ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Tuesday, 11 June 2024
(9.45 am)
MR BEER: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear us? Good
morning, sir, can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you very much.
MR BEER: Thank you. May I call Anthony de Garr Robinson
KC, please.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, of course.
ANTHONY JOHN DE GARR ROBINSON KC (sworn)
Questioned by MR BEER
MR BEER: Good morning, Mr de Garr Robinson.
A. Good morning.
Q. My name is Jason Beer and I ask questions on behalf of
the Inquiry. Can you tell us your full name, please?
A. Anthony John de Garr Robinson.
Q. Thank you for attending the Inquiry today to give
evidence. You've previously provided us with two
witness statements, the first of which is a very
detailed and long witness statement. Can we start,
please, by looking at that.
A. Yes.
Q. It will come up on the screen, and you should have
a hard copy in front of you. It is 63 pages long and
dated 14 May 2024.
A. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Your practice focuses on and, at the time that we're
talking about, focused on commercial work, commercial
Chancery work, banking and finance, company and civil
fraud work; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You acted, relevantly to this Inquiry, for the Post
Office in the group litigation brought against it by
subpostmasters concerning both their contractual
relationship with the Post Office and then subsequently
the operation of the Horizon system?
A. Yes.
Q. In the counsel team, I think Owain Draper was one of
your juniors -- is that right -—~
That's correct.
-- alongside, subsequently, Simon Henderson later in the
proceedings --
That's correct.
oP
-- and then Rebecca Keating later still?
Yes.
prop,
So far as you are concemed, was that the full
complement of the counsel team for your part of the
case?
A. For my part of the case, yes. There was another junior
called Gideon Cohen, who acted in relation to the common
3
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prpro
11 June 2024
If we go to page 63, please.
I've done that.
Is that your signature?
That is.
Thank you. Then yesterday you made a second witness
statement which is four pages long, which corrects
a number of passages in the first witness statement.
That's WITN10500200.
Yes.
If you turn to the fourth page of that, is that your
signature?
Yes, it is.
Are the contents of that second witness statement true
to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Yes.
Bearing in mind the corrections that you make in the
second witness statement to the first witness statement,
are the contents of the first witness statement true to
the best of your knowledge and belief?
Subject to those corrections, yes.
Thank you very much.
Can we start, please, with your background. I think
you were called to the Bar in 1987; is that right?
Correct.
You took silk in 2006; is that right?
2
issues, in -- but he was acting at a time which, to the
best of my recollection, was a time when I wasn't
heavily involved.
Thank you. I should make it clear at the outset of my
questioning of you that the authoritative, factual and
legal position in relation to the issues addressed by
them is established, for the Inquiry's purposes, by
Mr Justice Fraser's Common Issues judgment, that's his
judgment number 3, dated 15 March 2019; by his Horizon
Issues judgment, that’s judgment number 6, dated
16 December 2019; and, insofar as it's relevant, by the
Court of Appeal's decisions refusing permission to
appeal against the recusal judgment, dated 10 May 2019
and against the Common Issues judgment dated 16 November
2019. So I'm not going to ask you about the substance
of the issues addressed by those judgments.
I understand.
Can I turn to your first instruction, then, please. You
tell us, if we turn up, please, in your first witness
statement, at paragraph 10, which is on page 3 -- it
will come up on the screen -- if we scroll down to
paragraph 10, you deal with your first instruction and
you say:
"My first involvement in this case occurred in May
2018."
(1) Pages 1-4
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
prpreroe
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Then about four lines in you say:
"On 18 May 2018, my clerks forwarded me copies ..."
Then you talk about a meeting in paragraph 11 taking
place on 20 May 2018. I think that should be 2016,
shouldn't it?
I'm so sorry, I couldn't tell you now, sitting here now.
I thought the 20th. If I've made a mistake on the date,
then it's a mistake on the date. I couldn't -- I'd need
a document to remind me. Maybe it was a typo.
Yes, it's the year, I think, for all of those?
Oh, I see.
I think it's 2016 for all --
Yes, 2016, you're quite right.
-- three of those years?
Oh, yes.
So we should additionally correct those three years to
2016, rather than 2018?
Yes, I'm so sorry.
No, that's all right. In any event, as to the
substance, you say:
"My first involvement in this case occurred in May
[2016]. As I recall, I was told that the Post Office
was having a series of meetings with several counsel
with a view to instructing one of them to act in
a dispute in which it was involved. I was to be one of
5
access'). [The Post Office] now knew that this was
possible, and the question was how to manage this
problem. I said that [the Post Office] should be open
about it, and not try to hide anything."
Now, you refer there to what happened in this beauty
parade and one of the big issues, you say, was remote
access.
Yes.
Did that remain one of the most significant issues in
the case?
I don't mean to cavil, it would depend upon -- it
remained a significant issue, certainly, but whether it
could be called the most significant issue, I'm not so
sure. I'm not trying to be difficult with words. It
certainly remained a significant issue and the
embarrassment was that Post Office had said things
suggesting that it couldn't happen when, in fact, it
turned out it could, and that was a significant -- very
significant issue throughout.
I think that happened successively, didn't it, ie the
Post Office kept saying things that it then corrected?
Yes. It was very frustrating at times.
Yes. Can we look, please, at a document to orientate us
at this time. POL00103200. We will see that this is
an email from Jane MacLeod to Paula Vennells of 23 May
7
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
the counsel [with] whom [Post Office] would be meeting.”
So is that kind of a beauty parade, essentially, for
barristers to be selected by the client?
Exactly.
You continued:
"On 18 May 2016, my clerks forwarded me copies of
a Letter of Claim written by the [subpostmasters']
solicitors (‘Freeths'), a copy of a claim form and
a briefing note containing a high level summary of the
dispute prepared for the purpose of these meetings."
That's so you can be asked some questions about the
substance in the course of the beauty parade; is that
right?
Yes.
Thank you:
"The meeting with me took place on 20 May 2018.
I do not remember much about the meeting but I think
that Jane MacLeod, [the Post Office's] General Counsel,
was present. I also recall a discussion about a point
which involved some real concern for [the Post Office].
This was the fact that, on the basis of information
provided by Fujitsu, [the Post Office] had on several
occasions formally confirmed that it was not possible
for anyone to use Horizon to alter branch transaction
data remotely (something which became known as ‘remote
6
2016, so a few days after the beauty parade. You're not
copied in on it, it's not something you would have seen
at the time but it says something about you, which is.
why I want to ask you about it.
Right.
If we go down to the third paragraph, Ms MacLeod says:
"We have instructed Bond Dickinson to act as our
solicitors on the basis that they have advised us
throughout on Sparrow and have a very deep understanding
of the history, the individual cases and the political
sensitivity of Sparrow. They are a highly ranked firm
with the depth of resource and experience to represent
Post Office in this litigation. In addition we have
retained leading commercial barrister Tony Robinson QC
who has extensive experience with group litigation and a
wide background in civil litigation", and then there's
a link to your webpage at One Essex Court:
"Tony will be key to developing and implementing the
litigation strategy and when we interviewed him on
Friday he had already grasped the political significance
of the case."
Then it goes on to explain why Linklaters aren't
being used and Bond Dickinson are.
The sentence that "on Friday" showed that you had
already grasped the political significance of the case,
8
(2) Pages 5-8
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
firstly, is that right? Had you, at this early stage,
grasped the political significance of the case?
I am not entirely clear what's meant by “political
significance". I'd certainly grasped the point that
you've already averted to, namely there was a sense of
embarrassment and concern about the fact that statements
had been made regarding remote access. I find it
difficult to think that there would have been other
issues that I also would have grasped, whether they were
to be regard as political, though, is something that
isn't really for me to say. I'm not trying to be
difficult, I just am not entirely clear what Jane
MacLeod meant by “political”.
Taking it out of Jane MacLeod's mouth, would you, at
this early stage, have regarded the case as involving
any political issues?
I'm trying to think back. No, I would have --
I regarded this as a piece of commercial litigation,
a dispute between two groups of people. So I would have
regarded the issues more as litigation issues rather
than political issues. But, of course, in any
litigation, your client may have concerns about things
which have a wider ramification for them.
Would you have -- again, taking the words out of Jane
MacLeod's mouth -- thought that the case held political
9
that.
So the fact that the Post Office discharged functions of
a public nature and might, for some purposes, be
regarded as a public authority, didn't affect any of the
decision making?
In relation to the matters on which I was instructed,
the claims that were made were claims of a private
nature. There was a claim, as I recall, for misfeasance
in public office. You would have to take me back to the
Letter of Claim to remind me but -- certainly in
relation to the common issues. In relation to the
conduct of the litigation thereafter, as you've already
reminded me, there was a Common Issues trial and then
there was a Horizon Issues trial. Those trials were the
primary focus of much of my attention during the
relevant period and those -- the issues raised by those
trials were, as I recall, private law issues.
They didn't -- the fact that the Post Office
conducted public functions didn't -- I don't recall them
impinging on any particular issue. If I'm wrong about
that then I'm happy to be reminded but I don't recall.
Mr de Garr Robinson, I wasn't thinking particularly in
your approach to the narrow legal issues involved. It
might be said by some that, when acting for
an organisation which is a public authority or
1
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
significance?
Well, to me, the word "political" suggests government
issues, issues for politicians. If that's the meaning
of the term, I don't recall that -- I mean, I was aware
that Post Office was owned by the Government, it was
a Government company and, therefore, any embarrassment
for Post Office would, I suppose, have potentially
involved embarrassment for the Government as well but
I don't remember thinking along those lines at the time.
I'm trying to reconstruct, rather than giving you
a recollection of anything specific.
Yes. Did the fact that the company was Government owned
affect any of your decision making subsequently in the
litigation?
No.
Did you, as you've suggested already, approach all other
issues as if this was an ordinary piece of commercial
litigation?
I think so. I mean, I brought to the case the skillset
that I had and my skillset is one of advising on and
conducting substantial commercial litigation. I cannot
recall an occasion in which I tailored any of the advice
I gave or altered any judgement I made about the conduct
of the case because Post Office was owned by the
Government. I can't think of an occasion when I did
10
a quasi-public authority, whether or not dealing with
issues that involve its status as a public authority or
not, a different approach to litigation may be called
for?
I don't believe that I did apply a different approach
because Post Office undertook functions that you've
described as public. I'm not clear which functions
you're referring to which might have led me to have
taken a different view.
So, for you, this was an ordinary piece of commercial
litigation?
Yes.
Thank you. If we scroll down to 2, please:
"The [Post Office] Legal team ... and myself will
work with [Bond Dickinson]. As set out in the [General
Executive] Board paper, and as discussed and approved at
the [General Executive] meeting on 13 May, Tom Moran
will be the internal ‘client’ for these purposes and his
role will be to ensure that the overall strategy of the
litigation protects [the Post Office], its network and
attractiveness to future agents/postmasters. Both in
this and in the management of the litigation, he will be
supported by a Steering Group which will compromise
representatives from across the business. At [General
Executive] we discussed the following as proposed
12
(3) Pages 9 - 12
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
members: Tom Wechsler (representing you) [that's
representing the CEO, Paul Vennells], Angela van den
Bogerd, Mark Davies, Patrick Bourke, a representative
from Finance ([to be confirmed]), as well as Rod,
myself, representatives from [Bond Dickinson] and when
necessary, Tony Robinson [KC]. Key/strategic decisions
will be discussed at [the General Executive]."
Did you sit on the steering group that's referred to
here?
No.
Did you attend the steering group as necessary, as is
referred to here?
I attended on occasions and I have dealt with those
occasions in my witness statement. I don't recall any
other occasions in which I attended and, as you'll see
from my witness statement, there were very few.
That was when you were called in, essentially, rather
than you saying, "I need to be on the steering group on
this occasion to contribute"?
Absolutely.
Thank you. Can we look at the next substantive event
that occurred which is right at the beginning of June
2016. POL00140216. If we look at the bottom half of
the page, please, we can see an email of 1 June 2016,
from you to Andrew Parsons. Was he your main point of
13
the postmaster's failure to do all the reconciliations
he or she was required to do when required to do them,
or perhaps because the helpline told the postmaster to
accept an incorrect balance -- it is not now possible to
tell whether the loss is real? If so, does that raise
a question as to the proprietary of our basic approach
to recovering losses from postmasters and summarily
terminating their contracts? If not, why not?"
Then if we scroll down, please. If we go to the
bottom of the page, question 2:
"When did we become aware of the possibility of
remotely altering branch data on Horizon, and why did we
not become aware of it long ago? Is it the fact that we
consistently claimed the opposite our fault, or
Fujitsu's? Does it mean that the expert evidence that
we have previously relied on from Fujitsu was
wrong/misleading? And have we already embarked on an
exercise to determine whether this makes any or all of
the previous convictions unsafe, as we did with the
previous exercise with the previous revelation about the
Fujitsu bugs? If not, why not?”
Question 3, further down:
“I understand that, for 42/60 days, postmasters had
the ability on Horizon to check each and every
transaction done from his or her branch in order to
15
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
contact at Bond Dickinson?
Yes.
You say:
"The second box of files you sent to my chambers has
just arrived ... I'm still hard at work reading the two
files you sent last week -- it is much slower going than
I expected.
"I already have lots of questions and will have more
by the time my reading is all done."
You talk at the bottom paragraph on that page about
bringing a junior in, yes?
Yes.
Then, if we go over the page, please. You say:
"PS. In the meantime, I have a few questions ..."
I ought to have said that Mr Parsons replies to this
email and his writing is in the red.
In any event, let's look at the questions you had.
So this is 1 June. You were instructed no earlier than
20 May. So you're eight/ten days into your period of
instruction here, then you have these questions. I just
want to look at the questions that you asked:
"1. Is it possible that there are cases where human
errors at branches cause Horizon to record losses which
do not really exist but for which [subpostmasters] are
then held liable (eg because -- perhaps as a result of
explain discrepancies. But what about discrepancies
appearing after that period, eg as a result of late
transaction corrections? On what basis do we claim that
postmasters had the data they needed to explain those
discrepancies, even though they could no longer do line
by line transaction checks?"
Question 4:
"Why did we refuse to mediate some cases the Working
Group recommended for mediation? Would I be right in
inferring that in the working group we were in the
minority of one and everyone else tended to take the
Second Sight view of things?”
Question 5, over the page:
"I'm biased, but it does seem to me that Second
Sight's final report is one sided. How high can
we/should we/do we dare go in our criticisms of Second
Sight? This may depend on the extent to which the
conclusions in its final report [are] dependent on
fundamental errors that are demonstrably -- what is your
view about that? And what are those errors, exactly?
"6. In their final report, Second Sight claim that
we stopped them completing their investigation, partly
by not providing documents and info they wanted and
partly because we cut their work short by requiring
their report by 10/04/15. Did we know we were doing
16
(4) Pages 13 - 16
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
pero
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
that but carried on regardless? If so, why?"
Now, you pose there number of very direct questions
to Andrew Parsons --
Yes.
-- that had become evident to you within a week or so of
reading in?
Yes.
The questions that you posed, do you agree, were
important, if not fundamental, to the merits of the Post
Office's defence in the litigation?
I'd need to -- I'd say the first - may I just look at
that? What page number is this?
You want to look in hard copy, do you?
Yes.
It's the first file, and it's tab B2.
Thank you. That's kind, thank you.
So the first question is a question about paper
losses that were not real.
Yes.
I agreed that that was important in relation to the
litigation. The second --
Sorry, if we're just going to do it one by one, just go
back. If you look at the answer that you've got, would
you agree that it's a relatively cursory response by
Mr Parsons?
17
previously relied on from Fujitsu was wrong or
misleading, and you wanted to know whether there was
an equivalent exercise, looking at the safety of past
convictions.
That's fair, yes. Thank you for the -- for drawing my
attention to that. And then 3 --
Again, the answer, relatively cursory, isn't it?
All of these answers were relatively cursory, I would
say.
Yes.
Then 3, that was an important question. There was
an answer to it, which was, as I understand it now, it's
probably what Andy Parsons says in his answer, that
where late transaction corrections were suggested by
Post Office, there would have been evidence attached to
the suggestion and, if the postmaster wasn't happy, then
he would -- could phone the helpline and get further --
and speak to the relevant individual. Then -- but it --
3 was a significant issue.
And then 4, why did -- decisions made about
mediation, I wouldn't say that was an important issue
for the litigation.
Yes.
5, whether Second Sight's report was one sided or not.
I wouldn't say that was an important issue for the
19
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
prop
11 June 2024
I would agree but my -- it was a very early -- to be
fair to him, it was a very early stage in my
instructions and I was still reading in. I suspect --
I mean, I don't know, but I suspect I wasn't expecting
some massive answer and detailed answer at that stage.
So the first issue, yes I agree.
The second issue: when did Post Office become aware
of the possibility of remote access? That was --
I wouldn't say that was a critical issue in the
litigation; it went to the question of -- possibly the
question of limitation because there was an issue about
deliberate concealment but it wasn't one of the primary
issues. It was an issue but I wouldn't say it went to
the heart of anything.
3-3 was --
Just before you go back to 3, just look at 2.
Yes.
The second part of the question, you'd spotted that
there had been an exercise to determine whether what
Second Sight had discovered about the two bugs --
Oh, yes. Oh, you're right.
-- had led to a review of past convictions --
Yes.
-- and you had spotted that the remote access point
might mean that the expert evidence that had been
18
litigation.
And 6, whether Second Sight was stopped from
completing all their work. I wouldn't say that was
an important issue for the litigation, certainly insofar
as my -- insofar as it -- the litigation that had been
conducted by the end of the Horizon trial.
Thank you. These answers which you've accepted, given
the circumstances, were relatively cursory. You didn't
probe these in more depth at this stage because you were
reading in?
I think that's probably right but I'd be reconstructing,
rather than directly recollecting.
If we just go back to the top of page 3, you had asked
whether the client had embarked on an exercise on
whether the remote access issue made any or all of the
previous convictions unsafe, as had previously been done
in relation to the revelation of the Fujitsu bugs. Just
look at the answer that you were given. Thank you.
It's those five paragraphs in red at the top of the page
there.
Mr Parsons doesn't answer your question directly,
does he, as to whether there had been an exercise
conducted looking at the safety of the previous
convictions in the light of the fact that the Fujitsu
evidence may have been false?
20
(5) Pages 17 - 20
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
No. I see that.
At this stage, I don't suppose you remember whether he
contacted you by any other means to speak about what I'm
going to call the Gareth Jenkins issue, at this early
stage, to give an answer to the very direct question
that you'd asked?
I have no recollection of discussing Gareth Jenkins at
any time during this very early period. I would be
surprised if I did but I have no direct recollection, so
it probably would be wrong for me to speculate.
Thank you. That can come down and you can put the file
away for the moment.
Thank you.
By the time you were instructed in the High Court
proceedings, I think you knew that the CCRC was also
engaged in consideration of possible appeals to the
Court of Appeal Criminal Division?
That must be right, yes.
Did you personally give any advice concerning the
retention of documents obtained or generated in the
litigation for the purpose of possible disclosure to the
CCRC?
No, I'm -- I've never been involved in any criminal
proceedings in my life. I'm a civil lawyer. My
expertise and my experience is only in relation to civil
24
the Post Office --
I don't think so no.
- ie there are concurrent criminal proceedings, or
possibly concurrent criminal proceedings, appeals to the
Court of Appeal, although the documents we create or in
some cases obtain in the civil proceedings may be
protected by privilege in the course of the civil
proceedings, the information in them may, in fact, be
disclosable in the criminal proceedings?
That's not something I thought about.
Were you aware of anyone giving advice of the substance
or to the effect that I have just set out?
Not that I recall, no.
Thank you. I think, generally, your experience of the
process of disclosure given by the Post Office in the
Group Litigation was that, in terms of its quality, it
was extremely poor and, professionally, for you, it was
rather maddening; would that be fair?
That would be a fair summary of my witness statement,
yes.
And, therefore, a fair summary of the facts?
Yes.
If we just look at your witness statement, then, please,
can we start at page 48, please, and paragraph 133. You
say:
23
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
litigation. I was aware that Post Office had instructed
criminal lawyers, including a criminal silk, Brian
Altman, as you say. I would have left questions of that
sort entirely to that side of things. It was entirely
outside my -- the scope of my expertise.
Were you conscious of the fact that documents obtained
or generated in the course of the civil litigation might
fall to be disclosed in criminal proceedings?
I can't remember thinking that thought. I'm not saying
I didn't but I just don't remember that being something
I considered.
Were you aware of any other person in the civil counsel
team giving advice about the retention of documents
generated in the civil -- or obtained in the civil
litigation for disclosure to the CCRC?
Not that I recall, no.
Were you aware of the civil solicitors giving such
advice?
As I say, I simply -- it wasn't my role to be concerned
with such things and I wasn't -- that would not have
been something I would have been told about. Sorry,
that's a very conditional way of expressing myself.
I think the answer to your question is no.
Were you aware of the fact of any such advice being
given by any of the criminal barristers instructed by
22
"The story of [the Post Office's] disclosure of KELs
[Known Error Logs], is summarised [in Mr Justice Fraser]
judgment. It is an extraordinary story."
Then, if we go to page 50, paragraph 142, you say
that, after the trial, it became necessary to give
disclosure of, amongst other things, some 5,000 KELs
that were discovered. That's described by Mr Justice
Fraser in those paragraphs of his judgment:
"It is another extraordinary story."
Then paragraph 147, on page 51, you're dealing here
with PEAKs. You say you:
"... do not recall much about the PEAKs that were
disclosed late. There were many occasions when
additional Fujitsu documents were found after the
relevant documents should have been disclosed. To say
that these problems were frustrating would be
an understatement, but this was not something that was
within counsel's control."
Then same page, paragraph 149, you say:
“Paragraph 617 [of the judgment] indicates that,
soon after these PEAKs [the ones you were discussing
earlier] were disclosed, it was revealed that one of
them was dated 21 August 2019. It was thus clear that,
on instructions, I had unintentionally misled the court.
As will be clear from the rest of this statement, this
24
(6) Pages 21 - 24
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
was not the first occasion on which such a thing
happened, and nor was it the last. It is a horrifying
experience [ie unintentionally making a misleading
statement to the court]."
Then, lastly, paragraph 155 on page 52:
"During the trial, a question arose as to [the Post
Office's] failure to disclose some Royal Mail audit
reports that the claimants wanted. On instructions,
l informed the court that the Royal Mail had refused to
produce these reports to [the Post Office] for onward
disclosure. I then discovered that the Royal Mail had
not even been asked to provide them. When I discovered
this, I made haste to correct the position and to
apologise. Not surprisingly, [the Post Office] was
ordered to provide a witness statement explaining how
this had come about."
I'm not going to go to each of these disclosure
issues and explore the facts underlying each issue but
instead deal with the matters generally.
Would I be right in thinking that the whole process
of representing the Post Office, in terms of the
disclosure exercise, was a very uncomfortable experience
for you?
Towards the end, when the errors became apparent, if
I can call them errors, yes, it was ~ very much so. In
25
For some of them, it was fairly obvious, PEAKs
discovered late, and so on. That would have been --
I feel sure that that would have been as a result of
Post Office, or rather WBD, discovering that Fujitsu had
had categories of documents that weren't previously
known about.
Did your enquiries, did your tentacles, stretch down
into finding out, for example, whether the Post Office
had asked Fujitsu for those documents and, if so, when,
and in what terms they'd asked and, if so, what the
reply was and in what terms?
I don't recall making -- I don't recall conducting
investigations into what had -- I didn't conceive it to
be my job to conduct detailed investigations into what
had gone wrong, I would have been told that new PEAKs
had been produced by Fujitsu and that they therefore
needed to be disclosed quickly. My apprehension would
have been -- I think I would have been told that it was
a result of Fujitsu not performing the disclosures, the
searching exercise, the collection exercise, properly
not being aware of pockets of documents in various parts
of its system and I would have taken that at face value.
I wouldn't have -- I wouldn't then have probed for
further information.
In relation to some of these issues, I appreciate
27
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
11 June 2024
the early stages, at CMCs, and so on, when the parties
were seeking to agree orders for disclosure and the
court then made orders, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't have
been frustrated or found that difficult then. But it's
later on --
Because you didn't know the true position then?
Yes.
When you subsequently found out what you were told was
the true position -- and it happened, I think, on more
than one occasion, indeed, on a repeated basis -- it
must leave you not trusting your clients or your
solicitors?
I wouldn't -- the -- there are two categories -- I'm
going to give you a long, complicated answer. I'm sorry
not to be clear. I know it would be easier for you to
have a clean one.
There's a question of trusting my client and then
there's a question of trusting my instructing
solicitors. In relation to trusting -- in relation to
trust, a significant portion of these problems were
problems caused by difficulties at Fujitsu. I'm using
a deliberately portmanteau term because I really don't
understand what those difficulties were.
Just stopping there, who told you that the
responsibility rested with Fujitsu?
26
there are lots of different examples, not all of them of
the same nature but, in relation to some of these
problems, witness statements would have been produced by
Andy Parsons. I think the court would have -- did
require on occasion some witness statements, where
explanations would have been given. I'm sure I would
have asked questions and I'm sure I would have been
anxious to know what I wouldn't have sought, for
example, to test what I'd been told in relation to
contemporaneous documents.
So, in your witness statement, you, in a number of
places, blame Fujitsu for the disclosure issue. That's
based on what you were told by your solicitor or your
client?
Yes.
Thank you. It wasn't your function to test that, to see
whether what you were being told was itself true,
ie that this disclosure issue arose as a result of
a fault by Fujitsu?
I'm sure I would have wanted -- every time it occurred
I would have wanted to know what occurred but I wouldn't
have conceived it to be my function to challenge and
insist on evidence supporting what my instructions were
on that point.
Thank you. Can we just look briefly at the KEL issue,
28
(7) Pages 25 - 28
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POPS
pPoPro
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
the Known Error Log issue, and do so by reference to
your witness statement. Can we turn up, please, page 48
and, in particular, between paragraphs 134 and 137, you
deal with the KEL story, which you say is extraordinary.
You tell us that your:
"... original instructions were that the KEL
database ... was irrelevant and not within [Post
Office's] control. Its irrelevance was asserted more
than once in [Womble Bond Dickinson's] correspondence
with Freeths. And in the Generic Defence and
Counterclaim, we [that's you and Owain Draper] pleaded
both that it was irrelevant and that it was not in [Post
Office's] control."
Those were your instructions, you note that
Mr Parsons made a witness statement for that CMC which
maintained the points and that that reflected your
understanding at the time.
Then 135, taking your facts from the judgment, you
say that:
"_. at the CMC, [you] suggested that the parties’
experts be permitted to inspect the Known Error Log so
that they could determine whether it was relevant.
[You] do not [remember] making that suggestion but [you]
do remember the outcome: the experts determined that the
Known Error Log was definitely relevant", and you say
29
words, "We need to establish clearly the control point".
Let's look at that email.
Oh, right.
WBON0000505.
Is that in the core documents or the additional
documents --
The additional documents at tab E35.
E35.
But it's on the screen.
Oh, right.
It's your email to Mr Parsons of 14 September 2017. If
we just scroll down a little bit so we get the full
email on the page. Thank you. You say in the second
paragraph:
"I'm a little concerned that we may be being into
their hands by invoking the [Civil Procedure Rules part
31.14] application for inspection of the [Known Error
Log]. Unless we play our cards right, this could give
them the chance to portray us as unnecessarily (and
therefore suspiciously) defensive, obstructive and
possibly even evasive about the KEL.
"Could you send over [a letter, please] -- if their
summary of it is fair (which I doubt) I would like to
understand why we seem to have claimed that the Known
Error Log is not a document, when it plainly is, and why
31
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
that you were "very surprised" when you learnt about
this.
Then you say:
"My previous instructions would have been based on
what Fujitsu had told [the Post Office]. It was hard to
understand how Fujitsu came to give such a misleading
account on such a fundamental point."
Were you privy to the discussions between the Post
Office, Womble Bond Dickinson and Fujitsu about the
irrelevance of the KEL database and the fact that it was
not within Post Office's control.
No. The first point would have been something that
would necessarily, I think, have been discussed between
WBD, POL and Fujitsu. The second point was a point that
would have been dependent upon the contract that existed
between Post Office and Fujitsu. The -- I would have
expected WBD to look at that contract in order to
confirm that it wasn't in Post Office's control. In
other words, that it didn't have the right to inspect or
take copies and I believe -- I may be going too fast,
faster than you want me to -- but I believe that I was
provided with some documents quite recently which
included an email in which I said something like, at the
time, earlier on in the story, "We need to be very clear
that this isn't in Post Office's control", in other
30
we don't seem to have mentioned that it is not in our
control, which seems ... to be a critical point."
Then the third paragraph, which is the one you
mentioned a moment ago, Mr de Garr Robinson:
"On the question of control, we need to be
absolutely clear that we have no right to inspect or
take copies of the [Known Error Log], either under the
Fujitsu contract or under the law of agency ... and that
there is no practice under which we are habitually or
usually allowed to inspect documents of this sort if we
want to see them."
Why was it that you had previously thought that
Known Error Logs were not in the Post Office's control?
I would have been in -- that would have been my
instruction. It would not have been something I would
have thought up for myself.
No and that would have come from Womble Bond Dickinson,
would it?
Yes.
This is you saying, "Well, hold on, we actually need to
look at the contract to work out whether that's true or
not"?
Yes.
The point about the KEL not being a document, do you
know who raised that?
32
(8) Pages 29 - 32
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
I don't
exchange. It refers to a letter from Freeths of
1 September --
Yes.
-- which, on my reading, as I read this email, I appear
to have read it as suggesting that WBD's letter, earlier
letter, had claimed that the Known Error Log was not
a document, and I'm expressing doubt that we can
possibly have said that because --
Because that would be absurd.
I haven’ I'm -- I don't recall this
Yes, because it was plainly wrong. But I don't know
whether that was said in -- what I'm asking in that
email is "Did we really say that?”
Did you get the impression that the Post Office was
straining not to disclose the Known Error Log?
I don't -- I can't -- I don't have a specific
recollection of this exchange, this email. So if I were
to answer that, I'd be reconstructing on the basis of
inferences drawn from this document, which you're
probably in as good a position as I am to make but I --
Just taking a step back, Mr de Garr Robinson, the
document contents aren't relevant, "It's not a document,
it's not within our control”, all three things seem to
have been asserted and all three things are wrong.
Well, I'm doubting that one of those things was asserted
33
work on another case, you do something else, you work on
three or four other cases and then you come back to the
first case and you deal with the next problem that's
arisen or the next hearing, and so on.
And so what can sometimes happen is that you --
you're dealing with the issue that you're facing at the
moment without remembering precisely what you'd been
told and how the matter had come up on previous
occasions. Certainly in relation to the discovery that
the Known Error Log was highly relevant, that would,
I would have -- I imagine I would have -- I remember
being surprised. I forget what your question is, but
I would have been concerned also that such a fundamental
point could have been so wrong.
That would -- I imagine -- I'm afraid I'm
reconstructing -- but I imagine that the focus of my
concern would have been Fujitsu, rather than Post
Office.
In relation to control, control didn't really come
up again until after the trial and so, during 2018,
which is I think the period you're asking me about,
I don't think I'd have considered control further.
Thank you. That document can come down.
Can we turn to the Swift Review and its
recommendations, please, and we're now going back to
35
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11 June 2024
and I don't know whether it was or not. The other two
things, at the time, I didn't know that they -- well,
they were wrong. My instructions --
I'm not suggesting that you did for -~
No, but you're asking about my mental state at the time.
My mental state at the time was that I believed my
instructions so I wouldn't have -- I don't think I would
have inferred from my instructions that there was any
particular attitude on my client's part.
What about as events moved on into 2018 and 2019, when
you actually got to look at some of the Known Error Logs
yourself in the course of the litigation? Did you ever
think, "Goodness me, how could we assert that these
aren't relevant"?
The answer to that question may surprise you somewhat,
but that would have been two years later. The -- this
is an email exchange -- oh, no, I'm wrong. It's in
2017, not 2016. The --
Were you essentially going to say the caravan had moved
on?
I think what I was going to say was it's a funny thing
but, when you're involved in large and complex
litigation, the litigation tends to operate in phases.
You -- you're very intent upon one particular point or
a series of points at one time and then you go away and
34
mid-2016 --
Right.
-- by looking at POL00242402. Thank you. Turn to
page 4, please. There's a long email from Mr Parsons to
you and others of 8 June 2016, so relatively early in
your instruction, so a couple of weeks into your
instruction. Mr Parsons, the partner at Womble Bond
Dickinson, says:
"Tony, I met with the [Post Office] litigation
steering group yet. Their approach to the [Jonathan
Swift Queen's Counsel] recommendations has shifted
slightly.
"Tim Parker, [the Post Office's] Chairman, feels
that he has made a commitment to Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(Minister at [the Department of Business, Innovation and
Skills]) to follow through on the [Swift]
recommendations unless he is presented with a persuasive
case not to do so.
"[The Post Office] are therefore looking to us (and
quite frankly you with your magic QC seal!) to give them
some reasons for why Tim completing the [Swift]
recommendations would be ill advised.
“Just to recap, the recommendations we are talking
about are:
"4. Investigation into remote access/meddling with
36
(9) Pages 33 - 36
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Horizon data (initially it was proposed that this was
done by Deloitte).
"2. Investigating the suspense account (again to be
done by Deloitte).
"3. Reviewing the prosecutions where theft and
false accounting were charged to confirm that there was
sufficient evidence to support the theft charge (Brian
Altman's review).
"My view is that these recommendations plainly
overlap with issues in the litigation. I can
immediately see three reasons why Tim should not
‘conduct' the above investigations:
"1. We, the litigation team, will need to
investigate these points (in some form) in any event.
We will probably need to do this on a different
timetable to Tim (we having a degree of time pressure;
Tim under less time pressure). We will also probably
require a more robust investigation given that these
points could be tested in court. Two parallel reviews
would be wasteful and could cause unknown complications
should they reach contradictory results.
"2. If these investigations are conducted by Tim
there is a greater risk that this work is not privileged
(the investigations not being conducted for the purposes
of litigation but for some other purpose). It would be
37
Chairman of the company and he had made a series of
recommendations and three of them are highlighted here,
yes?
Yes.
Those recommendations had been made, I think you will
have known, in part to ensure the correction of any
potential miscarriages of justice?
Yes.
The Chairman of the company, Tim Parker, wanted to do
those things?
Apparently, yes.
But POL, whoever that is, wanted the lawyers to come up
with reasons for not doing them --
Yes, so it would seem.
-- saying that they would be ill advised?
Yes.
Who did you understand "POL" to be? The Chairman of the
company wanted to do things that a leading silk had
recommended were relevant to discovering potential
miscarriages of justice but the Post Office did not want
to?
I don't recall this email exchange, so I'm afraid
I can't answer that question from my recollection and
I'm afraid nor can I reconstruct an answer from what
I know now. I have no idea why there'd be two POLs, as
39
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
11 June 2024
much safer for these investigations to be conducted as
part of the litigation.
"3. Even if the risk in 2 above could be guarded
against (eg by classing it as part of the [Swift]
ongoing advice to [Tim Parker] -- questionable??7),
I cannot see how [Tim Parker] could disclose the results
of these investigations to [the Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills] without a risk of waiving
privilege (particularly where there is a possibility
that [Baroness Neville-Rolfe] may then speak to James
Arbuthnot or the [Post Office]/BIS could be subject to
a Freedom of Information request).
"If we can give [Post Office] a piece of advice that
says that [Parker] should shop any further work,
[Parker] would then feel empowered to say to BIS that,
on the basis of legal advice, he is ceasing his review.
I'm conscious this feels somewhat unpleasant in that we
are being asked to provide political cover for [Tim
Parker]. However, putting aside the political
background, shutting down [Tim Parker's] review is, in
my view, still the right thing to do."
Just stopping there, and we will come to your reply
in a moment, the situation is that a silk, a leading
public law silk at the time, Jonathan Swift, had
conducted a rather exhaustive review on behalf of the
38
it were, a Tim Parker POL and a different POL. I have
no idea what that's about.
But, anyway, some part of the company didn't want to do,
you were told in this email, what the Chairman wanted to
do, which was to enact some -- carry into effect some
legal advice, the purpose of which was to discover any
potential miscarriages of justice?
So it would seem, yes.
The second reason that Mr Parsons gave -- and he's in
favour of the idea, reading this email, yes --
So it would seem, yes.
- ie Tim Parker needs to stop his work, yes?
Yes.
The second reason is given: if Tim Parker does this
work, there's a greater risk. It isn't privileged:
"It would be much safer for these investigations to
be conducted as part of the litigation", he says.
Did you understand who it would be safer for?
I don't recall this email but I imagine I would have
understood it to mean safer for the party who had the
right to privilege, namely Post Office.
Hmm. That implies, doesn't it, it necessarily means
that, if the results of the investigation are negative
to the Post Office interests, it's safe because they
will be protected from privilege and we needn't reveal
40
(10) Pages 37 - 40
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
them?
That's what privilege means. That's always the position
with privilege. Privilege is quite a fundamental
principle that protects the interests of parties in
civil litigation and that is the effect of it, yes.
But this contemplates it being safe because it may be
that the results of these three pieces of work are
negative. They will harm the Post Office's interests
and, therefore, it's safe if they're protected by
privilege because we won't have to tell anyone about
them?
Yes, although I'm not sure that's true of the criminal
work. I mean, if -- I'm not a criminal expert but, if
a view had been taken as to the third piece of advice
that Andy Parsons refers to, there may have been
an obligation to disclose regardless of privilege.
That's why I asked those earlier questions about the
extent to which you knew what was being done by any
criminal lawyers, or criminal solicitors, for example
when an issue like this came up, whether you were
applying your narrow civil litigator’s focus to the
question?
Yes, and I was.
Let's just look at this email first to see what you make
of it. Would you agree that this approach proposed by
41
Yes, I suppose that's probably right, yes.
Can we look at your reply, please, by going to the foot
of page 2. Thank you. So same day, 8 June, replying to
Mr Parsons and you pick up what he said in his last
paragraph, which, just to remind us, had been "It feels
somewhat unpleasant that we are being asked to provide
political cover for Tim Parker". You say:
“I'm not here to provide political cover, but I am
concerned that the client should protect its interests
as a defendant to this substantial piece of litigation."
So, again, that's a shorthand way of saying, "I'm
looking at this through the narrow perspective of
a commercial litigator and what's in the interests of
this defendant in this litigation"?
Yes, it's also -- as I say, I don't remember this email
exchange but I know my style, and for me to say I'm not
here to provide political cover, I would have written
that -- usually I try to be diplomatic and I would have
written that I think because I wanted to make it clear
I'm not interested in your --
Yes, it's a bit terse, isn't it?
Your political -- your shenanigans. I'm not interested
in that at all. What I am concerned about is the
client's interests as a defendant to a substantial piece
of civil litigation.
43
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
>
11 June 2024
Mr Parsons is classically advice given by a civil
litigator, "I'm looking at this with my civil
litigator's hat on, I have a narrow perspective of
what's best for the Post Office in the litigation"?
Absolutely.
That, of course, is not the only perspective, is it, for
a company such as this?
Absolutely and, to the extent there are other
perspectives, then other advice needs to be taken.
Well, was it made clear, to your recollection, that,
when the civil lawyers advised, they expressly raised
the fact, "We're looking at this with a specific hat on,
we've got a narrow perspective, what's good for the Post
Office in the litigation but you, Chairman, should look
much more broadly than this. What might be safer for
us, isn't really safe for the people whose lives are
affected by potential miscarriages of justice"?
I'm afraid I have no idea. I don't recall this exchange
at all and -- but I wouldn't have been aware of what was
then said directly to Post Office or wasn't. I just
wouldn't have known.
Would you agree that it's an obvious point that what's
good for the Post Office in the litigation is not
necessarily good for the Post Office or indeed thousands
of subpostmasters, or the public, out in the real world?
42
The context in which that sentence arose was Mr Parsons
saying, "This feels somewhat unpleasant in that we are
being asked to provide political cover for Tim Parker,
the Chairman".
Yes, and I'm saying I'm not interested in that --
No.
-- don't even in -- don't drag me into it. I'm
interpolating but, you know, don't do that.
"Don't use me, don't deploy me for that purpose"?
Yes.
The question, or the way it was put by Mr Parsons, would
you agree, suggests that it wasn't Tim Parker, on the
one hand, wanting to go ahead with the Swift
recommendations and this other part of Post Office not
wanting to go ahead with them, providing political cover
for Tim Parker makes it sound as if he doesn't want to
go ahead with them and that the lawyers were being
brought in to provide support, doesn't it?
It's quite possible but it's just interpreting an email,
that you're in as good a position as I am to do.
I don't have a recollection.
You carry on:
"As you know from our discussion yesterday, the
consideration which seems to me to be overriding is
privilege point [number 2]. Your point numbered 3
44
(11) Pages 41 - 44
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
involves some murky questions to which I don't have
an immediate answer (remember all those difficult cases
in Three Rivers regarding the Bank of England's inquiry
to the BCCI scandal?) ..."
That's about claiming legal advice privilege as
an adjunct to the Tim Parker review:
"... but I strongly suspect that the factual
investigations we are talking about would not be the
subject of any legal advice privilege and so would not
be privileged in his hands in any event. But is that
something we even need to consider -- even if they were
privileged, what would be the point of undertaking dual
investigations into the same things anyway?
“All of this assumes that we will be carrying out
the recommended investigations. But what [if] we don't
[I think that should have an ‘if in it]? Yesterday,
you suggested that the litigation team may be instructed
not to do a full investigation of the remote access or
suspense account points because the cost is
disproportionate in the context of the claims being
brought. If so, where would this leave [Tim Parker] --
back at square one? Putting the point another way, if
our advice is that he should not do the investigations
he was advised to do because this is something the
litigators should do, and if it is then decided that the
45
umbrella just to cover off a political issue (or at
least that is my view ...).
"The critical point is preserving privilege and the
risk of [Tim Parker] doing further potentially
unprivileged work. This alone strikes me as a good
enough reason to shut [Tim Parker] down."
In your view, was the critical point the
preservation of privilege or would you accept that
that's perhaps turning the world upside down, putting
privilege as the central point?
From my perspective, the -- as the barrister acting in
a civil claim, my concern was to preserve privilege in
relation to that claim.
In the course of this discussion, we don't see any
reference to the fact that this leading public law silk
had recommended doing three things that have the focus
of uncovering potential miscarriages of justice. The
Chairman needs to consider whether that's the right
thing. Is that because, again, you were looking at this
with the narrow civil litigator's hat on?
Yes.
Hence, the critical point for the pair of you is just
about maintaining privilege in civil litigation?
Yes, so far as I can tell from this email exchange, yes.
Yes. Did you agree with the sentiment that the
47
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prep
11 June 2024
litigators will not do the investigation he was advised
to do, would he then have to do them himself, or
instruct us to do them, after all."
Just summarising that, because it's quite dense, you
were saying, "Well, hold on, I've had some other
information that we may not be doing two of these three
things in the litigation anyway. So all of this debate
about whether we should do them in the litigation or
whether Tim Parker should cause them to be done outside
the litigation may be irrelevant, because I've been told
that we're not going to get on with two of them anyway";
is that a fair way of describing it?
That we might not ~
Yes.
-- get on to them anyway? Yes.
Can we go on to how Mr Parsons responded, which is
bottom of page 2, top of page 3. If we get the bottom
of page 2, so we can see. Response, same day:
"Tony
"We can only say we might cover the [Swift]
recommendations through the litigation process but this
will depend on how the litigation process goes. [The
Post Office] will just have to accept that risk -- the
work is either required for the litigation or it is not.
We can't artificially squeeze work under the litigation
46
preservation of privilege alone is a good enough reason
to shut the Chairman down?
I wouldn't have put it that way, I don't think. I would
have considered that, given my focus as a barrister
acting in a civil claim, it was important to retain
the -- a litigant's right to privilege.
Can we look at how you reply to this, then, please, by
scrolling up to the bottom of page 2. You say:
"Quite right. What I meant to do with my second
paragraph was raise the question of whether the present
context -- including Swift advising [Parker] that these
investigations be undertaken, [Parker] naturally doing
what he's been advised to do etc -- might mean that the
client is less deterred by cost and difficulties
associated with these investigations than it might
otherwise have been. If so, I would welcome it. From
a pure litigation perspective, these investigations are
highly desirable -- the less evidence we have to rebut
the suggestion that remote data tampering at
our/Fujitsu's end could be responsible for inflicting
any false losses on any claimants, the more awkward our
position is on this difficult point (a point which
provides a basis of allegations of deceit, for arguments
that claims are not time-barred because of deliberate
concealment and for arguments that monthly accounts
48
(12) Pages 45 - 48
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
signed by subpostmasters should not be given significant
evidential weight)."
So, essentially, you were saying there in this email
you want the investigations to be undertaken somehow,
because you want to know the true answer?
Yes, and I'm saying, in that context, the Swift
recommendations are a good thing because they increase
the incentive of Post Office to do them, even though
they would cost money.
You were saying you didn't want Mr Parker's
investigations to be stopped on the grounds that they
will be undertaken for the purposes of litigation and
then that doesn't happen?
Yes.
Mr Parsons, however, was, would you agree, rather
straightforwardly suggesting that the legal proceedings
should provide cover for not taking the course
recommended by the Swift Review?
I think -- I'd need to look back but I think he was in
his first email to me, I think -- my recollection is
that in his second email, the one responding to my
reply, he adopted a slightly different tone. But I'm --
but I don't have it in front of me, so I can't --
That's the top of page 3. Scroll down. Thank you.
That's the one you're referring to?
49
money to pay for the investigations so long as they see
the value in doing so. We could tackle these three
lines of enquiries as follows:
"1. Investigation into remote access/meddling with
Horizon data (Bond Dickinson do this rather than
Deloitte as it's mainly making factual enquiries of
[Fujitsu] -- this will save some money as [Bond
Dickinson] is cheaper than Deloitte).
"2. Investigating suspense account (get this done
by Deloitte as this is a proper accounting issue).
"3. Reviewing the prosecutions where theft and
false accounting were charged to confirm that there was
sufficient evidence to support the theft charge. There
are 9 claimants in the litigation that fit this profile.
We get [Brian Altman] to review these 9 cases (one is
done already -- Jo Hamilton). [The Post Office] have
confirmed me already they are happy to pay for this
work.
"This approach strikes me as proportionate but also
should give us a high degree of assurance on these
points. This is however subject to us keeping the work
under review -- if the litigation changes, the approach
might change.
"The above work largely duplicates what [Tim Parker]
would have been doing. Add in the privilege risk and
51
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
11 June 2024
Yes. I mean, he says the critical point is preserving
privilege and the risk of Parker doing further
potentially unprivileged work --
And the next sentence too.
Well, I suppose, yes, I see what you mean. The first
sentence I completely -- I would have agreed with. The
second sentence, "This alone strikes me as a good enough
reason to shut TP down", that does sounding a bit
political I suppose, yes, which I wasn't -- from this
email, it's clear I wasn't interested in.
I mean, given the significance of the recommendations
and their object being potentially to uncover
miscarriages of justice, shouldn't they have been
carried out, in any event, as quickly and as
transparently as possible?
That would be a matter -- I'm sorry to look as if I'm
trying to kind of deflect any kind of blame but that
would be a matter for criminal lawyers, not something
that was within my -- within the scope of my
instruction.
If we carry on in the exchange, go to the foot of
page 2 -- sorry, the foot of page 1. Thank you.
Mr Parsons's reply to you, if we scroll down on to
page 2:
"I think that [the Post Office] will stump up the
50
there are good grounds to shut down [Tim Parker's
review] and just do the ... work under the litigation
umbrella."
I think you agreed, in the event, that, from the
narrow civil litigation perspective, this was the
appropriate way forwards?
Yes, the work should be done but it should be done with
the protection of litigation privilege.
Can we look, please, at the bottom of page 1. Your
reply.
"Very good.
"Fingers crossed we get useful evidence from Fujitsu
‘on balancing transactions from Horizon inception and
Fujitsu's (non-)use of its privileged access rights to
manipulate branch data from Horizon inception.
"Might we be instructing Deloitte as our expert
witness in due course? If so, this could affect the way
we instruct them and how closely we work with them."
This exchange happened all on 8 June 2016, right up
until the time we can see there, just after 5.00. We
know that there was a conference between you and
Mr Parsons on 9 June 2016, the next day.
Yes.
We don't have an attendance note of that conference.
I don't suppose you remember whether a final position
52
(13) Pages 49 - 52
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Po
PppoPrpopr
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
was reached at that conference?
I have no recollection of what was said at that
conference. I have no recollection of this email
exchange. In some of my answers I may not have -- I may
have talked as if I did but I had no recollection. I'm
just working on the basis of the documents I see here.
Can we look, please, at what Mr Parsons says about this.
He's going to give evidence to us later in the week.
WITN10390100.
Okay.
Then it's page 238. He says:
"I do not recall the specifics of the discussed
instruction about the implementation of the Swift Review
at the conference on 9 June..."
Then if we go to 420.
Can I just read the rest of 419, please?
Yes, sure.
I don't mean to be difficult, I just ...
Yes.
Oh, I see that he refers to a document in which
I apparently say, “do all the Swift actions now and
thoroughly”.
Yes.
I'm sorry. 420, yes, carry on.
"My email records show that I had a more detailed
53
this email exchange were substantially the same as mine.
He agreed that he was ‘concerned that the client should
protect its interests as a defendant to this substantial
piece of litigation’, in relation to which he thought
the ‘overriding [consideration was] the privilege
point’."
I think that's correct, is it?
I think so too.
"At the same time, he strongly agreed with the approach
‘of subsuming the investigations recommended by Jonathan
Swift into the Group Litigation workstreams: ‘From
a pure litigation perspective, [he's quoting] these
investigations are highly desirable”, et cetera.
Were you doing that by the quote that is set out
there, "strongly agreeing with the approach of subsuming
the investigations into the Group Litigation work
streams"?
I think that would be one way of describing -- I was
saying that, for the purposes of the litigation, it
would be highly desirable to do all this work. I may
not be grappling with your question or understanding
your --
It's a tiny point. The extract that he's cited there is
you saying the desirability of conducting the
investigations full stop; they need to be done, these
55
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
>
11 June 2024
exchange ...”
So that's the next day, after 7 June?
Oh, yes.
. with Tony Robinson ... prior to our conference the
following day. During that exchange I made the
following points."
Then, after 420, and then point 1, and then over the
page, point 2, point 3 -- scroll down, scroll down, keep
going -- point 4, point 5, point 6, point 7.
I've not seen this document before.
No, I understand. In those subpoints, Mr Parsons
summarises the email exchange that we have just looked
at.
Right.
I. am not going to read it out or ask you to read it,
because we've actually read the chain ourselves,
a moment ago, and I'm not going to look at how
Mr Parsons compartmentalises it, uses quotes to make
a point, use extracts to make a point and adds
commentary as he goes along --
Yes.
-- because that's not going to assist us, we've looked
at the exchange itself. But can we go forward, please,
to paragraph 421 on page 241, thank you. He says:
"The views [that you] expressed in the course of
54
investigations. Not, by this is extract, saying they
need to be done in the litigation?
I'm saying, from a pure litigation perspective, these
investigations are highly desirable.
Yes.
I'm really -- I'm afraid I'm -- I'm probably not
listening carefully enough to your question. You're
making a subtle distinction which I haven't quite
grasped.
Yes, if we go back to the email exchange.
I'm so sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult.
No, that's all right. If we go back to the email
exchange, POL00242402, bottom of page 2. This is the
email, your email, in which that quotation appears. You
can see it from halfway through, yes?
Yes.
By this email, you were saying, weren't you, that it's
important that the investigations are carried out, and
it's important to the outcome of the civil litigation
that they are carried out.
Yes, I'm saying it's highly desirable for the purposes
of the civil litigation that they be carried out.
le that we find out the true answers?
Yes.
You were saying this in the context of having been told
56
(14) Pages 53 - 56
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
2
>
POPS
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
"We might not do these things"?
Yes, I'm responding by saying I think we should. I'm
interpreting an email I don't remember but that's how
I would summarise my understanding of these documents.
You weren't saying by this email, "It's important that
we do them within the litigation", ie protected by
privilege?
Oh, I see what you mean. You mean artificially doing
them --
Yeah?
- even though the litigation doesn't require them?
Yes.
No, I wasn't -- I don't believe I was saying that.
That's not how I read what I say there.
Thank you. Then just lastly on this topic can we look,
please, at POL00243170. If we look, please, at page 2.,
at the foot, please. This is an email exchange not
concerning you. It's 11 July, Jane MacLeod to Rodric
Williams, Patrick Bourke and Mark Underwood, and she
says:
“Here is my starter for 10..."
Then if we look at the third, fourth and fifth
bullet points:
"As set out in my letter ... Jonathan Swift
identified areas where he believed further work could be
57
MacLeod to take forwards the Swift recommendations to
the Chairman should come to an immediate end?
You may be seeking to make a subtle distinction again.
I think it's a fair summary that I took the view that,
for the purposes of the civil litigation, the relevant
work should be undertaken and that -- but it should be
undertaken for the purposes of the civil litigation.
I wasn't concerned with the distinction you made in your
previous question about -- which I now find difficult to
replicate or summarise. I hope that's a clear answer.
Yes.
I'm not trying to be evasive.
Can we go, lastly on this topic, to POLO0006601. This
is a letter from Mr Parsons to Post Office, of 21 June
2016. This is, I think, the best record we have got of
what happened at the conference on 9 June. He says in
the second paragraph:
“In late 2015, Tim Parker ... began a review to
consider whether any further action [should] be taken by
Post Office to address the claims raised by postmasters
in relation to [Horizon]. Jonathan Swift was engaged by
Post Office to inform the Chairman on the review. His
mandate was to conduct an independent investigation on
the work which had been done already ... and to provide
advice as to whether there were any further steps that
59
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
beneficial and [the Post Office] commissioned further
work to explore those. Some of these areas are
necessarily complex and are dependent on third parties
(such as Deloitte and Brian Altman) to deliver. While
progress had not been as fast as I had hoped, good
progress was being made in all areas.
"However, in April [the Post Office] was notified
that proceedings had been commenced against it in the
High Court on behalf of [about] 92 postmasters ... While
the proceedings have not been formally served on [Post
Office], the legal advisers for both sides are in
discussion to better understand the nature of the
issues. At this stage there is still no information
available [to us] as to quantum ...
"[Post Office] has briefed lawyers and external
counsel [including you] to advise on the claims."
Then this:
"[The Post Office] has received very strong advice
from its external legal advisers that the work being
undertaken under the aegis of my review should come to
an immediate end, and instead these issues should now be
addressed through equivalent work taken forward under
the scope of the litigation."
Is that an accurate summary of the advice that you
had given, that the work being undertaken by Jane
58
might reasonably be taken by Post Office.
"In February 2016, Mr Swift provided his advice and
made eight recommendations for further work that could
be undertaken. We understand that Post Office is
considering those recommendations: some have been
implemented already; others are under way but not yet
complete.
“In April 2016, the ... claim was issued by
91 postmasters ... The subject matter of the Group
Action overlaps with the scope of [Parker's] review and
the subject matter of the recommendations made by
Mr Swift.
“In May 2016, Post Office instructed [you] to advise
‘on the Group Action. As part of his instructions,
Mr Robinson reviewed the advice and recommendations put
forward by Mr Swift."
Just stopping there, is that right: that you
reviewed Jonathan Swift QC's advice and his
recommendations?
I am -- in the light of the emails that I've seen, I'm
sure I would have done.
"At a conference [this is the conference on 9 June]
attended by Post Office's Legal Team ... Mr Robinson was
asked to advise on, amongst other matters, whether
Mr Parker should continue his review and/or implement
60
(15) Pages 57 - 60
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Mr Swift's recommendations."
The top of the next page.
"Mr Robinson's ‘very strong advice’ was that
Mr Parker's review should cease immediately."
Does that accurately record the advice you gave?
I don't recall 9 June. As I understand what I was
saying on the 8th, in the email exchange, I was saying
that this work should be done but it should be carried
‘on under the protection of litigation privilege.
"Given the overlap of issues between Mr Parker's review
and the Group Action, [you] advised that it would still
be prudent ... to implement [4, 5, 6 and 8 of the]
recommendations of Mr Swift to the extent that these
were required to advance Post Office's case in the Group
Action and as appropriately adapted to meet the needs of
the litigation."
Is that right; is that what you advised?
I don't recall the meeting, I'm terribly sorry. I just
don't recall. AllI can go on is the email exchange of
8 June and --
This records that, of the eight recommendations, you
advised that only four of them should be taken forwards,
and that they should be taken forwards in the context
of, or within the aegis of, the Group Litigation?
Yes, I see that said. As I say in my witness statement,
61
I suppose you could say that. I wish I could remember
what was said on 9 June. As I say, I find it difficult
to -- on the basis of what I understand from the emails
that I've seen --
Doesn't really match this, does it?
-- I find it difficult to understand how I would have
ended up saying those things.
Within a day?
Yes.
This is a different presentation than the exchange of
views in your email exchange of the 8 June, isn't it?
I -- it seems to me that what I'm saying in those
emails, the 8 June emails, are rather -- a bit
different, rather different, from what's being said in
this email, and I'm not sure --
It's a letter, sorry.
-- in this letter, and I'm not sure why. I mean, I make
some suggestions in my witness statements as to why that
might be. It may be that this isn't a full account of
what I said. It may be that the other four had been
done already. I just don't know.
The letter concludes:
"This work should however be instructed and overseen
exclusively by Post Office's Legal Team (or by others
instructed by Post Office's Legal Team) so as to
63
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
11 June 2024
I don't quite understand it. I mean, the other four, to
the extent that they hadn't been done already, I don't
understand why I would say, in order to retain
litigation privilege, don't do this work, because the
litigation doesn't need it. I don't understand what my
thinking -- what thinking would have resulted in my
saying that.
So I'm -- I find it difficult to understand -- to
reconcile what's said here with my understanding of the
8 June email.
Q. Then, even in relation to these four, it's put to the
Post Office that you advised that they should be taken
forward "to the extent they were required to advance the
Post Office's case".
A. Yeah, as --
That puts a spin on it, doesn't it?
A. Possibly but, as I say, I can't remember what was in
the -- what was said in this meeting, but I -- I do know
what Jane MacLeod said in the email you took me to
previously, which has a different implication.
Q. Then another caveat or rider that, even those four, to
the advance they are required advance the Post Office
case, should be done as appropriately adapted to meet
the needs of the litigation. There's quite a lot of
watering down going on here, isn't there?
62
2
maximise the prospect of assert interesting privilege
over this work and protect against the risk that
material related to these actions could be disclosed to
the claimants in the Group Action, undermining the Post
Office's prospects of success and/or negotiating
position."
I think that is consistent with the email exchange,
isn't it?
A. Yes, that's consistent with the principle of litigation
privilege.
Q. Thank you.
Sir, that's the end of that topic, I wonder whether
we might break until 11.30, please.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, of course.
MR BEER: Thank you, sir.
(11.18 am)
(A short break)
(11.30 am)
MR BEER: Good morning, sir, can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you.
MRBEER: Thank you very much.
Mr de Garr Robinson can we turn to a separate topic
please. It's the Simon Clarke Advice and the reasons
for not calling Gareth Jenkins in the Group Litigation.
Can we start, please, with the Simon Clarke Advice, by
64
(16) Pages 61 - 64
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
looking at it. POL00006357. You'll see that it's
headed that it is an "Advice on the Use of Expert
Evidence Relating to the Integrity of the Fujitsu
Services Limited Horizon System”. If we go to page 14,
please, and the foot of the page, we will see that it
was written by Simon Clarke, a barrister, senior counsel
at Cartwright King Solicitors and is dated 15 July 2013.
We're going to discover in a moment that you were
provided with copy of this advice in 2018.
If we go back to paragraph 1, please. By way of
introduction, he says that he's:
"... Asked to advise Post Office on the use of
expert evidence in support of prosecutions of allegedly
criminal conduct committed by those involved in the
delivery of Post Office services to the public through
sub post office branches. By and large these
allegations relate to misconduct said to have been
committed by [subpostmasters] and/or their clerks."
Then if we can go forward, please, to page 13,
please, at paragraph 37, and I am cutting straight to
his conclusions rather than to the build-up to them:
“What does all this mean? In short, it means that
I'm going to add in the correct description of the
person to whom reference is being made:
65
evidence. Rather, we should seek a different,
independent expert to fulfil that role.
“Notwithstanding that the failure is that of [Gareth
Jenkins] and, arguably, of Fujitsu being his employer,
this failure has a profound effect upon [the Post
Office] and [its] prosecutions, not least because by
reason of [Gareth Jenkins’] failure, material which
should have been disclosed to defendants was not
disclosed, thereby placing [the Post Office] in breach
of their duty as a prosecutor.
"By reason of that failure to disclose, there are
a number of now convicted defendants to whom the
existence of bugs should have been disclosed but was
not. Those defendants remain entitled to have
disclosure of that material notwithstanding their now
convicted status (I have already advised on the need to
conduct a review of all [Post Office] prosecutions so as
to identify those who ought to have had the material
disclosed to them. That review is presently under way).
"Further, there are also a number of current cases
where there has been no disclosure where there ought to
have been. Here we must disclose the existence of the
bugs to those defendants where the test for disclosure
is met
In an appropriate case the Court of Appeal will
67
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
"it means that [Gareth Jenkins] has not complied
with his duties to the court, the prosecution or the
defence. It is pertinent to recall the test under which
a prosecution expert labours: '... an expert witness
possessed of material which casts doubt upon his opinion
is under a duty to disclose the fact to the solicitor
instructing him, who in turn has a duty to disclose that
material to the defence. The duty extends to anything
which might arguably assist the defence. Moreover, it
is a positive duty’.
"The reasons as to why [Gareth Jenkins] failed to
comply with this duty are beyond the scope of this
review. The effects of that failure however must be
considered. I advise the following to be the position:
"(Gareth Jenkins] failed to disclose material known
to him but which undermines his expert opinion. This
failure is in plain breach of his duty as an expert
witness.
“Accordingly [Gareth Jenkins'] credibility as
an expert witness is fatally undermined; he should not
be asked to provide expert evidence in any current or
future prosecution.
"Similarly, in those current and ongoing cases where
[Gareth Jenkins] has provided an expert witness
statement, he should not be called upon to give that
66
consider whether or not any conviction is unsafe. In
doing so they may well inquire into the reasons for
[Gareth Jenkins’ failure to refer to the existence of
bugs in his expert witness statement and evidence."
So that's what the advice said, by way of reminder
to you. Can we turn, please, to WITN10500105, and look
at the foot of the page, please. This is an email of
7 September 2018, from Mr Parsons to you. It's part of
a chain. I'm not going to read the chain because it
concerns a discussion about other matters in the run-up
to a conference that you were to hold, but he,
Mr Parsons, says:
"The meeting with the criminal guys has just been
confirmed for an 11.00 am at [One Essex Court].
"It will be Simon Clarke [and then he gives you
a link to his webpage] and Martin Smith, solicitor.
"Rod Williams from [Post Office] will also be there.
"Simon and Martin have done lots of prosecutions for
Post Office over the years so understand how branches
work and the role of Horizon. I've attached an advice
note Simon did 5 years ago ..."
Stopping there, that's the advice note we have just
read:
about why [Post Office] should be wary about
relying on Gareth Jenkins, which sets the context for
68
(17) Pages 65 - 68
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pPrPoro
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
the meeting.
"In terms of what we may need from [Gareth Jenkins],
it covers broadly two things:
"1. Information about remote access -- see attached
note to [Fujitsu] to start the discussions about this
evidence.
"2. Evidence responding to particular bugs in the
system that [Gareth Jenkins] directly dealt with.”
So here we're September 2018 -- that email can come
down, thank you -- in advance of a meeting with the
“criminal guys", as they're called, on Monday,
10 September 2018. Did you, when you received the
Clarke Advice, five years after it had been written and
more than two years after you had been instructed, feel
any surprise that you were only being provided with it
at that stage?
I can't say that I remember. One thing I would say now,
that occurs to me now, and I suspect would have occurred
to me then, is the meeting I had was on 10 September.
The first round of Post Office's evidence was due,
I think, on 27 September. So this was being presented
to me 17 days before the client was due to serve
complete witness statements in relation to the Horizon
issues. It occurs to me now, and I suspect it occurred
to me then, that it was very late to be engaging on
69
the question of why it was, two years into your
instruction, you were being told about a problem
concerning Gareth Jenkins. Before this time, had you
been informed of any problem concerning the evidence
that Gareth Jenkins had previously given?
I think I might have been, informally. I think there
may have been informal chats, discussions, with Andy
Parsons where it was mentioned. I put it no higher.
I can't be sure but it wouldn't surprise me if there had
been brief references to it along the way but I am
afraid I can't be more specific than that.
Nothing as startling as this, though?
No, no, nothing --
This must have been very concerning indeed?
Yes, I think -- it was concerning, certainly.
Now, as we have discussed, there was a conference on
10 September 2018 and, much like the conference of
9 September 2016, there isn't an attendance note --
Right, okay.
-- for it, despite the number of lawyers that were
present at it. So we've got to reconstruct, by
fragments of other evidence, what happened at the
meeting. I think you'll appreciate that it's quite
an important occasion, the 10 September 2018 conference?
From your perspective, I can certainly see that, yes.
ral
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
p>rore>
11 June 2024
these questions. One would have expected these
questions to have been considered and decided long
before that stage.
That's something that you refer to in your witness
statement Mr Generally, that you were disappointed at
the process by which witness statement evidence was
created in terms of the stage of the process at which it
was created.
Yes, I refer to it as "firefighting" and, indeed, having
read the bundles properly now, I see that there's one
email in which -- I think from February 2019 -- where
I actually use that expression, in that counsel are not
being used to their best advantage if they're presented
with drafts and asked to advise on the hoof,
particularly during the ground rush before a trial,
which is how this tended to happen.
After the first round of evidence, there was a huge
amount of work being done and it was very difficult to
look at the evidence, as well as deal with the experts,
as well as look at the contemporaneous documents that
were beginning to be identified as relevant for the
trial. I mean, it was awful. I do remember finding the
process just exquisitely painful and it made it very
difficult to do our job properly.
Aside from that more general concern, I'm focusing on
70
From the perspective of the Inquiry, yes.
Can we start, in looking at the fragments of evidence,
begin with paragraph 95 of your witness statement
itself, which is on page 33. That'll come up on the
screen for you. You say in 95:
"My recollection of this meeting is not clear --
indeed, until I saw the above email [that's the one I've
taken you to] I thought that we had a telephone call.
But the upshot was that I was told in emphatic terms
that Mr Jenkins was not a reliable witness. The
solicitors said that Mr Jenkins had given misleading
evidence."
The solicitors that you're referring to there, would
that be the people from Cartwright King?
Yes, one of whom I now realise was a barrister.
Okay, so that is not your own solicitors --
No.
-- any of the Wombles -- telling you that?
Correct.
Okay:
"They suggested in no uncertain terms that I should
be very cautious about calling him as a witness."
Yes.
Had you met, as they are described in the email, the
“criminal guys" before?
72
(18) Pages 69 - 72
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o>
prop
2
p>po>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
I don't think so, no. I can't imagine why I would have
done.
Can you confirm that you hadn't previously spoken to any
of the criminal lawyers about Mr Jenkins' reliability or
unreliability?
I have no recollection of having done so.
Did you ever speak to Mr Jenkins about the Clarke Advice
or the opinions formed in it?
Oh, no, I'm not sure I ever met Mr Jenkins.
Did you ever speak with Mr Jenkins?
Not that I recall, no.
Thank you. Can we look at some other fragments of
evidence, POL00043284. If we go to page 5, please,
you'll see this is signed off by Womble Bond Dickinson
on 14 November 2019.
Yes.
So, just to orientate yourself, that's after the Horizon
Issues trial had concluded but before the draft judgment
had been received.
Right.
Yes?
Yes.
So it's in that period between the end of evidence and
before an embargoed judgment was received. Can we go
back, please, to page 1, "Post Office Group Litigation,
73
identified, either by checks referred to or otherwise.
The inevitable conclusion is that’... if that is right,
then there must be no bugs’.”
Then scroll down to 2.7:
"The Second Sight Interim Report dated 8 July 2013
also indicated that [Gareth Jenkins] had prior knowledge
of Horizon issues. It appears that between 2010 to
2012, there were some ‘defects’ which impacted a number
of branches. Post Office conducted an investigation in
2012 which failed to reveal any Horizon system defect.
It was not until 2013 that Fujitsu looked into the
matter and then corrected the defect. [Gareth Jenkins]
disclosed on 28 June 2013 to Cartwright King that he had
informed Second Sight of the existence of two bugs which
had affected Horizon as set out in the Second Sight
Interim Report."
2.8:
"In July 13, Post Office obtained advice from
Cartwright King on the reliability of [Gareth Jenkins’]
evidence. The conclusion was that [Gareth Jenkins] had
attested to the integrity and robust nature of
Horizon -- ie there was nothing wrong with the system.
Unfortunately that was not the case at the time he was
giving evidence as he knew there were issues with
Horizon as early as 2010."
75
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
Gareth Jenkins". Then if we skip over paragraph 1,
which is all about prosecutions, at paragraph 2, they're
still calling him Dr Gareth Jenkins, Bond Dickinson say:
Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu was the single expert
for Post Office (and Royal Mail Group) for many years
who provided opinion evidence in prosecutions where
shortfalls and other irregularities were, in broad
terms, alleged to be caught by deficiencies in the
Horizon system."
We can skip 2.2. 2.3:
"Dr Jenkins provided witness statements; expert
evidence; joint reports and conclusions with the
defence's experts and attended court on at least one
occasion to give evidence (prosecution of Seema Misra)."
2.4:
"A common feature of [Gareth Jenkins'] evidence was
that Horizon was accurately recording and processing
data. In his evidence [Gareth Jenkins] repeatedly
stated that failures will only occur’... as a result of
a bug in the code or by somebody tampering with the data
in BRDB and this check is included specifically to check
for any such bugs/tampering' or that a problem can‘...
only happen as a result of a bug in the code and this
check is included specifically to check for any such
bugs’. He does not say that any bugs have been
74
3.1:
"Why is this a problem?
"[Gareth Jenkins] did not comply with his duties to
the court, the prosecution or the defence. He failed to
disclose material known to him but which undermined his
expert opinion. That failure was a serious, and
possibly criminal, breach of his duty as an expert
witness."
3.2:
"The effects of that failure set out by Cartwright
King in 2013 were:
3.2.1:
"[He] failed to disclose material known to him but
which undermined his expert opinion. This failure was
in plain breach of his duty as an expert witness.
2:
"His credibility as an expert witness was fatally
undermined; he should not be asked to provide expert
evidence in any current or future prosecution.
3
"Material which should have been disclosed to
defendants was not disclosed which placed Post Office in
breach of their duty as a prosecutor."
Then over the page, please, to paragraph 4.5, the
sift review, which is discussed in those earlier
76
(19) Pages 73 - 76
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
2
rPOPrPO>P
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
paragraphs:
has let to the Lepton Report being cited in
Second Sight's Report and referred to repeatedly in the
Horizon Issues trial. However, in both instances the
focus has been on the Lepton Report's comment on the
accuracy of another system called Credence, rather than
it shows Mr Jenkins's state of knowledge. As far as we
are aware, nobody outside of Post Office has alighted on
the significance of this document in relation to
Mr Jenkins' historic evidence."
Then 5.1 to 5.4:
"Calling Gareth Jenkins as a witness in the [Horizon
Issues Trial].
"Consideration was given to calling Gareth Jenkins
as a witness for the Post Office in the [Horizon Issues
Trial].
“We originally assessed that we required evidence
from Fujitsu in relation to three broad areas:
"the general operation of Horizon;
"the allegation that Post Office remotely edits ...
data; and
“the specific bugs identified by the claimants.
"Fujitsu suggested there were parts of the second
and third areas that [Gareth Jenkins] would be best
placed to give evidence on (such as the historic bugs
77
place reliance; and (3) he was said to have given false
evidence in criminal proceedings?
Yes. He'd breached his duty as an expert in criminal
proceedings.
Well, and was said to have given false evidence?
Misleading evidence, yes. I'm not cavilling, I'm so
sorry.
I'm sorry?
I'm not fencing with you.
Of course. So those were the reasons why Gareth Jenkins
was not called as a witness in the Group Litigation,
agreed?
Yes, the reason was he had said things and not said
things in criminal proceedings which would have
undermined his credibility as a witness.
And that he had given misleading evidence in those
proceedings?
Yes, that's what I meant. Yes.
He had breached his duty to the court?
Yes.
And he had been regard as such by the Post Office?
Yes, because Post Office had received Mr Clarke's note
in -- back in 2013, so if it didn't know it previously,
it knew it by then, yes.
That can come down for the moment. Thank you.
79
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
that he dealt with). Given that [Gareth Jenkins] had
previously appeared as an expert witness in prosecutions
and because of the above issues, we set up
a consultation with Leading Counsel to discuss the risks
of using [Gareth Jenkins] as a witness in the [Horizon
Issues Trial].
"The [conference] took place on 10 September and was
attended by [you], Simon Henderson, Andy Parsons, Rodric.
Williams and Martin Smith and Simon Clarke from
Cartwright King. During the [conference], Cartwright
King advised strongly against Post Office calling
[Gareth Jenkins] as a witness in the [Horizon Issues
trial] on the basis of the above problems. The decision
was taken that [Gareth Jenkins] could not be called and
we need to look for a viable alternative witness."
Just stopping there, is that account given in this
note of what occurred in the conference at 10 September
accurate?
I think it's a fair summary.
The reasons for not calling Gareth Jenkins as a witness
in the Horizon Issues trial were on the basis of the
above problems and that was, would you agree, that he
was first said by the criminal solicitors to be
an unreliable witness; secondly, he had been treated by
the Post Office as a witness upon whom they could not
78
In the course of this meeting of 10 September 2018,
at which allegations were made to you about the expert
evidence that Gareth Jenkins had given, did any of the
lawyers discuss the extent to which Mr Jenkins had been
properly instructed as an expert.
No, Absolutely not.
Okay. Did anyone explain that, as a matter of fact, he
had not been properly instructed as an expert or the
duties of an expert witness explained to him?
No.
Okay. Was there any discussion about broader questions
of the Post Office's own conduct of those prosecutions,
in which Mr Jenkins had given evidence?
Not that I recall, and I would be very surprised if
there had been. That's not the purpose of the meeting.
Did you ask to see or were you shown any of the
underlying material upon which Mr Clarke's analysis and
advice was based?
Oh, no. I took Mr Clarke's note as read.
Did you ask to speak to anyone at Fujitsu or suggest
that your solicitors should speak to anyone at Fujitsu,
to discuss the concerns that had been raised about
Mr Jenkins' reliability?
No. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the Legal
Team to take a tactical decision as to how they
80
(20) Pages 77 - 80
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
should -- as to the preparation of evidence for the
Horizon trial.
Was there any discussion over whether anyone had spoken
to Mr Jenkins about the allegations or the assessment
that the criminal lawyers had made about him?
I do not believe so and I can't think why there would
have been.
Was there any discussion over whether the Post Office
ought to inform Mr Jenkins of the opinion which had been
formed about him in the course of the criminal and then
civil litigation?
Same answers as before. I don't believe so.
In any event, the reasons, and all of the reasons, for
not calling him as a witness related to Mr Clarke's
assessment of him as to his performance in past criminal
proceedings?
Yes, it related to what Mr Clarke had to say about what
Dr Jenkins did and did not do in those criminal
prosecutions, or rather did or did not say in those
prosecutions.
Was there any discussion in the meetings, so far as you
recall, as to what had been explained to Fujitsu for the
reason not to call Mr Jenkins as a witness?
I'd be very surprised if there had been. I don't have
a ~ as I say, my recollection of that meeting is not
81
ambiguous, so as to allow the person informing Fujitsu
not to be specific about it.
Appreciating this wasn't you doing the informing, it's
a bit more than ambiguous, on the face of this page,
isn't it? The explanation being given to Fujitsu was
"We didn't want to mix civil and criminal evidence" --
I think that --
-- whereas the true reason is "because we regard him as
an unreliable witness who had misled the court"?
I suppose that's fair, yes.
"We do not believe that Fujitsu are aware of the issues
in this paper."
Was that your state of understanding back on
10 September 2018 --
I don't --
-- they, Fujitsu, didn't know about the issues with
Gareth Jenkins?
I don't believe so. I don't think I knew anything about
what Fujitsu knew or did not know.
Then reading on at 5.6:
"Post Office's witness evidence was served in
September and November 2018. On 30 January ... Freeths
wrote to us asking why [Gareth Jenkins] was not being
called as a witness. We responded on 12 February 2019,
pointing out that [Gareth Jenkins] had acted as
83,
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prop
11 June 2024
particularly clear. The upshot of it is clear in my
mind but the details are not clear.
Okay.
But I -- that would not have been the purpose of -- it
was about -- it was allowing the Legal Team to come to
a decision about how to prepare their evidence for the
case. It wasn't about wider considerations of, for
example, the relationship between Post Office and
Fujitsu. That wasn't our concern or my concern.
Can we go back to the note, please, POL00043284, and
forward to page 3, and back to 5.5 at the foot of the
page.
We'd left off by reading 4.4. Carrying on at ~
sorry, we'd left off at 5.4. Reading off again at 5.5:
"It was explained to Fujitsu that Post Office did
not wish to call [Gareth Jenkins] because we did not
wish to mix civil and criminal evidence.”
Just stopping there, if that explanation was given
to Fujitsu as the reason for not calling Gareth Jenkins,
that would be a false explanation, wouldn't it?
I would say so. The next sentence indicates that there
was a desire -- it seems to indicate there was a desire
to keep from Fujitsu the issues discussed in this paper.
Yes. The next --
So a form of words clearly was used, which was
82
an expert witness in relation to a number of
prosecutions that are being reviewed by the CCRC and it
was therefore not appropriate to call him."
Appreciating, again, you were not the provider of
that information but, again, if that was the explanation
provided, that would be a false explanation too,
wouldn't it?
It would be economical with the truth, yes, in effect.
And therefore false?
Yes, I think, yes.
Can we move on, please, to POL00363775. If we begin,
please, with page 8, and I'm still on fragments of
evidence that help us to establish what the decision
making was in particular at the conference on
10 September 2018?
Okay, understood.
You'll see an email of 12 November 2018 from Jonathan
Gribben, a managing associate at Womble Bond Dickinson,
to you and to Simon Henderson, copied to Mr Parsons:
"As you know, Fujitsu are in the process of
analysing [KELS and Robert Worden's] sample of 50 KELs.”
In the second paragraph:
"The analysis is being carry out by several people
in Steve Parker's team plus Gareth Jenkins. It would
not have been possible for Steve to review all of the
84
(21) Pages 81 - 84
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
KELs himself in the time available and by his own
admission he has been in management since 2010 so his
technical knowledge is not as it once was."
That's a reference to Stephen Parker, yes?
Yes.
If we scroll up, please, to the bottom of page 7 and the
top of page 8, we see Mr Henderson's reply:
"I haven't had a chance to discuss this with [you]
but my view is that the overall approach, ie recording
that he has asked his team to do the work, is fine but
that it is very likely that privilege (if indeed there
is any privilege) will be waived. This is an exercise
which a third party witness is saying he has asked his
team to perform, ie it is not something which, at least
on the [face] of the [witness statement, Post Office's]
lawyers have asked for -- and even if they have, by
including the output of that exercise in a [witness
statement], I think any privilege, eg in how the
exercise was carried out, is likely to be waived. It
certainly cannot be assumed that we can pick and choose
what we present (since that could plainly be misleading)
and more generally I think it will have to be assumed
that the way in which the investigation is carried out
and the detail of its findings, will be disclosable."
‘So here Mr Henderson is focusing on the extent to
85
"They are also reasons for not having him as
a source of evidence -- ie as a source of information
for our witnesses and/or as a person providing analyses
‘on which our witnesses will rely. Where he is acting as
a source the claimants will know this and they will
waste no time in arguing (1) the fact that we have not
called such a natural witness demonstrates that he not
a reliable witness, (2) we recognise this fact and want
to protect him from any cross-examination, and (3) if he
is not a reliable witness, he can't be a reliable source
of evidence, either and (4) as the claimants are being
prevented from cross-examining him the information he
proves to other witnesses is even less reliable than
a witness statement from him would be. The argument
will undermine the evidential value of any witness
statements that are based on information that Jenkins
has provided."
You were essentially saying here that the three
reasons that we've isolated for not calling Gareth
Jenkins apply with equal force for not relying on
Mr Jenkins behind the scenes as a provider of
information or evidence?
Yes.
Is that because, if he is an unreliable witness but not
called, he may, nonetheless, be providing unreliable
87
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
which privilege might have been maintained or it might
have been waived by the conduct of the exercise of
examining the KELs by a Fujitsu team, including
Mr Jenkins?
Yes, he's also saying it's fine to record that Mr Parker
has asked his team to do the work.
Yes, then your reply, if we scroll up, please -- keep
going, thank you -- you say you agree with Simon's view
below. I'm going to skip over the first main paragraph
because that's all about the privilege issue. Then you
say this:
"Second, I see that Gareth Jenkins is part of the
team doing the analysis. We all know the reasons why we
have decided not to have Jenkins as a witness."
Are they, just stopping there, the reasons we
discussed: he was said by the criminal solicitors to
have been an unreliable witness; he had been treated by
the Post Office as being unreliable; and he was said to
have given misleading evidence in the criminal
proceedings?
Yes.
You say, “We all know" because this is November '18 and
you had discussed these at the September '18 conference?
Yes.
You continue:
86
information to people who are being called?
It may be argued that he -- what I'm reciting is what
the -- the claimants will waste no time in arguing.
Yes. Well, in fact, in summary here, you predict rather
accurately what the judge went on to find, didn't you?
This almost reads as if it is part of the judgment in
due course?
I'm not sure that is a fair summary of what the judge
said but, nevertheless -- I'm -- I'd have to go back and
remind myself.
Would the reasons for not relying on him as
a behind-the-scenes source of evidence be that, if he is
thought to be an unreliable witness but not called, then
asking him to speak about the very same subject matter
as has been found by the criminal lawyers to be
misleading evidence, pollutes the stream of evidence of
the witnesses who may be being called?
I suppose you could be -- that's one way of describing
it. From my perspective, we had made a tactical
decision that it would be better if he were not called
as a witness and the logic of that decision also meant
that it would be better if we didn't rely on him -- our
other witnesses didn't rely upon him as a source of
information. And so I go on to say in the next
paragraph:
88
(22) Pages 85 - 88
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
“It follows that we should limit Jenkins'
involvement as a source of evidence as much as possible,
essentially to those areas where there's no alternative
source of information.”
In the next paragraph you, say:
"... We should limit [his] involvement ... as much
as possible ... However, the man seems to be popping up
‘on [every] technical question -- as a source of
information for Torstein Godeseth and now as a member of
the team providing analysis for Steve Parker.
I appreciate his unique position and there may be some
areas where we have no alternative but to use him as
a source of information. But are we sure that we are
limiting his involvement as much as possible?
I entirely recognise the need to be realistic about the
sort of evidence we can get from Fujitsu in the time
available. But I need to make clear the risk we could
be running of adducing evidence which could turn out not
to be very useful to us. "
So you are here, in the words of your witness
statement, expressing dissatisfaction at the fact that
Mr Jenkins keeps popping up in the evidence.
Yes.
Having regard to this email chain, were you aware that
there were number of people who were contributing to
89
To what extent were these issues addressed at the
meeting of 10 September, ie Dr Jenkins, as you called
him, is an unreliable witness or regarded as
an unreliable witness but we, nonetheless, need to use
him, or was that not addressed at the conference?
I don't recall it being addressed. My recollection
is -- and this is six years ago, so my recollection is
necessarily limited -- my recollection is that we had
another witness in the form of Mr Godeseth, who was also
very knowledgeable. His job title was General
Architect, I think.
Chief Architect.
Chief Architect. And, although his knowledge on certain
issues was not as great as Dr Jenkins -- he was
a Doctor. Gareth Jenkins --
He wasn't.
Oh, I'm so sorry. I thought he was a Doctor. So Gareth
Jenkins, although there were certain limited matters on
which his knowledge was not as great, he was still very
knowledgeable and, however, having -- and that was the
basis upon which the decision was made as to the
evidence that we prepared -- I say "we" -- that Womble
Bond Dickinson prepared, with comments from counsel.
Then, once we saw the witness statements, I saw, we
all saw, how much reliance there was on Mr Jenkins. He
1
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
Mr Godeseth's witness statement, including Gareth
Jenkins?
I was aware that Mr Godeseth’s witness statements
identified a number of people as sources of his
information, including, in numerable examples, Mr --
Dr Jenkins himself.
You were willing, would you agree, to accept Mr Jenkins’
involvement and assistance where there was no one else
who was able or willing to provide it?
Yes. If there was evidence that needed to be adduced
and the relevant evidence was, in part, based upon
information that could only come from Jenkins, then we
would have to rely on that information, but I wanted to
make it clear that it should be kept to a minimum and we
shouldn't be doing it if we could avoid doing it.
Would you agree that that prospective use of him made it
all the more important to ensure that Mr Jenkins was
aware of the position that he was being put in,
ie although he was being regarded by Post Office as
an unreliable witness, nonetheless, his assistance would
be sought and relied upon where it was important for the
Post Office for that to happen?
That's not something that I considered for a second at
the relevant time. I had no idea what Dr Jenkins was or
was not aware of.
90
was referred to everywhere and it was quite a surprise
and quite disappointing.
Did that get worse during the course of trial, ie the
onion was peeled back a little bit further in that, in
the course of the trial, previously unrevealed reliance
‘on Mr Jenkins was itself revealed?
I don't recall but it's possible. I just don't recall.
I'm sorry.
Can I turn to the extent to which Mr Jenkins was
involved in the creation of the Post Office's witness
evidence and its expert evidence, and the extent to
which that involvement was revealed to the claimants and
to the court. That document can come down, thank you.
I'm not going to go through all of the emails that
we've now got which show the extent of Mr Jenkins’
involvement, which witnesses it relates to, the extent
of the reliance placed on him in the creation of
a witness account, what Mr Jenkins told them or didn't
tell them. I just want to look at one example, please.
It in fact comes out in the judgment itself. So it's
something that emerged in the course of the trial and is
not something that we now know, because we've got a lot
more privileged information.
POL00022840. Can we turn, please, in the judgment
to page 275, and paragraph 870. This is the section of
92
(23) Pages 89 - 92
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
the judgment concerning the judge's conclusions on
expert evidence and he introduces it by saying:
"I prefer the expert evidence and approach of
Mr Coyne to that of Dr Worden. That is for the
following reasons."
Then can I go to one of the reasons given, page 277,
paragraph 880:
"He [that's Dr Worden] also relied -- in my judgment
heavily -- upon information from Mr Jenkins. Mr Jenkins
was not even identified as one of his sources of
information in section 1.3 of this report, headed
‘Sources of information’. This means that Dr Worden was
given access to information that was not made available
to his opposite number ... Although there were some
references throughout the text of the report to
Mr Jenkins, Dr Worden did not routine any identify where
he had relied upon Mr Jenkins. He also provided a great
deal more information about this contact with Mr Jenkins
in his oral evidence than he did in his written reports.
In his cross-examination, he identified, when asked
about a passage, that he had obtained that information
from Mr Jenkins, which plainly took place before the
first report was served as he accepted on his first day
in the witness box it was 'a year ago’. This was not
clear on the report itself. One example of this was
93
Yes, and I'm cross about this. To say I'm cross is
an understatement.
Cross with who?
I'm cross that it happened. At an early stage, there
was discussion about the fact that Dr Worden wanted
direct access to Fujitsu, and this was raised with
counsel -- with me and with Simon Henderson, possibly
with Mr Draper as well -- and we advised that there
should be a protocol drawn up to deal precisely with
information coming from Fujitsu to Dr Worden. And, as
a result of that advice, a lengthy document was drawn
up, I forget how many pages but it was a significant
number of pages and, amongst other things, in fact, at
the beginning, it made it clear that that to the extent
that any information was provided to Dr Worden, this
should be recorded, so as to ensure that there was
equality of information between the experts.
There would be a full record of the information
provided to Dr Worden, kept by WBD, so that that
information could also be provided to Mr Coyne, who was
the expert for the claimants.
That was the whole purpose of that protocol process,
and so what Mr Justice Fraser describes here should
never have been possible. There should have been
disclosure of everything that anyone at Fujitsu said
95
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rPOPrSO
2
11 June 2024
paragraph 654.2, where the report was dealing with the
effect of the [RPM] bug and Dr Worden stated ‘Because
the operation involved was apparently not a double entry
operation on the BRDB, the countermeasure of checking
the double-entry constraint DEA did not catch it’. This
information came from Mr Jenkins, but until Dr Worden
was asked this in cross-examination, no reader would be
able to tell this. The involvement of Mr Jenkins in
this explanation in his report was simply hidden.
Nowhere was there a note or summary of all the
information that had been given to Dr Worden by
Mr Jenkins. In this litigation in particular, and given
the involvement of and information provided by
Mr Jenkins, who knew so much about the Horizon system,
such a note or summary was, in my judgment, essential.
This was particularly important given that there was no
witness statement from Mr Jenkins. Dr Worden had been
provided with, and had used, information from Mr Jenkins
in addition to the witness statements served by the
parties.”
So I think it's fair to say that this is
a conclusion that the judge's view of Mr Godeseth and
his evidence was adversely affected by the involvement
of Mr Jenkins and the non-revelation of that
involvement.
94
to -- any information, any new information that was
provided by Fujitsu to Dr Worden, that should have been
recorded -- identified, recorded, and then given to
Mr Coyne as well, and I'm astonished and cross that that
didn't happen.
You gave that advice to Womble Bond Dickinson?
Yes. Actually, I believe that there's a --
There's an email chain setting it out --
In the documents you've provided, there's an email where
I talk about the need for a protocol.
Yes. Do you know whether Womble Bond Dickinson carried
that advice into effect with their client, the Post
Office?
I believed that they did. I had no reason to think that
they hadn't. What would be the point? I'm sorry to ask
rhetorical questions when I'm giving evidence but what
would be the point of preparing a quite a lengthy and
detailed protocol document if it was then ignored in
practice?
Do you know whether that was the witness's,
ie Dr Worden's refusal, to carry that into effect or
Post Office's refusal, or failure to carry it into
effect, that caused it not to be carried into effect?
I -- the basic thrust of the protocol was that there
would never be any contact between Dr Worden and Fujitsu
96
(24) Pages 93 - 96
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 11 June 2024
without WBD being present and taking a note and,
therefore, WBD should always have been present and
taking a note of any information that was provided. To
the extent -- I don't know if there was any contact
between Dr Worden and Fujitsu without WBD being present,
there certainly shouldn't have been and, if there was,
that shouldn't have been allowed. That should have been
prevented by WBD.
Assuming, as I did, and I still do assume, that any
contact would have been with WBD being present, then any
failure to record the information that was provided, and
provide that information to Mr Coyne, would have been
WBD's failure, not Dr Worden's. It wasn't his job to
set it all out in writing and to provide it to Mr Coyne;
that was my instructing solicitor's job.
Is the long and the short of it, irrespective of who was
at fault or who was to blame for the protocol that you
envisaged not being carried into effect, that that
failure compounds the use and reliance on Gareth Jenkins
as a behind-the-scenes source of evidence?
I'm not sure what your question means. It just -- it
meant that there was a respect in which Dr Worden expert
evidence was rendered less reliable in circumstances
where that was avoidable. It need not have happen.
It applied not just to Dr Worden; it applied to Torstein
97
a witness in the Post Office litigation and with the
contributions that he made to witness and expert
evidence outside of the courtroom, and with the extent
to which that was revealed to the claimants and to the
court on the face of the witness statements and expert
evidence.
Can we turn to how Mr Jenkins’ role was addressed in
the Post Office's closing submissions, please. Can we
turn up POL00026925. We can see that these are the Post
Office's closing submissions in writing, for the
purposes of the Horizon Issues trial. They are 545
pages long, including the appendices.
Can we look, please, at the body of the submissions,
where they end, at page 392. If we scroll down, and if
we just look at the top of the next page, we can see
they're dated 27 June 2019 and we can see that they're
signed off by you and your three juniors.
Yes.
Did you contribute to the drafting of these?
I'm sure I did but, whether I did or not, I certainly
approved them.
So you read them all and signed them off by putting your
name to them?
Yes, I'm sure that's right.
Can we look, please, at page 64 and at paragraph 138.
99
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Godeseth as well, didn't it?
A. Well, with the witnesses, there were a great number of
occasions within the witness statements where Mr Jenkins
was specifically identified as a source of information.
There were some occasions where he was not and it's
absolutely -- I think it's really unfortunate that he
wasn't specifically identified on all occasions and
there were at least couple of occasions where I think
I fell short in -- because I was in a hurry, because
I had other things to worry about -- where I didn't, you
know, I didn't intervene in the process, so as to ensure
that it was done at all times and I think that's
something for which I can be justifiably criticised.
MR BEER: Can we break there for our second morning break
until 12.30, please, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes. Of course.
MR BEER: Ofcourse, sir.
(12.21 pm)
(A short break)
(12.32 pm)
MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you.
MR BEER: We have dealt with the decision making, Mr de Garr
Robinson, at the conference on 10 September 2018, and in
associated emails, over the use of Mr Jenkins as
98
I'm going to take you to three parts of the closings
before asking questions:
"Post Office wanted to provide a simple and
uncontroversial overview of Horizon and its relevant
features. It recognised that it was not possible for
one person to have had a complete understanding of all
of the corners of the Horizon system but, on the basis
that there would not be room in the timetable for
multiple witnesses, it took the view that this overview
should be provided by one person. Two possible
candidates were Torstein Godeseth and Gareth Jenkins.
Taking into account the involvement that Mr Jenkins had
in a number of criminal prosecutions that are currently
being looked at by the [CCRC] (eg the Misra case), Post
Office asked Mr Godeseth to do so."
So that's passage 1. Then if we can go forwards,
please, to page 66, at paragraph 14:
“As was made clear in the statement, in certain
respects Mr Godeseth's evidence was based on information
provided by others. His account of the Misra trial was
based on information provided by [Womble Bond Dickinson]
and Mr Jenkins; his accounts of the Callendar Square,
receipts and payments mismatch, local suspense and
Dalmellington bugs were based online the contemporaneous
documents and discussion with Mr Jenkins and on one
100
(25) Pages 97 - 100
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
point of information provided by Matthew Lenton, [the
documents manager]; his accounts of the documents held
by Post Office was based on information provided by
Steve Bansal, Fujitsu's Senior Service Delivery
Manager."
Then the third passage is 144:
"[The claimants] understandably complain that
Mr Jenkins and the other source of Mr Godeseth's
information could have given some of this evidence
firsthand ...
"Taking into account that Professor McLachlan's
evidence specifically addressed things said or done by
Mr Jenkins in relation to the Misra trial, Post Office
was concerned that the Horizon Issues trial could become
an investigation of his own in this and other ... cases.
"2. Moreover, Post Office was conscious that if it
only adduced firsthand evidence in the trial, it would
end up having to call more witnesses than could be
accommodate within the trial timetable.
"3. Furthermore, so far as the Post Office was
aware, the relevant parts of Godeseth 2 were most
unlikely to be controversial. For example, the Misra
trial was a matter of public record, the four bugs were
covered by contemporaneous documentation and Post Office
had no reason to doubt Fujitsu's account of the
101
reading paragraph 144.1, in the context of these
proceedings, would have realised that was the case.
That was being -- in my view, that was being clearly
signalled to the judge.
That was being open and candid, was it, with the court
as to the reasons why your client had decided not to
call Gareth Jenkins?
The judge was being told that there were -- it was being
made clear, in my view, to the judge that there were
issues in relation to what Mr Jenkins had said or not
said in criminal cases which would have become the focus
of attention. Now, I asked this question rhetorically:
why is it even relevant to say that? Why would that
point even be made? It would only be made because there
were previous inconsistent statements that would have
been put to Mr Jenkins had he been called. Indeed the
judge, in his judgment, says that in one of the
paragraphs.
In my view, that was a fair - that gave a fair
indication to the judge of the concern that Post Office
had, which led to Mr Jenkins not being called as
awitness. I don't accept that was misleading at all.
It's true that I didn't refer -- that counsel, the four
of us, didn't refer to Mr Clarke's note. We wouldn't
have been entitled to refer to the note because that was
103
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
11 June 2024
documents it held.”
In the three passages I have taken you to, do you
accept that the explanation provided to the court did
not reflect the true reasons as to why Mr Jenkins was
not being called as a witness?
No.
They did reveal the true position, did they?
What -- if you look at paragraph 144.1, what's being
said is that -- what's being flagged to the court is
that there were criticisms, there were likely to be
criticisms, of things said or done by Mr Jenkins in the
Misra trial and other criminal cases.
Just stopping there, where does it say that there could
be criticisms made of Mr Jenkins in the criminal cases?
"Taking into account that Professor McLachlan's evidence
specifically addressed things said or done by Mr Jenkins
in relation to the Misra trial, Post Office was
concerned that the Horizon Issues trial could become an
investigation of his role in this and other criminal
cases."
Now, what that was doing was signalling to the
judge -- like any other judge, the judge was
an experienced litigator -- it was signalling to the
judge that there were things that Mr Jenkins had said
and done that would be the subject of criticism. Anyone
102
privileged. It's true that we didn't say he would have
been a terrible witness. But, in circumstances where
the judge is being told there are things that he did in
relation to criminal cases that would have been the
subject of investigation, ie would have been the subject
of cross-examination during the trial, in my view, that
is sufficient. That is a sufficient indication of the
sort of concern that Post Office had that led to
Mr Jenkins not being called as a witness. So I don't
accept your question.
The real reasons, we established, I think, three times
this morning, that Mr Jenkins was not called, was that,
firstly, he was said by the criminal solicitors to be
an unreliable witness; secondly, he had been treated by
the Post Office as a witness upon whom reliance could
not be placed; and, thirdly, he was said to have given
false evidence in criminal proceedings. You agree that
none of those reasons, the true reasons, were given?
I don't agree that they are three separate reasons. The
reasons were that, during the criminal trials, he had
said things that were misleading and/or had not said
things that he should have said. That -- the inevitable
result of that was to the give the claimants material to
suggest that he was an unreliable witness. That was the
reason why he was not called.
104
(26) Pages 101 - 104
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rPOoP.O
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
In my view, paragraph 144.1 signals that to the
judge. It doesn't do so with the emphasis that you
would probably suggest is required but I do not accept
that that was misleading. I believe that, in the eyes
of an experienced litigator, that would have signalled
quite clearly what the real concern was, what the
underlying concern was.
Really? You think that signals quite clearly?
Yes, I do.
Is that really what you're saying?
It would not have been relevant. The point being made
in 144.1 would not have been relevant, unless there was
material which could have been put to Mr Jenkins about
what he'd said or not said during the criminal trials.
It would have been an irrelevant point to make. Why is
it there? Because things clearly were said or not said
which would have been the subject of cross-examination.
At most, this is saying, "It become a distraction to
your trial, judge. That's why we haven't called
Mr Jenkins".
Well, I'm -- that is not my view as to what is being
signalled by paragraph 144.1. Not at all.
Who signed these submissions off within your solicitor
team?
Ihave no -- I couldn't tell you that. Obviously, the
105
reasons?
No, absolutely not different. You're entitled to say,
if you want, you --
Thank you.
-- we could have been more -- you're welcome -- we could
have been more emphatic. You're entitled to say that.
Thank you again.
But what, in my view, would be quite wrong, would be to
say that is misleading. That was a -- in the -- to
an experienced litigator, it would have been clear what
was being signalled by paragraph 144.1.
If we go back to paragraph 138, which is on page 64 --
thank you -- the last four lines:
"Taking into account the involvement that Mr Jenkins
had in a number of criminal prosecutions that are
currently being looked at by the [CCRC], Post Office
asked Mr Godeseth to do so."
That's the same point as we subsequently see in
point one, isn't it?
What is being said there is that there was a concern
because Mr Jenkins had been involved in criminal
prosecutions that the court of criminal -- the Criminal
Cases Review Commission was looking at. In other words,
there were questions as to Mr Jenkins’ performance of
his duties as an expert, which were being reviewed.
107
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11 June 2024
submissions would have been circulated to WBD for
comment but I don't know how high up the process it
would have gone, how high up the hierarchy it would have
gone. Certainly, Andy Parsons would have approved.
Do you know who within the client signed the submissions
off?
I do not know, no.
Given your long experience as a litigator, what do you
consider would have been the reaction by the judge if
the Post Office had disclosed the three reasons we
discussed this morning why Mr Jenkins had not been
called, albeit he was being used within the litigation
as an important source of evidence given by others?
I -- you're asking me to answer a question which is
based on a hypothesis that I don't agree with. In my
view, paragraph 144.1 signalled to the judge that
Jenkins said or didn't say things in criminal
prosecutions that would have been the subject of
cross-examination. Previous inconsistent statements
would have been put to him and Post Office wished to
avoid that. In my view, you -- you may be going to take
me to the judge's judgment in a minute -- but, in my
view, that's how the judge must have understood it.
I infer that from his judgment.
But lurking beneath the surface was a different set of
106
There were issues about his performance as an expert.
It was not being concealed from the judge that there
were -- that there were reasons for thinking that
Mr Jenkins's performance as an expert were open to
criticism, and that it might be suggested that he had
given evidence that was open to challenge. I do --
I really do refute that suggestion. That's not my view
at all.
Can we turn forwards, please, to POL00134909. This is
a long attendance note made by Herbert Smith Freehills
of a conference with you on 4 October 2019. You'll see
who is present. Again, just to orientate ourselves,
that's after the end of the trial, after submissions
have been made but before judgment, yes?
Yes.
Then there's a list of questions that Alex, that's Alex
Lerner, I think, wishes to be answered. Question 4, we
can see:
"At trial, did the claimants advance a case that
Post Office suppressed evidence regarding the existence
of bugs? If so, can you point me to the relevant parts
of the closings/the trial transcripts? I want to have
read up on this issue if it is something you think might
get raised in the judgment.”
So this is by the time Herbert Smith Freehills are
108
(27) Pages 105 - 108
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
being involved as solicitors for the Post Office, yes?
Yes.
Can we see what the answer to that question 4 is. It's
page 9, please. Can you see there is a box which says,
"The answer to your question is yes", under question 4,
they did, that's the claimants, suggest it in a number
of ways.
Then under one heading, "Gareth Jenkins":
"First of all, they made huge complaints that we
didn't call Gareth Jenkins, who is a god but
an unreliable god. They say the fact that we didn't
call Gareth Jenkins is suppression.
"And you know what, that might be right."
Why did you think that what the Post Office had done
may be the suppression of evidence from Gareth Jenkins?
I think you're reading too much into that. I am given
sometimes to explaining things in a very colourful way.
There was no suppression of evidence. What there was
was a decision not to call someone to give evidence on
relatively uncontroversial questions because it was felt
that what would then happen is that he would get dragged
into a cross-examination of -- in relation to his
evidence in criminal prosecutions, that would -- that
would simply result in a finding that he was
an unreliable witness.
109
Smiths, yes?
Yes. Now, I know almost all of the people in that list
very well. I know not just the WBD people but the HSF
people as well, Alan Watts and Alex Lerner, I'm very
familiar with him. This was a briefing discussion to
help them get up to speed. They'd only -- my
recollection is that they'd only recently been
instructed and I was trying to help them get up to speed
so that they were able to field matters arising as and
when judgment was given.
In that sense, it was an informal briefing of
colleagues about issues arising in the litigation, in
Alex's four or five questions. In that sense, it was
informal.
So back to page 9, please, question 4, second paragraph:
"They [the claimants] say that the fact we didn't
call Gareth Jenkins is suppression.
"And you know what, that might be right. They would
have killed him at trial."
You say that is just explained by the use of overly
colourful language in the course of an informal meeting?
Yes, "They would have killed him at trial", what I'm
saying is they would have cross-examined him up hill and
down dale on his performance in and as an expert and
things he did and didn't say during criminal
111
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11 June 2024
Q. Suppression in this context, the suppression of
evidence, means to silence, to cover-up, to conceal,
doesn't it?
>
As I say, I think you're reading far too much into that.
Q. I'm just reading back the words that are recorded in
this Herbert Smith Freehills attendance note on you.
A. Yes, but do remember that this is an informal
conversation between litigators and I am speaking -- as
I say, I'm trying to do it in an easy to understand, and
rather dramatic way, so that Alex Lerner can understand
where we stand. If you're going to put to me that there
was actually suppression of evidence because Gareth
Jenkins was not called, I would refute that suggestion.
Q. In what respect was this consultation informal?
A. It was a -- was it an in-person conversation or was it
acall? Can you --
Q. Go back to page 1. It doesn't record on its face --
A. No.
Q. -- whether it was in person but it lasted 1 hour and 25
minutes.
A. Yes.
Q. You've got you and Simon Henderson from the counsel
team, Andrew Parsons and Womble Bond Dickinson from
the -- sorry, and Katie Simmonds from the Womble Bond
Dickinson team, and then four solicitors from Herbert
110
prosecutions, and they would have had a field day with
that. That's what I'm trying to say there. That's
another way of -- a rather colourful way, as is my wont,
of making that point.
MR BEER: Mr de Garr Robinson. Thank you very much.
They're the questions I ask.
Sir, there are some questions I think from, I think,
three sets of Core Participants that I anticipate will
take until about 1.20.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right.
MR BEER: Mr Stein, I think, first.
Questioned by MR STEIN
MR STEIN: Mr de Garr Robinson, just dealing with the last
matter you were asked by Mr Beer, you said in your
evidence that, as regards the explanation that was
provided concerning Mr Jenkins, that there was a concern
that - or you were flagging to the judge there were
likely to be criticisms of things said or done by
Mr Jenkins in the Misra trial and other criminal cases.
A. Yes.
Q. Are you trying to say that you were trying to tell the
judge that, in the future, that there was going to be
issues in criminal cases, possible appeals, that related
to Mr Jenkins? Is that what you're trying to say?
A. I wasn't talking about appeals.
112
(28) Pages 109 - 112
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Right. So what criminal cases were you talking about
that you were trying to signal to the judge involved
Mr Jenkins?
The Misra trial and other criminal cases in which he had
been involved as an expert witness.
In what way was that going to be a future event that you
were trying to signal to the judge?
I don't understand your question.
Well, you were trying to flag something to the judge.
You're trying to say to the judge, "Look, there's
a situation here regarding Jenkins and his involvement
in criminal cases".
Yes.
You're trying to flag that up, yes?
Yes.
Now, "flagging up" seems to say you're providing some
sort of warning for the future. What do you --
Why do you say that?
Well, you explain, then, what you mean by flagging it up
to the judge?
What I was flagging to the judge -- well, what we were
flagging to the judge was that there were -- had
Mr Jenkins been called as a witness, there would have
been questions asked of him relating to the things he
said and did not say in criminal prosecutions,
113
-- did he know that?
Please let me answer the question. However, I would say
this: I have no doubt that Mr Green knew that there were
criticisms being made of Mr Jenkins’ performance as
an expert witness in criminal cases. Of course he knew
that.
To your knowledge, did Mr Green know or his team know
that there had been concerns expressed by criminal
lawyers that Mr Jenkins had actively misled courts?
Ive already answered that question.
No, you haven't. You've diverted yourself from the
answer.
If I may say so, that is not a proper point to put to
me --
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Can I stop before you start, Mr de Garr
Robinson. I don't want a situation developing where you
and Mr Stein have an argument. So I'd be grateful if
you both -- first, Mr Stein ask the question and then,
secondly, you give your answer without either of you
trying to chop down the other, if you see what I mean.
MR STEIN: Yes, I do, sir.
THE WITNESS: Very good, my Lord.
MR STEIN: Did Mr Green know, as you did, that Mr Jenkins
had been viewed by criminal lawyers, instructed on
behalf of the Post Office, that he had misled the court;
115
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
11 June 2024
including, in particular, the Misra case because that
was actually the subject of evidence from Professor
McLachlan. That's what was being signalled to the
judge. That's only relevant -- it would only be
a relevant thing to signal if there was material to
suggest that he had made previous inconsistent
statements.
Did you explain the signal or this flag to the judge to
your opponent? That's leading counsel, Patrick Green QC
as he then was, KC as he now is?
I have no recollection of discussing this with Mr Green
at all. That is -- if I may say so, that's a slightly
unreal question. We're all -- we were all in that
court, we were all experienced litigators. I appreciate
I'm using that expression several times now but we all
know what's going on. It was adversarial litigation.
There is no way in the world that Mr Green thought I was
making some reference to some future event. Mr Green
would have known precisely what I meant.
Did Mr Green know that there had been concerns expressed
by criminal lawyers that Mr Jenkins had misled a court;
did he know that?
I have no idea. I would --
To your knowledge --
Please let me answer.
114
did he know?
I imagine not.
Right. Now, help us understand the overall position.
Many of my clients, certainly not all, are people that
were involved in the GLO litigation, the High Court
litigation, okay, as litigants. Now, help us understand
a bit more, using as non-lawyer language as possible,
why wasn't disclosed within the litigation that
Mr Jenkins had -- was understood to have misled courts?
The source of my knowledge on that question was some
legal advice that had been given five, six years
previously, to Post Office. That was privileged. It
wasn't in my gift to reveal it to the claimants. That
was privileged and I didn't have instructions to waive
previously.
Right. Did you ever consider that question, this
question of privilege, privilege meaning that you would
be unable without permission to disclose it? Did you
ever look into that and think to yourself: is this
actually privileged information; did that occur to you?
It didn't occur to me that -- I can't imagine it would
have occurred to me that it was not privileged. Why
would I think it was not privileged?
Did you look into the source of the information that led
to the view that Mr Jenkins had misled the court? Did
116
(29) Pages 113 - 116
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
you consider that, in other words whether that source of
information was privileged or not?
A. The -- all I looked at was what was set out in
Mr Clarke's note, and that note is privileged, as far as
I'm aware.
Q. So you'd looked at the note, decided that that was
privileged because it's a note from a lawyer, drafted by
Mr Clarke, a lawyer at Cartwright King, and that, for
you, was sufficient to say it's privileged, can't go
near it; is that fair?
A. Yes, and if I made a mistake then I made a mistake, but
that's still how I look at it now.
Q. Right. One last question and then I'll finish: did you
consider the criminal exception to privilege, sometimes
called the iniquity exception to privilege; did that
cross your mind at all?
A. No, and I just don't remember thinking about these
things in those ways. It's not -- it wasn't in my gift
to reveal to the court what Mr Clarke had said in that
note.
MR STEIN: No further questions.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: = Thank you, Mr Stein.
Who is next?
MR BEER: I think it's Mr Henry.
Questioned by MR HENRY
117
convictions unsafe, as we did with the previous exercise
with the previous revelation about the Fujitsu bugs? If
not, why not?"
So you're drawing a distinction there, aren't you,
between the previous exercise, namely the issue of the
bugs, with the separate subject of the misleading expert
evidence and also the possibility of remotely altering
branch data?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. Exactly. Now, so you clearly identified that
distinction, what I'm going to call the tainted Fujitsu
witness point. This isn't to in any way embarrass you
but you were very frank about your having no criminal
experience at all, do I take it, therefore, that you've
never sat as a Crown Court recorder?
A. Correct.
Q. So, notwithstanding all of that and the fact, as you
admit, that you've had no practice or practical
experience in criminal law, you clearly identified that
point: the misleading evidence point from the expert?
A. Yes, I imagine it -- I did so as a result of something
that was said in the claimant's letter before action but
I can't be sure about that.
Q. But you clearly identified it because, otherwise, you
wouldn't have written it down as you did.
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
MR HENRY: Hello, Mr de Garr Robinson.
Could we go to POL00140216, please, and it's your
email of 1 June 2016. While it's being brought up --
can we scroll up, please.
It's point 2 in your PS that I want to concentrate
on.
Thank you very, very, very much indeed.
Now, you pose in that email a number of interesting
questions to Mr Parsons, including whether the expert
evidence previously relied upon from Fujitsu was wrong
or misleading, and you were drawing a distinction, were
you not, between the existence of bugs, which you refer
to as "the previous exercise”, and the apparently
misleading conduct of the expert, which was a separate
issue.
A. I'msorry—~
Q. Let me read the paragraph to you:
"When did we become aware of the possibility of
remotely altering branch data on Horizon, and why did we
not become aware of it long ago? Is the fact that we
consistently claim the opposite our fault, or Fujitsu's?
Does it mean that the expert evidence that we have
previously relied on from Fujitsu was wrong/misleading?
And have we already embarked on an exercise to determine
whether this makes any or all of the previous
118
Now, could I just ask you to consider this. If
there had been successful criminal appeals between 2013
and 2019 that blew open the existence of Gareth Jenkins’
misfeasance, that would have made the Horizon Issues
trial much more difficult to defend, wouldn't it?
A. But by this stage, had there not already been appeals on
the basis of -- I'm sorry, I can't now put together the
chronologically in my head.
Q. Don't worry. Let me just put the question to you again.
If there had been successful criminal appeals between
2013 and 2019 --
A. Oh, I see.
Q._ -- that had blown open the existence of Gareth Jenkins’
misfeasance, that would have made the Horizon Issues
trial much more difficult to defend, wouldn't it?
A. No, I don't think so. It would have made -- it would
have reinforced the desirability of not relying on any
evidence from Gareth Jenkins, certainly.
Q. Well, if there had been number of successful criminal
appeals exposing that the Post Office had called
an expert, the Chief Architect of the Horizon system,
who breached his duty to the court and had misled juries
and Magistrates orally and in writing, failing to
disclose the existence of bugs, errors and defects, that
surely would have gravely, perhaps fatally, undermined
120
(30) Pages 117 - 120
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
your defence?
You overlook what the questions were in the GLO
proceedings. The questions were: (1) what were the
parties’ rights and obligations under the postmaster
contracts; (2) were there bugs that had caused
deficiencies, shortfalls in postmaster accounts which
were lasting, in other words which hadn't been fixed;
and (3) were there cases of remote access by Fujitsu
which resulted in false shortfalls being created, not
generally but in relation to the claimants?
Well, the --
The question of appeals of -- in certain criminal
proceedings, about which I know nothing, being
successful and the basis upon which they were
successful, would have had no direct impact on those
questions. There would still have needed to be evidence
about what bugs there were, whether those bugs had any
impact on the claimants’ accounts, what remote access
occurred and whether the relevant acts of remote access
had any impact on the claimants’ accounts.
So I'm afraid I don't accept your -- the point that
you're trying to put to me, which is that had the
process, the criminal appeals process, taken place
quicker than it, in fact, did, that would somehow have
meant that Post Office would have had to have admitted
121
the converse position. Had you called Gareth Jenkins in
the Horizon Issues trial, you would have had to have
disclosed that he had given false evidence, misleading
the jury in written and oral evidence and had breached
his duty to the court. That surely can't be
controversial?
I'd need to think about that. I'm not -- on what basis
would it have been -- I'm not saying that -- it might
have been -- there might have been very good reasons for
Mr Jenkins to have addressed the matter upfront in his
witness statement, rather than it being elicited in
cross-examination, but I don't understand the legal
basis upon which you advance that proposition.
Well, it has to be part of the discovery process,
surely. You can't call somebody and suppress the fact
that he'd given false evidence, misleading the jury in
written and oral evidence and had breached his duty to
the court. I mean, that can't possibly be right.
I mean, are we completely at cross purposes here?
I think we may be because what I -- perhaps it might be
helpful if I remind you -- is that in the GLO
proceedings, it was one of the early cases in which --
that disclosure was ordered in -- under the pilot
scheme, which is now PDS§7, I think, AD. During the GLO
proceedings, there was no duty to give standard
123
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
25
11 June 2024
defeat in the GLO proceedings. That's not right at all.
Q. Well, those criminal appeals would have answered points
2 and 3, wouldn't they? Because those criminal appeals,
based upon an exposé of Gareth Jenkins, would have
addressed the existence of bugs, errors and defects and
whether they were lasting and caused loss, and, also,
they would have blown open the issue of remote access.
A. I think you're assuming that there would -- that the
Criminal Court of Appeal would have considered whether
there were bugs that actually caused specific loss to
specific claimants or whether there was actions of
remote access that caused specific loss to specific
claimants. I find that supposition almost impossible to
believe.
Q. But surely there would have been a risk? I mean, we
have just seen the Herbert Smith attendance note:
“Anyone who has dealt with Gareth would know that he
would kill our case."
“Anyone who has dealt with Gareth would know that he
would kill our case", and, if that had all been exposed
between 2013 and 2019, it would have put the Post Office
in a very, very difficult position.
A. It would have been unpleasant for the Post Office, of
course, yes.
Q. Well, let's just deal with the other side of the coin,
122
disclosure. What happened is that the parties
identified narrow categories of documents in relation to
which disclosure should be given. The -- so -- I mean,
I wouldn't -- you're raising a question with me which
I'd need to consider further but it's not obvious to me
that all of those things would have needed to be
disclosed.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying I would
need to think about it much more carefully.
Q. I see. So you need to think carefully about the fact
that, if you had called Gareth Jenkins in the Horizon
Issues trial, you would need to reflect carefully on
whether you would have to disclose that he had given
false evidence, misleading the jury both in writing and
orally, in Seema Misra's case, and had breached his duty
to the court; does that reflect your answer?
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Well, Mr Henry, if I can intervene,
I know enough about both criminal and civil disclosure
to be able to say that there are very significant
differences and that we mustn't assume the overlap that
you are assuming.
MR HENRY: I'm so sorry, sir. Well, then I'll leave it
there.
But could I just ask this: those matters surely --
to use your phrase -- even an experienced litigator
124
(31) Pages 121 - 124
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
would have had to have had telepathic powers to grasp
all that, the courts had been misled, that Jenkins was
in breach of his duties as an expert, et cetera,
et cetera, and so, therefore, the explanation given to
Mr Justice Fraser, as was, was by no means the full
picture?
I don't accept the proposition that -- from paragraph
144.1, that one doesn't -- one can't see the essence of
what's being -- what's being signalled to the judge.
I'm afraid I just don't agree with you. I could go over
the point again, if you like --
No, no need to.
- but that is my view.
Could I just ask you to consider the words you used to
Herbert Smith that he would have been killed at trial.
How would he have been killed at trial, if none of this
had come out?
I don't understand your question. He would have been
killed -- what I meant by "he would have been killed at
trial" is that, had he given evidence at trial, he would
have been cross-examined on the statements that he had
previously made in other criminal proceedings and, as
a result of that cross-examination and as a result of
what I'd seen in Mr Clarke's note, the likelihood is
that the court would have come to the view that he was
125
Do you think, on reflection -- and this is my last
subject and topic with you -- that you were, to some
extent, captive to your professional and lay client
advancing again and again, inadvertently no doubt,
misleading submissions to the court and also --
What -- which submissions are you referring to?
Well, for example, the KEL submission, that the KELs
weren't under the control of the Post Office and that
the KELs were irrelevant. I mean, that was hardly
a respectable submission to make. Why didn't you
challenge the Post Office when those instructions were
given to you?
That is the most extraordinary question. If I could
just unpick it for a moment, the question as to what the
Known Error Log contained was raised at a very early
stage and the relevant paragraph of the defence was
served at a very early stage. It was served on the
basis of instructions from Post Office that would have
been based upon information provided by Fujitsu, that
the Known Error Log was a trivial document that dealt
with issues that had nothing to do with the issues that
the GLO proceedings were concerned with.
Similarly, my instructions that the Known Error Log
was not in Post Office's control would have been based
on instructions I received from Post Office through WBD.
127
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
an unreliable witness. That's what I meant by “killed
at trial".
Q. I see. So he'd have been dead in the water, if he'd
been called --
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: _ I don't know whether it matters if itis
"killed at trial" or “dead in the water".
MR HENRY: But it would have been very public, wouldn't it?
It would have attracted purposes and interested parties
inside and outside the JFSA would have become aware of
his apparent misfeasance?
A. Perhaps. That's not something that was in my mind at
the time.
Q. Alll'm suggesting is, again, that knowledge of this
wrongdoing would have promoted appeals and that would
have been damaging again to the Post Office,
a proliferation of appeals which would have been
politically embarrassing but would also give rise to the
prospect of further civil litigation?
A. Again, you're raising issues that were not in my mind
when I -- and the rest of the Legal Team -- came to the
conclusion that it would not be in Post Office's
interests to call him as a witness.
Q. Are you sure they weren't in your mind, Mr de Garr
Robinson?
A. Inmy mind, certainly, yes.
126
Now, I had -- there was absolutely no basis, back in
2017, July 2017, when the defence was served, there was
absolutely no basis to question those instructions, and
you have not suggested a single reason why I should have
refused to accept what I was told and insisted on
cross-examining my clients and insisting on further
evidence. If it's a principle -- if one were to conduct
complex litigation on the basis on every single point
that a client needs to produce evidence to his barrister
to satisfy the barrister that the point is actually
right, it would be impossible ever to draft a defence.
Q. But again and again, as is clear from the Horizon Issues
judgment, again and again, in particular, for example,
information received from Mr Parsons was shown to be
wrong?
A. Not when the defence was served in July 2017.
Q. But, as the case continued, perhaps, did it ever occur
to you that you had been misled?
A. I've described my experience of the case and how
unsatisfactory my instructions are in my witness
statement. I think to say "misled" -- I was certainly
misled about whether the Known Error Log was in Post
Office's control and I -- and certainly I would have
thought Post Office as well -- from my perception, Post
Office as well -- was misled about whether it contained
128
(32) Pages 125 - 128
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
any issues that would have been relevant to the GLO
proceedings. So, on that question, yes, I certainly
accept that I was misled and, as I say, I was very
surprised when I discovered the truth.
MR HENRY: So at last we can agree on something, Mr de Garr
Robinson, thank you very much.
MR BEER: Sir, the last set of questions are from Ms Dobbin.
Questioned by MS DOBBIN
MS DOBBIN: Mr de Garr Robinson, I ask questions on behalf
oP
2
prop
of Gareth Jenkins. My name is Clair Dobbin. I hope you
can hear me all right.
I can just about.
Good. Mr de Garr Robinson, you have been asked number
of questions about Mr Jenkins' reliability. May I start
by asking you whether or not, in fact, you saw any of
the witness statements that he made in any criminal
proceedings?
None at all.
Did you read the transcript of the evidence that he
gave --
None --
-- in the Misra trial?
I'm so sorry, none at all.
Did you see any of the communications, for example, he
had with Post Office lawyers in the course of
129
without recourse to many, many underlying documents, it
is right, isn't it, that there was a number of people in
Fujitsu who were providing assistance to those who were
giving evidence in the civil proceedings?
Yes.
It's also right that there was a team of people who were
also providing some assistance in relation to the expert
evidence that was being given by Dr Worden; is that also
correct?
I think there must have been although I was unaware of
any -- I didn't know what contact there had been between
Dr Worden and Fujitsu. But I was aware that Dr Worden
wanted contact, hence the need for a protocol.
Right. I was going to ask you that: it's your
understanding that that contact was, in fact, mediated
in the way that your protocol foresaw; is that correct?
That was my understanding of how it worked.
Allright. In terms of the number of people who were
assisting from Fujitsu, was that because a number of
different people were needed because of the multiplicity
of issues that fell to be determined in the trial?
I think it may also -- in part.
Yes?
Because there were questions about Fujitsu documents,
and so on, but also, I think in part because the ground
131
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
prosecutions conducted by Post Office?
None at all.
I think you confirmed, in fact, to my learned friend
Mr Beer that you never spoke to Mr Jenkins, I think,
throughout the civil proceedings?
I don't recall ever having spoken to him or having met
him.
I think that you said in answer to one question that,
whenever the question of relying on Mr Jenkins was
raised at an earlier stage, that you didn't give any
thought to whether he understood the position that he
was in, in other words that he was, on the one hand,
subject to a criticism by Post Office in respect of
expert evidence that he had given but, on the other
hand, Post Office might need to rely on him, correct?
I think the answer is -- it's a long question but
I think the answer to it is, yes.
I'm sorry for asking a long question. This one is
shorter. Did that remain the position throughout the
litigation, Mr de Garr Robinson, that you never really
thought or considered the question of whether or not
Mr Jenkins knew the position that he was being put in?
I never considered that.
Allright. In terms of the way that the litigation was
conducted -- and I'm going to try and do this shortly
130
rush leading up to the commencement of the trial was so
intensely busy. Initial evidence was served at the end
of September 2018, then there was supplemental evidence
in mid-November 2018 and then we get into the trial in
the beginning of March. During that same process,
expert evidence -- enormous expert reports were served.
So the result is that the period of the preparation of
evidence was extraordinarily intense. There was no time
to do anything and, as a result of the lack of time,
I think what happened was that more people were pulled
into the process for Fujitsu than otherwise would have
been necessary. And I think that may have been adverted
to in one of Johnny Gribben's emails that I looked at
this morning.
Yes. How sighted were you on that underlying process or
were you the recipient of work that was being done by
others, that perhaps synthesised, for example,
underlying analysis?
I was the recipient, in some cases a quite resentful
recipient because there were other things I wanted to
get on with.
All right, so if I wanted to ask you questions, for
example, about what you know about Mr Jenkins’
correcting some of the evidence that had been given
about remote access, is that the sort of work that might
132
(33) Pages 129 - 132
A.
a
A
a
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
have been going on that you would not have been sighted
‘on or would you have known about that kind of work?
I would not have known. All I would have been told was
the outcome of the process by which Fujitsu were -- was
providing relevant information for use by the legal
team. I wouldn't have been aware of information being
produced that was then corrected by any particular
person. It's not -- that's not something I would
have -- would have been of any great interest to me.
All right. So does it follow that you didn't know that
Mr Jenkins was, for example, or did work then, to
correct evidence that had been given about remote
access?
I -- I'm not aware of -- I wouldn't have been aware of
that at the time.
Right. I'm grateful. Thank you. Those are my
questions.
MR BEER: Sir, that's the end of the questioning of
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Mr de Garr Robinson, at the conference of
Mr de Garr Robinson.
Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS
10 September 2018, which, if I've got my note in correct
order, is the conference at which it was decided that
Mr Jenkins would not be called as a witness, am I right
in thinking that, essentially, the material which
133
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I haven't misdescribed the practice, have
I, because I think Mr Justice Fraser did go out of his
way to say that no evidence had been given to provide
an explanation in the trial?
The -- during the course of proceedings, there can often
be occasions when counsel inform the judge as to the
reasons why particular things were and were not done
without the need for a witness statement. I should say,
however, that I don't think that paragraph 144 was
drafted with any expectation that it would provide Post
Office with any enormous comfort. There was no
expectation that the judge would think, "Oh, well,
that's all right then".
It was just -- the intention, I think, probably
would have been to mitigate the point rather than to
sort of explain it away.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: That was really my last question: what
A.
was the purpose of it?
I'm not -- to be honest, I'm not really clear. That
must make me seem rather foolish but I look at
paragraph 144 and I ask myself what good was it actually
going to do at the end of the day? And the answer is
I can't actually think of any practical good it was
going to do. It wasn't going to affect the judge -- you
know, cause the judge to change his mind on any relevant
135
ONOaARWN
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
justified that decision was the advice written by
Mr Clarke and such oral elaboration about it which he
gave you at the conference?
A. That's correct.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So, again, putting it entirely neutrally,
your agreement to that course of action was wholly
dependent on Mr Clarke's assessment of the situation?
A. Yes.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: One other matter.
In closing the Horizon Issues trial, it was decided
appropriate to give reasons to Mr Justice Fraser as to
why Mr Jenkins had not been called. Yet, if I read
Mr Justice Fraser's judgment correctly, there had been
no attempt to adduce any evidence about that previously?
A. That's correct.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: I may be a bit out of date, Mr de Garr
Robinson, but I don't actually think that I ever
encountered a situation -- either as a barrister or
a judge -- in which the judge was provided reasons for
a witness not being called which were wholly unsupported
by evidence. Am I being out of date and old-fashioned,
or was this somewhat unusual?
I find it difficult to answer that question. I'm not
aware of any change in the law in recent years which
would change the practice that you have referred to.
134
issue. So I do find myself scratching my head as to why
we even bothered, why counsel even bothered including it
in the closing submissions. But I appreciate that's --
must sound rather odd to you.
It sometimes happens when you're drafting things in
abig rush. You end up including things that, with the
benefit of a cold reflection, perhaps you would have
left out.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: All right. Thank you very much.
So thank you for providing both your witness
statements and thank you very much for giving evidence
to the Inquiry this morning -- well, into this
afternoon.
So we'll adjourn until when, Mr Beer?
MRBEER: Can we say 2.30, please. So the full hour. We
will be able to fit Lord Grabiner in comfortably.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Thank you very much.
(1.28 pm)
(The Short Adjournment)
(2.30 pm)
MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear us?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can, thank you very much.
MR BEER: Thank you. May I call Lord Grabiner KC, please.
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Of course.
LORD ANTHONY STEPHEN GRABINER KC (sworn)
136
(34) Pages 133 - 136
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Questioned by MR BEER
MR BEER: Good afternoon, Lord Grabiner. As you know, my
name is Jason Beer and I ask questions on behalf of the
Inquiry. Can you tell us your full name please?
A. Anthony Stephen Grabiner.
Q. Thank you very much for the provision of a witness
statement to the Inquiry, and for attending the Inquiry
today to assist us in our investigation.
Can we start with your witness statement, please.
It's 13 pages long, it’s dated 3 May of this year. Can
we have it on screen as well as you looking at the hard
copy. WITN10640100. I think there are two corrections
you would like to make the first of which appears on
page 6, in paragraph 16, six lines in, which reads:
"... me of 20 March timed 13.12 and my reply timed
14.38..."
Would you wish to change the time of the reply from
14.38 to 11.17?
That's correct.
Sorry, 11.27.
Forgive me, that's not correct; that is correct, yes.
Yes, thank you. As we'll see later when we look at the
email, that is indeed the case: that the reply is timed
before the originating email.
Then the second correction, which is to the same
137
prop
Q. You took silk in 1981?
\ did.
Q. You have, and you had at the material times to the
Inquiry, a commercial practice specialising in banking
and finance, energy oil and gas, civil fraud,
competition and merger investigations, and shareholder
disputes; is that right?
A. That's correct.
>
Q. You were the head of One Essex Court chambers from 1994
until, I think, very recently, so for 30 years?
A. Acouple of weeks ago.
Q. You acted in the Post Office Group Litigation brought
against it by subpostmasters concerning both their
contractual relationship with the Post Office and the
operation of the Horizon system but yours, is this
right, was a limited involvement centring on the
application to recuse Mr Justice Fraser?
A. Yes.
Q._ I'm going to call him Mr Justice Fraser, despite his
subsequent elevation. You applied on behalf of the Post
Office to Mr Justice Fraser that he should recuse
himself as managing judge of the Post Office Horizon
litigation?
A. Correct.
Q. I should make it clear, Lord Grabiner, that, right at
139
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
effect, on page 8 of the witness statement. Do you have
that?
Yes, on page 8. It's paragraph 20, yes.
Top line:
"My reply timed at 11.27, and Lord Neuberger's
response timed 14.38 ..."
Is there any correction you wish to make to that?
I think it's the same correction because it's the same
email. It's just a timing issue.
I think your reply is, in fact, timed at 11.27 so
I think that's probably correct.
Yeah.
Subject to those points, are the contents of that
witness statement true to the best of your knowledge and
belief?
They are.
Your signature appears, I think, at the end, at page 13;
is that right?
It does.
Thank you very much. The witness statement can come
down.
Can I start, Lord Grabiner, with your background,
please. You were, I think, called to the Bar in 1968;
is that right?
Yes.
138
the outset, the authoritative factual and legal position
in relation to each of them is addressed and established
by Mr Justice Fraser's Common Issues judgment, judgment
number 3, dated 15 March 2019; and his recusal judgment,
judgment number 4, dated 9 April 2019; and, insofar as
they are relevant, by the Court of Appeal's decisions
refusing permission to appeal against the recusal
judgment, that's 10 May '19, and the Common Issues
judgment, dated 16 November 2019.
So consistently, and consistently with the approach
you yourself adopted in your witness statement, I shall
not be exploring the legal and factual position that's
established by each of those judgments, understand?
I understand.
Thank you. Can I turn to your first instruction then in
the recusal application. Is this right: you were
instructed on Friday, 15 March 2019?
That's correct.
We'll look in a moment at the means by which you were
instructed but, just to orientate ourselves in the
chronology, the Common Issues trial before Mr Justice
Fraser had concluded -- it had concluded on Friday,
8 March 2019 -- and he had distributed the draft Common
Issues judgment under embargo to the parties; is that
right?
140
(35) Pages 137 - 140
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
I think that's correct, yeah.
Thank you. On Monday, 11 March, so the following
Monday, the Horizon Issues trial had started in the High
Court?
Yes, that's correct. I think the draft of the judgment
had been delivered on the Friday before 11 March.
Yes, on Friday the 8th, yes. You had had no involvement
in the Post Office Horizon litigation before Friday,
15 March 2019?
None whatsoever.
So let's look at your initial instruction, then. Can we
look, please, at WITN10650106, which, if you're using
a hard copy is B2. It will come up on the screen for
you, Lord Grabiner. Can we turn to page 6 of that
document, please. If we just scroll down, we'll see
this is an email from Rob Smith, who I think is your
clerk --
Yes.
-- to you and others, saying:
"Tony,
"The solicitors have confirmed that they would like
you to read up and get fully up to speed on the issues.
They are yet to decide if they will make the application
but want to be in a position to make the application as
quickly as possible if they decide to go.
144
If we just look at those, please. Firstly, the Gideon
Cohen note, POL00023097. That's tab B3, if you're --
I've got that, thanks.
-- looking at it in hard copies. This what you refer to
as "Gideon's document”, yes?
Correct.
You'll see it's a note on the background to a possible
recusal application. If we look at page 29, please,
you'll see that it's, in fact, signed off by David
Cavender, Gideon Cohen and is that Stephanie?
I think so, yes.
You refer to it as Gideon's document. Was there
a reason for that?
Not that I can recall. It may be that he gave it to me.
Right. He was the provider of the document to you. We
can see that it's, in fact, signed off by nearly all of
the counsel, to --
It is the product of the counsel team, yeah.
Just go back to page 1. You'll see it walks the reader
into the operation of the Post Office itself and then,
‘over subsequent pages, the operation of the Horizon
system the procedural background to the common issues
litigation and it gets to, for example, on page 14 --
I'm not going to read it all, if we turn to page 14 and
scroll down, please -- a section between here and the
143
ONOaARWN
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
>
2
pPrporop
11 June 2024
"David [that's David Cavender], if you have not
already can you bring Tony up to speed on all the goings
‘on. Gideon [Gideon Cohen] you are the junior to Tony.
If you feel that Stephanie is needed to assist please
let me know."
Was Stephanie another potential junior?
Yes, a member of my chambers.
So that's the morning of 15 March at 10.42. Can we go
forwards to page 4 of the email chain, please. If we
look at that email, timed 11.58 -- thank you -- this
your email, and you say:
"I've read Gideon's note on the background and DN
Is that David Neuberger, Lord Neuberger?
Itis indeed.
".., [I've read Lord Neuberger's] observations note of
14 March. I plan to read the draft judgment between now
and Monday morning but for present purposes I assume the
correctness of the passages in Gideon's note and I also
agree with [David Neuberger's] analysis."
So, by this time -- the following day, Saturday
morning, just before midday -- you'd read two documents:
Gideon Cohen's note and Lord Neuberger's observations
document?
Correct.
142
end of the note, so for the remaining 15 pages,
analysing the judge's draft Common Issues judgment.
Correct.
I think you'd agree that the document is not a neutral
document?
No, certainly not. It's an advocate's document.
Yes, it sets out a case --
Yes.
-- ie a case for making an application for recusal?
Precisely.
I think we can see that from, for example, page 25,
under the cross-heading "Vitriol"?
Yes, but I mean it doesn't follow that that's not
an accurate description.
No, but, nonetheless, as you've said I think, that this
was a piece of advocacy?
Well, it was but, I mean, I know the authors of the
document and I'm sure that they were making arguments
that they thought were properly sustainable.
Can we look at the second document that you'd read by
that midday on the Saturday, Lord Neuberger's
observations document of 14 March. That's POL00025910.
Yes, I have that.
That's your tab B4.
Yes.
144
(36) Pages 141 - 144
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
In paragraph 1, Lord Neuberger says that his
observations are based on the draft judgment based on
a ‘Note on background to possible recusal application’
That's the document we've just looked at.
I'm sure.
-- and a discussion with David Cavender Queen's Counsel.
He is not going to set out the facts because they are
explained in the note. So he had read the judgment, he
had been provided with the note that you'd been provided
with and he says he'd spoken to David Cavender.
Can we look, please, at what this assessment of the
prospects are, by looking at page 6 of his note, please,
and turn to paragraph 19.
Yes, I have that.
Thank you. He says:
“For all of the reasons set out above I consider
that there are reasonable grounds for [the Post Office]
to bring an application to recuse the judge in these
proceedings.”
Then he turns to a different issue, yes?
Absolutely.
Now, in the scales that lawyers use, would you
understand "reasonable grounds to bring an application"
to mean that it is arguable, it is proper to argue it?
145
But I take your point. I mean, if this wasn't
a sustainable argument he would have been saying that --
Yes.
-- and that's not what he's saying.
You say that, at this point -- this is just before
lunchtime on the Saturday -- that you agreed with Lord
Neuberger. You say, "I agree with DN's analysis", that
is you agreed there were reasonable grounds for
an argument for recusal?
Yes, because, of course, at that stage, I don't think
I'd read the judgment.
Correct. I was just about to ask you. In your case,
that's without reading the judgment itself?
Absolutely. The difference between us was that he had,
at that stage, read the judgment; I had not. So I was
exclusively relying upon the papers that I'd been
presented with.
That's the Cavender et a/ note and David Neuberger's
observations document?
Precisely.
You say that you agreed that there were reasonable
grounds for the argument without reading the draft
judgment but also, is this right, without reading any
transcripts?
Yes, that's true.
147
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>ppropr
11 June 2024
Properly arguable but I also know the author extremely
well and he's a very prudent person. I think I'm
probably somebody who's a little bit more aggressive in
my advice normally but he's extremely cautious, and so
I take that to mean that this is a serious case that is
available to be made.
But, just focusing on the words for the moment, even
though you with your knowledge of Lord Neuberger may
think that they mean something than they do on their
face, "reasonable grounds" is an assessment of prospects
which says it's proper to argue this case and that
distinguishes the case from one where the prospects are
fanciful or trivial?
Oh, totally, I agree. There are emails where he does
express himself more firmly.
Yes, we're going to come to the firming up. I think
it's fair to say that, if this does mean reasonable
grounds, in the sense that I've described it, the
prospects are hardened up over the course of time.
Not because I think there's been any separate
development in the facts, because I think he would have
been focusing upon the judgment, as did I, which is
an immovable subject, but he does regard it as a strong
case, I think. I can't remember the exact words he uses
but I certainly did, and I know that he did as well.
146
Without reading any orders, submissions, witness
statements, statements of case?
Yes.
And, so far as I can see from the papers, your
solicitors had not provided you with any materials in
this case?
Correct.
This was just a briefing up by other members of
chambers; is that right?
Correct, whose judgment I trust.
You tell us in your witness statement -- there's no need
to turn it up ~- it's page 2, four lines from the
bottom:
"I also spent time with Messrs Cavender and Cohen,
who were able generally to educate me, which was
necessary given the time pressure and their background
knowledge."
So, essentially, would this be right, Lord Grabiner,
you were really being briefed by colleagues in chambers
rather than by your solicitors?
Correct. That's completely correct.
You were a comparative latecomer to all of this?
Iwas a latecomer, yes.
Who originated the idea of recusal?
I don't know. I mean, I suspect it -- well, I just
148
(37) Pages 145 - 148
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
don't know, is the answer. I think it already figures
in the David Neuberger note and I think it's already
referred to in the counsel note. Certainly, it was on
the table before I was instructed.
They are dated 13 and 14 March respectively, so it was
plain that consideration was being given to recusal by
at least those two dates. Do you know whether this was
being driven -- the possible application for recusal --
by the solicitors at this stage?
I absolutely don't know, I'm afraid.
Do you know whether it was being driven by leading
counsel, David Cavender?
I just don't know.
At this stage, did you know whether any of this desire
potentially to apply to the judge for him to recuse
himself came from the Post Office Executive or the
Board?
I'm afraid I do not know the answer to that question.
In these discussions that you had with Messrs Cavender
and Cohen, did you get any feel for how the team felt,
ie whether they felt, in particular, slightly bruised or
slighted by the draft judgment?
Yes, well, I'm sure they were and I'm sure the clients
were as well -- when I say "clients", I mean the Post
Office -- because I think there is a reference in one of
149
"Ideally, I would like to know by today whether Lord
Grabiner is supportive of the recusal application, and
if so, to what extent. Are we able to gain any insight
on that? Provided that he is, then we should stand up
Lord Neuberger for the Board call, and I will be able to
feed back the outcome of the meeting with Lord Grabiner
(which could be any time from 1.30 [if] that suits
him)."
Then he continues:
"So I think the following issues arise:
"Is Lord Grabiner able to indicate today (email to
you is fine and then you copy on to me ...) if he is in
broad agreement with the statement that he is supportive
of a recusal application and it having prospects of
success."
Yes.
"I think [the Post Office] is seeking to flush out
whether Lord Grabiner is broadly supportive, as Lord
Neuberger was in his note, or whether he takes
a different view. If both are aligned, then there's
a [Post Office] Board decision to be taken. If there is
a difference of view, then we ([the Post Office] and
[Womble Bond Dickinson]) will have to think about how to
guide the [Post Office] Board.”
Then there's a passage that's not relevant. If we
151
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
>
11 June 2024
the emails to the fact -- I think I was told by Jane
MacLeod that the decision from the learned judge came as
a bolt out of the blue and was rather a shock to them
because, according to her telling me, they hadn't
appreciated that he'd taken such a strong view against
their position.
Yes. Can we turn on, then, to the Sunday, by looking at
WBON0001768. That's in your other volume of papers at
tab E15.
E?
15, 1-5.
This is the core bundle from the other -- from the --
sorry, this is the other bundle --
The additional bundle?
-- from the core parties. Yes. Yes, I've got that.
Thank you. If we look at the foot of page 1, we're now
at 9.47 on Sunday, 17 March, and there's an email from
Tom Beezer of Womble Bond Dickinson to your clerk, Rob
Smith, copied to the partner at Womble Bond Dickinson,
Andrew Parsons, and to an associate, Amy Prime. He
says:
"Rob
"Sorry for all this contact over the weekend ...
"I have had an email from the client at Post Office
and they say:
150
go up the document, please, and keep going.
So that email having arrived at 9.46, your clerk,
within five minutes says:
"Morning Tony
"Please see in Red below. Is this workable?"
Then further up the page, you at 10.58, about
an hour later, reply to your clerk and copy Tom Beezer
in saying:
“I agree with David Neuberger's approach and
I support the recusal application proposal."
Then you deal with logistics.
Yes.
So this was the Sunday and Post Office were pressing for
an answer whether you took the same view as Lord
Neuberger as to the prospects?
Yes.
Now, I think you say you agree with his approach. You
don't actually separately answer the question of can you
give a view as to the prospects of success?
That's correct.
Yes. I think the next day, Monday, 18 March, you held
a conference call with other members of the existing
counsel team, a solicitor from Womble Bond Dickinson,
and Jane MacLeod at One Essex Court -- when I say
conference call, I mean a conference -- is that right?
152
(38) Pages 149 - 152
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Yeah, I can't remember, actually, if it was
a physical -- or physically present or if it was a call,
I'm afraid. But we did have --
I think we'll see that it was physically at One Essex
Court by looking at POL00006397. That's B13.
Thanks very much. Yes. Well, it says I attended by
phone, you see. It says, "Updated note of" --
Oh, quite right.
So, I mean --
Hold on. Just slow down a bit. This is a note of two
things.
That's true. You're quite right, that's on 20 March,
am with you. You're absolutely right. So 18 March
seems that I was physically present at the meeting there
but 20 March, which I'm sure you'll come to, was my
attendance by phone.
Thank you. If we just see the way this document is
constructed, there are two headings right at the
beginning and then, if we scroll down the first page
‘over to the second page, and keep scrolling, and stop,
we'll see the first one and a half pages are all about
the in-person conference at One Essex Court on 18 March,
and then from one and a half onwards is about the
dial-in Board meeting on 20 March, understand?
Yes.
153
about urgency. I'm not going to read those now. If we
go over the page, please. The next heading is "Duty to
act" --
Yes.
-- and then the following heading is "Prospects"; can
you see that?
Yes.
Under "Duty to act" you're recorded as saying:
“Lord Grabiner explained that in his view if there
is no recusal application made then Post Office will
lose this series of trials set up in this matter.
Without a recusal application Post Office is stuck with
this Judge. An appeal on the law may correct some of
the very significant errors in the [Common Issues trial]
judgment but then the case will be sent back to this
Judge who has demonstrable apparent bias against the
Post Office and hence the firm conclusion that the Post
Office will lose and the financial impact of that will
be substantial. Recusal is therefore essential and Lord
Grabiner asserted that in the face of legal advice from
Lord Neuberger that recusal should be applied for and
the quantum of damages that Post Office will pay out on
a loss, then it was Lord Grabiner's view that there was
a duty on Post Office to seek recusal. Lord Grabiner
stated that in his view the Board of the Post Office had
155
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
oP
11 June 2024
Thank you. If we go back then to page 1, we can see who
is present. They're the people I have outlined. Under
the heading "Lord Neuberger's note", it records that you
explained that you had reviewed Lord Neuberger's note,
the David Cavender note, and that you had substantially
reviewed the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser. So, by this
time, you're one document further on than on the
Saturday and the Sunday --
Indeed.
-- ie you've substantially reviewed the Common Issues
judgment?
Yes.
If we scroll down. You're recorded as saying that you
confirmed that you agreed with the content of Lord
Neuberger's note?
Yes.
Yes? Again, is that you saying that you agree with his
assessment that you agree with the prospects of success
of a recusal application as being that there are
reasonable grounds to make the application?
I'm not sure that I would have been into that sort of
detail. I think what I was saying was I think this is
an appropriate case for such an application to be made.
You then deal with some procedural issues in the next
paragraph and at the foot of the page, which is all
154
no option but to seek recusal.”
Was that your advice?
Yes. I mean, I didn't see this document until you
provided me with a copy in preparation for this hearing,
and that probably explains why there's -- I haven't
signed it off. But, that said, I think that that
accurately summarises the substance of the advice that
I gave.
I mean, in fact, we know that this document was sent off
to Gideon Cohen with a request that he put it before you
to sign it off --
Mm-hm.
-- and, as with some good juniors, he said in reply
"I think Lord Grabiner will be busy".
Very kind of him.
But he, in fact, signed it off as accurate?
I see. Fine.
You're saying to us that that is a fair reflection of
the substance of the advice you gave?
I think it is, yes.
Thank you. Were you saying that the Post Office was
under a legal duty to apply for recusal?
No, I think that what I was saying was that, if they
didn't apply for the recusal then they would never be
able to make any complaint at all about the conduct of
156
(39) Pages 153 - 156
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
that trial. There are two separate issues here. One is
the content of the judgment, and the issues that might
have given rise to an appeal, and the other issue is the
complaint that the trial judge had, as I put it
elsewhere, I think, trespassed into territory that
impacted the other trials. In particular the Horizon
trial, which is yet to come. And I think what I was
saying was that, if they didn't make that recusal
application at that time, it simply, in the real world,
wouldn't be open to them to make that complaint
subsequently.
So this, where it says under the heading "Duty to act"
and in the penultimate line, there was a duty to seek
recusal, that shouldn't be taken to refer to a legal
duty on the Post Office Board --
No.
-- that it might owe, for example, to its shareholder or
others?
No, absolutely not. It's a piece of advice given by
a lawyer to a Board of directors as to how he thinks, as
the adviser, they should proceed, and it was firmly
expressed.
So there wouldn't be any legal consequences for the
Board if they decided not to apply for recusal. They
wouldn't be in any breach of duty?
157
Your analysis was what needs to be done if you want to
win this relation overall --
Yes.
-- is get rid of the judge because, otherwise, you're
stuck with him for the next trial?
Well, you put it rather bluntly but, basically, yes.
You then turn to the prospects of success.
Yes.
The note says:
"Lord Grabiner stated that:
"[1] there were strong arguments in favour of
an application for recusal ..."
That seems to be harking back to how desirable it is
to make the application, rather than its prospects of
success, doesn't it?
Well, there may be a difference without a difference
there. I'm not sure that -- I didn't draft these words.
I mean, those are a fair attempt to record what I said
but there's a bit more subtlety in your question than
I think is justified by the language of the note.
The second bullet point is that it was your strong view
that a recusal application was the right course of
action. Again, that's a different issue as to what the
prospects of success are?
That's true but, in a sense, they are bound up together,
159
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rPOPrPOP
11 June 2024
That's right, except that they would end up losing all
the trials and, on the face of it, if they had
a perfectly good argument to make in relation to the
conduct of the first trial, they would have, in effect,
blown the possibility of being able ever, subsequently,
to take that point.
Would you agree that it's one thing to say to a client
that taking a step in litigation is desirable or
important or essential, is one thing, if they wish to
win the litigation, but that they're under a positive
duty to take that step is very strong indeed?
No, I agree. And I think I've agreed with your point
that - if it was your point -- that they didn't have
a legal duty to do that. I'm simply advising them as
a lawyer as to what I think they ought to do, and that's
what I'm paid to advise them about.
This first section here, which comes before an analysis
of the prospects of success, is all about the
consequences for the Post Office if it doesn't seek to
get rid of the judge; is that right?
Yes.
It's all about consequences, not prospects of success?
Well, there is a reference to prospects of success --
We're going to come to that in a moment.
In the next paragraph, yes.
158
aren't they?
Well, sometimes one may advise clients to take a step in
litigation, even if it enjoys low prospects of success,
because of the consequences if they don't?
No, but I did describe it as the "right course of
action", according to this note. So if I thought that
there were very slim prospects of success, I'm not sure
I would have been saying that was the right course.
The third bullet point does address head on the
prospects of success, doesn't it?
Yes.
You're recorded as saying there is a serious prospect of
success?
That was my view.
Did that represent any change in view from the agreement
that you'd expressed on Saturday and Sunday in the
emails to Lord Neuberger's assessment of the maybe more
modest reasonable grounds?
Not really. I mean, I had read the judgment by then,
and I was satisfied that there were good arguments to be
made and that's all that I was saying.
Lastly, you are recorded as saying that this judge,
Mr Justice Fraser had done an unbelievable nonsense and
demonstrated apparent bias. Did you say that?
I did. I'm sure I said words to that effect, yes, and
160
(40) Pages 157 - 160
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
that was my view.
Can we move on to an email you sent to Lord Neuberger.
WITN10650106. That's tab B2 again, Lord Grabiner, and
look at page 2 at the bottom, please -
Yes.
- the foot of the page. So this is Monday, 18 March,
you to Lord Neuberger and others, and you say:
"Dear David,
"We just met with the solicitor -- Tom Beezer -- and
the [General Counsel] from the clients -- Jane
MacLeod -- and had a full discussion."
That's the meeting we've just read the attendance
note on.
Yes.
"I advised that the clients had no choice but to make
the application and that there were strong grounds for
doing so.”
That broadly accords with the note that we've just
read.
Indeed.
One being no choice, ie they were under a duty to do it;
and, secondly, there were strong grounds in terms of the
merits of it. This is the part of the email you
referred to earlier:
"Jane [MacLeod] explained that the judgment came as
161
call] -- the Board seems to think that they will get
a more detached view from you in their absence. I make
no comment on that bollox [sic]."
Yes, indeed.
Then if we go to page 2, please, and scroll down and see
Lord Neuberger's reply. That's --
Can I say that I think that what I'm talking about there
is the presence of both of us, he and I, in the same
meeting. I'm not talking about anybody else. The --
what seemed to me to be a nonsense was the notion that
they wanted to get his view but without me being there,
and vice versa.
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate but I don't think
much turns on it. If we just go back to the top of
page 3.
I'm sure it doesn't, yeah.
The line "It's possible", which is just at the foot of
the --
Yes, I've got that.
"It's possible that neither David nor Gideon will be
asked to participate in your call..."
So that must be neither David Cavender nor Gideon
Cohen --
I see, I understand.
-- will be asked but to participate.
163
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
>ppro
2
p>po>
11 June 2024
a bolt from the blue for the clients because there was
no expectation that the judge had formed such a negative
view of the [Post Office].
"Her concern is that the Board may not have the
stomach for a fight because asking for a judge to recuse
himself is [such] a drastic step. [The Post Office] is
Government owned and there are Board members who are
nervous of the publicity. I [that's you] said that was
a matter for the Board and that members who might be
conflicted should step out of the process but that is
a matter for them -- not me."
Just stopping there, were you, when you were
advising, did you understand of your client's wish to
have impartial views unaffected by the views of those
that were already instructed.
Yes, and I think that's the reason why they had come to
me and, indeed, to Lord Neuberger, in the first place.
Can we go back, then, to WITN10650106 that's still tab
B2 --
Yes.
-- and look at page 3 at the top.
That's where we were, I think, already.
Yes, it was. You continue:
"It's possible that neither David nor Gideon will be
asked to participate in your call [Lord Neuberger’
162
I understand. So I'm saying that they might feel they
might get a more detached view from you if they're not
present.
Yes, rather than you versus Lord Neuberger?
I understand but it's the same point.
If we go back, please, to page 2 --
It's still - maybe that's description is a bit blunt
but it's probably accurate.
If we go back to page 2, Lord Neuberger's reply to that
part of the email.
Yes.
It's the last paragraph as we can see there.
“Excluding them is a bit unfair to David [Cavender]
and Gideon [Cohen], but I suppose one can see where [the
Post Office] are coming from. I take it that you will
be on the call? I am anxious to ensure that nothing
I say crosses with what you have said/will say or makes
your task more difficult. I have the luxury of
expressing a view and then stepping back, whereas you
will be presenting the case and are the ultimate.
adviser."
Then if we see what you reply to that, at the top of
the page, thank you. You say:
"I won't be on the call ..."
Then the reason under the GRO is set out for you not
164
(41) Pages 161 - 164
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
being there.
I think I had a medical appointment. I think that's
what's covered up there.
Yes, we redacted it for your benefit.
I mean, my -- it explains my absence. It was
a perfectly proper justification for my not being there.
"and the clients are keen to get your view
untrammelled by mine and vice versa. For the same
reason I think they'll prefer not to have the rest of
the team on the call."
Mm.
So you understood that the clients were keen to get your
view untrammelled by Lord Neuberger's?
Well, they wanted to make sure that they knew what
I thought and that they knew thought Lord Neuberger
thought, and I think that was the -- that was my sense
of it anyway.
But you'd formed your view on the basis of the note
written by Messrs Cavender and Cohen and by reading Lord
Neuberger's advice?
Indeed.
So you had reached a view, trammelled by theirs?
Oh, certainly and -- but also forming my own judgement
in the process. I want to make it absolutely clear,
I would not have made this application unless
165
paragraph 18(g) --
I've never seen this.
No, I'm just going to read you what he says:
“I was anxious not to give advice which was
inconsistent with that of Lord Grabiner, as he would be
expressing the case and was the ultimate adviser", which
is essentially what's reflected here?
Indeed.
So is this right, you formed your view on the basis of
what David Cavender, Gideon Cohen and Lord Neuberger has
said in their notes but then Lord Neuberger was anxious
not to tell the Board anything that was inconsistent
with your advice?
Well, what Lord Neuberger thought, I think you'd better
ask him about. I can't really climb into his mind,
beyond what he has said in communications that we had
between ourselves that I've made full disclosure of.
Now, I think you know that Lord Neuberger had a call
with the Board. He was in Argentina at the time,
indeed, I think, was in Argentina for the duration of
this episode, and so was reading papers that had been
emailed to him?
He's a workaholic.
You know that he had a call with the Board after your
meeting in One Essex Court on Monday, 18 March?
167
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
>
prop
11 June 2024
I personally was entirely satisfied that it was a proper
application to make.
I'm just exploring at the moment how it appeared to the
Board. We're going to hear some evidence about -
I understand.
-- they perceived the opinions had been reached --
I understand.
-- and whether they were, on each occasion, independent
advices unaffected by the advice of the predecessor. So
you knew that they wanted to get your view untrammelled
by Lord Neuberger's. I think you've answered this
already: you had formed your view on the basis of what
Messrs Cavender and Cohen had said and on the basis of
what Lord Neuberger had said?
‘And on what I had read from the judgment, based upon --
I mean, they had participated -- Mr Cavender, Gideon
Cohen, they had participated in the trial, so they knew
exactly what had gone on in the trial and were able to
assist me in my reading process. But I formed the
judgement I did form by reference both to what they said
to me and what they showed me and what I read for
myself.
In his witness statement -- I'm not going to display it
now but instead just read faithfully the passage from
it - Lord Neuberger, that's WITN10650100, page 9,
166
Yes.
The 5.15 that you were not able to be present at?
Yes.
Now, I don't think you were ever shown a minute of that
Board meeting. Can we have a look at it, though?
No, I've been shown it just before I came in here this
afternoon. I've never seen it before but I have read
it.
Can we look, please, at POL00027594. Thank you.
“Minutes of a call of the Board of Directors of Post
Office ... on 18 March" at 5.15. You can see who is
present or is recorded as being present. Then, if we
just scroll down to “Conflicts of Interest":
"A conflict of interest was noted in relation to Tim
Parker as his role as Chairman of [HMCTS].
"A conflict of interest was noted in relation to Tom
Cooper in his role as UKGI Director, which as
an executive part of government, should not be involved
in a decision which related to the judiciary.
"Article 82 of [the] Articles of Association
permitted the Board to authorise a director in relation
to any matter on the subject of a conflict. The Board
determined that Tim Parker and Tom Cooper should be
involved in the Board discussions but they would not be
party to the decision on whether or not to seek the
168
(42) Pages 165 - 168
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
Judge's recusal."
That had been the subject in broad terms of your
email advice over the weekend?
Yes, if there was a conflict of interest going on, then
that was something they had to sort out as a Board.
If we can go to page 2, please, and scroll down to
paragraph 3, numbered-paragraph 3, where Lord
Neuberger's contribution begins.
Well, isn't it on page 1 as well, in the second
paragraph?
If we just scroll back up.
“[Jane MacLeod] noted that we had received a written
opinion from Lord Neuberger which had been issued on
14 March and which suggested that Post Office had
grounds for appeal and for recusal.
Yes, I'm talking about Lord Neuberger's own
contribution. He only joined for item 3?
I see. Forgive me, yes.
Item 3 then, "Lord Neuberger's overview".
Isee. Forgive me.
“Lord Neuberger joined the call and was introduced to
the Board. He set out the main courses of action that
[Post Office] could consider at this juncture:
"4. Accept the judgment
"2. Take an orthodox defensive position and seek to
169
I simply can't recall precisely. This is on --
This is on Monday, the 18th. You'd been exchanging
emails over the weekend of the 16th and 17th, in which
you informed him of your views of the case.
Yeah.
You'd told him on the afternoon of the 18th what advice
you'd given to the solicitors in consultation that
afternoon and your views as to the prospects of success.
Well, I'm not sure I can help further on the point.
I mean, it may be that you're right, I mean, the
documents will speak for themselves. I do know that he
then emailed to me about an hour later. I mean, I don't
find this Board minute particularly helpful, or very
clear, actually. But he did email me within an hour,
I think, of this Board meeting and this conversation
taking place, and I think his position is very fairly
and accurately summarised in the email he sent to me,
which I know is in the bundle and I'm sure you're coming
to it.
Yes, we'll come to it in a second. He's recorded as
being slightly diffident because he'd not seen all of
the evidence from the other side. Had you seen all of
the evidence from the other side?
No, of course not. I mean, just in a matter of days,
I mean, I was working as much as I could to try and get
171
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
11 June 2024
appeal. This was an entirely justifiable approach and
a number of the judge's decisions were open to attack
and appealable from a preliminary reading of the
judgment.
"3. Seek recusal: the most aggressive approach.
"The arguments for not accepting the judgment as it
stood included that the judge had accepted evidence that
wasn't relevant for the case", et cetera.
If we go over to page 3, please. There were some
director's questions. If we see what Lord Neuberger is
reported as saying, question 3 relates to the prospects
of success. It's recorded that Lord Neuberger said:
"Lord Neuberger reported that he did not yet know
Lord Grabiner's view of the case; he thought we had
a strong case but was slightly diffident because he had
not yet seen all of the evidence from the other side."
This record of Lord Neuberger saying that he did not
yet know your view of the case doesn't seem very
consistent with the email traffic that we had looked at
earlier when you'd been exchanging views. Would you
agree?
I don't think I can comment, really. I mean, it's
his -- this is for him, not me.
Would you agree that he had known your view of the case
by this point?
170
through this stuff.
Saturdays and Sundays?
It was hard work. A lot had gone on.
Wouldn't you want to see that, ie see what the other
side of the coin would be before offering strong advice
as to the prospects of success and --
When you -- I mean, basically all you need to do is to
look at the judgment and find out what the issues were
in the case that was to be decided and whether or not
the judge had gone beyond the matters that were supposed
to be decided and whether he had trespassed upon matters
which were yet to be dealt with in the other trials.
I mean, that doesn't involve, you know, a massive,
massive exercise. Certainly doesn't involve going
through all the materials that were available in the
trial. It does involve a focus upon the judgment
itself, coupled with the particular complaints that were
being made, and that was the help that I was getting
from those who had participated in the trial.
So you didn't, at this stage, feel in the same way as
Lord Neuberger is recorded as feeling, namely slightly
diffident?
Well, he -- as I think I said a little earlier, he's
a more cautious person than I am; he's more prudent;
he's more judicial. But I do know that he felt quite
172
(43) Pages 169 - 172
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
clearly that this was a strong case and I think that
that is apparent from the correspondence between us,
which I'm sure you're coming to.
You just said a moment ago that Lord Neuberger updated
you after this Board call. If we can turn to that
email, please, it's your tab B2, for us it's
WITN10650106.
I have that.
It's the foot of page 1. Just wait for it to come up on
the screen. Foot of the page, thank you. So 6.36 on
the Monday, Lord Neuberger wrote:
"Tony,
"I spoke to the Board for 55 minutes.
"I told them that I thought they would win on
recusal, but couldn't guarantee it, and that, if we were
to run recusal we had to grasp the nettle.
"Their questions were mostly well judged and
understandable, but they are very concerned about the
risks, which, bearing in mind they are a public body
which has just had a very nasty, and I think unfair,
shock, is scarcely surprising.
"They thought my note suggested that unfairness was
a freestanding point: I don't think itis really. It is
linked to recusal obviously, and it is linked to
interpretation only to the extent that findings which
173
The Board decided at the meeting of 18 March that it
wanted to hear a range of expert legal opinion and,
therefore, it wanted to hear from you directly and
I think you then joined a Board meeting on 20 March
2019; is that right?
I think that's right and I think this must be the one
that I attended not physically but on the phone.
Dialled up, yes. POL00269774. That's your tab B13. If
we just look at the third heading down "Updated Note of
Post Office Board Dial-In attended by Lord Grabiner (by
phone) of 20 March". Then if we go to page 2 --
Yes.
-- and scroll down. We'll see the people attended. You
attended the Board meeting by calling in for 25 minutes
between 11.45 and 12.10; can you see that?
I can.
Then if we scroll down, please, at the foot of the page,
to "Advice", you're recorded as saying that you
confirmed your view that:
"Post Office has no option but to seek the recusal
of the judge. Lord Grabiner confirmed that, whilst
guarantees cannot be provided, Post Office does have
a strong case for recusal. [You] confirmed that [your]
strong recommendation to the Board was to seek
arecusal. The sequencing of the trials, ordered by
175
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
oP
prop
11 June 2024
were irrelevant to interpretation were ones he should
not have made and were therefore unfair. As
a freestanding issue, I think that unfairness does not
relate to any order the judge is likely to make. It
could only be relevant for the purposes of the [Court of
Appeal] being prepared formally to scrub the unfair
findings of fact or unfair assessment of witnesses,
which it has on a rare occasion been prepared to do.
"The only reason not to go ahead is fear of the
judge getting more anti- if we lose and fear of bad
publicity ...
"I think the judge a lost cause and, if he isn't, he
may react better if we stand up to him.
"As to bad publicity, it's seldom a convincing
reason."
So that's the feedback you got from
Lord Neuberger --
Yes.
-- rather than reading the minutes?
Yes, and you can see that it's much more forcefully
expressed and he's making it perfectly clear that he's
very unimpressed with the judgment and that he thinks
the recusal application is something that we should be
pursuing, "I told them that I thought they would win on
recusal".
174
this judge, compounds the issue
Read on:
".. that the Post Office faces as this judge will
be looking at the same witnesses and issues in later
trials -- hence there is no other real option but to
seek recusal."
Does that accurately record the substance of the
advice that you were --
Yes, again, I think it does.
Did you gain any sense that the Board was keen to take
this step, applying for recusal of the judge?
I am afraid I didn't get any sense at all. I mean, no
doubt it will have helped if I'd been in the room but
I obviously wasn't. But I had no sense of what they
thought or if there was any difference of view within
the Board on the subject.
I think later you were informed that the Post Office had
decided to seek the recusal of Mr Justice Fraser.
Yes.
Can we look, please, at WITN10650108. That's your tab
£20. That's the supplemental bundle, Lord Grabiner.
Sorry, I'm being slow.
That's all right. E20?
Yes, I've got it.
Email at 13.12, from Lord Neuberger to you.
176
(44) Pages 173 - 176
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
"Thanks for the information re the [Post Office].
I hope that they do not bottle it. Apart from the
[public relations] front (where the arguments cut both
ways in my view and anyway it's all short-term pizzazz)
the argument for having a go at recusal is very strong."
Then scrolling up, please, you say:
"We've been instructed to proceed. I don't think
the clients had any choice but they were reluctant to
take such a serious step."
A. Yes.
Q. Can you recall on what basis you formed the view that
the Post Office, ie the clients, were reluctant to take
this serious step?
A. I think that I was given the impression -- and I'm
afraid I have no recollection of how I derived it -- but
I was given the impression that, unless they were
comfortable with the legal advice, the independent legal
advice that they were getting, to the effect that they
should apply for recusal, that they wouldn't be
comfortable in taking that step. That was my -- that
was my sense at the time, I must say.
Q. So would I be right to characterise the turn of events
so far as being that this was essentially a lawyer-led
decision?
A. Well, I just I don't know because I don't know what went
177
You and the judge?
Me and which judge?
The judge that you were applying to recuse himself?
Absolutely not. My view was that he had made a mess of
that case and that was my position, and that was David
rPOoOPrPSD
Neuberger's view as well.
Q. Now, you went ahead and made the application for recusal
on 3 April 2019. We've got a full 397-page transcript
of that application. The cross-reference -- no need to
display it - is POLO0112150. I'm not going to display
that. It's there for us to read. We know that the
application was dismissed by the judge in his fourth
judgment of the 9 April 2019.
Sir, can we take the afternoon break now for ten
minutes until 3.40, please?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, certainly.
MR BEER: Thank you.
(3.30 pm)
(A short break)
(3.40 pm)
MR BEER: Good afternoon, sir, can you see and hear us
still?
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Yes, I can.
MR BEER: Thank you very much.
Lord Grabiner, I think it's right that, having
179
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
Po
prop
Pppropr
11 June 2024
‘on in the Board. I mean, they were getting the advice,
and they took the advice and they did it. It was their
decision ultimately, but I have no idea what the
individual views were of people on the Post Office
Board.
Thank you. Just before the break, can we turn to
WITN10650109.
And that tab-number?
B20, and it's the second page.
Yes.
This is after the application has been issued. You
email Lord Neuberger and say:
"The judge has directed a hearing for next Wednesday
week -- typically that was a date that he was told not
convenient for me but that case has now settled so his
rather pathetic attempt to dodge me has failed. That
behave does rather confirm our suspicions about his
Smith characteristics.”
ls that a cross-reference to Mr Justice Peter Smith?
Indeed.
Was this becoming personalised?
What do you mean by that?
No more and no less than the question.
Well, what do you mean by -- personalised as between
whom and whom?
178
reviewed the documents that the Inquiry has sent to you,
you'll recall that I think in email exchanges, you made
a number of criticisms of Mr Justice Fraser in relation
to his rejection of your application that he should
recuse himself?
Yes, before you go on, I just noticed, the document we
were looking at just before we broke for the short
adjournment and you were suggesting that I'd developed
some kind of problem about the judge, you will have
noticed in that document which you showed me, page 2,
that what I said to Lord Neuberger was "That behaviour
does rather confirm our suspicions".
About his Smith characteristics?
Yes, it wasn't just my view; it was Lord Neuberger's
view as well.
Thank you.
I certainly had not developed any kind of personal
animus against him. It was inclusively concerned with
the judgment and what had taken place in the trial.
Can we look at WITN10650110, please, which is D8. If we
scroll down, please, at -- on 9 April, this is the day
that the application was dismissed.
Sorry, what's the -- is it B8?
No, D, delta.
I'm so sorry.
180
(45) Pages 177 - 180
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
POoPD
p>e
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
That's all right.
Yes.
It's at the foot of the page, so this is the day you
received the recusal judgment. You say:
"As predicted [Mr Justice Fraser] rejected the
application and refused permission to appeal. He's also
directed that the balance of the fact evidence in
Horizon trial should immediately proceed.
"He's a produced a 302-paragraph judgment which at
first glance just confirms our concern that he's not fit
to do the job."
Are you sure you hadn't personalised it a bit?
It was my view and Lord Neuberger's view. That's why
I said "our view", and also Lord Neuberger's response
immediately above it sounds like par for the course.
What does that mean, apart from the fact that he and
I are agreed about this? It's not a personal matter;
it's a view about the calibre or quality of the
judgment.
It's not the judgment; it’s the quality of the judge,
isn't it?
No, I --
It's broadening it out from the quality of the judgment
as a legal instrument --
1~
181
Justice Coulson, former head of the [Technology and
Construction Court] and Fraser [Mr Justice Fraser] is of
course the head of the [Technology and Construction
Court]. Given Fraser's comments at the handing down of
the recusal judgment that he had warned the [Court of
Appeal] that an appeal would be coming it makes us
question whether he lined up/had spoken to [Lord Justice
Coulson -- Coulson, as he's called here] in advance."
Then, if we go back --
No, but you've missed the key sentence, which is the
next one:
"I have asked LGQC to think about this."
Yes, and I --
Maybe you did it on purpose, I don't know.
No, I was about to come to what you said.
Yes, but I did it, whatever I have said we'll come to,
but I did it because I was asked by the solicitor to do
so.
That's the sequence of events. It was spotted by the
solicitor first.
Well, spotted or otherwise, I was asked by him to think
about it, as he says in his email. That was the first
time that this issue arose.
Can we look, please, at WITN10650117. That's tab E21
for you, if we go to, I think, page 5 of this document,
183
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prporpe>
11 June 2024
-- to whether the man can actually do the job.
I don't accept that. My criticisms are about the
quality of the judgment and the subject matter of the
application for recusal.
I think it's right that you know that a number of
documents have been identified in which suggestions were
exchanged that there was an inappropriate relationship
between Mr Justice Fraser and Lord Justice Coulson and
inappropriate communication between the pair of them,
yes?
Yes, I was asked to look at that by the solicitors,
actually.
But it's not addressed in your witness statement, so I'm
going to --
Well, I didn't think it was relevant. If you think it's
relevant, no doubt you'll ask me about it.
I'm just going to look at some of the documents. Can we
start, please, with POL00270741. That's E8, Lord
Grabiner. POL00270741 at the foot of the page.
Yes, I've got that.
It's not an email exchange including you yet but I just
want to see how the point develops. It's 12 April,
an initial order from the Court of Appeal is attached.
If we go over the page, Mr Parsons says:
“One curious point is the order was made by Lord
182
and if we scroll down.
Sorry, page?
Page 5.
Ah, yes.
E21, page 5?
Yes, I've got that.
We see David Cavender saying:
"Yes!
“It looks very much like this is what Mr Justice
Fraser set up in advance -- with his mate the former
head of the TCC -- unless you believe in coincidences.
This is very bad news."
Then a reply from Gideon Cohen:
"The chance of us not getting permission just went
from negligible to rather high.”
Then if we go to page 3, please, we'll see an email,
this is you on 12 April at 5.50. You say:
"I've been following the emails and have discussed
them with David Neuberger.”
Then if we scroll down, please:
"4. We share the [views] expressed in the flurry of
emails. It looks as if Mr Justice Fraser has been
speaking either to the listing office or even to Lord
Justice Coulson. Otherwise it would be a remarkable
coincidence that of all the Lord Justices [of Appeal]
184
(46) Pages 181 - 184
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
o>
prop
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
presented with the papers they ended up by chance in
front of the former TCC judge although this is not a TCC
case. I've asked Owain to dig out the references from
the transcripts of the recusal arguments and the
judgment day because my recollection is that Mr Justice
Fraser said on both occasions that the [Court of Appeal]
was expecting an appeal application."
Then if we go, please, to what Lord Neuberger said
‘on page 1. There's an email to you that sets out
a proposed email to your solicitor and he says he didn't
want to send it to you without running it past you
first. Then if we scroll down, please, he says:
"As to Tony's point 4 [can you see that?], I think
there is a danger and that our justified belief, and
consequent sense of grievance, that the judge has gone
badly wrong may have made us oversuspicious of some sort
of inappropriate collusion between the judge and the
[Court of Appeal]. It would be perfectly proper, indeed
sensible, for the judge to have warned the [Court of
Appeal] of a possible forthcoming application which
someone should look at urgently, although I cannot of
course rule out the possibility that more was said (but
even if it was, that is not by any means necessarily
sinister). Lord Justice Coulson is the LJ responsible
for civil procedure, so it is not entirely surprising
185
you know the facts and we don't know the facts, so it
would be entirely inappropriate to reach the conclusion
that there had been some inappropriate collusion.
Thank you. Can we turn to the last topic then, please,
by looking at WBON00001639, and it's your tab E12. Can
we start at page 3 --
You're ahead of me. Sorry. Hold on a second.
Lord Grabiner would you mind just bringing the file back
onto the main table so that the mics can pick you up.
Sure. I apologise.
That's all right. So we're at page 3 of E12.
Yes, I've got that.
If we look at the bottom, please -- sorry, the top. In
fact, I was right the first time. It's the bottom, the
bottom of page 3:
"Now that the counsel team have had a chance to
review yesterday's judgment [that's Mr Justice Fraser's
recusal judgment] is there anything in that which
changes their view of the prospects of on appeal?
I have been specifically asked this by the Board so
an early answer would be helpful!"
Then if we scroll up, please, to the foot of
page 2 -- none of these include you -- Mr Parsons’ reply
to General Counsel is:
"Counsel's view on the prospects of success on
187
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11 June 2024
that the application ended up before him. The fact that
he made an instant decision with regard to a stay is
also unsurprising because that was urgent, and the fact
that he has asked for the claimant's response is
a pretty good indication that he is considering the
application on its merits, as one would expect. My one
point of concern is that he has ruled in effect that the
common issues and the recusal application are separate:
again, at least on the face of it, that is a perfectly
rational view, although it is questionable whether he
should have expressed a firm view on that without
raising it with us (but I have not seen our application,
so that may be unfair). At any rate, I think that is
a point which we should challenge in the reasonably near
future if we are proceeding with the recusal aspect."
So is it right, Lord Grabiner, that the theory
regarding some form of inappropriate relationship or
communication between the High Court judge and the Lord
Justice of Appeal originated from Mr Parsons’ email that
we looked at first?
Absolutely.
And, in the end, Lord Neuberger essentially poured cold
water on it?
Yes, well, I mean, very properly. I mean, you can't
jump to conclusions about such a serious matter unless
186
appeal has not materially changed following the recusal
judgment. They continue to believe [that] the appeal
has a reasonable prospect of success. If anything,
Fraser has said a few things in the judgment that may
even help demonstrate apparent bias."
Was that your view as communicated there by
Mr Parsons to the General Counsel?
I think that's -- I suspect that that is accurate, and
we had already advised, I think, that we expected that
the recusal application would fail and that the best
possibility would have been in the Court of Appeal
because the judge himself would be unlikely to recuse
himself, and so the best prospects of success with
a recusal application would be in the Court of Appeal.
That was certainly my view and I think there are emails
to precisely that effect.
There are indeed. If we scroll up, please, Ms MacLeod
replies to Mr Parsons:
"Hi Andy
"Sorry to be petty -- [Lord Grabiner QC] told me
when I met him (feels like ages ago) that we had ‘strong
grounds’ to bring the application for recusal. When
I challenged him on what the prospects of success were,
he said (not an exact quote ...) he wouldn't say ‘strong
grounds to bring the application’, unless there were
188
(47) Pages 185 - 188
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
strong prospects of success ...
"That now seems to be downgraded to ‘reasonable’ ...
if that is deliberate then I need be able to explain to
the Board why."
Then over the page at page 1, at the foot of the
page, Mr Parsons forwards that chain on to you asking:
"... do you have any comment ... If you read from
the bottom up ... this should hopefully make sense.”
Then further up your reply. You say:
"I haven't downgraded anything. 'Reasonable’ was
not my word."
Now, of course, it was, in a sense, to start with,
wasn't it, right at the beginning of the --
Well, that was his summary, not my word. That was his
summary of what he said I'd said. I wasn't a party to
that correspondence, as you've just said.
No, I mean right at the beginning when you were
advising --
Oh, I see.
-- on that Saturday and Sunday, when you were adopting
what Lord Neuberger had said.
I think you're playing with words, with respect.
You say, "Reasonable’ was not my word", and you're
referring to the use of that word in the chain below,
yes?
189
"His latest recusal judgment is an aggressively
strong defence by the judge of his personal position.
This is not surprising. He dug himself into it in the
first place and now he's in the business of digging
himself out. The collective view of the team -- having
observed him during the trial -- was that this is what
he would do and his refusal to recuse himself coupled
with his refusal to give leave to appeal against that
judgment was predicted by the team. As previously
explained I also believe that in all the circumstances
Post Office has no real alternative but to pursue
appeals to the Court of Appeal against both the recusal
and Common Issues judgments.
"All that said, and as previously advised, I cannot
give a guarantee of success in the Court of Appeal.
There are always risks associated with litigation.
I think Lord Neuberger's view on prospects should also
be sought by the clients."
Thanks very much.
Was it your view that the issues of recusal and
substantive appeal against the Common Issues judgment
should be the subject matter of the same application?
Yes, I think so. Because it seemed to me impossible to
distinguish between the two. There were -- I mean,
I wasn't primarily concerned with the merits or
191
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prpro
11 June 2024
Precisely. What I was, I think, being accused of -- and
this is something that you'd be familiar with over the
years as a barrister -- is being accused by the
solicitor that I'd watered down my advice between
point 1 in time and point 2 in time. That wasn't true.
My advice, I think, throughout, has been consistent, and
I was making that clear in this email.
You say:
"I believe we have a strong case because the judge
decided more than he should have done or was necessary
for him in to decide at the Common Issues trial",
et cetera.
Well, perhaps you'd read on. I think it's quite
important, given the line of questioning that you've
been putting forward.
"He was asked on many occasions both before and during
the trial to take great care not to trespass into the
territory of future cases and I believe that he wrongly
failed to heed that request. Many of his observations
are expressed as firm conclusions rather than cautious
preliminary expressions of current thinking and that
point was not seriously challenged by the other side in
the recusal hearing. If he had case managed the
litigation in a more disciplined way all of this could
have been avoided.
190
‘otherwise of the judgment itself, in terms of the legal
analysis but what I had seen of it seemed to me to give
rise and -- and I know this is Lord Neuberger's view as
well -- that there were points decided in that case that
were the most senior courts in the land to be studying
and looking at the issues, for example, in relation to
relational contracts, and whether or not a good-faith
obligation was to be implied into the contract in
relation to the termination provisions.
I mean, these are serious and very complicated
issues of law that needed to be properly investigated
and ruled upon by a senior court, in my view. But that
was a separate issue from the recusal application, but
it did seem to me that the points were very interrelated
and that, realistically, it was appropriate that the two
matters, if they were to be dealt with in the Court of
Appeal, should be dealt with together.
They should be run in tandem?
Absolutely.
I think the Post Office took a different decision?
I don't know.
Well, I think the -- have you read the emails --
I wouldn't blame you if you've forgotten it -- if they
decided on Herbert Smith's advice to run the appeals
separately?
192
(48) Pages 189 - 192
ONOaARWN
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
A. That may be. I mean, I've got no memory of any of that.
I don't think I was involved in that. There may be the
odd email when I was being told about it but I wasn't
asked to advise about that point, I don't think.
Can we look, please, lastly, at tab E23, therefore,
which is WITN10650137.
24, did you say?
23.
Yes.
To put this in context, if we look at page 2, this is
an email, we see from the foot of page 1, from Saturday,
11 May, not to you in the first instance, and it says:
"As you will know by now, we received the Court of
Appeal's judgment in relation to Post Office's recusal
application earlier today.
"The Post Office has not been successful in
2
prop
appealing the trial judge's decision not to recuse
himself", et cetera.
Then, if we go up, that's forwarded on, we see from
the bottom of page 1, to you and to Lord Neuberger.
Then, if we scroll to the top of the page, we see
an email exchange between you and Lord Neuberger.
A. Well, I think it's from Lord Neuberger to me, isn't it?
Q. Yes. He says:
"4. Itis simply wrong to refuse [permission to
193
A. No, I didn't, and this is not something that has even
crossed my mind.
Q. Did you discuss things at all with Lord Neuberger after
the event, after perhaps recriminations started to begin
as to whether or not you needed an out to explain away
the advice that you'd previously given?
A. I have never ever considered that I needed an out in
this case.
Q. No. Did you respond to his suggestion that --
A. No, I didn't.
Q. _ -- the client rejecting the advice on running the two
appeals together did give you an out?
A. Absolutely not.
MR BEER: Lord Grabiner, thank you very much. They're the
only questions that I ask.
THE WITNESS: I'm tempted to say thank you.
MR BEER: I don't think there are any questions from other
Core Participants.
Sir, those are the questions that I ask on behalf of
the Inquiry. Do you have any questions of Lord
Grabiner?
‘SIR WYN WILLIAMS: No, I don't. Thank you very much.
My only words, Lord Grabiner, are to thank you for
making the witness statement and for appearing before
the Inquiry to assist me to get to the bottom of various
195
ONOaARWN
©
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
©NOORON
©
"1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appeal]: as I always have said, once a Lord Justice
feels that (s)he has to give detailed reasons, (s)he
should realise that there is an arguable case (the
test); quite apart from this, [David Cavender's] email
rightly identifies a number of errors ..."
It's 3 that I'm interested in --
A. I think you should read the lot, actually.
Q. I'm very grateful for your suggestions, and I will do
exactly as you require:
"Particularly as a former member of the judiciary,
I hate seeing judges, especially senior judges, making
a mess of things, and all the more so when it can lead
to the unfortunately understandable view (which I do not
share) of some sort of intra-judicial conspiracy."
Paragraph 3, which is the one I was interested in:
"The client misguidedly refused to follow our advice
about running the two appeals together, which gives us
an ‘out’ in terms of our advice appearing wrong, but
more importantly it has helped to produce this unfair
result..."
Firstly, were you party to the advice that the two
appeals should be run together?
A. I must say, I've no memory of that at all.
Q. No. Did you think that the client's failure to follow
your advice gave you an out?
194
issues, one of which you've been dealing with.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, sir.
MR BEER: Thank you, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: So we'll resume again at 9.45 tomorrow?
MR BEER: 9.45 tomorrow, yes, sir.
SIR WYN WILLIAMS: Fine. Thank you.
MR BEER: Thank you.
(4.04 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 9.45 am the following day)
196
(49) Pages 193 - 196
11 June 2024
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 11 June 2024
INDEX
ANTHONY JOHN DE GARR ROBINSON KC (sworn) ..1
Questioned by MR BEER .....
Questioned by MR STEIN .... 112
Questioned by MR HENRY . 117
Questioned by MS DOBBIN .... 129
Questioned by SIR WYN WILLIAMS .... 133
LORD ANTHONY STEPHEN GRABINER KC (sworn)136
Questioned by MR BEER... 137
197
(50) Pages 197 - 197
MR BEER: [27] 1/3
1/6 1/11 64/15 64/19
64/21 98/14 98/17
98/21 98/23 112/5
112/11 117/24 129/7
133/18 136/15 136/21
136/23 137/2 179/17
179/21 179/24 195/14]
195/17 196/3 196/5
196/7
MR HENRY: [4]
118/1 124/22 126/7
12915
MR STEIN: [4]
112/13 115/21 115/23}
117/21
MS DOBBIN: [1]
129/9
SIR WYN WILLIAMS:
[26] 1/5 1/8 64/14
64/20 98/16 98/22
112/40 115/15 117/22]
124/17 126/5 133/21
134/5 134/9 134/16
135/1 135/17 136/9
136/17 136/22 136/24I
179/16 179/23 195/22}
196/4 196/6
THE WITNESS: [3]
115/22 195/16 196/2
"48 [2] 86/22 86/23
49 [1] 140/8
‘a [4] 93/24
‘a year [1] 93/24
"Because [1] 94/2
‘client’ [1] 12/18
‘concerned [1] 55/2
‘conduct' [1] 37/12
‘defects’ [1] 75/8
"Freeths' [1] 6/8
‘From [1] 55/11
‘if [1] 45/16
"Note [1] 145/3
‘out’ [1] 194/18
‘overriding [1] 55/5
‘reasonable’ [3]
189/2 189/10 189/23
‘remote [1] 6/25
"Sources [1] 93/12
"strong [2] 188/21
188/24
‘very [1] 61/3
/
IBIS [1] 38/11
1
1 June [3] 13/24
14/18 118/3
1 September [1] 33/3
1-5 [1] 150/11
1.20 [1] 112/9
1.28 [1] 136/18
1.3 [1] 93/11
1.30 [4] 151/7
10 [3] 4/20 4/22
57/21
10 May [2] 4/13
140/8
10 September [12]
69/12 69/19 71/17
71/24 78/7 78/17 80/1
83/14 84/15 91/2
98/24 133/22
10.42 [1] 142/8
10.58 [1] 152/6
10/04/15 [1] 16/25
11 [2] 5/3 141/6
14 July [1] 57/18
11 June 2024 [4] 1/1
11 March [1] 141/2
44 May [4] 193/12
11.00 am [1] 68/14
11.17 [1] 137/18
11.18 [1] 64/16
11.27 [3] 137/20
138/5 138/10
11.30 [2] 64/13 64/18
11.45 [1] 175/15
11.58 [1] 142/10
12 [2] 83/24 184/17
12 April [1] 182/22
12 November [1]
84/17
12.10 [4] 175/15
12.21 [1] 98/18
12.30 [1] 98/15
12.32 [4] 98/20
13 [4] 65/19 75/18
138/17 149/5
13 May [1] 12/17
13 pages [1] 137/10
13.12 [2] 137/15
176/25
133 [1] 23/24
134 [1] 29/3
135 [1] 29/18
137 [1] 29/3
138 [2] 99/25 107/12
14 [4] 65/4 100/17
143/23 143/24
14 March [4] 142/17
144/22 149/5 169/14
14 May [1] 1/24
14 November [1]
73/15
14 September [1]
31/11
14.38 [3] 137/16
137/18 138/6
142 [1] 24/4
144 [3] 101/6 135/9
135/21
144.1 [8] 102/8 103/1
105/1 105/12 105/22
106/16 107/11 125/8
147 [1] 24/10
149 [4] 24/19
15 [2] 16/25 150/11
45 July [1] 65/7
45 March [5] 4/9
140/4 140/17 141/9
142/8
15 pages [1] 144/1
155 [1] 25/5
46 [1] 137/14
16 December [1]
4/11
16 November [2]
4/14 140/9
16th [1] 171/3
17 [1] 150/17
17 days [1] 69/22
47th [4] 171/3
48 [3] 152/21 167/1
168/11
18 March [5] 153/13
153/22 161/6 167/25
175/1
18 May [2] 5/2 6/6
18th [2] 171/2 171/6
19 [1] 145/14
1968 [1] 138/23
1981 [4] 139/1
1987 [1] 2/23
1994 [1] 139/9
2
2.2 [1] 74/10
2.3 [1] 74/10
2.30 [2] 136/15
136/20
2.4 [1] 74/15
2.7 [1] 75/4
2.8 [1] 75/17
20 [1] 138/3
20 March [6] 137/15
153/12 153/15 153/24]
175/4 175/11
20 May [3] 5/4 6/16
14/19
2006 [1] 2/25
2010 [3] 75/7 75/25
85/2
2012 [2] 75/8 75/10
2013 [9] 65/7 75/5
75/11 75/13 76/11
79/23 120/2 120/11
122/21
2015 [1] 59/18
2016 [20] 5/4 5/12
5/13 5/17 5/22 6/6 8/1
13/23 13/24 34/18
36/1 36/5 52/19 52/22
59/15 60/2 60/8 60/13
7118 118/3
2017 [5] 31/11 34/18
128/2 128/2 128/16
2018 [22] 4/25 5/2
5/4 5/17 6/16 34/10
35/20 65/9 68/8 69/9
69/12 71/17 71/24
80/1 83/14 83/22
84/15 84/17 98/24
132/3 132/4 133/22
2019 [23] 4/9 4/11
4/13 4/15 24/23 34/10)
70/11 73/15 83/24
99/16 108/11 120/3
120/11 122/21 140/4
140/5 140/9 140/17
140/23 141/9 175/5
179/8 179/13
2024 [2] 1/1 1/24
20th [1] 5/7
21 August [1] 24/23
21 June [1] 59/14
23 [1] 193/8
23 May [1] 7/25
238 [1] 53/11
24 [1] 193/7
241 [1] 54/24
25 [3] 110/19 144/11
175/14
27 June [1] 99/16
27 September [1]
69/21
275 [1] 92/25
277 [4] 93/6
28 June [1] 75/13
29 [1] 143/8
3
3 April [1] 179/8
3 May [1] 137/10
3.1 [1] 76/1
3.2 [1] 76/9
3.2.1 [1] 76/12
3.30 [1] 179/18
3.40 [2] 179/15
179/20
30 January [1] 83/22
30 years [1] 139/10
31.14 [1] 31/17
33 [1] 72/4
37 [1] 65/20
392 [1] 99/14
397-page [1] 179/8
4
4 October [1] 108/11
4.04 [1] 196/8
4.4 [1] 82/13
4.5 [1] 76/24
419 [1] 53/16
42/60 [1] 15/23
420 [3] 53/15 53/24
54/7
421 [4] 54/24
48 [2] 23/24 29/2
5
5 years [1] 68/21
5,000 [1] 24/6
5.00 [1] 52/20
5.4 [1] 77/11
5.15 [2] 168/2 168/11
5.4 [2] 77/11 82/14
5.5 [2] 82/11 82/14
5.50 [1] 184/17
5.6 [4] 83/20
50 [2] 24/4 84/21
51 [4] 24/10
52 [1] 25/5
545 [1] 99/11
55 [1] 173/13
6
6.36 [1] 173/10
60 [1] 15/23
617 [4] 24/20
63 [1] 2/1
63 pages [1] 1/23
64 [2] 99/25 107/12
654.2 [1] 94/1
66 [1] 100/17
7
7 June [1] 54/2
7 September [1] 68/8)
8
8 July [1] 75/5
8 June [7] 36/5 43/3
52/19 61/20 62/10
63/11 63/13
8 March [1] 140/23
82 [1] 168/20
870 [1] 92/25
880 [1] 93/7
8th [2] 61/7 141/7
9 April [3] 140/5
179/13 180/21
9 June [5] 52/22
53/14 59/16 60/22
61/6
9 September [1]
71/18
9.45 [4] 1/2 196/4
196/5 196/9
9.46 [1] 152/2
9.47 [1] 150/17
91 postmasters [1]
60/9
92 [1] 58/9
95 [2] 72/3 72/5
A
ability [1] 15/24
able [14] 90/9 94/8
111/9 124/19 136/16
148/15 151/3 151/5
151/11 156/25 158/5
(61) MR BEER: - able
A
able... [3] 166/18
168/2 189/3
about [141] 3/3 4/15
5/1 5/3 6/11 6/17 6/19
7/4 8/3 8/4 9/6 9/22
10/23 11/20 14/10
15/20 16/1 16/20
17/17 18/11 18/20
19/20 21/3 22/13
22/21 23/10 24/12
25/16 27/6 30/1 30/9
31/21 32/24 34/5
34/10 35/21 36/24
40/2 41/10 41/17
43/23 45/5 45/8 46/8
47/23 53/7 53/13 58/9
59/9 68/10 68/24
68/24 69/4 69/5 71/2
72/22 73/4 73/7 74/2
80/2 80/11 80/22 81/4
81/5 81/10 81/17 82/5
82/6 82/7 83/2 83/16
83/18 86/10 88/14
89/15 93/18 93/21
94/14 95/1 95/5 96/10
98/10 105/13 108/1
111/12 112/9 112/25
113/1 117/17 119/2
119/13 119/23 121/13
121/17 123/7 124/9
124/10 124/18 128/22)
128/25 129/12 129/14}
131/24 132/23 132/23
132/25 133/2 133/12
134/2 134/14 147/12
151/23 152/6 153/21
153/23 155/1 156/25
158/16 158/18 158/22)
163/7 163/9 166/4
167/15 169/16 171/12
173/18 178/17 180/9
180/13 181/17 181/18)
182/2 182/16 183/12
183/15 183/22 186/25
193/3 193/4 194/17
above [9] 37/12 38/3
51/24 72/7 78/3 78/13,
78/22 145/17 181/15
absence [2] 163/2
165/5
absolutely [19] 13/20)
32/6 42/5 42/8 80/6
98/6 107/2 128/1
128/3 145/22 147/14
149/10 153/13 157/19
165/24 179/4 186/21
192/19 195/13
absurd [1] 33/10
accept [14] 15/4
46/23 47/8 90/7 102/3
103/22 104/10 105/3
121/21 125/7 128/5
129/3 169/24 182/2
accepted [3] 20/7
93/23 170/7
accepting [1] 170/6
access [19] 7/7 9/7
18/8 18/24 20/15
36/25 45/18 51/4
52/14 69/4 93/13 95/6
121/8 121/18 121/19
122/7 122/12 132/25
133/13
access’ [1] 7/1
access/meddling [2]
36/25 51/4
accommodate [1]
101/19
according [2] 150/4
160/6
Accordingly [1]
66/19
accords [1] 161/18
account [13] 30/7
37/3 45/19 51/9 63/19
78/16 92/18 100/12
100/20 101/11 101/25)
102/15 107/14
accounting [3] 37/6
51/10 51/12
accounts [6] 48/25
100/22 101/2 121/6
121/18 121/20
accuracy [1] 77/6
accurate [7] 58/24
78/18 144/14 156/16
163/13 164/8 188/8
accurately [6] 61/5
74/17 88/5 156/7
171/17 176/7
accused [2] 190/1
190/3
across [1] 12/24
act [5] 5/24 8/7 155/3
155/8 157/12
acted [4] 3/7 3/25
83/25 139/12
acting [5] 4/1 11/24
47/11 48/5 87/4
action [11] 59/19
60/10 60/14 61/11
61/15 64/4 119/22
134/6 159/23 160/6
169/22
actions [3] 53/21
64/3 122/11
actively [1] 115/9
acts [1] 121/19
actually [19] 32/20
34/11 54/16 70/12
96/7 110/12 114/2
116/20 122/10 128/10)
134/17 135/21 135/23)
152/18 153/1 171/14
182/1 182/12 194/7
AD [1] 123/24
adapted [2] 61/15
62/23
add [2] 51/25 65/24
addition [2] 8/13
94/19
additional [4] 24/14
31/5 31/7 150/14
additionally [1] 5/16
address [2] 59/20
160/9
addressed [13] 4/6
4/16 58/22 91/1 91/5
91/6 99/7 101/12
102/16 122/5 123/10
140/2 182/13
adds [1] 54/19
adduce [1] 134/14
adduced [2] 90/10
101/17
adducing [1] 89/18
adjourn [1] 136/14
adjourned [1] 196/9
adjournment [2]
136/19 180/8
adjunct [1] 45/6
admission [1] 85/2
admit [1] 119/18
admitted [1] 121/25
adopted [2] 49/22
140/11
adopting [1] 189/20
advance [9] 61/14
62/13 62/22 62/22
69/10 108/19 123/13
183/8 184/10
advancing [1] 127/4
advantage [1] 70/13
adversarial [1]
114/16
adversely [1] 94/23
adverted [1] 132/12
advice [67] 10/22
21/19 22/13 22/18
22/24 23/11 38/5
38/13 38/16 40/6
41/14 42/1 42/9 45/5
45/9 45/23 58/18
58/24 59/25 60/2
60/15 60/18 61/5
64/23 64/25 65/2 65/9
68/5 68/20 68/22
69/13 73/7 75/18
80/18 95/11 96/6
96/12 116/11 134/1
146/4 155/20 156/2
156/7 156/19 157/19
165/20 166/9 167/4
167/13 169/3 171/6
172/5 175/18 176/8
177/17 177/18 178/1
178/2 190/4 190/6
192/24 194/16 194/18I
194/21 194/25 195/6
195/11
advice' [1] 61/3
advices [1] 166/9
advise [9] 58/16
60/13 60/24 65/12
66/14 70/14 158/16
160/2 193/4
advised [17] 8/8
36/22 39/15 42/11
45/24 46/1 48/13
61/11 61/17 61/22
62/12 67/16 78/11
95/8 161/15 188/9
191/14
adviser [3] 157/21
164/21 167/6
advisers [2] 58/11
58/19
advising [5] 10/20
48/11 158/14 162/13
189/18
advocacy [1] 144/16
advocate's [1] 144/6
aegis [2] 58/20 61/24
affect [4] 10/13 11/4
52/17 135/24
affected [3] 42/17
75/15 94/23
afraid [13] 35/15
39/22 39/24 42/18
56/6 71/11 121/21
125/10 149/10 149/18
153/3 176/12 177/15
after [21] 8/1 16/2
24/5 24/14 24/21
35/20 46/3 52/20 54/2
54/7 69/13 69/14
70/17 73/17 108/13
108/13 167/24 173/5
178/11 195/3 195/4
afternoon [9] 98/21
136/13 136/21 137/2
168/7 171/6 171/8
179/14 179/21
again [30] 9/24 19/7
35/20 37/3 43/11
47/19 59/3 82/14 84/4)
84/5 107/7 108/12
120/9 125/11 126/13
126/15 126/19 127/4
127/4 128/12 128/12
128/13 128/13 134/5
154/17 159/23 161/3
176/9 186/9 196/4
against [15] 3/8 4/13
4/14 38/4 58/8 64/2
78/11 139/13 140/7
150/5 155/16 180/18
191/8 191/12 191/21
agency [1] 32/8
agents [1] 12/21
agents/postmasters
[4] 12/21
ages [1] 188/21
aggressive [2] 146/3
170/5
aggressively [1]
191/1
ago [9] 15/13 32/4
54/17 68/21 91/7
118/20 139/11 173/4
188/21
ago' [1] 93/24
agree [31] 17/8 17/24
18/1 18/6 26/2 41/25
42/22 44/12 47/25
49/15 78/22 86/8 90/7)
90/16 104/17 104/19
106/15 125/10 129/5
142/20 144/4 146/14
1447/7 152/9 152/17
154/17 154/18 158/7
158/12 170/21 170/24)
agreed [12] 17/20
50/6 52/4 55/2 55/9
79/12 147/6 147/8
147/21 154/14 158/12)
181/17
agreeing [1] 55/15
agreement [3] 134/6
151/13 160/15
Ah [1] 184/4
ahead [6] 44/13
44/15 44/17 174/9
179/7 187/7
al [1] 147/18
Alan [1] 111/4
albeit [1] 106/12
Alex [4] 108/16
108/16 110/10 111/4
Alex's [1] 111/13
alighted [1] 77/8
aligned [1] 151/20
all [105] 5/10 5/12
5/19 10/16 14/9 15/1
15/18 19/8 20/3 20/15}
28/1 33/23 33/24
42/19 43/23 45/2
45/14 46/3 46/7 52/19)
53/21 55/20 56/12
58/6 61/19 65/22
67/17 74/2 81/13
84/25 86/10 86/13
86/22 90/17 91/25
92/14 94/10 97/14
98/7 98/12 99/22
100/6 103/22 105/22
108/8 109/9 111/2
112/10 114/12 114/13}
114/13 114/14 114/15)
116/4 117/3 117/16
118/25 119/14 119/17
122/1 122/20 124/6
125/2 126/13 129/11
129/18 129/23 130/2
130/24 131/18 132/22)
133/3 133/10 135/13
136/9 142/2 143/16
143/24 145/17 148/22!
(62) able... - all
A
all... [25] 150/23
153/21 154/25 156/25)
158/1 158/18 158/22
160/21 170/16 171/21
171/22 172/7 172/15
176/12 176/23 177/4
181/1 184/25 187/11
190/24 191/10 191/14}
194/12 194/23 195/3
allegation [1] 77/20
allegations [4] 48/23
65/17 80/2 81/4
alleged [1] 74/8
allegedly [1] 65/13
allow [2] 80/24 83/1
allowed [2] 32/10
97/7
allowing [1] 82/5
almost [3] 88/6 111/2
122/13
alone [3] 47/5 48/1
50/7
along [3] 10/9 54/20
71/10
alongside [1] 3/16
already [24] 8/20
8/25 9/5 10/16 11/12
14/8 15/17 51/16
51/17 59/24 60/6 62/2
63/21 67/16 115/10
118/24 120/6 142/2
149/1 149/2 162/15
162/22 166/12 188/9
also [36] 6/19 9/9
21/15 35/13 37/17
43/15 51/19 67/20
68/17 75/6 86/5 87/1
88/21 91/9 93/8 93/17,
95/20 119/7 122/6
126/17 127/5 131/6
1314/7 131/8 131/22
131/25 142/19 146/1
147/23 148/14 165/23}
181/6 181/14 186/3
191/10 191/17
alter [1] 6/24
altered [1] 10/23
altering [3] 15/12
118/19 119/7
alternative [4] 78/15
89/3 89/12 191/11
although [10] 23/5
41/12 90/19 91/13
91/18 93/14 131/10
185/2 185/21 186/10
Altman [3] 22/3
51/15 58/4
Altman's [1] 37/8
always [4] 41/2 97/2
191/16 194/1
am [23] 1/2 9/3 9/12
33/20 43/8 43/23
44/20 54/15 60/20
64/16 64/18 65/20
68/14 71/10 109/16
110/8 133/24 134/21
153/13 164/16 172/24)
176/12 196/9
ambiguous [2] 83/1
83/4
amongst [3] 24/6
60/24 95/13
amount [1] 70/18
Amy [1] 150/20
analyses [1] 87/3
analysing [2] 84/21
144/2
analysis [10] 80/17
84/23 86/13 89/10
132/18 142/20 147/7
158/17 159/1 192/2
Andrew [4] 13/25
17/3 110/23 150/20
Andy [7] 19/13 28/4
41/15 71/7 78/8 106/4
188/19
Angela [1] 13/2
animus [1] 180/18
another [9] 3/24 24/9
35/1 45/22 62/21 77/6
91/9 112/3 142/6
answer [36] 17/23
18/5 18/5 19/7 19/12
19/13 20/18 20/21
21/5 22/23 26/14
33/18 34/15 39/23
39/24 45/2 49/5 59/10
106/14 109/3 109/5
114/25 115/2 115/12
115/19 124/16 130/8
130/16 130/17 134/23)
135/22 149/1 149/18
152/14 152/18 187/21
answered [4] 108/17
115/10 122/2 166/11
answers [5] 19/8
20/7 53/4 56/23 81/12
Anthony [7] 1/6 1/9
1/15 136/25 137/5
197/2 197/14
anti [1] 174/10
anticipate [1] 112/8
anxious [4] 28/8
164/16 167/4 167/11
any [112] 5/19 9/16
9/21 10/6 10/13 10/22
10/23 11/4 11/20
13/14 14/17 15/18
20/15 21/3 21/8 21/19
21/23 22/12 22/24
22/25 34/8 37/14
38/14 39/6 40/6 41/18
45/9 45/10 47/14
48/21 48/21 50/14
50/17 59/19 59/25
66/21 68/1 69/15 71/4
72/18 73/3 74/22
74/24 74/25 75/10
76/19 80/3 80/11
80/16 81/3 81/8 81/13
81/21 85/12 85/18
87/9 87/15 93/16
95/15 96/1 96/1 96/25)
97/3 97/4 97/9 97/10
102/22 118/25 119/12]
120/17 121/17 121/20
129/1 129/15 129/16
129/24 130/10 131/11
133/7 133/9 134/14
134/24 135/10 135/11
135/23 135/25 138/7
146/20 147/23 148/1
148/5 149/14 149/20
151/3 151/7 156/25
157/23 157/25 160/15}
168/22 174/4 176/10
176/12 176/15 177/8
180/17 185/23 186/13
189/7 193/1 195/17
195/20
anybody [1] 163/9
anyone [11] 6/24
23/11 41/10 80/7
80/20 80/21 81/3
95/25 102/25 122/17
122/19
anything [10] 7/4
10/11 18/14 66/8
83/18 132/9 167/12
187/18 188/3 189/10
anyway [7] 40/3
45/13 46/7 46/11
46/15 165/17 177/4
apart [3] 177/2
181/16 194/4
apologise [2] 25/14
187/10
apparent [6] 25/24
126/10 155/16 160/24
173/2 188/5
apparently [4] 39/11
53/21 94/3 118/13
appeal [32] 4/13
21/17 23/5 67/25
122/9 140/7 155/13
157/3 169/15 170/1
174/6 181/6 182/23
183/6 183/6 184/25
185/6 185/7 185/18
185/20 186/19 187/19}
188/1 188/2 188/11
188/14 191/8 191/12
191/15 191/21 192/17
194/1
Appeal's [3] 4/12
140/6 193/14
appealable [1] 170/3
appealing [1] 193/17
appeals [19] 21/16
23/4 112/23 112/25
120/2 120/6 120/10
120/20 121/12 121/23}
122/2 122/3 126/14
126/16 191/12 192/24}
194/17 194/22 195/12
appear [1] 33/5
appeared [2] 78/2
166/3
appearing [3] 16/2
194/18 195/24
appears [4] 56/14
75/7 137/13 138/17
appendices [1] 99/12)
application [46]
31/17 139/17 140/16
141/23 141/24 143/8
144/9 145/19 145/24
149/8 151/2 151/14
152/10 154/19 154/20)
154/23 155/10 155/12,
157/9 159/12 159/14
159/22 161/16 165/25}
166/2 174/23 178/11
179/7 179/9 179/12
180/4 180/22 181/6
182/4 185/7 185/20
186/1 186/6 186/8
186/12 188/10 188/14}
188/22 191/22 192/13}
193/15
application’ [2] 145/3}
188/25
applied [4] 97/25
97/25 139/20 155/21
apply [7] 12/5 87/20
149/15 156/22 156/24}
157/24 177/19
applying [3] 41/21
176/11 179/3
appointment [1]
165/2
appreciate [5] 27/25
71/23 89/11 114/14
136/3
appreciated [1]
150/5
Appreciating [2] 83/3}
84/4
apprehension [1]
27117
approach [18] 10/16
11/23 12/3 12/5 15/6
36/10 41/25 51/19
51/22 55/9 55/15 85/9)
93/3 140/10 152/9
152/17 170/1 170/5
appropriate [6] 52/6
67/25 84/3 134/11
154/23 192/15
appropriately [2]
61/15 62/23
approved [3] 12/16
99/21 106/4
April [8] 58/7 60/8
140/5 179/8 179/13
180/21 182/22 184/17)
Arbuthnot [1] 38/11
Architect [4] 91/11
91/12 91/13 120/21
are [125] 2/13 2/18
3/21 8/11 8/23 14/22
14/24 16/18 16/19
16/20 23/3 26/13 28/1
32/9 33/24 36/19
36/23 36/24 37/22
38/18 39/2 40/23 41/7I
42/8 42/16 43/6 44/2
45/8 48/17 48/24 49/7
51/14 51/17 52/1
55/13 56/4 56/18
56/20 58/2 58/3 58/11
60/6 62/22 63/13
66/12 67/11 67/20
70/12 72/24 77/8 82/2
83/11 84/2 84/20
86/15 87/1 87/11
87/16 88/1 89/13
89/13 89/20 99/9
99/11 100/13 104/3
104/19 107/15 108/25
1410/5 112/7 112/21
116/4 123/19 124/19
124/21 126/23 127/6
128/20 129/7 133/16
137/12 138/13 138/16
140/6 141/23 142/3
145/2 145/8 145/13
145/18 146/12 146/14)
146/19 149/5 151/3
151/20 153/18 153/21
154/19 157/1 159/18
159/24 159/25 160/22!
162/7 162/7 164/15
164/20 165/7 173/18
173/19 181/12 181/17)
182/2 186/8 186/15
188/15 188/17 190/20)
191/16 192/10 195/17)
195/19 195/23
areas [7] 57/25 58/2
58/6 77/18 77/24 89/3I
89/12
aren't [5] 8/22 33/22
34/14 119/4 160/1
Argentina [2] 167/19
167/20
arguable [3] 145/25
146/1 194/3
arguably [2] 66/9
67/4
argue [2] 145/25
146/11
argued [1] 88/2
arguing [2] 87/6 88/3
argument [7] 87/14
115/17 147/2 147/9
147/22 158/3 177/5
arguments [8] 48/23
(63) all... - arguments
A
48/25 144/18 159/11
160/20 170/6 177/3
185/4
arise [1] 151/10
arisen [1] 35/4
arising [2] 111/9
111/12
arose [4] 25/6 28/18
44/1 183/23
arrived [2] 14/5
152/2
Article [1] 168/20
Article 82 [1] 168/20
Articles [1] 168/20
artificially [2] 46/25
57/8
as [343]
ask [22] 1/13 4/15
96/15 112/6 115/18
120/1 124/24 125/14
129/9 131/14 132/22
135/21 137/3 147/12
195/19
asked [41] 6/11
14/21 20/13 21/6
60/24 65/12 66/21
70/14 76/18 85/10
85/13 85/16 86/6
93/20 94/7 100/15
163/21 163/25 182/11
183/12 183/17 183/21
185/3 186/4 187/20
190/16 193/4
asking [11] 33/12
34/5 35/21 83/23
88/14 100/2 106/14
129/15 130/18 162/5
189/6
aspect [1] 186/15
assert [2] 34/13 64/1
asserted [4] 29/8
33/24 33/25 155/20
assessed [1] 77/17
assessment [8] 81/4
81/15 134/7 145/12
146/10 154/18 160/17
174/7
assist [6] 54/22 66/9
137/8 142/4 166/19
195/25
assistance [4] 90/8
90/20 131/3 131/7
assisting [1] 131/19
associate [2] 84/18
arguments... [7]
aside [2] 38/19 70/25
8/4 54/15 80/16 80/20
167/15 182/16 195/15)
25/12 27/9 27/10 28/7
38/18 41/17 43/6 44/3
103/12 107/17 112/14}
113/24 129/13 162/25)
150/20
98/25 191/16
Association [1]
168/20
assume [3] 97/9
124/20 142/18
assumed [2] 85/20
85/22
assumes [1] 45/14
assuming [3] 97/9
122/8 124/21
assurance [1] 51/20
astonished [1] 96/4
at [276]
attached [4] 19/15
68/20 69/4 182/23
attack [1] 170/2
attempt [3] 134/14
159/18 178/16
attend [1] 13/11
71/18 108/10 110/6
attended [10] 13/13
13/15 60/23 74/13
78/8 153/6 175/7
attending [2] 1/16
137/7
attention [3] 11/15
19/6 103/12
attested [4] 75/21
attitude [1] 34/9
attracted [1] 126/8
attractiveness [1]
12/21
audit [1] 25/7
August [1] 24/23
author [1] 146/1
authorise [1] 168/21
authoritative [2] 4/5
140/1
authority [4] 11/4
11/25 12/1 12/2
authors [1] 144/17
available [6] 58/14
85/1 89/17 93/13
146/6 172/15
averted [1] 9/5
avoid [2] 90/15
106/21
avoidable [1] 97/24
avoided [1] 190/25
aware [27] 10/4
15/11 15/13 18/7 22/1
22/12 22/17 22/24
23/11 27/21 42/19
77/8 83/11 89/24 90/3
90/18 90/25 101/21
117/5 118/18 118/20
126/9 131/12 133/6
133/14 133/14 134/24)
away [4] 21/12 34/25
associated [3] 48/15
attendance [7] 52/24
122/16 153/16 161/12,
175/10 175/13 175/14;
135/16 195/5
awful [1] 70/22
B2 [5] 17/15 141/13
161/3 162/19 173/6
B20 [1] 178/9
B3 [1] 143/2
B4 [1] 144/24
B8 [1] 180/23
back [38] 9/17 11/9
17/23 18/16 20/13
33/21 35/2 35/25
45/22 49/19 56/10
56/12 65/10 73/25
79/23 82/10 82/11
83/13 88/9 92/4
107/12 110/5 110/17
111/15 128/1 143/19
151/6 154/1 155/15
164/6 164/9 164/19
169/11 183/9 187/8
background [9] 2/22
8/16 38/20 138/22
142/12 143/7 143/22
145/3 148/16
bad [3] 174/10
174/14 184/12
badly [1] 185/16
balance [2] 15/4
181/7
balancing [1] 52/13
Bank [1] 45/3
Bansal [1] 101/4
Bar [2] 2/23 138/23
Baroness [2] 36/14
38/10
barred [1] 48/24
barrister [9] 8/14
128/9 128/10 134/18
190/3
barristers [2] 6/3
22/25
based [16] 28/13
30/4 80/18 87/16
90/11 100/19 100/21
100/24 101/3 106/15
122/4 127/19 127/24
145/2 145/2 166/15
basic [2] 15/6 96/24
basically [2] 159/6
172/7
basis [26] 6/21 8/8
16/3 26/10 33/18
38/16 48/23 53/6 63/3
78/13 78/21 91/21
100/7 120/7 121/14
123/7 123/13 127/18
128/1 128/3 128/8
awkward [1] 48/21
B13 [2] 153/5 175/8
159/13 162/18 163/14
banking [2] 3/4 139/4
47/11 48/4 65/6 72/15)
167/9 177/11
BCCI [1] 45/4
be [293]
bearing [2] 2/16
173/19
beauty [4] 6/2 6/12
7/5 8/1
25/24
because [76] 10/24
33/9 33/10 33/11
40/24 41/6 41/10
43/19 45/19 45/24
46/4 46/10 47/19
54/22 62/4 67/6 68/9
86/10 86/22 87/24
92/22 98/9 98/9
114/1 117/7 119/24
122/3 123/20 131/19
132/20 135/2 138/8
145/8 146/20 146/21
147/10 149/25 150/4
159/4 160/4 162/1
162/5 170/15 171/21
177/25 183/17 185/5
186/3 188/12 190/9
191/23
become [11] 15/11
15/13 17/5 18/7
101/14 102/18 103/11
126/9
becoming [1] 178/21
been [207]
BEER [9] 1/10 1/13
112/14 130/4 136/14
137/1 137/3 197/4
197/16
Beezer [3] 150/18
152/7 161/9
before [33] 18/16
54/10 69/22 70/3
70/15 71/3 72/25
73/18 73/24 81/12
93/22 100/2 108/14
115/15 119/22 137/24}
140/21 141/6 141/8
142/22 147/5 149/4
156/10 158/17 168/6
168/7 172/5 178/6
180/6 180/7 186/1
190/16 195/24
began [1] 59/18
begin [3] 72/3 84/11
195/4
beginning [7] 13/22
165/18 166/12 166/13)
became [3] 6/25 24/5
12/6 14/25 15/3 16/24
18/11 20/9 26/6 26/22)
48/24 49/5 49/7 54/16
78/3 79/22 82/16 83/8
103/14 103/25 105/16}
107/21 109/20 110/12)
131/20 131/24 131/25)
105/18 118/18 118/20)
70/21 95/14 132/5
153/19 189/13 189/17)
begins [1] 169/8
behalf [8] 1/13 38/25
58/9 115/25 129/9
137/3 139/20 195/19
behave [1] 178/17
behaviour [1] 180/11
behind [3] 87/21
88/12 97/20
being [98] 8/23 22/10)
22/24 27/21 28/17
31/15 32/24 35/12
37/24 38/18 41/6
41/18 43/6 44/3 44/17
45/20 50/12 58/6
58/19 58/25 63/14
65/25 67/4 69/15
69/21 70/13 70/18
71/2 77/2 83/5 83/23
84/2 84/23 86/18
87/11 88/1 88/17
90/18 90/19 91/6 97/1
97/5 97/10 97/18
100/14 102/5 102/8
102/9 103/3 103/3
103/5 103/8 103/8
103/21 104/3 104/9
105/11 105/21 106/12)
107/11 107/16 107/20)
107/25 108/2 109/1
114/3 115/4 118/3
121/9 121/13 123/11
125/9 125/9 130/22
131/8 132/16 133/6
134/20 134/21 148/19)
149/6 149/8 149/11
154/19 158/5 161/21
163/11 165/1 165/6
168/12 171/21 172/18)
174/6 176/22 177/23
190/1 190/3 193/3
belief [4] 2/14 2/19
138/15 185/14
believe [16] 12/5
30/20 30/21 57/13
81/6 81/12 83/11
83/18 96/7 105/4
122/14 184/11 188/2
190/9 190/18 191/10
believed [3] 34/6
57/25 96/14
below [3] 86/9 152/5
189/24
beneath [1] 106/25
beneficial [1] 58/1
benefit [2] 136/7
165/4
best [10] 2/14 2/19
4/2 42/4 59/15 70/13
77/24 138/14 188/10
188/13
better [5] 58/12
88/20 88/22 167/14
(64) arguments... - better
B
better... [1] 174/13
between [34] 9/19
29/3 30/8 30/13 30/16
52/21 61/10 73/23
75/7 82/8 95/17 96/25)
97/5 110/8 118/12
119/5 120/2 120/10
122/21 131/11 142/17)
143/25 147/14 167/17)
173/2 175/15 178/24
182/8 182/9 185/17
186/18 190/4 191/24
193/22
beyond [3] 66/12
167/16 172/10
bias [3] 155/16
160/24 188/5
biased [1] 16/14
big [2] 7/6 136/6
BIS [2] 38/11 38/15
bit [14] 31/12 43/21
50/8 63/13 83/4 92/4
116/7 134/16 146/3
153/10 159/19 164/7
164/13 181/12
blame [4] 28/12
50/17 97/17 192/23
blew [1] 120/3
blown [3] 120/13
122/7 158/5
blue [2] 150/3 162/1
blunt [1] 164/7
bluntly [1] 159/6
Board [40] 12/16
149/17 151/5 151/21
151/24 153/24 155/25
157/15 157/20 157/24
162/4 162/7 162/9
163/1 166/4 167/12
167/19 167/24 168/5
168/10 168/21 168/22)
168/24 169/5 169/22
171/13 171/15 173/5
173/13 175/1 175/4
175/10 175/14 175/24}
176/10 176/16 178/1
178/5 187/20 189/4
body [2] 99/13
173/19
Bogerd [1] 13/3
bollox [1] 163/3
bolt [2] 150/3 162/1
Bond [24] 8/7 8/23
12/15 13/5 14/1 29/9
30/9 32/17 36/7 51/5
51/7 73/14 74/3 84/18
91/23 96/6 96/11
100/21 110/23 110/24}
150/18 150/19 151/23
152/23
both [17] 3/9 12/21
29/12 58/11 77/4
115/18 124/14 124/18)
136/10 139/13 151/20)
163/8 166/20 177/3
185/6 190/16 191/12
bothered [2] 136/2
136/2
bottle [1] 177/2
bottom [17] 13/23
14/10 15/10 46/17
46/17 48/8 52/9 56/13
85/6 148/13 161/4
187/13 187/14 187/15)
189/8 193/20 195/25
bound [1] 159/25
Bourke [2] 13/3
57/19
box [3] 14/4 93/24
109/4
branch [6] 6/24
15/12 15/25 52/15
118/19 119/8
branches [4] 14/23
65/16 68/19 75/9
BRDB [2] 74/21 94/4
breach [7] 66/17 67/9I
76/7 76/15 76/23
125/3 157/25
breached [6] 79/3
79/19 120/22 123/4
123/17 124/15
break [8] 64/13 64/17)
98/14 98/14 98/19
178/6 179/14 179/19
Brian [4] 22/2 37/7
51/15 58/4
brief [1] 71/10
briefed [2] 58/15
148/19
briefing [4] 6/9 111/5
111/11 148/8
briefly [1] 28/25
bring [5] 142/2
145/19 145/24 188/22)
188/25
bringing [2] 14/11
187/8
broad [4] 74/7 77/18
151/13 169/2
broadening [1]
181/23
broader [1] 80/11
broadly [4] 42/15
69/3 151/18 161/18
broke [1] 180/7
brought [6] 3/8 10/19
44/18 45/21 118/3
139/12
bruised [1] 149/21
bug [3] 74/20 74/23
94/2
bugs [24] 15/21
18/20 20/17 67/13
67/23 68/4 69/7 74/22
74/25 75/14 7/22
77/25 100/24 101/23
108/21 118/12 119/2
119/6 120/24 121/5
121/17 121/17 122/5
122/10
bugs’ [2] 74/25 75/3
bugs/tampering' [1]
74/22
build [1] 65/21
build-up [1] 65/21
bullet [3] 57/23
159/21 160/9
bundle [5] 150/12
150/13 150/14 171/18
176/21
bundles [1] 70/10
business [4] 12/24
36/15 38/7 191/4
busy [2] 132/2
156/14
but [195] 4/1 6/17
7/12 8/3 9/21 10/8
11/10 11/21 14/24
16/1 16/14 17/1 18/1
18/4 18/12 18/13
19/18 20/11 21/9
22/10 24/17 25/18
26/4 28/2 28/21 29/23
30/21 31/9 33/11
33/20 34/5 34/16
34/22 35/12 35/16
37/25 39/12 39/20
40/3 40/19 41/6 41/13)
42/14 42/19 43/8
43/16 44/8 44/19 45/7
45/10 45/15 46/21
49/19 49/22 49/23
50/17 51/19 52/7 53/5
54/23 57/3 59/6 60/6
61/8 62/17 62/18
66/16 67/13 68/11
71/9 71/10 72/9 73/18
76/5 76/13 82/2 82/4
84/5 85/9 85/10 87/24
88/9 88/13 89/12
89/13 89/17 90/13
91/4 92/7 94/6 95/12
96/16 99/20 100/7
104/2 105/3 106/2
106/22 106/25 107/8
108/14 109/10 110/7
110/19 111/3 114/15
117/11 119/13 119/22]
119/24 120/6 121/10
122/15 123/12 124/5
124/24 125/13 126/7
126/17 128/12 128/17I
130/14 130/16 131/12
131/25 134/17 135/20
136/3 139/15 140/20
141/24 142/18 144/13
144/15 144/17 146/1
146/4 146/7 146/23
146/25 147/1 147/23
153/3 153/15 155/15
156/1 156/6 156/16
158/10 159/6 159/19
159/25 160/5 161/15
162/10 163/11 163/13)
163/25 164/5 164/8
164/14 165/18 165/23}
166/19 166/24 167/11
168/7 168/24 170/15
171/14 172/25 173/15)
173/18 175/7 175/20
176/5 176/13 176/14
177/18 177/15 178/3
178/15 182/13 182/21
183/10 183/16 183/17]
185/22 186/12 191/11
192/2 192/12 192/13
193/3 194/18
c
calibre [1] 181/18
call [34] 1/6 21/4
25/25 72/8 81/23
82/16 84/3 101/18
103/7 109/10 109/12
109/19 110/16 111/17,
119/11 123/15 126/22}
136/23 139/19 151/5
152/22 152/25 153/2
162/25 163/1 163/21
164/16 164/24 165/10}
167/18 167/24 168/10}
169/21 173/5
called [38] 2/23 3/25
7/13 12/3 13/17 66/25)
69/11 77/6 78/14
79/11 83/24 87/7
87/25 88/1 88/13
88/17 88/20 91/2
102/5 103/16 103/21
104/9 104/12 104/25
105/19 106/12 110/13}
113/23 117/15 120/20}
123/1 124/11 126/4
133/24 134/12 134/20
138/23 183/8
Callendar [1] 100/22
calling [11] 64/24
72/22 74/3 77/12
77/14 78/11 78/20
81/14 82/19 87/19
175/14
came [8] 30/6 41/20
94/6 126/20 149/16
150/2 161/25 168/6
can [140] 1/3 1/4
1/14 1/19 2/22 4/18
6/11 7/23 13/21 13/24,
16/15 21/11 21/11
23/24 25/25 28/25
29/2 33/8 35/5 35/23
35/24 37/10 38/13
39/24 43/2 46/16
46/18 46/20 47/24
48/7 52/9 52/20 53/7
53/16 54/23 56/15
57/15 59/13 61/19
64/19 64/22 64/25
65/19 68/6 69/9 71/25
72/2 73/3 73/12 73/24I
74/10 74/22 79/25
82/10 84/11 85/20
89/16 92/9 92/13
92/24 93/6 98/13
98/14 98/21 99/7 99/8)
99/9 99/13 99/15
99/16 99/25 100/16
108/9 108/18 108/21
109/3 109/4 110/10
110/16 115/15 118/4
124/17 129/5 129/11
129/12 135/5 136/15
136/21 136/22 137/4
137/9 137/10 138/20
138/22 140/15 141/11
141/14 142/2 142/8
143/14 143/16 144/11
144/20 145/12 148/4
150/7 152/18 154/1
155/5 161/2 162/18
163/7 164/12 164/14
168/5 168/9 168/11
169/6 170/22 171/9
173/5 174/20 175/15
175/16 176/20 177/11
178/6 179/14 179/21
179/23 180/20 182/1
182/17 183/24 185/13)
187/4 187/5 187/9
193/5 194/12
can't [27] 10/25 22/9
33/16 39/23 46/25
49/23 62/17 69/17
71/9 71/11 73/1 81/6
87/10 116/21 117/9
119/23 120/7 123/5
123/15 123/18 125/8
135/23 146/24 153/1
167/15 171/1 186/24
candid [1] 103/5
candidates [1]
100/11
cannot [6] 10/21 38/6
85/20 175/22 185/21
191/14
captive [1] 127/3
caravan [1] 34/19
cards [1] 31/18
care [1] 190/17
carefully [4] 56/7
124/9 124/10 124/12
carried [11] 17/1
50/14 56/18 56/20
56/22 61/8 85/19
85/23 96/11 96/23
97/18
carry [7] 40/5 44/22
50/21 53/24 84/23
(65) better... - carry
Cc
96/22
carrying [2] 45/14
82/13
Cartwright [8] 65/7
72/14 75/13 75/19
76/10 78/10 78/10
117/18
case [61] 3/23 3/24
4/24 5/21 7/10 8/21
8/25 9/2 9/15 9/25
36/18 61/14 62/14
62/23 67/25 75/23
82/7 100/14 103/2
108/19 114/1 122/18
128/19 137/23 144/7
144/9 146/5 146/11
148/2 148/6 154/23
155/15 164/20 167/6
170/8 170/14 170/15
170/18 170/24 171/4
172/9 173/1 175/23
178/15 179/5 185/3
190/9 190/23 192/4
194/3 195/8
cases [26] 8/10
14/22 16/8 23/6 35/2
45/2 51/15 66/23
67/20 101/15 102/12
102/14 102/20 103/11
104/4 107/23 112/19
112/23 113/1 113/4
113/12 115/5 121/8
123/22 132/19 190/18
casts [1] 66/5
catch [1] 94/5
categories [3] 26/13
27/15 124/2
caught [1] 74/8
cause [5] 14/23
37/20 46/9 135/25
174/12
caused [6] 26/21
96/23 121/5 122/6
122/10 122/12
cautious [4] 72/22
146/4 172/24 190/20
caveat [1] 62/21
Cavender [16] 142/1
143/10 145/7 145/11
147/18 148/14 149/12)
149/19 154/5 163/22
164/13 165/19 166/13}
166/16 167/10 184/7
Cavender's [1] 194/4
cavil [1] 7/11
cavilling [1] 79/6
CCRC [6] 21/15
21/22 22/15 84/2
carry... [2] 96/21
10/19 10/24 35/1 35/3)
122/20 124/15 128/17)
146/12 146/24 147/12)
100/14 107/16
cease [1] 61/4
ceasing [1] 38/16
central [1] 47/10
centring [1] 139/16
CEO [1] 13/2
certain [4] 91/13
91/18 100/18 121/12
certainly [26] 7/12
7/15 9/4 11/10 20/4
35/9 71/15 71/25
85/20 97/6 99/20
106/4 116/4 120/18
129/2 144/6 146/25
149/3 165/23 172/14
cetera [6] 55/13
125/3 125/4 170/8
190/12 193/18
chain [8] 54/16 68/9
68/9 89/24 96/8 142/9)
189/6 189/24
Chairman [12] 36/13
39/1 39/9 39/17 40/4
42/14 44/4 47/18 48/2
59/2 59/22 168/15
challenge [4] 28/22
108/6 127/11 186/14
challenged [2]
188/23 190/22
chambers [5] 14/4
139/9 142/7 148/9
148/19
chance [5] 31/19
85/8 184/14 185/1
187/16
Chancery [1] 3/4
change [6] 51/23
134/24 134/25 135/25)
137/17 160/15
changed [1] 188/1
changes [2] 51/22
187/19
characterise [1]
177/22
characteristics [2]
178/18 180/13
charge [2] 37/7 51/13
charged [2] 37/6
51/12
chats [4] 71/7
cheaper [1] 51/8
check [5] 15/24
74/21 74/21 74/24
74/24
checking [1] 94/4
checks [2] 16/6 75/1
Chief [3] 91/12 91/13
120/21
choice [3] 161/15
161/21 177/8
choose [1] 85/20
chop [1] 115/20
126/25 128/21 128/23)
179/16 180/17 188/15)
chronologically [1]
120/8
chronology [1]
140/21
circulated [1] 106/1
circumstances [4]
20/8 97/23 104/2
191/10
cited [2] 55/23 77/2
civil [36] 3/4 8/16
21/24 21/25 22/7
22/12 22/14 22/14
22/17 23/6 23/7 31/16
41/5 41/21 42/1 42/2
42/11 43/25 47/12
47/20 47/23 48/5 52/5
56/19 56/22 59/5 59/7
81/11 82/17 83/6
124/18 126/18 130/5
131/4 139/5 185/25
claim [11] 6/7 6/8
11/8 11/10 16/3 16/21
47/12 47/13 48/5 60/8}
118/21
claimant's [2] 119/22
186/4
claimants [20] 25/8
48/21 51/14 64/4
77/22 87/5 87/11 88/3
92/12 95/21 99/4
101/7 104/23 108/19
109/6 111/16 116/13
121/10 122/11 122/13
claimants’ [2] 121/18
121/20
claimed [3] 15/14
31/24 33/7
claiming [1] 45/5
claims [6] 11/7 11/7
45/20 48/24 58/16
59/20
Clair [1] 129/10
Clarke [11] 64/23
64/25 65/6 68/15
69/13 73/7 78/9 81/17I
117/8 117/19 134/2
Clarke's [8] 79/22
80/17 80/19 81/14
103/24 117/4 125/24
134/7
classically [1] 42/1
classing [1] 38/4
clean [1] 26/16
clear [31] 4/4 9/3
9/12 12/7 24/23 24/25
26/15 30/24 32/6
42/10 43/19 50/10
59/10 72/6 82/1 82/1
82/2 89/17 90/14
93/25 95/14 100/18
103/9 107/10 128/12
135/19 139/25 165/24
171/14 174/21 190/7
clearly [10] 31/1
82/25 103/3 105/6
105/8 105/16 119/10
119/19 119/24 173/1
clerk [4] 141/17
150/18 152/2 152/7
clerks [3] 5/2 6/6
65/18
client [18] 6/3 9/22
20/14 26/17 28/14
96/12 103/6 106/5
127/3 128/9 150/24
158/7 194/16 195/11
client's [4] 34/9
43/24 162/13 194/24
clients [14] 26/11
116/4 128/6 149/23
149/24 160/2 161/10
161/15 162/1 165/7
165/12 177/8 177/12
191/18
climb [4] 167/15
closely [1] 52/18
closing [4] 99/8
99/10 134/10 136/3
closings [2] 100/1
108/22
closings/the [1]
108/22
CMC [2] 29/15 29/20
CMCs [1] 26/1
code [2] 74/20 74/23
Cohen [14] 3/25
142/3 143/2 143/10
148/14 149/20 156/10
163/23 164/14 165/19}
166/13 166/17 167/10
184/13
Cohen's [1] 142/23
coin [2] 122/25 172/5
coincidence [1]
184/25
coincidences [1]
184/11
cold [2] 136/7 186/22
colleagues [2]
111/12 148/19
collection [1] 27/20
collective [1] 191/5
collusion [2] 185/17
187/3
colourful [3] 109/17
111/21 112/3
come [32] 1/22 4/21
21/11 25/16 32/17
35/2 35/8 35/19 35/23
38/22 39/12 58/20
59/2 69/9 72/4 79/25
82/5 90/12 92/13
125/17 125/25 138/20
141/13 146/16 153/15}
157/7 158/24 162/16
171/20 173/9 183/15
183/16
43/9 48/14 55/2 69/22
comes [2] 92/20
158/17
comfort [1] 135/11
comfortable [2]
177/17 177/20
comfortably [1]
136/16
coming [5] 95/10
164/15 171/18 173/3
183/6
commenced [1] 58/8
commencement [1]
132/1
comment [5] 77/5
106/2 163/3 170/22
189/7
commentary [1]
54/20
comments [2] 91/23
183/4
commercial [9] 3/3
3/3 8/14 9/18 10/17
10/21 12/10 43/13
139/4
Commission [1]
107/23
commissioned [1]
58/1
commitment [1]
36/14
committed [2] 65/14
65/18
common [18] 3/25
4/8 4/14 11/11 11/13
74/16 140/3 140/8
140/21 140/23 143/22)
144/2 154/10 155/14
186/8 190/11 191/13
191/21
communicated [1]
188/6
communication [2]
182/9 186/18
communications [2]
129/24 167/16
company [8] 3/4 10/6
10/12 39/1 39/9 39/18}
40/3 42/7
comparative [1]
148/22
compartmentalises
[1] 54/18
competition [1]
139/6
complain [1] 101/7
complaint [3] 156/25
157/4 157/10
complaints [2] 109/9
172/17
complement [1] 3/22
complete [3] 60/7
69/23 100/6
completely [3] 50/6
123/19 148/21
(66) carry... - completely
Cc
completing [3] 16/22
20/3 36/21
complex [3] 34/22
58/3 128/8
complicated [2]
26/14 192/10
complications [1]
37/20
complied [1] 66/1
comply [2] 66/12
76/3
compounds [2]
97/19 176/1
compromise [1]
12/23
conceal [1] 110/2
concealed [1] 108/2
concealment [2]
18/12 48/25
conceive [1] 27/13
conceived [1] 28/22
concentrate [1]
118/5
concern [16] 6/20
9/6 35/17 47/12 70/25
82/9 82/9 103/20
104/8 105/6 105/7
107/20 112/16 162/4
181/10 186/7
concerned [13] 3/21
22/19 31/15 35/13
43/9 43/23 59/8
101/14 102/18 127/22
173/18 180/18 191/25}
concerning [10] 3/9
21/19 57/18 71/3 71/4
71/14 71/15 93/1
112/16 139/13
concerns [5] 9/22
68/10 80/22 114/20
115/8
concluded [3] 73/18
140/22 140/22
concludes [1] 63/22
conclusion [6] 75/2
75/20 94/22 126/21
155/17 187/2
conclusions [6]
16/18 65/21 74/12
93/1 186/25 190/20
concurrent [2] 23/3
23/4
conditional [1] 22/22
conduct [12] 10/23
11/12 27/14 59/23
65/14 67/17 80/12
86/2 118/14 128/7
156/25 158/4
conducted [11]
11/19 20/6 20/23
37/22 37/24 38/1
38/25 40/17 75/9
130/1 130/25
conducting [3] 10/21
27/12 55/24
conference [28]
52/21 52/24 53/1 53/3
53/14 54/4 59/16
60/22 60/22 68/11
71/16 71/17 71/24
78/7 78/10 78/17
84/14 86/23 91/5
98/24 108/11 133/21
133/23 134/3 152/22
152/25 152/25 153/22)
confirm [6] 30/18
37/6 51/12 73/3
178/17 180/12
confirmed [10] 6/23
13/4 51/17 68/14
130/3 141/21 154/14
175/19 175/21 175/23}
confirms [1] 181/10
conflict [4] 168/14
168/16 168/22 169/4
conflicted [1] 162/10
Conflicts [1] 168/13
conscious [3] 22/6
38/17 101/16
consequences [4]
157/23 158/19 158/22)
160/4
consequent [1]
185/15
consider [13] 45/11
47/18 59/19 68/1
106/9 116/16 117/1
117/14 120/1 124/5
125/14 145/17 169/23)
consideration [5]
21/16 44/24 55/5
77/14 149/6
considerations [1]
82/7
considered [10]
22/11 35/22 48/4
66/14 70/2 90/23
122/9 130/21 130/23
195/7
considering [2] 60/5
186/5
consistent [4] 64/7
64/9 170/19 190/6
consistently [4]
15/14 118/21 140/10
140/10
conspiracy [1]
194/14
constraint [1] 94/5
constructed [1]
153/18
Construction [2]
183/2 183/3
consultation [3] 78/4
110/14 171/7
contact [9] 14/1
93/18 96/25 97/4
97/10 131/11 131/13
131/15 150/23
contacted [1] 21/3
contained [2] 127/15
128/25
containing [1] 6/9
contemplates [1]
41/6
contemporaneous
[4] 28/10 70/20
100/24 101/24
content [2] 154/14
157/2
contents [4] 2/13
2/18 33/22 138/13
context [10] 44/1
45/20 48/11 49/6
56/25 61/23 68/25
103/1 110/1 193/10
continue [4] 60/25
86/25 162/23 188/2
continued [2] 6/5
128/17
continues [1] 151/9
contract [5] 30/15
30/17 32/8 32/21
192/8
contracts [3] 15/8
121/5 192/7
contractual [2] 3/9
139/14
contradictory [1]
37/21
contribute [2] 13/19
99/19
contributing [1]
89/25
contribution [2]
169/8 169/17
contributions [1]
99/2
control [17] 24/18
29/8 29/13 30/11
30/18 30/25 31/1 32/2
32/5 32/13 33/23
35/19 35/19 35/22
127/8 127/24 128/23
controversial [2]
101/22 123/6
convenient [1]
178/15
conversation [3]
110/8 110/15 171/15
converse [1] 123/1
convicted [2] 67/12
67/16
conviction [1] 68/1
convictions [6] 15/19]
18/22 19/4 20/16
20/24 119/1
convincing [1]
174/14
Cooper [2] 168/17
168/23
copied [3] 8/2 84/19
150/19
copies [5] 5/2 6/6
30/20 32/7 143/4
copy [9] 1/23 6/8
17/13 65/9 137/12
141/13 151/12 152/7
156/4
core [5] 31/5 112/8
150/12 150/15 195/18}
corners [1] 100/7
correct [35] 2/24
3/15 3/18 5/16 25/13
55/7 65/24 72/19
119/16 130/15 131/9
131/16 133/12 133/22}
134/4 134/15 137/19
137/21 137/21 138/11
139/8 139/24 140/18
141/1 141/5 142/25
143/6 144/3 147/12
148/7 148/10 148/21
148/21 152/20 155/13}
corrected [3] 7/21
75/12 133/7
correcting [1] 132/24
correction [4] 39/6
137/25 138/7 138/8
corrections [5] 2/16
2/20 16/3 19/14
137/12
correctly [1] 134/13
correctness [1]
142/19
corrects [1] 2/6
correspondence [3]
29/9 173/2 189/16
cost [3] 45/19 48/14
49/9
could [51] 7/13 7/18
16/5 19/17 29/22
31/18 31/22 34/13
35/14 37/19 37/20
38/3 38/6 38/11 48/20
51/2 52/17 57/25 60/3
63/1 63/1 64/3 78/14
78/25 85/21 88/18
89/17 89/18 90/12
90/15 95/20 101/9
101/14 101/18 102/13}
102/18 104/15 105/13}
107/5 107/5 118/2
120/1 124/24 125/10
125/14 127/13 151/7
169/23 171/25 174/5
190/24
couldn't [5] 5/6 5/8
77 105/25 173/15
Coulson [6] 182/8
183/1 183/8 183/8
184/24 185/24
counsel [28] 3/13
3/22 5/23 6/1 6/18
22/12 36/11 58/16
65/6 70/12 78/4 91/23}
95/7 103/23 110/22
114/9 135/6 136/2
143/17 143/18 145/7
149/3 149/12 152/23
161/10 187/16 187/24)
188/7
counsel's [2] 24/18
187/25
Counterclaim [1]
29/11
countermeasure [1]
94/4
couple [3] 36/6 98/8
139/11
coupled [2] 172/17
191/7
course [38] 1/8 6/12
9/21 22/7 23/7 34/12
42/6 47/14 49/17
52/17 54/25 64/14
79/10 80/1 81/10 88/7
92/3 92/5 92/21 98/16I
98/17 111/21 115/5
122/24 129/25 134/6
135/5 136/24 146/19
147/10 159/22 160/5
160/8 171/24 181/15
183/3 185/22 189/12
courses [1] 169/22
court [62] 4/12 8/17
21/14 21/17 23/5
24/24 25/4 25/9 26/3
28/4 37/19 58/9 66/2
67/25 68/14 74/13
76/4 79/19 83/9 92/13
99/5 102/3 102/9
103/5 107/22 114/14
114/21 115/25 116/5
116/25 117/19 119/15)
120/22 122/9 123/5
123/18 124/16 125/25)
127/5 139/9 140/6
141/4 152/24 153/5
153/22 167/25 174/5
182/23 183/2 183/4
183/5 185/6 185/18
185/19 186/18 188/11
188/14 191/12 191/15)
192/12 192/16 193/13)
courtroom [1] 99/3
courts [4] 115/9
116/9 125/2 192/5
cover [10] 38/18 43/7
43/8 43/17 44/3 44/15
46/20 47/1 49/17
110/2
cover-up [1] 110/2
covered [2] 101/24
165/3
covers [1] 69/3
Coyne [5] 93/4 95/20
96/4 97/12 97/14
(67) completing - Coyne
Cc
create [1] 23/5
created [3] 70/7 70/8
121/9
creation [2] 92/10
92/17
Credence [1] 77/6
credibility [3] 66/19
76/17 79/15
criminal [74] 21/17
21/23 22/2 22/2 22/8
22/25 23/3 23/4 23/9
41/12 41/13 41/19
41/19 50/18 65/14
68/13 69/11 72/25
73/4 76/7 78/23 79/2
79/3 79/14 81/5 81/10
81/15 81/18 82/17
83/6 86/16 86/19
88/15 100/13 102/12
102/14 102/19 103/11
104/4 104/13 104/17
104/20 105/14 106/17
107/15 107/21 107/22)
107/22 109/23 111/25)
112/19 112/23 113/1
113/4 113/12 113/25
114/21 115/5 115/8
115/24 117/14 119/13}
119/19 120/2 120/10
120/19 121/12 121/23}
122/2 122/3 122/9
124/18 125/22 129/16)
critical [6] 18/9 32/2
47/3 47/7 47/22 50/1
criticised [1] 98/13
criticism [3] 102/25
108/5 130/13
criticisms [8] 16/16
102/10 102/11 102/14}
112/18 115/4 180/3
182/2
cross [23] 87/9 87/12
93/20 94/7 95/1 95/1
95/3 95/4 96/4 104/6
105/17 106/19 109/22)
111/23 117/16 123/12)
123/19 125/21 125/23}
128/6 144/12 178/19
179/9
cross-examination
[8] 87/9 93/20 94/7
104/6 105/17 106/19
123/12 125/23
cross-examined [2]
111/23 125/21
cross-examining [2]
87/12 128/6
cross-heading [1]
144/12
cross-reference [1]
179/9
crossed [2] 52/12
195/2
crosses [1] 164/17
Crown [1] 119/15
curious [1] 182/25
current [5] 66/21
66/23 67/20 76/19
190/21
currently [2] 100/13
107/16
cursory [4] 17/24
19/7 19/8 20/8
cut [2] 16/24 177/3
cutting [1] 65/20
D
D8 [1] 180/20
dale [1] 111/24
Dalmellington [1]
100/24
damages [1] 155/22
damaging [1] 126/15
danger [1] 185/14
dare [1] 16/16
data [12] 6/25 15/12
16/4 37/1 48/19 51/5
52/15 74/18 74/20
77/21 118/19 119/8
database [2] 29/7
30/10
date [5] 5/7 5/8
134/16 134/21 178/14)
dated [14] 1/24 4/9
4/10 4/13 4/14 24/23
65/7 75/5 99/16
137/10 140/4 140/5
140/9 149/5
dates [1] 149/7
David [22] 142/1
142/1 142/14 142/20
143/9 145/7 145/11
147/18 149/2 149/12
152/9 154/5 161/8
162/24 163/20 163/22)
164/13 167/10 179/5
184/7 184/19 194/4
David Cavender [1]
142/1
Davies [1] 13/3
day [15] 43/3 46/18
52/22 54/2 54/5 63/8
93/23 112/1 135/22
142/21 152/21 180/21
181/3 185/5 196/9
days [5] 8/1 14/19
15/23 69/22 171/24
de [22] 1/6 1/9 1/11
1/15 11/22 32/4 33/21
64/22 98/23 112/5
112/13 115/15 118/41
126/23 129/5 129/9
129/13 130/20 133/19)
133/21 134/16 197/2
de Garr [4] 1/6 1/9
1/15 197/2
DEA [1] 94/5
dead [2] 126/3 126/6
deal [10] 4/22 25/19
29/4 35/3 70/19 93/18
95/9 122/25 152/11
154/24
dealing [6] 12/1
24/10 35/6 94/1
112/13 196/1
dealt [10] 13/13 69/8
78/1 98/23 122/17
122/19 127/20 172/12
192/16 192/17
Dear [1] 161/8
debate [1] 46/7
deceit [1] 48/23
December [1] 4/11
decide [3] 141/23
141/25 190/11
decided [15] 45/25
70/2 86/14 103/6
117/6 133/23 134/10
157/24 172/9 172/11
175/1 176/18 190/10
192/4 192/24
decision [21] 10/13
11/5 78/13 80/25 82/6}
84/13 88/20 88/21
91/21 98/23 109/19
134/1 150/2 151/21
168/19 168/25 177/24)
178/3 186/2 192/20
193/17
decisions [5] 4/12
13/6 19/20 140/6
170/2
deep [1] 8/9
defeat [1] 122/1
defect [2] 75/10
75/12
defects [2] 120/24
122/5
defence [12] 17/10
29/10 66/3 66/8 66/9
76/4 121/1 127/16
128/2 128/11 128/16
191/2
defence's [1] 74/13
defend [2] 120/5
120/15
defendant [4] 43/10
43/14 43/24 55/3
defendants [5] 67/8
67/12 67/14 67/23
76/22
defensive [2] 31/20
169/25
deficiencies [2] 74/8
121/6
definitely [1] 29/25
deflect [1] 50/17
degree [2] 37/16
51/20
deliberate [3] 18/12
48/24 189/3
deliberately [1] 26/22!
deliver [1] 58/4
delivered [1] 141/6
delivery [2] 65/15
101/4
Deloitte [7] 37/2 37/4
51/6 51/8 51/10 52/16
58/4
delta [1] 180/24
demonstrable [1]
155/16
demonstrably [1]
16/19
demonstrate [1]
188/5
demonstrated [1]
160/24
demonstrates [1]
87/7
den [1] 13/2
dense [1] 46/4
Department [2]
36/15 38/7
depend [3] 7/11
16/17 46/22
dependent [4] 16/18
30/15 58/3 134/7
deploy [1] 44/9
depth [2] 8/12 20/9
derived [4] 177/15
describe [1] 160/5
described [5] 12/7
24/7 72/24 128/19
146/18
describes [1] 95/23
describing [3] 46/12
55/18 88/18
description [3] 65/24
144/14 164/7
desirability [2] 55/24
120/17
desirable [6] 48/18
55/20 56/4 56/21
158/8 159/13
desirable’ [1] 55/13
desire [3] 82/22
82/22 149/14
despite [2] 71/20
139/19
detached [2] 163/2
164/2
detail [2] 85/24
154/22
detailed [6] 1/19 18/5
27/14 53/25 96/18
194/2
details [1] 82/2
determine [4] 15/18
18/19 29/22 118/24
determined [3] 29/24
131/21 168/23
deterred [1] 48/14
developed [2] 180/8
180/17
developing [2] 8/18
115/16
development [1]
146/21
develops [1] 182/22
dial [2] 153/24
175/10
dial-in [2] 153/24
175/10
Dialled [1] 175/8
Dickinson [23] 8/7
8/23 12/15 13/5 14/1
30/9 32/17 36/8 51/5
51/8 73/14 74/3 84/18)
91/23 96/6 96/11
100/21 110/23 110/25)
150/18 150/19 151/23)
152/23
Dickinson's [1] 29/9
did [116] 7/9 10/12
10/16 10/25 12/5 13/8)
13/11 15/11 15/12
15/19 16/8 16/25 18/7)
19/20 21/9 21/19 27/7I
27/7 28/4 33/13 33/14I
34/4 34/12 39/17
39/20 40/18 47/25
53/5 68/21 69/12 73/7I
73/10 76/3 80/3 80/7
80/16 80/20 81/18
81/18 81/19 81/19
82/15 82/16 83/19
92/3 93/16 93/19 94/5
96/14 97/9 99/19
99/20 99/20 102/3
102/7 102/7 104/3
108/19 109/6 109/14
111/25 113/25 114/8
114/20 114/22 115/1
115/7 115/23 115/23
116/1 116/16 116/18
116/20 116/24 116/25)
117/13 117/15 118/18)
118/19 119/1 119/21
119/25 121/24 128/17
129/19 129/24 130/19)
133/11 135/2 139/2
146/22 146/25 146/25]
149/14 149/20 153/3
160/5 160/15 160/24
160/25 162/13 166/20)
170/13 170/17 171/14I
176/10 178/2 183/14
183/16 183/17 192/14)
193/7 194/24 195/3
195/9 195/12
didn't [49] 7/20 11/4
11/18 11/19 20/8
22/10 26/6 27/13
30/19 34/2 35/19 40/3I
49/10 79/23 83/6
83/16 88/5 88/22
88/23 92/18 96/5 98/1
(68) create - didn't
D
didn't... [27] 98/10
98/11 103/23 103/24
104/1 106/17 109/10
109/11 111/16 111/25
116/14 116/21 127/10)
130/10 131/11 133/10
156/3 156/24 157/8
158/13 159/17 172/20}
176/12 182/15 185/10)
195/1 195/10
difference [5] 147/14
151/22 159/16 159/16}
176/15
differences [1]
124/20
different [19] 12/3
12/5 12/9 28/1 37/15
40/1 49/22 62/20
63/10 63/14 63/14
67/1 106/25 107/2
131/20 145/21 151/20)
159/23 192/20
difficult [19] 7/14 9/8
9/12 26/4 45/2 48/22
53/18 56/11 59/9 62/8
63/2 63/6 70/18 70/24
120/5 120/15 122/22
134/23 164/18
difficulties [3] 26/21
26/23 48/14
diffident [3] 170/15
171/21 172/22
dig [1] 185/3
digging [1] 191/4
diplomatic [1] 43/18
direct [5] 17/2 21/5
21/9 95/6 121/15
directed [2] 178/13
181/7
directly [5] 20/12
20/21 42/20 69/8
175/3
director [2] 168/17
168/21
director's [1] 170/10
directors [2] 157/20
168/10
disappointed [1]
70/5
disappointing [1]
92/2
discharged [1] 11/2
disciplined [1]
190/24
disclosable [2] 23/9
85/24
disclose [14] 25/7
33/15 38/6 41/16 66/6
66/7 66/15 67/11
67/22 76/5 76/13
116/18 120/24 124/13)
disclosed [17] 22/8
24/13 24/15 24/22
27/17 64/3 67/8 67/9
67/13 67/19 75/13
76/21 76/22 106/10
116/8 123/3 124/7
disclosure [20]
21/21 22/15 23/15
24/1 24/6 25/11 25/17
25/22 26/2 28/12
28/18 67/15 67/21
67/23 95/25 123/23
124/1 124/3 124/18
167/17
disclosures [1]
27/119
discover [2] 40/6
65/8
discovered [6] 18/20
24/7 25/11 25/12 27/2
129/4
discovering [2] 27/4
39/19
discovery [2] 35/9
123/14
discrepancies [3]
16/1 16/1 16/5
discuss [5] 78/4 80/4
80/22 85/8 195/3
discussed [12] 12/16
12/25 13/7 30/13
53/12 71/16 76/25
82/23 86/16 86/23
106/11 184/18
discussing [3] 21/7
24/21 114/11
discussion [14] 6/19
44/23 47/14 58/12
68/10 80/11 81/3 81/8)
81/21 95/5 100/25
111/5 145/7 161/11
discussions [5] 30/8
69/5 71/7 149/19
168/24
dismissed [2] 179/12
180/22
display [3] 166/23
179/10 179/10
disproportionate [1]
45/20
dispute [3] 5/25 6/10
9/19
disputes [1] 139/7
dissatisfaction [1]
89/21
distinction [6] 56/8
59/3 59/8 118/11
119/4 119/11
distinguish [1]
191/24
distinguishes [1]
146/12
distraction [1]
105/18
distributed [1]
140/23
diverted [1] 115/11
Division [1] 21/17
DN [4] 142/12
DN's [1] 147/7
do [104] 6/17 14/24
15/1 15/2 15/2 16/3
16/5 16/16 17/8 17/13
17/22 24/12 29/1
29/23 29/24 32/24
35/1 36/18 37/15
38/21 39/9 39/18 40/3
40/5 44/8 44/20 45/18
45/23 45/24 45/25
46/1 46/2 46/2 46/3
46/8 48/9 48/13 49/8
51/5 52/2 53/12 53/21
55/20 57/1 57/6 62/4
62/18 70/22 70/24
81/6 81/18 83/11
85/10 86/6 96/11
96/20 97/9 100/15
102/2 105/2 105/3
105/9 106/5 106/7
106/8 107/17 108/6
108/7 110/7 110/9
113/17 113/18 115/21
119/14 127/1 127/21
130/25 132/9 135/22
135/24 136/1 138/1
146/9 149/7 149/11
149/18 158/14 158/15}
161/21 171/11 172/7
172/25 174/8 177/2
178/22 178/24 181/11
182/1 183/17 189/7
191/7 194/8 194/13
195/20
Dobbin [4] 129/7
129/8 129/10 197/10
Doctor [2] 91/15
91/17
document [37] 5/9
7/23 31/25 32/24 33/8
33/19 33/22 33/22
35/23 53/20 54/10
77/9 92/13 95/11
96/18 127/20 141/15
142/24 143/5 143/12
143/15 144/4 144/5
144/6 144/18 144/20
144/22 145/5 147/19
152/1 153/17 154/7
156/3 156/9 180/6
180/10 183/25
documentation [1]
101/24
documents [32]
16/23 21/20 22/6
22/13 23/5 24/14
24/15 27/5 27/9 27/21
28/10 30/22 31/5 31/6
31/7 32/10 53/6 57/4
70/20 96/9 100/25
101/2 101/2 102/1
124/2 131/1 131/24
142/22 171/11 180/1
182/6 182/17
dodge [1] 178/16
does [27] 15/5 15/15
16/14 20/22 40/14
50/8 61/5 63/5 65/22
74/25 102/13 118/22
124/16 133/10 138/19}
146/14 146/17 146/23)
160/9 172/16 174/3
175/22 176/7 176/9
178/17 180/12 181/16}
doesn't [21] 20/21
40/22 44/16 44/18
49/13 57/11 62/5
62/16 63/5 105/2
110/3 110/17 125/8
144/13 158/19 159/15)
160/10 163/16 170/18}
172/13 172/14
doing [18] 16/25
39/13 46/6 47/4 47/16)
48/12 50/2 51/2 51/25)
55/14 57/8 68/2 83/3
86/13 90/15 90/15
102/21 161/17
don't [103] 7/11 10/4
10/9 11/19 11/21 12/5}
13/14 18/4 21/2 22/10)
23/2 26/22 27/12
27/12 32/1 33/1 33/1
33/11 33/16 33/16
34/1 34/7 35/22 39/22
40/19 42/18 43/15
44/7 44/7 44/8 44/9
44/9 44/21 45/1 45/15)
47/14 48/3 49/23
52/24 52/25 53/18
57/3 57/13 61/6 61/18
61/19 62/1 62/2 62/4
62/5 63/21 73/1 81/12,
81/24 83/15 83/18
83/18 91/6 92/7 92/7
97/4 103/22 104/9
104/19 106/2 106/15
113/8 115/16 117/17
120/9 120/16 121/21
123/12 125/7 125/10
125/18 126/5 130/6
134/17 135/9 147/10
148/25 149/1 149/10
149/13 152/18 160/4
163/13 168/4 170/22
171/12 173/23 177/7
177/25 177/25 182/2
183/14 187/1 192/21
193/2 193/4 195/17
195/22
done [36] 2/2 14/9
15/25 20/16 37/2 37/4}
41/18 46/9 51/9 51/16)
52/7 52/7 55/25 56/2
59/24 60/21 61/8 62/2
62/23 63/21 68/18
70/18 73/2 73/6 98/12)
101/12 102/11 102/16)
102/25 109/14 112/18}
132/16 135/7 159/1
160/23 190/10
double [2] 94/3 94/5
double-entry [1] 94/5
doubt [8] 31/23 33/8
66/5 101/25 115/3
127/4 176/13 182/16
doubting [1] 33/25
down [46] 4/21 8/6
12/13 15/9 15/22
21/11 27/7 31/12
35/23 38/20 47/6 47/9I
48/2 49/24 50/8 50/23)
52/1 54/8 54/8 62/25
69/10 75/4 79/25
92/13 99/14 111/24
115/20 119/25 138/21
141/15 143/25 153/10)
153/19 154/13 163/5
168/13 169/6 175/9
175/13 175/17 180/21
183/4 184/1 184/20
185/12 190/4
downgraded [2]
189/2 189/10
Dr [29] 74/3 74/11
81/18 90/6 90/24 91/2I
91/14 93/4 93/8 93/12)
93/16 94/2 94/6 94/11
94/17 95/5 95/10
95/15 95/19 96/2
96/21 96/25 97/5
97/13 97/22 97/25
131/8 131/12 131/12
Dr Gareth [1] 74/3
Dr Jenkins [5] 74/11
81/18 90/6 90/24
91/14
Dr Worden [20] 93/4
93/8 93/12 93/16 94/2
94/6 94/11 94/17 95/5
95/10 95/15 95/19
96/2 96/25 97/5 97/22
97/25 131/8 131/12
131/12
Dr Worden's [1]
97/13
draft [10] 73/18
128/11 140/23 141/5
142/17 144/2 145/2
147/22 149/22 159/17)
drafted [2] 117/7
135/10
drafting [2] 99/19
136/5
drafts [1] 70/14
drag [1] 44/7
dragged [1] 109/21
dramatic [1] 110/10
(69) didn't... - dramatic
D
Draper [3] 3/13 29/11
95/8
drastic [1] 162/6
drawing [3] 19/5
118/11 119/4
drawn [3] 33/19 95/9
95/11
driven [2] 149/8
149/11
dual [4] 45/12
due [4] 52/17 69/20
69/22 88/7
dug [1] 191/3
duplicates [1] 51/24
duration [1] 167/20
during [17] 11/15
21/8 25/6 35/20 54/5
70/15 78/10 92/3
104/6 104/20 105/14
111/25 123/24 132/5
135/5 190/16 191/6
duties [5] 66/2 76/3
80/9 107/25 125/3
duty [27] 66/6 66/7
66/8 66/12 66/17
67/10 76/7 76/15
76/23 79/3 79/19
120/22 123/5 123/17
123/25 124/15 155/2
155/8 155/24 156/22
157/12 157/13 157/15)
157/25 158/11 158/14)
161/21
duty’ [4] 66/10
E
E12 [2] 187/5 187/11
E15 [1] 150/9
E20 [2] 176/21
176/23
E21 [2] 183/24 184/5
E23 [1] 193/5
E35 [2] 31/7 31/8
E8 [1] 182/18
each [6] 15/24 25/17
25/18 140/2 140/13
166/8
earlier [11] 14/18
24/22 30/24 33/6
41/17 76/25 130/10
161/24 170/20 172/23}
193/15
early [14] 9/1 9/15
18/1 18/2 21/4 21/8
26/1 36/5 75/25 95/4
123/22 127/15 127/17)
187/21
easier [1] 26/15
easy [1] 110/9
economical [1] 84/8
edits [4] 77/20
educate [1] 148/15
effect [17] 23/12 40/5
41/5 67/5 84/8 94/2
96/12 96/21 96/23
96/23 97/18 138/1
158/4 160/25 177/18
186/7 188/16
effects [2] 66/13
76/10
eg [5] 14/25 16/2
38/4 85/18 100/14
eg because [1] 14/25)
eg by [1] 38/4
eg in [1] 85/18
eg the [1] 100/14
eight [3] 14/19 60/3
61/21
eight/ten [1] 14/19
either [7] 32/7 46/24
75/1 87/11 115/19
134/18 184/23
elaboration [1] 134/2
elevation [1] 139/20
elicited [4] 123/11
else [4] 16/11 35/1
90/8 163/9
elsewhere [1] 157/5
email [87] 7/25 13/24
14/16 30/23 31/2
31/11 31/13 33/5
33/13 33/17 34/17
36/4 39/22 40/4 40/10
40/19 41/24 43/15
44/19 47/24 49/3
49/20 49/21 50/10
53/3 53/25 54/12 55/1
56/10 56/12 56/14
56/14 56/17 57/3 57/5
57/17 61/7 61/19
62/10 62/19 63/11
63/15 64/7 68/7 69/9
70/11 72/7 72/24
84/17 89/24 96/8 96/9
118/3 118/8 137/23
137/24 138/9 141/16
142/9 142/10 142/11
150/17 150/24 151/11
152/2 161/2 161/23
164/10 169/3 170/19
171/14 171/17 173/6
176/25 178/12 180/2
182/21 183/22 184/16)
185/9 185/10 186/19
190/7 193/3 193/11
193/22 194/4
emailed [2] 167/22
171/12
emails [15] 60/20
63/3 63/13 63/13
92/14 98/25 132/13
146/14 150/1 160/17
171/3 184/18 184/22
188/15 192/22
embargo [1] 140/24
embargoed [1] 73/24
embarked [3] 15/17
20/14 118/24
embarrass [1]
119/12
embarrassing [1]
126/17
embarrassment [4]
7/16 9/6 10/6 10/8
emerged [1] 92/21
emphasis [1] 105/2
emphatic [2] 72/9
107/6
employer [1] 67/4
empowered [1]
38/15
enact [1] 40/5
encountered [1]
134/18
end [18] 20/6 25/24
48/20 58/21 59/2
64/12 73/23 99/14
101/18 108/13 132/2
133/18 135/22 136/6
138/17 144/1 158/1
186/22
ended [3] 63/7 185/1
186/1
energy [1] 139/5
engaged [2] 21/16
59/21
engaging [1] 69/25
England's [1] 45/3
enjoys [1] 160/3
enormous [2] 132/6
135/11
enough [5] 47/6 48/1
50/7 56/7 124/18
enquiries [3] 27/7
51/3 51/6
ensure [6] 12/19 39/6
90/17 95/16 98/11
164/16
entirely [11] 9/3 9/12
22/4 22/4 89/15 134/5)
163/13 166/1 170/1
185/25 187/2
entitled [4] 67/14
103/25 107/2 107/6
entry [2] 94/3 94/5
envisaged [1] 97/18
episode [1] 167/21
equal [1] 87/20
equality [1] 95/17
equivalent [2] 19/3
58/22
Error [16] 24/2 29/1
29/21 29/25 31/17
31/25 32/7 32/13 33/7
33/15 34/11 35/10
127/15 127/20 127/23}
128/22
errors [9] 14/23
16/19 16/20 25/24
25/25 120/24 122/5
155/14 194/5
especially [1] 194/11
essence [1] 125/8
essential [3] 94/15
155/19 158/9
essentially [11] 6/2
13/17 34/19 49/3
87/18 89/3 133/25
148/18 167/7 177/23
186/22
Essex [7] 8/17 68/14
139/9 152/24 153/4
153/22 167/25
establish [2] 31/1
84/13
established [4] 4/7
104/11 140/2 140/13
et [7] 55/13 125/3
125/4 147/18 170/8
190/12 193/18
et al [1] 147/18
et cetera [6] 55/13
125/3 125/4 170/8
190/12 193/18
etc [1] 48/13
evasive [2] 31/21
59/12
even [25] 16/5 25/12
31/21 38/3 44/7 45/11
45/11 49/8 57/11
62/11 62/21 85/16
87/13 93/10 103/13
103/14 124/25 136/2
136/2 146/7 160/3
184/23 185/23 188/5
195/1
event [11] 5/19 13/21
14/17 37/14 45/10
50/14 52/4 81/13
113/6 114/18 195/4
events [3] 34/10
177/22 183/19
ever [13] 34/12 73/7
73/9 73/10 116/16
116/19 128/11 128/17]
130/6 134/17 158/5
168/4 195/7
every [4] 15/24 28/20
89/8 128/8
everyone [1] 16/11
everything [1] 95/25
everywhere [1] 92/1
evidence [127] 1/17
15/15 18/25 19/15
20/25 28/23 37/7
48/18 51/13 52/12
53/8 65/3 65/13 66/21
67/1 68/4 69/6 69/7
69/20 70/6 70/17
70/19 71/4 71/22 72/2
72/12 73/13 73/23
7AI6 74/12 74/14
74/16 74/18 75/20
75/24 76/19 77/10
T7I17 77/25 79/2 79/5
79/6 79/16 80/3 80/13}
81/1 82/6 82/17 83/6
83/21 84/13 86/19
87/2 87/11 87/22
88/12 88/16 88/16
89/2 89/16 89/18
89/22 90/10 90/11
91/22 92/11 92/11
93/2 93/3 93/19 94/23}
96/16 97/20 97/23
99/3 99/6 100/19
101/9 101/12 101/17
102/15 104/17 106/13)
108/6 108/20 109/15
109/18 109/19 109/23}
110/2 110/12 112/15
114/2 118/10 118/22
119/7 119/20 120/18
121/16 123/3 123/4
123/16 123/17 124/14}
125/20 128/7 128/9
129/19 130/14 131/4
131/8 132/2 132/3
132/6 132/8 132/24
133/12 134/14 134/21
135/3 136/11 166/4
170/7 170/16 171/22
171/23 181/7
evident [1] 17/5
evidential [2] 49/2
87/15
exact [2] 146/24
188/24
exactly [5] 6/4 16/20
119/10 166/18 194/9
examination [9] 87/9
93/20 94/7 104/6
105/17 106/19 109/22)
123/12 125/23
examined [2] 111/23
125/21
examining [3] 86/3
87/12 128/6
example [17] 27/8
28/9 41/19 82/8 92/19
93/25 101/22 127/7
128/13 129/24 132/17)
132/23 133/11 143/23}
144/11 157/17 192/6
examples [2] 28/1
90/5
except [1] 158/1
exception [2] 117/14
117/15
exchange [25] 33/2
33/17 34/17 39/22
42/18 43/16 47/24
50/21 52/19 53/4 54/1
54/5 54/12 54/23 55/1
56/10 56/13 57/17
61/7 61/19 63/10
63/11 64/7 182/21
193/22
(60) Draper - exchange
E
exchanged [1] 182/7
exchanges [1] 180/2
exchanging [2]
170/20 171/2
Excluding [1] 164/13
exclusively [2] 63/24
147/16
executive [6] 12/16
12/17 12/25 13/7
149/16 168/18
exercise [18] 15/18
15/20 18/19 19/3
20/14 20/22 25/22
27/20 27/20 85/12
85/17 85/19 86/2
118/13 118/24 119/1
119/5 172/14
exhaustive [1] 38/25
exist [1] 14/24
existed [1] 30/15
existence [10] 67/13
67/22 68/3 75/14
108/20 118/12 120/3
120/13 120/24 122/5
existing [1] 152/22
expect [1] 186/6
expectation [3]
135/10 135/12 162/2
expected [4] 14/7
30/17 70/1 188/9
expecting [2] 18/4
185/7
experience [10] 8/12
8/15 21/25 23/14 25/3
25/22 106/8 119/14
119/19 128/19
experienced [5]
102/23 105/5 107/10
114/14 124/25
expert [55] 15/15
18/25 41/13 52/16
65/2 65/13 66/4 66/4
66/16 66/17 66/20
66/21 66/24 67/2 68/4
74/4 74/11 76/6 76/7
76/14 76/15 76/17
76/18 78/2 79/3 80/2
80/5 80/8 80/9 84/1
92/11 93/2 93/3 95/21
97/22 99/2 99/5
107/25 108/1 108/4
111/24 113/5 115/5
118/9 118/14 118/22
119/6 119/20 120/21
125/3 130/14 131/7
132/6 132/6 175/2
expertise [2] 21/25
22/5
experts [5] 29/21
29/24 70/19 74/13
95/17
explain [9] 8/22 16/1
16/4 80/7 113/19
114/8 135/16 189/3
195/5
explained [9] 80/9
81/22 82/15 111/20
145/9 154/4 155/9
161/25 191/10
explaining [2] 25/15
109/17
explains [2] 156/5
165/5
explanation [10]
82/18 82/20 83/5 84/5)
84/6 94/9 102/3
112/15 125/4 135/4
explanations [1] 28/6
explore [2] 25/18
58/2
exploring [2] 140/12
166/3
exposed [1] 122/20
exposing [1] 120/20
exposé [1] 122/4
express [1] 146/15
expressed [9] 54/25
114/20 115/8 157/22
160/16 174/21 184/21
186/11 190/20
expressing [5] 22/22
33/8 89/21 164/19
167/6
expression [2] 70/12
114/15
expressions [1]
190/21
expressly [1] 42/11
exquisitely [1] 70/23
extends [1] 66/8
extensive [1] 8/15
extent [19] 16/17
41/18 42/8 61/13 62/2
62/13 80/4 85/25 91/1
92/9 92/11 92/15
92/16 95/14 97/4 99/3
127/13 151/3 173/25
external [2] 58/15
58/19
extract [2] 55/23 56/1
extracts [1] 54/19
extraordinarily [1]
132/8
extraordinary [4]
24/3 24/9 29/4 127/13
extremely [3] 23/17
146/1 146/4
eyes [1] 105/4
F
face [9] 27/22 83/4
85/15 99/5 110/17
146/10 155/20 158/2
186/9
faces [1] 176/3
facing [1] 35/6
fact [45] 6/21 7/17
9/6 10/12 11/2 11/18
15/13 20/24 22/6
22/24 23/8 30/10
42/12 47/15 66/6 80/7
87/6 87/8 88/4 89/21
92/20 95/5 95/13
109/11 111/16 118/20
119/17 121/24 123/15}
124/10 129/15 130/3
131/15 138/10 143/9
143/16 150/1 156/9
156/16 174/7 181/7
181/16 186/1 186/3
187/14
facts [7] 23/21 25/18
29/18 145/8 146/21
187/1 187/1
factual [5] 4/5 45/7
51/6 140/1 140/12
fail [1] 188/10
failed [7] 66/11 66/15
75/10 76/4 76/13
178/16 190/19
failing [1] 120/23
failure [17] 15/1 25/7
66/13 66/17 67/3 67/5
67/7 67/11 68/3 76/6
76/10 76/14 96/22
97/11 97/13 97/19
194/24
failures [1] 74/19
fair [18] 18/2 19/5
23/18 23/19 23/21
31/23 46/12 59/4
78/19 83/10 88/8
94/21 103/19 103/19
117/10 146/17 156/18}
159/18
fairly [2] 27/1 171/16
faith [1] 192/7
faithfully [1] 166/24
fall [1] 22/8
false [14] 20/25 37/6
48/21 51/12 79/1 79/5
82/20 84/6 84/9
104/17 121/9 123/3
123/16 124/14
familiar [2] 111/5
190/2
fanciful [1] 146/13
far [9] 3/21 47/24
77/7 81/21 101/20
110/4 117/4 148/4
177/23
fashioned [1] 134/21
fast [2] 30/20 58/5
faster [1] 30/21
fatally [3] 66/20
76/17 120/25
fault [4] 15/14 28/19
97/17 118/21
favour [2] 40/10
159/11
fear [2] 174/9 174/10
feature [1] 74/16
features [1] 100/5
February [3] 60/2
70/11 83/24
February 2019 [1]
70/11
feed [1] 151/6
feedback [1] 174/16
feel [7] 27/3 38/15
69/14 142/4 149/20
164/1 172/20
feeling [1] 172/21
feels [6] 36/13 38/17
43/5 44/2 188/21
194/2
fell [2] 98/9 131/21
felt [4] 109/20 149/20
149/21 172/25
fencing [1] 79/9
few [4] 8/1 13/16
14/14 188/4
field [2] 111/9 112/1
fifth [1] 57/22
fight [1] 162/5
figures [1] 149/1
file [3] 17/15 21/11
187/8
files [2] 14/4 14/6
final [4] 16/15 16/18
16/21 52/25
finance [3] 3/4 13/4
139/5
financial [1] 155/18
find [12] 9/7 56/23
59/9 62/8 63/2 63/6
88/5 122/13 134/23
136/1 171/13 172/8
finding [3] 27/8 70/22!
109/24
findings [3] 85/24
173/25 174/7
fine [6] 85/10 86/5
136/17 151/12 156/17}
196/6
Fingers [1] 52/12
finish [1] 117/13
firefighting [1] 70/9
firm [4] 8/11 155/17
186/11 190/20
firming [1] 146/16
firmly [2] 146/15
157/21
first [43] 1/18 2/7
2/17 2/18 4/18 4/19
4/22 4/24 5/21 17/11
17/15 17/17 18/6 25/1
30/12 35/3 41/24
49/20 50/5 69/20
70/17 78/23 86/9
93/23 93/23 109/9
112/11 115/18 137/13}
140/15 153/19 153/21
158/4 158/17 162/17
181/10 183/20 183/22!
185/12 186/20 187/14)
191/4 193/12
firsthand [2] 101/10
101/17
firstly [4] 9/1 104/13
143/1 194/21
fit [3] 51/14 136/16
181/10
five [5] 20/19 69/13
111/13 116/11 152/3
five paragraphs [1]
20/19
five years [1] 69/13
fixed [1] 121/7
flag [3] 113/9 113/14
114/8
flagged [1] 102/9
flagging [5] 112/17
113/16 113/19 113/21
113/22
flurry [1] 184/21
flush [1] 151/17
focus [8] 11/15 35/16
41/21 47/16 48/4 77/5)
103/11 172/16
focused [1] 3/3
focuses [1] 3/2
focusing [4] 70/25
85/25 146/7 146/22
follow [5] 36/16
133/10 144/13 194/16)
194/24
following [12] 12/25
54/5 54/6 66/14 93/5
141/2 142/21 151/10
155/5 184/18 188/1
196/9
follows [2] 51/3 89/1
foolish [1] 135/20
foot [19] 43/2 50/21
50/22 57/17 65/5 68/7
82/11 150/16 154/25
161/6 163/17 173/9
173/10 175/17 1814/3
182/19 187/22 189/5
193/11
force [1] 87/20
forcefully [1] 174/20
foresaw [1] 131/16
forget [2] 35/12
95/12
Forgive [3] 137/21
169/18 169/20
forgotten [1] 192/23
form [6] 6/8 37/14
82/25 91/9 166/20
186/17
formally [3] 6/23
58/10 174/6
formed [8] 73/8
81/10 162/2 165/18
166/12 166/19 167/9
177/11
(61) exchanged - formed
F
184/10 185/2 194/10
forming [1] 165/23
forthcoming [1]
185/20
forward [7] 54/23
58/22 60/16 62/13
65/19 82/11 190/15
193/19
forwards [8] 52/6
59/1 61/22 61/23
100/16 108/9 142/9
189/6
found [4] 24/14 26/4
26/8 88/15
four [14] 2/6 5/1 35/2
61/22 62/1 62/11
62/21 63/20 101/23
111/13 148/12
four pages [1] 2/6
fourth [3] 2/10 57/22
179/12
fragments [4] 71/22
72/2 73/12 84/12
frank [1] 119/13
frankly [1] 36/20
Fraser [22] 24/2 24/8
95/23 125/5 134/11
135/2 139/17 139/19
139/21 140/22 154/6
160/23 176/18 180/3
181/5 182/8 183/2
183/2 184/10 184/22
185/6 188/4
Fraser's [5] 4/8
134/13 140/3 183/4
187/17
fraud [2] 3/5 139/5
Freedom [1] 38/12
Freehills [3] 108/10
108/25 110/6
freestanding [2]
173/23 174/3
Freeths [3] 29/10
33/2 83/22
Friday [7] 8/20 8/24
140/17 140/22 141/6
141/7 141/8
friend [1] 130/3
front [4] 1/23 49/23
177/3 185/2
frustrated [1] 26/4
frustrating [2] 7/22
24/16
Fujitsu [64] 6/22
15/16 15/21 19/1
20/17 20/24 24/14
26/21 26/25 27/4 27/9
27/16 27/19 28/12
28/19 30/5 30/6 30/9
former [4] 183/1
forwarded [3] 5/2 6/6
103/23 107/13 110/25)
30/14 30/16 32/8
67/4 69/5 74/4 75/11
77/18 77/23 80/20
80/21 81/22 82/9
82/15 82/19 82/23
83/19 84/20 86/3
89/16 95/6 95/10
118/10 118/23 119/2
119/11 121/8 127/19
131/3 131/12 131/19
131/24 132/11 133/4
Fujitsu's [6] 15/15
48/20 52/14 101/4
101/25 118/21
fulfil [1] 67/2
full [13] 1/14 3/21
31/12 45/18 55/25
63/19 95/18 125/5
136/15 137/4 161/11
167/17 179/8
fully [1] 141/22
function [2] 28/16
28/22
functions [4] 11/2
11/19 12/6 12/7
fundamental [5]
16/19 17/9 30/7 35/13
41/3
funny [1] 34/21
further [22] 15/22
19/17 27/24 35/22
38/14 47/4 50/2 57/25
58/1 59/19 59/25 60/3)
67/20 92/4 117/21
124/5 126/18 128/6
152/6 154/7 171/9
189/9
Furthermore [1]
101/20
future [9] 12/21
66/22 76/19 112/22
113/6 113/17 114/18
186/15 190/18
G
gain [2] 151/3 176/10
Gareth [65] 21/4 21/7
64/24 66/1 66/11
66/15 66/19 66/24
67/3 67/7 68/3 68/25
69/2 69/8 71/3 71/5
74/1 74/3 74/4 74/16
74/18 75/6 75/12
75/19 75/20 76/3
T7N277/14 77124
78/1 78/5 78/12 78/14
78/20 79/10 80/3
82/16 82/19 83/17
83/23 83/25 84/24
86/12 87/19 90/1
91/15 91/17 97/19
35/17 51/7 52/12 65/3
83/1 83/5 83/11 83/16)
95/25 96/2 96/25 97/5)
100/11 103/7 109/8
110/12 111/17 120/3
120/13 120/18 122/4
122/17 122/19 123/1
124/11 129/10
Garr [22] 1/6 1/9 1/11
1/15 11/22 32/4 33/21
64/22 98/23 112/5
112/13 115/15 118/1
126/23 129/5 129/9
133/21 134/16 197/2
gas [1] 139/5
gave [11] 10/23 40/9
61/5 96/6 103/19
129/20 134/3 143/14
156/8 156/19 194/25
general [11] 6/18
12/15 12/17 12/24
13/7 70/25 77/19
91/10 161/10 187/24
188/7
generally [6] 23/14
25/19 70/5 85/22
121/10 148/15
generated [3] 21/20
22/7 22/14
Generic [1] 29/10
get [30] 19/17 31/12
33/14 46/11 46/15
46/17 51/9 51/15
52/12 89/16 92/3
108/24 109/21 111/6
111/8 132/4 132/21
141/22 149/20 158/20
159/4 163/1 163/11
164/2 165/7 165/12
166/10 171/25 176/12
195/25
gets [1] 143/23
getting [5] 172/18
174/10 177/18 178/1
184/14
Gideon [14] 3/25
142/3 142/3 142/23
143/1 143/10 156/10
162/24 163/20 163/22
164/14 166/16 167/10}
184/13
Gideon's [4] 142/12
142/19 143/5 143/12
gift [2] 116/13 117/18
give [28] 1/16 21/5
21/19 24/5 26/14 30/6
31/18 36/20 38/13
51/20 53/8 66/25
74/14 77/25 104/23
109/19 115/19 123/25}
126/17 130/10 134/11
152/19 167/4 191/8
191/15 192/2 194/2
195/12
given [63] 20/7 20/18
109/10 109/12 109/15}
129/13 130/20 133/19}
22/25 23/15 28/6
49/1 50/11 58/25
61/10 71/5 72/11
93/13 94/11 94/12
94/16 96/3 101/9
104/16 104/18 106/8
106/13 108/6 109/16
111/10 116/11 123/3
123/16 124/3 124/13
125/4 125/20 127/12
130/14 131/8 132/24
133/12 135/3 148/16
149/6 157/3 157/19
171/7 177/14 177/16
183/4 190/14 195/6
gives [2] 68/15
194/17
giving [8] 10/10
22/13 22/17 23/11
75/24 96/16 131/4
136/11
glance [1] 181/10
GLO [7] 116/5 121/2
122/1 123/21 123/24
127/22 129/1
go [62] 2/1 8/6 14/13
15/9 16/16 17/22
18/16 20/13 24/4
25/17 34/25 44/13
44/15 44/17 46/16
50/21 53/15 54/23
56/10 56/12 59/13
61/19 65/4 65/10
65/19 73/13 73/24
82/10 88/9 88/24
92/14 93/6 100/16
107/12 110/17 117/9
118/2 125/10 135/2
141/25 142/8 143/19
152/1 154/1 155/2
162/18 163/5 163/14
164/6 164/9 169/6
170/9 174/9 175/11
177/5 180/6 182/24
183/9 183/25 184/16
185/8 193/19
god [2] 109/10
109/11
Godeseth [8] 89/9
91/9 94/22 98/1
100/11 100/15 101/21
107/17
Godeseth's [4] 90/1
90/3 100/19 101/8
goes [3] 8/22 46/22
54/20
going [52] 4/15 14/6
17/22 21/4 25/17
26/14 30/20 34/19
34/21 35/25 43/2
37/18 40/14 42/1 48/4
77/14 78/1 78/16 79/1
79/5 79/16 80/3 80/13}
82/18 83/5 86/19 93/6)
46/11 53/8 54/9 54/15)
54/17 54/22 62/25
65/8 65/24 68/9 86/8
86/9 92/14 100/1
106/21 110/11 112/22!
113/6 114/16 119/11
130/25 131/14 133/1
135/22 135/24 135/24)
139/19 143/24 145/8
146/16 152/1 155/1
158/24 166/4 166/23
167/3 169/4 172/14
179/10 182/14 182/17)
goings [1] 142/2
gone [7] 27/15 106/3
106/4 166/18 172/3
172/10 185/15
good [31] 1/3 1/3
1/11 1/12 33/20 42/13)
42/23 42/24 44/20
47/5 48/1 49/7 50/7
52/1 52/11 58/5 64/19
98/21 115/22 123/9
129/13 135/21 135/23)
136/21 137/2 156/13
158/3 160/20 179/21
186/5 192/7
Goodness [1] 34/13
got [19] 17/23 34/11
42/13 59/15 71/21
92/15 92/22 110/22
133/22 143/3 150/15
163/19 174/16 176/24)
179/8 182/20 184/6
187/12 193/1
government [8] 10/2
10/5 10/6 10/8 10/12
10/25 162/7 168/18
Grabiner [32] 136/16
136/23 136/25 137/2
137/5 138/22 139/25
141/14 148/18 151/2
151/6 151/11 151/18
155/9 155/20 155/24
156/14 159/10 161/3
167/5 175/10 175/21
176/21 179/25 182/19)
186/16 187/8 188/20
195/14 195/21 195/23}
197/14
Grabiner's [2] 155/23}
170/14
grappling [1] 55/21
grasp [2] 125/1
173/16
grasped [6] 8/20
8/25 9/2 9/4 9/9 56/9
grateful [3] 115/17
133/16 194/8
gravely [1] 120/25
great [6] 91/14 91/19
93/17 98/2 133/9
190/17
greater [2] 37/23
(62) former - greater
G
greater... [1] 40/15
Green [8] 114/9
114/11 114/17 114/18)
114/20 115/3 115/7
115/23
Gribben [1] 84/18
Gribben's [1] 132/13
grievance [1] 185/15
GRO [1] 164/25
ground [2] 70/15
131/25
grounds [14] 49/11
52/1 145/18 145/24
146/10 146/18 147/8
147/22 154/20 160/18
161/16 161/22 169/15}
188/25
grounds' [1] 188/22
group [23] 3/8 8/15
12/23 13/8 13/11
13/18 16/9 16/10
23/16 36/10 55/11
55/16 60/9 60/14
61/11 61/14 61/24
64/4 64/24 73/25 74/5
79/11 139/12
groups [1] 9/19
guarantee [2] 173/15
191/15
guarantees [1]
175/22
guarded [1] 38/3
guide [1] 151/24
guys [3] 68/13 69/11
72/25
H
habitually [1] 32/9
had [248]
hadn't [6] 62/2 73/3
96/15 121/7 150/4
181/12
half [3] 13/23 153/21
153/23
halfway [1] 56/15
Hamilton [1] 51/16
hand [3] 44/13
130/12 130/15
handing [1] 183/4
hands [2] 31/16
45/10
happen [9] 7/17 35/5
49/13 70/16 74/23
90/22 96/5 97/24
109/21
happened [10] 7/5
7/20 25/2 26/9 52/19
59/16 71/22 95/4
124/1 132/10
happens [1] 136/5
happy [3] 11/21
19/16 51/17
hard [8] 1/23 14/5
17/13 30/5 137/11
141/13 143/4 172/3
hardened [1] 146/19
hardly [1] 127/9
harking [1] 159/13
harm [1] 41/8
has [49] 8/15 14/4
36/11 36/14 58/15
58/18 62/20 66/1 66/7,
66/24 67/5 67/21
68/13 77/2 77/5 77/8
85/2 85/10 85/13 86/6)
87/17 88/15 122/17
122/19 123/14 155/16)
167/10 167/16 173/20}
174/8 175/20 178/11
178/13 178/15 178/16)
180/1 184/22 185/15
186/4 186/7 188/1
188/3 188/4 190/6
191/11 193/16 194/2
194/19 195/1
haste [1] 25/13
hat [3] 42/3 42/12
47/20
hate [1] 194/11
have [335]
haven't [8] 33/1 56/8
85/8 105/19 115/11
135/1 156/5 189/10
having [17] 5/23
37/16 56/25 70/9 73/6
87/1 89/24 91/20
101/18 119/13 130/6
130/6 151/14 152/2
177/15 179/25 1914/5
he [210]
he'd [8] 79/3 105/14
123/16 126/3 126/3
145/11 150/5 171/21
he's [22] 40/9 48/13
53/8 55/12 55/23
65/11 86/5 146/2
146/4 147/4 167/23
171/20 172/23 172/24I
172/25 174/21 174/21
181/6 181/9 181/10
183/8 191/4
head [7] 120/8 136/1
139/9 160/9 183/1
183/3 184/11
headed [2] 65/2
93/11
heading [7] 109/8
144/12 154/3 155/2
155/5 157/12 175/9
headings [1] 153/18
hear [10] 1/3 1/4
64/19 98/21 129/11
136/21 166/4 175/2
175/3 179/21
hearing [5] 35/4
156/4 178/13 190/23
196/9
heart [1] 18/14
heavily [2] 4/3 93/9
heed [1] 190/19
held [5] 9/25 14/25
101/2 102/1 152/21
Hello [1] 118/41
help [8] 84/13 111/6
111/8 116/3 116/6
171/9 172/18 188/5
helped [2] 176/13
194/19
helpful [3] 123/21
171/13 187/21
helpline [2] 15/3
19/17
hence [4] 47/22
131/13 155/17 176/5
Henderson [6] 3/16
78/8 84/19 85/25 95/7
110/22
Henderson's [1] 85/7
Henry [4] 117/24
117/25 124/17 197/8
her [3] 15/25 150/4
162/4
Herbert [7] 108/10
108/25 110/6 110/25
122/16 125/15 192/24
here [27] 5/6 13/9
13/12 14/20 24/10
39/2 43/8 43/17 53/6
57/21 62/9 62/25
67/22 69/9 85/25
87/18 88/4 89/20
95/23 113/11 123/19
143/25 157/1 158/17
167/7 168/6 183/8
Hi [4] 188/19
hidden [1] 94/9
le [1] 7/4
hierarchy [1] 106/3
high [11] 6/9 16/15
21/14 51/20 58/9
106/2 106/3 116/5
141/3 184/15 186/18
higher [1] 71/8
lighted [1] 39/2
highly [7] 8/11 35/10
48/18 55/13 55/20
56/4 56/21
hill [4] 111/23
him [56] 8/19 18/2
66/7 66/16 72/22 74/3
76/5 76/13 80/9 81/5
81/10 81/14 81/15
83/8 84/3 87/1 87/9
87/12 87/14 88/11
88/14 88/22 88/23
89/12 90/16 91/3 91/5
92/17 106/20 111/5
111/19 111/22 111/23
113/24 126/22 130/6
130/7 130/15 139/19
149/15 151/8 156/15
159/5 167/15 167/22
170/23 171/4 171/6
174/13 180/18 183/21
186/1 188/21 188/23
190/11 191/6
himself [15] 46/2
85/1 90/6 139/22
146/15 149/16 162/6
179/3 180/5 188/12
188/13 191/3 191/5
191/7 193/18
his [113] 4/8 4/9
12/18 14/16 15/25
19/13 24/8 38/16
40/12 43/4 45/10
49/20 49/21 59/22
60/2 60/14 60/18
60/25 65/21 66/2 66/5
66/16 66/17 67/4 68/4
68/16 74/18 76/3 76/5)
76/7 76/14 76/15
76/17 79/3 79/15
79/19 81/15 85/1 85/2,
85/10 85/13 86/6 89/6)
89/11 89/14 90/4
90/20 91/10 91/13
91/19 93/10 93/14
93/19 93/19 93/20
93/23 94/9 94/23
97/13 100/20 100/22
101/2 101/15 102/19
103/17 106/24 107/25)
108/1 109/22 111/24
113/11 115/7 120/22
123/5 123/10 123/17
124/15 125/3 126/10
128/9 135/2 135/25
139/19 140/4 145/1
145/13 151/19 152/17)
154/17 155/9 155/25
163/11 166/23 167/15]
168/15 168/17 170/23}
171/16 178/15 178/17}
179/12 180/4 180/13
183/22 184/10 189/14,
189/14 190/19 191/1
191/2 191/7 191/8
195/9
historic [2] 77/10
77/25
history [1] 8/10
hm [1] 156/12
HMCTS [1] 168/15
Hmm [1] 40/22
hold [5] 32/20 46/5
68/11 153/10 187/7
honest [1] 135/19
hoof [1] 70/14
hope [3] 59/10
129/10 177/2
hoped [1] 58/5
hopefully [1] 189/8
Horizon [53] 3/11 4/9
6/24 11/14 14/23
15/12 15/24 20/6 37/1
51/5 52/13 52/15
59/21 65/4 68/20
69/23 73/17 74/9
74/17 75/7 75/10
75/15 75/22 75/25
77/4 77/12 77/15
77/19 78/5 78/12
78/21 81/2 94/14
99/11 100/4 100/7
101/14 102/18 118/19)
120/4 120/14 120/21
123/2 124/11 128/12
134/10 139/15 139/22!
141/3 141/8 143/21
157/6 181/8
horrifying [1] 25/2
hour [5] 110/19
136/15 152/7 171/12
171/14
how [38] 7/2 16/15
25/15 30/6 34/13 35/8
38/6 46/16 46/22 48/7I
52/18 54/17 57/3
57/14 63/6 68/19
70/16 80/25 82/6
85/18 91/25 95/12
99/7 106/2 106/3
106/23 117/12 125/16)
128/19 131/17 132/15}
149/20 151/23 157/20)
159/13 166/3 177/15
182/22
however [11] 38/19
49/15 51/21 58/7
63/23 66/13 77/4 89/7
91/20 115/2 135/9
HSF [1] 111/3
huge [2] 70/17 109/9
human [1] 14/22
hurry [1] 98/9
hypothesis [1]
106/15
I absolutely [1]
149/10
l actually [1] 70/12
ladvise [1] 66/14
l advised [1] 161/15
l agree [5] 18/6
146/14 147/7 152/9
158/12
l agreed [1] 17/20
lalready [1] 14/8
also [6] 6/19 9/9
142/19 146/1 148/14
191/10
lalways [1] 194/1
lam [15] 9/3 33/20
43/8 43/23 44/20
54/15 60/20 65/20
71/10 109/16 110/8
(63) greater... - lam
l anticipate [1] 112/8
l apologise [1]
187/10
I apparently [1]
53/21
l appear [1] 33/5
l appreciate [4]
27/25 89/11 114/14
136/3
lare [1] 181/17
lask [7] 1/13 112/6
129/9 135/21 137/3
195/15 195/19
lasked [2] 41/17
103/12
lassume [1] 142/18
l attended [4] 13/13
13/15 153/6 175/7
Ibe [3] 16/9 25/20
177/22
I being [1] 134/21
I believe [6] 30/20
30/21 96/7 105/4
190/9 190/18
I believed [2] 34/6
96/14
I brought [1] 10/19
I call [2] 1/6 136/23
I came [1] 168/6
Ican [14] 25/25
37/10 47/24 61/19
71/25 98/13 124/17
129/12 136/22 143/14}
170/22 171/9 175/16
179/23
can't [18] 10/25
22/9 33/16 39/23
49/23 62/17 69/17
71/9 71/11 73/1 81/6
116/21 119/23 120/7
135/23 146/24 153/1
167/15
I cannot [4] 10/21
38/6 185/21 191/14
I certainly [4] 99/20
129/2 146/25 180/17
I challenged [1]
188/23
I completely [1] 50/6
I consider [1] 145/17
I considered [2]
22/11 90/23
I could [4] 63/1
125/10 127/13 171/25}
I couldn't [3] 5/6 5/8
105/25
I derived [1] 177/15
I did [14] 10/25 12/5
21/9 53/5 97/9 99/20
99/20 119/21 139/2
lam... [4] 153/13
164/16 172/24 176/12)
160/5 160/25 166/20
183/16 183/17
I didn't [14] 22/10
27/13 34/2 98/10
98/11 103/23 116/14
131/11 156/3 159/17
176/12 182/15 195/1
195/10
I discovered [2]
25/12 129/4
Ido [15] 6/17 53/12
62/18 70/22 81/6
105/3 105/9 106/7
108/6 115/21 136/1
194/13
I don't [77] 7/11 10/4
13/14 18/4 21/2 23/2
27/12 27/12 33/1 33/1
33/11 33/16 33/16
34/1 34/7 35/22 39/22
42/18 43/15 44/21
53/18 57/3 57/13 61/6
61/18 62/1 62/2 62/5
73/1 81/12 81/24
83/15 83/18 83/18
91/6 92/7 97/4 103/22
104/9 104/19 106/2
106/15 113/8 115/16
120/16 121/21 123/12)
125/7 125/18 126/5
130/6 134/17 147/10
148/25 163/13 168/4
170/22 171/12 173/23)
177/7 177/25 177/25
182/2 183/14 192/21
193/2 193/4 195/17
195/22
I doubt [1] 31/23
lentirely [1] 89/15
lever [2] 73/9 134/17
lexpected [1] 14/7
I feel [1] 27/3
I fell [1] 98/9
I find [6] 9/7 62/8
63/2 63/6 122/13
134/23
I forget [2] 35/12
95/12
I formed [1] 166/19
I gave [2] 10/23
156/8
I go [2] 88/24 93/6
Ihad [16] 10/20
24/24 53/5 53/25 58/5)
69/19 90/24 96/14
98/10 128/1 147/15
160/19 165/2 166/15
176/14 192/2
Ihate [1] 194/11
Ihave [32] 13/13
14/14 21/7 21/9 23/12
149/18 171/11 172/25)
10/9 11/19 11/21 12/5)
45/1 48/3 49/23 52/25
53/2 53/3 67/16 73/6
102/2 105/25 114/11
114/23 115/3 144/23
145/15 150/24 154/2
164/18 168/7 173/8
177/15 178/3 183/12
195/7
I haven't [6] 33/1
189/10
I hope [3] 59/10
129/10 177/2
l imagine [6] 35/11
35/15 35/16 40/19
116/2 119/21
linfer [1] 106/24
l informed [1] 25/9
I just [20] 9/12 14/20
17/11 22/10 42/20
53/16 61/18 63/21
92/7 92/19 117/17
120/1 124/24 125/10
125/14 148/25 149/13
177/25 180/6 182/21
I knew [1] 83/18
I know [11] 26/15
39/25 43/16 111/2
111/3 121/13 124/18
144/17 146/25 171/18}
192/3
Hook [2] 117/12
135/20
looked [2] 117/3
132/13
I made [5] 10/23
25/13 54/5 117/11
117/11
I make [2] 63/17
163/2
I may [7] 30/20 53/4
53/4 55/20 114/12
115/13 134/16
I mean [44] 10/4
10/19 18/4 41/13 50/1
50/11 62/1 63/17
70/22 115/20 122/15
123/18 123/19 124/3
127/9 144/13 144/17
147/1 148/25 149/24
152/25 153/9 156/3
156/9 159/18 160/19
165/5 166/16 170/22
171/10 171/10 171/12
171/24 171/25 172/7
172/13 176/12 178/1
186/24 186/24 189/17]
191/24 192/10 193/1
I meant [5] 48/9
79/18 114/19 125/19
126/1
I met [2] 36/9 188/21
I might [4] 71/6
39/25 40/1 42/3 42/18
183/16 186/12 187/20
56/8 85/8 135/1 156/5I
I must [2] 177/21
194/23
I need [3] 13/18
89/17 189/3
I needed [1] 195/7
I never [1] 130/23
I now [2] 59/9 72/15
I obviously [1]
176/14
lought [4] 14/15
I personally [1] 166/1
I plan [1] 142/17
I prefer [1] 93/3
I put [2] 71/8 157/4
lread [4] 33/5 57/14
134/12 166/21
I really [2] 26/22
108/7
I recall [6] 5/22 11/8
11/17 22/16 23/13
80/14
l received [1] 127/25
I reconstruct [1]
39/24
refer [1] 70/9
I regarded [1] 9/18
I remember [2] 35/11
69/17
lremind [1] 123/21
Iright [1] 133/24
I said [8] 7/3 30/23
63/20 159/18 160/25
172/23 180/11 181/14}
I saw [2] 72/7 91/24
I say [15] 22/19 43/15)
57/14 61/25 62/17
63/2 81/25 91/22
110/4 110/9 129/3
149/24 152/24 163/7
164/17
Isee [17] 5/11 21/1
50/5 53/6 53/20 57/8
61/25 70/10 86/12
120/12 124/10 126/3
156/17 163/24 169/18
169/20 189/19
I shall [1] 140/11
I should [5] 4/4 72/21
128/4 135/8 139/25
I simply [2] 22/19
171/1
I spoke [1] 173/13
I start [2] 129/14
138/22
I still [1] 97/9
I stop [1] 115/15
I strongly [1] 45/7
I support [1] 152/10
I suppose [8] 10/7
43/1 50/5 50/9 63/1
83/10 88/18 164/14
I suspect [6] 18/3
18/4 69/18 69/24
148/25 188/8
I tailored [1] 10/22
I take [4] 119/14
146/5 147/1 164/15
I talk [1] 96/10
Ithen [4] 25/11
I think [152] 2/22
3/13 5/4 5/10 5/12
6/17 7/20 10/19 20/11
21/15 22/23 23/14
26/9 27/18 28/4 34/21
35/21 39/5 43/19
45/16 49/19 49/19
49/20 50/25 52/4 55/7
55/8 55/18 57/2 59/4
64/7 69/21 70/11 71/6I
7116 71/15 71/23
78/19 83/7 84/10
85/18 91/11 94/21
98/6 98/8 98/12
104/11 108/17 109/16
110/4 112/7 112/7
112/11 116/23 117/24I
122/8 123/20 123/24
128/21 130/3 130/4
130/8 130/16 130/17
131/10 131/22 131/25)
132/10 132/12 135/2
135/14 137/12 138/8
138/10 138/11 138/17)
138/23 139/10 141/1
141/5 141/16 143/11
144/4 144/11 144/15
146/2 146/16 146/20
146/21 146/24 149/1
149/2 149/25 150/1
151/10 151/17 152/17)
152/21 153/4 154/22
154/22 156/6 156/14
156/20 156/23 157/5
157/7 158/12 158/15
159/20 162/16 163/7
165/2 165/2 165/9
165/16 166/11 167/14)
167/18 167/20 171/15)
171/16 172/23 173/1
173/20 174/3 174/12
175/4 175/6 175/6
176/9 176/17 177/14
179/25 180/2 182/5
183/25 185/13 186/13)
188/8 188/9 188/15
189/22 190/1 190/6
190/13 191/17 191/23}
192/20 192/22 193/23)
194/7
I thought [8] 5/7
23/10 72/8 91/17
160/6 165/15 173/14
174/24
I told [2] 173/14
174/24
I took [2] 59/4 80/19
I trust [1] 148/10
I try [1] 43/18
(64) Lam... - I try
Iturn [2] 4/18 140/15
l understand [12]
4/17 15/23 19/12
54/11 61/6 63/3
140/14 163/24 164/1
164/5 166/5 166/7
I want [4] 8/4 108/22
118/5 165/24
I wanted [4] 43/19
90/13 132/20 132/22
Iwas [53] 5/22 5/25
10/4 11/6 18/3 22/1
30/21 34/21 41/23
55/18 57/13 61/6 61/7
72/9 90/3 98/9 111/8
113/21 114/17 128/5
128/21 129/3 129/3
131/10 131/12 131/14
132/19 147/12 147/15}
148/23 149/4 150/1
153/14 154/22 156/23
157/7 160/20 160/21
167/4 171/25 172/18
177/14 177/16 182/11
183/15 183/17 183/21
187/14 190/1 190/7
193/2 193/3 194/15
I wasn't [12] 4/2
11/22 18/4 22/20 50/9
50/10 57/13 59/8
112/25 189/15 191/25)
193/3
I were [1] 33/17
I will [2] 151/5 194/8
I wish [1] 63/1
I won't [1] 164/24
I would [47] 9/19
18/1 19/8 21/8 22/3
22/21 27/15 27/18
27/22 28/6 28/7 28/20
28/21 30/16 31/23
32/14 32/15 34/7
35/11 35/11 35/13
40/19 43/17 43/18
48/3 48/16 50/6 57/4
60/21 62/3 63/6 69/17,
73/1 80/14 82/21
110/13 114/23 115/2
124/8 128/23 133/3
133/3 133/8 151/1
154/21 160/8 165/25
I wouldn't [18] 18/9
18/13 19/21 20/3 26/3)
26/3 26/13 27/23
27/23 28/8 28/21 34/7
42/19 48/3 124/4
133/6 133/14 192/23
I'd [21] 5/8 9/4 17/11
17/11 20/11 28/9
33/18 35/22 49/19
81/24 88/9 115/17
123/7 124/5 125/24
147/11 147/16 176/13
180/8 189/15 190/4
Vi [2] 117/13 124/22
I'm [164] 4/15 5/6
5/18 7/43 7/14 9/11
9/17 10/10 11/20
11/21 1217 14/5 16/14
24/3 21/23 21/24 22/9)
25/17 26/13 26/14
26/21 28/6 28/7 28/20
31/15 33/1 33/8 33/12
33/25 34/4 34/17
35/15 35/15 38/17
39/22 39/24 41/12
41/13 42/2 42/18 43/8
43/11 43/16 43/20
43/22 44/5 44/5 44/7
49/6 49/22 50/16
50/16 53/5 53/24
54/17 56/3 56/6 56/6
56/6 56/6 56/11 56/11
56/21 57/2 57/2 59/12
60/20 61/18 62/8
63/12 63/15 63/17
65/24 68/9 70/25 73/9)
79/6 79/6 79/8 79/9
84/12 86/9 88/2 88/8
88/9 91/17 92/8 92/14
95/1 95/1 95/4 96/4
96/15 96/16 97/21
99/20 99/24 100/1
105/21 110/5 110/9
4111/4 111/22 112/2
114/15 117/5 118/16
119/11 120/7 121/21
123/7 123/8 124/8
124/8 124/22 125/10
126/13 129/23 130/18
130/25 133/14 133/16
134/23 135/19 135/19
139/19 143/24 144/18
145/6 146/2 149/10
149/18 149/23 149/23
153/3 153/15 154/21
155/1 158/14 158/16
159/17 160/7 160/25
163/7 163/9 163/13
163/16 164/1 166/3
166/23 167/3 169/16
171/9 171/18 173/3
176/22 177/14 179/10
180/25 182/13 182/17
194/6 194/8 195/16
Ive [32] 2/2 5/7 21/23]
46/5 46/10 54/10
60/20 63/4 68/20 72/7
115/10 128/19 133/22
142/12 142/16 143/3
146/18 150/15 158/12
163/19 167/2 167/17
168/6 168/7 176/24
182/20 184/6 184/18
185/3 187/12 193/1
194/23
idea [8] 39/25 40/2
40/10 42/18 90/24
114/23 148/24 178/3
Ideally [1] 151/1
identified [15] 57/25
70/21 75/1 77/22 90/4
93/10 93/20 96/3 98/4
98/7 119/10 119/19
119/24 124/2 182/6
identifies [1] 194/5
identify [2] 67/18
93/16
ie [22] 7/20 23/3 25/3
28/18 40/12 56/23
57/6 75/22 85/9 85/14
87/2 90/19 91/2 92/3
96/21 104/5 144/9
149/21 154/10 161/21
172/4 177/12
ie although [1] 90/19
ie as [1] 87/2
ie Dr Jenkins [1]
91/2
ie Dr Worden's [1]
96/21
ie it [1] 85/14
ie protected [1] 57/6
ie recording [1] 85/9
ie see [1] 172/4
ie that [1] 28/18
ie the [3] 7/20 92/3
177/12
ie there [2] 23/3
75/22
ie they [1] 161/21
ie Tim [1] 40/12
ie unintentionally [1]
25/3
ie whether [1] 149/21
ie would [1] 104/5
if [211]
ignored [1] 96/18
ill [2] 36/22 39/15
imagine [8] 35/11
35/15 35/16 40/19
73/1 116/2 116/21
119/21
immediate [3] 45/2
58/21 59/2
immediately [4]
37/11 61/4 181/8
181/15
immovable [1]
146/23
impact [4] 121/15
121/18 121/20 155/18
impacted [2] 75/8
157/6
impartial [1] 162/14
impinging [1] 11/20
implement [2] 60/25
61/12
implementation [1]
53/13
implemented [1]
60/6
implementing [1]
8/18
implication [1] 62/20
implied [1] 192/8
implies [1] 40/22
important [17] 17/9
17/20 19/11 19/21
19/25 20/4 48/5 56/18}
56/19 57/5 71/24
90/17 90/21 94/16
106/13 158/9 190/14
importantly [1]
194/19
impossible [3]
122/13 128/11 191/23}
impression [3] 33/14
177/14 177/16
inadvertently [1]
127/4
inappropriate [6]
182/7 182/9 185/17
186/17 187/2 187/3
incentive [1] 49/8
inception [2] 52/13
52/15
include [1] 187/23
included [4] 30/23
74/21 74/24 170/7
including [13] 22/2
48/11 58/16 85/17
86/3 90/1 90/5 99/12
114/1 118/9 136/2
136/6 182/21
inclusively [1]
180/18
inconsistent [5]
103/15 106/19 114/6
167/5 167/12
incorrect [1] 15/4
increase [1] 49/7
indeed [21] 26/10
42/24 70/9 71/14 72/7)
85/11 103/16 118/7
137/23 142/15 154/9
158/11 161/20 162/17}
163/4 165/21 167/8
167/20 178/20 185/18
188/17
independent [4]
59/23 67/2 166/8
ATTNT
indicate [2] 82/22
151/11
indicated [1] 75/6
indicates [2] 24/20
82/21
indication [3] 103/20
104/7 186/5
individual [3] 8/10
19/18 178/4
inevitable [2] 75/2
104/22
infer [1] 106/24
inferences [1] 33/19
inferred [1] 34/8
inferring [1] 16/10
inflicting [1] 48/20
info [1] 16/23
inform [3] 59/22 81/9
135/6
informal [6] 71/7
110/7 110/14 111/11
111/14 111/21
informally [1] 71/6
information [54] 6/21
23/8 27/24 38/12 46/6I
58/13 69/4 84/5 87/2
87/12 87/16 87/22
88/1 88/24 89/4 89/9
89/13 90/5 90/12
90/13 92/23 93/9
93/11 93/13 93/18
93/21 94/6 94/11
94/13 94/18 95/10
95/15 95/17 95/18
95/20 96/1 96/1 97/3
97/11 97/12 98/4
100/19 100/21 101/1
101/3 101/9 116/20
116/24 117/2 127/19
128/14 133/5 133/6
17/1
information’ [1]
93/12
informed [5] 25/9
71/4 75/14 171/4
176/17
informing [2] 83/1
83/3
iniquity [1] 117/15
initial [3] 132/2
141/11 182/23
initially [1] 37/1
Innovation [2] 36/15
38/8
inquire [1] 68/2
inquiry [13] 1/14 1/16
3/7 45/3 72/1 136/12
137/4 137/7 137/7
139/4 180/1 195/20
195/25
Inquiry's [1] 4/7
inside [1] 126/9
insight [1] 151/3
insist [1] 28/23
insisted [1] 128/5
insisting [1] 128/6
insofar [4] 4/11 20/4
20/5 140/5
inspect [4] 29/21
30/19 32/6 32/10
inspection [1] 31/17
instance [1] 193/12
instances [1] 77/4
instant [1] 186/2
instead [3] 25/19
(65) I turn - instead
instead... [2] 58/21
166/24
instruct [2] 46/3
52/18
instructed [20] 8/7
11/6 14/18 21/14 22/1
22/25 45/17 60/13
63/23 63/25 69/14
80/5 80/8 111/8
115/24 140/17 140/20)
149/4 162/15 177/7
instructing [5] 5/24
26/18 52/16 66/7
97/15
instruction [11] 4/18
4/22 14/20 32/15 36/6
36/7 50/20 53/13 71/2
140/15 141/11
instructions [18]
18/3 24/24 25/8 28/23)
29/6 29/14 30/4 34/3
34/7 34/8 60/14
116/14 127/11 127/18}
127/23 127/25 128/3
128/20
instrument [1]
181/24
integrity [2] 65/3
75/21
intense [1] 132/8
intensely [1] 132/2
intent [1] 34/24
intention [1] 135/14
interest [5] 133/9
168/13 168/14 168/16)
169/4
interested [7] 43/20
43/22 44/5 50/10
126/8 194/6 194/15
interesting [2] 64/1
118/8
interests [8] 40/24
41/4 41/8 43/9 43/13
43/24 55/3 126/22
Interim [2] 75/5
75/16
internal [1] 12/18
interpolating [1] 44/8
interpretation [2]
173/25 174/1
interpreting [2] 44/19]
57/3
interrelated [1]
192/14
intervene [2] 98/11
124/17
interviewed [1] 8/19
into [41] 14/19 27/8
27/13 27/14 31/15
34/10 36/6 36/25 40/5)
44/7 45/13 51/4 55/11
55/16 68/2 71/1 75/11
96/12 96/21 96/22
96/23 97/18 100/12
101/11 102/15 107/14)
109/16 109/22 110/4
116/19 116/24 132/4
132/11 136/12 143/20)
154/21 157/5 167/15
190/17 191/3 192/8
intra [1] 194/14
intra-judicial [1]
194/14
introduced [1]
169/21
introduces [1] 93/2
introduction [1]
65/11
investigate [1] 37/14
investigated [1]
192/11
Investigating [2]
37/3 51/9
investigation [14]
16/22 36/25 37/18
40/23 45/18 46/1 51/4
59/23 75/9 85/23
101/15 102/19 104/5
137/8
investigations [26]
27/13 27/14 37/12
37/22 37/24 38/1 38/7,
40/16 45/8 45/13
45/15 45/23 48/12
48/15 48/17 49/4
49/11 51/1 55/10
55/13 55/16 55/25
56/1 56/4 56/18 139/6
invoking [1] 31/16
involve [4] 12/2
172/13 172/14 172/16)
involved [18] 4/3
5/25 6/20 10/8 11/23
21/23 34/22 65/14
92/10 94/3 107/21
109/1 113/2 113/5
116/5 168/18 168/24
193/2
involvement [17]
4/24 5/21 89/2 89/6
89/14 90/8 92/12
92/16 94/8 94/13
94/23 94/25 100/12
107/14 113/11 139/16)
1414/7
involves [1] 45/1
involving [1] 9/15
irregularities [1] 74/7)
irrelevance [2] 29/8
30/10
irrelevant [6] 29/7
29/12 46/10 105/15
127/9 174/1
irrespective [1]
97/16
is [402]
is very [1] 184/12
isn't [19] 9/11 19/7
30/25 40/15 42/16
43/21 62/25 63/11
63/19 64/8 71/18 83/5
107/19 119/12 131/2
169/9 174/12 181/21
193/23
isolated [1] 87/19
issue [39] 7/12 7/13
7/15 7/19 11/20 18/6
18/7 18/9 18/11 18/13
19/19 19/21 19/25
20/4 20/15 21/4 25/18
28/12 28/18 28/25
29/1 35/6 41/20 47/1
51/10 86/10 108/23
118/15 119/5 122/7
136/1 138/9 145/21
157/3 159/23 174/3
176/1 183/23 192/13
issued [3] 60/8
169/13 178/11
issues [88] 4/1 4/6
4/8 4/10 4/14 4/16 7/6
7/9 9/9 9/16 9/20 9/20
9/21 10/3 10/3 10/17
11/11 11/13 11/14
11/16 11/17 11/23
12/2 18/13 25/18
27/25 37/10 58/13
58/21 61/10 69/24
73/18 75/7 75/24 77/4
77/13 77/15 78/3 78/6}
78/12 78/21 82/23
83/11 83/16 91/1
91/14 99/11 101/14
102/18 103/10 108/1
111/12 112/23 120/4
120/14 123/2 124/12
126/19 127/21 127/21
128/12 129/1 131/21
134/10 140/3 140/8
140/21 140/24 141/3
141/22 143/22 144/2
151/10 154/10 154/24)
155/14 157/1 157/2
172/8 176/4 186/8
190/11 191/13 191/20}
191/21 192/6 192/11
196/1
it [491]
it’ [1] 94/5
it's [117] 4/11 5/8
5/10 5/12 8/2 17/15
17/15 17/24 19/12
20/19 26/4 31/9 31/11
33/22 33/23 34/17
34/21 40/24 41/9
42/22 43/15 43/21
44/19 44/19 46/4
50/10 51/6 53/11
55/23 56/17 56/19
56/21 57/5 57/18 59/4
62/11 63/16 64/23
65/1 68/8 71/23 73/23
78/19 83/3 86/5 92/7
92/20 94/21 98/5 98/6
103/23 104/1 109/3
117/7 11719 117/18
117/24 118/2 118/3
118/5 124/5 128/7
130/16 131/6 131/14
133/8 137/10 137/10
138/3 138/8 138/8
138/9 143/7 143/9
143/16 144/6 146/11
146/17 148/12 149/2
157/19 158/7 158/22
162/24 163/17 163/20}
164/5 164/7 164/8
164/12 170/12 170/22]
173/6 173/6 173/9
174/14 174/20 177/4
178/9 179/11 179/25
181/3 181/17 181/18
181/20 181/20 181/23
182/5 182/13 182/15
182/21 182/22 187/5
187/14 190/13 193/23
194/6
item [2] 169/17
169/19
item 3 [1] 169/17
its [19] 12/2 12/20
16/18 23/16 27/22
29/8 35/24 43/9 52/14
55/3 58/19 67/6 85/24
92/11 100/4 110/17
157/17 159/14 186/6
itself [10] 28/17
54/23 72/4 92/6 92/20
93/25 143/20 147/13
172/17 192/1
qa
James [1] 38/10
Jane [13] 6/18 7/25
9/12 9/14 9/24 57/18
58/25 62/19 150/1
152/24 161/10 161/25}
169/12
January [1] 83/22
Jason [2] 1/13 137/3
Jenkins [138] 21/4
21/7 64/24 66/1 66/11
66/15 66/24 67/4
68/25 69/2 69/8 71/3
71/5 72/10 72/11 73/7,
73/9 73/10 74/1 74/3
74/4 74/11 74/18 75/6
75/12 75/20 76/3
77/12 77/14 77/24
78/1 78/5 78/12 78/14,
78/20 79/10 80/3 80/4,
80/13 81/4 81/9 81/18
81/23 82/16 82/19
83/17 83/23 83/25
84/24 86/4 86/12
86/14 87/16 87/20
87/21 89/22 90/2 90/6I
90/12 90/17 90/24
91/2 91/14 91/15
91/18 91/25 92/6 92/9I
92/18 93/9 93/9 93/16)
93/17 93/18 93/22
94/6 94/8 94/12 94/14
94/17 94/18 94/24
97/19 98/3 98/25
100/11 100/12 100/22)
100/25 101/8 101/13
102/4 102/11 102/14
102/16 102/24 103/7
103/10 103/16 103/21
104/9 104/12 105/13
105/20 106/11 106/17)
107/14 107/21 109/8
109/10 109/12 109/15}
110/13 111/17 112/16)
112/19 112/24 113/3
113/11 113/23 114/21
115/9 115/23 116/9
116/25 120/18 122/4
123/1 123/10 124/11
4125/2 129/10 130/4
130/9 130/22 133/11
133/24 134/12
Jenkins' [18] 66/19
67/7 68/3 73/4 74/16
75/19 77/10 80/23
89/1 90/7 92/15 99/7
107/24 115/4 120/3
120/13 129/14 132/23}
Jenkins's [2] 77/7
108/4
JFSA [1] 126/9
Jo [1] 51/16
job [7] 27/14 70/24
91/10 97/13 97/15
181/11 182/41
JOHN [3] 1/9 1/15
197/2
Johnny [1] 132/13
joined [3] 169/17
169/21 175/4
joint [1] 74/12
Jonathan [7] 36/10
38/24 55/10 57/24
59/21 60/18 84/17
judge [72] 88/5 88/8
102/22 102/22 102/22!
102/24 103/4 103/8
103/9 103/17 103/20
104/3 105/2 105/19
106/9 106/16 106/23
108/2 112/17 112/22
113/2 113/7 113/9
113/10 113/20 113/21
113/22 114/4 114/8
125/9 134/19 134/19
135/6 135/12 135/24
135/25 139/22 145/19}
(66) instead... - judge
J
judge... [34] 149/15
150/2 155/13 155/16
157/4 158/20 159/4
160/22 162/2 162/5
170/7 172/10 174/4
174/10 174/12 175/21
176/1 176/3 176/11
178/13 179/1 179/2
179/3 179/12 180/9
181/20 185/2 185/15
188/12 190/9 191/2
judge's [7] 93/1
94/22 106/22 144/2
169/1 170/2 193/17
judged [1] 173/17
judgement [3] 10/23
165/23 166/20
judges [2] 194/11
194/11
judgment [77] 4/8
4/9 4/10 4/10 4/13
4/14 24/3 24/8 24/20
29/18 73/18 73/24
88/6 92/20 92/24 93/1
93/8 94/15 103/17
106/22 106/24 108/14}
108/24 111/10 128/13}
134/13 140/3 140/3
140/4 140/5 140/8
140/9 140/24 141/5
142/17 144/2 145/2
145/9 146/22 147/11
147/13 147/15 147/23}
148/10 149/22 154/6
154/11 155/15 157/2
160/19 161/25 166/15
169/24 170/4 170/6
172/8 172/16 174/22
179/13 180/19 181/4
181/9 181/19 181/20
181/23 182/3 183/5
185/5 187/17 187/18
188/2 188/4 191/1
191/9 191/21 192/1
193/14
judgments [3] 4/16
140/13 191/13
judicial [2] 172/25
194/14
judiciary [2] 168/19
194/10
July [6] 57/18 65/7
75/5 75/18 128/2
128/16
duly 13 [1] 75/18
jump [1] 186/25
juncture [1] 169/23
June [22] 1/1 13/22
13/24 14/18 36/5 43/3)
52/19 52/22 53/14
54/2 59/14 59/16
185/17 185/19 186/18)
60/22 61/6 61/20
62/10 63/2 63/11
63/13 75/13 99/16
118/3
junior [4] 3/24 14/11
142/3 142/6
juniors [3] 3/14 99/17,
156/13
juries [1] 120/22
jury [3] 123/4 123/16
124/14
just [110] 9/12 14/5
14/20 17/11 17/22
17/22 18/16 18/16
20/13 20/17 22/10
23/12 23/23 26/24
28/25 31/12 33/21
36/23 38/22 41/24
42/20 43/5 44/19 46/4
46/23 47/1 47/22 52/2
52/20 53/6 53/16
53/18 54/12 57/15
60/17 61/18 63/21
68/13 68/22 70/23
73/17 78/16 82/18
86/15 92/7 92/19
97/21 97/25 99/15
102/13 108/12 110/5
111/3 111/20 112/13
117/17 120/1 120/9
122/16 122/25 124/8
124/24 125/10 125/14}
127/14 129/12 135/14)
138/9 140/20 141/15
142/22 143/1 143/19
145/5 146/7 147/5
147/12 148/8 148/25
149/13 153/10 153/17,
161/9 161/12 161/18
162/12 163/14 163/17)
166/3 166/24 167/3
168/6 168/13 169/11
171/24 173/4 173/9
173/20 175/9 177/25
178/6 180/6 180/7
180/14 181/10 182/17,
182/21 184/14 187/8
189/16
justice [38] 4/8 24/2
24/7 39/7 39/20 40/7
42/17 47/17 50/13
95/23 125/5 134/11
134/13 135/2 139/17
139/19 139/21 140/3
140/21 154/6 160/23
176/18 178/19 180/3
181/5 182/8 182/8
183/1 183/2 183/7
184/9 184/22 184/24
185/5 185/24 186/19
187/17 194/1
Justices [1] 184/25
justifiable [1] 170/1
justifiably [1] 98/13
justification [1]
165/6
justified [3] 134/1
159/20 185/14
K
Katie [1] 110/24
KC [8] 1/7 1/9 13/6
114/10 136/23 136/25)
197/2 197/14
Keating [1] 3/19
keen [3] 165/7
165/12 176/10
keep [5] 54/8 82/23
86/7 152/1 153/20
keeping [1] 51/21
keeps [1] 89/22
KEL [7] 28/25 29/4
29/6 30/10 31/21
32/24 127/7
KELs [8] 24/1 24/6
84/21 84/21 85/1 86/3
127/7 127/19
kept [3] 7/21 90/14
95/19
key [3] 8/18 13/6
183/10
Key/strategic [1]
13/6
kill [2] 122/18 122/20
killed [8] 111/19
111/22 125/15 125/16
125/19 125/19 126/1
126/6
kind [8] 6/2 17/16
50/17 50/17 133/2
156/15 180/9 180/17
King [8] 65/7 72/14
75/13 75/19 76/11
78/10 78/11 117/8
knew [15] 7/1 21/15
41/18 75/24 79/24
83/18 83/19 94/14
115/3 115/5 130/22
165/14 165/15 166/10}
166/17
know [88] 16/25 18/4
19/2 26/6 26/15 28/8
28/21 32/25 33/11
34/1 34/2 39/25 43/16
44/8 44/23 49/5 52/21
62/18 63/21 79/23
83/16 83/19 84/20
86/13 86/22 87/5
92/22 96/11 96/20
97/4 98/11 106/2
106/5 106/7 109/13
111/2 111/3 111/18
114/16 114/20 114/22]
115/1 115/7 115/7
115/23 116/1 121/13
122/17 122/19 124/18
126/5 131/11 132/23
133/10 135/25 137/2
142/5 144/17 146/1
146/25 148/25 149/1
149/7 149/10 149/11
149/13 149/14 149/18}
151/1 156/9 167/18
167/24 170/13 170/18}
171/11 171/18 172/13}
172/25 177/25 177/25}
179/11 182/5 183/14
187/1 187/1 192/3
192/21 193/13
knowledge [14] 2/14
2/19 75/6 77/7 85/3
91/13 91/19 114/24
115/7 116/10 126/13
138/14 146/8 148/17
knowledgeable [2]
91/10 91/20
known [27] 6/25 24/2
27/6 29/1 29/21 29/25
31/17 31/24 32/7
32/13 33/7 33/15
34/11 35/10 39/6
42/21 66/15 76/5
76/13 114/19 127/15
127/20 127/23 128/22}
133/2 133/3 170/24
L
labours [1] 66/4
lack [1] 132/9
land [1] 192/5
language [3] 111/21
116/7 159/20
large [2] 34/22 65/16
largely [1] 51/24
last [12] 14/6 25/2
43/4 107/13 112/13
117/13 127/1 129/5
129/7 135/17 164/12
187/4
lasted [1] 110/19
lasting [2] 121/7
122/6
lastly [5] 25/5 57/15
59/13 160/22 193/5
late [6] 16/2 19/14
24/13 27/2 59/18
69/25
latecomer [2] 148/22
148/23
later [10] 3/16 3/19
26/5 34/16 53/8
137/22 152/7 171/12
176/4 176/17
latest [1] 191/1
law [8] 11/17 32/8
38/24 47/15 119/19
134/24 155/13 192/11
lawyer [7] 21/24
116/7 117/7 117/8
157/20 158/15 177/23}
lawyers [18] 22/2
39/12 41/19 42/11
44/17 50/18 58/15
71/20 73/4 80/4 81/5
85/16 88/15 114/21
115/9 115/24 129/25
145/23
lay [1] 127/3
lead [1] 194/12
leading [8] 8/14
38/23 39/18 47/15
78/4 114/9 132/1
149/11
learned [2] 130/3
150/2
learnt [1] 30/1
least [7] 47/2 67/6
74/13 85/14 98/8
149/7 186/9
leave [4] 26/11 45/21
124/22 191/8
led [6] 12/8 18/22
103/21 104/8 116/24
177/23
left [4] 22/3 82/13
82/14 136/8
legal [31] 4/6 11/23
12/14 38/16 40/6 45/5}
45/9 49/16 58/11
58/19 60/23 63/24
63/25 80/24 82/5
116/11 123/12 126/20)
133/5 140/1 140/12
155/20 156/22 157/14)
157/23 158/14 175/2
A77TIN7 177/17 181/24}
192/1
lengthy [2] 95/11
96/17
Lenton [1] 101/1
Lepton [2] 77/2 77/5
Lerner [3] 108/17
110/10 111/4
less [6] 37/17 48/14
48/18 87/13 97/23
178/23
let [6] 77/2 114/25
1415/2 118/17 120/9
142/5
let's [5] 14/17 31/2
41/24 122/25 141/11
letter [12] 6/7 11/10
31/22 33/2 33/6 33/7
57/24 59/14 63/16
63/17 63/22 119/22
level [1] 6/9
LGQC [1] 183/12
liable [1] 14/25
life [4] 21/24
light [2] 20/24 60/20
like [12] 30/23 31/23
41/20 71/17 102/22
125/11 137/13 141/21
151/1 181/15 184/9
188/21
likelihood [1] 125/24
(67) judge... - likelihood
L
likely [5] 85/11 85/19
102/10 112/18 174/4
it [2] 89/1 89/6
limited [4] 65/4 91/8
91/18 139/16
limiting [1] 89/14
line [6] 16/5 16/6
138/4 157/13 163/17
190/14
lined [1] 183/7
lines [6] 5/1 10/9
51/3 107/13 137/14
148/12
link [2] 8/17 68/16
linked [2] 173/24
173/24
Linklaters [1] 8/22
list [2] 108/16 111/2
listening [1] 56/7
ig [1] 184/23
litigant's [1] 48/6
litigants [1] 116/6
litigation [105] 3/8
8/13 8/15 8/16 8/19
9/18 9/20 9/22 10/14
10/18 10/21 11/12
12/3 12/11 12/20
12/22 17/10 17/21
18/10 19/22 20/1 20/4}
20/5 21/21 22/1 22/7
22/15 23/16 34/12
34/23 34/23 36/9
37/10 37/13 37/25
38/2 40/17 41/5 42/4
42/14 42/23 43/10
43/14 43/25 45/17
46/7 46/8 46/10 46/21
46/22 46/24 46/25
47/23 48/17 49/12
51/14 51/22 52/2 52/5
52/8 55/11 55/12
55/16 55/19 56/2 56/3
56/19 56/22 57/6
57/11 58/23 59/5 59/7,
61/9 61/16 61/24 62/4
62/5 62/24 64/9 64/24
73/25 79/11 81/11
94/12 99/1 106/12
111/12 114/16 116/5
116/6 116/8 126/18
128/8 130/20 130/24
139/12 139/23 141/8
143/23 158/8 158/10
160/3 190/24 191/16
litigation’ [1] 55/4
litigator [7] 42/2
43/13 102/23 105/5
106/8 107/10 124/25
litigator's [3] 41/21
42/3 47/20
litigators [4] 45/25
46/1 110/8 114/14
little [5] 31/12 31/15
92/4 146/3 172/23
lives [1] 42/16
LJ [1] 185/24
local [1] 100/23
Log [13] 29/1 29/21
29/25 31/18 31/25
32/7 33/7 33/15 35/10)
127/15 127/20 127/23)
128/22
logic [1] 88/21
logistics [1] 152/11
Logs [3] 24/2 32/13
34/11
long [16] 1/19 1/23
2/6 15/13 26/14 36/4
51/1 70/2 97/16 99/12
106/8 108/10 118/20
130/16 130/18 137/10)
longer [1] 16/5
look [68] 7/23 13/21
13/23 14/17 14/21
17/11 17/13 17/23
18/16 20/18 23/23
28/25 30/17 31/2
32/21 34/11 41/24
42/14 43/2 48/7 49/19
50/16 52/9 53/7 54/17
57/15 57/16 57/22
68/6 70/19 70/20
73/12 78/15 92/19
99/13 99/15 99/25
102/8 113/10 116/19
116/24 117/12 135/20)
137/22 140/19 141/11
141/12 142/10 143/1
143/8 144/20 145/12
150/16 161/4 162/21
168/5 168/9 172/8
175/9 176/20 180/20
182/11 182/17 183/24}
185/21 187/13 193/5
193/10
looked [11] 54/12
54/22 75/11 100/14
107/16 117/3 117/6
132/13 145/5 170/19
186/20
looking [21] 1/20
19/3 20/23 36/3 36/19)
42/2 42/12 43/12
47/19 65/1 72/2
107/23 137/11 143/4
145/13 150/7 153/5
176/4 180/7 187/5
192/6
looks [2] 184/9
184/22
Lord [103] 115/22
136/16 136/23 136/25)
137/2 138/5 138/22
139/25 141/14 142/14)
142/16 142/23 144/21
145/1 146/8 147/6
148/18 151/1 151/5
151/6 151/11 151/18
151/18 152/14 154/3
154/4 154/14 155/9
155/19 155/21 155/23
155/24 156/14 159/10
160/17 161/2 161/3
161/7 162/17 162/25
163/6 164/4 164/9
165/13 165/15 165/19!
166/11 166/14 166/25
167/5 167/10 167/11
167/14 167/18 169/7
169/13 169/16 169/19}
169/21 170/10 170/12}
170/13 170/14 170/17]
172/21 173/4 173/11
174/17 175/10 175/21
176/21 176/25 178/12I
179/25 180/11 180/14
181/13 181/14 182/8
182/18 182/25 183/7
184/23 184/25 185/8
185/24 186/16 186/18
186/22 187/8 188/20
189/21 191/17 192/3
193/20 193/22 193/23
194/1 195/3 195/14
195/20 195/23 197/14]
Lord Grabiner [24]
136/16 136/23 137/2
138/22 139/25 141/14
148/18 151/6 151/11
151/18 155/9 155/24
156/14 159/10 161/3
167/5 175/10 175/21
176/21 179/25 187/8
188/20 195/14 195/23
Lord Grabiner's [1]
155/23
Lord Justice [1]
183/7
Lord Justice
Coulson [1] 182/8
Lord Neuberger [33]
142/14 145/1 146/8
161/2 161/7 162/17
164/4 165/15 166/14
166/25 167/10 167/11
167/14 167/18 169/13
169/21 170/10 170/12
170/13 170/17 173/4
173/11 174/17 176/25)
178/12 180/11 185/8
186/22 189/21 193/20}
193/22 193/23 195/3
Lord Neuberger's
[17] 138/5 142/16
142/23 144/21 154/3
154/4 160/17 164/9
165/13 166/11 169/16
169/19 180/14 181/13
181/14 191/17 192/3
lose [3] 155/11
155/18 174/10
losing [1] 158/1
loss [5] 15/5 122/6
losses [4] 14/23 15/7
17/18 48/21
lost [1] 174/12
lot [4] 62/24 92/22
172/3 194/7
lots [3] 14/8 28/4
68/18
low [1] 160/3
lunchtime [1] 147/6
lurking [1] 106/25
luxury [1] 164/18
MacLeod [13] 6/18
7/25 8/6 9/13 57/18
59/1 62/19 150/2
152/24 161/11 161/25}
169/12 188/17
MacLeod's [2] 9/14
9/25
maddening [1] 23/18
made [61] 2/5 5/7 9/7:
10/23 11/7 19/20
20/15 25/13 26/3
29/15 36/14 39/1 39/5
42/10 54/5 58/6 59/8
60/3 60/11 65/25
70/23 80/2 81/5 88/19
90/16 91/21 93/13
95/14 99/2 100/18
102/14 103/9 103/14
103/14 105/11 108/10
108/14 109/9 114/6
115/4 117/11 117/11
120/4 120/14 120/16
125/22 129/16 146/6
154/23 155/10 160/21
165/25 167/17 172/18}
174/2 179/4 179/7
180/2 182/25 185/16
186/2
magic [1] 36/20
Magistrates [1]
120/23
Mail [4] 25/7 25/9
25/11 74/5
main [4] 13/25 86/9
169/22 187/9
mainly [1] 51/6
maintained [2] 29/16
86/1
maintaining [1]
47/23
make [32] 2/16 4/4
33/20 41/24 43/19
54/18 54/19 59/3
63/17 89/17 90/14
105/15 127/10 135/20
137/13 138/7 139/25
122/10 122/12 155/23)
141/23 141/24 154/20)
156/25 157/8 157/10
158/3 159/14 161/15
163/2 165/14 165/24
166/2 174/4 189/8
makes [5] 15/18
44/16 118/25 164/17
183/6
making [17] 10/13
11/5 25/3 27/12 29/23)
51/6 56/8 84/14 98/23}
112/4 114/18 144/9
144/18 174/21 190/7
194/11 195/24
man [2] 89/7 182/1
manage [1] 7/2
managed [1] 190/23
management [2]
12/22 85/2
manager [2] 101/2
101/5
managing [2] 84/18
139/22
mandate [1] 59/23
manipulate [1] 52/15
many [8] 24/13 74/5
95/12 116/4 131/1
131/1 190/16 190/19
March [27] 4/9 132/5
137/15 140/4 140/17
140/23 141/2 141/6
141/9 142/8 142/17
144/22 149/5 150/17
152/21 153/12 153/13)
153/15 153/22 153/24I
161/6 167/25 168/11
169/14 175/1 175/4
175/11
Mark [2] 13/3 57/19
Martin [3] 68/16
68/18 78/9
massive [3] 18/5
172/13 172/14
match [1] 63/5
mate [1] 184/10
material [16] 64/3
66/5 66/8 66/15 67/7
67/15 67/18 76/5
76/13 76/21 80/17
104/23 105/13 114/5
133/25 139/3
materially [1] 188/1
materials [2] 148/5
172/15
matter [21] 35/8
50/16 50/18 60/9
60/11 75/12 80/7
88/14 101/23 112/14
123/10 134/9 155/11
162/9 162/11 168/22
171/24 181/17 182/3
186/25 191/22
matters [11] 11/6
25/19 60/24 68/10
(68) likely - matters
111/9 124/24 126/5
Matthew [1] 101/1
maximise [1] 64/1
may [68] 1/6 1/24
6/6 6/16 7/25 9/22
12/3 12/17 14/19
16/17 17/11 20/25
34/15 38/10 41/6
41/15 45/17 46/6
59/3 60/13 63/19
63/20 68/2 69/2 71/7
87/25 88/2 88/17
89/11 106/21 109/15
140/8 143/14 146/8
155/13 159/16 160/2
162/4 171/10 174/13
185/16 186/13 188/4
193/1 193/2 193/12
maybe [4] 5/9 160/17
164/7 183/14
McLachlan [1] 114/3
McLachlan's [2]
101/11 102/15
me [85] 5/2 5/9 6/6
6/16 9/11 10/2 11/9
11/10 11/13 12/8
16/14 21/10 30/21
34/13 35/21 43/16
44/7 4419 44/9 44/24
47/5 49/20 49/23 50/7
51/17 51/19 62/19
63/12 69/18 69/19
69/22 69/24 69/25
71/9 95/7 106/14
106/22 108/21 110/11
114/25 115/2 115/14
116/21 116/22 118/17)
120/9 121/22 124/4
124/5 129/11 133/9
135/20 137/15 137/21
142/5 143/14 148/15
150/4 151/12 156/4
162/11 162/17 163/10}
163/11 166/19 166/21
166/21 169/18 169/20)
170/23 171/12 171/14}
171/17 178/15 178/16}
179/2 180/10 182/16
187/7 188/20 191/23
192/2 192/14 193/23
195/25
mean [63] 7/11 10/4
10/19 15/15 18/4
18/25 40/20 41/13
matters... [7] 91/18
172/10 172/11 192/16}
4/13 4/24 5/2 5/4 5/21
23/6 23/8 30/20 31/15
46/10 53/4 53/4 55/20
114/12 115/13 123/20)
129/14 131/22 132/12)
134/16 136/23 137/10}
48/13 50/1 50/5 50/1
53/18 57/8 57/8 62/1
63/17 65/22 70/22
124/3 127/9 144/13
144/17 145/25 146/5
146/9 146/17 147/1
153/9 156/3 156/9
159/18 160/19 165/5
171/25 172/7 172/13
176/12 178/1 178/22
192/10 193/1
meaning [2] 10/3
116/17
means [11] 21/3
93/12 97/21 110/2
125/5 140/19 185/23
meant [10] 9/3 9/13
48/9 79/18 88/21
97/22 114/19 121/25
125/19 126/1
meantime [1] 14/14
meddling [2] 36/25
51/4
mediate [1] 16/8
mediated [1] 131/15
mediation [2] 16/9
19/21
medical [1] 165/2
meet [2] 61/15 62/23
meeting [30] 5/3 6/1
62/18 68/13 69/1
69/10 69/19 71/23
81/25 91/2 111/21
151/6 153/14 153/24
161/12 163/9 167/25
168/5 171/15 175/1
175/4 175/14
meetings [3] 5/23
6/10 81/21
member [3] 89/9
142/7 194/10
members [5] 13/1
148/8 152/22 162/7
162/9
memory [2] 193/1
194/23
mental [2] 34/5 34/6
mentioned [3] 32/1
32/4 71/8
merger [1] 139/6
merits [4] 17/9
161/23 186/6 191/25
mess [2] 179/4
194/12
113/19 115/20 118/22)
122/15 123/18 123/19)
148/25 149/24 152/25,
166/16 170/22 171/10)
171/10 171/12 171/24,
178/24 181/16 186/24,
186/24 189/17 191/24,
40/22 41/2 65/22 66/1
6/16 6/17 12/17 61/18
72/6 80/1 80/15 80/24
1IMessrs [4] 148/14
149/19 165/19 166/13
Messrs Cavender [4]
166/13
met [7] 36/9 67/24
72/24 73/9 130/6
161/9 188/21
mics [1] 187/9
mid [2] 36/1 132/4
mid-2016 [1] 36/1
mid-November [1]
132/4
midday [2] 142/22
144/21
might [34] 11/3 11/24
12/8 18/25 22/7 42/15
46/13 46/20 48/13
48/15 51/23 52/16
57/1 60/1 63/19 64/13
66/9 71/6 86/1 86/1
108/5 108/23 109/13
111/18 123/8 123/9
123/20 130/15 132/25
157/2 157/17 162/9
164/1 164/2
mind [12] 2/16 82/2
117/16 126/11 126/19}
126/23 126/25 135/25]
167/15 173/19 187/8
195/2
mine [2] 55/1 165/8
minimum [1] 90/14
Minister [1] 36/15
minority [1] 16/11
minute [3] 106/22
168/4 171/13
minutes [7] 110/20
152/3 168/10 173/13
174/19 175/14 179/15]
miscarriages [6]
39/7 39/20 40/7 42/17
47/17 50/13
misconduct [1]
65/17
misdescribed [1]
135/1
misfeasance [4] 11/8
120/4 120/14 126/10
misguidedly [1]
194/16
misleading [23]
15/17 19/2 25/3 30/6
72/11 79/6 79/16
85/21 86/19 88/16
103/22 104/21 105/4
107/9 118/11 118/14
118/23 119/6 119/20
123/3 123/16 124/14
127/5
misled [14] 24/24
83/9 114/21 115/9
115/25 116/9 116/25
120/22 125/2 128/18
148/14 149/19 165/19)
129/3
Misra [11] 74/14
112/19 113/4 114/1
129/22
Misra's [1] 124/15
missed [1] 183/10
mistake [4] 5/7 5/8
117/11 117/11
mitigate [1] 135/15
mix [2] 82/17 83/6
Mm [2] 156/12
165/11
Mm-hm [1] 156/12
modest [1] 160/18
moment [13] 21/12
65/8 79/25 127/14
140/19 146/7 158/24
166/3 173/4
Monday [9] 69/11
141/2 141/3 142/18
152/21 161/6 167/25
171/2 173/11
money [3] 49/9 51/1
51/7
monthly [1] 48/25
Moran [1] 12/17
more [43] 9/20 14/8
20/9 26/9 29/8 37/18
42/15 48/21 53/25
69/14 70/25 71/11
83/4 85/22 90/17
92/23 93/18 101/18
107/5 107/6 116/7
120/5 120/15 124/9
132/10 146/3 146/15
159/19 160/17 163/2
164/2 164/18 172/24
172/24 172/25 174/10}
174/20 178/23 185/22)
190/10 190/24 194/12,
194/19
Moreover [2] 66/9
101/16
morning [14] 1/3 1/4
1/11 1/12 64/19 98/14}
104/12 106/11 132/14}
136/12 142/8 142/18
142/22 152/4
most [7] 7/9 7/13
101/21 105/18 127/13}
170/5 192/5
mostly [1] 173/17
mouth [2] 9/14 9/25
move [2] 84/11 161/2
moved [2] 34/10
34/19
MR [224]
MR BEER [7] 1/10
112/14 130/4 136/14
128/21 128/22 128/25
mismatch [1] 100/23
100/14 100/20 101/13)
101/22 102/12 102/17)
32/4 35/7 38/23 54/17,
137/1 197/4 197/16
Mr Cavender [1]
166/16
Mr Clarke [4] 81/17
1417/8 117/19 134/2
Mr Clarke's [8] 79/22
80/17 80/19 81/14
103/24 117/4 125/24
134/7
Mr Coyne [5] 93/4
95/20 96/4 97/12
97/14
Mr de Garr [18] 1/11
11/22 32/4 33/21
64/22 98/23 112/5
112/13 115/15 118/1
126/23 129/5 129/9
129/13 130/20 133/19)
133/21 134/16
Mr Draper [1] 95/8
Mr Generally [1] 70/5I
Mr Godeseth [4]
91/9 94/22 100/15
107/17
Mr Godeseth's [4]
90/1 90/3 100/19
101/8
Mr Green [7] 114/11
114/17 114/18 114/20)
115/3 115/7 115/23
Mr Henderson [1]
85/25
Mr Henderson's [1]
85/7
Mr Henry [4] 117/24
117/25 124/17 197/8
Mr Jenkins [70]
72/10 72/11 73/7 73/9
73/10 80/4 80/13 81/4I
81/9 81/23 86/4 87/21
89/22 90/17 91/25
92/6 92/9 92/18 93/9
93/9 93/16 93/17
93/18 93/22 94/6 94/8)
94/12 94/14 94/17
94/18 94/24 98/3
98/25 100/12 100/22
100/25 101/8 101/13
102/4 102/11 102/14
102/16 102/24 103/10)
103/16 103/21 104/9
104/12 105/13 105/20}
106/11 107/14 107/21
112/16 112/19 112/24}
113/3 113/23 114/21
115/9 115/23 116/9
116/25 123/10 130/4
130/9 130/22 133/11
133/24 134/12
Mr Jenkins' [10] 73/4I
77/10 80/23 90/7
92/15 99/7 107/24
115/4 129/14 132/23
Mr Jenkins's [2] 77/7I
(69
) matters... - Mr Jenkins's
108/4
Mr Justice [9] 4/8
24/7 125/5 140/3
140/21 178/19 184/9
185/5 187/17
Mr Justice Fraser
[14] 24/2 95/23
134/11 135/2 139/17
139/19 139/21 154/6
160/23 176/18 180/3
181/5 182/8 184/22
Mr Justice Fraser's
[1] 134/13
Mr Parker [2] 60/25
86/5
Mr Parker's [2] 49/10
61/4
Mr Parsons [28]
14/15 17/25 20/21
40/9 42/1 43/4 44/1
44/11 46/16 49/15
52/22 53/7 54/11
54/18 59/14 68/8
68/12 84/19 118/9
128/14 182/24 188/7
188/18 189/6
Mr Parsons' [2]
186/19 187/23
Mr Parsons's [1]
50/23
Mr Robinson [2]
60/15 60/23
Mr Robinson's [1]
61/3
Mr Stein [4] 112/11
115/17 115/18 117/22)
Mr Swift [4] 60/2
60/12 60/16 61/13
Mr Swift's [1] 61/1
Ms [5] 8/6 129/7
129/8 188/17 197/10
Ms Dobbin [3] 129/7
129/8 197/10
Ms MacLeod [2] 8/6
188/17
much [41] 1/5 2/21
6/17 11/15 14/6 24/12
25/25 38/1 40/16
42/15 64/21 71/17
89/2 89/6 89/14 91/25
94/14 109/16 110/4
112/5 118/7 120/5
120/15 124/9 129/6
136/9 136/11 136/17
136/22 137/6 138/20
153/6 163/14 171/25
174/20 179/24 184/9
191/19 195/14 195/22)
196/2
multiple [1] 100/9
Mr Jenkins's... [1]
29/15 31/11 36/4 36/7
multiplicity [1]
131/20
murky [1] 45/1
must [14] 21/18
26/11 66/13 67/22
71/14 75/3 106/23
131/10 135/20 136/4
163/22 175/6 177/21
194/23
mustn't [1] 124/20
my [149] 1/13 3/24
4/2 4/4 4/24 5/2 5/21
6/6 10/20 11/15 13/14
13/16 14/4 14/9 18/1
18/2 19/5 20/5 21/24
21/24 21/25 22/5 22/5)
22/19 23/19 26/17
26/18 27/14 27/17
28/22 28/23 30/4
32/14 33/5 34/3 34/5
34/6 34/6 34/8 34/9
35/16 37/9 38/21
39/23 42/2 43/16 47/2
47/11 47/12 48/4 48/9
49/20 49/21 50/19
50/19 53/4 53/25 57/4
57/21 57/24 58/20
61/25 62/5 62/6 62/9
63/18 72/6 81/25 82/1
82/9 85/9 88/19 91/6
91/7 91/8 93/8 94/15
97/15 103/3 103/9
103/19 104/6 105/1
105/21 106/15 106/21
106/22 107/8 108/7
111/6 112/3 115/22
116/4 116/10 116/13
117/18 120/8 125/13
126/11 126/19 126/25)
127/1 127/23 128/6
128/19 128/20 128/20)
128/24 129/10 130/3
131/17 133/16 133/22)
135/17 136/1 137/2
137/15 138/5 142/7
146/4 153/15 160/14
161/1 165/5 165/5
165/6 165/16 165/23
166/19 173/22 177/4
177/20 177/21 179/4
179/5 180/14 181/13
182/2 185/5 186/6
188/15 189/11 189/14)
189/23 190/4 190/6
192/12 195/2 195/23
my Lord [1] 115/22
myself [8] 12/14 13/5
22/22 32/16 88/10
135/21 136/1 166/22
name [6] 1/13 1/14
99/23 129/10 137/3
137/4
namely [4] 9/5 40/21
119/5 172/21
narrow [8] 11/23
41/21 42/3 42/13
43/12 47/20 52/5
124/2
nasty [1] 173/20
natural [1] 87/7
naturally [1] 48/12
nature [5] 11/3 11/8
28/2 58/12 75/21
near [2] 117/10
186/14
nearly [1] 143/16
necessarily [6] 30/13
40/22 42/24 58/3 91/8
185/23
necessary [6] 13/6
13/11 24/5 132/12
148/16 190/10
need [35] 5/8 13/18
17/11 30/24 31/1 32/5
32/20 37/13 37/15
45/11 49/19 55/25
56/2 62/5 67/16 69/2
78/15 89/15 89/17
91/4 96/10 97/24
123/7 124/5 124/9
124/10 124/12 125/12
130/15 131/13 135/8
148/11 172/7 179/9
189/3
needed [10] 16/4
27/17 90/10 121/16
124/6 131/20 142/4
192/11 195/5 195/7
needn't [1] 40/25
needs [7] 40/12 42/9
47/18 61/15 62/24
128/9 159/1
negative [3] 40/23
41/8 162/2
negligible [1] 184/15
negotiating [1] 64/5
neither [3] 162/24
163/20 163/22
nervous [1] 162/8
nettle [1] 173/16
network [1] 12/20
Neuberger [42]
142/14 142/14 145/1
146/8 147/7 149/2
151/5 151/19 152/15
155/21 161/2 161/7
162/17 164/4 165/15
166/14 166/25 167/10
167/11 167/14 167/18}
169/13 169/21 170/10
170/12 170/13 170/17
172/21 173/4 173/11
174/17 176/25 178/12
180/11 184/19 185/8
186/22 189/21 193/20}
193/22 193/23 195/3
Neuberger's [26]
138/5 142/16 142/20
142/23 144/21 147/18}
152/9 154/3 154/4
154/15 160/17 162/25)
163/6 164/9 165/13
165/20 166/11 169/8
169/16 169/19 179/6
180/14 181/13 181/14)
191/17 192/3
neutral [1] 144/4
neutrally [1] 134/5
never [11] 21/23
95/24 96/25 119/15
130/4 130/20 130/23
156/24 167/2 168/7
195/7
nevertheless [1]
88/9
Neville [2] 36/14
38/10
Neville-Rolfe [2]
36/14 38/10
new [2] 27/15 96/1
news [1] 184/12
next [20] 13/21 35/3
35/4 50/4 52/22 54/2
61/2 82/21 82/24
88/24 89/5 99/15
117/23 152/21 154/24}
155/2 158/25 159/5
178/13 183/11
no [125] 5/19 9/17
10/15 13/10 14/18
16/5 21/1 21/7 21/9
21/23 22/16 22/23
23/2 23/13 30/12 32/6
32/9 32/17 34/5 34/17
39/25 40/2 42/18 44/6
53/2 53/3 53/5 54/11
56/12 57/13 58/13
67/21 71/8 71/13
71/13 72/17 72/21
73/1 73/6 73/9 73/11
75/3 80/6 80/10 80/19
80/24 87/6 88/3 89/3
89/12 90/8 90/24 94/7,
94/16 96/14 101/25
102/6 105/25 106/7
107/2 109/18 110/18
114/11 114/17 114/23}
115/3 115/11 117/17
117/21 119/13 119/18
120/16 121/15 123/25}
125/5 125/12 125/12
127/4 128/1 128/3
132/8 134/14 135/3
135/11 1414/7 144/6
144/15 148/11 155/10)
156/1 156/23 157/16
157/19 158/12 160/5
161/15 161/21 162/2
163/3 167/3 168/6
171/24 175/20 176/5
176/12 176/14 177/15}
178/3 178/23 178/23
179/9 180/24 181/22
182/16 183/10 183/15}
189/17 191/11 193/1
194/23 194/24 195/1
195/9 195/10 195/22
nobody [1] 77/8
non [3] 52/14 94/24
116/7
non-lawyer [1] 116/7
non-revelation [1]
94/24
none [8] 104/18
125/16 129/18 129/21
129/23 130/2 141/10
187/23
nonetheless [4]
87/25 90/20 91/4
144/15
nonsense [2] 160/23
163/10
nor [5] 25/2 39/24
162/24 163/20 163/22)
normally [1] 146/4
not [342]
note [55] 6/9 29/14
52/24 68/21 68/22
69/5 71/18 78/17
79/22 80/19 82/10
94/10 94/15 97/1 97/3
103/24 103/25 108/10)
110/6 117/4 117/4
117/6 117/7 117/20
122/16 125/24 133/22!
142/12 142/16 142/19)
142/23 143/2 143/7
144/1 145/9 145/10
145/13 147/18 149/2
149/3 151/19 153/7
153/10 154/3 154/4
154/5 154/15 159/9
159/20 160/6 161/13
161/18 165/18 173/22)
175/9
noted [3] 168/14
168/16 169/12
notes [1] 167/11
nothing [6] 71/12
71/13 75/22 121/13
127/21 164/16
noticed [2] 180/6
180/10
notified [1] 58/7
notion [1] 163/10
notwithstanding [3]
67/3 67/15 119/17
November [7] 4/14
73/15 83/22 84/17
86/22 132/4 140/9
November 2018 [1]
83/22
now [54] 5/6 5/6 7/1
7/5 15/4 17/2 19/12
(70) Mr Jenkins's... - now
N
now... [47] 35/25
39/25 53/21 58/21
59/9 67/12 67/15
69/17 69/18 69/24
70/10 71/16 72/15
89/9 92/15 92/22
102/21 103/12 111/2
113/16 114/10 114/15}
116/3 116/6 117/12
118/8 119/10 120/1
120/7 123/24 128/1
142/17 145/23 150/16}
152/17 155/1 166/24
167/18 168/4 178/15
179/7 179/14 187/16
189/2 189/12 191/4
193/13
Nowhere [1] 94/10
number [33] 2/7 4/9
4/10 17/2 17/12 28/11
44/25 67/12 67/20
71/20 75/8 84/1 89/25
90/4 93/14 95/13 98/2
100/13 107/15 109/6
118/8 120/19 129/13
131/2 131/18 131/19
140/4 140/5 170/2
178/8 180/3 182/5
194/5
number 2 [1] 44/25
number 3 [2] 4/9
140/4
number 4 [1] 140/5
number 6 [1] 4/10
numbered [2] 44/25
169/7
numbered 3 [1]
44/25
numbered-paragraphi
3 [1] 169/7
numerable [1] 90/5
[e)
object [1] 50/12
obligation [2] 41/16
192/8
obligations [1] 121/4
observations [6]
142/16 142/23 144/22)
145/2 147/19 190/19
observed [1] 191/6
obstructive [1] 31/20
obtain [1] 23/6
obtained [5] 21/20
22/6 22/14 75/18
93/21
obvious [3] 27/1
42/22 124/5
obviously [3] 105/25
173/24 176/14
occasion [10] 10/22
10/25 13/19 25/1
26/10 28/5 71/24
74/14 166/8 174/8
occasions [13] 6/23
13/13 13/14 13/15
24/13 35/9 98/3 98/5
98/7 98/8 135/6 185/6'
190/16
occur [4] 74/19
116/20 116/21 128/17,
occurred [10] 4/24
5/21 13/22 28/20
28/21 69/18 69/24
78/17 116/22 121/19
occurs [2] 69/18
69/24
October [1] 108/11
odd [2] 136/4 193/3
off [15] 47/1 73/14
82/13 82/14 82/14
99/17 99/22 105/23
106/6 143/9 143/16
156/6 156/9 156/11
156/16
offering [1] 172/5
office [172] 3/8 3/10
5/22 6/1 6/20 6/22 7/1
7/3 7/16 7/21 8/13
10/5 10/7 10/24 11/2
11/9 11/18 12/6 12/14
12/20 18/7 19/15 22/1
23/1 23/15 25/10
25/14 25/21 27/4 27/8
30/5 30/9 30/16 33/14
35/18 36/9 36/19
38/11 38/13 39/20
40/21 40/24 42/4
42/14 42/20 42/23
42/24 44/14 46/23
49/8 50/25 51/16 58/1
58/7 58/11 58/15
58/18 59/14 59/20
59/22 60/1 60/4 60/13
62/12 62/22 65/12
65/15 65/16 67/6 67/9)
67/17 68/17 68/19
68/24 73/25 74/5 75/9)
75/18 76/22 77/8
77/15 77/20 78/11
78/25 79/21 79/22
81/8 82/8 82/15 86/18)
90/19 90/22 96/13
99/1 100/3 100/15
101/3 101/13 101/16
101/20 101/24 102/17)
103/20 104/8 104/15
106/10 106/20 107/16)
108/20 109/1 109/14
115/25 116/12 120/20)
121/25 122/21 122/23)
126/15 127/8 127/11
127/18 127/25 128/24}
128/25 129/25 130/1
130/13 130/15 135/11
139/12 139/14 139/21
139/22 141/8 143/20
145/18 149/16 149/25)
150/24 151/17 151/21
151/22 151/24 152/13
155/10 155/12 155/17
155/18 155/22 155/24
155/25 156/21 157/15}
158/19 162/3 162/6
164/15 168/11 169/14)
169/23 175/10 175/20
175/22 176/3 176/17
177/11 177/12 178/4
184/23 191/11 192/20
193/16
Office's [30] 6/18
17/10 24/1 25/7 29/8
29/13 30/11 30/18
30/25 32/13 36/13
41/8 60/23 61/14
62/14 63/24 63/25
64/5 69/20 80/12
83/21 85/15 92/10
96/22 99/8 99/10
126/21 127/24 128/23
193/14
often [1] 135/5
oh [19] 5/11 5/15
18/21 18/21 31/3
31/10 34/17 53/20
54/3 57/8 73/9 80/19
91/17 120/12 135/12
146/14 153/8 165/23
189/19
oil [1] 139/5
okay [9] 53/10 71/19
72/16 72/20 80/7
80/11 82/3 84/16
116/6
old [1] 134/21
old-fashioned [1]
134/21
on [329]
once [4] 29/9 85/3
91/24 194/1
one [78] 3/13 5/24
5/25 7/6 7/9 8/17
10/20 16/11 16/15
17/22 17/22 18/12
19/24 24/22 26/10
26/16 32/3 33/25
34/24 34/25 44/13
45/22 49/21 49/25
51/15 55/18 68/14
69/17 70/1 70/10 72/7
72/15 74/13 88/18
90/8 92/19 93/6 93/10
93/25 100/6 100/10
100/25 103/17 107/19}
109/8 117/13 123/22
125/8 125/8 128/7
130/8 130/12 130/18
132/13 134/9 139/9
146/12 149/25 152/24
153/4 153/21 153/22
153/23 154/7 157/1
158/7 158/9 160/2
161/21 164/14 167/25)
175/6 182/25 183/11
186/6 186/6 194/15
196/1
ones [2] 24/21 174/1
ongoing [2] 38/5
66/23
onion [1] 92/4
online [1] 100/24
only [20] 21/25 42/6
46/20 61/22 69/15
74/19 74/23 90/12
101/17 103/14 111/6
1411/7 114/4 114/4
169/17 173/25 174/5
174/9 195/15 195/23
onto [1] 187/9
onward [1] 25/10
onwards [1] 153/23
open [9] 7/3 103/5
108/4 108/6 120/3
120/13 122/7 157/10
170/2
operate [1] 34/23
operation [7] 3/11
77/19 94/3 94/4
139/15 143/20 143/21
opinion [8] 66/5
66/16 74/6 76/6 76/14
81/9 169/13 175/2
opinions [2] 73/8
166/6
opponent [1] 114/9
opposite [3] 15/14
93/14 118/21
option [3] 156/1
175/20 176/5
or [140] 10/23 11/25
12/1 12/2 15/2 15/3
15/14 15/18 15/25
17/5 19/1 19/24 20/15}
21/20 22/7 22/14 23/3)
23/5 23/12 26/4 26/11
27/4 28/13 30/19 31/5
32/6 32/8 32/9 32/21
34/1 34/24 35/2 35/4
38/11 41/19 42/20
42/24 42/25 44/11
45/18 46/2 46/8 46/24)
47/1 47/8 54/15 55/21
59/10 60/25 61/24
62/21 63/24 64/5
65/18 66/2 66/21 68/1
73/4 73/8 74/20 74/22,
75/1 76/4 76/19 80/8
80/16 80/20 81/4
81/19 81/19 82/9
83/19 86/1 87/3 87/22
90/9 90/24 91/3 91/5
92/18 94/10 94/15
96/21 96/22 97/17
99/20 101/12 102/11
102/16 103/10 104/21
105/14 105/16 106/17)
110/15 111/13 112/17)
112/18 114/8 115/7
4117/2 118/11 118/21
118/25 119/18 122/11
126/6 129/15 130/6
130/21 130/21 132/15)
133/2 133/11 134/18
134/22 146/13 149/16)
149/21 151/19 153/2
153/2 157/17 158/8
158/9 164/17 168/12
168/25 171/13 172/9
174/7 176/15 181/18
183/21 184/23 186/17
190/10 191/25 192/7
195/5
oral [4] 93/19 123/4
123/17 134/2
orally [2] 120/23
124/15
order [7] 15/25 30/17
62/3 133/23 174/4
182/23 182/25
ordered [3] 25/15
123/23 175/25
orders [3] 26/2 26/3
148/1
ordinary [2] 10/17
12/10
organisation [1]
11/25
orientate [4] 7/23
73/17 108/12 140/20
original [1] 29/6
originally [1] 77/17
originated [2] 148/24
186/19
originating [1]
137/24
orthodox [1] 169/25
other [58] 9/8 10/16
13/15 21/3 22/12 24/6)
30/19 30/25 34/1 35/2
37/25 42/8 42/9 44/14
46/5 60/24 62/1 63/20
68/10 71/22 73/12
TAIT 87/13 88/23
95/13 98/10 101/8
101/15 102/12 102/19)
102/22 107/23 112/19)
1413/4 115/20 117/1
121/7 122/25 125/22
130/12 130/14 132/20)
134/9 148/8 150/8
150/12 150/13 152/22!
157/3 157/6 170/16
171/22 171/23 172/4
172/12 176/5 190/22
195/17
others [9] 36/5 60/6
63/24 100/20 106/13
132/17 141/19 157/18}
(71) now... - others
[e)
others... [1] 161/7
otherwise [8] 48/16
75/1 119/24 132/11
159/4 183/21 184/24
192/1
ought [5] 14/15 67/18
67/21 81/9 158/15
our [31] 8/7 15/6
15/14 16/16 31/18
32/1 33/23 44/23
45/23 48/20 48/21
52/16 54/4 70/24 82/9
87/3 87/4 88/22 98/14,
118/21 122/18 122/20)
137/8 178/17 180/12
181/10 181/14 185/14}
186/12 194/16 194/18
our/Fujitsu's [1]
48/20
ourselves [4] 54/16
108/12 140/20 167/17)
out [54] 7/18 9/14
9/24 12/15 23/12 26/8
27/8 32/21 42/25
45/14 50/14 54/15
55/14 56/18 56/20
56/22 56/23 57/24
75/15 76/10 83/25
84/23 85/19 85/23
89/18 92/20 96/8
97/14 117/3 125/17
134/16 134/21 135/2
136/8 144/7 145/8
145/17 150/3 151/17
155/22 162/10 164/25)
169/5 169/22 172/8
181/23 185/3 185/9
185/22 191/5 194/25
195/5 195/7 195/12
outcome [4] 29/24
56/19 133/4 151/6
outlined [1] 154/2
output [1] 85/17
outset [2] 4/4 140/1
outside [5] 22/5 46/9
77/18 99/3 126/9
over [24] 14/13 16/13
31/22 54/7 64/2 68/19
74/1 76/24 81/3 81/8
86/9 98/25 125/10
143/21 146/19 150/23
153/20 155/2 169/3
170/9 171/3 182/24
189/5 190/2
overall [4] 12/19 85/9
116/3 159/2
overlap [3] 37/10
61/10 124/20
overlaps [1] 60/10
overlook [1] 121/2
overly [1] 111/20
overriding [1] 44/24
overseen [1] 63/23
oversuspicious [1]
185/16
overview [3] 100/4
100/9 169/19
Owain [3] 3/13 29/11
185/3
owe [1] 157/17
own [6] 72/16 80/12
85/1 101/15 165/23
169/16
owned [4] 10/5 10/12
10/24 162/7
P
page [118] 2/1 2/10
4/20 13/24 14/10
14/13 15/10 16/13
17/12 20/13 20/19
23/24 24/4 24/10
24/19 25/5 29/2 31/13
36/4 43/3 46/17 46/17)
46/18 48/8 49/24
50/22 50/22 50/24
52/9 53/11 54/8 54/24
56/13 57/16 61/2 65/4
65/5 65/19 68/7 72/4
73/13 73/25 76/24
82/11 82/12 83/4
84/12 85/6 85/7 92/25
93/6 99/14 99/15
99/25 100/17 107/12
109/4 110/17 111/15
137/14 138/1 138/3
138/17 141/14 142/9
143/8 143/19 143/23
143/24 144/11 145/13)
148/12 150/16 152/6
153/19 153/20 154/1
154/25 155/2 161/4
161/6 162/21 163/5
163/15 164/6 164/9
164/23 166/25 169/6
169/9 170/9 173/9
173/10 175/11 175/17,
178/9 179/8 180/10
181/3 182/19 182/24
183/25 184/2 184/3
184/5 184/16 185/9
187/6 187/11 187/15
187/23 189/5 189/5
189/6 193/10 193/11
193/20 193/21
page 1 [13] 50/22
52/9 73/25 110/17
143/19 150/16 154/41
169/9 173/9 185/9
189/5 193/11 193/20
page 13 [2] 65/19
138/17
page 14 [3] 65/4
143/23 143/24
page 2 [17] 43/3
46/17 46/18 48/8
50/22 50/24 56/13
57/16 148/12 161/4
163/5 164/9 169/6
175/11 180/10 187/23
193/10
page 238 [1] 53/11
page 25 [1] 144/11
page 275 [1] 92/25
page 277 [1] 93/6
page 29 [1] 143/8
page 3 [12] 4/20
20/13 46/17 49/24
82/11 162/21 163/15
170/9 184/16 187/6
187/11 187/15
page 33 [1] 72/4
page 392 [1] 99/14
page 4 [2] 36/4 142/9
page 48 [2] 23/24
29/2
page 5 [4] 73/13
183/25 184/3 184/5
page 50 [1] 24/4
page 51 [1] 24/10
page 52 [1] 25/5
page 6 [3] 137/14
141/14 145/13
page 63 [1] 2/1
page 64 [2] 99/25
107/12
page 66 [1] 100/17
page 7 [1] 85/6
page 8 [4] 84/12 85/7
138/1 138/3
page 9 [3] 109/4
111/15 166/25
page number [1]
17/12
pages [9] 1/23 2/6
95/12 95/13 99/12
137/10 143/21 144/1
153/21
paid [1] 158/16
painful [1] 70/23
pair [2] 47/22 182/9
paper [4] 12/16 17/17I
82/23 83/12
papers [5] 147/16
148/4 150/8 167/21
185/1
par [4] 181/15
parade [4] 6/2 6/12
7/6 8/1
paragraph [58] 4/20
4/22 5/3 8/6 14/10
23/24 24/4 24/10
24/19 24/20 25/5
31/14 32/3 43/5 48/10
54/24 59/17 65/10
65/20 72/3 74/1 74/2
76/24 84/22 86/9
88/25 89/5 92/25 93/7
94/1 99/25 100/17
102/8 103/1 105/1
105/22 106/16 107/11
107/12 111/15 118/17}
125/7 127/16 135/9
135/21 137/14 138/3
145/1 145/14 154/25
158/25 164/12 167/1
169/7 169/7 169/10
181/9 194/15
paragraph 1 [3]
65/10 74/1 145/1
paragraph 10 [2]
4/20 4/22
paragraph 11 [1] 5/3
paragraph 133 [1]
23/24
paragraph 138 [2]
99/25 107/12
paragraph 14 [1]
100/17
paragraph 142 [1]
24/4
paragraph 144 [2]
135/9 135/21
paragraph 144.1 [6]
102/8 103/1 105/1
105/22 106/16 107/11
paragraph 147 [1]
24/10
paragraph 149 [1]
24/19
paragraph 155 [1]
25/5
paragraph 16 [1]
137/14
paragraph 18 [1]
167/1
paragraph 19 [1]
145/14
paragraph 2 [1] 74/2
paragraph 20 [1]
138/3
paragraph 3 [2]
169/7 194/15
paragraph 37 [1]
65/20
paragraph 4.5 [1]
76/24
Paragraph 617 [1]
24/20
paragraph 654.2 [1]
94/1
paragraph 870 [1]
92/25
paragraph 880 [1]
93/7
paragraph 95 [1]
72/3
paragraphs [5] 20/19)
24/8 29/3 77/1 103/18)
paragraphs 134 [4]
29/3
parallel [1] 37/19
Parker [30] 36/13
38/5 38/6 38/14 38/15
38/19 39/9 40/1 40/12
40/14 43/7 44/3 44/12
44/16 45/6 45/21 46/9)
47/4 47/6 48/11 48/12
50/2 51/24 59/18
60/25 85/4 86/5 89/10}
168/15 168/23
Parker's [7] 38/20
49/10 52/1 60/10 61/4)
61/10 84/24
Parsons [38] 13/25
14/15 17/3 17/25
19/13 20/21 28/4
29/15 31/11 36/4 36/7I
40/9 41/15 42/1 43/4
44/1 44/11 46/16
49/15 52/22 53/7
54/11 54/18 59/14
68/8 68/12 71/8 78/8
84/19 106/4 110/23
118/9 128/14 150/20
182/24 188/7 188/18
189/6
Parsons' [2] 186/19
187/23
Parsons's [1] 50/23
part [22] 3/22 3/24
18/18 31/16 34/9 38/2)
38/4 39/6 40/3 40/17
44/14 60/14 68/8
86/12 88/6 90/11
123/14 131/22 131/25)
161/23 164/10 168/18)
Participants [2]
112/8 195/18
participate [3]
162/25 163/21 163/25]
participated [3]
166/16 166/17 172/19)
particular [14] 11/20
29/3 34/9 34/24 69/7
84/14 94/12 114/1
128/13 133/7 135/7
149/21 157/6 172/17
particularly [7] 11/22
38/9 70/15 82/1 94/16
171/13 194/10
parties [8] 26/1 41/4
58/3 94/20 124/1
126/8 140/24 150/15
parties’ [2] 29/20
121/4
partly [2] 16/22 16/24I
partner [2] 36/7
150/19
parts [5] 27/21 77/23
100/1 101/21 108/21
party [5] 40/20 85/13
168/25 189/15 194/21
passage [5] 93/21
100/16 101/6 151/25
166/24
passages [3] 2/7
102/2 142/19
(72) others... - passages
Pp
past [4] 18/22 19/3
81/15 185/11
pathetic [1] 178/16
Patrick [3] 13/3
57/19 114/9
Paul [4] 13/2
Paula [1] 7/25
pay [3] 51/1 51/17
155/22
payments [1] 100/23
PD57 [1] 123/24
PEAKs [5] 24/11
24/12 24/21 27/1
27/15
peeled [1] 92/4
penultimate [1]
157/13
people [19] 9/19
42/16 72/14 84/23
88/1 89/25 90/4 111/2
111/3 111/4 116/4
131/2 131/6 131/18
131/20 132/10 154/2
175/13 178/4
perceived [1] 166/6
perception [1]
128/24
perfectly [5] 158/3
165/6 174/21 185/18
186/9
perform [1] 85/14
performance [6]
81/15 107/24 108/1
108/4 111/24 115/4
performing [1] 27/19
perhaps [11] 14/25
15/3 47/9 120/25
123/20 126/11 128/17)
132/17 136/7 190/13
195/4
period [7] 11/16
14/19 16/2 21/8 35/21
73/23 132/7
permission [6] 4/12
116/18 140/7 181/6
184/14 193/25
permitted [2] 29/21
168/21
person [12] 22/12
65/25 83/1 87/3 100/6
100/10 110/15 110/19
133/8 146/2 153/22
172/24
personal [3] 180/17
181/17 191/2
personalised [3]
178/21 178/24 181/12)
personally [2] 21/19
166/1
perspective [12]
42/3 42/6 42/13 43/12)
47/11 48/17 52/5
55/12 56/3 71/25 72/1
88/19
perspectives [1]
42/9
persuasive [1] 36/17
pertinent [1] 66/3
Peter [1] 178/19
petty [1] 188/20
phases [1] 34/23
phone [5] 19/17
153/7 153/16 175/7
175/11
phrase [1] 124/25
physical [1] 153/2
physically [4] 153/2
153/4 153/14 175/7
pick [3] 43/4 85/20
187/9
picture [1] 125/6
piece [10] 9/18 10/17
12/10 38/13 41/14
43/10 43/24 55/4
144/16 157/19
pieces [1] 41/7
pilot [4] 123/23
pizzazz [1] 177/4
place [10] 5/4 6/16
78/7 79/1 93/22
121/23 162/17 171/16)
180/19 191/4
placed [4] 76/22
77/25 92/17 104/16
places [1] 28/12
placing [1] 67/9
plain [3] 66/17 76/15
149/6
plainly [5] 31/25
33/11 37/9 85/21
93/22
plan [1] 142/17
play [1] 31/18
playing [1] 189/22
pleaded [1] 29/11
please [99] 1/7 1/14
1/20 2/1 2/22 4/18
4/19 7/23 12/13 13/24
14/13 15/9 23/23
23/24 29/2 31/22
35/25 36/4 43/2 48/7
52/9 53/7 53/16 54/23)
57/16 57/16 57/17
64/13 64/23 64/25
65/5 65/10 65/19
65/20 68/6 68/7 73/13
73/25 76/24 82/10
84/11 84/12 85/6 86/7,
92/19 92/24 98/15
99/8 99/13 99/25
100/17 108/9 109/4
111/15 114/25 115/2
118/2 118/4 136/15
136/23 137/4 137/9
138/23 141/12 141/15)
142/4 142/9 143/1
143/8 143/25 145/12
145/13 152/1 152/5
155/2 161/4 163/5
164/6 168/9 169/6
170/9 173/6 175/17
176/20 177/6 179/15
180/20 180/21 182/18
183/24 184/16 184/20
185/8 185/12 187/4
187/13 187/22 188/17]
193/5
plus [1] 84/24
pm [7] 98/18 98/20
136/18 136/20 179/18!
179/20 196/8
pockets [1] 27/21
point [76] 6/19 9/4
13/25 18/24 28/24
30/7 30/12 30/14
30/14 31/1 32/2 32/24
34/24 35/14 42/22
44/25 44/25 45/12
45/22 47/3 47/7 47/10
47/22 48/22 48/22
50/1 54/7 54/8 54/8
54/9 54/9 54/9 54/9
54/19 54/19 55/23
96/15 96/17 101/1
103/14 105/11 105/15}
107/18 107/19 108/21
112/4 115/13 118/5
119/12 119/20 119/20
121/21 125/11 128/8
128/10 135/15 147/1
147/5 158/6 158/12
158/13 159/21 160/9
164/5 170/25 171/9
173/23 182/22 182/25
185/13 186/7 186/14
190/5 190/5 190/22
193/4
point 1 [1] 190/5
point’ [1] 55/6
pointing [1] 83/25
points [12] 29/16
34/25 37/14 37/19
45/19 51/21 54/6
57/23 122/2 138/13
192/4 192/14
POL [5] 30/14 39/12
39/17 40/1 40/1
POL00006357 [1]
65/1
POL00006397 [1]
153/5
POL00006601 [1]
59/13
POL00022840 [1]
92/24
POL00023097 [1]
143/2
POL00025910 [1]
144/22
POL00026925 [1]
99/9
POL00027594 [1]
168/9
POL00043284 [2]
73/13 82/10
POL00103200 [1]
7/24
POL00112150 [1]
179/10
POL00134909 [1]
108/9
POL00140216 [2]
13/23 118/2
POL00242402 [2]
36/3 56/13
POL00243170 [1]
57/16
POL00269774 [1]
175/8
POL00270741 [2]
182/18 182/19
POL00363775 [1]
84/11
political [21] 8/10
8/20 8/25 9/2 9/3 9/10)
9/13 9/16 9/21 9/25
10/2 38/18 38/19 43/7,
43/8 43/17 43/22 44/3
44/15 47/1 50/9
politically [1] 126/17
politicians [1] 10/3
pollutes [1] 88/16
POLs [1] 39/25
poor [1] 23/17
popping [2] 89/7
89/22
portion [1] 26/20
portmanteau [1]
26/22
portray [1] 31/19
pose [2] 17/2 118/8
posed [1] 17/8
position [28] 4/6
25/13 26/6 26/9 33/20)
41/2 44/20 48/22
52/25 64/6 66/14
89/11 90/18 102/7
116/3 122/22 123/1
130/11 130/19 130/22,
140/1 140/12 141/24
150/6 169/25 171/16
179/5 191/2
positive [2] 66/10
158/10
possessed [1] 66/5
possibility [8] 15/11
18/8 38/9 118/18
119/7 158/5 185/22
188/11
possible [26] 6/23
7/2 14/22 15/4 21/16
21/21 44/19 50/15
84/25 89/2 89/7 89/14
92/7 95/24 100/5
100/10 112/23 116/7
141/25 143/7 145/3
149/8 162/24 163/17
163/20 185/20
possibly [8] 18/10
23/4 31/21 33/9 62/17
76/7 95/7 123/18
post [200]
postmaster [4] 15/3
19/16 121/4 121/6
postmaster's [1]
15/1
postmasters [7]
12/21 15/7 15/23 16/4)
58/9 59/20 60/9
potential [6] 39/7
39/19 40/7 42/17
47/I17 142/6
potentially [5] 10/7
47/4 50/3 50/12
149/15
poured [1] 186/22
powers [1] 125/1
practical [2] 119/18
135/23
practice [7] 3/2 32/9
96/19 119/18 134/25
135/1 139/4
precisely [8] 35/7
95/9 114/19 144/10
147/20 171/1 188/16
190/1
predecessor [1]
166/9
predict [1] 88/4
predicted [2] 181/5
191/9
prefer [2] 93/3 165/9
preliminary [2] 170/3
190/21
preparation [3] 81/1
132/7 156/4
prepare [1] 82/6
prepared [5] 6/10
91/22 91/23 174/6
174/18
preparing [1] 96/17
presence [1] 163/8
present [17] 6/19
48/10 71/21 85/21
97/1 97/2 97/5 97/10
108/12 142/18 153/2
153/14 154/2 164/3
168/2 168/12 168/12
presentation [1]
63/10
presented [5] 36/17
69/21 70/13 147/17
185/1
presenting [1]
164/20
presently [1] 67/19
preservation [2] 47/8)
48/1
(73) past - preservation
Pp
preserve [1] 47/12
preserving [2] 47/3
50/1
pressing [1] 152/13
pressure [3] 37/16
37/17 148/16
pretty [1] 186/5
prevented [2] 87/12
97/8
previous [16] 15/19
15/20 15/20 20/16
20/23 30/4 35/8 59/9
103/15 106/19 114/6
118/13 118/25 119/1
119/2 119/5
previously [21] 1/17
15/16 19/1 20/16 27/5
32/12 62/20 71/5 73/3
78/2 79/23 92/5
116/12 116/15 118/10)
118/23 125/22 134/14}
191/9 191/14 195/6
primarily [1] 191/25
primary [2] 11/15
18/12
Prime [1] 150/20
principle [3] 41/4
64/9 128/7
prior [2] 54/4 75/6
private [2] 11/7 11/17
privilege [37] 23/7
38/9 40/21 40/25 41/2
41/3 41/3 41/10 41/16)
44/25 45/5 45/9 47/3
47/8 47/10 47/12
47/23 48/1 48/6 50/2
51/25 52/8 55/5 57/7
61/9 62/4 64/1 64/10
85/11 85/12 85/18
86/1 86/10 116/17
116/17 117/14 117/15}
privileged [16] 37/23
40/15 45/10 45/12
52/14 92/23 104/1
116/12 116/14 116/20}
116/22 116/23 117/2
117/4 117/7 117/9
privy [1] 30/8
probably [14] 19/13
20/11 21/10 33/20
37/15 37/17 43/1 56/6
105/3 135/14 138/11
146/3 156/5 164/8
probe [1] 20/9
probed [1] 27/23
problem [7] 7/3 35/3
71/2 71/4 74/22 76/2
180/9
problems [6] 24/16
26/20 26/21 28/3
78/13 78/22
procedural [2]
143/22 154/24
procedure [2] 31/16
185/25
proceed [3] 157/21
177/17 181/18
proceeding [1]
186/15
proceedings [33]
3/17 21/15 21/24 22/8
23/3 23/4 23/6 23/8
23/9 49/16 58/8 58/10
79/2 79/4 79/14 79/17)
81/16 86/20 103/2
104/17 121/3 121/13
122/1 123/22 123/25
125/22 127/22 129/2
129/17 130/5 131/4
135/5 145/20
process [21] 23/15
25/20 46/21 46/22
70/6 70/7 70/23 84/20
95/22 98/11 106/2
121/23 121/23 123/14)
132/5 132/11 132/15
133/4 162/10 165/24
166/19
processing [1] 74/17
produce [3] 25/10
128/9 194/19
produced [4] 27/16
28/3 133/7 181/9
product [1] 143/18
professional [1]
127/3
professionally [1]
23/17
Professor [3] 101/11
102/15 114/2
Professor
McLachlan's [2]
101/11 102/15
profile [1] 51/14
profound [1] 67/5
progress [2] 58/5
58/6
proliferation [1]
126/16
promoted [1] 126/14
proper [7] 51/10
115/13 145/25 146/11
165/6 166/1 185/18
properly [9] 27/20
70/10 70/24 80/5 80/8
144/19 146/1 186/24
192/11
proportionate [1]
51/19
proposal [1] 152/10
proposed [4] 12/25
37/1 41/25 185/10
proposition [2]
123/13 125/7
proprietary [1] 15/6
prosecution [6] 66/2
66/4 66/22 74/14 76/4
76/19
prosecutions [21]
37/5 51/11 65/13 67/6
67/17 68/18 74/2 74/6
78/2 80/12 81/19
81/20 84/2 100/13
106/18 107/15 107/22
109/23 112/1 113/25
130/1
prosecutor [2] 67/10
76/23
prospect [4] 64/1
126/18 160/12 188/3
prospective [1]
90/16
prospects [28] 64/5
145/13 146/10 146/12
146/19 151/14 152/15}
152/19 154/18 155/5
158/18 158/22 158/23
159/7 159/14 159/24
160/3 160/7 160/10
170/11 171/8 172/6
187/19 187/25 188/13
188/23 189/1 191/17
protect [4] 43/9 55/3
64/2 87/9
protected [4] 23/7
40/25 41/9 57/6
protection [2] 52/8
61/9
protects [2] 12/20
41/4
protocol [8] 95/9
95/22 96/10 96/18
96/24 97/17 131/13
131/16
proves [1] 87/13
provide [18] 25/12
25/15 38/18 43/6 43/8
43/17 44/3 44/18
49/17 59/24 66/21
76/18 90/9 97/12
97/14 100/3 135/3
135/10
provided [36] 1/17
6/22 30/22 60/2 65/9
66/24 69/15 74/6
74/11 84/6 87/17
93/17 94/13 94/18
95/15 95/19 95/20
96/2 96/9 97/3 97/11
100/10 100/20 100/21
101/1 101/3 102/3
112/16 127/19 134/19
145/10 145/10 148/5
151/4 156/4 175/22
provider [3] 84/4
87/21 143/15
provides [1] 48/23
providing [10] 16/23
44/15 87/3 87/25
89/10 113/16 131/3
131/7 133/5 136/10
provision [1] 137/6
provisions [1] 192/9
prudent [3] 61/12
146/2 172/24
PS [2] 14/14 118/5
public [16] 11/3 11/4
11/9 11/19 11/25 12/1
12/2 12/7 38/24 42/25]
47/15 65/15 101/23
126/7 173/19 177/3
publicity [3] 162/8
174/11 174/14
pulled [4] 132/10
pure [3] 48/17 55/12
56/3
purpose [11] 6/10
21/21 37/25 40/6 44/9)
80/15 80/24 82/4
95/22 135/18 183/14
purposes [14] 4/7
11/3 12/18 37/24
49/12 55/19 56/21
59/5 59/7 99/11
123/19 126/8 142/18
174/5
pursue [1] 191/11
pursuing [1] 174/24
put [21] 21/11 44/11
48/3 60/15 62/11 71/8)
90/18 103/16 105/13
106/20 110/11 115/13}
120/7 120/9 121/22
122/21 130/22 156/10}
157/4 159/6 193/10
puts [1] 62/16
putting [6] 38/19
45/22 47/9 99/22
134/5 190/15
Qu
QC [4] 8/14 36/20
114/9 188/20
QC's [1] 60/18
quality [5] 23/16
181/18 181/20 181/23}
182/3
quantum [2] 58/14
155/22
quasi [1] 12/1
Queen's [2] 36/11
145/7
question [69] 7/2
15/6 15/10 15/22 16/7}
16/13 17/17 17/17
18/10 18/11 18/18
19/11 20/21 21/5
22/23 25/6 26/17
26/18 32/5 34/15
35/12 39/23 41/22
44/11 48/10 55/21
56/7 59/9 71/1 89/8
97/21 103/12 104/10
106/14 108/17 109/3
109/5 109/5 111/15
113/8 114/13 115/2
115/10 115/18 116/10)
116/16 116/17 117/13)
120/9 121/12 124/4
125/18 127/13 127/14)
128/3 129/2 130/8
130/9 130/16 130/18
130/21 134/23 135/17
149/18 152/18 159/19)
170/11 178/23 183/7
questionable [2]
38/5 186/10
Questioned [12] 1/10)
112/12 117/25 129/8
133/20 137/1 197/4
197/6 197/8 197/10
197/12 197/16
questioning [3] 4/5
133/18 190/14
questions [43] 1/13
6/11 14/8 14/14 14/17
14/20 14/21 17/2 17/8)
22/3 28/7 41/17 45/1
70/1 70/2 80/11 96/16
100/2 107/24 108/16
109/20 111/13 112/6
112/7 113/24 117/21
118/9 121/2 121/3
121/16 129/7 129/9
129/14 131/24 132/22!
133/17 137/3 170/10
173/17 195/15 195/17)
195/19 195/20
quicker [1] 121/24
quickly [3] 27/17
50/14 141/25
quite [23] 5/13 30/22
36/20 41/3 44/19 46/4I
48/9 56/8 62/1 62/24
71/23 92/1 92/2 96/17
105/6 105/8 107/8
132/19 153/8 153/12
172/25 190/13 194/4
quotation [1] 56/14
quote [2] 55/14
188/24
quotes [1] 54/18
quoting [1] 55/12
R
raise [2] 15/5 48/10
raised [9] 11/16
32/25 42/11 59/20
80/22 95/6 108/24
127/15 130/10
raising [3] 124/4
126/19 186/12
ramification [1] 9/23
range [1] 175/2
ranked [1] 8/11
rare [1] 174/8
rate [1] 186/13
rather [35] 5/17 9/20
(74) preserve - rather
R
rather... [33] 10/10
13/17 20/12 23/18
27/4 35/17 38/25
49/15 51/5 63/13
63/14 65/21 67/1 77/6
81/19 88/4 110/10
112/3 123/11 135/15
135/20 136/4 148/20
150/3 159/6 159/14
164/4 174/19 178/16
178/17 180/12 184/15
190/20
rational [1] 186/10
re [1] 177/1
reach [2] 37/21 187/2
reached [3] 53/1
165/22 166/6
react [1] 174/13
reaction [1] 106/9
read [41] 33/5 33/6
53/16 54/15 54/15
54/16 57/14 68/9
68/23 70/10 80/19
99/22 108/23 118/17
129/19 134/12 141/22)
142/12 142/16 142/17
142/22 143/24 144/20}
145/9 147/11 147/15
155/1 160/19 161/12
161/19 166/15 166/21
166/24 167/3 168/7
176/2 179/11 189/7
190/13 192/22 194/7
reader [2] 94/7
143/19
reading [23] 14/5
14/9 17/6 18/3 20/10
33/5 40/10 82/13
82/14 83/20 103/1
109/16 110/4 110/5
147/13 147/22 147/23}
148/1 165/19 166/19
167/21 170/3 174/19
reads [2] 88/6 137/14
real [9] 6/20 15/5
17/18 42/25 104/11
105/6 157/9 176/5
191/11
realise [2] 72/15
194/3
realised [1] 103/2
realistic [1] 89/15
realistically [1]
192/15
really [20] 9/11 14/24
26/22 33/13 35/19
42/16 56/6 63/5 98/6
105/8 105/10 108/7
130/20 135/17 135/19
148/19 160/19 167/15}
170/22 173/23
reason [21] 40/9
40/14 47/6 48/1 50/8
67/7 67/11 79/13
81/23 82/19 83/8
96/14 101/25 104/25
128/4 143/13 162/16
164/25 165/9 174/9
174/15
reasonable [9]
145/18 145/24 146/10)
146/17 147/8 147/21
154/20 160/18 188/3
reasonably [2] 60/1
186/14
reasons [33] 36/21
37/11 39/13 64/23
66/11 68/2 78/20
79/10 81/13 81/13
86/13 86/15 87/1
87/19 88/11 93/5 93/6
102/4 103/6 104/11
104/18 104/18 104/19)
104/20 106/10 107/1
108/3 123/9 134/11
134/19 135/7 145/17
194/2
Rebecca [1] 3/19
rebut [1] 48/18
recall [34] 5/22 6/19
10/4 10/22 11/8 11/17
11/19 11/21 13/14
22/16 23/13 24/12
27/12 27/12 33/1
39/22 40/19 42/18
53/12 61/6 61/18
61/19 66/3 73/11
80/14 81/22 91/6 92/7
92/7 130/6 143/14
1741/1 177/11 180/2
recap [1] 36/23
receipts [1] 100/23
received [10] 58/18
69/12 73/19 73/24
79/22 127/25 128/14
169/12 181/4 193/13
recent [1] 134/24
recently [3] 30/22
111/7 139/10
recipient [3] 132/16
132/19 132/20
reciting [1] 88/2
recognise [2] 87/8
89/15
recognised [1] 100/5
recollecting [1]
20/12
recollection [22] 4/2
10/11 21/7 21/9 33/17
39/23 42/10 44/21
49/20 53/2 53/3 53/5
72/16 73/6 81/25 91/6
91/7 91/8 111/7
114/11 177/15 185/5
recommendation [1]
175/24
recommendations
[21] 35/25 36/11
36/17 36/22 36/23
37/9 39/2 39/5 44/14
46/21 49/7 50/11 59/1
60/3 60/5 60/11 60/15)
60/19 61/1 61/13
61/21
recommended [6]
16/9 39/19 45/15
47/16 49/18 55/10
reconcile [1] 62/9
reconciliations [1]
15/1
reconstruct [3] 10/10]
39/24 71/21
reconstructing [3]
20/11 33/18 35/16
record [11] 14/23
59/15 61/5 86/5 95/18
97/11 101/23 110/17
159/18 170/17 176/7
recorded [13] 95/16
96/3 96/3 110/5
154/13 155/8 160/12
160/22 168/12 170/12
171/20 172/21 175/18}
recorder [1] 119/15
recording [2] 74/17
85/9
records [3] 53/25
61/21 154/3
recourse [1] 131/1
recovering [1] 15/7
recriminations [1]
195/4
recusal [62] 4/13
140/4 140/7 140/16
143/8 144/9 145/3
147/9 148/24 149/6
149/8 151/2 151/14
152/10 154/19 155/10}
155/12 155/19 155/21
155/24 156/1 156/22
156/24 157/8 157/14
157/24 159/12 159/22)
169/1 169/15 170/5
173/15 173/16 173/24
174/23 174/25 175/20}
175/23 175/25 176/6
176/11 176/18 177/5
177/19 179/7 181/4
182/4 183/5 185/4
186/8 186/15 187/18
188/1 188/10 188/14
188/22 190/23 191/1
191/12 191/20 192/13}
193/14
recuse [10] 139/17
139/21 145/19 149/15}
162/5 179/3 180/5
188/12 191/7 193/17
red [3] 14/16 20/19
152/5
redacted [1] 165/4
refer [11] 7/5 68/3
70/4 70/9 103/23
103/24 103/25 118/12
143/4 143/12 157/14
reference [10] 29/1
47/15 65/25 85/4
114/18 149/25 158/23
166/20 178/19 179/9
references [3] 71/10
93/15 185/3
referred [8] 13/8
13/12 75/1 77/3 92/1
134/25 149/3 161/24
referring [5] 12/8
49/25 72/13 127/6
189/24
refers [3] 33/2 41/15
53/20
reflect [3] 102/4
124/12 124/16
reflected [2] 29/16
167/7
reflection [3] 127/1
136/7 156/18
refusal [4] 96/21
96/22 191/7 191/8
refuse [2] 16/8
193/25
refused [4] 25/9
128/5 181/6 194/16
refusing [2] 4/12
140/7
refute [2] 108/7
110/13
regard [6] 9/10 79/21
83/8 89/24 146/23
186/2
regarded [6] 9/15
9/18 9/20 11/4 90/19
91/3
regarding [5] 9/7
45/3 108/20 113/11
186/17
regardless [2] 17/1
41/16
regards [1] 112/15
reinforced [1] 120/17
rejected [1] 181/5
rejecting [1] 195/11
rejection [1] 180/4
relate [2] 65/17 174/4
related [5] 64/3 81/14I
81/17 112/23 168/19
relates [2] 92/16
170/11
relating [2] 65/3
113/24
relation [41] 3/25 4/6
11/6 11/11 11/11
17/20 20/17 21/25
26/19 26/19 27/25
28/2 28/9 35/9 35/19
47/13 55/4 59/21
62/11 69/23 77/9
77/18 84/1 101/13
102/17 103/10 104/4
109/22 121/10 124/2
1314/7 140/2 158/3
159/2 168/14 168/16
168/21 180/3 192/6
192/9 193/14
relational [1] 192/7
relations [1] 177/3
relationship [5] 3/10
82/8 139/14 182/7
186/17
relatively [6] 17/24
19/7 19/8 20/8 36/5
109/20
relevant [33] 4/11
11/16 19/18 24/15
29/22 29/25 33/22
34/14 35/10 39/19
59/5 70/21 90/11
90/24 100/4 101/21
103/13 105/11 105/12)
108/21 114/4 114/5
121/19 127/16 129/1
133/5 135/25 140/6
151/25 170/8 174/5
182/15 182/16
relevantly [1] 3/7
reliability [4] 73/4
75/19 80/23 129/14
reliable [6] 72/10
87/8 87/10 87/10
87/13 97/23
reliance [6] 79/1
91/25 92/5 92/17
97/19 104/15
relied [7] 15/16 19/1
90/21 93/8 93/17
118/10 118/23
reluctant [2] 177/8
177/12
rely [5] 87/4 88/22
88/23 90/13 130/15
relying [6] 68/25
87/20 88/11 120/17
130/9 147/16
remain [3] 7/9 67/14
130/19
remained [2] 7/12
75
remaining [1] 144/1
remarkable [1]
184/24
remember [20] 6/17
10/9 21/2 22/9 22/10
29/23 29/24 35/11
43/15 45/2 52/25 57/3
62/17 63/1 69/17
70/22 110/7 117/17
146/24 153/1
remembering [1]
35/7
remind [5] 5/9 11/10
(75) rather... - remind
R
remind... [3] 43/5
88/10 123/21
reminded [2] 11/13
11/21
reminder [1] 68/5
remote [17] 7/6 9/7
18/8 18/24 20/15
36/25 45/18 48/19
51/4 69/4 121/8
121/18 121/19 122/7
122/12 132/25 133/12
remotely [5] 6/25
15/12 77/20 118/19
119/7
rendered [1] 97/23
repeated [1] 26/10
repeatedly [2] 74/18
7713
replicate [1] 59/10
replies [2] 14/15
188/18
reply [22] 27/11
38/22 43/2 48/7 49/22
50/23 52/10 85/7 86/7
137/15 137/17 137/23}
138/5 138/10 152/7
156/13 163/6 164/9
164/22 184/13 187/23)
189/9
replying [1] 43/3
report [15] 16/15
16/18 16/21 16/25
19/24 75/5 75/16 77/2
77/3 93/11 93/15
93/23 93/25 94/1 94/9
Report's [1] 77/5
reported [2] 170/11
170/13
reports [5] 25/8
25/10 74/12 93/19
132/6
represent [2] 8/12
160/15
representative [1]
13/3
representatives [2]
12/24 13/5
representing [3] 13/1
13/2 25/21
request [3] 38/12
156/10 190/19
require [4] 28/5
37/18 57/11 194/9
required [8] 15/2
15/2 46/24 61/14
62/13 62/22 77/17
105/3
requiring [1] 16/24
resentful [1] 132/19
resource [1] 8/12
respect [4] 97/22
110/14 130/13 189/22
respectable [1]
127/10
respectively [1]
149/5
respects [1] 100/19
respond [1] 195/9
responded [2] 46/16
83/24
responding [3] 49/21
57/2 69/7
response [5] 17/24
46/18 138/6 181/14
186/4
responsibility [1]
26/25
responsible [2]
48/20 185/24
rest [4] 24/25 53/16
126/20 165/9
rested [1] 26/25
result [16] 14/25 16/2
27/3 27/19 28/18
74/19 74/23 95/11
104/23 109/24 119/21
125/23 125/23 132/7
132/9 194/20
resulted [2] 62/6
121/9
results [4] 37/21 38/6
40/23 41/7
resume [1] 196/4
retain [2] 48/5 62/3
retained [1] 8/14
retention [2] 21/20
22/13
reveal [5] 40/25
75/10 102/7 116/13
117/19
revealed [4] 24/22
92/6 92/12 99/4
revelation [4] 15/20
20/17 94/24 119/2
review [26] 18/22
35/24 37/8 38/16
38/20 38/25 45/6
49/18 51/15 51/22
52/2 53/13 58/20
59/18 59/22 60/10
60/25 61/4 61/10
66/13 67/17 67/19
76/25 84/25 107/23
187/17
reviewed [8] 60/15
60/18 84/2 107/25
154/4 154/6 154/10
180/1
Reviewing [2] 37/5
51/11
reviews [1] 37/19
rhetorical [1] 96/16
rhetorically [1]
103/12
rid [2] 158/20 159/4
rider [1] 62/21
right [93] 2/23 2/25
3/5 3/14 5/13 5/19
6/13 8/5 9/1 13/22
16/9 18/21 20/11
21/18 25/20 30/19
31/3 31/10 31/18 32/6
36/2 38/21 40/21 43/1
47/18 48/6 48/9 52/19
54/14 56/12 60/17
61/17 71/19 73/20
75/2 99/24 109/13
111/18 112/10 113/1
116/3 116/16 117/13
122/1 123/18 128/11
129/11 130/24 131/2
131/6 131/14 131/18
132/22 133/10 133/16
133/24 135/13 136/9
138/18 138/24 139/7
139/16 139/25 140/16}
140/25 143/15 147/23
148/9 148/18 152/25
153/8 153/12 153/13
153/18 158/1 158/20
159/22 160/5 160/8
167/9 171/10 175/5
175/6 176/23 177/22
179/25 181/1 182/5
186/16 187/11 187/14
189/13 189/17
rightly [1] 194/5
rights [2] 52/14
12114
rise [3] 126/17 157/3
192/3
risk [11] 37/23 38/3
38/8 40/15 46/23 47/4
50/2 51/25 64/2 89/17
122/15
risks [3] 78/4 173/19
191/16
Rivers [1] 45/3
Rob [3] 141/16
150/18 150/22
Robert [1] 84/21
Robinson [27] 1/6
1/9 1/11 1/15 8/14
11/22 13/6 32/4 33/21
54/4 60/15 60/23
64/22 98/24 112/5
112/13 115/16 118/1
126/24 129/6 129/9
129/13 130/20 133/19}
133/21 134/17 197/2
Robinson's [1] 61/3
robust [2] 37/18
75/21
Rod [2] 13/4 68/17
Rodric [2] 57/18 78/8
role [8] 12/19 22/19
67/2 68/20 99/7
102/19 168/15 168/17
Rolfe [2] 36/14 38/10
room [2] 100/8
176/13
round [2] 69/20
70/17
routine [1] 93/16
Royal [4] 25/7 25/9
25/11 74/5
RPM [1] 94/2
rule [1] 185/22
ruled [2] 186/7
192/12
Rules [1] 31/16
run [5] 68/10 173/16
192/18 192/24 194/22}
run-up [1] 68/10
running [4] 89/18
185/11 194/17 195/11
rush [3] 70/15 132/1
136/6
Ss
safe [4] 40/24 41/6
41/9 42/16
safer [5] 38/1 40/16
40/18 40/20 42/15
safety [2] 19/3 20/23
said [83] 7/3 7/16
11/24 14/15 30/23
33/9 33/12 42/20 43/4,
53/2 61/25 62/9 62/18
62/19 63/2 63/14
63/20 65/17 68/5
72/11 78/23 79/1 79/5)
79/13 79/13 86/16
86/18 88/9 95/25
101/12 102/9 102/11
102/16 102/24 103/10)
103/11 104/13 104/16
104/21 104/21 104/22}
105/14 105/14 105/16}
105/16 106/17 107/20
112/14 112/18 113/25]
117/19 119/22 130/8
144/15 156/6 156/13
159/18 160/25 162/8
164/17 166/13 166/14
166/20 167/11 167/16}
170/12 172/23 173/4
180/11 181/14 183/15)
183/16 185/6 185/8
185/22 188/4 188/24
189/15 189/15 189/16
189/21 191/14 194/1
said/will [1] 164/17
same [21] 24/19 28/2
43/3 45/13 46/18 55/1
55/9 81/12 88/14
107/18 132/5 137/25
138/8 138/8 152/14
163/8 164/5 165/8
172/20 176/4 191/22
sample [1] 84/21
sat [1] 119/15
satisfied [2] 160/20
166/1
satisfy [1] 128/10
Saturday [7] 142/21
144/21 147/6 154/8
160/16 189/20 193/11
Saturdays [1] 172/2
save [1] 51/7
saw [5] 72/7 91/24
91/24 91/25 129/15
say [117] 4/23 5/1
5/20 7/6 9/11 14/3
14/13 17/11 18/9
18/13 19/9 19/21
19/25 20/3 22/3 22/19)
23/25 24/4 24/11
24/15 24/19 29/4
29/19 29/25 30/3
31/13 33/13 34/19
34/21 38/15 43/7
43/15 43/16 46/20
48/8 53/21 57/14
61/25 62/3 62/17 63/1
63/2 69/17 69/17 72/5I
74/3 74/25 81/17
81/19 81/25 82/21
86/8 86/11 86/22
88/24 89/5 91/22
94/21 95/1 102/13
103/13 104/1 106/17
107/2 107/6 107/9
109/11 110/4 110/9
111/16 111/20 111/25)
112/2 112/21 112/24
113/10 113/16 113/18)
113/25 114/12 115/2
115/13 117/9 124/19
128/21 129/3 135/3
135/8 136/15 142/11
146/17 147/5 147/7
147/21 149/24 150/25)
152/17 152/24 158/7
160/24 161/7 163/7
164/17 164/17 164/23)
177/6 177/21 178/12
181/4 184/17 188/24
189/9 189/23 190/8
193/7 194/23 195/16
saying [58] 7/21
13/18 22/9 32/20
39/15 43/11 44/2 44/5I
46/5 49/3 49/6 49/10
55/19 55/24 56/1 56/3}
56/17 56/21 56/25
57/2 57/5 57/13 61/7
61/7 62/7 63/7 63/12
85/13 86/5 87/18 93/2I
105/10 105/18 111/23)
123/8 124/8 124/8
141/19 147/2 147/4
152/8 154/13 154/17
154/22 155/8 156/18
156/21 156/23 157/8
160/8 160/12 160/21
160/22 164/1 170/11
170/17 175/18 184/7
(76) remind... - saying
Ss
says [33] 8/3 8/6
19/13 36/8 38/14
40/17 50/1 53/7 53/11
54/24 57/20 59/16
65/11 68/12 103/17
109/4 145/1 145/11
145/16 146/11 150/21
152/3 153/6 153/7
157/12 159/9 167/3
182/24 183/22 185/10
185/12 193/12 193/24
scales [1] 145/23
scandal [1] 45/4
scarcely [1] 173/21
scenes [3] 87/21
88/12 97/20
scheme [1] 123/24
scope [5] 22/5 50/19
58/23 60/10 66/12
scratching [1] 136/1
screen [7] 1/22 4/21
31/9 72/5 137/11
141/13 173/10
scroll [30] 4/21 12/13
15/9 31/12 49/24
50/23 54/8 54/8 75/4
85/6 86/7 99/14 118/4
141/15 143/25 153/19
154/13 163/5 168/13
169/6 169/11 175/13
175/17 180/21 184/1
184/20 185/12 187/22)
188/17 193/21
scrolling [3] 48/8
153/20 177/6
scrub [1] 174/6
seal [1] 36/20
searching [1] 27/20
second [40] 2/5 2/13
2/17 14/4 16/12 16/14
16/16 16/21 17/21
18/7 18/18 18/20
19/24 20/2 30/14
31/13 40/9 40/14 48/9
49/21 50/7 59/17 75/5
75/14 75/15 77/3
77/23 84/22 86/12
90/23 98/14 111/15
137/25 144/20 153/20}
159/21 169/9 171/20
178/9 187/7
secondly [4] 78/24
104/14 115/19 161/22)
section [4] 92/25
93/11 143/25 158/17
section 1.3 [1] 93/11
see [89] 1/3 1/4 5/11
7/24 13/15 13/24 21/1
28/16 32/11 37/11
38/6 41/24 46/18
47/14 50/5 51/1 52/20)
53/6 53/20 56/15 57/8
61/25 64/19 65/1 65/5)
69/4 70/10 71/25
73/14 80/16 84/17
85/7 86/12 98/21 99/9)
99/15 99/16 107/18
108/11 108/18 109/3
109/4 115/20 120/12
124/10 125/8 126/3
129/24 136/21 137/22)
141/15 143/7 143/9
143/16 143/19 144/11
148/4 152/5 153/4
153/7 153/17 153/21
154/1 155/6 156/3
156/17 163/5 163/24
164/12 164/14 164/22)
168/11 169/18 169/20)
170/10 172/4 172/4
174/20 175/13 175/15)
179/21 182/22 184/7
184/16 185/13 189/19)
193/11 193/19 193/21
seeing [1] 194/11
seek [12] 67/1
155/24 156/1 157/13
158/19 168/25 169/25
170/5 175/20 175/24
176/6 176/18
seeking [3] 26/2 59/3
151/17
seem [10] 16/14
31/24 32/1 33/23
39/14 40/8 40/11
135/20 170/18 192/14)
Seema [2] 74/14
124/15
seemed [3] 163/10
191/23 192/2
seems [10] 32/2
44/24 63/12 82/22
89/7 113/16 153/14
159/13 163/1 189/2
seen [13] 8/2 54/10
60/20 63/4 122/16
125/24 167/2 168/7
170/16 171/21 171/22!
186/12 192/2
seldom [1] 174/14
selected [1] 6/3
send [2] 31/22
185/11
senior [5] 65/6 101/4
192/5 192/12 194/11
sense [13] 9/5
111/11 111/13 146/18)
159/25 165/16 176/10
176/12 176/14 177/21
185/15 189/8 189/12
sensible [1] 185/19
sensitivity [1] 8/11
sent [7] 14/4 14/6
155/15 156/9 161/2
171/17 180/1
sentence [7] 8/24
44/1 50/4 50/6 50/7
82/21 183/10
sentiment [1] 47/25
separate [8] 64/22
104/19 118/14 119/6
146/20 157/1 186/8
192/13
separately [2] 152/18)
192/25
September [21]
31/11 33/3 68/8 69/9
69/12 69/19 69/21
71/17 71/18 71/24
78/7 78/17 80/1 83/14
83/22 84/15 86/23
91/2 98/24 132/3
133/22
sequence [1] 183/19
sequencing [1]
175/25
series [4] 5/23 34/25
39/1 155/11
serious [7] 76/6
146/5 160/12 177/9
177/13 186/25 192/10
seriously [1] 190/22
serve [1] 69/22
served [10] 58/10
83/21 93/23 94/19
127/17 127/17 128/2
128/16 132/2 132/6
Service [1] 101/4
services [2] 65/4
65/15
set [17] 12/15 23/12
55/14 57/24 75/15
76/10 78/3 97/14
106/25 117/3 129/7
145/8 145/17 155/11
164/25 169/22 184/10
sets [4] 68/25 112/8
144/7 185/9
setting [1] 96/8
settled [1] 178/15
several [4] 5/23 6/22
84/23 114/15
shall [1] 140/11
share [2] 184/21
194/14
shareholder [2]
139/6 157/17
she [2] 15/2 57/19
shenanigans [1]
43/22
shifted [1] 36/11
shock [2] 150/3
173/21
shop [1] 38/14
short [10] 16/24
64/17 65/22 97/16
98/9 98/19 136/19
177/4 179/19 180/7
short-term [1] 177/4
shorter [1] 130/19
shortfalls [3] 74/7
121/6 121/9
shorthand [1] 43/11
shortly [1] 130/25
should [90] 1/22 4/4
5/4 5/16 7/3 16/16
24/15 37/11 37/21
38/14 42/14 43/9
45/16 45/23 45/25
46/8 46/9 49/1 49/17
51/20 52/7 52/7 55/2
57/2 58/20 58/21 59/2
59/6 59/6 59/19 60/25)
61/4 61/8 61/8 61/22
61/23 62/12 62/23
63/23 66/20 66/25
67/1 67/8 67/13 68/24,
72/21 76/18 76/21
80/21 81/1 89/1 89/6
90/14 95/9 95/16
95/23 95/24 96/2 97/2,
97/7 100/10 104/22
124/3 128/4 135/8
139/21 139/25 151/4
155/21 157/21 162/10}
168/18 168/23 174/1
174/23 177/19 180/4
181/8 185/21 186/11
186/14 189/8 190/10
191/17 191/22 192/17]
192/18 194/3 194/7
194/22
shouldn't [6] 5/5
50/13 90/15 97/6 97/7
157/14
show [2] 53/25 92/15
showed [3] 8/24
166/21 180/10
shown [4] 80/16
128/14 168/4 168/6
shows [1] 77/7
shut [4] 47/6 48/2
50/8 52/1
shutting [1] 38/20
sic [1] 163/3
side [7] 22/4 122/25
170/16 171/22 171/23}
172/5 190/22
sided [2] 16/15 19/24
sides [1] 58/11
sift [1] 76/25
Sight [8] 16/12 16/17
16/21 18/20 20/2 75/5)
75/14 75/15
Sight's [3] 16/15
19/24 77/3
sighted [2] 132/15
133/1
sign [4] 156/11
signal [4] 113/2
113/7 114/5 114/8
signalled [7] 103/4
105/5 105/22 106/16
107/11 114/3 125/9
signalling [2] 102/21
102/23
signals [2] 105/1
105/8
signature [3] 2/3
2/11 138/17
signed [10] 49/1
73/14 99/17 99/22
105/23 106/5 143/9
143/16 156/6 156/16
significance [7] 8/20
8/25 9/2 9/4 10/1
50/11 77/9
significant [12] 7/9
7/12 7/13 7/15 7/18
7/19 19/19 26/20 49/1
95/12 124/19 155/14
silence [1] 110/2
silk [7] 2/25 22/2
38/23 38/24 39/18
47/15 139/1
Similarly [2] 66/23
127/23
Simmonds [1]
110/24
Simon [12] 3/16
64/23 64/25 65/6
68/15 68/18 68/21
78/8 78/9 84/19 95/7
110/22
Simon's [1] 86/8
simple [1] 100/3
simply [7] 22/19 94/9
109/24 157/9 158/14
1714/1 193/25
since [2] 85/2 85/21
single [3] 74/4 128/4
128/8
sinister [1] 185/24
sir [22] 1/3 1/4 64/12
64/15 64/19 98/15
98/17 98/21 112/7
115/21 124/22 129/7
133/18 133/20 136/21
179/14 179/21 195/19)
196/2 196/3 196/5
197/12
sit [1] 13/8
sitting [1] 5/6
situation [5] 38/23
113/11 115/16 134/7
134/18
six [3] 91/7 116/11
137/14
six years [1] 91/7
Skills [2] 36/16 38/8
skillset [2] 10/19
10/20
skip [3] 74/1 74/10
86/9
slighted [1] 149/22
slightly [7] 36/12
49/22 114/12 149/21
170/15 171/21 172/21
(77) says - slightly
s
slim [1] 160/7
slow [2] 153/10
176/22
slower [1] 14/6
Smith [12] 68/16
78/9 108/10 108/25
110/6 122/16 125/15
141/16 150/19 178/18)
178/19 180/13
Smith's [1] 192/24
Smiths [1] 111/1
so [195] 3/21 4/15
5/6 5/16 5/18 6/2 6/11
7/13 8/1 9/19 10/19
11/2 12/10 14/18
14/19 15/5 17/1 17/5
17/17 18/6 21/9 23/2
25/25 26/1 27/2 27/9
27/10 28/11 29/1
29/21 31/12 33/17
34/7 35/4 35/5 35/14
35/20 36/5 36/6 36/18
39/14 39/22 40/8
40/11 43/3 43/11 45/9)
45/21 46/7 46/18
47/24 48/16 49/3
49/23 51/1 51/2 52/17
54/2 55/8 56/11 62/8
63/25 67/17 68/2 68/5)
68/19 69/9 69/21
71/21 72/16 73/1 73/6
73/17 73/23 79/6
79/10 79/23 81/6
81/12 81/21 82/21
82/25 83/1 83/18 85/2
85/25 88/24 89/20
91/7 91/17 91/17
92/20 94/14 94/21
95/16 95/19 95/23
98/11 99/22 100/15
100/16 101/20 104/9
105/2 107/17 108/21
108/25 110/10 111/9
111/15 113/1 114/12
115/13 115/17 117/6
119/4 119/10 119/17
119/21 120/16 121/21
124/3 124/10 124/22
125/4 126/3 129/2
129/5 129/23 131/25
132/1 132/7 132/22
133/10 134/5 136/1
136/10 136/14 136/15)
138/10 139/10 140/10)
141/2 141/11 142/8
142/21 143/11 144/1
145/9 146/4 147/15
148/4 148/18 149/5
151/3 151/10 152/2
152/13 153/9 153/13
154/6 157/12 157/23
160/6 161/6 161/17
163/22 164/1 165/12
165/22 166/9 166/17
167/9 167/21 172/20
173/10 174/16 177/22)
177/23 178/15 180/25)
181/3 182/13 183/18
185/25 186/13 186/16)
187/1 187/9 187/11
187/20 188/13 191/23}
194/12 196/4
solicitor [10] 28/13
66/6 68/16 105/23
152/23 161/9 183/17
183/20 185/10 190/4
solicitor's [1] 97/15
solicitors [22] 6/8 8/8)
22/17 26/12 26/19
41/19 65/7 72/11
72/13 72/16 78/23
80/21 86/16 104/13
109/1 110/25 141/21
148/5 148/20 149/9
171/7 182/11
some [54] 6/11 6/20
11/3 11/24 16/8 18/5
23/6 24/6 25/7 27/1
27/25 28/2 28/5 30/22
34/11 36/21 37/14
37/25 40/3 40/5 40/5
45/1 46/5 51/7 53/4
58/2 60/5 63/18 73/12
75/8 89/11 93/14 98/5)
101/9 112/7 113/16
114/18 114/18 116/10)
127/2 131/7 132/19
132/24 154/24 155/13)
156/13 166/4 170/9
180/9 182/17 185/16
186/17 187/3 194/14
somebody [3] 74/20
123/15 146/3
somehow [2] 49/4
121/24
someone [2] 109/19
185/21
something [32] 6/25
8/2 8/3 9/10 22/10
22/21 23/10 24/17
30/12 30/23 32/15
35/1 45/11 45/24
50/18 70/4 85/14
90/23 92/21 92/22
98/13 108/23 113/9
119/21 126/11 129/5
133/8 146/9 169/5
174/23 190/2 195/1
sometimes [5] 35/5
109/17 117/14 136/5
160/2
somewhat [5] 34/15
38/17 43/6 44/2
134/22
soon [1] 24/21
sorry [33] 5/6 5/18
17/22 22/21 26/14
50/16 50/22 53/24
56/11 61/18 63/16
79/7 79/8 82/14 91/17I
92/8 96/15 110/24
118/16 120/7 124/22
129/23 130/18 137/20
150/13 150/23 176/22
180/23 180/25 184/2
187/7 187/13 188/20
sort [11] 22/4 32/10
89/16 104/8 113/17
132/25 135/16 154/21
169/5 185/16 194/14
sought [3] 28/8 90/21
191/18
sound [2] 44/16
136/4
sounding [1] 50/8
sounds [1] 181/15
source [17] 87/2 87/2
87/5 87/10 88/12
88/23 89/2 89/4 89/8
89/13 97/20 98/4
101/8 106/13 116/10
116/24 117/1
sources [2] 90/4
93/10
Sparrow [2] 8/9 8/11
speak [9] 19/18 21/3
38/10 73/7 73/10
80/20 80/21 88/14
171/11
speaking [2] 110/8
184/23
specialising [1]
139/4
specific [10] 10/11
33/16 42/12 71/11
77/22 83/2 122/10
122/11 122/12 122/12
specifically [7] 74/21
74/24 98/4 98/7
101/12 102/16 187/20
specifics [1] 53/12
speculate [1] 21/10
speed [4] 111/6
111/8 141/22 142/2
spent [1] 148/14
spin [1] 62/16
spoke [2] 130/4
173/13
spoken [5] 73/3 81/3
130/6 145/11 183/7
spotted [4] 18/18
18/24 183/19 183/21
square [2] 45/22
100/22
squeeze [1] 46/25
stage [21] 9/1 9/15
18/2 18/5 20/9 21/2
21/5 58/13 69/16 70/3)
70/7 95/4 120/6
127/16 127/17 130/10}
147/10 147/15 149/9
149/14 172/20
stages [1] 26/1
stand [3] 110/11
151/4 174/13
standard [1] 123/25
start [13] 1/19 2/22
23/24 64/25 69/5 72/2
115/15 129/14 137/9
138/22 182/18 187/6
189/12
started [2] 141/3
195/4
starter [1] 57/21
startling [1] 71/12
state [4] 34/5 34/6
77/7 83/13
stated [4] 74/19 94/2
155/25 159/10
statement [45] 1/19
2/6 2/7 2/13 2/17 2/17,
2/18 4/20 13/14 13/16)
23/19 23/23 24/25
25/4 25/15 28/11 29/2,
29/15 61/25 66/25
68/4 70/5 70/6 72/3
85/15 85/18 87/14
89/21 90/1 94/17
100/18 123/11 128/21
135/8 137/7 137/9
138/1 138/14 138/20
140/11 148/11 151/13}
166/23 182/13 195/24}
statements [21] 1/18
9/6 28/3 28/5 63/18
69/23 74/11 87/16
90/3 91/24 94/19 98/3
99/5 103/15 106/19
114/7 125/21 129/16
136/11 148/2 148/2
status [2] 12/2 67/16
stay [1] 186/2
steering [5] 12/23
13/8 13/11 13/18
36/10
Stein [6] 112/11
112/12 115/17 115/18}
117/22 197/6
step [10] 33/21 158/8
158/11 160/2 162/6
162/10 176/11 177/9
177/13 177/20
Stephanie [3] 142/4
142/6 143/10
Stephen [4] 85/4
136/25 137/5 197/14
stepping [1] 164/19
steps [1] 59/25
Steve [4] 84/24 84/25
89/10 101/4
still [15] 3/19 14/5
18/3 38/21 58/13
61/11 74/3 84/12
91/19 97/9 117/12
121/16 162/18 164/7
179/22
stomach [1] 162/5
stood [1] 170/7
stop [4] 40/12 55/25
115/15 153/20
stopped [3] 16/22
20/2 49/11
stopping [9] 26/24
38/22 60/17 68/22
78/16 82/18 86/15
102/13 162/12
story [5] 24/1 24/3
24/9 29/4 30/24
straight [1] 65/20
straightforwardly [1]
49/16
straining [1] 33/15
strategic [1] 13/6
strategy [2] 8/19
12/19
stream [1] 88/16
streams [1] 55/17
stretch [1] 27/7
strikes [3] 47/5 50/7
51/19
strong [18] 58/18
61/3 146/23 150/5
158/11 159/11 159/21
161/16 161/22 170/15)
172/5 173/1 175/23
175/24 177/5 189/1
190/9 191/2
strongly [4] 45/7
55/9 55/15 78/11
stuck [2] 155/12
159/5
studying [1] 192/5
stuff [1] 172/1
stump [1] 50/25
style [1] 43/16
sub [1] 65/16
subject [23] 2/20
38/11 45/9 51/21 60/9I
60/11 88/14 102/25
104/5 104/5 105/17
106/18 114/2 119/6
127/2 130/13 138/13
146/23 168/22 169/2
176/16 182/3 191/22
submission [2] 127/7I
127/10
submissions [11]
99/8 99/10 99/13
105/23 106/1 106/5
108/13 127/5 127/6
136/3 148/1
subpoints [1] 54/11
subpostmasters [6]
3/9 14/24 42/25 49/1
65/18 139/13
subpostmasters’ [1]
6/7
subsequent [2]
(78) slim - subsequent
Ss
subsequent... [2]
139/20 143/21
subsequently [7]
3/10 3/16 10/13 26/8
107/18 157/11 158/5
substance [7] 4/15
5/20 6/12 23/11 156/7
156/19 176/7
substantial [5] 10/21
43/10 43/24 55/3
155/19
substantially [3] 55/1
154/5 154/10
substantive [2] 13/21
191/21
subsuming [2] 55/10
55/15
subtle [2] 56/8 59/3
subtlety [4] 159/19
success [23] 64/5
151/15 152/19 154/18
158/18 158/22 158/23
159/7 159/15 159/24
160/3 160/7 160/10
160/13 170/12 171/8
172/6 187/25 188/3
188/13 188/23 189/1
191/15
successful [6] 120/2
120/10 120/19 121/14}
121/15 193/16
successively [1]
7/20
such [22] 22/17
22/20 22/24 25/1 30/6
30/7 35/13 42/7 58/4
74/22 74/24 77/25
79/21 87/7 94/15
134/2 150/5 154/23
162/2 162/6 177/9
186/25
sufficient [5] 37/7
51/13 104/7 104/7
117/9
suggest [5] 80/20
104/24 105/3 109/6
114/6
suggested [10]
10/16 19/14 29/20
45/17 72/21 77/23
108/5 128/4 169/14
173/22
suggesting [6] 7/17
33/6 34/4 49/16
126/13 180/8
suggestion [6] 19/16
29/23 48/19 108/7
110/13 195/9
suggestions [3]
63/18 182/6 194/8
suggests [2] 10/2
44/12
suits [1] 151/7
summarily [1] 15/7
summarise [2] 57/4
59/10
summarised [2] 24/2
171/17
summarises [2]
54/12 156/7
summarising [1]
46/4
summary [13] 6/9
23/19 23/21 31/23
58/24 59/4 78/19 88/4
88/8 94/10 94/15
189/14 189/15
Sunday [6] 150/7
150/17 152/13 154/8
160/16 189/20
Sundays [1] 172/2
supplemental [2]
132/3 176/21
support [5] 37/7
44/18 51/13 65/13
152/10
supported [1] 12/23
supporting [1] 28/23
supportive [3] 151/2
151/13 151/18
suppose [10] 10/7
21/2 43/1 50/5 50/9
52/25 63/1 83/10
88/18 164/14
supposed [1] 172/10
supposition [1]
122/13
suppress [1] 123/15
suppressed [1]
108/20
suppression [7]
109/12 109/15 109/18)
110/1 110/1 110/12
111/17
sure [36] 7/14 27/3
28/6 28/7 28/20 41/12
53/17 60/21 63/15
63/17 71/9 73/9 88/8
89/13 97/21 99/20
99/24 119/23 126/23
144/18 145/6 149/23
149/23 153/15 154/21
159/17 160/7 160/25
163/13 163/16 165/14)
1741/9 171/18 173/3
181/12 187/10
surely [5] 120/25
122/15 123/5 123/15
124/24
surface [1] 106/25
surprise [4] 34/15
69/15 71/9 92/1
surprised [6] 21/9
30/1 35/12 80/14
81/24 129/4
surprising [3] 173/21
185/25 191/3
surprisingly [1]
25/14
suspect [7] 18/3 18/4I
45/7 69/18 69/24
148/25 188/8
suspense [4] 37/3
45/19 51/9 100/23
suspicions [2]
178/17 180/12
suspiciously [1]
31/20
sustainable [2]
144/19 147/2
Swift [22] 35/24
36/11 36/16 36/21
38/4 38/24 44/13
46/20 48/11 49/6
49/18 53/13 53/21
55/11 57/24 59/1
59/21 60/2 60/12
60/16 60/18 61/13
Swift's [1] 61/1
sworn [4] 1/9 136/25
197/2 197/14
synthesised [1]
132/17
system [13] 3/11
27/22 65/4 69/8 74/9
75/10 75/22 77/6
94/14 100/7 120/21
139/15 143/22
T
tab [14] 17/15 31/7
143/2 144/24 150/9
161/3 162/18 173/6
175/8 176/20 178/8
183/24 187/5 193/5
tab-number [1] 178/8I
table [2] 149/4 187/9
tackle [1] 51/2
tactical [2] 80/25
88/19
tailored [1] 10/22
tainted [1] 119/11
take [22] 11/9 16/11
30/20 32/7 59/1 80/25
100/1 106/21 112/9
119/14 146/5 147/1
158/6 158/11 160/2
164/15 169/25 176/10}
177/19 177/12 179/14
190/17
taken [18] 12/9 27/22
41/14 42/9 58/22
59/19 60/1 61/22
61/23 62/12 72/8
78/14 102/2 121/23
150/5 151/21 157/14
180/19
takes [1] 151/19
taking [15] 5/3 9/14
9/24 29/18 33/21
49/17 97/1 97/3
100/12 101/11 102/15}
107/14 158/8 171/16
177/20
talk [3] 5/3 14/10
96/10
talked [1] 53/5
talking [8] 3/3 36/23
45/8 112/25 113/1
163/7 163/9 169/16
tampering [2] 48/19
74/20
tampering’ [1] 74/22
tandem [1] 192/18
task [1] 164/18
TCC [3] 184/11 185/2
185/2
team [32] 3/13 3/22
12/14 22/13 37/13
45/17 60/23 63/24
63/25 80/25 82/5
84/24 85/10 85/14
86/3 86/6 86/13 89/10
105/24 110/23 110/25}
115/7 126/20 131/6
133/6 143/18 149/20
152/23 165/10 187/16
191/5 191/9
technical [2] 85/3
89/8
Technology [2]
183/1 183/3
telepathic [1] 125/1
telephone [1] 72/8
tell [14] 1/14 4/19 5/6
15/5 29/5 41/10 47/24}
92/19 94/8 105/25
112/21 137/4 148/11
167/12
telling [2] 72/18
150/4
tempted [1] 195/16
ten [2] 14/19 179/14
tended [2] 16/11
70/16
tends [1] 34/23
tentacles [1] 27/7
term [3] 10/4 26/22
177/4
terminating [1] 15/8
termination [1] 192/9
terms [15] 23/16
25/21 27/10 27/11
69/2 70/7 72/9 72/21
74/8 130/24 131/18
161/22 169/2 192/1
194/18
terrible [1] 104/2
terribly [1] 61/18
territory [2] 157/5
190/18
terse [1] 43/21
test [5] 28/9 28/16
66/3 67/23 194/4
tested [1] 37/19
text [1] 93/15
than [39] 5/17 9/21
10/10 13/18 14/6
14/18 20/12 26/10
29/9 30/21 35/17
42/15 48/15 51/5 51/8)
63/10 65/21 69/14
71/11 77/6 83/4 87/13}
93/19 101/18 121/24
123/11 132/11 135/15)
146/9 148/20 154/7
159/14 159/19 164/4
172/24 174/19 178/23)
190/10 190/20
thank [78] 1/5 1/6
1/16 2/5 2/21 4/4 6/15)
12/13 13/21 17/16
17/16 19/5 20/7 20/18
21/11 21/13 23/14
28/16 28/25 31/13
35/23 36/3 43/3 49/24)
50/22 54/24 57/15
64/11 64/15 64/20
64/21 69/10 73/12
79/25 86/8 92/13
98/22 107/4 107/7
107/13 112/5 117/22
118/7 129/6 133/16
136/9 136/10 136/11
136/17 136/22 136/23)
137/6 137/22 138/20
140/15 141/2 142/10
145/16 150/16 153/17)
154/1 156/21 164/23
168/9 173/10 178/6
179/17 179/24 180/16)
187/4 195/14 195/16
195/22 195/23 196/2
196/3 196/6 196/7
thanks [4] 143/3
153/6 177/1 191/19
that [1234]
that I [1] 73/11
That'll [1] 72/4
that's [138] 2/8 3/15
3/18 4/8 4/10 5/19
6/11 10/3 13/1 13/8
17/16 19/5 20/11
22/22 23/10 24/7
28/12 29/11 32/21
35/3 40/2 41/2 41/2
41/12 41/17 43/1
43/11 45/5 47/9 47/18
49/24 49/25 54/2
54/22 55/7 56/12 57/3}
57/14 59/10 64/9
64/12 68/5 68/22 70/4I
72I7 73/17 79/18
80/15 83/10 85/4
86/10 88/18 90/23
93/8 98/12 99/24
100/16 105/19 106/23)
107/18 108/7 108/13
(79) subsequent... - that’s
T
that's... [76] 108/16
109/6 112/2 112/2
114/3 114/4 114/9
114/12 117/12 122/1
126/1 126/11 133/8
133/18 134/4 134/15
135/13 136/3 137/19
137/21 138/11 139/8
140/8 140/12 140/18
141/1 141/5 142/1
142/8 143/2 144/13
144/22 144/24 145/5
147/4 147/13 147/18
147/25 148/21 150/8
151/25 152/20 153/5
153/12 153/12 158/1
158/15 159/23 159/25
160/21 161/3 161/12
162/8 162/16 162/18
162/22 163/6 163/13
164/7 165/2 166/25
174/16 175/6 175/8
176/20 176/21 176/23}
181/1 181/13 182/18
183/19 183/24 187/11
187/17 188/8 193/19
theft [4] 37/5 37/7
51/11 51/13
their [27] 3/9 15/8
16/21 16/22 16/24
16/25 20/3 31/16
31/22 36/10 50/12
65/18 67/10 67/15
70/13 76/23 82/6
96/12 139/13 146/9
148/16 150/6 163/2
167/11 173/17 178/2
187/19
theirs [1] 165/22
them [55] 4/7 5/24
9/23 11/19 15/2 16/22
23/8 24/23 25/12
25/25 27/1 28/1 31/19
32/11 36/20 39/2
39/13 41/1 41/11
44/15 44/17 46/2 46/3)
46/8 46/9 46/11 46/15)
49/8 52/18 52/18 57/6)
57/9 57/11 61/22
65/21 67/19 92/18
92/19 99/21 99/22
99/22 99/23 111/6
111/8 140/2 150/3
157/10 158/14 158/16
162/11 164/13 173/14
174/24 182/9 184/19
themselves [1]
171/11
then [146] 2/5 3/10
3/19 4/18 5/1 5/3 5/8
7/21 8/16 8/22 11/13
11/21 14/13 14/20
14/25 15/9 19/6 19/11
19/16 19/18 19/20
23/23 24/4 24/10
24/19 25/5 25/11 26/3
26/4 26/6 26/17 27/23
29/18 30/3 32/3 34/25
35/2 38/10 38/15 42/9)
42/20 45/25 46/2 48/7
49/13 53/11 53/15
54/7 54/7 54/7 57/15
57/22 58/17 62/11
62/21 65/19 68/15
69/19 69/25 74/1 75/3
75/4 75/12 76/24
77/11 79/24 81/10
83/20 86/7 86/10
88/13 90/12 91/24
93/6 96/3 96/18 97/10
100/16 101/6 108/16
109/8 109/21 110/25
113/19 114/10 115/18)
117/11 117/13 124/22)
132/3 132/4 133/7
133/11 135/13 137/25)
140/15 141/11 143/20)
145/21 150/7 151/4
151/9 151/12 151/20
151/22 151/25 152/6
152/11 153/19 153/23)
154/1 154/24 155/5
155/10 155/15 155/23)
156/24 159/7 160/19
162/18 163/5 164/19
164/22 164/25 167/11
168/12 169/4 169/19
171/12 175/4 175/11
175/17 177/6 183/9
184/13 184/16 184/20)
185/8 185/12 187/4
187/22 189/3 189/5
189/9 193/19 193/21
theory [1] 186/16
there [214]
there'd [1] 39/25
there's [21] 8/16
26/17 26/18 36/4
40/15 62/24 70/10
89/3 96/7 96/8 96/9
108/16 113/10 146/20)
148/11 150/17 151/20)
151/25 156/5 159/19
185/9
thereafter [1] 11/12
thereby [1] 67/9
therefore [15] 10/6
23/21 27/16 31/20
36/19 41/9 84/3 84/9
97/2 119/14 125/4
155/19 174/2 175/3
193/5
these [54] 6/10 12/18
14/20 19/8 20/7 20/9
24/16 24/21 25/10
25/17 26/20 27/25
28/2 34/13 37/9 37/14
37/18 37/22 38/1 38/7
40/16 41/7 46/6 48/11
48/15 48/17 51/2
51/15 51/20 55/12
55/25 56/3 57/1 57/4
58/2 58/21 61/13
62/11 64/3 65/16 70/1
70/1 86/23 91/1 99/9
99/19 103/1 105/23
117/17 145/19 149/19I
159/17 187/23 192/10
they [133] 8/8 8/11
9/9 11/18 16/4 16/5
16/23 27/16 29/22
34/2 34/3 37/21 39/15
40/24 41/8 42/11
45/11 49/7 49/9 49/11
50/13 51/1 51/17
55/25 56/1 56/20
56/22 61/23 62/2
62/12 62/13 62/22
68/2 72/21 72/24
78/25 80/25 83/16
85/16 86/15 87/1 87/5
96/14 96/15 99/11
99/14 102/7 102/7
104/19 109/6 109/9
109/11 111/9 111/16
111/18 111/22 111/23
4112/1 121/14 122/3
122/6 122/7 126/23
138/16 140/6 141/21
141/23 141/23 141/25I
144/18 144/19 145/8
146/9 146/9 149/5
149/21 149/23 150/4
150/25 156/23 156/24
157/8 157/21 157/24
157/24 158/1 158/2
158/4 158/9 158/13
158/15 159/25 160/1
160/4 161/21 162/16
163/1 163/11 164/1
164/1 165/14 165/14
165/15 166/6 16/8
166/10 166/16 166/17I
166/17 166/20 166/21
168/24 169/5 173/14
173/18 173/19 173/22
174/24 176/14 177/2
17718 177/16 177/18
177/18 177/19 178/1
178/2 178/2 185/1
188/2 192/16 192/18
192/23
they'd [3] 27/10
4111/6 111/7
they'll [1] 165/9
they're [11] 41/9
69/11 70/13 74/2
99/16 99/16 112/6
154/2 158/10 164/2
195/14
thing [9] 25/1 34/21
38/21 47/19 49/7
69/17 114/5 158/7
158/9
things [46] 7/16 7/21
9/22 16/12 22/4 22/20)
24/6 33/23 33/24
33/25 34/2 39/10
39/18 45/13 46/7
47/16 57/1 63/7 69/3
79/13 79/14 95/13
98/10 101/12 102/11
102/16 102/24 104/3
104/21 104/22 105/16}
106/17 109/17 111/25}
112/18 113/24 117/18
124/6 132/20 135/7
136/5 136/6 153/11
188/4 194/12 195/3
think [198]
thinking [10] 10/9
11/22 22/9 25/20 62/6}
62/6 108/3 117/17
133/25 190/21
thinks [2] 157/20
174/22
third [10] 8/6 32/3
41/14 57/22 58/3
77/24 85/13 101/6
160/9 175/9
thirdly [1] 104/16
this [309]
thoroughly [1] 53/22
those [61] 2/20 4/16
5/10 5/14 5/16 10/9
11/14 11/16 11/16
13/13 16/4 16/20
20/19 24/8 26/23 27/9
29/14 33/25 39/5
39/10 41/17 45/2
54/11 58/2 60/5 62/21
63/7 63/12 65/14
66/23 67/14 67/18
67/23 76/25 79/10
79/16 80/12 81/18
81/19 89/3 104/18
117/18 121/15 121/17
122/2 122/3 124/6
124/24 127/11 128/3
131/3 133/16 138/13
140/13 143/1 149/7
155/1 159/18 162/14
172/19 195/19
though [7] 9/10 16/5
49/8 57/11 71/12
146/8 168/5
thought [25] 5/7 9/25
22/9 23/10 32/12
32/16 55/4 72/8 88/13)
91/17 114/17 128/24
130/11 130/21 144/19}
160/6 165/15 165/15
165/16 167/14 170/14}
173/14 173/22 174/24
176/15
thousands [1] 42/24
three [21] 5/14 5/16
33/23 33/24 35/2
37/11 39/2 41/7 45/3
46/6 47/16 51/2 77/18
87/18 99/17 100/1
102/2 104/11 104/19
106/10 112/8
Three Rivers [1] 45/3}
three years [1] 5/16
through [10] 36/16
43/12 46/21 56/15
58/22 65/15 92/14
127/25 172/1 172/15
throughout [6] 7/19
8/9 93/15 130/5
130/19 190/6
thrust [1] 96/24
thus [1] 24/23
Tim [28] 36/13 36/21
37/11 37/16 37/17
37/22 38/5 38/6 38/18
38/20 39/9 40/1 40/12)
40/14 43/7 44/3 44/12
44/16 45/6 45/21 46/9)
47/4 47/6 51/24 52/1
59/18 168/14 168/23
time [48] 3/2 4/1 4/2
7/24 8/3 10/9 14/9
21/8 21/14 28/20
29/17 30/24 34/2 34/5I
34/6 34/25 37/16
37/17 38/24 48/24
52/20 55/9 71/3 75/23
85/1 87/6 88/3 89/16
90/24 108/25 126/12
132/8 132/9 133/15
137/17 142/21 146/19)
148/14 148/16 151/7
154/7 157/9 167/19
177/21 183/23 187/14I
190/5 190/5
time-barred [1] 48/24I
timed [7] 137/15
137/15 137/23 138/5
138/6 138/10 142/10
times [5] 7/22 98/12
104/11 114/15 139/3
timetable [3] 37/16
100/8 101/19
timing [1] 138/9
tiny [1] 55/23
title [4] 91/10
today [5] 1/16 137/8
151/1 151/11 193/15
together [6] 120/7
159/25 192/17 194/17)
194/22 195/12
told [29] 5/22 15/3
22/21 26/8 26/24
27/15 27/18 28/9
28/13 28/17 30/5 35/8
40/4 46/10 56/25 71/2)
(80) that's... - told
T
103/8 104/3 128/5
133/3 150/1 171/6
188/20 193/3
Tom [7] 12/17 13/4
150/18 152/7 161/9
168/16 168/23
tomorrow [2] 196/4
196/5
tone [1] 49/22
Tony [11] 8/14 8/18
13/6 36/9 46/19 54/4
141/20 142/2 142/3
152/4 173/12
Tony's [1] 185/13
too [6] 30/20 50/4
55/8 84/6 109/16
110/4
took [12] 2/25 6/16
59/4 62/19 78/7 80/19
93/22 100/9 139/1
152/14 178/2 192/20
top [13] 20/13 20/19
46/17 49/24 61/2 85/7
99/15 138/4 162/21
163/14 164/22 187/13}
193/21
topic [6] 57/15 59/13
64/12 64/22 127/2
187/4
Torstein [3] 89/9
97/25 100/11
totally [1] 146/14
Towards [1] 25/24
TP [1] 50/8
traffic [1] 170/19
trammelled [1]
165/22
transaction [5] 6/24
15/25 16/3 16/6 19/14}
transactions [1]
52/13
transcript [2] 129/19
179/8
transcripts [3]
108/22 147/24 185/4
transparently [1]
50/15
treated [3] 78/24
86/17 104/14
trespass [1] 190/17
trespassed [2] 157/5
172/11
trial [72] 11/13 11/14
20/6 24/5 25/6 35/20
70/15 70/22 73/18
77/4 77/13 77/16 78/6
78/13 78/21 81/2 92/3
92/5 92/21 99/11
100/20 101/13 101/14}
101/17 101/19 101/23}
told... [13] 72/9 92/18
173/14 174/24 178/14)
104/6 105/19 108/13
111/22 112/19 113/4
120/5 120/15 123/2
125/20 125/20 126/2
126/6 129/22 131/21
132/1 132/4 134/10
135/4 140/21 141/3
155/14 157/1 157/4
157/7 158/4 159/5
172/19 180/19 181/8
190/11 190/17 191/6
193/17
trials [10] 11/14
11/17 104/20 105/14
155/11 157/6 158/2
172/12 175/25 176/5
trivial [2] 127/20
146/13
true [20] 2/13 2/18
102/4 102/7 103/23
104/1 104/18 138/14
190/5
trust [2] 26/20
148/10
trusting [4] 26/11
26/17 26/18 26/19
truth [2] 84/8 129/4
try [4] 7/4 43/18
130/25 171/25
trying [20] 7/14 9/11
9/17 10/10 50/17
56/11 59/12 110/9
111/8 112/2 112/21
112/21 112/24 113/2
113/7 113/9 113/10
Tuesday [1] 1/1
turn [26] 2/10 4/18
4/19 29/2 35/24 36/3
64/22 66/7 68/6 89/18
92/9 92/24 99/7 99/9
108/9 140/15 141/14
143/24 145/14 148/12)
150/7 159/7 173/5
177/22 178/6 187/4
turned [1] 7/18
turning [1] 47/9
turns [2] 145/21
163/14
two [27] 1/17 9/19
14/5 18/20 26/13 34/1
34/16 37/19 39/25
46/6 46/11 69/3 69/14
71/1 75/14 100/10
137/12 142/22 149/7
153/10 153/18 157/1
191/24 192/15 194/17,
102/12 102/17 102/18)
108/19 108/22 111/19)
124/12 125/15 125/16)
166/17 166/18 172/16)
26/6 26/9 28/17 32/21
41/12 49/5 56/23 83/8
147/25 153/12 159/25)
113/14 115/20 121/22
194/21 195/11
two years [2] 34/16
71/1
typically [1] 178/14
U
ultimate [2] 164/20
167/6
ultimately [1] 178/3
umbrella [2] 47/1
52/3
unable [1] 116/18
unaffected [2]
162/14 166/9
unaware [1] 131/10
unbelievable [1]
160/23
uncertain [1] 72/21
uncomfortable [1]
25/22
uncontroversial [2]
100/4 109/20
uncover [1] 50/12
under [28] 32/7 32/8
32/9 37/17 46/25
51/22 52/2 58/20
58/22 60/6 61/9 66/3
66/6 67/19 109/5
109/8 121/4 123/23
127/8 140/24 144/12
154/2 155/8 156/22
157/12 158/10 161/21
164/25
underlying [6] 25/18
80/17 105/7 131/1
132/15 132/18
undermine [1] 87/15
undermined [6]
66/20 76/5 76/14
76/18 79/15 120/25
undermines [1]
66/16
understand [36] 4/17
15/23 19/12 26/23
30/6 31/24 39/17
40/18 54/11 58/12
60/4 61/6 62/1 62/3
62/5 62/8 63/3 63/6
68/19 110/9 110/10
113/8 116/3 116/6
123/12 125/18 140/13
140/14 145/24 153/24)
162/13 163/24 164/1
164/5 166/5 166/7
understandable [2]
173/18 194/13
understandably [1]
101/7
understanding [9]
8/9 29/17 55/21 57/4
typo [1] 5/9
UKGI [1] 168/17
uncovering [1] 47/17
undermining [1] 64/4
62/9 83/13 100/6
131/15 131/17
understatement [2]
24/17 95/2
84/16 106/23 116/9
130/11 165/12
49/4 49/12 58/20
58/25 59/6 59/7 60/4
undertaking [1]
45/12
undertook [1] 12/6
unfair [7] 164/13
173/20 174/2 174/6
174/7 186/13 194/19
unfairness [2]
173/22 174/3
unfortunate [1] 98/6
unfortunately [2]
75/23 194/13
unimpressed [1]
174/22
unintentionally [2]
24/24 25/3
unique [1] 89/11
unknown [1] 37/20
unless [8] 31/18
36/17 105/12 165/25
188/25
unlikely [2] 101/22
188/12
unnecessarily [1]
31/19
unpick [1] 127/14
unpleasant [4] 38/17
43/6 44/2 122/23
unprivileged [2] 47/5
50/3
unreal [1] 114/13
unreliability [1] 73/5
unreliable [15] 78/24
83/9 86/17 86/18
87/24 87/25 88/13
90/20 91/3 91/4
104/14 104/24 109/11
109/25 126/1
unrevealed [1] 92/5
unsafe [4] 15/19
20/16 68/1 119/1
unsatisfactory [1]
128/20
unsupported [1]
134/20
unsurprising [1]
186/3
until [13] 35/20 52/20
64/13 72/7 75/11 94/6
98/15 112/9 136/14
139/10 156/3 179/15
196/9
untrammelled [3]
understood [6] 40/20
undertaken [8] 48/12
Underwood [1] 57/19
177/16 184/11 186/25)
165/8 165/13 166/10
unusual [1] 134/22
up [70] 1/22 4/19
4/21 29/2 32/16 35/8
35/20 39/12 41/20
43/4 48/8 50/25 52/19)
63/7 65/21 68/10 72/4I
78/3 85/6 86/7 89/7
89/22 95/9 95/12 99/9
101/18 106/2 106/3
108/23 110/2 111/6
111/8 111/23 113/14
113/16 113/19 118/3
118/4 132/1 136/6
141/13 141/22 141/22)
142/2 146/16 146/19
148/8 148/12 151/4
152/1 152/6 155/11
158/1 159/25 165/3
169/11 173/9 174/13
175/8 177/6 183/7
184/10 185/1 186/1
187/9 187/22 188/17
189/8 189/9 193/19
up/had [1] 183/7
updated [3] 153/7
173/4 175/9
upfront [1] 123/10
upon [26] 7/11 30/15
34/24 66/5 66/25 67/5
78/25 80/17 88/23
90/11 90/21 91/21
93/9 93/17 104/15
118/10 121/14 122/4
123/13 127/19 146/22!
147/16 166/15 172/11
172/16 192/12
upshot [2] 72/9 82/1
upside [1] 47/9
urgency [1] 155/1
urgent [1] 186/3
urgently [1] 185/21
us [42] 1/3 1/4 1/14
1/17 4/19 7/23 8/8
29/5 31/19 36/19
42/16 43/5 46/3 51/20
51/21 53/8 54/22
58/14 64/19 83/23
84/13 89/19 98/21
103/24 116/3 116/6
136/21 137/4 137/8
147/14 148/11 156/18)
163/8 173/2 173/6
179/11 179/21 183/6
184/14 185/16 186/12)
194/17
use [17] 6/24 44/9
52/14 54/19 65/2
65/12 70/12 89/12
90/16 91/4 97/19
98/25 111/20 124/25
133/5 145/23 189/24
used [6] 8/23 70/13
82/25 94/18 106/12
(81) told... - used
U
used... [1] 125/14
useful [2] 52/12
89/19
uses [2] 54/18
146/24
using [5] 26/21 78/5
114/15 116/7 141/12
usually [2] 32/10
43/18
Vv
value [3] 27/22 51/2
87/15
van [1] 13/2
various [2] 27/21
195/25
Vennells [2] 7/25
13/2
versa [2] 163/12
165/8
versus [1] 164/4
very [82] 1/5 1/18
2/21 7/18 7/22 8/9
13/16 17/2 18/1 18/2
21/5 21/8 22/22 25/22
25/25 30/1 30/24
34/24 52/11 58/18
64/21 69/25 70/18
70/23 71/14 72/22
80/14 81/24 85/11
88/14 89/19 91/10
91/19 109/17 111/3
111/4 112/5 115/22
118/7 118/7 118/7
119/13 122/22 122/22)
123/9 124/19 126/7
127/15 127/17 129/3
129/6 136/9 136/11
136/17 136/22 137/6
138/20 139/10 146/2
153/6 155/14 156/15
158/11 160/7 170/18
171/13 171/16 173/18
173/20 174/22 177/5
179/24 184/9 184/12
186/24 191/19 192/10
192/14 194/8 195/14
195/22 196/2
viable [1] 78/15
vice [2] 163/12 165/8
view [79] 5/24 12/9
16/12 16/20 37/9
38/21 41/14 47/2 47/7
59/4 85/9 86/8 94/22
100/9 103/3 103/9
103/19 104/6 105/1
105/21 106/16 106/21
106/23 107/8 108/7
116/25 125/13 125/25}
150/5 151/20 151/22
152/14 152/19 155/9
155/23 155/25 159/21
160/14 160/15 161/41
162/3 163/2 163/11
164/2 164/19 165/7
165/13 165/18 165/22)
166/10 166/12 167/9
170/14 170/18 170/24}
175/19 176/15 177/4
177/11 179/4 179/6
180/14 180/15 181/13}
181/13 181/14 181/18)
186/10 186/11 187/19)
187/25 188/6 188/15
191/5 191/17 191/20
192/3 192/12 194/13
viewed [1] 115/24
views [9] 54/25 63/11
162/14 162/14 170/20)
171/4 171/8 178/4
184/21
Vitriol [4] 144/12
volume [1] 150/8
wait [1] 173/9
waive [1] 116/14
waived [3] 85/12
85/19 86/2
waiving [1] 38/8
walks [1] 143/19
want [24] 8/4 14/21
17/13 30/21 32/11
39/20 40/3 44/16 49/4
49/5 49/10 83/6 87/8
92/19 107/3 108/22
115/16 118/5 141/24
159/1 165/24 172/4
182/22 185/11
wanted [21] 16/23
19/2 25/8 28/20 28/21
39/9 39/12 39/18 40/4
43/19 90/13 95/5
100/3 131/13 132/20
132/22 163/11 165/14)
166/10 175/2 175/3
wanting [2] 44/13
44/15
warned [2] 183/5
185/19
warning [1] 113/17
wary [1] 68/24
was [569]
wasn't [35] 4/2 11/22
18/4 18/12 19/16
22/19 22/20 28/16
30/18 42/20 44/12
50/9 50/10 57/13 59/8
82/7 82/9 83/3 91/16
97/13 98/7 112/25
116/8 116/13 117/18
135/24 147/1 170/8
176/14 180/14 189/13)
189/15 190/5 191/25
193/3
waste [2] 87/6 88/3
wasteful [1] 37/20
water [3] 126/3 126/6
186/23
watered [1] 190/4
watering [1] 62/25
Watts [4] 111/4
way [29] 22/22 43/11
44/11 45/22 46/12
48/3 52/6 52/17 55/18
60/6 65/10 67/19 68/5)
71/10 85/23 88/18
109/17 110/10 112/3
112/3 113/6 114/17
119/12 130/24 131/16
135/3 153/17 172/20
190/24
ways [3] 109/7
117/18 177/4
WBD [12] 27/4 30/14
30/17 95/19 97/1 97/2
97/5 97/8 97/10 106/1
111/3 127/25
WBD's [2] 33/6 97/13
WBON0000169 [1]
187/5
WBON0000505 [1]
31/4
WBON0001768 [1]
150/8
we [333]
we'd [2] 82/13 82/14
we'll [11] 136/14
137/22 140/19 141/15}
153/4 153/21 171/20
175/13 183/16 184/16}
196/4
we're [13] 3/2 17/22
35/25 42/12 46/11
65/8 69/9 114/13
146/16 150/16 158/24
166/4 187/11
we've [12] 42/13
54/16 54/22 71/21
87/19 92/15 92/22
145/5 161/12 161/18
177/7 179/8
weldo [1] 16/16
we/should [1] 16/16
webpage [2] 8/17
68/16
Wechsler [1] 13/1
Wednesday [1]
178/13
week [4] 14/6 17/5
53/8 178/14
weekend [3] 150/23
169/3 171/3
weeks [2] 36/6
139/11
weight [1] 49/2
welcome [2] 48/16
107/5
well [67] 10/2 10/8
13/4 32/20 33/25 34/2I
42/10 46/5 50/5 68/2
70/19 70/20 79/5 88/4,
95/8 96/4 98/1 98/2
105/21 111/3 111/4
113/9 113/19 113/21
120/19 121/11 122/2
122/25 123/14 124/17}
124/22 127/7 128/24
128/25 135/12 136/12
137/11 144/17 146/2
146/25 148/25 149/23}
149/24 153/6 158/23
159/6 159/16 160/2
165/14 167/14 169/9
169/9 171/9 172/23
173/17 177/25 178/24
179/6 180/15 182/15
183/21 186/24 189/14}
190/13 192/4 192/22
193/23
went [6] 18/10 18/13
88/5 177/25 179/7
184/14
were [227]
weren't [5] 27/5
56/17 57/5 126/23
127/18
what [187] 7/5 9/12
16/1 16/3 16/19 16/20}
17/12 18/19 19/13
21/3 26/8 26/23 27/10
27/10 27/11 27/13
27/14 28/8 28/9 28/13)
28/17 28/21 28/23
30/5 33/12 34/10
34/21 35/5 35/7 35/12,
39/24 40/2 40/4 41/2
41/18 41/24 42/15
42/19 43/4 43/23
45/12 45/15 48/9
48/13 50/5 51/24 53/2)
53/7 57/8 57/14 59/16
61/6 61/17 62/5 62/6
62/17 62/18 62/19
63/2 63/3 63/12 63/20
65/22 68/5 69/2 71/22
78/17 79/18 81/17
81/17 81/22 83/19
84/13 85/21 88/2 88/2
88/5 88/8 90/24 91/1
92/18 95/23 96/15
96/16 97/21 102/8
102/21 103/10 105/6
105/6 105/10 105/14
105/21 106/8 107/8
107/10 107/20 109/3
109/13 109/14 109/18
109/21 110/14 111/18}
111/22 112/2 112/24
113/1 113/6 113/17
113/19 113/21 113/21
114/3 114/19 115/20
117/3 117/19 119/11
121/2 121/3 121/17
121/18 123/7 123/20
124/1 125/19 125/24
126/1 127/6 127/14
128/5 131/11 132/10
132/23 135/17 135/21
143/4 145/12 147/4
151/3 154/22 156/23
157/7 158/15 158/16
159/1 159/18 159/23
163/7 163/10 164/17
164/22 165/14 166/12)
166/14 166/15 166/18)
166/20 166/21 166/21
167/3 167/10 167/14
167/16 170/10 171/6
172/4 172/8 176/14
177/11 177/25 178/3
178/22 178/24 180/11
180/19 181/16 183/15}
184/9 185/8 188/23
189/15 189/21 190/1
191/6 192/2
what's [15] 9/3 42/4
42/13 42/22 43/13
62/9 63/14 102/8
102/9 114/16 125/9
125/9 165/3 167/7
180/23
whatever [1] 183/16
whatsoever [1]
141/10
when [47] 4/2 7/17
8/19 10/25 11/24 13/5I
13/17 15/2 15/11 18/7)
24/13 25/12 25/24
26/1 26/8 27/9 30/1
31/25 34/10 34/22
41/20 42/11 69/12
93/20 96/16 111/10
118/18 126/20 127/11
128/2 128/16 129/4
135/6 136/5 136/14
137/22 149/24 152/24)
162/12 170/20 172/7
188/21 188/22 189/17)
189/20 193/3 194/12
whenever [1] 130/9
where [40] 14/22
19/14 28/5 37/5 38/9
45/21 51/11 57/25
66/23 67/21 67/21
67/23 70/11 71/8 74/6I
87/4 89/3 89/12 90/8
90/21 93/16 94/1 96/9I
97/24 98/3 98/5 98/8
98/10 99/14 102/13
104/2 110/11 115/16
146/12 146/14 157/12)
162/22 164/14 169/7
17713
whereas [2] 83/8
164/19
whether [68] 7/12 9/9)
12/1 15/5 15/18 18/19}
(82) used... - whether
Ww
whether... [62] 19/2
19/24 20/2 20/14
20/15 20/22 21/2 27/8
28/17 29/22 32/21
33/12 34/1 41/20 46/8
46/9 47/18 48/10
52/25 59/19 59/25
60/24 64/12 68/1 81/3
81/8 96/11 96/20
99/20 110/19 117/1
118/9 118/25 121/17
121/19 122/6 122/9
122/11 124/13 126/5
128/22 128/25 129/15}
130/11 130/21 149/7
149/11 149/14 149/21
1651/1 151/18 151/19
152/14 166/8 168/25
172/9 172/11 182/1
183/7 186/10 192/7
195/5
which [169] 1/18 2/6
2/6 4/1 4/20 5/25 6/20)
6/25 8/3 9/23 10/22
11/6 11/25 12/7 12/8
12/23 13/15 13/22
14/23 14/24 16/17
19/12 20/7 25/1 29/4
29/15 30/22 30/23
31/23 32/2 32/3 32/9
33/5 33/19 35/21 40/5)
40/6 41/18 43/5 44/1
44/24 45/1 46/16
48/22 50/9 53/20 55/4
56/8 56/14 59/9 59/24,
62/20 66/3 66/5 66/9
66/16 67/7 68/25 70/6
70/7 70/11 70/16 72/4
74/2 75/8 75/10 75/14,
76/5 76/14 76/21
76/22 76/25 79/14
80/2 80/4 80/13 80/17,
81/9 82/25 85/13
85/14 85/23 86/1 87/4
89/18 91/19 91/21
92/9 92/12 92/15
92/16 93/22 97/22
98/13 99/4 103/11
103/21 105/13 105/17)
106/14 107/12 107/25)
109/4 113/4 118/12
118/14 121/6 121/7
121/9 121/13 121/14
121/22 123/13 123/22)
123/24 124/3 124/4
126/16 127/6 133/4
133/22 133/23 133/25)
134/2 134/19 134/20
134/24 137/13 137/14}
137/25 140/19 141/12)
146/11 146/22 148/15)
151/7 153/15 154/25
157/7 158/17 163/17
167/4 167/6 168/17
168/19 169/13 169/14)
171/3 171/18 172/12
173/3 173/19 173/20
173/25 174/8 179/2
180/10 180/20 181/9
182/6 183/10 185/20
186/14 187/18 193/6
194/13 194/15 194/17)
196/1
While [3] 58/4 58/9
118/3
whilst [1] 175/21
who [42] 3/25 8/15
26/24 32/25 39/17
40/18 40/20 66/7
67/18 74/6 83/9 88/1
88/17 89/25 90/9 91/9
94/14 95/3 95/20
97/16 97/17 105/23
106/5 108/12 109/10
117/23 120/22 122/17)
122/19 131/3 131/3
131/6 131/18 141/16
148/15 148/24 154/1
155/16 162/7 162/9
168/11 172/19
who's [1] 146/3
whoever [1] 39/12
whole [2] 25/20
95/22
wholly [2] 134/6
134/20
whom [8] 6/1 65/25
67/12 72/15 78/25
104/15 178/25 178/25)
whose [2] 42/16
148/10
why [51] 8/4 8/22
15/8 15/12 15/21 16/8
17/1 19/20 31/24
31/25 32/12 36/21
37/11 39/25 41/17
62/3 63/17 63/18
66/11 68/24 71/1 73/1
76/2 79/10 81/6 83/23)
86/13 102/4 103/6
103/13 103/13 104/25)
105/15 105/19 106/11
109/14 113/18 116/8
116/22 118/19 119/3
127/10 128/4 134/12
135/7 136/1 136/2
156/5 162/16 181/13
189/4
wide [1] 8/16
wider [2] 9/23 82/7
will [64] 1/22 4/21
7/24 8/18 12/14 12/18
12/19 12/22 12/23
13/7 14/8 24/25 37/13
37/15 37/17 38/22
39/5 40/25 41/8 45/14
46/1 46/22 46/23
49/12 50/25 51/7 65/5
67/25 68/15 68/17
74/19 85/12 85/22
85/24 87/4 87/5 87/5
87/15 88/3 112/8
136/16 141/13 141/23
151/5 151/23 155/10
155/15 155/18 155/18}
155/22 156/14 162/24
163/1 163/20 163/25
164/15 164/17 164/20
171/11 176/3 176/13
180/9 193/13 194/8
Williams [5] 57/19
68/17 78/9 133/20
197/12
willing [2] 90/7 90/9
win [4] 158/10 159/2
173/14 174/24
wish [7] 63/1 82/16
82/17 137/17 138/7
158/9 162/13
wished [1] 106/20
wishes [1] 108/17
within [19] 17/5
24/18 29/7 30/11
33/23 50/19 50/19
57/6 61/24 63/8 98/3
101/19 105/23 106/5
106/12 116/8 152/3
171/14 176/15
without [17] 35/7
38/8 97/1 97/5 115/19
116/18 131/1 135/8
147/13 147/22 147/23
148/1 155/12 159/16
163/11 185/11 186/11
WITN10390100 [1]
53/9
WITN10500105 [1]
68/6
WITN10500200 [1]
2/8
WITN10640100 [1]
137/12
WITN10650100 [1]
166/25
WITN10650106 [4]
141/12 161/3 162/18
173/7
WITN10650108 [1]
176/20
WITN10650109 [1]
178/7
WITN10650110 [1]
180/20
WITN10650117 [1]
183/24
WITN10650137 [1]
193/6
witness [117] 1/18
1/19 2/5 2/7 2/13 2/17
2/17 2/18 4/19 13/14
13/16 23/19 23/23
25/15 28/3 28/5 28/11
29/2 29/15 52/17
61/25 63/18 66/4
66/18 66/20 66/24
68/4 69/23 70/4 70/6
72/3 72/10 72/22
74/11 76/8 76/15
76/17 77/12 77/15
78/2 78/5 78/12 78/15)
78/20 78/24 78/25
79/11 79/15 80/9
81/14 81/23 83/9
83/21 83/24 84/1
85/13 85/15 85/17
86/14 86/17 87/7 87/8
87/10 87/14 87/15
87/24 88/13 88/21
89/20 90/1 90/3 90/20
91/3 91/4 91/9 91/24
92/10 92/18 93/24
94/17 94/19 98/3 99/1
99/2 99/5 102/5
103/22 104/2 104/9
104/14 104/15 104/24}
109/25 113/5 113/23
115/5 119/12 123/11
126/1 126/22 128/20
129/16 133/24 134/20}
135/8 136/10 137/6
137/9 138/1 138/14
138/20 140/11 148/1
148/11 166/23 182/13}
195/24
witness's [1] 96/20
witnesses [11] 87/3
87/4 87/13 88/17
88/23 92/16 98/2
100/9 101/18 174/7
176/4
Womble [16] 29/9
30/9 32/17 36/7 73/14
84/18 91/22 96/6
96/11 100/21 110/23
110/24 150/18 150/19
151/23 152/23
Wombles [1] 72/18
won't [2] 41/10
164/24
wonder [1] 64/12
wont [1] 112/3
word [5] 10/2 189/11
189/14 189/23 189/24,
Worden [20] 93/4
93/8 93/12 93/16 94/2,
94/6 94/11 94/17 95/5
95/10 95/15 95/19
96/2 96/25 97/5 97/22,
97/25 131/8 131/12
131/12
Worden's [3] 84/21
96/21 97/13
words [18] 7/14 9/24
30/19 31/1 82/25
89/20 107/23 110/5
4117/1 121/7 125/14
130/12 146/7 146/24
159/17 160/25 189/22!
195/23
work [49] 3/3 3/4 3/5
12/15 14/5 16/24 20/3)
32/21 35/1 35/1 37/23
38/14 40/12 40/15
41/7 41/13 46/24
46/25 47/5 50/3 51/18)
51/21 51/24 52/2 52/7I
52/18 55/16 55/20
57/25 58/2 58/19
58/22 58/25 59/6
59/24 60/3 61/8 62/4
63/23 64/2 68/20
70/18 85/10 86/6
132/16 132/25 133/2
133/11 172/3
workable [1] 152/5
workaholic [1]
167/23
worked [1] 131/17
working [4] 16/8
16/10 53/6 171/25
workstreams [1]
55/11
world [4] 42/25 47/9
114/17 157/9
worry [2] 98/10 120/9)
worse [1] 92/3
would [269]
wouldn't [35] 18/9
18/13 19/21 19/25
20/3 26/3 26/3 26/13
27/23 27/23 28/8
28/21 34/7 42/19
42/21 48/3 71/9 82/20
84/7 103/24 119/25
120/5 120/15 122/3
124/4 126/7 133/6
133/14 157/10 157/23)
157/25 172/4 177/19
188/24 192/23
writing [5] 14/16
97/14 99/10 120/23
124/14
written [12] 6/7 43/17I
43/19 65/6 69/13
93/19 119/25 123/4
123/17 134/1 165/19
169/12
wrong [19] 11/20
15/17 19/1 21/10
27/15 33/11 33/24
34/3 34/17 35/14
75/22 107/8 118/10
118/23 124/8 128/15
185/16 193/25 194/18)
wrong/misleading [2]
15/17 118/23
wrongdoing [1]
126/14
(83) whether... - wrongdoing
Ww
wrongly [1] 190/18
wrote [2] 83/23
173/11
WYN [2] 133/20
197/12
Y
yeah [8] 57/10 62/15
138/12 141/1 143/18
153/1 163/16 171/5
year [3] 5/10 93/24
137/10
years [14] 5/14 5/16
34/16 68/19 68/21
69/13 69/14 71/1 74/5
91/7 116/11 134/24
139/10 190/3
yes [264]
yesterday [3] 2/5
44/23 45/16
yesterday's [1]
187/17
yet [10] 36/10 60/6
134/12 141/23 157/7
170/13 170/16 170/18
172/12 182/21
you [648]
you'd [18] 18/18 21/6
35/7 117/6 142/22
144/4 144/20 145/10
160/16 165/18 167/14
170/20 171/2 171/6
171/7 190/2 190/13
195/6
you'll [12] 13/15 65/1
71/23 73/14 84/17
108/11 143/7 143/9
143/19 153/15 180/2
182/16
you're [53] 5/13 8/1
12/8 14/19 18/21
24/10 33/19 34/5
34/22 34/24 35/6 35/6
35/21 44/20 49/25
56/7 72/13 105/10
106/14 107/2 107/5
107/6 109/16 110/4
110/11 112/24 113/10}
113/14 113/16 119/4
121/22 122/8 124/4
124/8 126/19 136/5
141/12 143/2 153/12
153/13 154/7 154/13
155/8 156/18 159/4
160/12 171/10 171/18}
173/3 175/18 187/7
189/22 189/23
you've [20] 1/17 9/5
10/16 11/12 12/6
17/23 20/7 96/9
110/22 115/11 119/14
119/18 144/15 154/10}
166/11 183/10 189/16)
190/14 192/23 196/1
your [156] 1/14 2/3
2/10 2/14 2/19 2/22
3/2 3/14 3/22 4/18
4/19 4/22 8/17 9/22
10/13 11/23 13/25
14/19 16/19 20/21
22/23 23/14 23/23
26/11 26/11 27/7 27/7
28/11 28/13 28/13
28/16 29/2 29/5 29/14
29/16 29/18 31/11
35/12 36/6 36/6 36/20
38/22 41/21 42/10
43/2 43/20 43/22
43/22 44/25 47/7 52/9
55/21 55/22 56/7
56/14 59/8 63/11 70/4
71/1 71/25 72/3 72/16)
80/21 83/13 86/7
89/20 97/21 99/17
99/22 103/6 104/10
105/19 105/23 106/8
109/5 112/14 113/8
114/9 114/24 115/7
115/19 117/16 118/2
118/5 119/13 121/1
121/21 124/16 124/25)
125/18 126/23 127/3
131/14 131/16 134/6
136/10 137/4 137/9
138/10 138/14 138/17)
138/22 140/11 140/15)
141/11 141/16 142/11
144/24 146/8 147/1
147/12 148/4 148/11
148/20 150/8 150/18
152/2 152/7 156/2
158/12 158/13 159/1
159/19 159/21 162/13)
162/25 163/21 164/18)
165/4 165/7 165/12
165/18 166/10 166/12)
167/9 167/13 167/24
169/2 170/18 170/24
171/4 171/8 173/6
175/8 175/19 175/23
176/20 180/4 182/13
185/10 187/5 188/6
189/9 191/20 194/8
194/25
yours [1] 139/15
yourself [5] 34/12
73/17 115/11 116/19
140/11
(84) wrongly - yourself