?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know. I mean, that certainly wasn’t – that wasn’t shared with me –
Mr Beer: Had anyone blamed Susan Crichton for suggesting them?
Angela van den Bogerd: At the time, I didn’t think so. I mean, I’ve obviously been listening to things this week.
Mr Beer: “Susan, you’ve got us these people in, they’re a bit too independent for us, why don’t we go for one of the big four, whom we can manage and control”?
Angela van den Bogerd: So that’s not a conversation I was aware of. I do remember in the early conversations Susan saying, “I do know – I know these people”, and quite clearly saying at the time “I’m not making any recommendations. I’ve worked with Ron. If you want me to, I can set up a meeting and you can take your own view”.
I do absolutely remember that conversation at the start. So what you’ve just said about their being too independent, that wasn’t something I was party to in terms of the conversation. I was working quite closely with them at the time, particularly Ron and, yes, he was very challenging, and so he should be. I mean, that’s what I expected them to do.
Mr Beer: Were you aware of a suggestion that Susan Crichton had failed to mark Second Sight properly.
Angela van den Bogerd: Not before listening to her evidence yesterday.
Mr Beer: Were you aware of chatter within the business, rumblings, that Susan Crichton’s job was on the line because she had (a) introduced reviewers who were a little too independent, and (b) when they were introduced, had failed to mark them, ie control them?
Angela van den Bogerd: That wasn’t something I was aware of and, actually, Susan leaving was quite a shock to me.
Mr Beer: Why did you think she left?
Angela van den Bogerd: I suspected it was to do the fact that Second Sight weren’t delivering the output in the time – in that time period.
Mr Beer: So it was about the quality of Second Sight’s work?
Angela van den Bogerd: It was about the timeliness and the – I won’t say the quality. It was the quantity –
Mr Beer: The speed –
Angela van den Bogerd: The quantity, we weren’t seeing the outputs, and –
Mr Beer: So she felt embarrassed that she had introduced Second Sight and they weren’t producing enough work quickly enough?
Angela van den Bogerd: That wasn’t the impression I got from Susan.
Mr Beer: Why do you think she left?
Angela van den Bogerd: Look, I mean, I’ve listened to her evidence this week. I wasn’t aware of what the conversations and what was going on in the background. I knew Susan had introduced Second Sight to the business. She hadn’t recommended them but she’d introduced them and we were in that space of that was a good thing. I’d seen – you know, I’d seen the pack and they came across as being very credible.
So I never personally thought she was ever embarrassed by anything they were doing but she was aware that we weren’t getting the outputs that we thought we would by that time.
Mr Beer: Can we turn on in the document, please, to Annex 1, which provides an overview of the process, so if we move through the document to page 8, please, and if we look at the bottom part of this page under “Post Office’s Activity”:
“It has provided continuous support to Second Sight and has responded to all ten Spot Reviews.
“It has …”
Then second bullet point from the bottom:
“Liaised closely with Fujitsu so that its expertise on Horizon supports every response.”
Then, lastly:
“Collated and interrogated transaction records where Second Sight has referenced particular identifiable transactions.”
Taking those points in turn and, bearing in mind you were, I think, responsible for managing the provision of information to Second Sight, was it right that Post Office had liaised closely with Fujitsu, so that its expertise supported every response that was made.
Angela van den Bogerd: That wasn’t me liaising with Fujitsu.
Mr Beer: Sorry?
Angela van den Bogerd: That wasn’t me liaising with Fujitsu.
Mr Beer: No, I didn’t ask whether you were liaising with the Fujitsu. I asked: do you know whether the Post Office liaised with Fujitsu to support every response?
Angela van den Bogerd: My understanding was that, yes, and I think at this time it was Simon Baker that was leading on that.
Mr Beer: It records, secondly, that the Post Office collated and interrogated transaction records where Second Sight have referenced particular identifiable transactions; did the Post Office only check transaction records?
Angela van den Bogerd: For the Spot Reviews? Um, I don’t think so. I think we went wider. We certainly did in the Lepton – the Lepton case.
Mr Beer: Why does this say, then, that the Post Office interrogated transaction records? I’m thinking in particular about event records or ARQ data?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m trying to remember. So, in the Lepton case, I did have a number of conversations with Ron on that one, then we did actually get the ARQ information, I think. It was definitely a more broader conversation because we needed to get more information to understand what had gone on in Lepton Branch. I can’t recall. Again, I think this would have been Simon facilitating this from Fujitsu.
Mr Beer: Okay, were you aware of the extent to which audit data had been examined by Fujitsu for all of the Spot Reviews?
Angela van den Bogerd: I can’t say that I was.
Mr Beer: Do you know if – why that would not have been done?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know why it wouldn’t have been done because that is the approach that we adopted for the scheme, and this was the precursor to the scheme, so it might very well have been done but I couldn’t say that I was aware categorically.
Mr Beer: I thought you were responsible for the management of the provision of information to Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I did say I – I thought I said earlier I wasn’t responsible; I was facilitating the flow of information, to Second Sight, but I wasn’t –
Mr Beer: So it came through you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Some of it did. Not all of it. But there was – it was more of a collective approach and Simon, from the IT, team, because he was IT and change, was – I think it was Simon that was liaising with Fujitsu. Our contact at the time was, I think, Pete Newsome who was the account manager from Fujitsu facing into Post Office.
Mr Beer: If, as seems to be the case, the Post Office was utterly convinced that its system was robust, would there be any reason not to interrogate all of the data held by Fujitsu?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, can you repeat that question?
Mr Beer: Yes. If, as seems to be the case, the Post Office was completely convinced in the integrity of its system, the robustness of its system, would there be any reason not to investigate all of the data that Fujitsu held in relation to all of the Spot Reviews?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I would have expected it to have been investigated.
Mr Beer: The ARQ data, enhanced ARQ data?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not sure about the enhanced ARQ data at the time but definitely the standard ARQ –
Mr Beer: Why are you not sure that the enhanced ARQ data would have been the subject of examination?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t know what they would have requested.
Mr Beer: Who’s “they”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Again, it would have been – I think it was Simon Baker, in terms of liaison directly with Fujitsu.
Mr Beer: But these paragraphs here are intended to give comfort, aren’t they, to Ms Vennells, that Fujitsu have been closely involved and data has been obtained which backs up the Post Office’s response to Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I agree.
Mr Beer: How could this have been signed off, then, without a full understanding of the extent to which Fujitsu did, in fact, assist the Post Office in the investigation of Spot Reviews?
Angela van den Bogerd: And that might have been the case. All I’m saying is I wasn’t directly involved in that and I’m not sure – I can’t recall that that absolutely was the case but it very well might have been.
Mr Beer: Thank you. That can come down.
Can you remember a plan to ensure that the Post Office took on the role of investigating cases raised by its subpostmasters, rather than Second Sight –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – to bring things under the Post Office’s control and then remove Second Sight from the process completely?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I’ve seen some information disclosed. From memory, that certainly wasn’t at the front of my mind, other than, if we were to go into a business as usual situation because, having established an approach, and I’m talking more about scheme, I very much was of the view that we needed to embed that into business as usual so that we did have the support to be able to investigate issues within branches that a subpostmaster raised with us.
But, in terms of mid-scheme, I mean, yes, I was involved in some of the conversations, but I never saw that – I’m not sure I ever saw it as a reality, to be honest.
Mr Beer: You were aware ever of a plan gently to ease Second Sight out of the equation?
Angela van den Bogerd: I mean, I’ve said documents that have said that but that wasn’t in the fore of my mind at all. I mean, I was working very closely with Second Sight on these cases.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00381544. This is an email exchange to which you weren’t party. It’s a couple of weeks after what we’ve been looking at just now, and it’s an email exchange between Mr Baker and Ms Vennells. He was leaving, yes?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, and I wasn’t sure of the timeline but I can see this would have been close to it, yeah.
Mr Beer: “A few closing thoughts, here they are, nothing radical.”
His first indented paragraph:
“The primary focus has to be proving to JFSA and MPs that we can take on the role of independently investigating cases.”
Just stopping there, can you conceive of any circumstances in which the Post Office could ever independently investigate itself?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: The subpostmasters were making allegations against the Post Office, weren’t they?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: The subpostmasters were making allegations against the Post Office’s system, weren’t they?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: The Post Office could never independently investigates them, could it?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: If you’d seen this, would you think that’s just absurd babble?
Angela van den Bogerd: So when I saw that for the first time, which I think was this week, I was amazed at the content.
Mr Beer: He continued:
“That way we can start to bring things under our control.”
That was always the plan, wasn’t it? A concern amongst senior leadership, it was a bad thing if investigation of complaints were not under the Post Office’s control?
Angela van den Bogerd: So that wasn’t my take on – so when I got involved at the start and the early conversations, it was about genuinely getting to the truth, getting under the skin and understanding whether there was any substance to the claims that were being made by mostly former postmasters at the time.
So, you know, this is, as I said, I find this quite – found this quite amazing – you know, I’m startled by what I’ve seen in here and that wasn’t why I’d voluntarily got involved because I did step into this of my own volition.
Mr Beer: Was the Post Office’s concern that “If things are not under our control and are instead a little too independent, we can’t influence the outcomes of them”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, again, from the disclosure that I’ve seen then I can see that, but I wasn’t a party to those conversations. You know, I genuinely believed, when we engaged Second Sight, I was – it was for genuine reasons. But I think we didn’t expect it to have gone on as long as it did. But, saying that, the cases were much more complex to investigate than, I think, anybody anticipated at the start. I’m sorry I’m probably drifting a little bit more into the scheme here.
Mr Beer: Ie the concern was “We want control over the process and, in that way, we can have control over the substance of conclusions”?
Angela van den Bogerd: Again, that wasn’t my view.
Mr Beer: The suggestion is that the plan to do this is to augment Second Sight with Post Office resources, build up our credibility and then at the right time, remove Second Sight; that’s what happened, isn’t it?
Angela van den Bogerd: In terms of – are you referring to what, closing the scheme? Again, all I can say, I wasn’t aware that this was the plan.
Mr Beer: It was the early plan, according to this?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I wasn’t part of that conversation.
Mr Beer: If we look at the next paragraph, the strategy was said to fall almost entirely upon your shoulders?
Angela van den Bogerd: That certainly wasn’t what I was aware of.
Mr Beer: At this time, which is the end of August, did you know that it was the Post Office’s plan to remove Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: I mean, I’d been in some meetings, I can’t remember which ones, where it was reported about concern about Second Sight rising cost, not getting the outputs, and there were some alternatives being mooted about, you know, bringing in some additional resource. But it’s only through the disclosure process I’ve seen the extent of some of those conversations.
Mr Beer: Was the concern that they were a little too independent for the Post Office?
Angela van den Bogerd: I didn’t think so. As I’ve said, it was about the level of output and the cost. I didn’t think it was about the independence because I was part of the Working Group and they were clearly – their role was to be independent and that’s how we operated.
Mr Beer: According to Mr Baker, the strategy was going to fall on you. You were seemingly in charge of easing Second Sight into the wings and then out of the equation. Were you ever told that you held that role?
Angela van den Bogerd: No. I’ve said this was a complete shock when I saw this.
Mr Beer: Did you ever do anything to carry that strategy into effect?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t think so. I mean, I was there to investigate the issues from postmasters. I mean, again, overlap with the initial Inquiry for the Spot Reviews and then going into the scheme, my role was to lead the team to do those investigations as thoroughly as we could. In the initial Inquiry with the Spot Reviews, I only had a couple of people doing that and then we built then obviously going into the scheme.
Mr Beer: You’d worked very closely with Mr Baker, hadn’t you?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: No?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not before getting involved with this, no.
Mr Beer: No, I’m talking about in this, in the Second Sight –
Angela van den Bogerd: Oh, sorry.
Mr Beer: – investigations. You told us already that he was responsible for –
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: – the IT side but about of the provision of information –
Angela van den Bogerd: So the first time I met Simon Baker was when we were having the early conversations, which would have been in 2012, throughout that period, which would have been about a year, if he left in August, then I did work quite closely with him at that point.
Mr Beer: So for a year or so you’d worked closely with him on the Second Sight project?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you know how it was that he seems to have held the view that the focus had to be to bring things under the Post Office’s control and then, at the right time, remove Second Sight without having told you of it?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t – I mean, Simon was having lots of conversations with Paula and, I presume, Alice. He was working to Lesley Sewell at the time. I can’t remember when Lesley left either. But that’s certainly not a conversation he had with me.
Mr Beer: Ultimately, the Post Office did remove Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: Once we’d completed the investigations into the scheme cases, yeah.
Mr Beer: Are you saying that was unrelated to the plan that’s described here?
Angela van den Bogerd: As far as I was concerned, yes. But, again, I hadn’t seen this.
Mr Beer: It’s a bit like the email of 5 December, it comes as a bit of a shock to you?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, it’s different. I mean that 5 December was sent to me; I just hadn’t read it. This was never sent to me, I don’t believe, because I’ve definitely never seen this, and this, I think, is a note from – a private note from Simon to Paula. So this is different altogether.
Mr Beer: Thank you. That can come down.
To your mind, did the Second Sight Interim Report of 8 July 2013 raise concerns over the integrity of Horizon?
Angela van den Bogerd: I think, going back to my earlier comment, is that there were allegations and issues being raised, without it being supported with the evidence. So, in that respect, it wasn’t conclusive but it did raise concerns at that point.
Mr Beer: Concerns that needed to be investigated?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: It raised the existence of three bugs that had operated in the past?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, we disclosed the bugs to them, so, in that respect it gave – I suppose what it did do is it brought – it made it public.
Mr Beer: On that, do you know who disclosed the bugs to them? Quite a few people are claiming credit for disclosing the bugs.
Angela van den Bogerd: So my understanding was it was Simon Baker who provided the information to Second Sight but I’ve seen other things that say that that’s different. But my recollection, from the time, was that’s how it was.
Mr Beer: So there was some credit for Post Office there, because this was voluntary disclosure without pressure from Second Sight; is that right?
Angela van den Bogerd: I presume so.
Mr Beer: You were aware, at this time, that the Post Office had prosecuted very many people in the past, based on the Horizon evidence?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wouldn’t say very many. I was aware of some.
Mr Beer: What was your impression of how many people the Post Office had prosecuted in the last, say, 13 and a half years?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not sure, at that point, I had a number. Clearly, I’ve seen the number since but my early recollection is that I wouldn’t have been aware of the number of cases at a national level. It would only have been the ones that I would have been involved in or close to.
Mr Beer: Even if it was some cases, you would have been aware that the information in the Second Sight Report and the revelation of the bugs may have impacted on those prosecutions?
Angela van den Bogerd: As I said earlier, I wasn’t close to the conviction, you know, the process for the convictions, and –
Mr Beer: Can you help us what you did do? So far today you’ve said you weren’t close to many things.
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I’ve said the prosecutions – I was not involved in the prosecutions.
Mr Beer: Not involved in briefing; not involved in IT; not involved in the provision of information concerning Horizon to Second Sight; not involved in investigating those early complaints about Horizon that I raised; not involved in considering the impact of the Second Sight Report on convictions.
What were you doing at this time?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I was – well, I had a separate role as well. So I was doing whatever my business as usual role was and then I was working closely on – at this point, on the Spot Reviews with Second Sight.
Mr Beer: Did anyone say to you, “We might have a problem here. Some of our prosecutions have been based on Horizon data and that data may not enjoy the integrity that we thought it did, sufficient for criminal court purposes. Something needs to be done about that”?
Angela van den Bogerd: So my understanding of how the cases that had been prosecuted, the conviction – you know, the cases that had gone to court – was that they had been properly investigated at the time.
Mr Beer: Where did you get that understanding from, that the cases resulting in conviction had been properly investigated?
Angela van den Bogerd: That was my general understanding of the approach to prosecutions. So there was my understanding –
Mr Beer: Where did you get that understanding from?
Angela van den Bogerd: I must have asked somebody because I’d never seen a policy on there but my understanding, from just growing up in the business, as it were, is that the process was quite rigorous, in – it was investigated by the Security and Investigation Team, it had oversight from our internal Legal Team, and it would have been Royal Mail in the early days. Any case that was being put forward had external legal advice on it, as well, and then it came back in to the Post Office to get General Counsel’s sign-off. So –
Mr Beer: Where do you get that, in some respects, faulty understanding from?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’d been speaking to people. I mean, as we went through the – and I can’t remember the exact timeline but, as we went through the process, I remember having a conversation with Rod, Rodric Williams, to say – and particularly when I found out about Gareth Jenkins – and that’s probably later, but – and I remember saying to him, “So what’s the impact then?” and his view – his response to me was, “Oh, it’s fine, we’ve got a QC looking at – or we have had looking – so they’ve looked at the implications on the past convictions”.
So, for me, then I’d satisfied myself that that was in hand and, you know, that was outside my area of scope or knowledge, and I took it at face value from the Legal Team.
Mr Beer: You said there when you became aware of the issue relating to Gareth Jenkins?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: What was the issue that you became aware of?
Angela van den Bogerd: So it was that Gareth – we wouldn’t be using Gareth in any cases going forward and –
Mr Beer: Were you told why?
Angela van den Bogerd: Not to the extent that I’ve seen now.
Mr Beer: What were you told as to why you’d stopped using him?
Angela van den Bogerd: So again, I’d asked Rod and he said, “Oh, there was an issue with some of the evidence”.
Mr Beer: This is Rod Williams?
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, Rodric Williams, and I worked quite closely with Rodric Williams throughout all of the spot review and into the scheme and then the GLO. His response to me was that, “There was an issue with the evidence he’d given, we’ve had a QC [as it was at the time] look at that and there’s no issue. It’s all been looked at, there’s no issue, but we won’t be using him as a witness going forward”.
Mr Beer: So there’s no issue –
Angela van den Bogerd: In respect of the cases, the past cases.
Mr Beer: What did you understand to be meant by “There is no issue”?
Angela van den Bogerd: That they were safe, the convictions were safe. They didn’t need to be reopened.
Mr Beer: Why were you being told this?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because I’d asked.
Mr Beer: Why had you asked?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because it didn’t sound – well, the normal run of the course, that we had been using a witness in cases and we, at that point, were still prosecuting and there were still cases going forward but we were no longer using the witness that we had used previously. So I wanted to understand why that was.
Mr Beer: What had it got to do with you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because I was concerned at that point.
Mr Beer: So you were concerned with the Post Office’s prosecution practices?
Angela van den Bogerd: I was concerned about the fact that why would we not be using a witness that we had been using previously? So there was something not quite right about that and I asked the question, and I probably didn’t probe deep enough, but I got a response that satisfied me, in terms of my knowledge, that we’d had a QC look at that, assess, and the verdict was that was – everything was okay.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00006375 – that’s the wrong reference. If you forgive me a moment, Ms van den Bogerd.
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
(Pause)
Mr Beer: Whilst Mr Blake helps me on that, were you provided with a copy of an advice written by a barrister called Simon Clarke concerning Gareth Jenkins?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: When was the first time that you saw that?
Angela van den Bogerd: In this pack, the disclosure pack.
Mr Beer: So in the last few weeks?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: What did you think when you read it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, it certainly filled more gaps, you know, in terms of the reason why and it certainly had more significance than what I recalled had been relayed to me.
Mr Beer: Why was it more significant than had been relayed to you?
Angela van den Bogerd: Because – and I’m not familiar with all the language used in there but because it had implications on the cases and that he had breached his code – his duty to the court. I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with the terminology but that was, you know, very significant in terms of what I read.
Mr Beer: POL00006357. I think that’s what I called out. Ah, perfect. Thank you.
If we just look at the last page of this, please, we can see it’s dated 15 July 2013.
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we go back to paragraph 37, which is up a couple of pages, I think:
“What does all this mean? In short it means …”
I’m going to insert the right words here:
“… [Gareth Jenkins] has not complied with his duties to the court, the prosecution or the defence.
“38. The reasons as to why [Gareth Jenkins] failed to comply with this duty are beyond the scope of this review. The effects of the failure must be considered. I advise the following to be the position:
“[Gareth Jenkins] failed to disclose material known to him but which undermines his expert opinion. The failure is in plain breach of his duty as an expert witness.
“Accordingly, [Gareth Jenkins’] credibility as an expert witness is fatally undermined; he should not be asked to provide expert evidence in any current or future prosecution.
“Similarly, in those current and ongoing cases where [Gareth Jenkins] has provided an expert witness statement, he should not be called upon to give that evidence. Rather we should seek a different, independent expert …
“Notwithstanding that the failure is that of [Gareth Jenkins] and, arguably, of Fujitsu … this failure has a profound effect upon Post Office and its prosecutions, not least by reason of [Gareth Jenkins’] failure, material which should have been disclosed to the defendants was not disclosed, thereby placing the Post Office in breach of their duties as a prosecutor.
“By reason of the failure to disclose, there are a number of now convicted defendants to whom the existence of bugs should have been disclosed but was not. Those defendants remain entitled to have disclosure of that material notwithstanding their convicted status. (I have already advised on the need to conduct a review of all Post Office prosecutions. That review is presently under way.)
“There are a number of current cases where there has been no disclosure where there ought to have been. Here we must disclose the existence of the bugs to those defendants where the test for disclosure is met.
“Where a convicted defendant or his lawyers consider that the failure to disclose material reveals an arguable ground of appeal, he may seek the leave of the Court of Appeal to challenge his conviction.”
Was it reading those paragraphs, in particular, that caused you concern when you got this recently?
Angela van den Bogerd: It all caused me concern, actually, but –
Mr Beer: Sorry?
Angela van den Bogerd: It all concerned me concern because, when I asked the question, that wasn’t the response that I got.
Mr Beer: What is said here is not consistent with the assurance that you got, is it?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, it’s not.
Sir Wyn Williams: So I’m clear about it, this assurance, from whom did that come?
Angela van den Bogerd: It was from a conversation I had with Rodric Williams. I can’t –
Sir Wyn Williams: That conversation, in the context of how this advice should be dealt with, if at all, in the disclosure to Second Sight?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I wasn’t aware of this advice at the time and, as I said, I’ve only just seen this document. The conversation I had with Rodric was about – and I don’t know exactly when it was but it was at the point at which I learnt that we were no longer going to – we couldn’t use Gareth Jenkins as a witness in future cases, and it was at that point I’d asked Rodric, “Well, why and what does that mean?” and that’s the response I got from Rodric. But, as I say, I don’t remember the time but I certainly had not seen this advice.
Mr Beer: Do you think, looking at the conclusions that were reached in this advice, you ought to have been told about it?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes, I do.
Mr Beer: Is that because of the role that you were then performing?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, this – I mean, in July we were moving into the scheme. So we launched the Mediation Scheme in the August and there were discussions in the Working Group about the safety of the prosecutions, the cases, and, again, I still wasn’t brought into this detail at all.
Mr Beer: The Inquiry has got evidence that the advice that we’re looking at was sent to Martin Smith of Cartwright King –
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
Mr Beer: – to Susan Crichton, the then General Counsel –
Angela van den Bogerd: Okay.
Mr Beer: – to Rodric Williams; to Hugh Flemington; to Andrew Parsons; to Simon Richardson; to Jarnail Singh; and to Gavin Matthews. Did any of those people draw its conclusions to your attention?
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: Did any one of them –
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, there’s two on that list I don’t know: the Gavin and the – sorry, the last –
Mr Beer: Gavin Matthews?
Angela van den Bogerd: I don’t recall that name at all.
Mr Beer: Yes.
Angela van den Bogerd: And not the next one up, but the one up above that.
Mr Beer: Andrew Parsons, you knew –
Angela van den Bogerd: No, I knew Andrew Parsons.
Mr Beer: Simon Richardson?
Angela van den Bogerd: Didn’t know Simon Richardson. Everyone else I was aware of but, no, I did not have this information brought to my attention.
Mr Beer: You, I think, carried on having extensive dealings with Andrew Parsons over the years?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: Right up until 2020?
Angela van den Bogerd: Yes.
Mr Beer: And not a thing was mentioned by him about this –
Angela van den Bogerd: No.
Mr Beer: – about the reasons why the Post Office had to sack Gareth Jenkins?
Angela van den Bogerd: Well, I don’t think the Post Office actually sacked – well, he worked for Fujitsu anyway, but Gareth Jenkins –
Mr Beer: “Sack him” is shorthand: stop using him as a witness in any of its cases?
Angela van den Bogerd: So I didn’t have that – I don’t think I had that conversation with Andy Parsons but we did use Gareth Jenkins in the GLO. You know –
Mr Beer: You’re ahead of me again, Ms van den Bogerd.
Angela van den Bogerd: Sorry, apologies.
Mr Beer: In that context, did anyone say, including Mr Parsons, “Hold on, we’ve been advised [this is my summary, not theirs] that Mr Jenkins is a tainted witness whose reliability has been found, on advice, to be compromised, therefore we can’t use him in any capacity”?
Angela van den Bogerd: No, not that I remember, and the words “tainted” – that, you know – as I said, my recollection of my conversation with Rodric – and it was Rodric, and I don’t believe I had a conversation with Andy because I wouldn’t have raised it because I had had a response from Rodric was that there was an issue with his evidence and therefore we are – we can no longer use him as a witness, which is very different to what you just said.
Mr Beer: The advice can come down from the screen.
“Tainted”, incidentally, was a word used by the QC you ask that you mentioned, Brian Altman KC. That expression was never used, even in the context of the GLO and the assistance that Mr Jenkins was providing in the GLO.
Angela van den Bogerd: Not that I can remember.
Mr Beer: Were you aware of a further advice written by Mr Clarke dealing with the suggestion that a member of the Post Office had given an instruction to destroy or to shred evidence and not to write anything down in order to avoid disclosure duties to the court?
Angela van den Bogerd: I wasn’t when I was – I wasn’t – I’ve seen it as part of the disclosure pack. I wasn’t aware that we’d had advice. I was aware of the shredding situation but I wasn’t aware that the advice had been given.
Mr Beer: Okay, what were you aware about the shredding situation?
Angela van den Bogerd: So my recollection – and I’m sorry, I’m struggling with some of the times here. So Gayle Peacock, who was working with me at the time, had been attending the Horizon – I think it was a weekly call or meeting.
Mr Beer: So a weekly Wednesday hub?
Angela van den Bogerd: Something – yeah, I can’t remember the exact details. I never was involved in those meetings. But Gayle Peacock, who was either – because Gayle worked for me in the Branch Support Programme, I think it was around that time, and she mentioned to me that John Scott had given this instruction.
Mr Beer: Did she say how she knew that it was John Scott who’d given the instruction?
Angela van den Bogerd: She said it was John Scott.
Mr Beer: Yes. Did she say how she knew that it was John Scott? Was she giving you the impression that he had given the instruction to her?
Angela van den Bogerd: I’m not – I can’t remember but she said to me John Scott. Now, whether he was in the meeting or not, I don’t know because, as I said, I wasn’t in the meeting but it was a case of John Scott had given this instruction and just disbelief, if I’m honest, about that.
Mr Beer: What was your understanding as to what was done about the shredding instruction given by the Head of Security?
Angela van den Bogerd: My understanding was that Susan Crichton intervened and, you know, put a message out that that clearly should not happen. Not that I ever think – I don’t even know whether anybody ever did destroy anything because I’m sure Gayle wouldn’t have at the time, so – but Susan intervened and put that straight, was my recollection of it.
Mr Beer: Sir, thank you. That is a convenient moment to break, if it’s convenient for you, until I think 10.00 tomorrow morning.
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, I think you may know, Mr Beer, that my assessors and I will be there tomorrow in the hearing room.
Mr Beer: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: We, I think, can leave it at 9.45 but, to a small extent, there is, of course, a risk that the train from South Wales may be late. But I think we’ll leave it at 9.45. If the worst happens, you’ll just have to wait for me for a few minutes, but, if it’s on time, we’ll be on time.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much, sir, 9.45 then. Thank you.
Sir Wyn Williams: Before I break, Ms van den Bogerd, it is customary for me to tell witnesses who are adjourned overnight that they shouldn’t speak about their evidence.
I’ve no doubt you’ve heard that before.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: No doubt you don’t want to speak about your evidence, so please comply with that request.
The Witness: I will. Thank you.
Mr Beer: Thank you, sir.
(4.14 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 9.45 am the following day)