16 July 2024 – Andrew Dunks
Hide video Show video
(9.45 am)
Mr Beer: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, I can, thank you.
Mr Beer: Sir, can I ask that Mr Dunks isn’t sworn for the moment. I know that his legal representative wants to provide me with a piece of paper that sets out a correction that Mr Dunks wants to make to his witness statement and he hasn’t given me that yet.
Sir Wyn Williams: That’s fine.
(Pause)
Mr Beer: Can I call Andy Dunks, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes.
Andrew Dunks
ANDREW PAUL DUNKS (re-sworn).
Questioned by Mr Beer
Mr Beer: Good morning, Mr Dunks, my name is Jason Beer and I ask questions on behalf of the Inquiry. Before I ask you those questions there’s a matter that the Chairman will raise with you.
Sir Wyn Williams: Mr Dunks, under our law, a witness at a public inquiry has the right to decline to answer a question put to him by Counsel to the Inquiry, by any recognised legal representative or by me, if there is a risk that the answer to that question would incriminate the witness. This legal principle is known in shorthand form as the privilege against self-incrimination.
I take the view that fairness demands that I remind you of that privilege before you give your evidence. If at any stage you wish to rely upon that privilege, however, it is for you to alert me of that fact.
If, therefore, any questions are put to you by any of the lawyers who ask you questions, or by me, which you do not wish to answer on the ground that to answer such a question might incriminate you, you must tell me immediately after the question is put to you. At that point, I will consider your objection and thereafter rule upon whether your objection to answering the question should be upheld.
Now I think I understand correctly that you are represented today by lawyers at the Inquiry; is that right?
The Witness: Yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: So if the issue relating to self-discrimination arises and you wish them to assist you, and if at any stage during the questioning you wish to consult your lawyers about the privilege, you must tell me so that I can consider whether that is appropriate. Do you understand all that, Mr Dunks?
The Witness: I do, yes.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you very much.
Over to you, Mr Beer.
Mr Beer: Thank you, sir.
Mr Dunks, can you, give us your full name, please?
Andrew Dunks: Andrew Paul Dunks.
Mr Beer: You last gave evidence on 8 March 2023 for half a day before the weather interrupted us in Phase 3 of the Inquiry. Since then you have prepared a second witness statement, the URN for which is WITN00300200. It’s 69 pages long and it’s dated 24 May 2024. I think there are two corrections that you wish to make to it; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we deal with the first of them, which is more substantial, by looking at page 23 of the witness statement. If that could be brought up on the screen, so second witness statement, page 23, and if you look in the hard copy in front of you. Have you got that?
Andrew Dunks: I’ve got it here, not (unclear) in front.
Mr Beer: Paragraph 77, if we scroll down, please. You say in that paragraph:
“I do not know why system event logs were not supplied as part of the ARQ process.”
Is there a correction which you wish to make to that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, there is.
Mr Beer: I’m going to read it out at dictation speed, it’s quite long.
Do you wish to make the following correction:
“I have now been shown records which indicate that, as part of the ARQ process, the CSPOA Security Team, including me, supplied the system events log to the SSC to check them for any financial implications …”
Then you give a reference, eg FUJ00186421. Then you add:
“… though I now have no recollection of this.”
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Is that the correction you wish to make?
Andrew Dunks: It is, yes.
Mr Beer: So:
“I have now been shown records which indicate that, as part of the ARQ process, the Security Team, including me, supplied the system events log to the SSC to check them for any financial implications, though I now have no recollection of this.”
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Then the second correction, please, much simpler, page 52 of the witness statement, paragraph 167. In the first line, you say:
“It appears that I was asked to provide Litigation Support in respect of this prosecution in August 2006.”
Do you wish to amend that to “May 2006”?
Andrew Dunks: I do, yeah.
Mr Beer: Is that because you have now seen a document which has got your name on it, which is dated from May 2006?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can you go to the last page, please, which is page 69 of the witness statement; is that your signature?
Andrew Dunks: It is, yes.
Mr Beer: With those two corrections brought into account, are the contents of the witness statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Andrew Dunks: It is, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much. That can come down, thank you, and you can put the witness statement to one side.
I’m not going to address your background, your work at Fujitsu or the organisation of the Customer Service Post Office Account, the CSPOA, and, in particular, the Security Team within it, as you addressed those issues on the last occasion and you provide considerable detail about them in your most recent witness statement. You say in that recent witness statement that, as of 24 May 2024, you remained employed by Fujitsu as an IT Security Analyst in the Security Team; does that remain the case?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can I begin with what might be described as some process issues. You refer in your witness statement to the Post Office Account’s Prosecution Support Section, the PSS. Yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can you confirm that that entity, the Prosecution Support Section, was not part of the Post Office; it was part of Fujitsu?
Andrew Dunks: Where – I’m sorry. I believe so, yes.
Mr Beer: Okay. Was there anyone embedded from the Post Office in it?
Andrew Dunks: No, there wasn’t.
Mr Beer: Can we look at a policy document, please, FUJ00152209. It’ll come up on the screen for you. Can you see this is a document, the title of which is “Network Banking Management of Prosecution Support”?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: The date of it in the top right, Version 2, is dated 29 February 2005. A summary of it, under the title, “Abstract”, is given:
“[It] outlines the end-to-end procedures required to manage and deliver the Network Banking Prosecution Support Service.”
Can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: This is a document you refer to in your witness statement and, if we just pan out a little bit to look at the whole of the front page, I don’t think we see your name on it; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then if we look at the second page, I don’t think we see your name as a reviewer, either mandatory or optional, or a person to whom it was issued for information; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Would that reflect the fact that the level at which you operated meant that you didn’t contribute towards documents of this kind?
Andrew Dunks: Correct, yes.
Mr Beer: If we go back to page 1, please and if we scroll down a little bit, thank you. You’ll be familiar with a number of the names of the contributors there; would that be right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Of the contributors, can you tell us, as at 2005, what they did and what their relationship to the work that you did was?
Andrew Dunks: Neneh Lowther was part of the same level as I was, within the Security Team, and she carried out or looked after, I believe at the time, ARQ requests along with other jobs within our team. Bill Mitchell was the Security Manager, which would have been our line manager. Penny Thomas would have been the same level as myself and Neneh, I’m not sure what her role then – whether she had become the litigation manager.
Jan Holmes and Alan Holmes – this is where I get confused because they’ve both got the same surname – I think one –
Mr Beer: If we just go to page 2 to help you – and scroll down – we can see Jan Holmes is described as the Quality Assurance Manager and Alan Holmes is described as Audit. Does that help?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, one was like a – I believe the role was around a Service Delivery Manager, that would have been Jan, and Alan Holmes was audit support.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much.
This document, which sets out the procedures required to manage and deliver the Prosecution Support Service, is this a document you would have been familiar with back in the day, back in 2005?
Andrew Dunks: Um, familiar with? I don’t know. I would have probably read it at one stage but I can’t remember –
Mr Beer: How were documents distributed to users of them at that time?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember how they were distributed back then.
Mr Beer: Was there a centralised library, sort of an intranet, that was a depository/repository of policies that you were able to access or expected to access or were documents physically passed to you?
Andrew Dunks: Oh, no, yeah, I don’t believe they were physically passed to us but they would have been available if needed.
Mr Beer: Okay, so this is the kind of document that would have set out the procedures to be operated for –
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: – the Prosecution Support Service in 2005. Just again, looking at the reviewers and, if we go back to page 1, the contributors, would you agree that this is an internal Fujitsu document to which Post Office did not apparently contribute?
Andrew Dunks: It appears so, yes.
Mr Beer: All of the contributors and reviewers are Fujitsu employees rather than Post Office employees –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you know the extent to which Post Office was given the opportunity to comment on, or amend or provide contributions to policies of this kind?
Andrew Dunks: No, I’ve no idea what level or whether they – what documents they were aware of or saw, no.
Mr Beer: Okay. That was something that happened, if it happened, above your level; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Correct, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we go to page 22 of the document, please. Can you see, if we just scroll down, please, under 7.2.4, it provides “Complete witness statement of fact”:
“[The Prosecution Support Service] PSS will provide a witness statement of fact in respect of 250 [ARQs] per annum. This will as far as possible be undertaken by the person responsible for the actioning of the work … so as to retain continuity of evidence and obviate the need for additional statements.”
Just on the point – the provision of the witness statement will be undertaken by the person, as far as is possible, who is responsible for undertaking the ARQ work described earlier in 7.1 – that, I think, accords with what you tell us in the witness statement: if you did the extraction, then you were the provider of the witness statement; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you. It continues, 7.2.4.1:
“Any material or otherwise pertinent information shall be recorded and included in the relevant witness statement of fact.
“Requirements for witness statements explaining the extraction of audit data from Horizon in response to an [ARQ] shall be completed by the individual from PSS who completed the request.”
That’s the same point as is made in 7.2.4. It continues:
“The statement shall follow the standard format and layout for witness statements of fact provided in evidence. Contents of witness statements of fact are flexible depending on specific requirements of each case and the knowledge of the witness giving the statement. An example of a witness statement of fact is provided in Appendix 2. For each request, Post Office and [Prosecution Support] will agree relevant matters (such as those listed below) which will be covered in the witness statement of fact (based on the knowledge of the witness).”
If we read on, we can see that those matters include – if you just read the first five there and, if we go over the page, please, to the fourth bullet point on that page. Matters which should be covered in the witness statement of fact include, bullet point 4:
“The process for extracting information for [ARQs] and the controls in place to ensure the integrity of that data.”
Then the fifth bullet point:
“An analysis of the [ARQ], when the [ARQ] form was received and the dates when the audit data extraction took place. This shall be taken from the Prosecution Support Database and audit trail file.”
Then, lastly:
“A summary of the evidence provided for the request.”
So was it right that the Post Office’s only role was in relation to ARQs, identifying the relevant matters, ie which of these bullet points needed to be addressed in a witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry?
Mr Beer: If we just go back, please, and scroll up, please. You see the third paragraph there. Four lines in it reads:
“For each request, Post Office and [the Prosecution Support Service] will agree relevant matters (such as those listed below) which should be covered in the witness statement of fact …”
So was it the Post Office’s role to agree, with Prosecution Support, which of the bullet points that are listed needed to be addressed in a witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know, at that level. I’m not quite sure.
Mr Beer: We know that you made many, many witness statements –
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: – what did you take as your guide, if any, as to what to include?
Andrew Dunks: In the data that we supplied or in the witness statement?
Mr Beer: No, in the witness statement.
Andrew Dunks: From our witness template that would have been given to use.
Mr Beer: Okay, the witness template, we’re going to come on to look at it in a number, has a number of paragraphs in it that have a capital letter, A through Q, I think, some of which are optional?
Andrew Dunks: Okay.
Mr Beer: It’s your evidence, not mine, that is important. I don’t give any evidence at all. The witness statement, the template, appears to include a number of paragraphs that are optional. Does that reflect your understanding?
Andrew Dunks: Um … optional? No, I don’t recall that.
Mr Beer: We in the Inquiry have seen a number of emails from either within Fujitsu or from Post Office to Fujitsu, where they say “include paragraphs D, F and Q. No need to address K and L”.
Andrew Dunks: No, I’m not aware of that taking place, no.
Mr Beer: If we go forwards to page 29 and scroll down, I’m actually going to look at this in an earlier iteration of the policy in a moment but, if we scroll down, please, this is the template, you remember that the body of the policy said that there’s an example witness statement in Appendix 2 and this is Appendix 2. Can you see that each paragraph is starting above the body of the paragraph with a capital letter –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we go over the page, can we see some more, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we scroll on, and keep scrolling, you’ll see that there’s some more paragraphs, each with a capital letter above them. What did you understand the capital letters were for?
Andrew Dunks: It’s difficult. I don’t – I don’t remember whether I read this document or if I ever used it to reference. So I wasn’t aware how the witness statements were generated, who drafted them and how they were drafted.
Mr Beer: But you drafted them, didn’t you, the witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: Not the template, no.
Mr Beer: Okay, the witness statements that you eventually put your name to and signed –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – you decided what went into those, did you?
Andrew Dunks: No, we used the – a template that we were told to use, within the team.
Mr Beer: Right?
Andrew Dunks: The Litigation Support said this is the template to use, fill in the appropriate information to accompany the ARQ data and that’s what we did.
Mr Beer: Where was the template kept?
Andrew Dunks: Um … I believe in a shared fold.
Mr Beer: Was that a Prosecution Service Support shared folder within your Security Team?
Andrew Dunks: Yeah, I believe so, yes.
Mr Beer: So I don’t suppose now you can help us as to whether it looked like this document or not?
Andrew Dunks: No, I’m afraid not, sir.
Mr Beer: Okay, if we go back, please, to page 22, and scroll down. The highlighted part at the bottom:
“For each request, Post Office and [Prosecution Support] will agree relevant matters (such as those listed below) which should be covered in the witness statement of fact …”
I think, Mr Dunks, but maybe you can confirm if this is correct, that did not accord with what happened in practice? You included what was in the template, rather than what the Post Office and Fujitsu would agree should be covered in the witness statement.
Andrew Dunks: Yes, yeah.
Mr Beer: Would you always use the whole of the template or would you ever say, “That paragraph isn’t relevant to the thing that I’m speaking about on this case, I’ll cut that paragraph out”?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t believe that happened no. I’m basing – would use a template that had been agreed within the team or Litigation Support advised us to use.
Mr Beer: So you don’t remember a stage of the process where Post Office and Fujitsu came to an agreement on what needed to be covered off in a witness statement; you just pulled the template from the shared drive, populated it with the data that applied to the ARQs that you were talking about and then signed it; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Basically, yes.
Mr Beer: Okay. Can we move forwards, please, to page 25 and look at paragraph 8.2. “Expert Witness Statement” is the heading. In the second paragraph there, the policy says:
“It is … conceivable that, given the size and complexity of the Horizon system, the integrity of the witness statements of fact may be challenged by defence counsel in order to discredit a prosecution. In these cases additional, granular detail about the technical working and integrity of various systems that constitute the Horizon system may be required if only for ‘unused material’.
“Expert witnesses could comprise anyone within the Post Office Account or its approved contractors who could be called upon to provide and testify to this additional evidence.
“Expert witnesses could be called upon to provide, for example …”
Then the first one is “Operational logs” and the last one is “Subsequent analysis of this data”.
Were you aware of, never mind the detail of what this says, but the sense of what these paragraphs say, that, as well as what are described as witness statements of fact, there was the facility for expert witness statements to be provided.
Andrew Dunks: No, no, I don’t think I was ever made aware of anything like that, no.
Mr Beer: Was that language in use at the time in Fujitsu in the Support Service, “Mr X or Ms Y” – probably by their first name – “is providing a witness statement of fact” or, “In this case, because there’s been a challenge, we need an expert witness statement”?
Andrew Dunks: No, not that I’m aware of. I don’t recall anything like that taking place within the team at any time, no.
Mr Beer: You’ll see that it says, “Expert witnesses could comprise anyone within the Post Office Account”; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Were you ever told that you were a person that could provide evidence that would be classed as expert witness?
Andrew Dunks: No. No one did, as far as I’m aware, describe me as an expert witness.
Mr Beer: That can come down, thank you. Can we go to your witness statement, please, your second witness statement, it’ll come up on the screen at page 17, paragraph 53. You say:
“I and the other … Security Analysts assisted the Litigation Support Manager as and when required, in addition to performing the other tasks assigned to us by the Operational Security Manager. We were very process driven and followed local work instruction documents …”
That’s what I’m going to be concentrating on in a moment, Mr Dunks:
“… for many of the tasks that we performed, rather than consulting the Fujitsu policies and service descriptions. The local work instructions were informal documents, which at some stage had been written by those actually performing the tasks, and which focused on the practicalities of how to do each task. I believe Penny Thomas drafted local work instructions in respect of ARQ extractions, and I wrote the local work instruction in respect of how to extract the HSD call records, though both documents may have been updated by different people over the years. None of these local work instructions, that I used-on a day-to-day basis, have been disclosed to me by the Inquiry.”
I should say that’s because we haven’t got them.
So you tell us here that there were things that you call local work instructions and that they were used, rather than Fujitsu policies and service descriptions; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, correct.
Mr Beer: In the drafting of them, were they based on the Fujitsu policy or service descriptions?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. That I don’t know.
Mr Beer: Did you create these documents, you within the Security Team, of your own initiative?
Andrew Dunks: On the HSD calls, because that’s the ones I would have done, I can’t remember whether it was off my own initiative or I was asked by the manager to create that work instruction, so other people within the team could perform the same task.
Mr Beer: So if there had been a tasking, it would have been by your manager; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, yes.
Mr Beer: Did any managers approve the local work instructions?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t remember that happening, no.
Mr Beer: Can you help us as to why a manager may not have approved the local work instructions?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t know why.
Mr Beer: You see, we’ve got a suite of documents, and there are a lot of them, which are Fujitsu policies, which say how your work is to be undertaken, yes? I’ve just shown you one of them.
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You tell us here that, instead of using those, you were relying on some local work instructions?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: I’m trying to find out who signed those off, rather than the formal policy documents that all sorts of people had reviewed, contributed to and quality assured?
Andrew Dunks: Well, I can only say my experience of the – I created many, many work instructions to do with my main role, which is the key management because, again, there were vast documents explaining things and how things worked within the key management arena. And for – instead of keep referring to that, we’d take the instructions and create the local work instructions for somebody who could come along and perform that task, in an easier, step by step, and that’s what we classed as local work instructions.
Mr Beer: To what extent were they based on the requirements of Fujitsu policies like the one I’ve just shown you?
Andrew Dunks: I’ve no idea, actually. They would have taken information from that.
Mr Beer: Was any consideration given to, “We’re drafting up a local work instruction on how to extract and put into a witness statement information about Helpdesk calls”, any consideration given to “What does our policy, our company policy, say about that”?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t say for the ARQ local work instructions but, no, I don’t believe, from my point of view, from the HSD call extraction, no.
Mr Beer: On your document, the one that you tell us here that you drafted, can you help us: did it say anything about whether the Helpdesk calls that you were obtaining should be summarised in the witness statement to which the case related?
Andrew Dunks: No, no. It was purely the actions of requesting and downloading the Helpdesk calls.
Mr Beer: So it was quite practical about how to go about, is this right, the extraction of the Helpdesk calls?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: It didn’t say what you then did with that data?
Andrew Dunks: No.
Mr Beer: So it didn’t say you must exhibit it to a witness statement, the download?
Andrew Dunks: Yeah. No, it didn’t.
Mr Beer: It didn’t say you must summarise it in your witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: No, it didn’t.
Mr Beer: It didn’t say you should or you should not seek to analyse what the data means?
Andrew Dunks: No, it didn’t.
Mr Beer: Is this right: it didn’t say if you’re unsure about what an entry on the HSD log means, it’s permissible or not permissible to go and speak to the SSC about that to get an explanation –
Andrew Dunks: No, it didn’t, no.
Mr Beer: – and that if you get an explanation you should record that fact in the witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: No, it didn’t.
Mr Beer: So it didn’t speak about any of, from our perspective, the important things of what because into the witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: No, it didn’t, no.
Mr Beer: Was there any document that regulated or regularised what went into a witness statement, and let’s stick with HSD calls.
Andrew Dunks: I don’t believe so, no.
Mr Beer: You understand that you could do it in different ways, couldn’t you? You could say, “I am Andrew Dunks. On Monday, 1 January, I extracted 120 calls in relation to this branch between these two date parameters from the HSD. I exhibit them as my exhibit AD1”. That’s one way of doing it, isn’t it?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, are you saying would that have been part of the instructions?
Mr Beer: No, that could be a way of doing it?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Another way could be making a witness statement which said, “I’m Andrew Dunks and I accessed and read the calls and I’ve cut and paste a summary of them into my witness statement”? That would be another way of doing it, wouldn’t it?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, it would have been.
Mr Beer: Another way of doing it would be to add on the end of either of those two some analysis of what those calls meant?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: By “analysis”, I mean offer an opinion on what they mean –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – what the entries mean, and offer an opinion over whether the content of any of the calls related to the integrity of the data being processed by Horizon?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Was there any instruction at all, that you were aware of, that told you which of those things you should do, or which of those things you shouldn’t do?
Andrew Dunks: Written instruction? No.
Mr Beer: To start with, yes, written instruction?
Andrew Dunks: Yes. No.
Mr Beer: Because, in a moment, we’re going to see that, over time, you did all three of those things, in different cases. Was there any oral instruction that told you when you’re summarising – sorry, when you’re dealing with HSD data, this is the way to do it in a witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t recall instructions.
Mr Beer: How about advice or guidance?
Andrew Dunks: No, not advice and guidance, no.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Okay, that can come down.
Can I turn to the issue of the extent to which you extracted ARQ data and the extent to which you gave evidence, ie the scale of the enterprise that you were engaged in. You tell us in your witness statement, and I’m summarising here, that, firstly, you held limited technical knowledge of the operation of Horizon; is that correct?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Secondly, that you had limited knowledge of bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system; is that correct?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Thirdly, that you had no role, and you did not and never had worked, in HSD, the Helpdesk?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Is that correct?
Can we look at paragraph 20 of your first witness statement, please, which is WITN00300100, and can we look, please, on page 6 at paragraph 20. Can you see that on the screen?
Andrew Dunks: I can.
Mr Beer: You say “On occasion”, and it’s going to be those words that I’m going to be focusing on in a moment, Mr Dunks:
“On occasion, I was requested to provide the Post Office with records of calls made to the HSD by a particular Post Office branch and (if requested) to summarise these in witness statements. While I therefore did have access to the historic HSD call records, I would only be looking at them when requested to do so as part of this task. I was not party to the calls themselves and had no role in investigating any errors … or communicating with the system users about them.”
Can you confirm that that accurately records the extent of your role in the provision of witness statements concerning calls to the Helpdesk?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Would you agree that what you’re describing there is a purely procedural, administrative or mechanical one, ie extracting the data but also then summarising them in the witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Would you describe the function that you were performing as a limited function?
Andrew Dunks: Limited, yes.
Mr Beer: Would it be right that you didn’t have the technical expertise to interrogate whether the Horizon system was operating as it should at the relevant time?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, say that again.
Mr Beer: Yes. Would it be right that you didn’t have the technical expertise to interrogate whether the Horizon system was operating as it should at the relevant time?
Andrew Dunks: In respect of the Helpdesk calls, I believe I had enough knowledge to be able to do that, yes.
Mr Beer: Enough knowledge to what, say that what was recorded on the calls meant that either the Horizon system was or was not operating as it should?
Andrew Dunks: I had enough knowledge to understand – well, during my looking at the calls and investigating the calls, I believe I gained enough knowledge to satisfy myself to make that sort of statement, yes.
Mr Beer: When you made that kind of statement, whether the Horizon system was operating as it should or not, by reference to the Helpdesk calls, you were offering an opinion, weren’t you?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I was.
Mr Beer: You weren’t making a statement of fact?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we go, please, to POL00003219. This is a spreadsheet. Thank you.
This is a spreadsheet disclosed to the Inquiry by the Post Office. It appears to be a record prepared by Fujitsu of the dates that requests for work were received, whether a statement was required in relation to each case and, if so, who prepared it, and whether the statement had been posted out or not. The document, runs from 5 April 2004 to 22 March 2005, so just under a year.
If we look at the column F, can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we just go to the dropdown. Thank you. You’ll see that in, a number of rows, for example 10 and 11 and 24 onwards, something has been redacted – can you see that –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – I think before we got the document. We understand that to indicate whether or not a witness statement was required and, therefore, I can’t say one way or the other what was populated in column F. But if we go further to the right to column N, and then if we scroll down, you see, for example, there Penny Thomas’ name under a “checked by” box appears, and if we just look at the dropdown – just look at the dropdown once more, thank you – you’ll see that you’re one of the people who can be ticked; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Was that essentially the team there?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, it was.
Mr Beer: Your name, we counted them up, appears in 98 different lines in this column between 17 August 2004 and 9 March 2005. So in a six or seven-month period, you have had input on 98 requests from the Post Office?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: The “checked by”, was there a process of checking something?
Andrew Dunks: These checks were, if I remember correctly, for the ARQ data and once someone had extracted the data, they’d performed their checks at the dates, and the data looked okay, and before it was sent to Post Office, a member of the team, whoever was available – so there was no formal – would run – get asked to run their eyes over it to double check before it was sent to the Post Office, and that’s who would have been put in there.
Mr Beer: So would the “checked by” be the same person who had done the extraction?
Andrew Dunks: No.
Mr Beer: It would be a different person?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Okay. So over this six or seven-month period you have checked 89 requests from Post Office. Would that sound about right to you, about 100 over a six or seven-month period?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. It varied. It could have been more it could have been less over the years. I can’t say that that. That sounds about right but …
Mr Beer: What proportion of ARQ requests resulted in the requests for the production of a witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: I’ve no idea.
Mr Beer: Can you help us whether it was always or –
Andrew Dunks: Oh, no, no, no –
Mr Beer: – infrequently –
Andrew Dunks: – as far as – sorry. Sorry to interrupt.
Mr Beer: It’s all right.
Andrew Dunks: As far as I’m aware it was quite infrequent.
Mr Beer: If we just go to the top of the page and look at column O, again on “Witness Statement Required”, look at the dropdown. We can see that’s been redacted in each column.
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: I don’t think we can tell the proportion of cases in which a witness statement was required. How regularly were you providing witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: Again, quite – I don’t know, again – for – this is to do with ARQs. Quite infrequently.
Mr Beer: So, over a year, how many would you provide?
Andrew Dunks: From memory, I have no idea. It could be half a dozen. It could – I don’t – I honestly can’t remember –
Mr Beer: Would you always do it the same way: by pulling up the template from the shared drive?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You remember in your witness statement you said, “On occasion I was requested to provide the Post Office with records of calls made to HSD”. Is that right, it was only on occasion that you were asked to provide call records?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, it wasn’t – yeah.
Mr Beer: Again, how many times a year?
Andrew Dunks: Again, I don’t know. It would have varied from year to year but it wasn’t large – from what I remember, it wasn’t that many.
Mr Beer: So once a month?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t say. I don’t know. No. It could have been one a month, it could have been none for the period of a couple of months, it could have been a couple – I don’t know, I’d be guessing.
Mr Beer: Okay, we can take that down, then. Can we go to your second witness statement and turn to the issue of the approach that you took to the provision of witness statements provided by Fujitsu to support Post Office prosecutions. I want to start with the question of whether you were happy to provide such witness statements, whether you were content to do so. Can we look at your second witness statement, please, at page 16, and read paragraph 48, please.
You say:
“I recall that Ms Bains was the main person responsible for performing ARQ data extractions for a time.”
Can you help us with who Ms Bains was.
Andrew Dunks: That was Raj Bains.
Mr Beer: That’s Rajbinder Bains, is that right, to give her her full name?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You tell us she was the main person responsible for performing the ARQ extractions for a time?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: But then did that change?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, it did, I mean there were a number of people who took that main responsibility.
Mr Beer: You continue:
“However, she did not want to be a witness in any court proceedings so I do not believe she prepared any witness statements. I got the impression she was nervous because it was something unknown to her, and the idea of going to court and being questioned was a bit daunting.”
Just stopping there, were they the only reasons that Ms Bains did not wish to provide witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. I’m not sure I ever had a proper conversation about it but I do remember her being nervous. She’s not that type of outward person to want to do that.
Mr Beer: You continue:
“Where [Post Office] requested a witness statement at the time of the ARQ request, I or someone else would therefore perform the data extraction and supply the statement. If Ms Bains had performed the data extraction and [the Post Office] later requested a witness statement, then I or someone else would re-extract the data.”
So you, is this right, were not apparently afflicted with the same concerns that Ms Bains was about making witness statements and giving evidence and appearing in court.
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, afflicted?
Mr Beer: Yes, she didn’t want to be a witness. She was, according to you, nervous and didn’t like the idea of going to court. You didn’t suffer from any of those afflictions?
Andrew Dunks: I wouldn’t say I didn’t but I think I was probably a bit more confident than Raj was at the time.
Mr Beer: Okay, you were happy to go to court, firstly happy to provide witness statements and then content to go to court; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, yes.
Mr Beer: Were you provided with any training by Fujitsu, or otherwise, about the tasks that you were performing in extracting ARQ data, obtaining HSD call records and then writing witness statements and then appearing in court?
Andrew Dunks: We would have had training on the extraction process for ARQs, and HSD calls, I’m not sure I had trading on that because that’s my responsibility and I sort of managed that process.
Mr Beer: So, if there was training, you’d be the trainer not the trainee?
Andrew Dunks: Quite possibly, yes.
Mr Beer: What about the other bits, the writing of witness statements and appearing in court; any training from Fujitsu or otherwise on those?
Andrew Dunks: No, none at all.
Mr Beer: What thought, if any, did you give to the role that you were performing and the fact that the evidence that you gave may have had a significant impact on people’s lives?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t recall my thought process at the time of generating those but I took that responsibility quite seriously. I mean, I was supplying data and had to be happy with that witness statement.
Mr Beer: You said that you took the role quite seriously.
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: What did you do in carrying into effect that state of mind: if you take something seriously, you sometimes do things accordingly?
Andrew Dunks: I –
Mr Beer: What did you do accordingly?
Andrew Dunks: I would have done that task to the best of my ability and as thoroughly as I could.
Mr Beer: What about the provision of evidence part of it, rather than being professional over the extraction of the ARQ data or the HSD call records? Was there anything in particular that you did when you were providing the evidence part of the function?
Andrew Dunks: What do you mean by providing the evidence part? I’m sorry?
Mr Beer: Well, you were writing witness statements –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and then you were going to court to give evidence.
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You said that you took your role seriously. Was there anything that you did, because you took your role seriously, in the provision of the witness statements or the going to court to give evidence bits?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t think that I did anything differently, no. I just performed the task that I did to the best of my ability, yeah.
Mr Beer: Okay, can we look at some documents, please, and start by looking at FUJ00225644, and look at page 2, please. If we scroll down, we’ve got the bottom part of the email. Can you see an email here from Lisa Allen to Phil Budd of 29 July 2009, concerning the Porters Avenue Post Office and the provision of a statement, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Now, the Porters Avenue Post Office, I think you know that was run by the subpostmaster Mr Jerry Hosi, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Before we get into the detail, because it’s not a case we’ve looked at in any substance before, I think it would be helpful to remind ourselves as to what happened in Mr Hosi’s case, so can we temporarily go away from this email and look at RLIT0000130. I think you’ll recognise this as a judgment from the Court of Appeal and, if we just scroll down, it’s dated 7 October 2021 and it’s in the case of Ambrose & Others, and one of the others was Mr Hosi.
If we can look, please, at page 7, and scroll down to paragraph 33. I’m just going to read, to get us all in mind of what happened in Mr Hosi’s case, because it’s not a case we’ve looked at much. The Court of Appeal records that:
“On 12 November 2010, in the Crown Court at [Southwark], [Mr] Hosi was convicted of one count theft and three counts of false accounting. On the same day, he was sentenced to a total of 21 months’ imprisonment. On 5 August 2011, a confiscation order was made in the sum of £3,500.”
And then 34:
“An audit of Mr Hosi’s branch identified a shortfall of [£72,000, or so]. As a result, [he] and his son, Edem Hosi, who worked in the branch with his father, were interviewed under caution by [Post Office] Investigators. Edem Hosi told the Investigators that his father had four or five months earlier (before Edem started work at the branch), told him that there were unexplained shortages. He said his father was very careful about money as he had worked hard to make a success of the business.
“35. In his own interview, Mr Hosi said that he had experienced discrepancies at the branch since he had become the [subpostmaster]. He could not understand how the losses were occurring. He complained about the lack of support from the Horizon Helpline to which he had reported the apparent losses. He said that he had inflated the figures for cash on hand because he did not have sufficient cash to cover the apparent losses. He denied stealing money and blamed the losses on the Horizon system.”
Over the page.
“As Mr Hosi had blamed Horizon, the Post Office Investigators arranged for Fujitsu … to undertake hard drive analysis … [The court] have been provided with an extract of the report of the analysis (by Phil Budd of Fujitsu) from which we infer that the results were inconclusive. The extract does not strike us as supporting a prosecution. ARQ data was obtained for the period 10 August 2006 to 29 November 2006 and disclosed to the defence.
“Emails going back to May 2005 (five months before the indictment period) indicate that Mr Hosi had told Post Office about ‘major problems balancing’ such that he needed ‘urgent face-to-face help’. [Post Office] accepts that it is not clear whether this material was disclosed. Logs from [the Post Office’s NBSC] show that Mr Hosi made numerous calls categorised ‘Horizon balancing’.
“The defence obtained expert evidence to challenge the Horizon evidence. An accountant’s report … stated:
“‘In the interviews it is clear that the Post Office proceeded with a pre-determined view that Mr Hosi had stolen the allegedly missing money. Other possibilities have been ignored …
“In particular, it has not been explored whether there was any missing money in the first place. In other words, no work has been done to ascertain whether the cash imbalance was because of the amount physically to hand was too low (ie as the Post Office allege) or because the amount shown on the IT system was too high’.
“The defence also instructed an IT expert. Although there was correspondence complaining about disclosure, it appears that the defence were able to view the material they wanted, though we note that the defence complained about the amount of time they were afforded to do so. Gareth Jenkins was instructed by [Post Office] to respond to the expert evidence but no formal report or witness statement appears to have been prepared by him. He was not called as a witness at trial. In the event, [Post Office] relied at trial on evidence from Phil Budd and others.
“[Post Office] accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence from Horizon was essential to the prosecution case. [Post Office] accepts … that the prosecution of Mr Hosi was both unfair and an affront to justice.”
Conviction was quashed on all four counts.
So that’s a reminder of what Mr Hosi’s case was about. Can we go back to the email, please, FUJ00225644. Page 2, bottom email, Lisa Allen to Phil Budd. Lisa Allen, is this right, she was an Investigation Manager in the Post Office?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know what her role was, no. Sorry, I can’t remember what her role was.
Mr Beer: Okay, she gave evidence to this Inquiry back on 20 December 2023 and told us she was, at this time, an Investigation Manager in the Post Office. Phil Budd, he was a colleague of yours, is that right, at Fujitsu?
Andrew Dunks: Yes. Say colleague. He worked on the account but I didn’t have day-to-day dealings with him.
Mr Beer: If we scroll up, I think we can see his signature block, that he was an RMGA Development, Systems Engineer. Was that somebody who didn’t work in the same team as you, then?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Okay. Anyway, Ms Allen says, let’s read her email:
“Phil,
“Sorry for not getting back to you – we had another hearing and the trial has been adjourned for further enquiries as the defence want an expert to analyse the equipment and they need to get funding.
“Thanks for the statement I will forward it to our Legal Team.”
So it seems Ms Allan was saying there had been another hearing, an adjournment of the trial, for the defence expert report and a thanks for the witness statement.
If we go back to page 1, please, foot of the page. You’ll see, at the foot of the page, that exchange is forwarded to you.
“Morning Andy,
“That court case reared its head against a few weeks ago. You remember I analysed a couple of counters back in July ‘07 then you got me to sign a new witness statement in June ‘08, well, they came back again and wanted me to sign another one – just a single paragraph to say that the counters were in ‘full working order and would not cause a discrepancy’. I was not happy with the implications of ‘full working order’ since I did not perform test transactions on the counters so I provided a new paragraph to reiterate my previous statement – that the files thereon were correct and the counters should be expected to perform as required.
“The reason for my email, now the defence are hiring an expert to analyse the equipment I just wanted to make sure [Post Office Account] are not solely relying on my analysis – I assume we have supplied evidence of the transactions going through and the systems working correctly? I’m just trying to reduce the stress I feel whenever this pops back into my head!”
Do you know why Mr Budd was not happy with signing a witness statement which said that the counters were in full working order and would not cause a discrepancy?
Andrew Dunks: No, I mean, I can’t remember this email but I would only have taken my understanding from reading the email.
Mr Beer: You wouldn’t have had a discussion with him about, “Come on, Phil, why don’t you just sign the witness statement? What’s all this worry about, saying that the counters are in full working order and wouldn’t cause a discrepancy”?
Andrew Dunks: A conversation on – well, I don’t remember having conversations with him, but I would certainly not have had a conversation along those lines, no.
Mr Beer: If we just scroll up, please. You forward this to Peter Sewell saying:
“I think you need to be made aware of what Phil has been asked for.”
He was your manager; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: I think … yes.
Mr Beer: He replies at the top:
“Phil
“Your statement is fine and is all you can actually say. If they stump up the cash the counter equipment can won’t be of much use as the 42 days retainer of the message store is long gone, and will be endorsed by Gareth.”
Do you know what that means? Can you decode what’s being said there, please, by Mr Sewell?
Andrew Dunks: The only thing I can deduce from that is that, after his 42 days, the message store is no longer available. The other parts I probably wouldn’t have been involved in.
Mr Beer: Just go back down to what Mr Budd’s worry was, if we keep going, thank you. He says he was “not happy with the implications of saying in a witness statement that the counters were in full working order”, and he says that he felt stress whenever this popped back into his head and seemingly was stressed again because the defence were now instructing an expert.
Would you agree that, overall, this wasn’t a complete refusal to provide a witness statement, like Ms Bains, but that Mr Budd was anxious to make sure, firstly, that the witness statement he signed did not go beyond what he actually could say –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and, secondly, that other people with knowledge of other areas of the system should carry out their investigations properly and not put the burden on him to say something that he could not himself say?
Andrew Dunks: I’m not – well, no, I don’t believe it says that – he’s stating that other people should carry out their work properly but there are other areas that can be looked at, or used –
Mr Beer: So, if the expert report is going to be commissioned by the defence, other people in the Post Office Account should not rely solely on his analysis, Post Office Account should supply evidence of the transactions going through?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. I’m not sure – I don’t know what he was thinking, whether he thought he was the only person. I can’t –
Mr Beer: At the very least, would you agree that this kind of email of Mr Budd being careful, should have alerted you to the need for yourself to be careful about what you could and could not say for yourself in a witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t know. I can’t remember what I took from that, I’m sorry.
Mr Beer: But this is, on the face of it, a systems engineer saying, “I’m only going to be prepared to speak to the matters about which I have personal knowledge”?
Andrew Dunks: Of the testing that he carried out, yes.
Mr Beer: And that “I’m not prepared to say that the counters were in full working order and couldn’t or would not cause a discrepancy”, ie give some master opinion about the counters and their working?
Andrew Dunks: Well, no, he’s saying that he couldn’t do that because he hadn’t put, from a testing perspective, he hadn’t carried out those particular tests.
Mr Beer: In fact, as we’re going to see, you gave witness statements that were, in part, based on conversations which you had with other people, in the SSC in particular, weren’t they –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and your witness statements were based on what you say people in the SSC had told you, weren’t they?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: But what they told you was not attributed to them in your witness statements, was it?
Andrew Dunks: No, it wasn’t.
Mr Beer: Instead, it was presented in your witness statement as if you were speaking from your own knowledge and expertise, wasn’t it?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, it was.
Mr Beer: Did you realise, when you were undertaking that task, going off to speak to or speaking down the phone to people in the SSC, writing things in your witness statements that were based on things they were telling you, about which you had no clue yourself, that you were blurring lines?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, what was the question?
Mr Beer: When you were doing this, writing witness statements that were, in part, based on what other people had told you, the facts themselves, you yourself could not speak to, from your own personal knowledge, did it occur to you that you were blurring lines?
Andrew Dunks: No. No.
Mr Beer: Had anyone told you, or given you guidance, that it was acceptable to essentially speak on behalf of SSC staff without revealing that that was what was going on in your witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: No, no. No one had explained that I had to – well, as I say, it wasn’t just SSC. No one explained to me that I had to state where I gained that knowledge from.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to your witness statement, please, page 19. This is second witness statement, page 19, paragraph 60. You tell us that:
“One person from the SSC who I do recall interacting with concerning litigation support was Anne Chambers. I recall sitting a witness waiting room with Anne Chambers for a couple of days prior to us both giving evidence (which I thought was the Old Bailey but now understand would more likely have been the Lee Castleton proceedings at the High Court). My recollection is that after that case Ms Chambers did not give evidence in court again, and that Mik Peach did not want any of his team to go to court. The Inquiry has provided me with a copy of an email from Mik Peach dated 7 August 2007 with the subject ‘Requests for data and calls’ in which he describes an ‘incident’ the previous year ‘in which an SSC staff member ended up in court’ and says that ‘the SSC is NOT in a position to undertake this role’.”
In fact, the whole email – I’m just going to quote it without reading it – went on to say:
“It may be that the underlying issue is a lack of resource of a particular kind of in the Security Team, someone who has both the technical knowledge to retrieve and understand the data and who is capable of supplying the analysis in the correct legal terminology to the Post Office.”
Was Mr Peach right in that respect, that within the Security Team, there was a lack of resource of a person, or people, who had the technical knowledge to extract the data, on the one hand, but were also capable of supplying analysis of the data in court proceedings?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t – at that time, no, I don’t believe that there was. In my role within supplying those witness statements and the calls, the call log data, no, I don’t believe I did.
Mr Beer: In that email, the one that is cited on that page there, Mr Peach suggested that Gareth Jenkins could fill the gap. Do you remember, however, that when it came to the Seema Misra trial, Mr Jenkins deferred to you over the reading of the Helpdesk logs?
Andrew Dunks: What, during the Misra trial?
Mr Beer: Yes.
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t remember that, no.
Mr Beer: You don’t remember that, okay. In any event, you’ve told us in your witness statement that you passed on what people told you in the SSC, in terms of analysis of HSD calls; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, I’m trying to listen to the question. Can you –
Mr Beer: Yes, in your witness statement generally you tell us that you went to the SSC and spoke to them, or called them –
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I –
Mr Beer: – and asked them for assistance –
Andrew Dunks: At times, yes.
Mr Beer: – on what entries in HSD logs meant, and whether or not what was recorded there would have had an effect on the operation of the Horizon system?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You presented that in witness statements as if that was from your knowledge and understanding, and your own analysis. In the light of that, did you think that it was appropriate, given the SSC’s reluctance to undertake that function themselves –
Andrew Dunks: No.
Mr Beer: – ie they don’t want to go to court either, and explain their own entries on records and, instead, what’s happening is you’re phoning them up asking what entries mean, presenting it as if it’s your analysis but without saying so?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t believe I saw it along those lines. I saw it along the lines – through any investigation or any reading of any literature or documents or speaking to people, once I’ve spoken to those people, or asked questions about this, that and the other, I had that understanding. So it was within my – at that time, it was within my own knowledge.
Mr Beer: So because somebody tells you something, you’re allowed to repurpose it as your own knowledge in a witness statement and evidence in court, is that what you’re saying?
Andrew Dunks: Repurpose?
Mr Beer: Yes. As if it’s your own knowledge.
Andrew Dunks: Well, no, I then understood it, and then I considered it, that I knew then, that.
Mr Beer: Did it ever occur to you or did you ever think, “Why is it that I’m speaking to what the SSC are saying, and yet the SSC don’t want to go to court themselves”?
Andrew Dunks: No, I didn’t see it like that, no.
Mr Beer: Did you think at all as to why the SSC don’t want to go to court any more?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember my thought process but I do remember that Mik Peach was quite protective of his team in all respects of doing things.
Mr Beer: Did anyone decide that it was acceptable for you to essentially provide SSC evidence in court so that they no longer had to answer for their work, their own work, in witness statements or in oral evidence?
Andrew Dunks: I –
Mr Beer: Did a manager sign it off and say, “Look, Mik Peach is being protective over his team, he’s not letting them go to court. I’m being put up instead. I chat to the SSC and I say what they would have said if they had gone to court”. Did anyone sign that off?
Andrew Dunks: Well, sign off … um –
Mr Beer: But –
Andrew Dunks: If you’re saying sign off as they were aware that that’s what I was doing and so they accepted that I was able to do that, well, yes, because – I mean, I would have had discussions with that and I think some of the documentation, that they were aware. That that’s what I would be doing.
Mr Beer: When I say “sign it off”, I mean give explicit approval to it, rather than being aware that it goes on. I know that many mobile phones are stolen on the streets of London every day, that doesn’t mean I approve of it.
Andrew Dunks: Well, I would have taken approval of signing off that they were aware that I was doing that. So, I mean, if they didn’t think I should be doing it, they would have said I shouldn’t be doing it.
Mr Beer: Was there a relationship between Mr Peach being protective of his team, saying that they aren’t to go to court any more, and you taking a greater role and effectively giving some of the evidence that they would have given?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t think so, no. I don’t believe so. I can’t remember that.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Sir, we’re about to turn to a different topic. Might we take the break until 11.25, please?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, of course.
Mr Beer: Thank you, sir.
(11.13 am)
(A short break)
(11.25 am)
Mr Beer: Good morning, sir. Can you see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, thank you.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
Mr Dunks, can I turn to the issue of the extent of the analysis that went into the HSD logs. Can we look at how you described this in your second witness statement at page 18, paragraph 57. Thank you. You say:
“In respect of the HSD calls, as part of my due diligence when analysing whether there could have been an impact on the integrity of the data, I would consult with colleagues who had come across the issues before or who had [a] greater technical knowledge than me, such as the Software Support Centre (SSC), to better understand the nature of the issues being raised and how they were resolved.”
Can you please explain your approach to what you describe as “due diligence” in providing evidence about whether phone calls to the HSD might demonstrate an issue that went to system integrity?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, what was the last bit of that?
Mr Beer: Yes. Can you explain the approach that you took, ie what prompted you to make a call to the SSC; what level of concern in what you read on a call log would cause you to go to the SSC?
Andrew Dunks: Um –
Mr Beer: You call it due diligence, here.
Andrew Dunks: Yeah, due diligence. I would have carried investigation and look at through each of the calls.
Mr Beer: Stop there. You say you would have carried out an investigation. What did your investigation consist of?
Andrew Dunks: Right, I’d have printed out all the calls in detail, or printed them out. I’d have read through the calls –
Mr Beer: So printing and reading them?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, step by step, and looking at the calls. If there was an area within there that I didn’t quite understand what was going on, or what was – how it was being resolved, I would consult whoever I believed at the time would have been able to help me understand what was going on.
Mr Beer: How did you identify that person?
Andrew Dunks: Just through knowledge of who within the account could help me with that information.
Mr Beer: What does that mean? Did you go back to the person in the SSC that was mentioned in the call log?
Andrew Dunks: Er, I can’t remember if that’s what I did, because the SSC team changed. I may have done. I may have done at times but that wasn’t always the case, no.
Mr Beer: Would you phone them?
Andrew Dunks: I’d phone them, or – no, not really. I didn’t do a lot of over the phone. A lot of the time I would go up to the sixth floor where the SSC were based and speak to them personally because I had a lot of dealings with them on lots of other issues to do with other roles within our Security Team.
Mr Beer: And so you would go and speak to somebody, you can’t remember how you identified who the somebody was?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t, no.
Mr Beer: Would it be whoever happened to be on shift, on duty at that time?
Andrew Dunks: More than likely, yes.
Mr Beer: Did you make a record of the conversation that you had with that person?
Andrew Dunks: No. I may have – sorry, I may have made notes of what – on the resolution or what I needed, yeah, but I didn’t make a record of the conversations, no.
Mr Beer: Did you know whether you were required to make a record of your conversation with the person to whom you spoke where what they told you was essentially going to form part of your witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: No, I wasn’t aware, no.
Mr Beer: I take it that you didn’t think that you needed to do so, even though your witness statement was going to be placed before a criminal court?
Andrew Dunks: No, I didn’t – I wasn’t aware I needed to, no.
Mr Beer: You personally, would you agree, couldn’t say whether the thing that you were being told was actually right or wrong?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. I had –
Mr Beer: Would you agree, Mr Dunks, that you, from your own perspective, could not say that what you were being told was right or wrong?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know, because I – these were the people who dealt with these calls, so I would have had to rely on their own knowledge. I mean, if they didn’t know –
Mr Beer: Isn’t that the answer then?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry?
Mr Beer: You yourself couldn’t know whether what they were telling you was right or wrong?
Andrew Dunks: Um –
Mr Beer: You just said, “I would have to rely on them”?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I suppose so, yes.
Mr Beer: That’s why you were actually speaking to them – because you didn’t know the answer yourself?
Andrew Dunks: I didn’t know the answer prior to the investigation, no, I didn’t.
Mr Beer: Prior to speaking to them, you didn’t know the answer.
Andrew Dunks: Yes – no, correct.
Mr Beer: So I think we’ve agreed that you couldn’t yourself say whether what the SSC were telling you was true or false?
Andrew Dunks: I suppose so, yes.
Mr Beer: Why did you want to speak to colleagues about whether a record of a call might suggest a system issue with Horizon?
Andrew Dunks: Because I’d have had to defer to someone who’s got a far greater technical knowledge than I did.
Mr Beer: We’ve addressed whether you thought that you needed to make a record of what they were telling you. Did you know, one way or the other, whether you had to explain in your witness statement that what you were telling the court was, in fact, not based on your own knowledge but was what somebody had told you?
Andrew Dunks: Two things there: firstly, I wasn’t aware and had never been made aware that, if I’d spoken to somebody to gain that knowledge, that I had to state that; and, secondly, as I said before, I read that part of the witness statement as within my own knowledge and, if I’d done research or investigated something, at that time, I would have had that knowledge. That was from – I knew about it.
Mr Beer: Who did you depend upon, if anyone, to give you advice on those sorts of issues, ie whether it was permissible to speak to somebody in the SSC; if you did speak to somebody in the SSC, whether you had to make a record of the conversation; and that if you did speak to somebody in the SSC, you should disclose that transparently on your witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. I would have relied on management. My line management, they were aware of what I was doing.
Mr Beer: Can you name names, please?
Andrew Dunks: I would have said any of my – the Security Managers at the time. I mean, I think I’ve listed the ones that I remember. Brian Pinder, Pete Sewell, Donna Munro, off the top of my head, right at this moment.
Mr Beer: Did you have access to legal advice within Fujitsu?
Andrew Dunks: I’m not sure. I wasn’t made aware that I did, so – but if I did, I’m sure – no, I wasn’t aware.
Mr Beer: Were you aware that there were lawyers within Fujitsu?
Andrew Dunks: I think so. I can’t say when or I was aware or did know, no. I don’t …
Mr Beer: Did you ever seek advice from lawyers within Fujitsu over any of the matters that I’ve asked you about?
Andrew Dunks: No, I didn’t.
Mr Beer: Did, to your knowledge, any of your managers ever seek such advice over people in your Security team providing evidence that was based in part on what other people had said, who themselves were refusing to go to court?
Andrew Dunks: No, I’m not aware that anybody did.
Mr Beer: Can we look at something else you did, as part of the process in satisfying yourself that calls either did or did not have an impact on the integrity of data, and look at page 38, please. It’s paragraph 115, which is towards the bottom of the page. You say:
“Where there was a possibility that the issue being raised could have affected the data, I examined the records of the investigations carried out by the engineers assigned to deal within the call to confirm that they had either determined there was no impact … or that a fix had been deployed to remedy any fault. Where I was unsure of anything, I would consult with colleagues who had come across the issues before or who had greater technical knowledge than me, such as the SSC, to better understand the nature of the issues being raised and how they were resolved, to satisfy myself that it had had no impact on the integrity of the data.”
You describe here the way that you went about satisfying yourself that what was recorded in call data did not have an impact on the integrity of Horizon data. Yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Who told you that you were supposed to satisfy yourself that call data did not have an impact on the integrity of Horizon data, ie what was recorded in the Helpdesk records?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t think anybody said that I had to satisfy myself. I don’t think anybody has used those words to me, no.
Mr Beer: Did you see it as your role in the Security Department to give such an assurance: no impact on integrity of Horizon data?
Andrew Dunks: In supplying the witness statements, I would have had to have satisfied myself – because of the wording within the witness statement, I’d have had to satisfy myself that there wasn’t any impact.
Mr Beer: I’m asking, did you, therefore, see it as your role in the Security Department to give assurances that what you’d read in the call logs could have had no impact on the integrity of Horizon data?
Andrew Dunks: I didn’t see it as – well, yes, I saw it as my role because I was supplying the witness statements. So yes.
Mr Beer: Did you ever provide a witness statement in all of your years in which you said that a call record did challenge the integrity of Horizon data?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t believe I did no.
Mr Beer: Did you ever provide a witness statement, in all of your years, in which you said that what was recorded in an HSD call record even possibly challenged the integrity of Horizon data?
Andrew Dunks: No, I didn’t. No.
Mr Beer: So it was all one way? Nothing you ever read over decades ever, even possibly, called into question the integrity of Horizon data?
Andrew Dunks: Through my – no, I didn’t, through my investigation, no, I didn’t. I satisfied myself that it didn’t, no.
Mr Beer: Can I look at a third aspect of your approach, please. Page 59 of your witness statement, paragraph 196. You say:
“When I stated that ‘All of the calls were of a routine nature’ …”
Just stopping there, that’s a phrase that you used in, I think, all of the witness statements that you produced, ie every call that you ever read about was of a routine nature. Yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So:
“When I stated that ‘All the calls are of a routine nature’, I meant that these were the type of calls which were frequently made to the HSD, and which I would regularly see when reviewing the call records. I note that some of the calls made to the HSD in respect of this branch … related to balance discrepancies that the [subpostmaster] was stating were repeatedly shown on the system”, et cetera.
You say:
“… I note that the calls were repeatedly referred by the HSD to the NBSC. I would therefore likely have understood this to be a commercial or user issue rather than a technical error. I would often see commercial issues such as this being raised by the [subpostmasters] and then referred to the NBSC, and therefore would have considered these calls to be of a routine nature.”
So can I summarise it that whenever you saw, in an HSD record, that the call had been referred to the NBSC, you believed that that was (a) a call of a routine nature, and (b) did not raise a technical error, a system error?
Andrew Dunks: Correct, yes.
Mr Beer: So that involved, would you agree, an assumption that the HSD were always right to refer the call to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: It involved an assumption that if the subpostmaster thought that the discrepancy about which they were complaining was a result of a technical error, a system error, then they were wrong?
Andrew Dunks: If the call had been referred to the NBSC, yes, I would have seen that as a business commercial or a user error.
Mr Beer: Yes, and what I’m asking, Mr Dunks, is that you’re assuming that the person in the HSD has got it right, and that the subpostmaster has got it wrong.
Andrew Dunks: No, I would assume that it had been referred to there because they’re assuming that, at first glance or whatever, that it could have been a business issue. If it turned out that further investigation would have been needed, that call – and I think I’ve seen it before – a call would have been passed back for further investigation to see if it was a technical issue.
Mr Beer: You were working on the basis that Fujitsu, in its HSD, was correct in its categorisation of issues as being commercial or business, on the one hand, and therefore referred to NBSC, weren’t you?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, in a way, yes.
Mr Beer: Did you have access to, and therefore the facility to examine, when a call was referred to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, say that again? Did I …
Mr Beer: Did you have access to, and the facility, therefore, to examine, what happened when a call was referred to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: No, we didn’t. We didn’t have access to the NBSC.
Mr Beer: So you don’t know what happened after it had left the HSD?
Andrew Dunks: I – what they did and what they carried out, no, I don’t.
Mr Beer: So if they, for example, just kept telling the person “Turn your machine on and off again”, you wouldn’t know if that was the advice –
Andrew Dunks: No, I wouldn’t, no.
Mr Beer: – that was given. If they said to the person under the contract that “You’ve got to pay up this discrepancy, irrespective of you claiming that it’s a system fault”, you wouldn’t know if that happened, when it got into the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: No.
Mr Beer: You wouldn’t know if they were told in the NBSC that “Clause 12 of the contract says that you must pay, irrespective of fault, for all losses” –
Andrew Dunks: No.
Mr Beer: – and many subpostmasters did, and that the technical issue that they were complaining of therefore never reached the surface. You wouldn’t know if that happened?
Andrew Dunks: I would have known if it needed further investigation, as in the fact that it may have been a technical issue, that that call would have been passed back.
Mr Beer: What about if they, in the NBSC, were told “You just need to pay up”?
Andrew Dunks: No, I – no – I wouldn’t know.
Mr Beer: You would write all of these up as being calls of a routine nature, which didn’t involve the integrity of the Horizon data, wouldn’t you, in your witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: It was a routine nature that those calls were passed to the NBSC, and we have seen those calls routinely.
Mr Beer: Isn’t what you were conveying, by “All of the calls are of a routine nature” was not about the frequency with which the calls were being made but rather about the substance of the issues, ie “These calls, you can be assured Mr Defendant, Mrs Defendant or court, that these calls do not involve a system issue”?
Andrew Dunks: Repeat the question, sorry.
Mr Beer: Yes. You weren’t talking about the frequency with which the calls were being made by saying “All of these calls are of a routine nature”; you were implying that these calls did not involve any system issue with Horizon, weren’t you?
Andrew Dunks: No, not when saying they were of a routine nature, no. They would, as I’ve said – as stated in there – that the contents or the type of calls were seen frequently.
Mr Beer: Might not that mean that there was a big system issue, if you were frequently seeing calls of the same nature?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t believe so, no.
Mr Beer: Why?
Andrew Dunks: Because the types of the calls that I’d looked at and seen.
Mr Beer: Sorry, the types of calls –
Andrew Dunks: The types – the contents of the calls. I mean, that’s what I’d have based that on.
Mr Beer: Can I turn to your approach to HSD call logs and, in particular, whether you summarised them or exhibited them. Did you always exhibit HSD call logs to your witness statements so that the raw materials were disclosed to the defence and to the court, or did you sometimes just summarise them in your witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: Sometimes just summarised them.
Mr Beer: Why did sometimes you give disclosure of the raw materials, so that the court and the defence could actually look at them, and other times you didn’t?
Andrew Dunks: That would have been dependent on what was requested by the Post Office.
Mr Beer: So sometimes they would just ask for a summary and sometimes they would ask for the call logs to be exhibited?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Do you know what determined, in their mind, whether it was a summary case or an exhibiting of raw material case?
Andrew Dunks: No, no idea.
Mr Beer: Was it chance –
Andrew Dunks: No, I –
Mr Beer: – for the defendant which level of service they might have got?
Andrew Dunks: I’ve no idea. I don’t know, I was just basing that on what they requested. I don’t know why they would request one or the other. That’s –
Mr Beer: Did it ever occur to you, “Hold on, in some cases I’m actually handing over the raw product here as an exhibit and, in other cases, I’m just summarising it”?
Andrew Dunks: Um –
Mr Beer: Why is that?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t think it did. I knew full well that if – the raw data, as in the complete call, was there and was available if requested. At any time that they requested any data, it was supplied.
Mr Beer: Okay. Can we look, please, at POL00073280. This is an exhibit sheet to your witness statement dated 27 September 2006 in Post Office’s claim against Lee Castleton; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: We can see that it’s your exhibit APD1, Andrew Paul Dunks, I think that is?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we go over the page, please, can we see that you’re exhibiting here HSD call records, yes? If we just scroll down, and just keep going. It can be done relatively quickly. Keep going.
A series of HSD call records, yes? So here you are in a civil case, in a civil context, exhibiting the call logs themselves. Yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Do you agree that gives the reader the facility to record everything that is recorded on the call log itself?
Andrew Dunks: Absolutely, yes.
Mr Beer: Were there any hidden screens or hidden dropdowns, or were they all available if you did a print to see?
Andrew Dunks: No, that is the full contents of a call at the time.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we look, please, at FUJ00083702. Just look at the email first and then we’re going to look at the attachment. An email from Lisa Allen, I should say this is about Jerry Hosi’s case again. You will see the email at the bottom, “Porters Avenue Post Office”:
“Andy
“As discussed.
“Can you please provide another full statement for the above office including in the outcome of the faults reported that it would have had ‘no effect on any counter discrepancy’. I appear to have mislaid the original statement and so will use the copy that I have as unused.
“Additionally can you exhibit the disk detailing the call logs …”
Yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Just remember, for future purposes, the request at the end of the first line to include that it would have had no effect on any counter discrepancy. Okay?
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: You replied at the top, attaching a document; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: “Please take a look and let me know if [it’s] okay …”
Can we look at that attachment, FUJ00083703. Then if we scroll down, please, and go to page 2, you say, in the fifth line:
“I’ve been asked to provide details and information on the calls for advice and guidance logged by HSH …”
That’s the same as HSD, essentially, is it?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: “… recorded during the period 01/09/05 to 29/11/06 for Porters Avenue”, then you give the FAD code.
“A report outlining each call was created and I produce the resultant CD as [your] Exhibit APD/01.”
You say that was sent to the Post Office.
So you, in the Porters Avenue prosecution, seem to have been asked by the email to exhibit a CD with the full call logs on it and, in this witness statement, you do exactly that: you exhibit the CD, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then, if we scroll down:
“I have reviewed the HSH calls pertaining to [that branch in that period] there were 33 calls”, and there’s the phrase:
“… all the calls are of a routine nature and do not fall outside the normal working parameters of the system. And in my opinion would have had no affect on any counter discrepancies.”
I’m going to examine as to how that came about later on but you’ll see that that’s essentially the line that Ms Allen asked you to insert, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So, in this case, if we carry on scrolling, you then give a summary of each of the 33 calls, by putting the date and time, a reference number, what the problem was, what the resolution in summary terms is recorded on the call log to be and then the outcome. This first one was passed to the NBSC, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: That one does seem maybe routine, “check foreign currency rates”, but the second one, problem of “failing to rollover”, “passed to the NBSC for resolution”.
So on that one, for example, would that fall within your category of, because it was passed to the NBSC, that must have been a business or commercial issue, it can’t have been a fault with Horizon because it was passed to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you. So that’s one way of doing it. Here you’ve summarised all that – firstly, in the civil case you exhibit a printout of all of the call records; do you remember, in Mr Castleton’s case? In the second example, you exhibit a CD of the call records and you’ve summarised them in very summary terms, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we turn, please, to what happened in the Seema Misra case and look at your witness statement, please. Second witness statement, page 57, paragraph 192 at the foot of the page. You describe in this paragraph essentially how, in each statement in the Misra case, you gave more and more detail of the HSD calls and that that was done at the request of the lawyers and the Post Office?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So this was more of an unfolding picture in the Misra case?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Again, can you help us, what determined which approach you took, whether you did the first thing, gave them the printouts as part of an exhibit, whether you provided a CD with all of the call logs on it or whether you summarised?
Andrew Dunks: It all would have depended on conversations and discussions with Post Office, either Investigator or lawyer. This would have always been probably the starting point as in a high-level overview of the calls and then it would have progressed from there. But if, at the very first instance of discussions, they wanted the calls submitted and an in-depth overview, that’s what would have been given at the starting point.
Mr Beer: Do you know how the person that you were speaking to or engaging with on email from the Post Office knew what to request; would they explain what prompted them to request more information from you –
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t think I remember having a conversation like that at all, no.
Mr Beer: – ie whether it was because of what they’d read in what you had provided them, whether it was because the court was ordering them to provide more information, whether it was the defence asking for more information: what prompted the unfolding of the disclosure of more data?
Andrew Dunks: It could have been either of what you’ve just said. It could have been where the first – me first supplying a witness statement to them, they would have looked at it and reviewed it and come back and said, “Oh, we possibly need to expand here or there”, or – and also, depending – because I don’t know what communications they were having with lawyers or whatever – defence – if somebody had asked for the full disclosure of the call details, they’d have come back to us and said, “Oh can we have those call details?”
No, I’m not aware of the process they went through.
Mr Beer: Who did you take your orders from?
Andrew Dunks: On the witness statements?
Mr Beer: Yes.
Andrew Dunks: Well, orders – first, it would have been the request of the Post Office, of what they wanted, any changes.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to Mr Hosi’s witness statement, please, FUJ00083703, and look at page 2, please, and look at the second paragraph down that we’d looked at. Thank you:
“I have reviewed the … calls pertaining to Porters Avenue [between those dates] there were 33 … and all the calls are of a routine nature do not fall outside the normal parameters of the system. And in my opinion would have had no effect on any counter discrepancies.”
In order to provide that opinion, had you spoken to anyone in the SSC in relation to any particular call or calls?
Andrew Dunks: Would have gone through the same process that I would have done every single time, and got as much information as I possibly could.
Mr Beer: Had you in fact spoken on this occasion in relation to any of these 33 calls to anyone in the SSC?
Andrew Dunks: No, I can’t remember if I did. I honestly can’t remember.
Mr Beer: You can’t remember in part because it’s not recorded on the face of the witness statement whether you did or didn’t –
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: – and there’s no other record of whether you did or you didn’t –
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: – and so you can’t tell us the extent to which the opinion that you formed there was or was not affected, or was influenced, by the views of others?
Andrew Dunks: No, no.
Mr Beer: Can we go to page 13, please, of the witness statement. You refer in page 13 to two particular calls, one ending in 970 – if we just scroll down a little bit, thank you – and one ending 008. You say, those two calls:
“… referred to a ‘critical event’, ‘Critical NT_Error’. The term critical is the comparative level of attention required to generate remedial action. It refers to the level of attention required on a grading system for example critical high level of attention or warning would be medium level of attention. These critical events occurred outside the post office opening times and a standard action of a reboot of the systems, which would also highlight any further issues, was undertaken and repaired the problem and confirmed stability of the system. I should add that this is not my particular area of expertise. I have a general knowledge of these procedures and have made the comments above to aid the court.”
Where did you get that information from?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember specifically where I got that information from. No, I can’t say exactly where I got it from.
Mr Beer: Do you agree you would have got the information from somewhere else?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: That wasn’t your own personal knowledge?
Andrew Dunks: Part of that, yes. Yes, I agree.
Mr Beer: So you’re providing an opinion there, acknowledging that this isn’t your particular area of expertise, based on somebody else’s opinion?
Andrew Dunks: No – oh, what you mean generally or those particular calls?
Mr Beer: Well, you say, amongst the things that are included in that paragraph, that the reboot of the system repaired the problem?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, yeah. I mean, that’s – yeah – trying to explain what took place for that call.
Mr Beer: Okay, I’ll move on. Can we look at POL00052220. This is an email chain in mid-2009 concerning your first witness statement in the Seema Misra case. Can we start with page 4, please. Just scroll down, I think this is the first email in the chain. You’re emailing Dave Posnett; do you remember who Dave Posnett was?
Andrew Dunks: I believe he was an Investigator or part of the Security Team within Post Office.
Mr Beer: Thank you. It’s 22 June 2009. I should say that your witness statement eventually – your first witness statement in Misra – came to be signed on 30 June 2009. You say to Mr Posnett:
“Hi Dave,
“Please have a look at the attached Witness Statement for West Byfleet HSH calls logged. Can you let me know if this is okay and I’ll print/sign and post it to you.”
If we go to page 3, please, and if we scroll down, please, we’ll see his reply on the 22nd; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm, yes.
Mr Beer: “Andy,
“Statement looks fine to me, though I’ve copied Jon Longman (Officer in Case) for his [information]. My only query would be that the log of 107 calls may need to be produced as evidence or be disclosed as unused material. If produced as evidence then it could be incorporated in your statement now or produced in a ‘further to’ statement later. I’ll let Jon comment on this though, as the court may be happy as it is.
“Jon,
“Can you give Andy the green light and/or comment on my thoughts above.”
So it seems that your statement mentioned 107 calls. You were picked up on this and, if we scroll up, please, we can see Mr Longman’s reply:
“The statement is fine but the mention of 107 calls will no doubt interest the defence barrister. If possible could you include in the statement a breakdown of the calls to cover time/date/nature of call. If we don’t include it now the defence will only request this information later.”
Then scroll up, please. Your reply:
“107 calls may seem a lot but that only equates to approximately 3-4 calls a month over the time frame.”
Just stopping there, is it right that you saw it as routine for branches to have to call the Fujitsu Helpdesk three to four times a month, ie nearly every week?
Andrew Dunks: Routine? Well, I would have said so. At the time, I would have looked at the number of calls, I’ve done – I would have done the maths and looked – and through my knowledge of dealing with Helpdesk calls, one call a week, in my opinion, didn’t seem that much.
Mr Beer: Did you use the frequency of the calls as a proxy for whether or not the substance of the calls was routine?
Andrew Dunks: The frequency, at that time, I was just trying to explain.
Mr Beer: Overall, did you use the frequency of calls as a proxy for whether the substance of the calls was routine?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t believe I did.
Mr Beer: So the frequency, to you, wasn’t a relevant issue?
Andrew Dunks: Um … I don’t know whether I’d have taken that into consideration. I was just talking about that – he’d made a statement about 107 calls seems a lot, so I just did the maths and sort of went back to him and gave my opinion that I didn’t think it –
Mr Beer: Okay, you carry on:
“To add the information you want is going to take 1 to 2 days of uninterrupted work to complete. So to get it [done] is not impossible it would be cutting it fine …
“If you need the extra detail I will enquire about when we can get this to you …”
Then if we scroll up to page 2, please, Jon Longman says:
“Let’s run with the statement as it is. If the defence do want details of the 107 calls then a further statement will be needed at a later stage. Maybe you could add into your statement that the total calls only work out at 3-4 a month over the time period and that is not a high amount for a [post office].”
Again, would the substance of the calls make a difference as to whether the number was significant?
Andrew Dunks: At that time, I believe I was just giving an opinion that I didn’t think that the frequency or the number – I don’t believe at the time that’s to do with the substance. It was the frequency – because he’d asked that there were – seemed a lot of calls there but, in my opinion, I didn’t think that there was.
Mr Beer: So I think you were content to provide a statement with the addition proposed by Mr Longman, because you reply “Okay [I’ll] add this to the statement and get it posted”, agreed?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, yeah.
Mr Beer: So, in summary, at this stage, you’re not providing the substance of the calls, you’re providing a witness statement that says how many there are and that that is not a high number?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t – no, I think that was an add-on, because we got the – I can’t remember the details of what the first – that witness statement I supplied him with.
Mr Beer: Okay. I can maybe check that to see what was –
Andrew Dunks: Yeah, I don’t know the progress and how that – I can’t remember how that worked. I don’t believe it was just a statement saying “Oh, there was 107 calls”.
Mr Beer: Can we look at what happened after you signed the witness statement off on 30 June. Scroll up, please. Keep going to page 1, please. We see a chain that I don’t think includes you, between Penny Thomas, Dave Posnett and Jon Longman. So Fujitsu to two Post Office men:
“Dave
“An approximate estimate for this work is:
“ARQs [£13,000-odd]
“Helpdesk Calls – individual breakdown £1,800.
“Call-type breakdown £630.
“Do you want me to arrange a formal estimate?”
Was the level of information that you provided in the witness statement affected by the cost of the provision of it?
Andrew Dunks: Well, I never knew there was an individual cost. I don’t believe I ever knew there was an individual cost of the work I was doing. I understood that the whole ARQ process was covered under an agreement on – based – and payment on a number of ARQs we supplied. I mean, I never – I’ve never seen this. I don’t believe I ever knew that someone was giving this – an estimate of cost or charging on the work I carried out.
Mr Beer: So if there was an effect on the level of service provided, by reference to the amount that it costed, that information never found its way to you?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: If we just scroll to the top of the page, thank you, you can see that that chain doesn’t then find its way on to you. So, in summary, on this aspect of the story, you just did what you were asked to do by Post Office, is that right, and didn’t know the extent to which financial considerations affected the choices that they made?
Andrew Dunks: Absolutely, no.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we go on, please, to FUJ00122673. This is still in the context of the Seema Misra case and can we look, please, at the bottom of page 1, and the top of page 2. Just to scroll up a little bit more, please. Thank you. We can see we’re December 2009 from you to Jon Longman. You say:
“Hi Jon,
“Please find below answers to the questions you asked.
“Can you confirm how you want the complete call information, do you want the whole call transferred to a CD in its raw state. There are over 100 of these.”
Then if we scroll up, please, and keep going. No more relevant information there. You appear to be querying, in this chain, in relation to what would be your second witness statement, which you were to sign off on the 29 January 2010, whether you should essentially exhibit the CD; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Can you just scroll down, please?
Mr Beer: Yes, and again, please. Maybe we should see the below questions. If we scroll a bit further. The answers haven’t come out in red. If we just scroll back up, please. Thank you. You say:
“Please find below answers to the questions you asked.
“… confirm how you want the complete call information, do you want the whole call transferred to a CD in its raw state. There are over 100 of these.”
Can you help us with what you were asking?
Andrew Dunks: I think that the “Please find below answers to your questions”, now seeing the contents, they were to do with the answers about the counters which are passed on to Leighton Machin, and I then forwarded them those.
“Can you confirm how you want to complete”, that’s probably through a discussion of supplying the call data. Does he want them printed out or – I’m guessing there, sorry. That may have been to do with did he want them all printed out and sent or does he want them all on a CD? It’s just over how he wanted them.
Mr Beer: It’s not whether or not the raw data should be provided?
Andrew Dunks: Absolutely not, no.
Mr Beer: Do you know why you wouldn’t provide the raw data at this stage in one form or another?
Andrew Dunks: Depending on the request that they, the Post Office, wanted.
Mr Beer: Okay, can we move forwards, then, to FUJ00153059. If we look, thank you, scroll down, please. That’s it. Just there, bottom of that last email. Can you see, if we scroll up a little further, an email between Mr Longman and Penny Thomas, we’re now on 16 March, third paragraph:
“… we will need Andy to produce the disk containing the raw data of Helpdesk calls from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2009 …”
Then if we go forwards, please, to POL00058443, and page 7, please – scroll down – we can see a witness statement of yours, dated 30 March 2010, and you say:
“Further to [a previous witness statement] I provide a CD AD/01 containing details of all calls logged from West Byfleet … between [those two dates].”
So would this have been in response, essentially, to that email we saw of 16 March?
Andrew Dunks: Exactly, yes. Well, I’m assuming, yes.
Mr Beer: That worked its way through to you somehow?
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Does it follow from, at least at this date, Mrs Misra’s defence team had available to them the underlying call data upon which your earlier summaries were based?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I think so, yes.
Mr Beer: Can you help us with what would have been on the CD as AD/01?
Andrew Dunks: I’m guessing – I’m assuming it would have been as we saw before, the call logs in their entirety.
Mr Beer: Okay, so a series, one after the other, of 107 call logs between those two dates?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
Sir, that is an appropriate moment for the second break. I wonder if we can break until 12.35 to?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, before we do, in case we’ve missed it, and it’s in my head, Mr Dunks did you give oral evidence in Mr Hosi’s case?
Andrew Dunks: In which case, sorry?
Sir Wyn Williams: Mr Jerry Hosi?
Andrew Dunks: That’s Porters Avenue, is it?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes.
Andrew Dunks: I don’t believe I did, no.
Sir Wyn Williams: All right. Thank you. Yes, fine. Yes, 12.25 – sorry, what time did you say?
Mr Beer: 12.35, please.
Sir Wyn Williams: 12.35, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much, sir.
(12.24 pm)
(A short break)
(12.35 pm)
Mr Beer: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, thank you.
Mr Beer: Good.
Mr Dunks, you remember that I asked you about that email exchange in mid-2009, concerning Seema Misra’s case, in which you had provided a witness statement saying that there had been 107 calls to the Helpdesk, and this was picked up and you were asked for more information because otherwise the defence barrister will only ask for it, and there was a question over how detailed your first witness statement had been, the witness statement that had been served on 30 June 2009, you said you don’t think you would have just included the number in the witness statement, or words to that effect.
Can we look at that witness statement, please, POL00051960. This is your witness statement of 24 June 2009, which was served under a notice of additional evidence on 30 June 2009. If we just scroll down, we can see some standard paragraphs. No need to read all of those. We’re going to come back to the detail of these boilerplate paragraphs later. Then at the bottom of the page, you say:
“An important element of the support provided to subpostmasters and counter clerks is the Horizon Helpdesk [It] is the Horizon user’s first ‘port of call’,” et cetera.
Then five or six lines in, you say:
“I have been asked to provide information pertaining the working condition of the Horizon system.”
I think that must mean:
“I have been asked to provide information pertaining [to] the working condition of the Horizon system. The following information constitutes the calls logged by HSH [for West Byfleet between 30 June ‘05 to 14 January ‘08]. I have the reviewed the calls [between that period]. There were 107 calls … this equates to between 3 and 4 calls a month which is average for this size post office. All the calls are of a routine nature and do not fall outside the normal working parameters of the system or would affect the working order of the counters.”
I think that must mean “nor would they affect the working order of the counters”.
So, I think, in fact, you did provide a very short witness statement that just gave the number and the opinion, rather than any more information; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: It appears so, yes. Yeah.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Was that a standard approach to provide a summary of the number and an explanation of what HSH was and then put the opinion at the bottom, and then wait to see what happened?
Andrew Dunks: There was no standard approach. I mean, once we had received a request from the Post Office for Helpdesk calls, there would have been a discussion or a request of what they wanted at the time. So it would have been on their request of what was supplied.
Mr Beer: We saw earlier, in Mr Hosi’s case, you provided a summary –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – that ended up being a 13-page witness statement and you cut into the witness statement bits of the call logs. Again, just one last time, what determined what the entry-level point was, ie first statement you provided?
Andrew Dunks: The – on the request of the Post Office, what they wanted.
Mr Beer: Did you have any clue as to what was motivating them or what was influencing them as to what to ask for?
Andrew Dunks: None whatsoever, no.
Mr Beer: Okay. Can we turn to a separate issue, then, namely what the standard paragraphs in the witness statement – what I’ve described as boilerplate paragraphs – meant or were intended by you to mean. Can we look, please, to start with at FUJ00155555.
If we scroll down, please – and again, that’s the bottom of the chain, just scroll up, thank you – an email at this point, not copied to you, it’s about a witness statement, it’s between Mr Posnett, Mr Hooper and Mr Ward; do you remember who Graham Hooper was?
Andrew Dunks: Graham Hooper was the Security Manager, I believe, at the time.
Mr Beer: We see him described as CS Security Manager. Would that be Customer Support Security Manager?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, Security came under Customer Support.
Mr Beer: Okay. So would he have been a manager of you at the time?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you. We know who Graham Ward is in the Post Office:
“Graham [I think that’s Graham Hooper],
“Just a quick note to thank you for the above in relation to the Horizon system … This evidence was allowed to form part of the case and the defendant was ultimately found guilty of 8 false accounting charges and 1 theft charge. I appreciate the fact you supplied the statement, especially given the short notice you received.”
Then scroll up, please. Mr Hooper forwards that on to Martin Riddell; who was he?
Andrew Dunks: Not sure.
Mr Beer: Was he in Fujitsu?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I believe so, yes.
Mr Beer: Are all the other people on the copy list there in Fujitsu?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: He, Graham Hooper, says:
“… another good result supported by Horizon evidence.”
You’re included.
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: Then if we scroll up, Martin Riddell replies to everyone saying:
“Well done to everyone involved. If I was a caring, sharing manager I would buy a drink for everyone involved.
“But I’m not.
“So I won’t.”
Were you involved at this early stage, 2002 – September 2002 – in the provision of witness statements for the purposes of Horizon-based prosecutions?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. I know I started on the Post Office Account in 2002. I don’t know when or how long I’d been working on the account at that time, and I can’t –
Mr Beer: This – I’m so sorry.
Andrew Dunks: No, I can’t recall if I was involved in that.
Mr Beer: At this stage, September 2002, was there a standard form witness statement in use within the Security Team?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember. I believe so but I can’t remember.
Mr Beer: Do you always, throughout your time over the years, remember using standard form witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we turn, please, to FUJ00152205.
Thank you. We can see, on the top right, this is an earlier copy of the Fujitsu policy concerning Prosecution Support for Network Banking; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: It’s dated 26 November 2002. Remember, the other one we looked at was dated 29 February 2005, earlier on.
Incidentally on that, there is no need for people to write in to the Inquiry to say that the 29 February 2005 didn’t exist because it wasn’t a leap year. We’ve had lots of emails over the course of the Inquiry pointing that out. Thank you to everyone!
You can see that the abstract is again of a similar type:
“This document outlines the end-to-end procedures required to manage and deliver Network Banking Prosecution Support …”
We can see who the contributors were: this time your manager, Mr Hooper; Jan Holmes; and Richard Laking. Can you help –
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t recall.
Mr Beer: If we look, please, at the approval authorities on page 2, and scroll down, please. I think we can see that, in the box in the middle of the page there, under “Optional Review”, one of the options was Graham Ward; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: He being a Post Office manager, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: It’s asterisked, which suggests that Mr Ward did indeed return a comment as a reviewer; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Again, there’s a passage in the body of the document which refers to a template witness statement of fact being annexed as an Appendix 2. Can we turn to that Appendix 2, please, which on page 27. Can we see that, over that page, Appendix 2, “Witness Statement of Fact”, and if we just scroll on, quite quickly if we can. Thank you. Just on that page and then the next page. It goes right up until page 32. Can you see, again, each paragraph is headed by a capital letter?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Yes. Thank you very much. If we just quickly go back to page 21. If we look, please, at paragraph 7.2.4.1, third paragraph:
“The statement shall follow the standard format and layout for witness statements of fact provided in evidence. Contents of witness statements of fact are flexible depending on the specific requirements of each case and the knowledge of the witness giving the statement. An example of a witness statement of fact is provided in Appendix 2.”
Did you know about this policy, that the company had produced a policy saying an example of a witness statement of fact is provided in Appendix 2 and a template witness statement was provided in Appendix 2?
Andrew Dunks: This was in the year that joined. I don’t know whether I was actually given this document to read. I don’t remember seeing this, no.
Mr Beer: Can we go back, please, to page 31 within the template witness statement. Page 31, the foot of the page, paragraph Q. You’ll see that the boilerplate paragraph Q is:
“There is no reason to believe that the information in this statement is inaccurate because of the improper use of the computer. To the best of my knowledge and belief at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, any respect in which it was not operating properly, or was out of operation was not such as to effect the information held on it. I hold a responsible position in relation to the working of the computer.”
Were you required to say that – what’s in that paragraph Q – in each and every case?
Andrew Dunks: Was I required? I don’t know what the requirements were.
Mr Beer: In all of your witness statements we see that paragraph?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Why did you include it?
Andrew Dunks: Because it was in the witness statement template that we had been told to use.
Mr Beer: How did you know whether it was true or false?
Andrew Dunks: These – actually, I don’t – are these – are you talking about ARQ witness statements?
Mr Beer: This appears in both species of witness statement, ARQ and HSH.
Andrew Dunks: Yeah, I mean the overall of that is to the best of my knowledge at the time. So I believed that everything was working as it should.
Mr Beer: How did you know it was?
Andrew Dunks: Well, in respect of ARQs, I knew that there was checks being made every time we extracted data and, in respect of the HSD calls, it would have been looking in the calls and I believe it is operating as it should and as it’s expected.
Mr Beer: What’s the “it” in that sentence?
Andrew Dunks: The counters and –
Mr Beer: Stop there. You believe, when you signed a witness statement that included that paragraph, that it was testifying to your belief that the counters were working properly?
Andrew Dunks: Were working as expected, yes.
Mr Beer: Sorry, I interrupted you. You said, “The counters and”?
Andrew Dunks: Um … well, it’s trying to explain that the post – the branch and the counters were working as expected, as to not to affect the integrity of the data.
Mr Beer: So this is providing a view, an opinion, an assessment, on Horizon itself, in your mind?
Andrew Dunks: In respect of the branches and the integrity of the data, yes, my opinion.
Mr Beer: I’ll ask again: how would you know whether that was true or false?
Andrew Dunks: I would have made that my opinion based on the investigation that I carried out.
Mr Beer: How could you tell, how could you say, that there was no reason to believe that the information is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer?
Andrew Dunks: Again, I mean, I made my – that assumption, my opinion, on an individual basis of every call that I looked at, and I was being asked for an opinion, and that was my opinion.
Mr Beer: Can we turn to your Inquiry witness statement, please, your second Inquiry witness statement, at page 33 at paragraph 96. Page 33, paragraph 96, foot of the page, you say:
“The witness statements I supplied in respect of the production of ARQ records contained the following (or very similar) wording …”
Then you set it out. I’m not going to re-read it. Over the page, please, you say in 97:
“I note that this paragraph is included in the template witness statement appended”, the document we’ve just looked at, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: What was the purpose of noting that there in paragraph 97; can you help us?
Andrew Dunks: I think an example of when it was used.
Mr Beer: You weren’t saying by that paragraph that you drew that part of the witness statement from that policy?
Andrew Dunks: No, I didn’t, no. I didn’t.
Mr Beer: You just took it off the template that was on the system?
Andrew Dunks: It was – yes, it was included in the template, yes.
Mr Beer: Thank you. At 98, you say:
“My understanding at the time was that I was confirming that I had not improperly used the audit extraction software to manipulate the data that was exhibiting, and that as far as I was aware the software had run properly when extracting the data.”
You see here in this witness statement you’re saying that you believed that the boilerplate paragraph was referring to the audit extraction software.
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we scroll down to paragraph 100, you say:
“I did not believe I was verifying that the Horizon system as a whole was operating properly at all times, or that there could not have been any software errors that affected any of the information held within it.”
So you’re here saying, firstly, do you agree, that when you wrote or included the paragraph in each of your witness statements, you had a positive understanding of what it meant and what it did not mean?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: And is that true, that you can remember that standard paragraph Q was one that you held a belief at the relevant time as to what it did mean and what it didn’t mean?
Andrew Dunks: At the time of writing these statements, yeah, I would have had a – yes.
Mr Beer: And that it was only limited to the reliability or improper use of the audit extraction software and not relating to Horizon as a whole?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Are you sure that that was your contemporaneous belief over each of the years when you were signing this template statement in prosecutions?
Andrew Dunks: Yeah, I would have held that position. Yes, I would have done.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at FUJ00201401. This is a transcript of your evidence to the High Court in the Group Litigation. It’s dated 20 March 2019. Can we go to page 28, please – oh, I see, we’re on 28. At the foot of the page. 28, at the foot of the page.
We can see where the transcript of your evidence begins. You’re sworn?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we go forward to page 41, please. You’re being cross-examined here by Mr Miletic, and can you see in the second question, third line, he says:
“And then paragraph 8, again, I just want to be very precise, I want to make sure I understand exactly what is being said in this statement, paragraph 8 begins:
“‘There is no reason to believe that the information in this statement is inaccurate …’
“Pausing here, what is ‘this statement’? Do you mean your witness statement?
“Answer: Yes.
“Question: Okay:
“‘There is no reason to believe that the information in this [witness] statement is inaccurate because of the improper use of the system.’
“What is the ‘system’ there? Is that the system of the process of strategy thing audit data, or is it something else?”
Just stopping there, you can see that you’re being asked very similar questions to the ones I’ve asked already, albeit this is a different witness statement that contains the same boilerplate paragraph. So you’re asked:
“What’s the ‘system’ there? Is that the system of the process of extracting out data, or is it something else?
“Answer: Good question. There’s no – I’m not sure what I was meaning by that, ‘There is no reason to believe …’
“Question: We will take this step by step …”
Then it continues. Just stopping there, you were saying to the court that you didn’t know what you meant. You say, “I’m not sure what I was meaning by the ‘system’ and that there is no reason to believe”. How is it had in 2019 you were saying on oath that you were not sure what you meant by the boilerplate paragraph but now, in your witness statement five years later, you tell us that you knew that it meant only the audit extraction software and not Horizon more generally?
Andrew Dunks: Looking at this now and going over it, I am not sure what I was thinking at the time or what I was trying to remember.
Mr Beer: The questioning does continue:
“Answer: I think I was meaning about the improper use of the audit data extraction system.
“Question: So when you say ‘system’, you mean the process of extracting audit data?
“Answer: Yes, I do.”
Then it continues:
“Question: I see, so”, and then there’s the quote.
Then it goes on to deal with a separate issue, namely what “at all material times” meant.
So when you told the court that you weren’t sure what you were meaning by the boilerplate paragraph, how is it that your memory seems to have improved five years later, that you were definitely meaning, throughout time, only the system used to extract audit data?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. I mean, being on – put on the spot at the time, I’m not sure I fully understood the question, or whatever, but I am not sure and I can’t remember what my thought process was at the time.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we turn to a separate topic, please, South Warnborough and Mrs Josephine Hamilton’s case. This is dealt with in your second witness statement in paragraphs 183 to 189 on pages 56 onwards. I’m not going to read what you say there though, they’re for the record but, instead, can I take you to some email exchanges, please, starting please with FUJ00225544.
Can we look at the bottom email first, please, we’re on 13 January 2007 – if we just scroll up, thank you – from Mr Ward to you, about a witness statement that you had made in Josephine Hamilton’s case. Mr Ward says:
“Andy
“I’ve made one or two minor amendments … put all the text into the same font, spelling of South Warnborough and also put (???) followed some acronyms so you can explain in full … (I know some are explained later in the statement but to make things easier for a barrister and jury any acronyms should be explained the 1st time they appear in a statement). Most of the explanations of the calls make sense to me aside from the one below and which appears to suggest a fault … can you simplify what this one means?”
You’ll see that he identifies a call ending 1106; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we scroll up, please. You reply later that day on the Saturday:
“I will make the amendments on Monday, but I had posted a copy of the statement on Friday just in case it was okay so please ignore.”
Can we look at the statement, please, the one that you signed off on 14 January 2007, POL00044482. This is your witness statement of 14 January 2007 in Josephine Hamilton’s case. Can we look at page 3, please. If we scroll down to look for the call ending in 1106, it’s in the middle of the page there, it’s got an asterisk on it:
“New call [this is 21 April 2004] taken by Richard Postance: Critical NT_error occurred at … ‘the device … did not respond within the timeout period’ …
“Resolution: An automatic error event was picked up by the [System Management Centre] (2nd line support) and a call was logged. The [System Management Centre] referred to KEL (Known Error Log) … A remote reboot of the counter was carried out, which did not resolve the problem. [A priority call] was raised [you give the number] to contact and advise the [postmaster] for a manual reboot. Call closed by Kevin Pearson …”
So that’s the one that Mr Ward was saying that that tended to indicate a fault, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, that’s what he was saying.
Mr Beer: He was asking for clarification?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You don’t, I think, provide clarification here, do you?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t – well, I haven’t got an email with it on. I don’t know whether I spoke to him regarding that.
Mr Beer: Well, in the witness statement you don’t, do you? If we just carry on scrolling through to the end because sometimes you, at the end of the witness statement, have a mop-up paragraph dealing with any possible faults, and so it ends. So he was saying this entry on the HSD log is suggestive of a fault and asking whether that call did describe a fault, and you don’t address it do you?
Andrew Dunks: No, not in the final witness statement, no.
Mr Beer: Not in your email either, did you?
Andrew Dunks: Not by email, I didn’t – well, it doesn’t appear that I was – I responded back to him with it, no.
Mr Beer: If we go back to page 3 and look at the entry, it says that a remote reboot was carried out which didn’t resolve the problem. A priority was raised, priority call was raised, and advice for the postmaster for a manual reboot and then the call was closed. So, on its face, it doesn’t record that there was any resolution to the problem, does it? Just that the call was closed?
Andrew Dunks: No, the advice was to contact – raise another call to get the postmaster to do a manual reboot.
Mr Beer: Yes, and it doesn’t record whether that was successful, does it?
Andrew Dunks: Not on that particular call, no.
Mr Beer: On any other call?
Andrew Dunks: Well, the following call was raised, an A priority, which was the next call in line, and it appears that the reboot didn’t solve the issue, so an engineer was sent to swap over the base unit.
Mr Beer: So you’re looking at the call ending in 0123?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So the question that was asked of you by the Investigator was whether it disclosed a fault, and you didn’t answer it, did you?
Andrew Dunks: Well, not by email, no.
Mr Beer: Or in your witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: No, because, at the time, I would have done an investigation. The work I’d done on that – looking into the –
Mr Beer: Sorry, you said you’d have done an investigation. What investigation would you have done?
Andrew Dunks: I’d have carried out the same investigation that I would have done for any witness statement at any cause; I’d have spoken to people, I’d have looked at things to clarify that I was happy to make that statement.
Mr Beer: What would you have looked at?
Andrew Dunks: Anything available for me.
Mr Beer: Such as?
Andrew Dunks: I mean, that’s got – KELs – I’d have looked in there.
Mr Beer: You’d have looked at KELs, would you?
Andrew Dunks: I would have done, yes.
Mr Beer: There are two KELs mentioned there, aren’t there?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: One “rcoleman”, ending in “3J”, and one “pcarroll”, ending in “9Z”, aren’t there?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So you would have gone off and searched up those two Known Error Logs, would you?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: And, what, been satisfied that what was disclosed on those Known Error Logs itself didn’t assist in saying that there either was or was not a fault in Josephine Hamilton’s branch being reported on this occasion?
Andrew Dunks: I would – yeah, I would have looked at each of – both of those KELs and, again, the same as I would have done with the Helpdesk calls. If I didn’t understand the clarity – I’d have got some clarity from the SSC because the KELs are written by the SSC, to understand what’s the wording and the steps and what it’s trying to explain.
Mr Beer: So looking at the first KEL, “rcoleman”, ending in “3J”, can we look at that, please. FUJ00059070. Can we see that’s the KEL, “rcoleman”, ending “3J”?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can you see if we scroll down, the problem:
“NT has detected a fault on disk-drive or IDE controller”, and then there’s some code.
Can you tell us what all that code means, please?
Andrew Dunks: Now, no. I can’t recall what everything there says or means, no.
Mr Beer: Would you have been able to understand all of that code at the time?
Andrew Dunks: Well, yes, I would have done. Well, I say understand, I’d have got a knowledge of what that all meant, yes.
Mr Beer: How would you have got a knowledge of it?
Andrew Dunks: By, as I said, speaking to the – someone within the SSC. These are their words and there their Known Error Logs, so they would have written them.
Mr Beer: They’re the experts, not you –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and they were the experts that didn’t want to give evidence?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: “Solution – Helpdesk
“First check for other events which may have lead to this error, such as a bad block or corrupt storage unit events. If such events exist follow the appropriate KELs for those … To test if the error is simply a result of processor delay due to intensive processing by the counter at the time of the event, reboot [the] counter. If the error recurs this is indication of a more serious fault either with the computers mother board or the affected drive. Therefore, if the message reappears then send an engineer to replace the part at fault.”
So you can see it continues. Then if we look at the second KEL that’s referred to, FUJ00059107, the one ending in “pcarroll … 9Z”. “Problem” – scroll down, please:
“Corruption on message store. Likely to be a bad disk … or more likely Riposte has been subjected to an interruption whilst an indexing operation has been taking place; if a power outage occurs during this process it is possible for a corruption of the data structures within Riposte …”
“Solution …
“A reboot can fix some of these problems so that should be tried in the first instance, if the events occur out of hours then ClearDesk may clear the problem. If they persist or re-occur and the [Post Office] are having problems, then [do something].”
Then further down, about eight lines in:
“MULTI-COUNTER SITE – SMC must check all counters are working okay, apart from target counter, there must be at least one other unit with a fully functioning Riposte present … IF NOT passed to SSC”, et cetera.
So reading the entry on the Helpdesk and reading these two KELs, which you say you would have done, how were you able to say that what you read did not disclose anything other than the system operating properly?
Andrew Dunks: Again, from my understanding of discussing – I mean I would have asked – I would that have had discussions with someone within the SSC to explain what was going on, we’d have looked at the call to see what the steps were, and – I mean, this is a Known Error Log so these errors have been seen before.
Mr Beer: Is that a good thing?
Andrew Dunks: Well, there’s always going to be certain errors and it’s how they’re dealt with. It’s how they’re dealt with that’s the process.
Mr Beer: How were you able to say that this had no affect on the operation of Horizon?
Andrew Dunks: No, proper affect on the counters. It’s still working as expected, there may have been faults at the counter but, again, that’s within the boundaries and integrity of the Horizon system. I believed – my opinion at the time – it was working as it should do, and there wouldn’t have been any integrity issues with the data between the branch and Horizon.
Mr Beer: Did you look at the data to see whether there were any integrity issues?
Andrew Dunks: At the data?
Mr Beer: Yes.
Andrew Dunks: No.
Mr Beer: Thank you.
Sir, that would be an appropriate moment for lunch, if it is acceptable to you. I wonder whether we could break until 2.10.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, certainly.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much.
(1.19 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(2.10 pm)
Mr Beer: Good afternoon, sir. Can you see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, thank you.
Mr Beer: Good afternoon, Mr Dunks.
Can we move on from looking at the themes we looked at this morning to looking at a couple of particular prosecution cases that we’ve already dipped into this morning, those of Jerry Hosi and Seema Misra, in slightly more detail. Can we look, please, to begin with at FUJ00083703. Can we see this is a witness statement by you, dated 3 June 2008. If we scroll down a little bit, please, and a little bit further, and then go over the page. We can see about five or six lines in, you say:
“I have been asked to provide details on the calls for advice and guidance … at Porters Avenue”, ie Mr Hosi’s branch.
So this is a Jerry Hosi, Porters Avenue witness statement; do you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: As we have seen you say:
“I have reviewed the HSH calls [during the period there set out] there were 33 calls from the branch to HSH and all of the calls are of a routine nature and do not fall out side the normal working parameters of the system. And in my opinion would have had no affect on any counter discrepancies.”
If we just go back to page 1, please, and scroll down to some of the boilerplate paragraphs. Can you see the second one, you say:
“I make this witness statement from facts within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated.”
There is then something about records. You say, four lines from the bottom, you have access to the records, you weren’t involved in any of the technical aspects and you say, “This area is not my particular area of expertise”, and you make the witness statement simply to clarify the call logs for the benefit of the court.
Do you see there that the boilerplate paragraph Q, in the policy documents we looked at this morning, the one that says, “There is no reason to believe that the information contained in this statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer”, et cetera, isn’t present in this witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: It’s not present if we look elsewhere in the witness statement either?
I think I put this morning that we see that boilerplate paragraph in all of your witness statements, and I think you agreed with me, and I was asking you where you got it from and why you included it in all witness statements. I think it’s right that it’s in all of the witness statements that address extraction and explanation of ARQ data but not in witness statements that address extraction and explanation of HSH call logs. Why is that?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know why that form of the witness statement didn’t include that.
Mr Beer: So why was it included in the ARQ statements but not the HSH statements?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know why the two were different. They were – the statements weren’t fixed because I could add things, or Post Office would request things to be taken out and put in under discussion, so most of the time it would have been a compromise – I say a compromise – under discussion of what was put in and taken out. I can’t recall what the process was or what discussions were or reasons why that was left out.
Mr Beer: Okay. The first line of that paragraph, which is included, “I make this witness statement from facts within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated”, what did you understand that to mean?
Andrew Dunks: I think I said earlier that that’s within my own knowledge. I mean, “otherwise stated” – I know you said that I hadn’t stated that I spoke to the SSC, but I believe that I knew those facts or those – the knowledge was within my arena or I knew when I made the statement.
Mr Beer: Can you not see that, in order to make a witness statement that includes that line “from facts within my own knowledge”, there could never be a case where you would include the words “unless otherwise stated”?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, say again?
Mr Beer: Yes, in order for you to make a witness statement about something, the something has to be within your own knowledge, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to write it down, would you?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Given that is the case, what is the purpose of that line? If everything is always going to be within your knowledge, on your account, to put it in a witness statement, what’s the purpose of that line?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know, to be honest with you, that’s part of the standard witness statement, I said before, that we were told to use.
Mr Beer: Did you not understand it to mean that, “If I don’t say anything, the things I’m speaking about are in fact within my own knowledge, but if I identify in the witness statement things that I’ve learnt from somebody else, I’ll say so” –
Andrew Dunks: No, I –
Mr Beer: – ie unless otherwise stated?
Andrew Dunks: No, that was never my understanding at the time.
Mr Beer: Did you in fact have an understanding or did you just include this because it was another one of the boilerplate paragraphs?
Andrew Dunks: No. Sorry, no, I had an understanding. I believed it was within my knowledge base at the time of writing the statement.
Mr Beer: Okay, if that’s the case, when could you ever otherwise state?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know.
Mr Beer: On your explanation, that statement makes no sense, does it? If everything is within your knowledge because you’ve been told about it, you could never state otherwise?
Andrew Dunks: You could read it that way, yes but these are statements which were written and agreed to be used.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to page 2, please, and look at the second paragraph down:
“I have reviewed the HSH calls … there are 33 … all of the calls are of a routine nature and do not fall outside the normal working parameters of the system. And in my opinion would have had no affect on any counter discrepancies.”
If you had no technical expertise in Horizon, what qualified you to make that statement?
Andrew Dunks: I’m being asked my opinion and, based on the knowledge that I had at the time, that I am making that statement based on my opinion at the time, and that’s – that’s what it says.
Mr Beer: Can we move on, please, to FUJ00083704. This appears to be substantially the same statement, dated two days later, 5 June 2008. If we go to the second page and look at the second paragraph, that appears to be exactly the same, except that, in the previous edition, 3 June, the last sentence of the second paragraph said “would have had no effect”, E-F-F-E-C-T, and now that’s been changed to “affect”, A-F-F-E-C-T; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So the overall opinion is still included in this version, correct?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Can we look at the substantive comments that you make about the calls and look at page 3, please, and look at call number 3. Thursday, 10 November 2005, a call ending in 152:
“New call taken … [postmaster] is not in the right CA (Cash Account) period and has not rolled over this morning.”
“Resolution” over the page: referred to NBSC; call closed.”
So there was a report that the subpostmaster had a problem with his cash account, yes –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – and that’s passed to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You said that what is reported there would have had no affect on any counter discrepancies. This was the system operating as intended and does not fall outside the normal working parameters of the system. How were you able to say that?
Andrew Dunks: Because I’m aware or was under the opinion that, if a call was passed to the NBSC for a business issue or user guide – or user error, that it was resolved to a satisfactory resolution and –
Mr Beer: Satisfactory to who?
Andrew Dunks: To all parties.
Mr Beer: So the postmasters were always happy, were they, in your opinion, when things got referred to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: I have to believe that, yes.
Mr Beer: Where did you get that information from, the postmasters were always happy when they got referred to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: Well, we never saw the call come back, so I have to make an assumption that the calls were resolved.
Mr Beer: Is that the foundation on which you built your evidence to a criminal court: assumption?
Andrew Dunks: That the calls had been resolved, yes.
Mr Beer: You didn’t know one way or the other, did you?
Andrew Dunks: That the – it was a Helpdesk to deal with those issues, yes.
Mr Beer: But I think you told us in the morning session that you had no access to NBSC records and didn’t know what happened once a case had been referred to the NBSC?
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm, yes.
Mr Beer: So why did you write a witness statement including reference to this call – and there are lots and lots of these, let me tell you, that are referred to the NBSC – saying that this was of a routine nature, it doesn’t fall outside the normal parameters of the system and wouldn’t have had an effect on any counter discrepancies; how can you say that?
Andrew Dunks: Because if it’s passed to the NBSC, it was a business issue.
Mr Beer: Firstly, do you agree that involves a significant assumption, that the person in the HSH has rightly categorised it as a business issue?
Andrew Dunks: The first port of call, yes.
Mr Beer: That it involves an assumption by you that the HSH person has got it right?
Andrew Dunks: Correct.
Mr Beer: Even if the postmaster was saying it’s a system issue, you took from the fact that it was in fact passed to the NBSC that it was a business or user issue?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, because if it was then thought to be – or needed further investigation to see if it was a technical issue, or software issue, that call would have been passed back to Horizon to investigate it.
Mr Beer: Are you therefore making the second assumption that, because the call was not passed back to HSH by NBSC, that it must have been a business or user issue?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at call number 8 on page 5, thank you. If we scroll down, 5 January, ending in 008:
“New call … Critical event … ‘An unexpected error occurred whilst attempting to insert a message. Timeout occurred waiting for lock …
“Outcome
“An automatic error was picked up by the SMC … a call was logged. The SMC referred to [Known Error Log]”, and it’s the JSimpkins338Q one.
“The KEL recommends a remote counter reboot which fixed the problem and no further events were seen.”
If we carry on and look at 9 and then over the page to 10, please, and then down to Number 10 and then quickly read 11, screen freeze:
“[Postmaster] contacted the Helpdesk as the screen had frozen … advised to reboot … then continued to operate as normal.”
12, over the page, please.
13, barcode reader not working.
14, barcode reader not working.
15, keyboard not accepting swipe cards.
16, PIN pad not working.
Over the page, 17, flooding and rewiring needed.
18, more flooding.
19, no online services.
Then 20, please, if we come to 20:
“Critical NT_Error occurred … remote procedure call failed …
“An automatic error event was picked up by the SMC … a call was logged. The SMC referred to … MWright1245K. The KEL recommends a remote counter reboot which fixed the problem and no further events were seen. This was due to the KMRX service … failing to respond.”
If we go forward, please, to page 13 and scroll down, you say in relation to those two that I’ve highlighted, the calls ending 970, and 008:
“The term ‘critical’ is the comparative level of attention required”, et cetera.
Reading on:
“These critical events occurred outside the post office opening times and a standard action of a reboot … was undertaken and repaired the problem and confirmed stability of the system … this is not my particular area of expertise. I have a general knowledge of the procedures and have made comments to aid the court.”
How would a reboot confirm the stability of the system?
Andrew Dunks: Confirmed that – well, it confirmed that the counters were back working again.
Mr Beer: Did the calls record how long the call handler waited to review whether there were any problems, ie whether further issues were seen?
Andrew Dunks: I’m not sure. I don’t know.
Mr Beer: Do the call records record whether there was any later impact on balancing of the NT events which occurred, irrespective of the system being back up and running and stable, whether it had an impact on balancing; do the call records record that?
Andrew Dunks: Well, it doesn’t – no, it doesn’t state that, no.
Mr Beer: So you wouldn’t know one way or the other?
Andrew Dunks: Well, if there were no calls or – raised about that issue, I don’t know how long they looked at the events.
Mr Beer: So are you saying that because the subpostmaster didn’t call back in and say, “I’ve got an existing or continuing balancing problem”, you assumed that there had been a solution –
Andrew Dunks: Um –
Mr Beer: – that had been effective?
Andrew Dunks: Well, yes, I mean the fault had been fixed at that time, so yes, I do.
Mr Beer: Do you know what the NBSC habitually advised the subpostmasters as to their responsibility for settling discrepancies, irrespective of the cause of them?
Andrew Dunks: I had no knowledge of that, no.
Mr Beer: When you compiled summaries like this, would you habitually interrogate the KELs?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I would have looked at KELs. I’d have looked at anything available.
Mr Beer: Why would you look for the KELs?
Andrew Dunks: Because it’s mentioned in the call logs, within the details of the call.
Mr Beer: Do you ever set out what the KEL says in your witness statements, concerning HSH?
Andrew Dunks: No. I don’t believe I did no.
Mr Beer: Did you ever find anything relevant in the KELs then?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember.
Mr Beer: If you had have found something relevant in a KEL, would you have included it in the witness statement?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know. I was trying to give an overview – as my statement says an overview of the call, of what – it was opened, what was happened and what the outcome was.
Mr Beer: Did you have firsthand technical knowledge that would enable you to dissect or to understand the impact of any particular critical error or the implications of a reboot?
Andrew Dunks: As I said, no but, at the time, by the time I’d done my work and written the witness statement, I believe I understood and had a better picture, and understood that.
Mr Beer: Did you ask anyone else within Fujitsu about the KELs referred to in these call logs?
Andrew Dunks: If I didn’t understand them, yes, I would have done. I’d have spoken to whoever – well, the SSC someone within the SSC. Someone who had better technical knowledge than I did at the time.
Mr Beer: The Inquiry has heard evidence for example, about the Riposte lock problem and the Callendar Square problem, and has heard evidence about problems arising because counters were told reboot the system, or were rebooting the system in the face of errors that were in fact unresolved; do you know about any of that?
Andrew Dunks: No, I wasn’t aware of – you mention the Callendar Square – no, I wasn’t aware of that particular problem.
Mr Beer: So you weren’t told by anyone in the SSC that the act of being told to reboot a system in the face of a critical NT error might itself be the cause of yet further problems?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t believe that was ever mentioned, otherwise I would have known about a bug or an issue that may have caused some of these problems. No, I don’t believe I did.
Mr Beer: So we’ve seen that the call log mentioned the JSimpkins338Q KEL, yes; we saw that earlier?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: You said you would have gone off and looked at that?
Andrew Dunks: I believe I would have done, yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at the JSimpkins KEL. FUJ00083720. It’s quite a short KEL, restricted to a page. “Problem”:
“The events started … on 1 May after the counter was rebooted. The counter produced one of these messages every 10 seconds throughout the night until ClearDesk restarted Riposte … This cleared the lock and the system has been fine since. We are seeing a few of these each week, on Wednesdays during balancing. This can lead to problems if the [postmaster] is balancing on the counter creating events, as it may not have a full view of transactions done on other counters … This event can also give rise to Transfer problems, where the eventing Node was not replicated and so allowed Clerk to Transfer In of a [transaction] which had already been TI on another Node for the second time … This problem is still occurring every week, in one case on the same site on 2 consecutive weeks … Sent to development.”
Then “Solution”:
“This problem seems to be cleared by either rebooting the effective counter or ClearDesk running in the morning. If the event is seen at a multi-counter to is during the working hours of the [post office], or up to 6.00 on a weekday (in case they are balancing out of hours), RING THE OFFICE AND GET THEM TO REBOOT the eventing counter. If they are in the process of balancing, it is strongly advised that they reboot before continuing with balancing as they are at risk of producing an incorrect balance. Warn the [postmaster] that if transactions appear to be missing, they should not be reentered – they will become visible after the counter has been rebooted. If a reboot/ClearDesk does not resolve the problem, send the call over for further investigation – SSC can rebuild the messagestore on the affected counter … If the message was seen on a Correspondence server and the source of the message is Riposte then raise a PEAK call and route it to SSC to stop and restart the Riposte under Operational Change Procedure. If the errors are seen on more than one Correspondence server at the same time then further investigations should be carried out.”
There is nothing in your witness statement, in particular your summary of the call logs, that acknowledges that an imbalance could result from this event, is there?
Andrew Dunks: No, there isn’t, no.
Mr Beer: Or that this is something that had been happening for years, since at least May 2002, is there?
Andrew Dunks: But it’s seen as a – I see that as part of the routine handling of calls, and it’s a known error that’s being – and has got a resolution to it and how to deal with that type of call.
Mr Beer: How could you tell which of the multiple different resolutions in the solution applied in this case?
Andrew Dunks: On this one, “If the event is seen as … during working hours”, I don’t believe this one was during working hours the call was raised. So that would have been my first port of call.
Mr Beer: I’m thinking, for example, “If reboot does not resolve the problem, send the call over for further information. SSC can rebuild the message store”?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: “If the message was seen on the Correspondence server then raise a PEAK call, route it to SSC. If the errors are seen on more than one correspondence server …”
What you don’t seem to have done, is this right, Mr Dunks, is looked at the possible different manifestations of this problem and seen which applied in this branch on this occasion.
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember how – what I can see is there’s a set of instructions to check and what the resolution was each time. I can’t remember what I did and how I balanced the two up, but “… if the event is seen during working hours”. I believe this one wasn’t during working hours.
Mr Beer: It was at 01.15, I think.
Andrew Dunks: In the morning? Yes.
Mr Beer: In the morning.
Andrew Dunks: So it’s an automated event being picked up by the SMC.
Mr Beer: That’s the first part of the solution. I’m looking at the later parts of the solution?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, but there’s a resolution for each step. I can’t remember what – how far it got, or what the – that type – those steps were and, like I say, how I balanced that up to come to my solution but –
Mr Beer: Putting it frankly, Mr Dunks, did you carry out an investigation, come to a resolution, balance things up, or did you cut and paste extracts from call logs and add a generalised opinion in each and every one of these Horizon Helpdesk witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: No, not at all. That wasn’t my way of working.
Mr Beer: You carried out proper investigations –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – in every case to see whether there was any possibility of an effect on balancing for all of the multiple calls in question, did you?
Andrew Dunks: And to give my opinion, I had to do that to satisfy myself that I was happy to put that statement down in a witness statement, yes.
Mr Beer: That’s a lot of work in each case, isn’t it?
Andrew Dunks: Absolutely, yes.
Mr Beer: Hours and hours?
Andrew Dunks: It could be, yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at FUJ00083702. You remember this email, 3 June 2008; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: The bottom email, in fact, 9.29, in which Lisa Allen asks you to provide another statement, including the outcome of faults reported and that it would have had no effect on counter discrepancy; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So she’s asking you to provide a new statement with a phrase “This had no effect on counter discrepancy” added, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can you see that you appear to have replied – the date has been Americanised – on the 3 June at 10.23?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look at an early draft of your witness statement, please, FUJ00083683, and put alongside it the June 2008 one, FUJ00083703. Thank you.
So the witness statement on the right in Mr Hosi’s case, 24 July 2007, which I believe is the witness statement that Lisa Allen was referring to, and then the revised witness statement of 3 June, the date of the email on the left-hand side. Can we go to page 2 on each statement, please, and look at the second paragraph on each statement. Thank you. You see on the right-hand side, the July ‘07 witness statement is three lines long:
“I have reviewed the calls … [they were all] of a routine nature and do not fall outside the normal working parameters of system”.
Then the 3 June witness statement, on the left-hand side adds:
“And in my opinion, would have had no affect [sic] on any counter discrepancies.”
Can you see that’s been added?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So, in short, Ms Allen has asked you to provide a new witness statement that adds in a line that, in your opinion it would have had no effect on any counter discrepancy and, within an hour, you do so. Correct?
Andrew Dunks: On that email, yes. But I think the email states “As discussed”. So you’re trying to say that there wasn’t a lot of time in between the two. I think a lot of the time any changes that needed or were requested would have been via an email or had to have an email, as a form of audit trail. So we’d have discussed this already, so I’d probably have done that work previously on that.
Mr Beer: You replied within an hour with a revised statement, adding the words “in my opinion, the calls would have had no affect on any counter discrepancies” or the matters mentioned in the calls –
Andrew Dunks: Yeah.
Mr Beer: – “would have had no effect on any counter discrepancies”. Was that an opinion you formed quickly and with ease?
Andrew Dunks: It wouldn’t have been quickly, no. That’s something that would have been discussed previously and it says discussed in the email. It’s something we would have spoken about and I don’t know when that discussion took place. So I’d have already done the work and she was just confirming what she’d requested.
Mr Beer: You remember that, do you?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t remember the jumping around and what – how the sequences worked but any changes would have been discussed and agreed before they were put in.
Mr Beer: What additional work would you have had to carry out in relation to the 33 calls logged from Porters Avenue to form the opinion that none of them would have had any effect on counter discrepancies?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember the work I put in. I mean, looking at that, again, I see that as a further to, to describe that the system was – well, the counters and everything that I – was working as expected. And it’s a further explanation to that.
Mr Beer: It’s an additional point, isn’t it, it’s rather more than saying that the calls themselves are of a routine nature. I mean, something can be very serious –
Andrew Dunks: Sorry?
Mr Beer: Something can be very serious but be of a routine nature because it happens frequently, can’t it?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, say that again?
Mr Beer: Something can be very serious but can be of a routine nature because it happens frequently?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, well, I think so, yes. Yes.
Mr Beer: You say that they do not fall outside the normal working parameters of the system. That itself does not say, does it, whether the subject matter of the calls caused counter discrepancies, does it?
Andrew Dunks: I’m sorry can you repeat the question?
Mr Beer: Yes, it’s saying that the subject matter of these 33 calls does not fall outside the normal working parameters of the system?
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Mr Beer: It does not say one way or the other whether the subject matter of the calls had any effect on counter discrepancies?
Andrew Dunks: That would have been my opinion at the time, if asked. It’s trying to describe that the system was working as expected.
Mr Beer: But what you’ve added is an opinion that the subject matter of the calls would, in fact have had no effect on counter discrepancies. So it’s a material addition, isn’t it?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Can we go back to the email, FUJ00083702. You’re referring in the bottom message to the “As discussed”?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So are you telling us that the subject matter of the entirety of that bottom email had been discussed, you had carried out the work before the email of 3 June had been received and that’s why you were able to turn it around so quickly on that Tuesday morning?
Andrew Dunks: I would like to think so, yes.
Mr Beer: Can we move forwards, please, to FUJ00083729. We’re now in 2010 – 6 May 2010 – still concerning Porters Avenue. The top email, the date has again been Americanised, I think, printed as 5 June, in fact 6 May. If we look at the bottom email first, 6 May:
“… please provide me with a further statement exhibiting the 33 calls logged and can you send a copy of the exhibit with a … label. I apologise for the short notice …
“There’s a mention at court tomorrow …”
Can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then, at the top of the page, again, you reply quite quickly, 11.07 through to 12.41:
“Let me know if this is okay.”
Can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: When you produced that statement, did you go back and look at the KELs?
Andrew Dunks: I think that is a request – “As discussed, can you please provide me with a further statement exhibiting those 33 calls”. I think that was to supply the full call details.
Mr Beer: Okay, so this is a bit like in Misra, where you started off with a summary, and then were asked to produce a witness statement simply exhibiting the calls, the call logs?
Andrew Dunks: It appears to be that type of thing, yes.
Mr Beer: So you wouldn’t have to conduct any extra analysis, is that right, in order simply to exhibit?
Andrew Dunks: If I’m just supplying the call data, no.
Mr Beer: Thank you. Can we move on, please, to look at Seema Misra’s case. That can come down, thank you.
You made, I think, three witness statements in the case of Seema Misra. Can we look at one of them, please, the one dated 29 January 2010. POL00058448. It’s obviously a rogue reference. It’s attaching a witness statement by email, dated 29 January 2010, from Mr Longman to Phil Taylor in the Post Office and two lawyers – one solicitor, one counsel – attaching your witness statement, “which deals with all the Helpline calls regarding the Horizon system”, and asking for it to be served on the defence.
Can we look at what happened after that, please. FUJ00152990. This is an email exchange between Anne Chambers and Gareth Jenkins and, just staying on the top part of it first, we can see that this email exchange is sent to you by Penny Thomas. Okay?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: If we scroll down, please, to page 2, and scroll on a little further. Thank you. So this is 25 January, after you’d signed off your first witness statement –
Sorry, 25 February, after you’d signed off your first witness statement at the ending of January. It’s about witness statement support for West Byfleet and Ms Chambers says to Mr Jenkins:
“… sending just to you initially.
“… my involvement has always been unofficial and on the basis that I had time to do it. If I need to do more detailed analysis on this (and I’m not sure what I would be able to find, without knowing what their specific problem was) it will have to be agreed officially with my manager … I don’t think I can keep volunteering.
“There are several entries on the 1 SYSMAN2 tab which require some further investigation. I’ve added some highlighting.
“Counter 1 [the dates in May ‘06 and February ‘08] I don’t know whether the counter was replaced, or whether the message store was deleted. The PowerHelp/ TfS calls may illuminate this.
“I don’t know if the counter was used whilst these errors were occurring – it may have been. If they have complaints specific to these [items], perhaps they should be checked out???
“There are some isolated timeout waiting for lock messages, but in general these appear to be associated with checksums being written. To be on the safe side, it could be checked whether anyone was logged on [on certain dates and times by reference to those two counters].
“It is notable that the branch does not have the repeated lock messages which were a feature of the Callendar Square problem.”
Over the page:
“… as far as I know [that error message] hasn’t been investigated but … no one has complained of a problem linked to it. I’ll try to check it out.”
If we scroll up, please, and keep going, Gareth Jenkins says:
“Anne has looked at the events logs.
“She’s identified number of things below to check out.
“Are you able to check out the specific times she has indicated, firstly to see if anyone was Logged on and secondly against Andy Dunk’s call logs.”
Then up the page, Penny says to you:
“I requested the events to be checked to support your witness statement; I’ve had a chat with Gareth this morning and as no transaction date has been requested, it is pointless going further …
“However, you might like to check Anne’s comments against the calls in your witness statement.”
Did you do so?
Andrew Dunks: I’d like to think I did. I wouldn’t have just ignored that email.
Mr Beer: You tell us in your witness statement, I’m not going to turn it up, paragraph 204 on page 61: “I’ve no recollection of this email or what precisely I did in relation to it.”
Does that remain the case? You don’t know whether you did anything as a result of –
Andrew Dunks: No, I can’t remember what I did.
Mr Beer: Can you remember whether you did anything?
Andrew Dunks: Again, it’s that long ago, I can’t remember what I did. I’d like to think I didn’t ignore that, so I would have done something but I can’t remember.
Mr Beer: You say, in your witness statement:
“I would have satisfied myself at the time that the system events did not affect the integrity of data.”
What did you do to satisfy yourself that the system events did not affect the integrity of the data?
Andrew Dunks: Again, based around what I learned from my investigations.
Mr Beer: A bit more specific than that, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: Well, I don’t know. I can’t remember what I did.
Mr Beer: What could you have done, in the light of the three suggestions that Anne Chambers was making, to satisfy yourself that the system events did not affect the integrity of the data?
Andrew Dunks: Well, the system events are the ones that are picked up by the SMC. So I would have looked at those – those calls. I’d like to think I did.
Mr Beer: Did you understand what she was referring to or what she would have been looking for in PowerHelp?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, whereabouts? No, I can’t remember what – as I said, I can’t remember the details of this specific –
Mr Beer: Did you have access to PowerHelp?
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I did.
Mr Beer: Do you understand what she would have been looking for in order to look in TfS call records?
Andrew Dunks: Well, PowerHelp and TfS were different versions of the Helpdesk calls.
Mr Beer: You don’t record in your witness statements that followed this that you did anything in particular in your subsequent witness statements in the Seema Misra case?
Andrew Dunks: No, because I – no, I didn’t, no.
Mr Beer: And why not?
Andrew Dunks: Well, what investigations took place? No, I didn’t, because I was looking at the calls as a whole.
Mr Beer: But here you had somebody from SSC, who you’ve told us earlier that you relied on as a technical expert, suggesting that three things need to be done.
Andrew Dunks: Yeah.
Mr Beer: So this isn’t one of those conversations over the phone or where you went up to the sixth floor and we’ve got no record of it. This is one of those occasions where we have got a record of what the person in the SSC said needs to be done and I’m asking, in your following witness statements, there is no record of you doing anything in response to Anne Chambers’ suggestions; why is that?
Andrew Dunks: Well, I wouldn’t have thought that it would have been – after I’d looked at these, if my opinion hadn’t changed, after looking at these, there wouldn’t have been any need to add that statement, as you’re saying.
Mr Beer: Is that the basis on which you operated consistently when working for Fujitsu, that if you investigate something but in your own mind it doesn’t alter your opinion, there’s no need to record that you had conducted that investigation, whether in a witness statement or otherwise?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t think at any stage I was required or asked to put down what investigative work that I carried out. These were an overview of the calls and then I was asked for my opinion, based on that.
Mr Beer: Can we look, please, at the call records. POL00061793. These are the call records that you exhibited. Can we look at page 22, please, and we should see an entry – if we scroll down, please, thank you, and a bit further – an entry of 20 February – can you see that –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: – 2006, Mrs Misra, the postmaster saying, under “Call problem”:
“[Postmaster] states that she is showing £6,000 down from balance.”
Yes?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: Then the call was closed within two minutes of it being opened. The call handler said it’s an NBSC issue; can you see that?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Mr Beer: So, in your world, this is good evidence that this is nothing to do with the system, it’s a business or user error?
Andrew Dunks: At first, to be investigated, yes.
Mr Beer: Well, where does it say it’s to be investigated?
Andrew Dunks: Well, it’s being – it’s passed for the NBSC for them to look into and deal with that issue.
Mr Beer: Is it passed to the NBSC or is Mrs Misra told “This is an NBSC issue”?
Andrew Dunks: Looking at that now, I don’t know, I would assume it’s been passed to the NBSC and advised it’s an NBSC issue. It’s either passed to the NBSC or advised that – for the user to speak to the NBSC.
Mr Beer: But you reading this on its face without more, you’d say this is down to the postmaster and the way she operates her branch, nothing to do with the system?
Andrew Dunks: At that point in time, yes –
Mr Beer: How can you tell that –
Andrew Dunks: – because it has to be –
Mr Beer: – from that record?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry?
Mr Beer: How can you tell that from that record: this is down to the postmaster or postmistress and the way she runs her branch; this doesn’t indicate that there was anything wrong with the system; it was operating as intended?
Andrew Dunks: It’s a business or a user issue. It has to be – that has to be investigated first by the NBSC, because it looks like it’s a balancing issue or advice – for them to sort out or look into or offer advice and guidance.
Mr Beer: Okay, over the page, please. Then scroll down to the second call, 10.45, Seema Misra again, three minutes later:
“[Postmaster] states that showing £6,000 down from balance. Advised NBSC issue. [Postmaster] stated she was talking to the NBSC and got cut off.”
Then under “Call closure”:
“I advised [postmaster] I would put her through [postmaster] was happy with this.”
Then scroll down, and over the page, 3.40 the same day, Seema Misra calling:
“[Postmaster] stating in that her system is showing different values for certain products.”
Then this one says, “Postmaster transferred”, scroll down a little bit – again, within two minutes.
Then next call, please. Next day:
“[Postmaster] states that the last couple of weeks they have had problems with the Horizon kit and it is always showing they’re down in money.”
Over the page, “Call closed”:
“She has been advised by the NBSC, advised [postmaster] to follow this, [reference] offered.”
Then scroll down, 23 February:
“[Postmaster] states that she has losses every week in two stock units.
“Call closed … advised that the NBSC take a 2nd look as [the] stock units appear to be in a mess.”
Over the page. Keep going, please. Then Anne Chambers gets a hold of it. Just stop there.
So a postmistress repeatedly calling in to the Helpdesk, being directed to the NBSC and, on the basis of those call records, you say this is the system operating as intended, this is all routine, and this is down to the postmistress not the system. Correct?
Andrew Dunks: If it’s passed to the NBSC to be investigated, yes.
Mr Beer: Can we look at page 26, please, and this is the third entry:
“NBSC states that on the CC stock unit postmasters rolled over with a £1,500 loss. JSA stock unit postmaster has rolled over with a £200 loss. NBSC states that on 18 February postmaster declared her cash and she has a £900 loss up until Saturday and then when the postmaster declared her overnight cash on Saturday at 1.00 pm, went back to £200 loss. NBSC also states that her AA stock unit has a £6,000 loss. Postmaster has rolled this over as well.”
Then if we scroll down, please, and then scroll over and keep going:
“Anne Chambers says she has checked very carefully and can see no indication that the continuing discrepancies are due to a system problem.”
Then over the page, and just stop there. The last five lines, she says:
“This may be to do with how the discrepancies have been accounted for. I do not really understand this … I recommend that this call is passed back to NBSC Tier 2 for further investigation, since there is no evidence that the discrepancies are being caused by a system problem. If you want the above information in an email, let me know.”
So when you were providing a witness statement saying that all of the calls are of a routine nature and do not fall outside the normal working parameters of the system, were you relying on the accuracy and truth of what’s written, for example, here?
Andrew Dunks: I believe so. Well, not just the written word. I’d have probably spoken to somebody about what was going on there as I would do normally. But –
Mr Beer: Who would you have spoken to?
Andrew Dunks: I could quite easily have spoken to Anne herself. I don’t recall.
Mr Beer: All of this entry here, leading up to this point, if we go to your witness statement, please, at POL00167135. This is your witness statement of 29 January 2010. Can we look, please, at page 8 and, if we scroll down, please, and a little further – thank you – that call that we’ve just looked at is number 29. You summarise that episode by saying:
“Annetee NBSC – [postmaster] states every week that she has losses every week in two stock units.
“Resolution: 3 March …
“Call closed … [postmaster] was getting discrepancies, SSC have investigated and advised that the NBSC take a 2nd look as the office stock units appear to be in a mess.
“Outcome
“SSC … advice that call be passed back to NBSC for further investigation.”
So that entire call you’ve summarised in this way. How were you able to say that this call was of a routine nature and the contents of the call would not affect the working order of the counter?
Andrew Dunks: Through – well, again, through my investigation. I mean, the call – I would have said routine nature, there were calls where postmasters had a discrepancy of some sort and they were investigated routinely, as they would be, and resolved. So these are routine calls.
Mr Beer: Was everything that happened in the decades of you working for Fujitsu routine? Nothing ever happened out of the routine?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know but I’m basing this witness statement on my knowledge at the time that – I’d seen numbers of these type of calls and they’re dealt with routinely.
Mr Beer: But what was the outcome; what happened?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry?
Mr Beer: What was the outcome?
Andrew Dunks: The NBSC investigated so I have to believe that the NBSC had resolved the issue.
Mr Beer: How did you believe that the NBSC had resolved the issue?
Andrew Dunks: Because the call didn’t come back to Fujitsu for further investigation.
Mr Beer: What about if the NBSC were telling the postmasters, “We’ve taken it as far as we can go, it’s now your job to pay up. You owe that £6,000. It says so in your contract”?
Andrew Dunks: I know nothing about that.
Mr Beer: No.
Thank you very much, Mr Dunks. You’ve been very helpful indeed.
Sir, those are the only questions that I ask. There are some questions from Core Participants. I wonder whether we might have a ten-minute break so that they can organise themselves.
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, by all means. What time shall we resume?
Mr Beer: 3.25, I think, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Okay, fine.
(3.13 pm)
(A short break)
(3.25 pm)
Mr Beer: Good afternoon, sir, can you still see and hear us?
Sir Wyn Williams: Yes, I can, thank you.
Mr Beer: Thank you very much, sir. There are two sets of questions from Core Participants: about 15 to 20 minutes from Ms Page and about five minutes or so from Mr Stein, in that order.
Sir Wyn Williams: All right, fine.
Questioned by Ms Page
Ms Page: Mr Dunks, I ask questions on behalf of some of the subpostmasters in this Inquiry, including both Mr Castleton and Mrs Misra.
Mr Dunks, you were very loyal to Fujitsu, weren’t you?
Andrew Dunks: Loyal?
Ms Page: You’d been with the business, man and boy, yes?
Andrew Dunks: Man – for, yes, almost 30 years, now, yes.
Ms Page: You would do or say pretty much anything to protect the Fujitsu name; is that right?
Andrew Dunks: No, that’s not true.
Ms Page: Let’s have a look at FUJ00154750. This is an email chain that the Inquiry has seen before, between you and your boss, Peter Sewell, and it was before you were due to give evidence against Lee Castleton. If we scroll down to Mr Sewell’s email, thank you:
“See you in court then. Fetter Lane is where they used to hang people out to dry. I don’t suppose that type of thing happens any more though.
“That Castleton is a nasty chap and will be out to rubbish the FJ name, it’s up to you to maintain absolute strength and integrity no matter what the prosecution throw at you. WE will all be behind you, hoping you come through unscathed. Bless you.”
You were going to be loyal to Fujitsu, weren’t you, no matter what?
Andrew Dunks: Mmm, that’s not what that says, no.
Ms Page: That’s the culture; that’s the mindset, isn’t it, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: No, I read that as trying to give me support and confidence to go in because I think that was the first time I was being called to court as a witness.
Ms Page: The way that he chose to give you confidence was by describing the person whose trial it was as a “nasty chap”; do you see that?
Andrew Dunks: I do, yes.
Ms Page: He was going to be out to rubbish the Fujitsu name, and it was up to you to stop that, wasn’t it, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: No, it was up to me to be strong and deal with that with integrity.
Ms Page: Let’s look at your reply, if we go up, please.
“Thank you for those very kind and encouraging words, I had to pause halfway through reading it to wipe away a small tear …
“Bless you all.
“Andy.”
What did that mean, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: I got on very well with Pete at the time, Mr Sewell. He was trying to put me at ease, so I’m just saying thank you for that, I believe in their support.
Ms Page: Are you honestly trying to suggest that that was a genuine reply, rather than an obviously sarcastic response?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, say that again?
Ms Page: Well, are you suggesting that you really did have to pause halfway through reading that email to wipe away a small tear?
Andrew Dunks: No.
Ms Page: Is that what you’re saying, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: No.
Ms Page: No. It was sarcasm, wasn’t it, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: It was between myself and Pete – you say sarcasm, possibly. But that was – yeah, there was no real bad intention about that. It was just the type of relationship Pete and I had at the time.
Ms Page: The sort of relationship where you and your manager, in Litigation Support, joke about the fact that you’re going to give evidence against a man whose future was on the line?
Andrew Dunks: No, we weren’t joking. No. I don’t see that as that and I don’t see that we were joking about what we were doing and, as you said, some – a person’s reputation and that, were on the line. That’s not something to joke about. I don’t read it as that. I can’t remember how –
Ms Page: Banter, isn’t it, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: It could have been.
Ms Page: “They used to hang people out to dry. Oh, I don’t suppose they do that sort of thing any more.”
“Oh, I had to wipe away a small tear.”
Banter, wasn’t it?
Andrew Dunks: Possibly it was, yes. It was trying to put me at ease because I knew what – it was the first time.
Ms Page: This was copied in to Penny Thomas and Neneh Lowther?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Ms Page: This was a team email; is that fair?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Ms Page: This was the culture you all worked in, wasn’t it, deeply, deeply partisan? You were all there to make sure that the nasty postmasters did not rubbish the Fujitsu name. That’s what your team was doing, wasn’t it –
Andrew Dunks: No –
Ms Page: – as led by the man you got along with very well, Mr Sewell?
Andrew Dunks: No, that wasn’t the culture at all. I don’t know why he used those words down the bottom. I’ve got no idea but it was more, as I said, trying to put me at ease, to try and relax and tell me that they’d got my support and my backing.
Ms Page: Thank you. Let’s turn to Mrs Misra and an email that you were looking at with Mr Beer earlier on but which I’d like to ask some different questions on. FUJ00152990, please. This is the set of emails which were forwarded to you. They were originally between Anne Chambers and Gareth Jenkins, and they were forwarded to you, as we can see at the top there, by Penny Thomas.
Now, if we just look at this top right-hand corner of the page, we see page 1 of 4. As we scroll down – oh, actually, before we scroll down we can see there that it’s got Penny Thomas above the fact that it’s from her. Do you see that in – there we are, highlighted. It’s got that line, and “Penny Thomas” above it, and then “Page 1 of 4.”
As we look through the email, so as we scroll down to page 2, we see “Page 2 of 4”, and then it continues “Page 3 of 4” and “Page 4 of 4”.
Now, would you agree that that suggests that Penny Thomas printed off that email chain? That’s often the format we see, isn’t it, when people print off an email and it comes out with their name at the top?
Andrew Dunks: To be honest with you, I don’t know. If that’s the format, I’ll take your word for it. I’m not 100 per cent sure on that.
Ms Page: All right. Well, the final page that is part of this document is a short statement from you and, if we can go to that, please, page 5. So there we have “Page 4 of 4”, that’s the email and then we have this witness statement from you, and it’s really just that, it’s that one liner, and it’s dated and apparently signed, the signature has got the marker over it saying, “GRO” which means that it has been signed but it doesn’t show.
The statement really simply says:
“Further to my statement dated 29 January 2010, I can confirm that all the calls mentioned from West Byfleet Post Office to the Horizon System Helpdesk are of a routine nature.”
That’s all there is to it. We can scroll down if you’d like to be sure of that. So it looks rather like, doesn’t it, that Ms Thomas has printed out the email chain alongside your witness statement, claiming that all the calls were of a routine nature. Do you see that; do you accept that?
Andrew Dunks: That hasn’t got her name on the top of this one so is that part of the printed –
Ms Page: No, that’s – it seems to be separate because the printed email seems to be pages 1 to 4 of this whole five-page bundle of documents. So it looks as if we’ve got a four-page email chain printed out and then, alongside that, your one-page witness statement. Do you see that? Does that make sense?
Andrew Dunks: No, it doesn’t. If you’ve got pages 1 to 4, that hasn’t got a number on that witness statement.
Ms Page: So that’s right. So what I’m suggesting is it looks as if the four-page email change has been printed out –
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Ms Page: – and filed with the one-page statement from you, or rather at least they’ve been put together and then scanned and provided to the Inquiry in that way?
Andrew Dunks: Okay, yes.
Ms Page: So your statement sits alongside the four pages of email chain.
Andrew Dunks: Okay.
Ms Page: On the one hand, your statement is saying that all the calls are of a routine nature, but the heart of the email chain is the Anne Chambers email in which, by contrast, she makes it absolutely clear that the calls required some technical investigation and some cross-checking to find out what lay behind them and whether they were indeed quotes “routine”. Do you accept that?
Andrew Dunks: Can we go up –
Ms Page: It was read out to you earlier, we can go up to the email from Anne Chambers.
Andrew Dunks: Oh, yes, yes, I remember –
Ms Page: Yes?
Andrew Dunks: Mm-hm.
Ms Page: So she’s basically saying that there needs to be further investigation into these calls?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Ms Page: Yeah? That’s been filed alongside your statement saying “No, no, they’re all routine”, yeah? You’re nodding so I’m taking that as a yes for the transcript.
Andrew Dunks: Yes, sorry. Yes.
Ms Page: Now, would you accept that when you were sent this email chain, it put a burden on you to check your witness statements and make sure that what you’d said in them was correct and not misleading?
Andrew Dunks: Well, that would have been my process throughout.
Ms Page: So when you received an email from Anne Chambers saying there’s a whole number of technical things that need checking, you should have done that, shouldn’t you, given that you had already signed a witness statement that claimed that these calls were all just routine?
Andrew Dunks: Well, yes, yeah. I would have done the work, yes.
Ms Page: So you say now, do you, that you did all the work that was set out in Anne Chambers’ email here?
Andrew Dunks: I hope to think I did. I don’t remember what that involved and what I did specifically.
Ms Page: Let’s look at what she says needs to be done. She says, first of all, that “The PowerHelp/TfS calls may illuminate this”. That’s the middle of the page there. Then she says:
“I don’t know if the counter was used while these errors were occurring – it may have been. If they have any complaints specific to these times, perhaps they should be checked out???”
Are you saying that you did that?
Andrew Dunks: I’d like to think I did, yes.
Ms Page: At this time, there was no ARQ data. How would you have done it?
Andrew Dunks: Well, what do you mean at this time? No, this time I hadn’t supplied the data. I’d have had the data to carry out and to be able to make that statement, so I had the data.
Ms Page: You had the call records but you didn’t have the ARQ data. It hadn’t yet been produced. That’s actually in the first email in this chain. We can go up to it if you like.
Andrew Dunks: But this is referring to the Helpdesk.
Ms Page: Yes, but how would you have known whether counters were being used while these errors were occurring without the ARQ data?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know what the – how I’d come to that conclusion but it’s asking me to have a look and I’d like to think that I did.
Ms Page: What I’m saying to you, Mr Dunks, is that you didn’t yet have the information you needed to have a look, and yet you had produced a witness statement in which you said that all the calls were routine, and you did nothing to change that, did you?
Andrew Dunks: Because of what I had done to investigate it, there wouldn’t have been anything – if I believed that there was no more information that’s needed, and my witness statement was accurate to what I believed at the time, there wouldn’t have been needed any further changes.
Ms Page: Let’s go down to the bottom of the email:
“Error Message: Error in node retrieval for node(s) 1010 – as far as I know this hasn’t been investigated, but on the other hand no one has complained of a problem linked to it. I’ll try to check it out.”
What did you do about that?
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember what I did on that. I mean, that reads that Anne was going to try and check it out. I may have spoken to Anne, she may have spoken to me. I can’t remember what took place.
Ms Page: Well, let’s go up to the top of the email chain and remind ourselves of what took place:
“I requested the events to be checked to support your witness statement; I’ve had a chat with Gareth this morning and as no transaction data has been requested it’s pointless going further with this exercise.
“… you may like to check Anne’s comments against the calls in your witness statement.”
So all you had, Mr Dunks, was the call records, and you had nothing else. You could not check out what Mrs Chambers was saying needed to be checked out, could you? And yet you had provided a witness statement which claimed that all calls were routine.
Andrew Dunks: I can’t remember how I came to that conclusion but I would have been happy at the time. I don’t know how I came to that conclusion. The calls may – maybe – that may be in the information of the calls and when the calls were logged. I – again, I can’t remember what I would have done but I would have done something.
Ms Page: At the very least, your statement that had already been signed required a qualification, did it not, saying there are some further matters which need to be investigated when the ARQ data has been requested and supplied?
Andrew Dunks: Clarification that I still believed that that statement was true, yes.
Ms Page: You did nothing, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: What do you mean, I didn’t –
Ms Page: Well, we do not see, do we, a further witness statement in which you qualify or say anything at all about the statement that we’ve just had a look at, in which you claimed that all the calls were routine.
Andrew Dunks: If the statement didn’t need updating, because that statement was, in my opinion, still true, there was no update needed.
Ms Page: How was it still true, Mr Dunks, when Mrs Chambers had just set out all the ways in which the calls needed to be investigated, to find out whether they were routine?
Andrew Dunks: Yeah.
Ms Page: How could it still be true when those investigations had not been carried out and could not be carried out?
Andrew Dunks: Well, I’m sorry, but I would’ve done checks. I don’t know how or what the process I did –
Ms Page: No, all right –
Andrew Dunks: So if nothing needed changing and I still – that didn’t affect my opinion on the calls, I wasn’t going to change the statement.
Ms Page: No indeed. You told us that there was no relationship between the fact that the SSC were protected from giving evidence by Mik Peach and the fact that you routinely provided witness statements based on what they told you without revealing that they had told you what you were saying. You said there was no relationship between those two things earlier on, didn’t you?
Andrew Dunks: Did I? Yeah. I –
Ms Page: On the one hand, Mik Peach is over here protecting his team, saying they’re not to give any witness statements, and, on the other hand, there’s you providing witness statements which say things that the SSC have told you without revealing that the SSC have told you that; you remember, you told us there was no relationship between those two things?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Ms Page: We can see the relationship in action here, can’t we, Mr Dunks? Let’s go back to Mrs Chambers’ email, and that first paragraph:
“Gareth, sending just to you initially.
“I know you have even more on your plate than I do, but my involvement has always been unofficial and on the basis that I had time to do it.”
Then at the very ending, she says:
“[If I am to do anything] it will have to be officially agreed with my manager – you can instigate that, if you like, but I don’t think I can keep volunteering.”
That was apparently accepted by you and your team member, Penny Thomas. You didn’t press her, did you, to give an official witness statement. You didn’t press her. You allowed her to just keep volunteering in this unofficial way, didn’t you?
Andrew Dunks: Well, volunteering, yes. The same as I would speak to anybody within the SSC or anybody who was supplying me with information for me to do my role.
Ms Page: In effect, you were covering for Mrs Chambers, weren’t you?
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, no. Covering for her? Covering for what?
Ms Page: Covering with the fact that she did not want to give evidence, she did not want to stand up and defend Horizon in court but you were perfectly happy to?
Andrew Dunks: I wouldn’t say that was covering. I was happy with the role that I was tasked to and asked to do.
Ms Page: Neither you nor Ms Thomas thought to say to him – Mr Peach that is, “Actually, you know what, Mrs Chambers would be better placed to look into these technical matters that she says need to be investigated. Mrs Chambers ought to look into them and she ought to provide a witness statement”. You didn’t say that, did you?
Andrew Dunks: No, I didn’t. No.
Ms Page: You were covering for SSC because they were not prepared to stand up and defend Horizon in court, weren’t you?
Andrew Dunks: No. That’s not how it worked, I’m sorry. It wasn’t.
Ms Page: Just some further questions on a different topic, Mr Dunks. You remember in the Bates litigation, when the boilerplate wording in your statement was put to you, you originally claimed that you were not following the Fujitsu “party line”. Do you remember that –
Andrew Dunks: Yes, I do.
Ms Page: – that questioning? Later you did admit, of course, that there was a template that you all used with the boilerplates in it and that was something that you only admitted when the statement from Mr Jenkins which was identical to yours was put to you, yes; do you remember that?
Andrew Dunks: What’s the word – did you say boilerplates?
Ms Page: Yes, that’s a word that’s often used when speaking of legal wording that’s been put into cover off all eventualities; standard wording, if you like.
Andrew Dunks: Is it? I’ve never heard of it before.
Ms Page: Well, it was put to you in the Bates litigation but never mind. We don’t need to worry about that. You finally admitted that there was a Fujitsu party line, didn’t you?
Andrew Dunks: I’ve finally admitted – yes, I’ve gone over that and I misinterpreted what he meant by a party line. I had an understanding of what I thought he meant by a party line.
Ms Page: Yes. Well, now, of course, you are clinging to the fact that there was a party line because what you’re really saying is, “It’s not my fault that the party line was misleading. It’s not my fault I took the party line. I was just following orders. That’s what I was told to put in witness statements and that’s what I did”. Yes?
Andrew Dunks: That’s my understanding when I first answered that question, when I said no because that wasn’t the case.
Ms Page: I see. So you’re now saying, are you, that your process driven witness statements which were misleading were entirely your own work?
Andrew Dunks: No, what I was saying was, when he first asked me the question I was following the party line, I understood that to be that – what you just said: that we were to all told to stick by a story and follow the party line, and don’t waiver from it, and we’ve been told what say. That’s what I, in my understanding at the time, was answering and the answer was no. Later on in the questioning, he mentioned or stated that, following the party line was the use of templates. So I agreed, well, if that was his understanding, yes, I agree with them: we did use templates.
I wasn’t trying to cover or hide anything. I just was answering the question how I understood it.
Ms Page: Well, you haven’t been prepared to reveal who drafted those templates, who was in charge of what was used from those templates, how it came about that you used this bit or that bit and so did Mr Jenkins.
Andrew Dunks: Sorry, I don’t understand that.
Ms Page: Well, you haven’t revealed anything to do with how those templates were actually used and who was in charge of them, have you?
Andrew Dunks: How they were used? They were used by – what do you mean how they were used? They were used by us.
Ms Page: Who drafted them?
Andrew Dunks: Someone within Fujitsu.
Ms Page: Someone. Well, let’s look at some of the standard paragraphs and just identify this: when Mr Jenkins was recently asked about the standard paragraphs from the templates and Mr Beer asked him about this paragraph, which you will no doubt recognise:
“There is no reason to believe that the information in this statement is inaccurate, because of the improper use of the computer. To the best of my knowledge and belief at all material times the computer was operating properly or, if not, any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the information held on it.”
Now, you know that wording, don’t you? You use it yourself or have used it many times?
Andrew Dunks: Yes.
Ms Page: But you’ve also used that exact same wording replacing the words “the computer” with “the system”. That also is something you have said in many, many witness statements.
Andrew Dunks: Okay.
Ms Page: What was the difference between “the computer” and “the system”?
Andrew Dunks: I’m not sure there – what the difference was. It was still trying to convey the same opinion.
Ms Page: What is that opinion, then, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: What the statement says. I don’t remember why those two words were changed, or –
Ms Page: Who instigated that change?
Andrew Dunks: Pardon?
Ms Page: Who instigated that change?
Andrew Dunks: I’ve no recollection of who instigated that change. I can’t remember.
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, did you?
Ms Page: I’m so sorry?
Sir Wyn Williams: I said: did you, Mr Dunks? In other words did you quite deliberately, on some occasions, use the words “the computer” and on other times “the system”, or was there a different template which you used from time to time?
Andrew Dunks: No, I don’t believe there was a different template. I don’t remember why –
Sir Wyn Williams: If there wasn’t a different template, you personally must have decided to substitute “the system” for “the computer” on occasions; so I think what Ms Page wants to know is why you did that?
Andrew Dunks: That may have been on the request of the – someone within the Post Office or one of their lawyers. I don’t – every time there was a change within a witness statement, it was spoken about and discussed, and then agreed on the wording. So there were many changes. The witness statement evolved through the years, and changes. How that was changed and the process, and when things were changed and things taken out, I can’t remember that process and who instigated what changes.
Sir Wyn Williams: So you have no recollection of any kind as to any conversation between you and anyone which resulted in the phrase “the computer” being changed to the phrase “the system”; is that your evidence?
Andrew Dunks: No, no. Even now, I would regard that meaning the same – trying to convey the same thing. I don’t know why those two words were changed.
Sir Wyn Williams: So there’s your answer, Ms Page. The computer and the system are the same thing.
Ms Page: Well, I wonder if I might just ask a little more on that, just by putting to you what Mr Jenkins said he thought “the computer” meant.
He said that he thought “the computer” meant the computer that he was typing his witness statement on. That his desktop computer that he was typing it on was working properly. Does that make any sense to you, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t know how or why – how he came to that conclusion, I don’t know. No.
Ms Page: Do you know how or why it was that he came to have that wording at all?
Andrew Dunks: In what – sorry, in what –
Ms Page: How would he have come to have the template wording that your team used?
Andrew Dunks: Because – actually, I’m not sure I ever saw any of Gareth’s witness statements. I’m assuming that they were being – used the same sort of templates to start off with, the witness statement templates.
Ms Page: Was that dealt with at a level above you, Mr Dunks? Was someone in charge of the template and how it was used?
Andrew Dunks: If someone had – if you’re saying someone had – if some had more authority to me, and about those things, yeah, I believe so, yes.
Ms Page: Who? (Pause)
Is your loyalty getting in the way here, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: My loyalty?
Ms Page: Is that why you’re being so cagey about who was in charge of the standard wording in the witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: No, because I don’t know who wrote the witness statement. I don’t know who drafted the original witness statement.
Ms Page: You don’t know who changed the wording –
Andrew Dunks: Um –
Ms Page: – from one thing to another?
Andrew Dunks: Well, that would have been – I mean, someone like – through discussions within the Post Office. I mean, I know that the wording at times of the ARQ witness statements were changed, because – and that would have been – I’d have been involved – I say involved, sorry – I’d have been informed by someone like Penny because she ran – she was managing the litigation so we were told that if there were any changes, we were then being told to use the new format.
Ms Page: Who chose the templates for you, Mr Dunks?
Andrew Dunks: Who chose the templates? We were told which templates to use.
Ms Page: By who?
Andrew Dunks: Management or the – yeah, management. Either our line manager or the Litigation Support Manager.
Ms Page: Going back to your loyalty, Mr Dunks, was it your loyalty that led you not to reveal the existence or the content of the Known Error Logs in your witness statements?
Andrew Dunks: No, not at all, no, because I – every witness statement that I supplied, I was aware that, if needed – and which we did on many occasion – supplied all the call data to be seen and – so they could see within, if they investigated or looked at – anybody who looked at that would see that there were KELs and they would have been able to request or – that information as well. At no time was I hiding anything because I knew that information was available.
Ms Page: Did anyone ever tell you not to refer to the KELs? Did anyone ever tell you that it would be better not to make sure anyone knew what “KEL” stood for?
Andrew Dunks: Not at all. I was never told – I honestly believed that I – I was never told, “Don’t put this in, you mustn’t say that”, and that’s going back to you – people implying that we were following a party line. I was never under pressure to put in something that I didn’t want to put in.
Ms Page: Thank you, sir. Those are my questions.
Sir Wyn Williams: Thank you, Ms Page.
Mr Stein?
Questioned by Mr Stein
Mr Stein: Mr Dunks, I’ve got two areas to ask you questions about. I ask questions on behalf of a firm called Howe+Co, who have instructed me on behalf of a large number of subpostmasters. One of our clients with an eye for detail wants to see if you can help regarding the development of Horizon Online and its operating system. Okay?
So this goes back to around what, 2010, and the evidence that the Inquiry has is that whilst that was under development, that the new operating system – or, sorry, the new Horizon Online system – was using Microsoft NT 4.0 operating system, and the reason why was that it was regarded as being too expensive to upgrade to a more current technology. So our question is this: can you help us with when Horizon Online was updated to a newer version of an operating system?
Andrew Dunks: No, I can’t remember the dates when we moved from one to another. No, I don’t. I can’t recall.
Mr Stein: Was it ever updated?
Andrew Dunks: Well, Horizon was updated to Horizon Online, yes.
Mr Stein: Yes, but the operating system, being Microsoft NT 4.0, did it move on from that point?
Andrew Dunks: Oh, right. Do you know, I can’t remember. I can’t remember. I believe it was changed when the new counters were run out for HNG-X, I think, but I can’t be certain. I wasn’t involved in the rollouts or updates and things like that.
Mr Stein: All right. If you’re right about it being changed around the time of the new counters, roughly when would that be? So if we refer back to 2010, into the new Horizon Online system –
Andrew Dunks: No, I’m sorry. The dates of all the updates I don’t recall, sorry.
Mr Stein: The second point is this: we know that the Post Office is hoping to move on from the Horizon system by April 2025, and moving on from, therefore, and away from the Horizon system. We’re told by press releases from the Post Office that the new system is going to be called “New Branch IT”. Now, you still work for Fujitsu. You work within the Customer Service Post Office Account Security team. Can you help us with how that’s going? Is the suggestion to move on from the Horizon system and finish, therefore, the contractual relationship with Fujitsu going to make it by April ‘25?
Andrew Dunks: I’m sorry, you’re asking the wrong person. I have no idea of that level of information.
Mr Stein: None at all? You’ve not been given any updates to say that the Post Office Account is going to finish at any time this year or it’s coming to an end and there may therefore be a change in your workplace?
Andrew Dunks: I don’t recall that I’ve seen that because – all I know is that the dates for the end of the contract have moved from the original date and has been pushed back. I don’t know –
Mr Stein: It keeps on moving and more money keeps on being paid. We’re just trying to work out when the Horizon system is coming to an end.
Andrew Dunks: As I said, you’re asking the wrong person. I can’t answer that. I’ve got no idea.
Mr Stein: All right. Thank you, Mr Dunks.
Sir Wyn Williams: Is that it, Mr Beer?
Mr Beer: Yes, it is. Thank you, sir.
Sir Wyn Williams: Well, thank you, Mr Dunks, for making a second witness statement and for giving evidence during the course of the day. I’m grateful to you for doing that.
So I understand, Mr Beer, that we’re going to start a little later tomorrow, at 10.05, with Mr McCall; is that correct?
Mr Beer: That’s right, sir, to allow the fire alarm to occur, in particular.
Sir Wyn Williams: Fine. All right, then. 10.05 tomorrow.
Mr Beer: Thank you, sir.
(4.04 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 10.05 am the following day)