POL00004071
POL00004071
OPUS 2
INTERNATIONAL
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
Day 6
March 19, 2019
Opus 2 International - Official Court Reporters
Phone: 0203 008 6619
Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: https: //www.opus2.com
B10.1/6/1
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 Tuesday, 19 March 2019 1 your Lordship says. It should be understood that the
2 (10.30 am) 2 Post Office business is massive and extremely diverse,
3 Housekeeping 3 so, for example, if there's a review of the car accident
4 MRDEGARR ROBINSON: My Lord, redactions. 4 statistics in a given year, my Lord, that is completely
5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes. 5 irrelevant. I don't know if your Lordship would expect
6 MRDEGARR ROBINSON: If] can give your Lordship an update. 6 that to be included in any disclosure. But those are
7 I have been looking at these documents overnight. So 7 the kind of issues we're talking about.
8 far I have found one document where I believe a small 8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, when one begins to dissect
9 redaction was mistaken and that’s F/1225 and aclean 9 a document on the basis of parts of that document being
10 copy has been provided to my learned friend, two 10 irrelevant, in the circumstances of this case that's
11 documents where I believe the redactions are correct 11 something that I can look at and might choose to look
12 which is F/1549 and F/708. My Lord, with the others 12 at it to decide whether it is in fact irrelevant. If it
13 I simply need more time. 13 is legally professionally privileged, I’m not
14 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I didn’t intend you to have to do them 14 obviously -- the assertion of privilege brings that to
15 straight away. 15 an end.
16 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: One of them is 109 pages long. 16 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Well, my Lord, that would be an
17 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes. So why don't we just leave it that 17 unusual course for your Lordship to adopt.
18 there’s no need now for you to give mean update until, 18 MRJUSTICE FRASER: It might be, but it’s not an improper
19 shall we say Thursday morning, and then if you just give 19 course for meto adopt. But let's deal with these one
20 mea date by which you think you might be able to have 20 step at atime, all right? You have reviewed three, you
21 finished. I'm not expecting you to have done them 21 ‘will give me the update on Thursday. I would like to
22 straight away or on Thursday there will be no criticism 22 make it clear, though I have already, I don’t want to
23 if you haven't been able to do any more than just these 23 impose a burden on you during your evidence of time
24 three because you are in the middle of calling your 24 because I have asked you to do it, so if on Thursday all
25 evidence. 25 youcan do is give me an intended timeframe by which the
1 3
1 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: And itis a slow process. I have to 1 exercise might be completed, then that will help
2 say, on skimming the other documents I have not found 2 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Very good, my Lord.
3 what appear to be any serious errors that are glaring 3 While we are on the subject of documents there is
4 ‘There are some passages where I would like to speak to 4 one other point I should mention. Your Lordship will
5 my instructing solicitors so that I can understand what 5 recall the evidence last week, Mr Tank saying that he
6 they're about. They seem to be completely irrelevant 6 hada box file of documents, and Mr Latif whois. still
7 but I just wantto ensure that they are for my own 7 a subpostmaster saying that his staff searched records
8 satisfaction 8 which revealed that his transaction correction issue
9 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes. I will be taking a slightly 9 occurred in January 2018 not March. My Lord, my:
10 different approach if I’m told these redactions are made 10 understanding is that Mr Tank has now disclosed three
ii on the grounds of relevance rather than made on the 11 documents and Mr Latif has disclosed none at all. Just
12 grounds of legal professional privilege or anything of 12 so your Lordship is aware, on Friday my instructing
13 that nature. 13 solicitors wrote to Freeths making those points and
14 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Some of them are on the grounds of 14 seeking disclosure of records and transaction logs
15 irrelevance and confidentiality , some of them are on the 15 consulted by Mr Latif for the purpose of preparing his
16 grounds of privilege 16 witness statement, any notes by Mr Tank, documents in
17 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, you're going to need to identify 17 the box file and CCTV recordings that were consulted by
18 the ones that are on the grounds of irrelevance because 18 Mr Tank, any other documents that any of the witnesses
19 I'm likely to be taking a different approach if they are 19 consulted when preparing their witness statements and of
20 said to be irrelevant -- obviously if it’s legal 20 course any adverse documents. It sought a response by
21 professional privilege or litigation privilege then 21 close of business yesterday, we have all been very busy,
22 that’s one thing. If it is said to be on the grounds of 22 no response was received. 1 will keep your Lordship
23 relevance I will be adopting a slightly different 23 informed as to progress on that issue
24 approach. 24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Thank you,
25 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Well, my Lord, I hear what
2
25 MRGREEN: I'm grateful, my Lord. My Lord, 1 don't know
4
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
0203 008 6619
B10.1/6/2
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether there's a copy of the unredacted document
available for your Lordship and the witness.
(Pause).
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
MS ANGELA VAN DEN BOGERD (continued)
Cross-examination by MR GREEN (continued)
MR GREEN: Mrs van den Bogerd, we looked briefly at this
document yesterday.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this 1225?
MR GREEN: It is 1225, my Lord, yes.
If we look on page 2 of 4, at the top of it we will
see there are six bullet points at the top --
AL Yes
Q. -- which were previously redacted and now can be seen.
Do you see those?
AL Yes.
Q. And those are introduced in fact by the bottom paragraph
on the previous page, which is page 1 of 4.
AL Yes.
Q. And that says "Key performance indicators”:
“The programme will track performance against the
following key performance indicators.”
Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Andwhatwe see there is that the key performance
5
indicators for the programme were reduction of operating
cost by £3 million a year.
AL Yes.
Q. Reduction in net agent debt by £1 million. Reduction in
subpostmaster suspensions asa result of audit short
annuals to a level of 60 per year. Reduction of calls
into NBSC by 25%. Reduction of audit losses of 10k or
over, I think that should be, by 50% and satisfaction
with online training models of 95%.
So it’s fair so say, isn’t it, that one of the key
thrusts of that KPIs is cost saving?
A. Part of it, yes.
Q. And indeed that mirrors what we saw yesterday about the
introduction of Horizon Online?
A. Yes partly, yes
Q. And
A. Sorry, can I just say on this particular one the cost
reduction will comeas if -- so the whole thrust of this
is if we eliminate the errors at the front end then we
won't need to obviously deal with errors at the back end
and that’s obviously what the cost saving is driven
from.
Q. And so you could see when putting the branch support
programme together that it was likely to reduce
subpostmaster suspensions asa result of audit
6
oP,
>
eProPr
shortages, couldn't you?
Yes.
So the measures that you had in mind would be likely to
lead to reduction in those suspensions?
Yes.
And in a reduction of audit losses of £10,000 or more?
Yes
And to greatly increased satisfaction in online training
models?
Yes.
And that reflected a recognition by you of where the
scope for improvement lay after you had carried out sort
of horizon scanning exercise, no pun intended, of the
difficulties that were being encountered by branches?
Yes. As I said yesterday it was across a number of
areas including what was coming through Business as
Usual, what I saw from the mediation scheme and the
branch support programme; all of those.
Thank you. Could you now be shown very kindly (F/1330}..
This is a spreadsheet of call logs that you have
referred to in your witness statement. I will just read
out your witness statement, paragraph 184 (£2/5/42}, to
you while that’s downloading. Under the "NBSC" heading
at paragraph 184:
“In terms of the use of the Helpline and NBSC
7
generally, my colleague, Dean Whitehead, WFM & Telephony
Manager ..”
What's WEM?
Workforce management.
Workforce management and telephony manager:
*.. has prepared the attached spreadsheet which
appears
We can see it is {F/1330}
*.. which includes the NBSC call data volumes from
30 March 2015 to 11 November 2018”
And the aggregated volumes, I understand, were not
tracked prior to March 2015, is that right?
I'mnotsure it wasin this format actually. We always
recorded the number of calls but how they have been
presented has changed.
Let’s just look then -- in the light of that answer
Jet's look at {E2/5/43}, which is what you say at 185.5.
So you say:
“In terms of the period of the available call volume
data, to confirm, while Post Office hold records of the
calls received that predate 30 March 2015 ..”
Because we have seen some in this trial, haven't we?
Yes.
we donot hold in a readily accessible place any
aggregated call volume data from before this date.”
8
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/6/3
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1A. Yes. 1 recall an increase in budget. What we did is we
2 Q. So you would actually have to look and see what the 2 restructured so that we had more focus on the tier 2
3 numbers of calls were? 3 support, so that when the calls came in if there were
4A. Yes. 4 calls that couldn't be easily rectified at the T1, that
5 Q. And then give evidence about that if you wanted to 5 get to T2 and we made Horace information available to
6 explain it? 6 tier 2 as well so they could look into the data in
7A. Yes 7 branches to be able to assist with problems.
8 Q._ If wecan go back please to {F/1330}, let's just look at 8 Q. So previously, prior to the branch support programme,
9 the headings at the top of the columns if we may. We've 9 tier 2 couldn't look at the Credence data?
10 got A is obviously date, B is “Calls offered” which is 10 A. That's correct
11 calls made to the NBSC,C is calls answered, which is 11° Q. Let’s move please to the section in your witness
12 calls answered by the NBSC, and then D is forecasted 12 statement where you deal with the subpostmaster evidence
13 calls andE is the difference between calls offered and 13 and if we look at paragraph 30 please {E2/5/11}, you
14 called answered. So that’s the number of people not 14 explain there:
15 getting through, isn’t it? 15 “To prepare this evidence, I have had to rely on
16 A. Hanging up or -- yes, yes, or -- 16 a small team of people at Post Office (predominantly
17 Q. Not getting through? 17 former trainers and auditors who have complemented their
18 A. Yes. 18 hands-on branch knowledge with investigative skills
19 Q. They make a call and the call is not actually answered? 19 honed from several years of investigating claims of
20 A. Orthey don’t progress, yes, through. 20 accounting issues in branches) to help me investigate
21 MRJUSTICE FRASER: For whatever reason, they don't get 21 the allegations raised ”
22 through to the person. 22 So that sounds like a pretty impressive group of
23 MR GREEN: For whatever reason, 23 people skills wise, is that fair?
24 A. Yes, because sometimes sorry, there’s an IVR message 24 A. Theyare good, yes.
25 on the answer, so if you pick up the phone and it will 25 ‘As you have described them there?
9 u
1 say “If you're ringing about this” -- so say we had 1 A. Yes, yes.
2 a known problem in the network, we would puta message 2 Q. And how many people have been in this small team?
3 on to the helpline that would say "If you're ringing 3. A. About ten
4 about this particular issue we are aware of it, we're 4 Q. Ten. Andtheyare all people at Post Office?
5 looking at it and we will update as soon as we can", so 5 A. Yes.
6 at that point someone might drop off. 6 Q. And can you remember who they are?
7 Q. So might these numbers be where there were known 7 AL Yes.
8 problems on the network? Might some of these drop-offs 8 Q. Could you tell us who they are?
9 be people who had been affected by known problems on the 9 A. So there's Kath Alexander, Shirley Hailstones,
10 network? 10 Reanne Fox, Michelle Cohone(?), Karen Derb(?),
11 A. Sometimes, or it could be that they would ring and they 1. Peter Todd, Paul Smith, Keith Scott, Matt Waller --
12 decide that they don’t want to continue to wait, it 12 sorry, how many is that? I'm trying to think if I have
13 might be that a customer comes in whilst they are on the 13 forgotten anybody.
14 phone and therefore they serve the customer rather than 14 Q. Well, at least those?
15 waiting on the call 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But one way or another they don't actually get through 16 Q. If you remember any more you can tell us
17 to somebody on the helpline? 17 MRJUSTICE FRASER: That was nine.
18 A. Yes, absolutely, that’s correct yes. 18 A. Thatwasnine. I'min trouble now because I have
19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, is this going to be of 19 forgotten one, haven't I?
20 enormous assistance to mein resolving the issues? 20 MR GREEN: That's not something to be in trouble over
21° MRGREEN: My Lord, it probably is of small relevance but 21 You say that they have assisted with the preparation
22 I have pretty much finished my examination, 22 of your evidence responding to the subpostmaster’s
23 Was there any increase in budget for the helpline in 23 evidence?
24 the branch support programme? 24 A. That's right, yes.
25 A. In the branch support programme? Idon't ... 1 don't 25 Sorry, one more was Hugh Williams. Sorry, it has
10
12
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/6/4
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 just come back to me. 1 quite an onerous task as you would imagine with the
2 Q. And that’s bringing to bear some fairly high-powered 2 number of calls. If it is to supporta particular issue
3 resources on this point, isn’t it? 3 where there is an issue with, you know, a loss or
4A. Yes. 4 something then I think we should provide.
5 Q. Perhaps more high-powered resources and care and time 5 Q. Thathasn’t been the practice thus far as we have seen?
6 than you might normally be able to devote to someone who 6 A. No, it hasn't
7 just raised a query in the normal course of business? 7 Q. And let's tum, if we may, to Mr Latif’s case which
8 A. Well, actually some of them -- that’s their role in 8 if we look please at paragraph 90 {E2/5/23). You say:
9 Business as Ustial as well. 9 “My strong belief is that Mr Latif has recalled
10 Q. Okay, so they've got experience of actually doing it in 10 these events incorrectly. ‘The transaction data for the
11 real cases? 11 branch ..”
12 A. Yes: 12 You give three POL numbers
13 Q. Andwhen you looked at this witness statement, this 13 shows that in the relevant period (June
14 section of your witness statement in particular, and 14 to August) every transfer out has a corresponding
15 there were documents that were referred to, did you 15 transfer in. I also note that the ARQ data show that
16 actually look at those documents to see if they did 16 there is no stock unit SJ1 as asserted by Mr Latif,
17 support or could conceivably support what you were 17 however there is a stock unit SP1"
18 saying in your witness statement about them? 18 Let’s take that in stages. He fairly accepted there
19 A. Yes. 19 ‘was a typo on SJ1 and SP1so let's leave that aside
20 Q Youdid? 20 Now, you understand, do you, the different types of data
21 A. So they prepared the information and Ihave reviewed 21 that you can have, transaction data, event data and
22 everything and looked into that to see whether that 22 session data?
23 supports, yes. I can’t recall every single piece of 23° A. Yes
24 information, but that’s whatI have done. 24 Q. And do you understand the difference between them or
25 Q. And this has been prepared with the benefit of the ARQ 25 not?
13 15
1 data? 1 A. Fromthis -- yes, yes, I do, yes.
2 A. Yes. 2 Did you know the difference between them before you did
3 Q. And the NBSC helpline call logs where available? 3 this exercise?
4A. Yes 4 A. Yes, I have seen the data before. We have used this
5 Q Andthe helpline logs would not normally be available to 5 before.
6 an SPMif they called up themselves? 6 Q. Butdid youhavea really clear understanding of the
7A. Theyare not routinely provided, no. 7 difference between event data and transaction data?
8 Q After a call they don’t get sent the record 8 A. So the transaction data is everything that -- all the
9 A. No, they don’t. 9 transactions. ‘The event data are things that would
10 Q. -- to see whether it has been correctly recorded or 10 record transfer in, rem ins, it was the other
11 fairly reflects what they have rung up about? 1 information.
12 A. No, that’s correct. 12 Q. Whataboutsession data?
13 Q. In fact we see Angela Burke later on has to make a data 13 A. Session data referred to the sessions on there, yes.
14 subject access request 14 Q. Doyou know really what that means very well, or .2?
15 A. Yes. 15 A. I've not -- in terms of getting into the detail of it
16 Q. -- to get hold of a transcript of her own call 16 then not at that level
17. AL Yes. 17° Q. No.
18 Q. And pay the fee and produce ID in order to get the 18 A. WhatI look at is the information that would be able to
19 transcript of her own call with the helpline. Yes? 19 walk me through a sequence of events and getting under
20 A. Yes. 20 the skin of what wecan see, put the picture together.
21 Q Just parenthetically, do you think that’s a satisfactory 21 Q. Is that level of knowledge why the three POL documents
22 ‘way to respond to a subpostmaster or subpostmistress 22 you refer to in your witness statement were in fact
23 asking for a transcript that you hold of their call? 23 event data not transaction data?
24 A. No, I think we should be providing it. If it is -- so 24 A. Sorry, the transaction data should be in there as well.
25 if we were to routinely provide every call that would be 25 Well, yes, it should, but the three specific document
14
16
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/6/5
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 references that we had to go and read and look at to try
2 and find what you were saying, there's no row or
3 anything like that mentioned, those documents are event
4 data documents, aren't they?
5 A. Sorry -- well, I understood them to be transactions as
6 well
7 Q. Let's havea look and just trace it through. Let’s look
8 at {F/1354] please as an example. This is the second of
9 the POL references in that paragraph. If we could go to
10 sheet 1 rather than the summary please. So this is the
11 event data.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. It’s not the transaction data and it’s not data from
14 which we can see that every transfer out has
15 a corresponding transfer in of the same amount, is it?
16 Do you want to go across to the right a bit?
17 A. Noton this you won't see that, no.
18 MR JUSTICE FRASER: Could you keep your voice up please.
19 A. Sorry, yes.
20 MRGREEN: And it shows receipts printed and things like
21 that, it shows reversals, variance checks, things like
22 that,
23 A. Yes.
24 Q Soyoucan’t actually see that?
25 A. Notfrom this one, no
17
1 Q No. And all three of the specific POL numbers,
2 documents, at paragraph 90 - go back to page 23 of your
3 witness statement {E2/5/23} -- were actually references
4 to events data. Were you aware that this was taken up
5 with your solicitors in February?
6 A. No, I wasn't. Because to look at this I have looked at
7 the event data, as you say, to look at corresponding
8 transfers in and out and then the transaction data to
9 look at the values of those to see from which stock
10 unit, so... sorry, I didn’t put the reference numbers
11 on the document, so
12 Q. Bur the POL number documents that were in the statement
13 that you had in front of you when you were being shown
14 this, I asked you at the beginning did you look at those
15 documents to see whether they could support what you
16 were saying they showed and you said yes.
17 A. BecauseI --
18 Q. Sodid youhave other documents in front of you, or ..2
19 A. SoI understood that to have included the transaction
20 data as well, so that’s my mistake in terms of the
21 number in there.
22 Q. Very briefly I will just show you this: (H/186/2}. This
23 is a 4 February 2019 letter and it relates to, at the
24 bottom of the page, Mr Latif. Paragraph 8:
25 "Mrs van den Bogerd refers to ‘the ARQ data’ at
18
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oreo,
oreor
paragraph 90, without exhibit
intended document.
Please identify the
“Also at paragraph 90, Mrs van den Bogerd exhibits
transactional data for June to August 2015. We
anticipate that data outside of this range was
identified by Post Office and considered by ... her
small team ... As Post Office must recognise, Mr Latif
may have misremembered the date of the incident”
Go over the page please [H/186/3} and then there's
a reference to data in paragraph 98, checking that, do
you see that?
Sorry, where are we?
Paragraph 11
Yes.
The reference to the POL document: is this the correct
{H/196/18} there's
a response on 11 February and the reference to ARQ data
at the bottom, in paragraph 90 without exhibit says
“The reference to "ARQ data’ is to the transaction
data for the branch which referred to the exhibit
document or not? And if we look at
mentioned in the previous sentence.”
So it specifically asked about is this the
transaction data in these three event data logs and then
that comes back. Were you aware of any of this going on
in the background in relation to whatyou had said in
19
your witness statement?
No. I understood the transaction data was there.
Okay. Because it was actually disclosed on 21 February
and Mr Latif went to Kashmir on 19 February.
Right.
So if we go back to paragraph 90 {E2/5/23}, you will see
that the three additional references underneath at
{F/1353.1}, [F/1365.1} and {F/1371.1j, are additional
documents which are not those POL documents, but you
didn’t know about any of that?
No, sorry, I didn’t know about that.
To find the information about the value of stock
transfers, which was what was in issue
Yes.
weneed to look at the transaction data, don’t we?
Yes, yes.
Pausing there, were you aware that there had been two
quite widespread and persisting bugs which related to
transfers between stock units going awry when you made
your statement? Did anyone tell you that?
At this time?
When you made your statement did you know that within
the Horizon system there had been two quite important
bugs which related to problems with stock unit
transfers, or not?
20
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/6/6
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1A. Not specifically . LQ. Column Kis quantity, column] is *Product number’. Do
2 Q No. Because both the Callendar Square bug and the 2 you see that?
3 Dalmellington bug related to problems arising on 3A. Yes
4 transfers between stock units, didn’t they? 4 If we click back on 3478, so that’s on 4 July, £2,000,
5 A. 1 knew about the Daimellington one, that’s an 5 and a minus £2,000 underneath it. Is that what you were
6 outreach -- an outreach issue, so I was aware of the 6 looking at, or not?
7 Dalmellington. I hadn’t heard about the 7A. Specifically that particular row, is that what you mean?
8 Callendar Square one. 8 Or -- because this is the data, yes.
9 Q Butyou didn’t have the overlap with that in mind when 9 Q Soyou filtered by date so we have gone to 4 July,
10 you were putting your witness statement together about 10 beginning of July. Where did you look?
11 Mr Latif's situation? 11° A. So for the whole of July filtered on the value of 2,000
12 A. So, no, when! put this together we have looked at the 12 which would obviously condense the spreadsheet.
13 data to see whether that -- does the data support what 13 Q_ Okay, do you want to do that?
14 Mr Latif has said and what we can see and what we can 14 A. Yes.
15 see in there is that we've got the information that 15 Q Theshort point is youcan’t tell -- let’s just pause
16 shows that those transfers have been transferred out and 16 before we do that exercise. The short point is you
17 transferred in within the branch. 17 can’t tell from this line what that is, ean you?
18 Q Well, lets look at it quickly if we may. 18 A. Noton this particular line, So what-- so using the
19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Just before we do I would just like to 19 event data and the transaction data, looking at the
20 understand your last answer. Mr Green was asking you if 20 event data for the record of the transfers in and
21 you had the overlap between Dalmellington bug and 21 transfers out, that would tell you all the transfers in
22 Callendar Square bug in your mind when you signed or 22 and the transfers out that had happened in that
23 prepared your witness statement dealing with Mr Latif 23 particular -- however you wanted to filter it. So,
24 A. Not specifically . 24 for instance -- so we looked at June, July and August.
25 MR JUSTICE FRASER: You didn't, all right. 25 That would filter it, looking then -- going from the
21 23
1 Mr Green, 1 event data then to the transaction log for the
2) MRGREEN: Thankyou very much. 2 corresponding times and then filter it by stock unit and
3 Could we look please now at {[F/1365.1}. And can we 3 user to narrow it down.
4 look at sheet 1 please rather than the summary. There 4 Q. Okay. Do youknow what the code 4910isin that line?
5 are 28,890 rows. You didn’t refer to any particular row 5 Do you know what product code that relates to?
6 number in your witness statement because when you made 6 A. Sorry, I would need that list at the side of meto
7 your witness statement you weren't looking at this 7 I’mnot that close to the detail. So there’s a list of
8 document, or weren't referred to this document, which 8 all the product codes and the IDs that we have disclosed
9 hada different POL number. Can you remember roughly 9 and 1 would -- my team would know that off the top of
10 where it was? 10 their head, I would need to work off the sheet.
11. A. Sorry, where what was? 11° Q. You would need to look at the ID list. Wecansee
12 Q Where you were looking. Did you do it by date? 12 what's been disclosed at {F/1292.2}. Those are the
13. A. SoI would have filtered on it by date. 13 product ID lists , aren't they?
14 = Q. Youthink you would have done that? 14 A. Yes.
15 A. Byvalue. 15 And one of the things we notice about the product ID
16 Q Did youhave it in paper form -- 16 lists is they are different lengths, aren’t they?
17 A. Bystock unit. 17 A. Yes.
18 @ or electronic? 18 So Royal Mail label balance is 32072, that's five
19 A. Electronic 19 digits, and, for example, Visa debit paymentis also
20 Q Canwe goto row 3478 please. So there we've got SP1, 20 five digits , but some other things, stamps and things,
21 4 July 2015, 13.16.04. Then 2,000in column L. Do you 21 are only two digits?
22 want to just quickly see what column Lis? 22 A. Yes.
23. A. If youcan go to the top that would be the value, yes 23 And they vary, don't they? We've got four digits for
24 Q SocolumnLis “Sale value”, can you see? 24 Christmas second stamp books.
25 A. Yes. 25 A. Yes, they do.
22
24
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/6/7
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 Q. They-vary in length. And some of those product codes
2 are provided by third parties, aren't they, so
3 Post Office is not in control of them?
4 A. Yes. I don't know where they come from.
5 Q. Okay.
6 Let's go back please -- let’s just look, if we may,
7 at your statement at page (E2/5/23}, paragraph 91.2.
8 ‘That was the analysis that you did in your witness
9 statement when you did it in November.
10 A. Yes
11° Q. And you say there
12 “. there were two transfers of £2,000 from the AA
13 stock unit to the SP1 stock unit, both of which were
14 successful .”
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then you say:
17 “There were 4 separate transfers of £2,000
18 in August 2015 (onthe 1st, 3rd, 5th, 26th) all of which
19 were successfully transferred into stock unit SP1"
20 So that's what you said in
21 A. November.
22 Q. -- November. Then you have had to amend your account of
23 what transactions in fact took place, haven't you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So 91.2 should now read that in July 2015 there were two
25
1 transfers of £2,000 "between" instead of “from”, yes?
2 A. Yes.
3 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Weare still in paragraph 90?
4 MRGREEN: We are still in 91.2, my Lord.
5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: 91.2, yes.
6 MRGREEN: Soit is "between" instead of “from” and “and”
7 instead of to” and then after stock unit effectively
8 saying one each way.
9 AL Yes.
10 Q. Both of which were successful, and then 91.3 has also
11 been changed to say that instead of four separate
12 transfers, in total there were five, adding at the end
13 of the sentence “and one on 3 August which was
14 successfully transferred into stock unit AA”
15 A. That's right
16 Q. Thatcorrection reflects the fact that the account that
17 you had previously given wasn't actually right, was it?
18 A. It wasn't as -- it didn’t have as full an explanation as
19 1 have done on my correction, no.
20 Q That's slightly finessing it on the first one, isn't it,
21 because havea look. You say there were two transfers
22 from AA to SP1.
23° A. Yes.
24 Q. Andthat wasn't correct, was it?
25 A. No.
26
eIAHkYOnE
22
23
24
25
>
oprop
oPoOoP,
It’s not a question of being full or not full, it’s just
wrong, isn’t it?
Which is why I made the correction, yes.
But it is wrong, it’s not a question of full or not
full, is it?
The statement that said that the transactions -- there
were corresponding entries for transfers in and out for
2,000 is right and what! have done in the correction
is, particularly on 91.3, brought in the other one as
well and expanded the other one, yes.
make it clear on there that there was more than I'd put
So 1 wanted to
in my statement.
Well, I understand adding in the fifth one, but just the
very short point is 91.2 was wrong, the statement was
wrong. They weren't two transfers from AA to SP1 at
all, were they? It was one way
And one the other:
~- and one the other?
Yes, that's correct
Right. And you would agree that getting these things
correct would be very important for fairly resolving any
issue about discrepancies raised by an SPM?
Yes, of course.
And whether or not the transaction correction process is
‘countermeasure within the Horizon system,
27
Yes.
as Dr Worden has suggested, you are not suggesting
that this trial is part of the Horizon system and the
countermeasure, are you?
Sorry, can you repeat that?
Dr Worden regards transaction corrections as one of the
countermeasures in the robustness of Horizon.
Yes.
It would beare ridiculous to suggest this trial is
a countermeasure for the robustness of Horizon, so the
things we find out here are wrong and then can be
corrected?
I see, yes, agree.
That's an absurd suggestion, isn’t it?
I agree,
So let's look, if we may please, at the transaction data
(F/1365.1]. And let's look at 21 July
Parenthetically while that is loading, you didn't
itself , which is
actually refer to or exh
ID list, did you, in your statement?
No, I didn’t.
‘That was necessary to try and decipher these
it the product list, product
spreadsheets?
Ye
So that had to be found in the disclosure, yes?
28
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/6/8
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1A. Yes.
2 Q. So having done that let's go please to row 18358 please.
3 Now, is this the row that you think is a relevant row
4 for this, or is it the next one?
5 A. Sorry, relevant for .?
6 Q. Relevant for Mr Latif’s transfers --
7A. The transfers in and out from AA to SP1?
8 Q. Which ones should the court look at?
9 A. So it would be both.
10 Q. Okay, do you know what they are both doing?
11 A. It’s moving the cash out of
12 Q. Which one is moving the cash?
13 A. Sothe first one is 13.54, that’s the first one, and the
14 corresponding one is the second one below it then.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. So it happens in two stages on this report
17 Q. So when Mr Latif was being cross-examined on this -- and
18 the transcript reference is Day 2/63 lines 1 to 14
19 (Day2/63:1}, we don't need to go there -- it was
20 suggested to him that the transactions either side of
21 these two entries were back office entries that he
22 didn’t need to worry about. Actually, code 1 is cash,
23 isn’t it?
24 A. That's right
25 Q. So that’s an important part of the transaction?
29
1 AL Yes.
2 Q. Butyou would need the product list to know that,
3 wouldn't you?
4 A. Youwould, yes
5 Q. And 6276 meansa transfer in, doesn’t it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And 6277 means transfer out?
8 AL Yes.
9 Q Are you just being agreeable, or is that something you
10 know?
11 A. 1 wouldneed ~ well from this, yes, I know that, but as
12 I said earlier, the list is whatI would need
13 Q. If youtake it fromme at the moment.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Ushaving found the list, that does appear to be what it
16 says.
17~=A. Yes.
18 Q. And how much of this did you know when you signed your
19 witness statement? Or is this something that you have
20 learned more about since you suggested the corrections
21 in preparing for the trial?
22 A. Soas I said in my witness statement, because of the
23 time to put that together I relied on the team to pull
24 it all together. I had reviewed it but not into this
25 level of absolute detail. So what! have looked at is
30
eIAHkYOnE
A
the list of the product IDs, that list is something that
1 would need to use as I douse -- because I don’t do
the same frequency as my team, is something! would use
and that’s when I have made the corrections to say
actually I need to explain that a bit more, which is why
I made the corrections.
Let’s compare the transaction data with the event data
for a second. Now, if we just look just a little bit
higher up, can you see 6277 in row 18352?
Yes.
6277, with a 1 above it, that's cash anda transfer out,
yes?
Yes.
So this sequence appears to begin at 13.52.17, do you
see that?
Yes.
And Horizon automatically prints out one receipt for
a transfer in and one receipt for a transfer out,
doesn't it?
Yes.
I think you mentioned that at paragraph 88 of your
witness statement.
Yes.
And indeed I think that
but I can take you to a reference of the original design
it’s probably uncontroversial
31
of Horizon, but that’s how it was designed to work from
the outset?
Yes. And witha place to sign on the piece of paper as
well, yes
Can we go please now to the event data at (F/1354},
which was the second of the original POL reference
documents you gave in your witness statement, and let's
look please at row 8528. Doyousee that? "AP branch
receipt"?
Yes.
Yes? And we have then got “Transfer out slip - office
copy’, do you see that?
Yes.
And then at 56134 we've got "AP branch receipt”,
“Transfer in slip - office copy" and “Transfer in slip
office copy”.
Sorry, I have lost you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Use the row number please.
MR GREEN: Sorry, 8534. Do you see 8534?
A
Q
The one that is highlighted now, yes.
How many transfer in slips do you see printed out there;
one or two?
‘There's one below that as well
Yes. And they are 4 seconds apart, aren't they?
Yes.
32
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/6/9
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 Did you notice that instead of one transfer in slip, two 1 been previous issues with transfers between stock units,
2 had printed out, when you made your witness statement? 2 known problems, one of the indicators was a duplicate
3 No. I can’t say I did, no. 3 slip being produced? No one pointed that out to you,
4 But this was the event data document to which your 4 did they?
5 witness statement expressly referred? 5 A. Not-- no, they didn’t, but the Dalmellington is an
6 Yes 6 outreach, which is a different scenario to within branch
7 ‘Two separate receipts being printed out instead of one 7 transfer anyway, because it’s a rem out and rem in in
8 wasa feature of the Dalmellington bug, wasn't it? 8 the Dalmellington case.
9 I can't recall exactly. 9 Q. Does any of that cause you to wish to think again about
10 Let me show you. Let's look at {£2/11/26} please. This 10 what you have said about Mr Latif’s situation? Does it
11 is in the table annexed to Mr Parker's witness statement 11 worry you at all?
12 and do you see the short name is "Unexplained 12 A. So it is something that I would want to go back and have
13 discrepancies (duplicate remin)"; do you see that? 13 a look at.
14 Under the short name? 14 QI understand.
15 Yes. 15 A. But if we go back to -- so in terms of the data that
16 And there is Mr Coyne’s summary and then if we go to 16 I have looked at, and I have looked at Mr Latif’s data
17 “Response to Mr Coyne”, Fujitsu's comments, if we go 17 in detail, if you go back to anduse the data to look at
18 across to the right, "Financial impact on branch 18 the transfers in and out, look at whatMr Latif has
19 accounts” 19 said, including whathe said last week around the fact
20 “This issue caused a discrepancy in the 20 he did that himself, that doesn’t show on the data that
21 subpostmaster’s outreach branch which was easy to 21 we've got
22 identify from the transaction logs available through 22 Q. Okay, well, let's look -- on your understanding of it?
23 Horizon and the fact that separate receipts were printed 230A. Mm-hm.
24 for each transaction .” 24 Q. Let’s look at paragraph 98, the TC/TAissue. It is at
25 Yes? 25 {£2/5/24}. This is still in Mr Latif’s case.
33 35
1 Yes, I see that. 1 AL Yes.
2 Did anyone in your small team flag any of this up to you 2 “The transaction data [and you give a POL reference]
3 to help you give the court a fair picture in your 3 including data relating to TCs, shows that the branch
4 witness statement? 4 received two TAs on 18 January 2018”
5 Are you referring to the Dalmellington case or to the 5 A. Yes.
6 slips? 6 Now, the POL reference given to that event data was
7 ‘The fact that there had been two transfer in slips 7 actually to March 2018 data. Did you spot that when you
8 printed 8 were compiling your witness statement?
9 No. 9 A. Sorry, no. I didn’t. The data I looked at was the
10 and the fact that that was what was being said by 10 correct data.
11 a witness in this case to be how you could spot the 11 Q Yes. It has now been hyperlinked. If we follow the
12 Dalmellington bug; did anyone tell you that? 12 link that’s now on there, it is to the transaction data
13 Sorry, so the Dalmellington bug I knew was specific to 13 for January 2018 which is the relevant set of data, yes?
14 outreaches. 14 A. Yes, which is the data I looked at
15 I understand that, but you knew there had been. 15 Okay, did you actually look at the data yourself at the
16 problems -- well, you didn’t have in the forefront of 16 time you did this?
17 your mind, we have established -- 17 A. Ihada high level, but I have done more work since
18 Yes, yes. 18 then, yes. Whichis what] set out in my statement as
19 -- that these two bugs are about transfers between stock 19 I said
20 units and that was obviously potentially relevant to the 20 Q. I see. Let’s look please at {F/1761.1} and again
21 Mr Latif case. My question to you is simple: did anyone = 21. there’s no reference in your witness statement to where
22 point out to you the two transfer in slips and you have 22 the data that you are referring to shows what you are
23 said no. 23 saying.
24 No. 24 A. Yes.
25 And did anyone point out to you that where there had 25 And you can see why that would be helpful for other
34
36
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/10
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 people to understand what your theory is?
2 A. Yes, these aren't the easiest things to
3 Q Especially difficult if noone tells you which specific
4 entries they are talking about?
5 A. Yes, agreed.
6 Q. If welook at row 12983 please, Can you see there are
7 four entries there? Are those the entries you had
8 a look at?
9A. Sorry, on 12983?
10 Q Yes, 12983is the first of four entries.
11 A. Right, yes.
12 Q Are those the ones you had in mind, or can you not
13 really remember?
14 A. It wasthe 25,
15 Q. Yes
16 A. Two 25s booked in.
17° Q. There are two 25s there, aren't there?
18 A. Yes
19 Q. Andtheyare both positive 25s?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q And do you know what the product codes were? Did you
22 look that up?
23 A. Fromthis I can’t recall, but what came in was the
24 seratcheards
25 Q. Okay, well, just to help you, 35341 appears to be £10
37
1 seratcheards?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 33327 is £3 scratchcards and 5473 is £5 scratchcards
4 A. So the issue was with the £10 ones.
5 Q. Okay, let's look at that and follow it through. You say
6 in your witness statement that two transaction
7 acknowledgements decreased stock when they should have
8 increased stock.
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q Which ones are they?
11 A. 25.
12 Q. And if we could look please at line 35341.
13 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Can you use the row not the product
14 code.
15 MRGREEN: I'mso sorry.
16 Can we just go please to 4 January I think at
17 row 2237. So we've got 2237, 4 January. I just wantto
18 show you how this appears to work. So at 6.55, this is
19 the same code, yes, 35341?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q At 6.55 in the morning you've got minus 20, do you see
22 that?
23° A. Yes.
24 Q. If welook at row 2309, at 8.54 in the morning we've got
25 plus 20, do you see that? 35341
38
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
Yes.
So you've got minus 20 followed by plus 20. Let's go to
row 6046. Do yousee that’s 9 January at 6.11 in the
morning? You've got again 35341, you've got minus 25.
Yes.
And then if we go to row 6213, at 9.15, do you see there
you've got plus 25? And the way we found this was by
searching on the code -- it is obviously quicker in
court to go to the specific row numbers, but this is by
searching the code 35341 and tracing through the
entries
So you get a negative entry and then a corresponding
positive one?
Mm-hm.
Yes? And we see it again at row 10202 and there's the
minus 25 and 10331, plus 25.
that pattern to you before you did your witness
statement?
Had anyone pointed out
Not before I did my witness statement.
No. Has anyone pointed it out since?
So what I asked and I have seen is that the two TAs that
came in actually came in with the wrong signage on it,
so it actually came in and it decreased the stock rather
than increasing the stock and that’s why the TC was sent
to correct that
39
Yes, but what I’m asking about first is looking at the
underlying transactions to see what actually happens
first .
Yes.
And trace the transaction through from the beginning,
not just look at the TA.
Yes
Now, it may not be that this is something you know about
or understand and that’s a perfectly reasonable answer
to give to the court. You're not required to answer
questions you don't know.
Yes.
So is this something that you yourself actually know
about, or has it come from other people who aren't here?
So my team are closer to this
I know.
~ but the working -- so the team do the working of it
I have interrogated the information to see if I can see
exactly how that flows and on this whatI can see is
that two lots of scratchcards, £10, came in and they
came in the wrong way and it has actually decreased
instead of increased, therefore they weren't -- they
weren't effectively remmed in, which is what the TA does
now, and when you look at the data you can see that
flowing through and what's happened in branch,
40
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/6/11
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 Q. Well, let's havea look at it, what does actually happen
2 on 18 January and I will suggest something to you and
3 you tell his Lordship whether you can agree or disagree
4 with it
5 Let's look at row 12983. We've got two positive 25s
6 there, do you see that?
7 AL Yes.
8 Q. And if one of the 25s should have been minus 25 he is
9 going to be actually 50short, isn’t he? Because
10 instead of recording the amount of stock he actually
at should have had and cancelling out, he is going to end
12 up with a record which is 50 rather than zero and
13 therefore he is going to be 50 short, do you agree?
14 A. Right. What he had was minus though.
15 Q. Well, he’s got two positive 25s there, hasn’t he?
16 A. Yes
17 Q Hehas not got whatwe have seen elsewhere, minus
18 25/plus 25. So all I'm pointing out to you is on this
19 premise he is going to be 50 short, the different
20 between the 25s cancelling each other out and them both
21 being the same sign, the difference is not 25, it’s 50,
22 isn't it?
23. A. Sorry, when you say 50 short, what do you mean, because
24 he has already got the scratcheards in the branch?
25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Okay, let me just try and speed this up.
al
1 1 know what your evidence is in totality. What Mr Green
2 is doing is he is taking you through some steps.
3A. Yes.
4 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Now, you might not agree with the steps,
5 which is why he is putting it as a premise, but his most
6 recent question was the other examples he had shown you
7 had a positive 25 anda negative 25 that had an overall
8 effect of zero
9 AL Yes.
10 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes? And what he is putting to you
11 here, which is a hypothesis on his case, is that if one
12 of these should have been a minus 25, instead of the two
13 25s having a net effect of zero they would have an
14 effect of 50.
15 A. Okay.
16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: He is going to reput the question
17 because I’m not going to put questions for him, but
18 that’s whathe is trying to do
19° A. AM right
20 MRGREEN: Soif that hypothesis is right, the difference is
21 that it will show an additional 50 of stock compared to
22 what it would have showed had it netted to zero?
23 A. [think so, yes.
24 Q Andhewould then not have the artificially inflated
25 stock on this premise?
42
eIAHkYOnE
>
orere>
orerer
OPO,
Yes.
And so he would be 50 short. Real life
Yes
-- would fall short by 50?
Yes.
And he would then regard himself as due a transaction
correction for 50 cards rather than for any other
number, yes?
For 50 cards?
Yes.
Yes.
On that premise?
Yes.
And in the event that he reverses a transaction for 50
cards, his cards should go down by 50?
Yes.
But his cash should go up by 50 correspondingly?
Yes.
And so he would want, in fairness, a transaction
correction to increase his stock by 50 cards?
Yes. And reduce his cash.
Yes. In fact the TC that he was sent increased his
stock by 100 cards, which caused a $0 card overshoot,
a 50£10card overshoot. He is therefore left £500
short on that premise, isn't he? If that's correct?
43
Yes, but that’s not
explain?
25s, £500 worth. Effectively he has activated the
scrateheards and therefore what he should have had
sorry.
PING. So it is basically you activate your scratchcards
so if I can just -- can I just
So what he should have had was so it is two
So if you just think about it before we did the
and you get the remin so it balances. What came in was
actually the wrong way round so it didn’t take the 500
to zero, it took it to a minusso it actually is 1,000
not 500 is the effect .
But the difference he is complaining about is 500.
Yes, why-- okay, the difference is then -- so
Mr Latif's practice was to -- as soonas he activated
the scratchcards in his post office he would then buy
them -- sell themonto his retail. So what he would do
straight away is he would processa sale for £500.
That's what he would do and that was his practice and
that’s quite -- a lot of people do that because it is
easier to keep the cash separate.
‘That would show asa sale on the information. Now,
what he has done in this case is when — because he’s
got negative stock figures, he couldn't balance with the
negative stock figures and then when they have looked
they can see that they've got negative stock figure on
the seratcheard, it’s showing a minus. So they then
44
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/12
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 reversed the sale of the 500 but actually they had never 1 Q. ~ so it overshot by 500 on his case for the reasons we
2 sold themin the first place, so actually he had reduced 2 have just outlined and put to you?
3 it. So whatthat means is actually the scratchcards 3 A. No, it didn’t though. Because -- because of the way it
4 that werein the retail hadn't been paid for, so there’s 4 was sorry, I'm not explaining this obviously.
5 actually £1,000 short is what the TC comes in should do 5 Because of the way it was booked in, instead of raking
6 and that was correct. 6 it to a zero it took it to a minus, so it had the double
7 Q. Well, let's look on the call logs, (F/1834.1). If we 7 effect of that coming in, so he -- actually he only had
8 look at 25 January and we look at row 48. So row 48 is, 8 50 seratcheards, two packs of 25 and £10, only 50, but
9 10 August 2015 and you see there: 9 because of the way it came in, instead of increasing it
10 “We have received the wrong TAs for £5 cards.” 10 decreased so basically instead of going from 500 to zero
11 That's whathe is calling the helpline about 11 it took it downagain, so it’s £1,000. And from what
12 in August 2015? 12 you -- you know, there you say he’s got a couple -- and
13° A. Okay. 13 I have said it clearly is confusing for himin branch
14 Q. Yes? And then if we goto row 56, 13 August 2015: 14 because of the way that’s happened and because of the
15 "Can PM has received TAs this morning and the office 15 way he actually sells his stock to the retail and
16 has been charged for the free games” 16 because of the way they reversed that transaction, it
17 You see that? 17 wouldn't be particularly easy to follow in branch, but
18 A. Yes. 18 that TC was correct.
19 Q. And then if we look at row 57, 14 August 2015, rollover 19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, lam entirely comfortable that
20 with discrepancy, yes? Caused by lottery TAs being 20 I can see the degree to which the call log either does
21 wrong. This happened quitea lot to him. Yes? 21 or doesn’t match either Mr Latif’s evidence or
22 A. Yes. 22 Mrs van den Bogerd’s understanding of that.
23 Q. And then row 72, on 25 January 2016, rather than 2018, 23 MRGREEN: I'm most grateful, my Lord. I was going to move
24 he’s got a duplicate lottery TC there as well. 24 on anyway.
25 A. Yes. 25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: There is nothing to be gained by
45 47
1 Q Canyon see that? 1 continuing.
2 A. Mmhm. 2 MRGREEN: I'm grateful
3 Q. Sothere’s a history there of him having these duplicate 3 Would that be a convenient moment for a break,
4 lottery problems and raising them and if we go to 4 my Lord?
5 row 171, 25 January 2018, do you see: 5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes. I do have to explore with you your
6 "TC received for ... £10x 100 scratchcard 6 intended timings.
7 games 7 MRGREEN: My Lord, yes.
8 And if we look at the top, he says 8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: You have the whole of this week but
9 only received 50 ... if weaccept the TC, will 9 you're not going to get any more time just because we
10 cause a discrepancy?” 10 are going slower with one witness than you expected.
11 A. It is right he had 50 but because of the way the TA was 11 MRGREEN: No, we're not seeking in any and we're planning
12 sent, it wassent -- it is because it had the complete 12 on that basis
13 opposite effect it actually went from being 500 to 13 MRJUSTICE FRASER: All right. Mrs van den Bogerd, we're
14 1,000. So it didn’t -- so whereashe should have booked 14 going to have a short break now. We will come back in
15 in 500, he booked ina minus 500 whichis the effect of 15 at 11.83. Thankyou very much,
16 £1,000. That is the difference 16 (11.45 am)
17 Q. Heis specifically complaining about the fact that the 17 (Short Break)
18 TC that he has received is not to correct the 50, it’s 18 (11.54 am)
19 to correct 100and if he accepts it it will increase his 19 MRGREEN: Mrs van den Bogerd, can we now look please at
20 stock by 100 lots of £10 seratcheards. That's precisely 20 paragraph 77 of your witness statement at {£2/5/20}.
21 the discrepancy that he has complained about in his 21 Now, this was in fact a shortfall raised by you
22 witness statement, isn’t it, £500? 22 rather than raised by Mr Tank, wasn't it?
23 A. But the value of the TC was 1,000 -- 23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Precisely 24 Q. Soin a sense it’s a slightly random one, it's not one
25 A. ~ which is what it should have been. 25 that he was specifically complaining about but it’s one
46
48
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/13
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 that you identified as having occurred in December 2011
2 and you say that he contacted NBSC regarding the
3 shortfall, the call was made on the 13th:
4 “I understand from Post Office’s solicitors and
5 Fujitsu that this particular issue was resolved
6 following an investigation as PEAK PC0214226. Iris
7 possible that Mr Tank contacted the banking team direct
8 (if he had their contact details ), but such calls are
9 not logged”
10 And the result of this is that he is repaid.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Andyou say at paragraph 87 you have described above at
13 paragraph 53:
14 *.. the process which subpostmasters need to follow
15 when there is a system outage or power failure and,
16 providing this process is followed, Horizon will either
17 recover or cancel the transaction. The online banking
18 transaction which Mr Tank has described is a recoverable
19 transaction and therefore
20 This is the important bit:
21 “if the correct recovery process had been
22 properly followed in accordance with the Horizon Online
23 quick reference guide, a copy of which appears at [POL
24 number which you have now amended to the correct one],
25 the branch would not have sustained any shortfall ”
49
1 So the point there is user error by Mr Tank; that’s
2 the point you're making?
3 A. So-- no, the point here is that the -- well, there was
4 a user error from Mr Tank in that he gave all the
5 receipts to the customer.
6 Q Sorry, say again?
7 A. Im that he gave all the receipts to the customer, that
8 was his error, so he didn’t have that information. But
9 in this -- so there's two things. In the case of
10 Mr Tank then what's happened in his situation is that
11 other than give the receipts, didn’t do anything -- it
12 wasn't user error because the recovery failed and
13 actually
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Sorry. And what happened here was that the failed
16 recovery was then picked up by Fujitsu in the back end
17 that comes in to Post Office and then we generate the TC
18 to the branch, which is what actually did happen here.
19 Q. Well, let’s see what actually did happen, 1 mean let’s
20 just be very precise, because I'm going to suggest to
21 you that when anything happens because of Horizon, if
22 there is any user error by an SPM that happens at the
23 same time but is not causative, Post Office mentions
24 user error in a way that suggests it is causative.
25 Do you recognise that?
50
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
CoPOoP o>
oPOo>
In this situation, yes
Yes. And the fact is that any user error by Mr'Tank was
not causative of the error that was generated?
No, it wasn't.
And so when we re-read that part which I said was the
important bit at the top of page 21, you say:
*.. therefore if the correct recovery process had
been properly followed in accordance with the
Horizon Online quick reference guide ... the branch
would not have sustained any shortfall *
That's not correct, is it?
Not in this. situation , no.
No.
It was - so in this situation it was the receipts,
because onthe receipts it actually does tell Mr Tank
what-- you know, what the situation -- what's happened.
Well, let's take it in stages
as an acronym?
Do you know what UEB is
Sorry, U?
UEB, have you ever heard of that?
No.
User error bias?
No, I can’t say
It is where people in IT constantly blame the user when
actually it is not their fault?
51
Okay, I haven't heard that before.
You haven't heard that?
No.
Well, let's look at this because I’m suggesting to you
this is a common theme that runs through Post Office’s
approach when these issues are raised. Is that a fair
suggestion?
I think what! have tried to explain is what the
approach is, in 99 out of 100 that would be the case
In this situation it is slightly different
Well, it’s slightly different in the sense that it is
not his fault and you have suggested that it is?
Right, well, I didn’t intend to suggest it was
completely his fault. I mean him giving the receipts
back to the customer was user error and had he held onto
those he would have seen exactly... but other than that
I mean he couldn't have done anything because it was
a failed recovery anyway and he did do what the receipts
will have told him whichis to pay out, which is what he
did.
He did what the receipts told him to do, didn’t he?
To pay out. It was an authorised payment, yes.
So when we follow it through -- I'm going to have to
take it reasonably speedily, stop me if there’s anything
that you need more time on.
52
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/14
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
oro,
Okay.
But if we look at {F/870} we can see this is the PEAK
and if we go to page 2 please {F/870/2} and look at the
summary, do you see the second box down:
“The banking transaction had completed (A3 received
and authorised ...), including the receipt print
money should have changed hands”
Yes?
and
Yes.
So that's what Horizon would be directing him to do on
the receipt, wouldn't it?
That's correct
And that is what he did?
Yes.
We then see:
“The disconnected session receipts show ‘cash to
customer 195.04, so the customer's account should be
correet but the branch will have a shortage (for
a withdrawal) because the session hasn’t been recorded.”
That's correct.
Can we pause there.
should?
In that it catches it in the back-end, then yes.
And ther
take you to it, but it’s at (F/871.2] which shows us
Is this Horizon workingas it
's a reference to a further PEAK I need not
53
that there are in fact 492 failed recovery transactions
captured in that PEAK, Were you aware of that?
1 wasn’t aware of that number, no.
Did anyone show you the KEL at {F/1700}? Can we look at
that please, And you can see the date of this KEL has
been it has been raised by Anne Chambers on
28 February 2010.
Yes.
Did you know that there was a KEL relating to all this
that had been going on since 2010?
1 wasn’t aware.
You weren't aware of that
If we just go down please under “problem”, just have
a look there, there’s a paragraph underneath the
subparagraphs (a) to (e):
“If a Tl recovery request times out at the
counter ..”
Because timing out is a problem, isn’t it?
It is if it i
mid-transaction, yes.
recovery is abandoned and no second attempt is made
to get the recovery information. This is as designed;
it was decided to keep recovery simple and not have too
many error paths. The priority is to get the user
working again, so in this sort of error path we just
mark the recovery as failed and leave it for SSC to sort
54
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oProPr
out
So it is designed into the system that in that
situation the SPM will have a discrepancy that they
can’t figure out and has to be corrected by SSC; that’s
the effect of it, isn’t it?
When you say not figure out, the receipts which is -- as
Mrs Burke's evidence was, she had the receipts and she
could figure it out, but it would havea discrepancy,
absolutely.
Well, they can’t figure out why, when they have done
whatthe actual receipt, if they have kept it, tells
them to do, they have still got a discrepancy?
No, what I'm saying is when you say “figure out", it
would be as Mrs Burke's evidence was it was obvious
to her what that problem was because it didn’t show on
the transaction log, so ..
‘That's as designed anyway?
Yes, as designed, yes.
Let’s look please now if we may at the forum post which
relates to this. It’s at (F/1257.1}.
“Hi all,
"Some advice/help required.
"Yesterday during HOL failure [Horizon Online
You see:
failure ] was in process of POCA card withdrawal.
Transaction seemed to go through okay apart from Horizon
55
printing 3 identical receipts
“Receipts showed a disconnected session with
recovery code.
"Receipts also showed CAWD limit [minus 195.04]
total due to the customer.”
Et cetera, we have confirmed he is right about that?
Yes
We have seen it in the PEAK?
Yes.
“Because receipts showed cash due to customer, we paid
out.
“Come evening balancing till showed approximately
£200 loss. Thought at time must be miscount and will
try to sort in morning.
“This morning produced transaction log for the
period of HOL failure. No record of 195.04 transaction
at all 1
Yes?
Yes.
That's because it is not recorded internally as
a transaction?
That's right
And it doesn’t show up on the report that the
subpostmaster has access to?
No, it doesn’t
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/15
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
orore>
r)
“Phoned helpline and was told by very irate member of
staff that loss is mine unless I can sort out with,
customer directly
In your experience is that the sort of typical
response in that situation?
No, and that’s the wrong response clearly.
It’s wrong, but is it typical?
No, I don’t recognise that. I meanif he has rung up
and said “I've got a disconnected session receipt” then
that should trigger a -- clearly not an irate member
anyway but it would trigger a different response.
Ona lot of these helpline records we see them say that
they read out the KBA in response.
Yes.
That's the knowledge based article.
Yes.
Another word for that is a script?
It would be where the information is, yes.
Yes. So often the helpline are responding by reference
to something from the knowledge based article?
Yes. So rather than put the actual thing in they
actually refer to knowledge base, yes.
Okay. Then after the brackets where he says "HAS ANYONE
SEEN THIS" in capitals , he says
“Asked irate staff to pass call up as I was not
87
‘a happy bunny, was told she was not going to do this,
only after I asked to speak to contracts manager or
somebody from POL press office with regards to speaking
to press about my loss was I given a number for
Chesterfield
Is that acceptable?
No.
Is it typical?
. No. I mean you would get the odd, you know, bad
experience, but that is not typical in my experience of
helpline staff .
"So spoke to POCA lady at Chesterfield who after
pressing a few buttons was able to find transaction
So it is clear that Post Office had access to
information that the SPM couldn't access; that's
correct, isn’t it?
Would be having, yes. Yes.
“She couldn't promise anything but will see if it she
can get a credit TC after she has spoken to Fujitsu 2222?
She took my [number] and promised to call back after
speaking to Fujitsu, being very non-committal about the
possible loss .”
If you go over the page {F/1257.1/2} he is asking
about what course of action and so forth
Now, pausing there, it’s clear that he faced
58
2
oPo>
a pretty serious headwind, didn’t he, in trying to sort
that our?
From the response from the helpline, yes
Can we just look at page 6 please (F/1257.1/6}. The
second entry down:
“When I balanced on 17th
This is not him, this is a different user on the
same forum:
*When I balanced on 17th September I had an
unexplained loss of £176.74.
go through to the stress of the hell line.
1 paid it in rather than
It has not
come to light *
Had you referred to the helpline as being called the
hell line? Had you heard of that?
I have heard of it, yes, I have
You have heard of it?
Yes.
And you can understand why people faced with that sort
of response might take that view?
Well, given that I said it wasn’t typical, I think for
£176 I would always ring, personally.
So that tends to suggest that the person there had had
some pretty bad experiences if they weren't prepared to
follow that up, because it’s quite a lot of money?
Well, yes, if they were happy to put £176 when they
89
could have sought help with it
Okay. Let’s have a look very quickly please at the
helpline log at (F/1286.1}. Because as well as the
forum post we just looked at and his description of what
he did the very next day, we have what the helpline
recorded from his call at row 120. I'msorry, on the
remedy tab, Ms Mackenzie has very helpfully reminded me.
Row 120.
Can we just go across please to the detailed
description:
‘alled this morning about a Horizon failure
yesterday, branch completed a withdrawal and the 195.04
failed recovery receipt time ... recovery code ... card
account withdrawal limit ”
Just go across to the right please. You see
Priority: low” in the incident log, do you see that?
Yes.
Do you think that should be a low priority?
‘That's the classification on the remedy system, it
doesn’t actually apply to that particular call, it’s
just a hangover from the old system.
Whatis that recording if not the priority to be
afforded to that incident?
So that would -- so my understanding of that is if it
was a robbery incident it would come asa high. It
60
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/16
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 doesn’t mean they're not taking that call seriously at 1 couldn't use a spoiled label process because the guide
2 all. 2 told him that he couldn't do so unless the label was on
3 Q. Arthe very lowest, wecan see the detailed description 3 hand.
4 doesn’t exactly reflect the conversation that took 4 A. Okay.
5 place, does it, putting it mildly? 5 And if it has not been printed out it’s not going to be
6 A. No, it’s quite specific to the actual issue itself . 6 on hand, is. it?
7 Q. It doesn't capture what helpline told him, what he had 7 A. No, but you can print a receipt, that’s part of the
8 to do to insist on trying to get a number for 8 process, and claim on the receipt
9 Chesterfield , it doesn’t capture any of that? 9 Q. Well, he had suffered repeated losses, become very
10 A. No, it has the detail of the failed recovery. 10 frustrated and if welook at {F/1399.1}, this is the
11. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Have you finished with this document? 12 transcript of a meeting which he has with Mr Bridges and
12 MRGREEN: My Lord, yes. 12 when we go please to page 14 of that (F/1399.1/14}, he
13. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Can we just scroll to the left so I can 13 explained openly about his use of official postage, he
14 see the first row again please. Thank you. 14 said it was just a form of protest to get this meeting
15. MRGREEN: Can we now look please at the Horizon Online 15 and he is asked "So how many forms of protest do you
16 quick reference guide that you have referred to at 16 need to get a meeting?”, "Well apparently it took all of
17 paragraph 78 of your witness statement. It is at 17 this, and however many years
18 {F/1365}. This is actually the 30 July 2015 one, but 18 You were familiar, weren't you, with SPMs who got
19 this is the guide you would expect an SPM to look at, 19 very frustrated over issues they felt were not being
20 yes. 20 faced upto, getting frustrated they couldn't get
21 A. Yes. 21 face-to-face meetings with people? He was not alone in
22 Q. Andean yousee the red box at the bottom? 22 that, was he?
23 A. Yes. 23 A. Well, I don’t have great knowledge of it, but there
24 Q. “Total due to customer”, yes? 24 would be some instances where face-to-face would have,
25 A. Yes. 25 in my view, resolved the situation much quicker. As in
61 63
1 Q And it actually positively says: 1 here he said it only took one call and they had the
2 "You must take care to only settle with the customer 2 meeting.
3 for the amount specified on the receipt which is clearly 3 Q Well, I haven't got time to deal with the long run-up to
4 stated as the ‘total due to/from customer’” 4 that.
5 A. Yes 5 Let's look at page 16 {F/1399.1/16}. If you look
6 Q. Where dowefind there or at all a statement that "We 6 halfway down he says:
7 know there’s a design fault recognised within Horizon 7 “I need some acknowledgement of the fact that there
8 which may leave you puzzled when you give a customer 8 is anissue. I received a letter back from KB saying
9 cash as you have been told to do in this paragraph but 9 that there is, he has investigated it and there is
10 actually the transaction has disappeared, please call 10 nothing to report. Could see the results of your
11 the helpline? Where do we find something or anything 1 investigation. I would like to see the screenshots of
12 remotely about that? 12 the conversation that I had with various postmasters and
13° A. It doesn’t say here 13 the business analyst from Post Office Limited on
14 Q. It is not in there anywhere, is it’ 14 Subspace.”
15 A. No. 15 ‘Subspace was an area people could share their
16 = MRJUSTICE FRASER: I dare say that wasn’t the most 16 concerns?
17 difficult question that Mrs van den Bogerd had to 17 A. Yes.
18 answer. That's really straying into 18 Q. And Post Office withdrew it?
19 MRGREEN: My Lord, I'm sorry. 19 A. Yes
20 It had been a known issue since February 2010 at the 20 Q. "So this is a known fault and when! see
21 latest 21 Paula Reynolds ...”
22 A. Okay. 22 It must be Vennells, because I think in the other
23 Q. Let’s move now if we may please, just going at some 23 transcript we have it is Vennells
24 speed, just in relation to the label transaction issues 24 A. Yes.
25 that Mr Tank experienced. His evidence was that he 25 Q. “. whenIsee Paula [Vennells] standing in front of
62
64
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/17
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
SIYIAHRONKE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
politicians saying there is no known fault with Horizon,
something gets my goat.”
This is typical of the frustration that you have
encountered from SPMs, isn't it?
A. In some instances, yes.
Q. Can we move on now please to the Patnys and I’m going to
have to take this slightly more speedily.
In relation to paragraph 62 of your witness
statement {E2/5/18}, the POL reference there, the
document that actually was referenced, was not the
helpline logs, it was the helpline service desk logs,
yes, which is a different document?
AL Yes
Q. That's now been corrected in your corrections to the
correct POL reference 05114278. Indeed the document at
paragraph 63 has been corrected on Thursday of last week
to the correct number so that they match the documents
to which hyperlinks had been added on Opus.
Do you know how it was
already at the last time of asking, but do you know how
we have covered this
it was that all these document references were to the
wrong things?
A. Sorry, I don’t. I meanIhad the information I used and
I didn’t do the referencing myself, so I just apologise
for thar.
65
Q. If welook at
declarations made on 4 February 2019 which is at
{11/186}. 1 won't take you to it, And your solicitors
wrote back and said, on 11 February at {H/196}, that
there was a request for cash
they would be provided.
What we get at {F/1514.1}, if wecan look at that,
wasn’t disclosed until 7 March. Did you know about any
of those requests for documents that related to your
evidence in the background or not?
A. No, I haven't been involved in that.
Q. Could we just go into the properties of that document
please, “File” at the top. Wesee this document was
created on 1 March 2019 by somebody called
Andrew Keighley.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: "Properties" 1 think. You are being
asked to look at “Related dates” under *Properties” on
the right-hand side
Do you see? Have you got the
‘common screen?
A. Oh, sorry. Right, yes, sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: It is an information block that is
attached to the file and it says "Properties" in the
right-hand corner. Do you see that?
A. Sorry, I was expecting a spreadsheet, sorry. Yes.
MR GREEN: Do you seeit is created on 1 March 2019?
AL Yes.
66
eIAHkYOnE
And the author is somebody called Andrew Keighley. Who
is he?
He works in the cash management part of the supply
chain.
And Shirley Hailstones is someone who helped you with
your witness statement in November?
She is, yes, in my team, yes
So did you have this document, if we go back, or
a different document when you were looking at the
Patnys’ situation?
1 don’t recall which date it was but certainly when
I looked at it I looked at the transaction log and the
event logs for this, but not all of this.
I'm going to take —- Mrs van den Bogerd, you will
understand I'm just going to take this a bit more
speedily
Yes.
When you were dealing with the analysis of the Patnys’
situation in paragraph 66 (E2/5/18} and so forth
Yes.
you didn’t mention stamps anywhere?
No.
And you didn’t mention calls to the NBSC?
No.
Was there in he reason for that? They are pretty
67
prominent features of the case?
No, other than I said this was at a time where I put
this together, then I didn’t have a huge amount of time
to put this together, but
Okay. What we seein the call logs -- and I’m talking
about the logs we have I think already seen but they are
at {F/1509.1} if we could just look at those
in court I think when you heard a positive allegation of
You were
dishonesty being put to Mr Aakash Patny, weren't you?
Yes, I was.
‘That he was inflating the stamps to conceal cash
deficit ?
Yes, I was here, yes.
But that’s not an allegation that you suggested in your
witness statement?
No, I haven't.
And the reason for that is you don't believe that’s
necessarily what he was doing?
I didn’t offer an opinion at all. WhatI wasin this
looking to do was to try and look at what he said had
happened and look at what we could see from the data
Now, what we can see is that the stamps are overdeclared
and that has a corresponding cash entry and there was
a loss beforehand, but I haven't gone further with any
other suggestion on this.
68
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/18
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 Q. Just pausing there, you will remember from his evidence LQ. Doyou know why a Credence report would not be produced
2 that you heard that he explained that when he called the 2 in a situation like this?
3 helpline they took him through some complicated steps to 3A. Sothe Credence - I meanit’s actually not Credence in
4 try and sort it out. Doyouremember that? Do you 4 here that's -- so there is some-- so, sorry, the NBSC
5 remember that evidence? 5 don’t use Credence, they use Horace, which gives a
6 A. Sorry, I don’t actually. I thought it was when he spoke 6 Credence only goes back three months, Horace goes back
7 to somebody in Chesterfield rather than the helpline 7 six months, which is better --
8 Q. It mayhave beenin Chesterfield. In any event he was 8 Q. But this is within
9 taken -- I think there are a number of occasions, but 9 A. So wedon't normally produce either Credence or Horace
10 the point is this, that the Credence report would show 10 information for branches themselves because it would be
at the specific keystrokes by the operator in branch, a1 difficult for them to interpret the data, as you found
12 wouldn't they? 12 out looking at the different lines. But in terms of if
13° A. Yes 13 he has requested and we said we would produce then we
14 Q. Andso if one had wanted to get to the truth about what 14 should have produced
15 keystrokes Mr Patny had pressed, one could have obtained 15 Q. If welook at row well, I need not take you to more
16 a Credence report to identify that and that would 16 of it.
17 have 17 My Lord, I think I can deal with some of the
18 A. Haveused a Credence report, yes. 18 transaction isstes in the spreadsheets in closings
19 Q. And that would have shown all the keystrokes pressed 19 without putting them to this witness.
20 A. Yes. 20 Let’s turn now to the MoneyGram issue, if we may,
21 Q -- so youcould follow exactly whathe had done in 21 paragraph 71 of your witness statement (E2/5/19}. Again
22 sequence? 22 the POL reference was to event data not to transaction
23 A. Yes. 23 data. If we goto the correct document which is,
24 Q. Andwecan see at row 140 of this spreadsheet, if we go 24 {F/1436.1} please, just trace this through if we may,
25 across, you will see the £17,000 shortage. If you just 25 can we look at the sheet 1 and go please to row 1066.
69 71
1 look at the top youcan see that -- if we go to the 1 Do you see that?
2 “Resolution” column which is to the right, and you look 2 A. Yes.
3 at line 140, if you go to “Emailed ESG”, just click on 3 Q. Doyou know what those codes are?
4 that. Above can you see: 4 A. Not off the top of myhead,no. Other than “1” being
5 “Emailed ESG Thursday 26/05/2016 ... requesting 5 cash.
6 Credence report. Please see attached documents. 6 Q. So it appears when we compare this with the session data
7 Advised office of Credence info office adamant stamps 7 wecan see what they are, but can I just invite you to
8 are declaring themselves and overriding (his) figure 8 look at those five lines from 1066.
9 Referred to IT if believes system issue.” 9 A. So it's the MoneyGram for 3,100, yes, I see that.
10 So at that date it looks as if a Credence report 10 Yes, 3,100, 3,100. And if we look now -- you see how
11 should have been requested, doesn’t it? 11 many lines there are there that relate to -- appear to
12 A. Yes 12 relate to the MoneyGram transaction?
13 Q. And the Credence report would have shown the keystrokes? = «13—A._‘Yes.
14 A. Yes. 14 So we've got five transactions there in that run. 40170
15 Q Andif Mr Paty had been dishonest, it would provide 15 is MoneyGram repeat send, just to get your eye in
16 powerful evidence of his dishonesty, wouldn't it, the 16 MR JUSTICE FRASER: Code 40170 is MoneyGram .?
17 precise keystrokes entered? 17 MRGREEN: Repeat send.
18 A. Potentially, yes. 18 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
19 Q. Andit is Mr Patny we see chasing up and repeatedly 19 MR GREEN: And if we look down you can see 40173 is
20 requesting the Credence report in these logs? 20 MoneyGram cancel. So you've got five lines there from
21 A. Yes. 21 40170 down to 40173.
22 Q. It doesn’t make any sense if he thinks he has been 22 Can we look at the session data now please to match
23 dishonest, does it? 23 that up, it’s (F/1437.1}. If we goto row 4449 please.
24 A. Well, he wants to see the information. I mean that’s 24 23 February, if we just go across to the right very
25 what he is after, isn’t he? 25 slightly you will see here that we can now see from the
70
72
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/19
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
session data the item alongside the code: 40170. If we
click on the MoneyGram I think we can see above
“MoneyGram repeat send”, and we come down one, we've got
“MoneyGram send classic” and then we've got underneath
it "Visa debit payment’, underneath that we've got
"Cash" and then underneath that we've got "MoneyGram
cancel”
So we've got two transactions at 12.37 recorded, one
at 12.42 andtwoat 12.49. Do you see those?
Yes.
How many session receipts would you expect to find in
the event data and for which entries?
I'm not sure.
Let's look at the event data, (F/1435}
sheet 1, sorry. And if we look at row 429, we have only
It is onthe
got four session receipts
Okay.
And if we just look at the time there, the first twoare
the two transactions at 12.49, but there doesn’t seem to
bea session receipt between 12.13, which is up above at
line 422, and 12.49, Do you know why there don’t seem
to be any session receipts for the two lines we saw at
12.37 or the one we saw at 1.42?
Sorry, I don’t know the answer.
So paragraph 72 of your witness statement, if we go back
73
to that please, it is (E2/5/19}, you have now amended
that paragraph, essentially deleting all the words
after -- well, fromand including "Mr Patny says” in the
third line
Yes.
And the reason for that is because that’s precisely what
we see when we look at the helpline advice, that he was
told to settle to cash and reverse and what he did was
settle to cash and not reverse at the time, but he says
he did so later at just after 7 o’clock in the evening,
yes?
He was told to cancel and reverse, yes.
Has any of the evidence that I have taken you through
yesterday about the fact that this is in the week with
the PEAK latency -
Right.
-- in relation to MoneyGram ~ that massive spike in
latency, do you remember?
Mm-hm.
And the fact that your account of what people were told
to do in terms of calling NBSC didn’t actually apply to
Mr Patny because it came afterwards
yesterday?
The instruction you mean? Yes.
Yes.
do you remember
74
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes.
The instruction was not to call NBSCat the time he did
it, was it?
No -- well, yes, just after it came out, yes.
So it took place in the week with PEAK latency problems,
Duplication of transactions was a known issue in
relation to MoneyGram in that specific week. He did
precisely what the helpline told him in terms of
settling to cash and that’s why he did it and Mr Paty
appeared to be worried about the polling time being
after 7 o'clock, in circumstances when we saw that
Post Office's internal documents didn't pick up the
disconnect and correct it between polling time for
MoneyGram and Post Office until more thana year after
this.
Now, does any of that cause you to reconsider your
view of what may have happened in Mr Patny's case with
his difficulties with an apparent duplication of £3,100?
Sorry, looking at the information that I have seen on
this, he did ring the helpline, so he did ring anyway.
Whether he had had the instruction or not, but he knew
he hada problem so he rang. I can see no evidence of
reversal there, which is why we issued the TC.
And are you aware that reversals don’t sometimes show up
in the data that's recorded by Post Office?
75
So on -- well, we have issued a TC because he hadn't
reversed, which is why we have issued the TC. Had he
reversed and we had issued a TC, he would have had
a positive variance from that T
Short point to you: I’m just asking you, he made the
point that he was actually doing his reversal that he
had forgotten to do at the time, he accepted that was
not right
Yes.
He makes the point that he attempted to doa reversal at
7.04 in the evening but that was after polling time.
Okay.
You have seen that at the very time he encountered what
he believed was a doubling problem, internal documents
show that that was a recognised feature of the latency
issues which were at their peak in that very week.
Okay.
Does that cause you to reappraise the likelihood of him
being at fault in the way you have suggested?
Well, I think at the time if we were aware of that we
should have looked into that for him when he has rung
into the helpline, if we were aware of that at the time.
No one told him, "Mr Patny, in fairness to you this is
a system-wide problem which is peaking this week”, did
they?
76
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/20
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 A. No. 1 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I thought you might.
2 Q It’s fair to say that Post Office is not very 2 Re-examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON
3 forthcoming about the problems that are being 3. MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Mrs van den Bogerd, I would like to
4 experienced more widely when SPMs ring up the helpline? 4 talk about MoneyGram first because my learned friend has
5 A. Had-- so when there is a problem the helpline clearly 5 just put to you that the very week that this MoneyGram
6 are aware there's a problem because they get inundated 6 problem arose there was a known issue about duplicated
7 with calls , so they are aware when there’s a problem and 7 MoneyGram transactions and it was put to you on the
8 usually what happensis that if there’s a problem they 8 basis that what was being experienced in branch
9 will say “We are aware of it and we will come back to 9 reflected the known problem and I would like to
10 you” which is some of the evidence we have heard around 10 investigate that with you if I may.
at some of the -- so the issue we had on 9 May for a1 If we could go please to (F/1555}. You were shown
12 instance, we heard about that. So they were aware of it 12 this by MrGreen yesterday. Do you recall seeing it?
13 and they will say, So at the time if there was an. 13° A. Yes.
14 issue, it should have been -- that should have been 14 Q. Andcould you just describe what this documentis?
15 taken into account, yes. 15 A. So it’s a change request -- well, a pricing document for
16 Q Doyouaccept that Post Office suffers from user error 16 work to make a change request.
17 bias in the way that it meets concerns raised by SPMs? 17 Q. So some work is being done and it is to sort out
18 A. In someinstances, yes, I do. 18 a problem, isn’t it?
19 Q. Can we look please at an example at {F/1687.1}. This is 19° A. Yes.
20 Mrs Burke, who we now accept was not at fault for 20 And if I could ask you to go just about halfway down the
21 causing the problem that she experienced, yes? 21 page underneath “Background” I will read it out to
22 A. Yes. 22 you
23 Q. Canyoulook please at rowS. You will see there’s a TC 23 "MoneyGram summary.
24 issued. Cane click in the text for that please. What 24 “For the last several months Post Office has
25 she is told is: 25 experienced a live operational issue with MoneyGram
77 79
1 “To correct communications failure on 9.5.16 for in 1 transactions across the branch network. In the event of
2 pounds 150 ... so credit to office. Financial services 2 ‘a transaction timing out at the counter, a system error
3 enquiry team ..” 3 message is displayed to the user (error code 84) and the
4 See what's said at the end there: 4 transaction is aborted. This leaves no record of the
5 "Please be careful when entering transactions.” 5 transaction at the counter and the transaction and funds
6 A. Yes. 6 may or may not have been committed to the MoneyGram
7 Q. Does that reflect a fair assessment of the cause of that 7 domain”
8 problem that she encountered? 8 If this problem arosein a particular branch, what
9 A. No, that’s referring to the TCI think there. It was 9 impact would the MoneyGram transaction have had in the
10 when you put the TC through. 10 branch's accounts?
11. Q. She receives that as a description of the TC correcting 11 A. It depends what stage of the transaction it would be.
12 what's gone wrong, which is nothing to do with her. 12 So if it had committed and it left no transaction record
13° A. Okay, right 13 then it would be having a discrepancy.
14 Q. Andit says at the end of it “Please be careful when 14 Q. So-- let mejust see if it ... well, let me just
15 entering transactions ” 15 A. It depends, If the transaction is aborted before it is
16 A. Whichis just a standard line on TCsI think. It’s not 16 actually registered then it would have no impact at all
17 referring -- whatI’m reading from that it’s not 17 Q. Thank you.
18 referring to Mrs Burke that she needs to be careful 18 A. It dependson, as I say, what stage of the transaction
19 Q. I'mgrateful. 19 it would be at.
20 My Lord, unless your Lordship has any questions, 20 Q. But the description -- I’m just asking you about the
21 I have no further 21 effect of the description that’s here, I’m not asking
22 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson might have some 22 you about anything else
23 re-examination. I've got a couple of questions but 23. A. Okay.
24 1 will leave 24 And it says that the problem involves the transaction
25 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I have a number of questions. 25 being aborted.
78
80
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/21
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1A. Yes. 1 accounts?
2 Q. And there being no record of the transaction at the 2 A. So that would align with Post Office but there's
3 counter. 3 back-end reconciliation not the front end.
4 AL Yes. 4 Q. I'msorry, but could you just focus on my question.
5 Q. And my question to you is what impact does that have on 5 A. Sorry, okay.
6 the branch's accounts? 6 Q. We've gor the branch’s accounts setting out what the
7A. Im this instance it should have none at all . 7 branch's position is by reference to its transactions
8 Q. Noimpact, okay. 8 and then we've got MoneyGram’s account setting out what
9 MRJUSTICE FRASER: When you mean “this instance” do you 9 their position is by reference to the transactions they
10 mean this specific one 10 are aware of.
11° A. Because this is a particular -- sorry. 11 A. Yes.
12 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, it goes on to say “the 12 Now, in the scenario that’s described here, where funds
13 transactional funds may or may not have been committed 13 have been committed in the MoneyGram domain, what would
14 in the domain’. 14 the MoneyGram accounts be showing?
15 A. Yes, andthe point is -- reading the first error codemy 15 A. If it_has been committed they would be saying it has
16 understanding of this is -- and that transaction is 16 actually been transacted.
17 aborted, it would have noimpactat all because it would 17 Q. Okay, so the MoneyGram accounts would show
18 have been cancelled mid-air almost. 18 a transaction -
19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Understood. 19° A. Yes.
20 A. Ifa transaction had already been committed then unless 20 Q ~ involving the branch.
21 it was cancelled and reversed, as we have been 21 A. Yes.
22 discussing, then it would almost have beenas if it had 22 Q. But going back to the branch accounts, would the branch
23 been paid out, so that would have been an issue. 23 accounts show that transaction?
24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: That's what I understood the case to be. 24 A. From reading this then no.
25 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Well, what I'm seeking to explore with 25 Q._Right. So there would bea discrepancy, there would be
81 83
1 you, Mrs van den Bogerd, is first of all what happens 1 a
2 with the branch accounts and secondly what happens with 2 A. Yes.
3 MoneyGram in accordance with the description here. 3 Q ~ failure to reconcile, would there
4 A. Yes. 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. It says 5 Q. -- between the branch system, which means Post Office
6 *.. funds may or may not have been committed in the 6 A. Yes.
7 MoneyGram domain.” 7 Q. ~ and MoneyGram, is that right?
8 So what would happen to the MoneyGram accounts if 8 A. That's right
9 funds had been committed to the MoneyGram domain? 9 Q Thank you.
10 A. Sorry, can you repeat that? 10 If we could then go on to {F/1502} please. Do you
11 = Q. Wehavea transaction done at branch which is aborted. 11 remember Mr Green took you to this, do you remember
12 A. Yes. 12 seeing this yesterday?
13> Q. Andwe have no record of the transaction at the counter. 13° A. Ido, yes.
14 AL Yes. 14 If I could move on to page 29 of that document
15 Q. But we have funds being committed in the MoneyGram 15 {F/1502/29} you will see it is headed "Latency
16 domain. 16 resolution plan” and I recall Mr Green taking you
17 A. Right 17 straight down to the bottom entry, "Reconciliation ”,
18 Q. So we have two sets of accounts here, don’t we? 18 "Duplicate transactions are created ..” andas
19 A. Yes. 19 I understand it whathe is saying is that's precisely
20 Q. Wehave the branch accounts? 20 the kind of duplicate transaction that may have happened
21 A. Yes. 21 in this particular case that we have been talking about.
22 Q. And we have the MoneyGram accounts? 22 But if we look at the row headed "Reconciliation" it
23° A. Yes. 23 says
24 Q. In the scenario where funds have been committed in the 24 “Duplicate transactions are created in MG systems as
25 MoneyGram domain, what happens to the MoneyGram 25 ‘a result of the Post Office timeouts.”
82
84
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/22
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1A. Yes. 1 branches.
2 Q. Now, what does "MG systems” mean? 2 Q. So in your view does it have any relevance --
3. A. That's MoneyGram. 3A. No.
4 Q. Socould you explain what's actually happening in this 4 Q. -- to the problem that was experienced by Mr Latif?
5 when these transactions are being duplicated? 5 A. No, it has no relevance at all
6 A. So that’s registered in MoneyGram as if they have been 6 Q. Andlet’s just talk about the symptoms as well. Do you
7 transacted, 7 recall what the symptom is, the problem that was created
8 Q. So in whose system is the duplicate transaction being 8 by the Dalmellington bug, if we can call it that?
9 created? 9 A. So this was when it was booked out from the core and
10 A. In MoneyGram’s. 10 been booked in by the outreach and there would be -- it
11. Q. Is there any description, any suggestion that there's 11 was to do with a button press, they were able to enter
12 a duplicate transaction being created in a branch's 12 the button again and that was doubling it
13 account? 13 Q. So what's happening is that we have money coming out
14 A. Notfrom this, no. 14 from the main branch stock unit and going into the
15 Q. Thankyou. 15 outreach stock unit
16 Mr Green this morning mentioned two bugs, 16 A. Yes.
17 Dalmellington and Callendar Square, and that’s in the 17 Q. And what you're suggesting is that the result of the
18 context -- do you remember which witness this was in the 18 Dalmellington bug was that too much would go into the
19 context of? I'mafraid 1 don't 19 stock unit
20 A. It wasthe transfers. It was Latif 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It is Mr Latif, I'msosorry. I’ mbeing rather seatty. 21 Q. ~ the outreach stock unit, is that right?
22 My learned friend put to you that you should have 22 A. Yes
23 borne in mind -- he asked you whether you had and 23 Q._ In your view does that bear any similarity to the
24 I think sought to suggest that you should have borne in 24 problem that Mr Latif says he experienced in relation to
25 mind two particular bugs, the Dalmellington bug and the 25 not being able to transfer money into
85 87
1 Callendar Square bug. I would like to ask you about the 1 A. No
2 Dalmellington bug first. Could I ask you to go to 2 Q. ~ the stock unit?
3 {F/1426}. This is a document which I suspect you have 3 A. Mr Latif said that when he transferred from one to the
4 never seen before, but -- why don't I ask you to read 4 other the transfer in wasn't displaying at all and
5 the document. It is a KEL, it’s a Fujitsu KEL relating 5 therefore he reversed, is whathe said, so this is very
6 to the Dalmellington bug. Might you have seen this 6 different to this
7 before? 7 Q. It’s very different. So in your view is the
8 A. Notin this format, no. 8 Dalmellington bug something that should have been borne
9 Q. Okay, well, then I will give you a few minutes to read 9 actively in mind when you were addressing Mr Latif's
10 it. 10 data and what happened in his branch?
11 (Pause). 11 A. No.
12 A. Okay. 12 Thank you.
13. Q._ Now, when you were asked about Dalmellington I think 13 Now, Callendar Square, it was also put to you that
14 Mr Green suggested to you that this should have been in 14 you should have borne Callendar Square in mind. Are you
15 your mind as a possible explanation for what was 15 familiar with the Callendar Square bug?
16 experienced by Mr Latif and you answered him by saying 16 A. Ihave forgotten the details exactly of Callendar Square
17 "Well, no this related to an outreach branch”, Did 17 actually
18 Mr Latif’s branch involve any outreach element? 18 Q. Let meremind you. If we could go to D2 tab 4 please,
19 A. No. 19 page 20 (D2/4/20}. This is Mr Coyne’s report and
20 Q. Sowasthis a bug that in fact could have affected 20 I would just like you to read paragraph 3.34 of his
21 Mr Latif’s branch? 21 report please, Mrs van den Bogerd.
22 A. No,no. So this refers to remin and out process. We 22 (Pause).
23 were talking about -- Mr Latif was transfers in and out 23° A. Okay.
24 which is within branch, so this -- so my understanding 24 You will see the year of the bug, it wasin 2005 and
25 of this is this is an outreach only issue, not other 25 fixed in March 2006.
86
88
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/23
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1A. Yes:
2 Q Doyou recall the year that Mr Latif suffered his
3 problem?
4 A. Exactly no, but it was later than that. Sorry, 1 would
5 have to refer to my statement.
6 Q Yes, why don’t we. Your statement doesn’t actually -
7 the months you look at are June, July and August 2015,
8 A. That's right, yes. Sorry.
9 Q So this is a bug that happened beforehand and Mr Coyne
10 says that it occurred in Legacy Horizon and he refers to
aL a data communication error in Riposte. Now, when
12 Mr Latif suffered his problem was he using
13 Legacy Horizon?
14. A. No.
15 Q And this may be beyond your expertise and if it is
16 please tell me, but as far as you are aware does
17 Horizon Online, the system that Mr Latif was using, use
18 the Riposte system?
19 A. I don't think it does, but that would be beyond me.
20 Q. Very good. But bearing in mind the year and the system
21 on which this bug occurred, do you feel that you should
22 have actively bornein mind the possibility that
23 Mr Latif’s problem was caused by the Callendar Square
24 bug?
25 A. No.
89
1 Q. Thank you.
2 Now, you were asked some questions about Mr Tank and
3 in particular ona number of occasions you said Mr Tank
4 should have kept the disconnected session receipt .
5 Do you remember that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now,why-- I’mnot criticising Mr Green here but why do
8 you think that’s significant? What difference would it
9 have made if Mr Tank had had the receipt?
10 A. Because that -- 1, it tells the postmaster what to doin
11 that particular situation, whether to give cash to or
12 take cash from, and that helps him identify then -- so
13 for instance in this situation if the transaction is
14 missing then he would be able to use that receipt to be
15 able to identify that as well, so he’s got much better
16 position of what's happened in his branch,
17 Q. Andwith the benefit of that receipt, when a postmaster
18 phones into the helpline with a problem with his
19 accounts, does that assist the process
20 A. Yes.
21 Q ~ the fact that there is a receipt? Perhaps you could
22 explain why that is so?
23 A. So ringing into the helpline to say that "I have an
24 issue, I have a disconnected receipt, a recovery
25 receipt”, whatever the situation is, that’s very
90
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different to saying “I have a diserepancy of £200"
195 in this instance -- “and I don’t know whatit is,
it’s a very different scenario and the helpline will
respond differently to that
Very good, thank you.
Now I would like to ask you about quite a lengthy
correction regarding the Helen Rose report. Do you
remember the Helen Rose report?
Yes, I do, yes
The report is at {F/1082}. If we could look at page 1
of that report (F/1082/2}, at the bottom of the page you
will see that -- well, from halfway down it is headed
“Questions asked and extracts from various emails in
response”. It is worth remembering thar this was sent
on 12 June and so what is contained below that
heading -- perhaps I can ask you: what do you think
the text in blue -- the text in black andthe text in
blue, what do you think that represents?
That was the response from Gareth Jenkins to the -- so
I think what Helen has done is just cut and pasted that
into this document
I see. So it would have been various emails that were
written -- exchanges of emails that were written leading
upto 12June, is that right?
Yes, and you can see that she has referenced the email
OL
at the bottom there. 30 January 2013.
So it’s quite a long time, that’s quite an early email,
isn’t it, it’s six months before this report was
written?
Yes.
And if we look at that paragraph - well, if we look at
the previous paragraph, this is Mr Jenkins, he says
about halfway down:
"The fact that there is no indication of such
‘a receipt in the events table suggests the counter may
have been rebooted and so perhaps may have crashed in
which case the clerk may not have been told exactly what
to do”
So there he appears to be suggesting that there was
no receipt?
Yes.
And it was put to you that there was no receipt and you
resisted that suggestion?
Yes.
But it was put to you on the basis of this document that
there wasno receipt. Could we just go to the second
page of this document ~ it is the third page, isn’t it,
I see {F/1082/3}. In the second paragraph down it says
“The files are part of the standard ARQ
returned. Rows 141 to 143 ... clearly showa reversal
92
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/24
March 19, 2019
POL00004071
POL00004071
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also row 70 ... shows that session 537803 ... has been
recovered and this event has the same time stamp as the
reversal session. Also row 71 of events... shows that
a receipt was generated from the session 537805 (not
explicitly , but it was the only session at that time)”
So you didn’t have an opportunity to look at this in
the context of what was being suggested by my learned
friend
AL Yes.
Q. -- but now that you have seen this email, or the quote
from this email which I apprehend is a later email, what
would your reaction be to the suggestion that this
document indicates that no receipt was actually
produced?
‘A. That does say that receipt was produced.
Q. Thank you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you want to stop and revisit it at
2 o'clock?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes please.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I’m afraid you're going to have to come
back. Wewill stop until 2
Now, Mr De Garr Robinson, as you will have noted
from my approach to Mr Green last week in terms of
re-examination, it has to be kept within a narrow
compass. 1 know Mrs van den Bogerd is a very important
93
witness so I’m not cutting you short on your
re-examination, but just bear that in mind.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I will endeavour to ensure it is_not
lengthy, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: 2 o'clock. Thank you very much.
(1.00 pm)
(The luncheon adjournment)
(2.00 pm)
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Mrs van den Bogerd, we were looking at
the Helen Rose report and I just havea few more
questions about that. The reference is {F/1082}. If we
could look at -- it maybe the second page but it is the
first page of the text {F/1082/2}. At the bottom of the
page you will see there are these three paragraphs which
are pale blue which are copied and pasted from some
earlier Gareth Jenkins email. He says in the first
paragraph that
“This shows that session 537803 was successfully
saved to the BRDB, but when the user JAROO! logged on
again recovery reversed the session in session 537805."
And in relation to that it was put to you and you
fairly accepted when you were being examined by Mr Green
that it was Horizon that caused the reversal of the
session.
Could you explain what's meant by recovery reversed
94
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oreor
the session; could you explain what that means? That's
a slightly open question but I have to ask you open
questions.
It means that the recovery process itself , what's
triggered as a result of the loss of connectivity here
then actually reversed that transaction and that was
triggered by the postmaster logging on after the system
had come back up.
So it was the postmaster logging on
Yes.
- that was the start of the process but it was then
recovery which when faced with the postmaster logging on
caused the transaction to be reversed, is that right?
That's right.
Then in the third paragraph down:
“The reversal was due to recovery .. so this was
not a explicit reversal by the clerk ”
It may be that you don’t, but do you know what
Mr Jenkins means when he says “explicit reversal by the
clerk”?
What he meansis that the, it would be the postmaster in
this instance, didn’t actually go in and doa reversal
himself, so he didn’t actually go and look for the
session number to do the reversal.
I see. Now, when you were asked some questions about
95
this document you referred to an email
Yes.
And it mightbe that I know the email you were referring
to. Could I ask you to go please to {F/1095.1}. I will
just give youa minute or two just to familiarise
yourself with that document.
That's right, yes.
(Pause).
Yes, I do recall the email.
Right. If one goes halfway down this page you will see
it is an email chain but there's an email there from
John Armstrong to Ron Warmington. Can you tell me
John Armstrong was?
Ue is the postmaster at Lepton.
And who is Ron Warmington?
He is one of the directors at Second Sight
If we could go now to page 6 of that document
{F/1095.1/6), this is an email from Mr Warmington to
Mr Armstrong and it is dated 25 June, so this is nearly
two weeks after the Helen Rose report, just so we can
locate ourselves in the chronology, and Mr Warmington
from Second Sight says
“John, as I mentioned we are including your incident
in our interim report to be delivered to MPs on July 8.
It’s one of only four spot reviews that we are at this
96
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/25
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stage disclosing
Can you explain what a spot review is?
It was terminology that Second Sight used for a deep
dive into an issue that had been raised, so they
investigated an issue and they termed it a spot review.
I see. And if we goon to the next paragraph:
“Here is whatwe have in the report on your
incident. If you see anything at all here that needs to
be corrected, or could be improved in any way, please
let me know and I'll change it.”
Then there’s some text I need not take you to and
then going down to below the next paragraph he says
“Report extract follows here” and if you could read the
bottom of that page and then the top of page 7
{F/1095.1/7}. Youcan tell us when you get to the
bottom of the page.
Under *SR001", from there, is that where you mean?
And then when you get to the bottom tell us and we will
go on to page 7.
Yes, turn the page please.
(Pause).
Okay so the bottom of that paragraph, yes?
Okay. And then we have "SROO1 summary of POL’s
response” and then we have:
*POL's 10-page response asserts that the Spot
97
Review:
“Does not demonstrate any failing in Horizon.
* Principally asks whether a SPMR will be properly
notified about automatic reversals of transactions when
Horizon is unable to connect to the data Centre.”
And then I don’t need to take you to the next
paragraph but in the next paragraph but one says
“POL further asserts in its response that the root
suffered by the SPMR was his
failure to follow the on screen and printed instructions
given by Horizon.
cause of the difficulties
POL claimed to be confident that the
SPMR knew that some transactions had been automatically
reversed because
First:
“The branch had been suffering connectivity issues
in the run-up to the incident in question
Do yousee that?
Yes.
And then if we go over the page (F/1095.1/8}, second:
“When the transactions in question first failed to
be processed (because Horizon could not get a response
from the data centre), Horizon asked the SPMR whether he
wished to cancel or retry the transactions, in response
to which the SPMR opted to retry the transactions
98
eIAHkYOnE
23
24
25
oProreo
Next:
“When the transactions failed again, the SPMR opted
to cancel the transactions.
“Horizon then automatically disconnected and printed
a ‘disconnect’ receipt that showed the transactions that
had been automatically reversed.”
Next:
“A standard customer receipt was not produced and
POL asserts that this should have told the SPMR that the
full transaction had not proceeded”
And:
“Following the disconnect the SPMR was required to
log back on to Horizon and duly did so”
And:
“Following the log on, and as part of the standard
recovery process, Horizon printed a ‘recovery’ receipt
which again showed the transactions that had been
reversed and those that had been recovered.”
Now, does that refresh your memory as to why you
said you had separate knowledge as to whether or not
Mr Armstrong received a .2
Yes
I see. Let’s move back to page 6 {F/1095.1/6}
the beginning of the same email we looked at and we read
This is
the first big paragraph of the email, I would like to
99
read the second paragraph now:
“lan andi.”
I take it that’s Mr Henderson?
That's correct
*.. are particularly interested to know whether you
received the printed disconnect and recovery * receipts”
that POL refers to in its response
So there’s the question that Mr Warmington asks
Mr Armstrong and Mr Armstrong's reply is at page 4
{F/1095.1/4} and can I ask you please,
Mrs van den Bogerd, just to read the email of Tuesday
25 June from the middle of the page downwards and then
when you've got to the bottom tell us and I will ask you
to read half of the next page.
(Pause).
Yes, I have read that.
(Pause).
Yes.
Let me know when you are done?
Sorry, I’m done.
You're done?
Yes.
Now, first of all -- I hope this is uncontroversial -
what Mr Armstrong seems to be saying there is that he
did receive some disconnected session receipts
100
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/26
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
AL Yes.
Q. What would the fact of receiving these disconnected
session receipts have told him?
A. It would have told him that the BT bill hadn't actually
been processed.
Q. So we now have more information than Mr Jenkins had in
the emails that are attached or rather quoted in the
wyAnRone
Helen Rose report. If we could go to page 3 of this
9 document please (F/1095.1/3}, this is the second page of
10 an email from Mr Baker from the Post Office,
11 Simon Baker. Do you know who Simon Baker is?
12. A. Hewasa project manager at the time.
13° Q Isee. You will see at the top of the page it says
14 “Regards, Simon” so it is the end of his email but we
15 have Gareth’s comments below, that’s Mr Jenkins”
16 comments. There's a reference to GMT and British Summer
17 Time, this is because the logs used GMT even though BST
18 is in fact in force,
19 Could 1 ask you please to read paragraphs 1 through
20 to 9
21 (Pause).
22 A. Yes, I have finished
23 Q You will see at the bottom in paragraph 9 Mr Jenkins
24 says:
25 “Therefore a message asking for a retry or cancel
101
1 would have been shown at about 09.36.25. At this point
2 cancel” must have been selected thus producing the
3 disconnected session receipt. This fits in with the
4 time of 10.36 in the email below”
5 Would you care to comment? Does that accord with
6 your understanding, or do you have a different
7 understanding?
8 A. No, that’s my understanding.
9 Q. That's your understanding?
10 =A. Yes.
11. Q. So having gone through those documents can I ask you now
12 to go back to your witness statement please to
13 paragraph 154 (E2/5/35} and this is where you say -- I'm
14 going to ask you what you meant by this now. You say in
15 paragraph 154:
16 “At paragraph 5.175 of his report, Mr Coyne has
17 referred to a report prepared by Helen Rose ... in the
18 context of failed reversals. The extracts taken from
19 the report by Helen Rose referred to by Mr Coyne are
20 taken out of context and mistakenly claim that the
21 relevant reversal was issued in error by Horizon not the
22 subpostmaster”
23 I just wantto give you an opportunity -- Mr Green
24 was pressing you to accept that actually what you had
25 said in that sentence was wrong. I would like to give
102
eIAHkYOnE
you an opportunity to explain to the court what you
actually meant.
What I meant was that the actual reversal was part of
that recovery and it had actually taken place as it
should have taken place, which is whatI meantin that.
So it wasn't a failed reversal because it actually had
happened as it should have happened, but I accepted in
there that the -- it wasn’t obvious to the postmaster at
the time that what had happened ~ that he hadn't
because it didn’t show that he had actually -- it showed
that he had done it and he knew he hadn't done what we
referred to earlier wasan explicit reversal. That's
what! meantin that
I won't take any more time up on that question.
Just two more small matters, Mrs van den Bogerd.
First of all, it was put to you by Mr Green on page 80
of yesterday's transcript {DayS/80:16} that Mrs Mather's
statement shows that Credence contains a log of every
key that’s pressed
Yes.
on the counter and I would like to take you to
Mrs Mather’s statement, if I may. That's E2, tab 8 and
I would like to go to page 2 of that statement please,
paragraph 9 (E2/8/2}. You will see whatMrs Mather
actually says in the first sentence.
103
Yes.
Now, the reason why I’m putting this to you is because
Mr Green put to you that Credence shows every single
keystroke that’s pressed by the postmaster and you
accepted what he said and he put it to you on the basis
that this is whatMrs Mather said. Could I ask you this
question: is it the case that Credence gives an account
of every single key that’s pressed by the postmaster in
branch?
That's not my understanding, not every single stroke
I'm grateful
Then one small final question.
document at (F/555},
It is based upon the
You were taken to this document by
Mr Green and it was suggested to you that Horizon Online
was about reducing operating costs
that?
Yes
Do you remember
I would like to explore that very briefly with you.
Could we go to page 6 of that document (F/555/6}. It is
“Purpose of the HNG programme”.
“To deliver a significant reduction in the total
annual cost of ownership of Horizon, whilst ensuring the
system remains fit for purpose in the 21st Century
in a dynamic and changing environment.”
If we go down to the second half of the page:
104
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/27
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 “Recognising that HING is not operating in a silo 1 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And what sort of time limit or pressure
2 life goes on in the business - initiatives like Rural 2 was that?
3 Strategy, Network Strategy, Packet Strategy, Re-org all 3 A. To pull the information and to be able to look into the
4 have potential to bring around change ... to the 4 detail of what the claimants’ issues were. It was that.
5 programme. 5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Andis there anything else you would
6 “HG should also enable the business to reduce the 6 like to tell me about that, about time pressure?
7 time to market for major developments; should be 7 A. It’s just it was-- getting the team to put together the
8 a simpler system that is easier to change and service 8 information. So because there were a number of issues
9 manage; should be capable of supporting segments and 9 that needed to be investigated, which was why Ineeded
10 zones. 10 to use the team -- I would ordinarily have used the team
11 “The programme is about developing the current 11 anyway todo that -- it was then me being able to get
12 Horizon system to meet business drivers, and is 12 into the detail to be able to meet the court deadline to
13 a balancing act between reducing cost and building 13 get the witness statement submitted.
14 a system fit for our needs we will cover this in 14 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Does your Lordship want to ask this
15 a little more detail in next few slides ” 15 witness about deadlines for producing the evidence?
16 What I'm going to be asking you, Mrs van den Bogerd, 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: No, not particularly. I'm going to give
17 is whether the introduction of Horizon Online was just 17 you an open opportunity to ask any questions arising out
18 about saving cost or whether it was about other things 18 of my questions.
19 as well, but perhaps! can ask you that question now. 19 Another phrase that pops up in different documents
20 A. Yes. 20 and you may not necessarily know what it is, but I just
21. Q. Having read that page 21 thought you were the best person to ask, What's
22 A. It wasn't just about saving costs. ‘There were other 22 “operational risk"? What does that mean when the
23 benefits for us too as an organisation. 23 Post Office uses it in internal documents?
24 Q. Couldyou tell the court what those other benefits or 24 A. It means something -- operational risk would mean
25 some of those other benefits were? 25 perhaps losing power across the whole of the Horizon
105 107
1A. So 1, it took it to an online system, where it hadn't 1 system, so if we did havea failure in terms of
2 previously been and it did enable us to make changes 2 connectivity, that would cause us operational risk
3 a bit more quicker to the system itself. I think we did 3 It’s about us being able co maintain service, so key
4 look at some screen changesas well, I think. But it 4 systems going down, for instance, would notallow us to
5 was really about a better system going forward, that’s 5 be able to operate: the back office systems, POLSAP or
6 what it was about. So there were clear advantages to 6 Horizon clearly for the front offices as well
7 being able to get changes through the system and get ‘7 MRJUSTICE FRASER: So it is a risk to the way the
8 products changes done more quickly. 8 Post Office business is operated
9 Q. If wegoto page 8 (F/555/8} - well, my Lord, I see the 9 AL Yes.
10 time. The document says what it says. I do believe 10 MRJUSTICE FRASER: is that how! should read it?
11 I have no further questions for this witness. 11 A. Yes
12 = MRJUSTICE FRASER: All right, 12 + MRJUSTICE FRASER: You mentioned in that first answer
13 Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER 13 losing power across the network. Losing power to an
14 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I just have a couple of questions. 14 individual branch, or an interruption of power at an
15 A couple of times this. morning when you were being 15 individual branch, would that be an operational risk or
16 asked about the detail of your witness statement and 16 not?
17 incorrect references to various documents, et cetera, 17° A. Yes, it would be.
18 you said you didn’t have a lot of time or you didn’t 18 MRJUSTICE FRASER: That would be?
19 have a huge -- one of your exact answers was that you 19 A. Yes, wewould class that as operational risk as well
20 didn’t have a huge amount of time to put this together. 20 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Right. And then you were asked about
21 A. Yes. 21 the list of people who had helped you with your witness
22 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Was there a time limit on you preparing 22 statement and you said I think there were about nine or
23 your witness statement? 23 ten and then you gave us a list from memory. Was there
24 A. In as muchas getting the information to investigate the 24 any reason that you didn’t list those people in your
25 issues, that was what! meant. 25 witness statement?
106
108
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/28
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1
wy HAneRwn
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I didn’t think it was necessary.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right
Then can we call upa document please, (F/1449},
which is a document we looked at yesterday. Do you
remember Mr Green asked you some questions about this
document?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And it shows two different approaches
depending on whether the amount of the miskey was
greater than £150 or not?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Now, I'ma bit confused about the
document whieh is just why I wanted to ask you,
say the miskey is £200, am! right you would go down the
right-hand branch as we look at it and the branch would
Let's
be told that if the discrepancy, which in my example is
£200, was still apparent when they were balancing they
must make the amount good?
A. That's what it says on here
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And I recall from the common issues
trial that means they would, for example, have to pay
the £200in, is that right?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. If we look at the left branch,
which is for less than 150, so let’s say that that’s
109
£50, there seems to be a little bit more to it, which
includes the possibility of a transaction correction.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
This is a bit confusing on -- I haven't seen this
before. Because to me the significance of 150is the
amount that you can settle centrally or not and
therefore in reading it that way, which is how I would
interpret that -- so if yousaid it was over 150, what
should be in that box is when it says "Must make good”
the option in there should be to settle centrally
because it’s over the 150.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, let’s say we read it in that way,
so that includes settling centrally
AL Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Go back to the left -hand box, that seems
to include within it the possibility of a transaction
correction being sent out later, because it says that in
the last four lines
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That entry is not on the right-hand
side, so amI correct in reading this chart that if it
is above 150, that option is not potentially available,
but if it’s below 150, a transaction correction might be
sent out in the future?
110
1
OIA AR LN
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. It mightbe sent out if it is over 150 as well
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, that then takes me to my next
question: but it doesn’t say that on the right-hand
side.
A. No.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can you think of any reason why that
might not be in the box on the right-hand side?
A. The only reason I can think of that is that this is an
incomplete document and, as say, I"ve never -- I can’t
recall ever seeing this, but that wouldn't make sense to
me reading that as currently presented.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right
very useful.
Now, any questions arising out of that?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Just about timing.
Further re-examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON,
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Mrs van den Bogerd, when you made your
witness statement do you recall that it wasin response
to some witness statements made by the claimants?
Yes.
Thank you very much. That's
And were those witness statements expected?
No.
Did you expect to be dealing with that kind of evidence
oPOoP
when it came?
A. No. No, I didn’t at the time.
i
Q. So these witness statements came in. Do you recall how
much time you had to prepare the witness statement in
response?
A. I don’t remember exactly but it would have been from
memory about three weeks or so. I can’t remember
exactly
Q. And you say three weeks, but before you could properly
start work on that responsive evidence did some steps
have to be taken to
AL Yes.
Q. ~ obtain the information?
A. Yes, weneeded to get the information, the transaction
data and NBSC logs, everything that we would normally
get.
Q. And do you recall how long that took?
A. Well, transaction -- if we get our files they can take
abouta fortnight to come, just to get -- so it would
take
Q. I see.
been taken up you then had about three weeks to actually
Is your evidence then that after that time had
prepare a witness statement?
A. I don’t even think it was that long actually, if
I remember. So ordinarily we would get the information
and then we would have time to do that properly. This
was quite pressurised because of those statements coming
112
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/29
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in unexpectedly and then having to get that, so it was
under pressure
Q. Thank you very much.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. You are now free
both to leave the witness box and obviously to discuss
the case again if you want.
‘A. Thank you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, Mr De Garr Robinson.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I call Ms Dawn Phillips.
MS DAWN PHILLIPS (affirmed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Would you like to have a seat.
A. Thank you
Examination-in-chief by MR DE GARR ROBINSON
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Ms Phillips, there should be a bundle
of documents to hand. If I can ask you to go to tab 3
of that document (E2/3/1), I believe the first page of
that document should describe itself as a witness
statement of Dawn Louise Phillips, do you see that?
Yes.
Is that your name and address there at the front?
Yes, it is
If you go to page 3 of the statement, is that your
signature at the end?
A. It is
oProp
Q. Andis this witness statement true to the best of your
113
knowledge, recollection and belief?
AL Yes, it is
Q. Ms Donnelly will have some questions for you. Thank you
very much.
Cross-examination by MS DONNELLY
MS DONNELLY: Good afternoon, is it Ms or Mrs Phillips?
AL Ms.
Q. Ms Phillips, in your witness statement you say you are
team leader for agent accounting and Santander banking?
AL Yes.
Q. So I will deal with those separately if I may, taking
agent accounting first. Can understand from your
paragraph 4 (E2/3/2}, you say:
*. I oversee the process of recovering the losses
that postmasters have declared in branches.”
Are you the team leader for agent accounting?
AL Yes.
Q. And when you are referring to “recovering the losses”,
are you referring there to the amount that they have
settled centrally?
A. Yes.
Q. If youlook at paragraph 7 of your witness statement
which is at {E2/3/2}, do you see three lines down there
you refer to “chosen to settle shortfalls centrally"?
A. Why he.
114
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
oPoOoP,
oPrPoPr
oProp
You fairly recognise, don’t you, at paragraph 9 that
there's no option for the postmaster to dispute the
discrepancies on Horizon, or record that they have
raised a dispute on Horizon?
They chose to settle centrally rather than make good is
whatl meant.
Yes, settle centrally rather than put the cash in
straight away?
Yes.
‘And that system remains the case today -- your witness
statement is September.
Yes.
And that remains the system.
Where you describe the agent accounting team, in the
common issues trial back in November of last year we
heard reference to the current agent debt team
That's the old name.
Does the substance of what you do remain the same?
Yes.
So there’s really been a semantic change from “debt” to
“accounting”?
(Nods).
And has the same thing happened with former agent debt?
Yes, it’s former agent accounting.
But what that team is doing is debt recovery from
115
subpostmasters who have left or been terminated?
Not just debt recovery, there are gains settled
centrally as well that we also deal with.
The real substance of your statement is the dispute
process as it nowis.
Yes.
And looking at your paragraphs 7 and 8 {£2/3/2} we see
you refer the court to two letters, one at the end of
paragraph 7 and one at the end of paragraph 8.1. Now,
those versions that you are referring to there, do you
know when they were introduced?
1 September 2014.
And are they still the current versions?
Yes.
So if we could look please at { F/1832}. Do we see
there the first of the letters that would be sent?
Yes.
Just from looking at the first four paragraphs we see:
“Please find the attached statement that confirms
the amount you owe to Post Office Limited. The
statement provides a breakdown of how you have incurred
the total owed amount.
“There are a number of ways you can repay the money
to us; you will find all the details of the different
methods of payments on the reverse of this letter
116
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/30
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 “If you would like to repay the money by
2 debit/credit card...
3 Then it goes on:
4 “We look forward to hearing from you within the next
5 7 days to arrange payment”
6 ‘The wording used in this letter is as if the amount
7 is a debt to Post Office that needs to be repaid?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the last paragraph says:
10 “If you have any queries regarding the content of
11 this letter, please contact one of my team or drop us
12 an email at agents.accounting.team@postoffice.co.uk and
13 we will do our best to help you”
14 Now, what's missing from that letter is any mention
15 of a dispute process there?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If youlook at the first paragraph again, "Please find
18 the attached statement’, that’s not included with the
19 letter that you have exhibited which is this version,
20 but it says it provides a breakdown, so what information
21 would be shown on that statement?
22 A. It would be each individual amount settled centrally in
23 the previous trading period, so it could be one branch
24 discrepancy settled at the end of the month, several
25 transaction corrections and/or an invoice
7
1 Q. So if we go to {F/1257.2), we see here an example
2 I think of the same letter that we were just looking at
3 which was sent to Mr Tank. If we go to page 3
4 (F/1257.2/3}, is that the statement, the form of the
5 statement that would be attached?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So here there has been one amount settled centrally and
8 it appears like this, “branch discrepancy” and then the
9 date and the amount.
10 A. Yes.
11. Q. Again, this statement doesn’t have any indication that
12 it is possible to dispute this amount, does it?
13° A. No.
14 Q. Going back to your witness statement at (E2/3/2}, you
15 say at paragraph 8.1
16 “If we do not receive a response within 7 days we
17 senda second letter ”
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Andas I understand from your witness statement there
20 aren't any phone-- later on you refer to some phone
a1 calls might be made, but there aren't any phone calls
22 in-between this stage, are there?
23° A. No.
24 Q. Andwhen you say “if we do not receive a response”, is
25 that your team?
118
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes.
If we go then to {F/1833}, this is the second letter
that you have exhibited
Yes.
“We wrote to you previously requesting payment of the
amount you owe to Post Office Limited.
*We are concerned that you have not contacted us to
arrange payment.
*Payment is now overview due and needs to be made
within 7 days of this letter
“As previously mentioned, there are a number of ways
you can repay the money tous. Theseare listed on the
reverse of this letter ”
So we have all the same language again, haven't we,
that this is a debt?
Mm-hm.
‘Then the next paragraph:
“We have to advise you that if we do not receive
payment or your instructions within this timescale, this
may be escalated to your contracts advisor for further
action”
So what's that supposed to mean?
If they don’t make a payment or raise a dispute with us
then we could send it to the contracts advisor for
further action
119
And in your answer you have referred to “raise
a dispute”, but again there’s no mention of dispute, is
there, in this letter?
Well, in both letters it mentions that if they have any
enquiries they can contact us.
It’s a bit different, isn’t it, to say “If you have any
queries regarding the content of this letter” -- it’s
a bit different writing that to “If you want to raise
a dispute about this amount then please find enclosed
the dispute process"?
Yes.
Are these two letters usually successful in getting
money in?
Sometimes it is resolved even before the second letter
goes out. It varies
But by the time this second letter is sent, normally the
subpostmaster has paid?
Yes.
If we look at your witness statement again, so (E2/3/2},
paragraph 9, in the second sentence there you say that
postmasters are able to call the NBSC helpline or your
team and raise a dispute.
Yes.
The letters we just looked at don't refer to calling the
helpline, do they?
120
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/31
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 A. No. 1A. Thenno, until he has actually settled it centrally then
2 Q. Burit is possible, isn’t it, that a subpostmaster might 2 1 wouldn't know about it
3 have raised a dispute on the helpline before you send 3 Q So subpostmaster could call up the helpline and say "I'm
4 your first letter? 4 going to havea problem, I know this is going to affect
5 A. If they have raised a dispute on the helpline before we 5 my accounts, I’m not responsible for this amount, I want
6 have sent our letter then it is before they have 6 to dispute it” and then you still end up sending your
7 actually settled it centrally. 7 letter out on the Monday following the settled
8 Q. Well, you don’t send the letter the second they settle 8 centrally?
9 centrally, do you? 9 A. I can’t speak for any calls that have happened like
10 A. Wesend it on the Monday after, so unless they actually 10 that. I've never seen one.
11 made the error on the last day of their trading period 11 Q. Well, you also don’t look, do you?
12 then it’s likely that they made the error in the 12 A. Well, wedo regularly check. We check every week,
13 previous few weeks. 13 But aren't you looking for when they have settled
14 Q. So they could have identified that they've got an 14 centrally calls?
15 unexplained discrepancy say two weeks before the end of 15 A. Yes
16 their trading period. 16 Q. You're not looking back and saying "Has there been any
17 A. Yes. 17 calls before that”?
18 Q. Andthey call the helpline at that point and say "I want 18 A. They don't make-- welook for any call in the previous
19 to dispute this, this is going to affect my accounts, 19 month that could relate to the loss that they have
20 I’mnot responsible for this, it is a system error” and 20 settled. Wedon't specifically search for settled
21 two weeks later, nothing has been resolved, they have to 21 centrally calls
22 settle centrally, you then send them the letter on the 22 Q. Andso this is an ad hoc process, is it?
23 Monday? 23 A. No, it’s a weekly standard process.
24 =A. Yes. 24 Q. But which ones you decide to look at, or is there
25 Q. So what you don't do is go and check the helpline logs 25 a specific amount?
121 123
1 to see if they have actually already raised a dispute? 1A. Wetry and do everything above 5,000.
2 A. Wedo actually, every Friday we runa report to see who 2 Q. Above 5,002
3 has settled something centrally and although we can't 30 A. Mm-hm.
4 check every amount we do try and check the majority of 4 Q. Right. So you wouldn't bother checking the helpline log
5 the larger ones. 5 for £2,000?
6 Q Sorry, I think you answered by reference to whether you 6 A. It’s not a case of not bothering, it’s a case of how
7 check who has settled centrally - 7 many have settled centrally and how many are large.
8 AL Yes 8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I wonder if you could start again with
9 Q - and I was asking whether you routinely check the 9 the sequence, because I'm slightly puzzled.
10 helpline logs? 10 MS DONNELLY: My Lord, Ido apologise: the sequence from if
11 A. Yes, I do. Yes wedo, as a team. 11 a subpostmaster has raised a dispute prior to settling
12 Q. For the larger ones you check the helpline logs? 12 centrally?
13 A. Yes. Unfortunately there are too many to check every 13 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And what's checked and when,
14 single one, but we do check the larger amounts. 14 MS DONNELLY: So if mid-way through trading period
15 Q. Soyour team hasaccess to the helpline logs? 15 a subpostmaster contacts the helpline and says "I have
16 A. Yes. 16 a £2,000 discrepancy in my accounts that I knowif it is
17 Q. AsI understand it, it depends on somebody in your team 17 not resolved is going to have to be settled centrally
18 going to check the helpline logs rather than there being 18 and I want to dispute that now”, as I understand your
19 an automatic process from the helpline to notify your 19 evidence, after they in fact settle centrally, on the
20 team? 20 Monday morning your team will send them letter 1 because
21 A. If the branch have already settled centrally and tell 21 you wouldn't check the helpline logs for an amount less
22 NBSC that they want to dispute that, then they would let 22 than £5,000?
23 us know. 23 A. I’'mnotsaying it's always £5,000.
24 Q. Burl was speaking about if a subpostmaster was raising 24 Q. But that’s generally what would happen?
25 a dispute in advance of settling centrally? 25 A. Yes.
122
124
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/32
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So if it is not always £5,000 what other
figure limit would it be?
A. It depends. We can sometimes check them all. It
depends how many fresh items have been settled centrally
in that week
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And do you geta list of these?
‘A. [can pull them from our finance system.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Filtered by an amount that you decide
that day?
‘A. No, we pull everything that’s been settled that month.
‘MS DONNELLY: Do you get any transcripts of those helpline
calls?
A. No, wehave to search for them.
Q. There will be a call log, but those helpline calls are
also recorded, aren't they?
AL Yes.
Q. Doyou listen to the recording, or do you just look at
how it's
‘A. We just look at the log on the screen, not a recording.
Q. So the completeness and accuracy of what appears on the
helpline log would be very important to your team?
‘A. Yes, But if we were unsure we would pick up the phone
and speak to the branch.
Q. Doyou send to the subpostmaster the copy of the
helpline log that you are looking at so they know what
125
you've got?
A. No. They made the call, we would assume they would know
what it was.
Q. Well, what the subpostmaster doesn't know is how it has
been recorded by the helpline?
A. Well, we'd discuss that if there wasan issue and we
had to call_them we would discuss that with them,
Q. Is there any auditing of the process that you have just
described being carried out by your team?
A. Yes, we have controls in place that we have to report
and measure every month.
Q. So what are they?
A. So we've got an external firm called Traction that we
have to report to and attach evidence that we have
followed that process every week or month, whatever the
actual process is supposed to be done to.
Q. So do you report -- sorry, did yousay it is an external
company?
A. PwCIdo -- I can’t remember the name of it but we have
‘an external company that we have to load all our
evidence onto
Q. Doyou report to them which value you have decided to
look at the helpline logs for --
AL No.
Q. that week?
126
eIAHkYOnE
A
ereor
No.
So that detail isn’t recorded?
No.
If we just look at paragraph 10 of your witness
{E2/3/2}, you say there that:
*If a postmaster calls my team after receiving our
request for payment and explains they are raising
statement which is
a dispute, we will place a block on their account on the
system until the dispute is resolved. If they do this
within 7 days we will not send the second letter
referred to in 8.1 above, but a postmaster can dispute
a shortfall at any stage in the process (not just after
the first letter)"
And then you go on at paragraph 11.
*When a postmaster disputes a shortfall with my team
we gather as much information as possible from the
Wealso send
branch about why they are disputing it.
them a branch dispute form to complete
Just pausing there, is that right, that you gather
as much information as possible and also send them
a branch dispute form?
Not necessarily. If it is something like a miskey which
is just a simple case of the branch recording it with
helpline, we check with helpline that it has been
received and gone to the appropriate team, no need for
127
a dispute form, that’s a simple one. We only send the
dispute forms when it is more in-depth and we have to
pass the information on for someone else to investigate ,
so it is better coming from the postmaster in their own
words, so that’s when the form is sent.
So say it is a more complicated one when you are going
to require a branch dispute form.
Yes.
Doyou first get all the information from them and then
senda branch dispute form for them to provide it all
again?
No. It would probably start it with a discussion on the
phone. If it looked like it was going to be
a complicated one we would stop it there and say "We're
going to send youa form out”, we puta block on the
debt immediately so all the process was halted and then
send them a form and let them fill it in and send it
back.
So your paragraph 11 isn’t quite right, if it’s the
branch dispute form -
No, wedon't do both. It's not required for all of
them.
You don’t necessarily do both and you don’t always send
a branch dispute form?
Only if it is difficult
128
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/33
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 Q. Since it was introduced -- I think you later tell us it 1 the top of (E2/3/3}
2 was introduced at the beginning of 2018? 2 “Branches are given seven days to return the
3 AL Yes 3 completed form, otherwise we unblock the shortfall and
4 Q. How many have you sent? 4 send them another letter requesting payment.”
5 A. Sorry, I don't have that number with me. 5 1 mean in some ways a subpostmaster who receives
6 Q Broadly? 6 a branch dispute form is in a worse place than if they
7 A. L wouldn't like to guess. 7 didn’t because now they're up against the clock to
8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, thousands, two? 8 complete it in seven days or you unblock, is that right?
9A. No, probably at least five a month. 9 If they didn’t senda dispute at all it would never be
10 MR JUSTICE FRASER: Five a month? 10 blocked and they would be up against the clock anyway as
11. A. Yes. But bear in mind they are not just the dispute 12 you put it.
12 they can just sendus an email, it doesn’t have to be 12 No, but in order for them to be sent a branch dispute
13 the dispute form -- or a letter 13 form they have to dispute with your team in the first
14 MS DONNELLY: Because your witness statement reads as if 14 place?
15 this is some sea change in approach. If you look, for 15 Yes
16 example, at paragraph 12 (E2/3/3] 16 So that’s happened. Then some, about five a month, get
17 “The branch dispute form was introduced to capture 17 a branch dispute form sent to them and those ones now
18 the key areas of information we would collect from 18 have to return it within seven days otherwise the amount
19 a branch about a dispute. Whilst the branch dispute 19 is unblocked, even though they have already told you
20 form was only recently introduced at the beginning of 20 there’s a dispute.
21 2018, the process of collecting this key information 21 Again, it’s seven extra days. If they rang up and
22 from the branch has been in place 22 described the dispute to us there and then it would be
23 since November 2016 ..” 23 blocked immediately and dispute -- and the dispute would
24 And it goes on. It reads as if this was something 24 take place, but if they can’t explain it to us then they
25 new and improved and was happening all the time but 25 need to send the form in
129 131
1 A. It is improved. 1 Could we havea look at the form. It is at (F/1831}.
2 Q. - it’s actually quite rare that you send it? 2 So who decided to introduce the form?
3. A. No, it is improved. 3 It wasa joint between my team, my senior manager and
4 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Can you not overspeak each other. It is 4 the contracts advisor team.
5 both of you I think. You put your question and then you 5 Who is your senior .2
6 give your answer. 6 Alison Bolsover.
7 MS DONNELLY: I do apologise, my Lord and Ms Phillips. 7 Do you know was any part of this branch support
8 It is actually quite rare, five a month or so, that 8 programme related at all to what had gone before?
9 you actually send out the branch dispute form, it’s not 9 It cameina discussion between myself, Alison and the
10 quite the impression that you're giving in your witness 10 contracts advisors that we should all be working from
14 statement, is it? 11 the same book basically, so they use the form as well
12. A. No, maybe not, but it still helps both us and the 12 If we have a look under "Dispute details ”, it says:
13 branch. It has got simple things on there like who are 13 “Please provide details of your challenge, evidence
14 we speaking to at the branch, because we have absentee 14 to support this should be included (do not send original
15 postmasters but their nameis on the account. If it is 15 paperwork). All information requested below must be
16 somebody else running the branch we need to know who it 16 provided to enable an investigation *
17 is and their name and who to speak to. 17 ‘And then we've got the reference to debt recovery
18 Q. And without the branch dispute form you might not get 18 being on hold for seven days.
19 that right? 19 If we look at what's required below: dare of
20 A. Well, wesend letters to the branch to the postmaster. 20 discrepancy, product, NBSC ref number, et cetera. It is
21 Q. Is there a financial limit that applies to your process 21 quite possible, isn't it, that somebody when they have
22 of sending out the branch dispute form? 22 come to settle centrally doesn’t exactly know the date
23 A. No, 23 of the discrepancy or the product?
24 Q. Youare describing it as essentially something positive 24 So if they don’t know ~ if they have settled an unknown
25 for subpostmasters, but if you look at paragraph 11 at 25 branch discrepancy, we would immediately redirect them
130
132
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/34
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
>
rPOoPoP
to NBSC. We wouldn’t-- we cannot pass the dispute on
to a team to investigate if we don't have a team to pass
it on to.
So if somebody writes here "£2,000 short, must have
happened over these three days, don't know exactly why”,
you can’t deal with that?
No.
Andso is the debt unblocked?
We would call the branch back, or reply via email and
tell them to ring NBSC for guidance on how ~ to see if
they can find the loss.
But is the debt unblocked? Is debt recovery --
It depends. We're waiting for them to call NBSC and get
a reference number, we then check the reference number
at a later date and see what NBSC have advised.
And if ultimately the person is not able to provide
a specifie date and product, will the debt be unblocked?
Yes, I'mafraid so.
And why is an NBSC reference number required on the
branch dispute form?
If they have one, we need it.
It doesn’t quite say that though, does it? It suggests
that it is a requirement that you have an NBSC reference
number?
Well, if they've got an issue and they've got a loss,
133
I would have expected them to ring NBSC prior.
Even if they have settled it on the Friday, you sent
your letter on the Monday ..?
Like I say, they still need to -- if they don’t know
what it’s for they still need to ring NBSC.
And what does your team do now you've got this
collection of branch dispute forms? You have told us it
is about five a month. Is there any analysis, or do you
group them together, look for themes?
We don’t deal with the actual dispute. We pass them on.
to the relevant team. That's why we need a product or
something to pass on so we know which team to pass it on
to deal with. We're not experts on the transactions,
but we will pass it on and get a response.
And do you then track how they are resolved?
Yes.
So do you know of the branch dispute forms that came in
last year how many ultimately ended up in the
subpostmaster repaying?
Not off the top of my
You don’t track that?
No.
Sorry, I spoke too quickly.
No, we don't track it. Once the debt is cleared it is
off the system and it’s not part of the measures any
134
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oPropr
more.
But you appreciate it might ultimately never have been
a debt?
Yes
ind if something arises -- if they have paid and
a transaction correction comes through after, they are
welcome to keep the transaction correction that relates
to the debt that they have already paid
So if there's a need to obtain transaction data or make
an ALQ request, anything like that, that’s not dealt
with by your team?
No.
Could we look please at {11/173/5}. This is part of
a letter sent by the claimants’ solicitor to
Post Office’s solicitors on 22 January of this year. Do
you see at point 9 at the top it says the claimants’
solicitors identified 11 to 12 in your witness statement
and said
“Please disclose documents relating to Post Office's
procedures in its use of the branch dispute form,
including recording internal actions taken on receipt”
Were you told about that request?
I think I was asked if there was any formal dispute
any process relating specifically to the dispute form,
bur it falls in with the rest of the dispute, it’s just
a process that we follow. ‘There's no formal policy or
135
process in place.
No formal policy or process in place .?
Specifically to the branch dispute form.
to any dispute.
So if we go just quickly to (H/227/3}, this is the
response we see from 27 February 2019. Do you see at
It’s generic
point 9 again:
“Post Office has confirmed that there is not
‘a specific document which relates
Do you see that?
Yes
That's effectively what you have just described now?
Yes.
And then it says:
“A flowchart of the dispute process is at ..”
And there is a specific number given. Do you know
what that flowchart is?
Not without looking at it, no.
Can we goto [F/1276}.
Notthe title
Do you recognise that flowchart?
There are two pages to this document, if you want to
just glance quickly at page 2?
Not just yet, thank you.
No.
(Pause).
136
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/35
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1A. Okay, page 2 please (F/1276/2} 1 Q That doesn’t sound like an appeal process. There's not
2 Q. Just so you can see page 2. 2 another level?
3. A. That is a very old one. 3 A. Forus, no, it’s not. Support services provide extra
4 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Very old did you say? 4 assistance for us.
5 A. Yes. It refers to a relationship manager which we do no 5 Q. Youare also the team leader for Santander banking
6 longer ... 6 Just a few questions if I may in relation to some
‘7 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Do you recall when you stopped having 7 figures which appear in Mr Smith’s witness statement.
8 that? 8 If we could go please to (E2/9/4). We see here this
9 A. 20151 think. I can’t be sure -- I'mnot entirely sure 9 is part of the witness statement from Mr Smith that was
10 when they left. 10 made on 16 November of last year and do you see just at
11 Q. Goback to page 1 please (F/1276/1}. Do you see in the 11 the top of the page it is actually the second part of
12 bottom half of the page there is a rectangle, “Issue 12 paragraph 16 which starts on the previous page. He
13 passed to branch support team”, Does that still exist? 13 says
14 A. We've got a support services team. 14 “However, I have spoken to various team leaders
15 Q. Nota branch support team? 15 within the business in order to gain a sense of
16 A. That's not a name I would recognise them by: support 16 proportion of TCs that have been challenged in their
17 services resolution team. 17 departments historically and what proportion of those
18 Q. So this is obviously not the current process, is it? 18 challenges were successful (ie leading to a change in
19 A. No, I just said it’s not. 19 the TC before eventually being accepted or
20 Q. If yougo back over to page 2 please {F/1276/2},whowas 20 ‘a compensating TC being issued). The following sections
21 the relationship manager? 21 of this witness statement are based on information
22 A. Andy Winn. 22 provided to me by the team leaders identified in
23 Q. How long did he hold that position? 23 the headings ..”
24 A. I don't know. 24 ‘Then if we go to page 5 of the document (E2/9/5} you
25 Q. And previously the process would be that it was 25 see at the bottom of the page "Agent accounting team”,
137, 139
1 Andy Winn who was essentially dealing with the 1 Dawn Phillips, that’s you?
2 resolution of disputes? 2 AL Yes.
3 A. I can’t answer to what the process was. I know he dealt 3 "Santander manual deposits” and we see he says:
4 with disputes but I don’t know at what point they went 4 “In relation to Santander manual deposits
5 to him. 5 Post Office received the following number of disputes in
6 Q. Just onthe face of this document it appears that he is 6 the 2016/17 financial year”
7 the start of the dispute resolution process. If you go 7 And we can see the figures that appear there: errors
8 back to page 1 8 received from Santander, 19,000-odd; disputes received
9 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Ms Donnelly, I'm not sure that is really 9 from branch, et cetera and then it goes on.
10 a question for the witness. She said it is an old 10 A. CanI just say not all those disputes were from branch.
11 document, she said who the person was and she doesn’t 11 They were not issued as transaction corrections.
12 know. Beyond that it is probably submission, isn’t it, 12 A dispute could have been sent on the basis of evidence
13 for me? 13 received from the branch relating to a letter
14 MS DONNELLY: Yes, thank you, my Lord. 14 Q. If wejust take it onestep at a time for now. Is it
15 MRJUSTICE FRASER: So back to you. 15 right that you provided those figures to Mr Smith?
16 MS DONNELLY: Is there currently an appeal process? 16 A. Yes.
17 A. In what respect? 17 Q. And did you know the reason he wanted them?
18 Q. So you receive a branch dispute form. You say it is 18 A. Yes.
19 sent off to the relevant team to look at and you say you 19 Q. So you knew that he wanted to give a sense of proportion
20 track that 20 of TCs that had been challenged?
21 A. Yes. 21 A Yes.
22 Q. If a subpostmaster is not satisfied with how that team 22 Q. And where did you get this information from?
23 resolved their dispute, is there an appeal? 23 A. From spreadsheets that we maintained on the team,
24 A. They can come back to us and request and we will go to 24 Q Soyouhadan existing spreadsheet with this information
25 support services for assistance 25 in?
138
140
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/36
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1A. Yes:
2 Q Because how this document was read and understood by
3 both experts acting in this case is that the first
4 column was TCs issued by Post Office to branch?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And the second column is TCs disputed by branch to
7 Post Office?
8 A. No.
9 Q That's completely wrong?
10 A. Yes -- well, no, your perception is wrong I’m afraid
at It does say errors received from Santander, it does not
12 say TCs issued to branch.
13 Q Butyou might not know that both experts read it in that
14 way given the purpose that Mr Smith had set out earlier
15 that’s whathe said he was going to provide and this is
16 what then appeared?
17 A. Thatis errors received from Santander, that is not
18 transaction corrections issued to branch,
19 Q. Andwesee if we goto (E2/15} that Mr Smith provided
20 a further witness statement. We received this on the
21 claimants’ side at 17.48 on Friday 8 March and he says
22 there that he has rereviewed his witness statement, do
23 you see that within paragraph 32
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Sohe spoke to you again, did he?
ua
1 AL Yes.
2 Q. When did you first find out that there was an issue with
3 the figures you had provided that were in Mr Smith's
4 witness statement?
5 A. It’s not an issue with the figures, the figures remained
6 the same, I think it is an explanation of what
7 the headers actually mean.
8 Q. When did you first become aware that some further
9 explanation might be required?
10 A. Because someone assumed that they were transaction
11 corrections issued to branch and it was queried,
12 Q. Sorry, when did you become aware that this -
13° A. Notlong ago.
14 Q. Because if you had provided this evidence rather than
15 Mr Smith you might have been able to explain it a little
16 bit more clearly, do you think?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if we could go over the page please (E2/15/2}, at
19 paragraph 5 he says
20 “The figures in my first statement of 2,890
21 ‘disputes received from branch’ represents the number of
22 disputes between Post Office and Santander ..”
23° A. Yes.
24 Q. And then paragraph 6:
25 "I understand from my colleague Dawn Phillips that
142
eIAHkYOnE
Q
A.
Q
A.
Q
A
the Santander manual deposits team issued 3,968
transaction corrections during the financial year
2016-2017"
So if someone had misread Mr Smith's first witness
statement, we've got about a fivefold difference from
about 19,500, it’s actually only around 4,000?
‘That were issued.
Now, what he hasn't told us, or isn’t clear from his
wimess statement, perhaps you can just clarify, is how
many of the 3,968 transaction corrections that were
issued were disputed?
I can’t answer that, I have already been asked that
question and it’s not something we recorded as to
whether Post Office disputed it with Santander on the
postmaster’s behalf with evidence from the branch, or it
was an actual transaction correction dispute.
Had Mr Smith specifically asked you that?
Yes.
And you told him it’s not something that
It’s not something we recorded.
Could we just go back please to {E2/9/5}. Could you
just help us understand if about 19,500 errors are
received by Post Office from Santander and Post Office
actually issue only around 4,000, what has happened to
the rest?
143
So Santander doa manual match of figures to Horizon to
the actual paperwork that they receive. If it doesn’t
match, they sent us an error notice. They were all in
different categories, so several of the categories we
know it was a timing issue and if we just waited a week
they would send us another compensating error to clear
it. A lot, 1 would say 50% of what they sent us could
be cleared with a letter to branch requesting copies of
their paperwork which we could then send back to
Santander.
So it’s quite a lot more complicated than the way it is
presented perhaps in Mr Smith's first or second
statement?
Well, maybe. We issued a lot less than Santander gave
us
So you are doing some sort of internal
Yes.
reconciliation yourself?
Prior to -
That’s a manual process, is it?
Yes.
MS DONNELLY: I don't have any further questions, my Lord,
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
Mr De Garr Robinson, any re-examination?
Re-examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON
144
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/37
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 MRDE GARR ROBINSON: Ihave only one question, Ms Phillips.
2 You were asked about the dispute process and you were
3 asked what happened if the subpostmaster was not
4 satisfied with a decision that was made at the end of
5 that process, was there an appeal, and you indicated
6 that you would then call in support services for
7 assistance. Could you explain what support services
8 would do?
9 A. Theyare capable of doing a more in-depth investigation
10 than perhaps we could in FSC, so they would be able to
at provide more information and a breakdown of what
12 happened in branch.
13 Q. Andhow detailed would their investigation be?
14 A. Extremely detailed.
15 Q Thank you, Ms Phillips.
16 My Lord, I have no further questions.
17 Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER
18 MR JUSTICE FRASER: Justa couple of questions on the
19 table - could we go back to it please {E2/9/5}. We've
20 got E2/9/5 on the screen which you have been asked some
21 questions about. ‘The first column I think you say the
22 number is correct but the description is wrong; is that
23 fair?
24 A. No, the errors are received from Santander, but they are
25 not transaction corrections issued to branch.
4s
1 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Should I reading the heading to column 2
2 differently ?
3A. Yes, as in Paul’s second statement
4 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, I'm rather asking you because you
5 provided the figures
6 A. So they are just disputes sent to Santander from Paul.
7 They can be disputes where we have sent a letter to
8 branch requesting evidence and not issued a transaction
9 correction, we have just asked for the evidence and it
10 has been provided, or they can be transaction correction
it disputes.
12. MRJUSTICE FRASER: And as far as you know are the headings
13 to the other three headings correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR JUSTICE FRASER: They are.
16 One question Ms Donnelly asked you in respect of
17 this and the total which I think is from Mr Smith's
18 second statement is 3,968 in terms of transaction
19 corrections. She asked how many of those 3,968
20 transaction corrections that were issued were disputed
21 and you said you can’t answer that, you have already
22 been asked that question and it’s not sometl
23 record
24 A. No.
25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: When were you asked that question?
146
A. In recent weeks.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: In recent weeks leading up to this
trial?
AL Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You weren't asked it at the time in
respect of these figures?
A. Notthe first statement. That's how the second
statement came around because we were asked to - we
were asked that question: how many of those TCs were
actually disputed by branch, and I can’t answer it
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
1 assume nothing arising out of that?
‘Thank you very much for coming. Youhave a much
shorter stint in the witness box than
‘Mrs van den Bogerd.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I wonder whether this would
be a convenient moment for a break
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think it would. Whois your next
‘witness?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: It is Mrs Mather. I hope I'm
pronouncing her name correctly.
1 want to check.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Let’s ask her right at the beginning.
Andis there a fighting chance, Mr Green, of finishing
It is one of the things
her evidence today or is she going to go into tomorrow?
147
MR GREEN: My Lord, we're hoping to finish her and Mr Smith
if we can.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Excellent.
MR GREEN: Definitely her.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: None of this is binding it is just to
give mea general outline
MR GREEN: Of course.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay, we will come back in at 20 past.
(3.10 pm)
(Short Break)
(3.20 pm)
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I call Tracy Mather
how one actually pronounces her name.
MRS TRACY MATHER (sworn)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you, Mrs Mather. Do have a seat.
Examination-in-chief by MR DE GARR ROBINSON
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Now, Mrs Mather, in front of you there
should be a file of documents. I would like you to go
to tab 8 of the file please {E2/8}. Doyou see --
I think there's a sheet of corrections, but after that
that’s
sheet of corrections do you see a witness statement of
“Tracy Jane Wendy Mather"?
AL Yes
Q. Is that your name and address on the first page?
A. It is
148
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/38
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 Q. If you go to the back of the document, is that your
2 signature?
3. A. It is
4 Q. Anddoyoualso see a document with three corrections to
5 your witness statement at the front of that file?
6 A. Ido.
7 Q Andnow, Mrs Mather, I have to ask a question which is
8 born out of sheepishness on my part. Everyone else in
9 court will understand why, but you won't. I would like
10 to ask you about paragraph 12 of your statement please
a1 {E2/8/3}. Here you are describing Credence and you say:
12 “Credence is used as an information tool. It is
13 designed to work alongside other applications. It is
14 used to help understand what has happened in a branch as
15 it records all keystroke activity performed in that
16 branch by the user ID, date and time.”
17 Could I ask you to explain what you mean by the
18 phrase "It records all keystroke activity"?
19 A. WhatI actually meant was the transactional data as in
20 sales and non-sales.
21 Q Ise, thank you.
22 Subject to the three corrections you have identified
23 and your clarification of paragraph 12, do you confirm
24 that this witness statement is true to the best of your
25 knowledge, recollection and belief?
149
1 oA. It is
2 Q. Thank you, if you could wait there please
3 Cross-examination by MR GREEN
4 MRGREEN: Now, Mrs Mather, at paragraph 1 of your witness
5 statement, if we look please (E2/8/1}, you say you are
6 the FSC team leader, so are you the team leader for FSC?
7A. No, sorry, for myteam. It’s just a generic team leader
8 role in FSC.
9 Q. Youare a team leader within FSC?
10 =A. Yes.
11 = Q. Andwhichis your team? Have you got a special team
12 name?
13. A. For the last year anda half 1 have had MoneyGram and
14 cheques I have had for two years, just over two years.
15 Before that I was on payout, postal orders
16 Q. Different things?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And how many people work in FSC overall?
19 A. 1 would be guessing
20 Q Roughly?
21 A. 60
22 Q. Anddoyouhave any special training when you move to
23 a new product you are dealing with?
24 A. Not training of such. You tend to -- because the team
25 leaders might move on to another team, so you would
150
1 spend time with that team leader and then when they move
2 into a new area you can always go back if there was
3 something you were unsure of.
4 Q. And when you join FSC in the first place do you sort of
5 pick it up on the job, how does it work?
6 A. FSC- I have always been part of that kind of group
7 since I joined
8 Q. Did they give you any special is training when you
9 joined, or did you .2
10 A. We're going back a long time, but my special training of
12 such was when I was a PA so I was machining so yes, they
12 would give me special training
13 Q The purpose of your statement I think, as you explain at
14 paragraph 8 (E2/8/2}, is to explain how Post Office uses
15 Credence to investigate discrepancies.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q “since the introduction of Horizon and why”, And at
18 paragraph 9 you have explained that
19 “Credence is a system that shows all sales
20 transactions, log on and log off events and all
21 remittances in and out of Horizon”
22 Yes?
23 AL Yes
24 Q. Andwe have seen already that paragraph 12 of your
25 witness statement {E2/8/3} says it is used to help -- if
151
1 you look at the second line, that Mr De Garr Robinson
2 just took you to:
3 *It is used to help understand what has happened in
4 a branch as it records all keystroke activity performed
5 in that branch by the user ID, date and time.”
6 Now, you have said that what you meant by that in
7 fact was sales and things like that?
8 A. Transactional data, yes.
9 Q. What information does it give above and beyond the ARQ
10 data that we have seen?
11 A. We~ for my team, which is the cheques team, where we
12 usually use Credence, is years ago we would have had to
13 ask a postmaster to send his cheque list in for us, if
14 ‘we've got an open item to investigate. With Credence we
15 can save not going out to the postmaster, we can
16 actually have a look to see how postmasters finish
17 transactions off.
18 Q. Andwhathe has typed in in the cheque list at the
19 branch and how it shows up or -
20 A. No, weactually look at all sales to see what
21 transactions he has finished off to cheques.
22 Q. Soyoudon't have access to what we have seen is the ARQ
23 data that’s being pulled from Fujitsu?
24 4. Mmhm.
25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Is that correct, you don’t have access
152
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/39
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
MR GREEN: Socan you explain to the court
>
oP
ro
rPOoPoP
to that?
Not through Credence, no.
transactional level
We're just at the
give the court
some understanding of what you can and cannot see. If
you're investigating , for example, a MoneyGram issue,
can you see exactly what the SPM has done in branch on
the sereen in Credence?
With MoneyGram we have two sourees of information and
that is MoneyGram's file and we use Horizon, we don’t
actually use Credence for MoneyGram,
Okay. What do you use Credence for?
Mainly cheques, part of my team.
Now, Credence only holds information for a short period,
I think currently three months; that’s right, isn’t it?
That's right
And are you aware of discussions that have been had
about extending the period for which Credence holds
information to a longer period? Are you aware of any
discussions about extending the period that Credence
holds information for?
We know that we can view Credence up to three months.
There's also a system called Horace, So wecan-- one
of my team members has access to Horace, so we would
look on there.
153
Okay. Let's look if we may at (F/1092} please. Now,
this is a document from June 2013. You will see as at
2013 the branch data available as at that date was
available for 61 days. Is that the same today as far as
you know? Branch data available to you on Horizon? Do
yousee at the top?
Yes, 1 thought ours was 90 days, Credence.
Well, Credence is immediately underneath, Credence data
90 days.
Yes. But when you say branch data I’m not too sure
On Horizon.
Yes
How long is the data available to you on Horizon for?
On Horizon, if we have an open item it’s there until we
investigate it
It can just stay on there for a long time?
Yes.
And next to that it says:
“All transactional data including non-sales eg
adjustments.”
So it’s right, isn’t it, that Credence doesn't just
show sales information, it also includes non-sales
information like any adjustments that somebody has made?
Yes.
And so that gives a fuller picture
154
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
>
ereor
POPS
oProPr
orer
Yes.
-- than just seeing the sales information?
Yes
And that’s why in your statement you have explained that
it helps to see what's happened in the branch?
That's it
And can you see that the -- under -- you can see what's
being considered there in bold. Do you see about
quarter of a way down from the top in bold:
“Consider the benefits of a repository of data for
24 months. Note: this is open for discussion but
24 monthsis the initial gambit?
Do you see that?
Yes.
Would it be more helpful to you to have Credence data
available for longer?
We have ~ there are some reports that wecan still see
information for 24 months on Credence.
Are there now?
Yes.
Do you know when that was extended up to 24 months?
I don't, no, because I wasn't on these particular teams
at that time, because in 2003 I weren't on my job.
You don't have to know the answers to the questions,
it’s fine, but if youdo it is helpful for the court to
155
know what the answer is.
Under "Business benefits” it says:
“The business, in particular the security and P&BA
departments suffer fromthe inability to interrogate its
data due to the short periods of retention ”
Now, P&BA, what is P&‘BA now called?
It is now FSC.
So that’s your department that you work in?
Yes.
And we can see that what's suggested there is “the
following areas should benefit”, "POCA claims and
disputes”. Can you tell the court what POCA is?
I don't know.
If we go down and look at "Fraud and conformance
investigations ", do you see that?
Yes.
Is that something you have ever been involved in or not?
No,
And then “SPMR contract advisors - re non-conformance
suspension hearings”.
anything like that?
No,
Have you ever been involved in
And then if we go down, just underneath "Financial
benefits” you will see:
“ARQ (audit retrieval process) costs at least 384k
156
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/40
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rPOoPrPOore
recurring annually. This is subsumed without breakdown
in the Fujitsu security management costs. 720 requests
@ £450 unit cost.”
I think you said earlier youdon't generally get the
ARQ data, is that right?
No.
Have you ever worked in a team where someone has sought
the ARQ data?
1 would imagine it’s when it’s the fraud team or the
security team.
Something like that?
And they need more data,
So we know that at least some reports on Credence are
now available for 24 months?
(Nods).
Can you just give the court an indication of some
examples of those?
It’s usually regarding the automated payment, bill
payments.
Automated bill payments?
Yes.
So those reports are available for longer?
Yes.
Are there any others that you can think of?
Not off the top of my head.
187
Don't worry. It’s not Mastermind.
Now, can I ask you please to be shown (F/1120}.
This is a PEAK document about the Horizon computer
system. Do you ever see these in the course of your
work or not?
Me, no.
Does anyone in your team ever have cause to look at
a PEAK?
No.
No? Can I just ask you then —- I will take it quite
quickly, but if welook at the bottom of that first page
you will see the bottom paragraph underneath the word
“Details ”
"The customer visited Kinglassie post office .. on
13 December 2012... to deposit 1,444.20 which didn’t
credit their account. We can see from TESQA”
What's TESQA?
I've never worked on this team, but I’m aware that it’s
another system that people -- there’s more details on
that
As well?
Which is more restricted obviously for data protection
so it is only certain people that have access to that
data.
And that’s a separate system to Credence?
158
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
Yes.
“We can see from TESQA that the transaction failed at
the confirmation stage due to ‘transaction abandoned by
clerk. I've had numerous conversations with the office
and also sent out a letter and evidence but the office
has now requested a transaction log. With it being so
Jong ago they can’t provide an explanation as to why the
transaction didn't complete (but state they didn’t have
a surplus at the time of the transaetion ). If we could
ascertain what buttons were pressed by the clerk we
could go back with an explanation as to what the clerk
did with this transaction and hopefully get a conclusion
to this enquiry”
Do you see that?
Yes.
Now, it would be helpful, wouldn't it, when you have
those sorts of issues if you could identify as much
information about exactly what had happened in branch as,
possible?
I can’t answer for that particular enquiry. On cheques
we have the information that we require to investigate .
You do?
Yes.
Even if it is a long time afterwards? If someone raises
it say 102 days later for the first time?
159
If weissued a transaction correction to the office, we
put our details on there and if they had an enquiry or
dispute something they would phone the duty (inaudible)
up for more information.
But I think whathas happened here, on the face of it
and this is not a cheque case, but what appears to have
happened here is that it has been raised -- can you see
that the incident is raised on 30 August 2013?
Yes.
And it relates to a visit on 13 December 2012, do you
see that?
Yes.
So we can see that more than 90 days has elapsed from
the visit of the customer to the time when the issue has
arisen and if you looked on Credence you wouldn't be
able to see the details of the original visit, would
you, after longer than 90 days?
No,
Do you know how long you can see the details on TESQA
for?
No.
You don't. Okay.
Now, if you just go over the page at {F/1120/2}, you
see at the top of the page:
“We need sight of the actual transaction retrieving
160
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/6/41
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
from the archives (this is required to disprove any
future claim against Horizon integrity via the clerk }
Was it your experience at all that there was any
defensiveness about the Horizon system when it was
challenged by SPMs?
If a postmaster challenged in the area that I worked in,
we always took them seriously
You did?
and we always looked at what they were actually
saying and then we would go back to our evidence of
issuing the TC.
Okay. Can we look at your paragraph 13 please (E2/8/3}
You can see there, third line:
*For example, a subpostmaster might telephone FSC
and/or the helpline and allege to Post Office that
he/she has done a reversal ”
Yes?
Yes.
That’s an SPM claiming to have done something. The way
that is expressed suggests some doubta little bit,
doesn't it, about the truth of what they're saying?
I think whatI was trying to get across in this
particular statement was if a postmaster had a query, he
could always phone us and we would try and help,
whatever his query was. That's whatI was trying to
161
explain in this.
Okay. Let's look if we may at paragraph 14, You say
there:
“In relation to Mr Coyne querying whether Credence
could contain errors that result in false TCs being
issued to branches which they cannot effectively
challenge, as I aman end user of Credence I cannot
really comment on this. However I've never heard of
a bugin Credence in my time at Post Office *
So that’s not something you are in a position to
‘comment on?
No.
Okay. Let’s move forward if we may please. Let’s look
please at {F/869}
letter for the year ended 27 March 2011 and I expect you
may not have seen that before, is that fair?
That's fair
This is an Ernst & Young management
Can we go to page 4 please {F/869/4} and just to show
you the layout of the table, the first column has
‘a number in it, the second column says Issue”, although
it is a bit strangely laid out, do you see?
Yes.
“Location”, “Background”, “Recommendation”, "Management
comment” and then the right-hand column is "Current year
update”, do you see that?
162
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yes.
And let's look at page 12 at point 12 please {F/869/12).
Point 12 says “Credence (back-end) change process” and
you can see there it says:
“During our walkthrough and testing of the change
control procedures for the Credence application we
became aware of the following issues
“1. Developers at Logica, the third party provider
of application development and support for Credence, had
access rights to the production environment and the
database that would permit developers to move their own
changes into the production environment,
“2. Documentation to approve fixes and patches that
are applied to Credence outside of the release process
does not always exist. We were advised by Logica
personnel that for a sample of four changes selected
evidence of approval to move into production did not
exist and that it would notbe possible to link the
changes to problem tickets to record the original
request for the fix...”
Then:
“Developers have access to move their own changes
into production and [if] documentation is not retained
to substantiate those changes there is a risk of loss of
data and application integrity due to either
163
unauthorised, erroneous or inappropriate changing made
to the production environment”
I'm not suggesting somebody read anything as
complicated as that out to you, but were you aware at
all in or around 2011 or thereafter of any concerns
about the integrity of the information on Credence?
No.
Okay. Let’s look at page 14, point 13 {F/869/14}. This
is "Credence (front end) change process” and we can see
some issues identified in the column where there is
a number 137 and in fact over on the right-hand side it
says
“Application not in audit scope for [ financial
year 11],
whether management has fully addressed our comment as
Therefore we are not able to comment on
raised in the prior year”
You didn’t see any particular changes in Credence
around 2011 or soon thereafter?
To be honest, I wasn’t working in this area in 2011
What area were you -- were you using Credence at all at
that time?
Not at that particular time, no,
You weren't, okay.
Before reading Mr Coyne’s report were you aware that
there is a time discrepancy between the Credence and the
164
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/42
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 Fujitsu data? 1 AL No.
2. A. What do you mean? 2 Q. -- because the Helen Rose report wasn't really something
3. Q. Oneis GMT and one is British Summer Time for half the 3 you knew about?
4 year. Did you know about that? 4 A. No. But it was the recovery process that reversed -
5 A. No. 5 Q. Could have done it?
6 Q. No. Fair enough. 6 AL Yes.
7 Let's look at the use and content of Credence data 7 Q. So that amendment has now been made to reflect that?
8 If we look at {F/935}, and you can see that that 8 A. Yes. And the transaction correction was issued because
9 documentis called "Driving business benefits through 9 the customer's money was still in the branch, so by
10 the consolidation of data review” and dated 18 May 2012, 10 issuing the transaction correction the AP team was able
11 Can I just ask you at what date did you move into 11 to then repay the customer's bill .
12 a role where you started using Credence yourself? 12 Q. Andat paragraph 18 (E2/8/4}, somehow ARQ requests has
13 A. Probably 2016. 13 come into your witness statement.
14 Q. Okay, so this is 14 A. Yes.
15 A. ‘17, yes 15 Q. It’s not really your thing, is it?
16 Q. -- before your time as well, okay. 16 A. No
17 So I will leave that. 17° Q. Not really. I wantto be fair to you about how I ask
18 Paragraph 15 of your witness statement {E2/8/3} 18 it. It says there:
19 says: 19 “I understand that Mr Coyne has alleged that
20 “Looking at the Helen Rose report referred to in 20 Post Office staff were deterred from making ARQ requests
21 paragraph 5.49 of Mr Coyne's report, Post Office was 21 because of fees or penalties .
22 able to use Credence to identify that the subpostmaster 22 Yes?
23 had reversed a transaction but had also taken £76.09 23° A. Yes
24 payment from the customer.” 24 Q. Did someone point that out to you in Mr Coyne’s report,
25 And you have I think made an amendment to that and 25 or did they just tell you that that’s what he had said?
165 167
1 if we look at E2/16 and we go forward one page {E2/16/2} 1A. I have been always aware that Post Office Limited teams
2 you can see that paragraph 15 now reads “Post Office 2 can ask for this information, because many years ago we
3 was able to use Credence” should now be "Post Office 3 didn’t have Credence and we would ask for these, but
4 initially used Credence’. And then there is the 4 I've never been aware of anybody being deterred from
5 addition of a sentence at the end that says: 5 making requests.
6 “However, page 2 of the Helen Rose report shows that 6 Q. But noone in your team actually does that?
7 the reversal ‘was not an explicit reversal by the 7 A. No, because we have the information at hand that we
8 clerk 8 require
9 Now, first of all, youare talking about the 9 Q And you can see things on Credence that the SPM can't
10 Helen Rose report; is that something that you actually 10 see and so you try and deal with their queries?
11 knew about yourself? 11 A. Wecansee the same information. Ours is probably more
12 A. No. In this particular incident though when there was 12 easily readable
13 not an error in the core finance, why this came about 13° Q Ina spreadsheet form?
14 ‘was because the customer contacted the helpline because 14 A. Ina spreadsheet format.
15 the bill was unpaid. 15 Q Notona till roll?
16 Q. Yes. And if welook at how your paragraph 15 naturally 16 A. Notona till roll
17 reads {E2/8/3}, if we look at the last sentence there, 17 Q. And you say that you have spoken to Mr Godeseth. He is
18 do you see it says: 18 actually giving evidence, isn’t he?
19 “In reversing the transaction, the subpostmasterhad 19 A. As I have put "I understand from a witness statement
20 effectively removed the payment to British Telecom, 20 I didn’t actually speak to him.
21 making the bill unpaid.” 21 Q I'msosorry, youare right, you say "I understand the
22 A. Yes and it was the system that removed it, not the 22 witness statement contains details *
23 postmaster, yes. 23 A. Yes.
24 Q. It wasn’t the subpostmaster. You hadn't appreciated 24 Then you say -- the reason I thought you might have
25 that from the Helen Rose report 25 spoken to him is three lines from the bottom, "He is not
166
168
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/43
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 aware of any fees or penalties having been paid”. Is 1 from Mr Godeseth and you said you had just read his
2 that just from his witness statement 2 statement.
3. A. That's it, yes 3 AL Yes.
4 Q. ~ youhaven’t spoken to him? 4 And then you referred to some information at the end of
5 Can we look please at {F/728}. This is an email 5 that paragraph where it says
6 chain in relation to the Barkham Post Office, which was 6 “He is not aware of any fees or penalties having
7 Pam Stubbs’ Post Office, and if we go please to page 11 7 been paid by Post Office, nor anyone being deterred from
8 (£/728/11}, you can see there 8 making ARQ requests .”
9 “If we can encourage Mark Dinsdale to authorise the 9 In that sentence who is "he"?
10 audit trail, I feel it would be beneficial given the 10 A. I think it’s Christopher Knight.
1. current interest in Horizon from media and MPs.” 11° Q. So it’s not MrGodeseth?
12 If we go to page 9 {F/728/9}, we get: 12 A. No.
13 “Nigel, no probs with requesting data from Fujitsu 13 Q Andis that information as a result of your having
14 but it will take around 3 weeks. Has Jason agreed to 14 spoken to Mr Knight?
15 take this case on, because we don't hand over Horizon 15 A. Yes
16 logs to an SPMR. It needs an expert to understand what 16 Q. Thank you.
17 it says, and usually this requires one of the 17 My Lord, I have no further questions.
18 investigators . 18 (Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER
19 “1'll give Jason a call in the morning, then I will 19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I just have a couple of questions.
20 raise an ARQ from Fujitsu. 20 ‘The one that you have just been asked by counsel
21 "Is this for our benefit, as there is a cost 21 about Mr Christopher Knight, is there any reason of
22 attached to ARQ requests, we do get a supply free of 22 which you are aware why you are telling us what
23 charge as part of the contract but we usually don’t have 23 Mr Christopher Knight believes rather than Mr Knight
24 enough, therefore we usually charge the defence 24 himself giving a witness statement?
25 lawyers’ 25 A. I havenoidea
169 171
1 Now, does that chime with anything that you have 1 MRJUSTICE FRASER: You don’t know.
2 experienced? 2 Then if we could go back please to your paragraph
3 A. No. 3 well, it’s really your experience of Credence
4 Q. Let's havea look, if wemay~- well, I may notneed to 4 altogether.
5 take you to it, but you're not aware of the charging 5 How often do you use Credence?
6 regime at all yourself, are you? 6 A. Myteamuse it every day.
7 A. I wasaware Post Office hada certain amount and then 7 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And how often do you use it?
8 they could be chargeable. 8 A. Perhaps once a week. 1 know my way round Credence.
9 Q So you were aware they had a certain amount after which 9 MRJUSTICE FRASER: You know your way round it.
10 they would be charged? 10 A. Yes.
11 A. Yes. 11 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And what is keystroke activity?
12 Q. Butyou didn’t know yourself what that amount was? 12 A. I didn’t realise that keystroke activity actually refers
13 A. Thecharge? I have no idea, no 13 to these ARQ reports where we do the transactional data
14 Q. Andyou didn’t know how many requests they could make 14 on Credence; that’s what we're looking at, the sales and
15 before they were charged? 15 the non-sales. So I meant transactional data
16 A. No. If weneeded to makea request, I knew we could. 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: So your understanding of keystroke
17 Q. I'm grateful 17 activity when you did your statement was what?
18 ‘My Lord, I have no further questions. 18 A. Transactional data, sales and non-sales. So for every
19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson? 19 transaction that a postmaster -- for example somebody
20 ‘Re- examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON 20 paid their bill, we would see that level of detail and
21 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Mrs Mather, I just have a question 21 how the transaction was finished, either to cash,
22 about paragraph 19 then, It is a potential for 22 cheque, debit card. So it’s the transactional data over
23 confusion that you might be able to clear up. 23 the Horizon counter.
24 Paragraph 19 of your witness statement (E2/8/4} 24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Right, so if I look at your paragraph 12
25 Mr Green asked you about information you had obtained 25 {E2/8/3} - do you have that?
170
172
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/44
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
2 MR JUSTICE FRASER: You see the sentence that you have been
3 asked about a couple of times
4 AL Yes.
5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: ~ firstly by Mr De Garr Robinson and
6 then by Mr Green, Just so that I can understand what
7 your evidence is, that second sentence that begins “It
8 is used to help understand I understand I should
9 cross out “all keystroke activity *, is that right?
10 A. Yes
11° MRJUSTICE FRASER: And what term should I put in there
12 instead?
13 A. Whatwe use Credence for is we have also got -- for
14 cheques is all cheques are processed at a processing
15 centre which they then create a file. So for example if
16 we had ten cheques processed we would look on Credence
17 for ten transactions that were finished off to cheques,
18 so ten versus ten and then if we've got a mismatch
19 that’s what we would be looking for. For example one
20 could be finished off to cash accidently and we would
21 try and identify that
22 MRJUSTICE FRASER: But going back to my question, what term.
23 should I put in instead of “all keystroke activity"? Is
24 there a handy or useful form of words that would correct
25 that sentence to reflect what you meant?
173
1 A. Records all transactional data performed in that branch.
2 MRJUSTICE FRASER: All transactional data performed in that
3 branch. Okay.
4 And then the next question, which is more or less on
5 the same topic, in the next paragraph you have
6 a sentence that begins at the end of line 4 which says:
7 *Weean take an initial look on Credence to see
8 whether that is correct or whether, for example, the
9 subpostmaster has in fact done an adjustment.”
10 Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Can you just explain to me how you would
13 do that?
14 A. For example, if one of -- a postmaster phoned one of my
15 team, they might think that they have donea reversal,
16 but by the duty (inaudible) they would be able to go on
17 to Credence, download the information and look on
18 non-sales and they might have actually done an
19 adjustment.
20 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And is that something that you would be
21 involved in looking at, or would it be someone in your
22 team?
23 A. It would be my team members.
24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And could you do that if you wanted?
25 A. If I wantedto, I could, yes.
174
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And what would it show? What would you
expect fo see in your example?
‘A. That's where ~ for an adjustment it’s when they can
adjust cash to cheque or cheque to cash.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. That's very useful.
very much.
Any questions arising out of that? No.
Thank you
‘Thank you very much for coming, Mrs Mather, that’s
the end of your evidence.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I call Paul Smith,
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR PAUL SMITH (affirmed)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much, Mr Smith. Do have
a seat please.
A. Thank you, my Lord.
Examination-in-chief by MR DE GARR ROBINSON
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Mr Smith, there should be a bundle of
documents in front of you. If I could ask you to open
that bundle and go to divider 9 please (E2/9}. There
should be one sheet with a correction in it and after
that sheet there should be a document describing itself
as a “Witness statement of Paul Ian Michael Smith”, do
you see that?
A. Yes.
And is that your name and address on the first page of
175
the witness statement?
AL It is.
And at the end of the witness statement -- it is page 7
{E2/9/7}- is that your signature?
AL It is.
And then if I could ask you to move on in the bundle to
whatI hope is tab 15-- is there a tab 15 in that
bundle? {£2/15}
A. There is
And another witness statement with your name and address
on the first page and on the second page is that your
signature? {E2/15/2}.
AL It is.
Subject to the correction onthe first sheet relating to
the first witness statement, do you confirm that the
witness statements are true to the best of your
knowledge, recollection and belief?
A. Theyre.
If you would wait there, thank you.
Cross- examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Smith, we have heard how you discussed the
information about transaction corrections with various
colleagues and one of them was Dawn Phillips.
AL It was.
And can I just take you please to your witness statement
176
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/45
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OYA HR YN
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oPoP,
oPropr
2
at (E2/9/3} at paragraph 13. So you have introduced TCs
at paragraph 12
Mm-hm.
And it says:
“TCs are issued by FSC.
Post Office's solicitors that the processes by which FSC
determines whether a TC is required is outside the scope
I understand from
of the Horizonissues trial ”
Okay.
That's what you were told?
Yes.
And then you said
“Broadly, it involves FSC comparing data entered
onto Horizon by branch staff with data received from
other sources and resolving any discrepancies between
them.”
Now, pausing there, there are -- I think as we have
already heard -- separate teams for different potential
discrepancies?
Agreed.
And you have explained at paragraph 14 that
“FSC is divided into distinct teams that are
responsible for accounts relating to specific products.”
They are.
So one team might be dealing with Santander
V7
discrepancies, for example?
Indeed.
Another team might be dealing with lottery and so forth?
Absolutely.
And you say that:
“Although each team have their own responsibilities ,
there is interaction between teams to reach a final
resolution on any discrepancy ”
There is.
When would that typically occur?
That would occur when there is evidence within the
investigation that there could be a further activity
that’s needed. As an example, we have already heard
about cheques. It could be that the impact of a cheque
discrepancy could also impact on another product, so if
you have a miskey it could be that that miskey
transaction has been settled to cheque with higher than
what it should be value, but then there's also going to
be the bill payment or the actual transaction itself
that's also been at a higher value. So working together
you can put together all the pieces of the puzzle, get
the right answer and also mitigate or minimise the
impact on the branch by making sure that any corrections
that are done are done at the same time to ensure that
the financial impact is either mitigated or reduced.
178
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
orporeo>
Yes. It is obviously ideal if both sides can be done at
the same time.
Absolutely.
And the subpostmaster is not hit with a TC going one way
and then another way.
Why he.
But that does happen sometimes?
I cannot give you an example
Okay.
- but I can’t deny it either
At paragraph 16 you say:
“Post Office introduced a case management system
that records each individual challenge to a TC .."
Yes?
It records some challenges to TCs.
something that’s in roll-out.
It is. still
It was introduced on that
date. Thereare a number of teams that are on there and
challenges to TCs are recorded in there, yes.
So taking it in stages, it was introduced
in September 2018?
Agreed.
And when is roll -out of that system due to be complete
across all teams?
I can’t give youa date. 1 don't knowa date.
Okay. And how many teams are there in total? Roughly?
179
Roughly 1 would say eight
Eight.
system at the moment?
I know that there are two teams which are high volume
And do you know how many teams are using that
users that are fully integrated in there and there are
a number of teams which have maybe part of their
processes in there
have distinct areas of responsibility .
As I explained previously, teams
It could be that
a product is integrated but the whole team isn’t.
Okay. Which are the two teams that are high volume
users?
‘The automated payments team and the team that deals with
debit cards, lottery and ATM.
And do you know whether they are using it to record all
challenges or just some challenges?
As far as I’m aware, all challenges
Okay. And do you know whether that case management
system actually tracks any trends or if there’s any
analysis of the figures?
‘The case management system itself doesn’t because it’s
a case management system, it's there to record
However, there are reports being developed that are
showing some trends. 1 do know that the lottery, ATM
and debit card team leader has requested a number of
reports and is using them to get to the bottom of what
180
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/46
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1 may have happened.
2 Q. Sothere are actually reports you can use now?
3 A. Thereare reports written for those specific products.
4 Q. For those products --
5 A. Yes
6 Q. -- that exist now --
7A. Yes
8 Q. -- andare being used?
9 A. As far as I'maware, yes.
10 Q. Did you think it mightbe useful to havea look at
11 those, or did you not look at them because of what you
12 were told by the solicitors , that how it was done wasn’t
13 in scope?
14 A. Neither is accurate. These reports were generated very
15 recently. AsI say, this is a system that has been
16 developed, it is in place, but the actual uptake by
17 teams is being done ona step-by-step basis and as
18 improvements are made, reports are written. It's
19 running quite well but organically
20 Q It is fair to say that your most recent witness
21 statement is pretty recent as well, isn’t it?
22 A. It is
23° Q. 8 March.
24 A. Itis
25 Q. So you could have captured information in that witness
181
1 statement about the trends and
2 A. That wimess statement was to address specific comments
3 within there that following understanding from looking
4 at Mr Coyne’s report, relooking at my statement, which
5 is the right thing to do, it indicated that -- as per
6 Dawn Phillips’ testimony earlier that there was
7 information in there that wasn’t fully explained
8 regarding notices
9 Q Twothings, MrSmith. I know what's in the witness
10 statement. I was just pointing out that first of all
11 it’s not quite things that weren't fully explained.
12 ‘There was something in there that was wrong that you had
13 to correct. Canwe be clear about that?
14 A. Terminology, 1 will agree, was wrong.
15 Q. It was wrong?
16 A. Yes. The facts and the figures I would dispute were
17 wrong.
18 Q. Right. Well
19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Sorry, so you are saying the facts are
20 correct and the figures are correct?
21 A. MyLord, as per Dawn's previous testimony she did say
22 that the information that she provided, the information
23 onerror notices, the volumes that she provided, were
24 accurate and that’s all that I can work on.
25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Butif the description of what those
182
eIAHkYOnE
figures is is incorrect then you are maintaining that
the content of the statement is correct, are you?
The statement wasn’t -- it wasn’t correct, my Lord. It
was referring to error notices not transaction
corrections
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, Mr Green,
MR GREEN: I'm grateful
rPOoProProre
And in fact the heading in the second box, if we
look at paragraph 23 on page 5 {E2/9/S}, the heading
“Disputes received from branch” was specifically wrong,
wasn't it?
Tt was, yes.
Because it was actually “Disputes received by Santander
from PO"?
It was, yes
So that the question I was originally asking you was you
said that you didn’t include anything about the
transaction correction system or any analysis about TCs
and so forth from the system because the reports were
quite recent. I showed you the date of your statement
which was the Friday before this trial started and
I suggested that was recent. I’m just going to suggest
again that would have been an opportunity for you to put
something in about how those were working. Was there
a reason why you didn’t?
183
There wasn't.
Okay. And there aren’t any underlying documents
produced or exhibited with your statement to support
these tables, are there?
There isn’t I’m afraid
So just to get a feel for how this was done, if we look
at paragraph 17 which is (£2/9/4), "Cash bureau and
personal banking team”, the people that you spoke to or
contacted were Sarah Parkes and Gillian Hoyland, is that
right?
It was.
What did you do, did you email them, did you talk to
them, did you call them, did you meet them; what
happened?
‘There was an email that was quite explicit as to the
information I required and I did do follow up emails and
on occasion I would speak to people.
On occasion you would speak to people?
Yes.
Did you speak to Sarah Parkes?
I didn’t speak to Sarah Parkes, no.
Did you speak to Gillian Hoyland?
From memory, I did, yes.
‘And which aspect did you speak to her about?
Just to request that the information was provided, to
184
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/47
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 explain what the information was needed for and that it 1 Q. And the number of compensating TCs is also estimated to
2 was time critical because I was still awaiting the data 2 be identical?
3 at the time. 3 A. It appears so, yes.
4 Q. Andyou've got these average numbers. Was there 4 Do you have any feel at all from your own knowledge as
5 a reason why the period was different between the cash 5 to whether those figures are even remotely reliable?
6 and the bureau figures? 6 A. Thenumber ofissued TCs I would suggest are very
7A. That's not something I'm aware of. 7 accurate. The number of TCs disputed is not something
8 Q. You don’t know? 8 that I can comment on at this stage. I do know that
9A. I don't know. 9 prior to having our case management system in there was
10 Q. And it suggests there that there are 680 disputes, 10 no consistent method of recording the method of
11 paragraph 18, 40 upheld. And you understand that the 11 disputes.
12 disputes tend to relate to alleged shortages in pouches 12 Q. Yousay in paragraph 21 what your colleague Andrea Green
13 received by branches and they are dealt with at the cash 13 has told you. So just working out the information
14 centre as opposed to FSC? 14 flow
15 A. That's right 15 A. Yes.
16 Q Who did you gain that understanding from? Was that 16 Q. -- it’s yougot it from Andrea and she got it from
17 something that Gillian Hoyland told you? 17 various experienced team leaders?
18 A. That would have come from an email andI cannot remember 18 A. Team members.
19 who sent me the email at this stage. 19 Q. Team members. Did she tell you who they were at all?
20 Q. Okay. Let's look at personal banking for a moment, if 20 A. She didn’t.
21 we may. TCs by the personal banking team are rarely 21 Q. Okay. So it’s hop over to Andrea Green and then another
22 disputed, we see there 22 hop over to some other team members who are not
230 A. Mmhm. 23 identified ?
24 Q. “This is because they runa report in Horace to 24 A. Yes.
25 determine whether a surplus is evident (ie if the cash 25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: That's really a point for me, Mr Green.
185 187
1 physically counted is more than the amount that appears 1 MRGREEN: I'm grateful, my Lord.
2 on Horizon or vice versa) before issuing a TC.” 2 So do you think there was scope for other
3 Where has that come from? 3 misunderstandings between you and the people you have
4 A. That information is likely from Sarah Parkes but, as 4 asked of the same sort as that which has emerged with
5 I have suggested earlier, 1 cannot 100% say which one of. 5 Dawn Phillips?
6 them provided that detail by email 6 A. It is unlikely. I cannot say categorically no, but the
7 Q. Okay. Camelot, debit card and ATM team, Andrea Green, 7 contract and the way that we work with Santander is,
8 (£2/9/5) 8 significantly different to how we work on the other
9 "The Camelot, debit card and ATM team had the 9 products. Many ofthe other products are very, very
10 following number of TCs disputed and issued the 10 similar in how they are administered, there's just
11 following number of compensating TCs in the 2017 11 different methods of investigation and additional
12 financial year” 12 different types of data available.
13 We havea table there. Again, there is no 13 Q. Okay. Can we just go over the page please to page 6 in
14 underlying document provided? 14 your witness statement {E2/9/6]. DVLA:
15 A. No. 15 “Jacqueline has explained to me that TCs are very
16 Q. How did Andrea Green give you this information? 16 rare in this team. During the past year the team have
17 A. Andrea Green will have sent this as an email which 17 only issued four and none of them have been disputed.”
18 I will have forwarded on to our solicitors 18 Now, you understand that this trial concerns the
19 Q Andit just says -- under "BOI retracts" and “Lottery” 19 operation of the system over a long period?
20 the number of TCs issued for those two is very 20 A. Yes.
21 different, isn’t it: 4,174 and lottery is 24,139? 21 Q Could we look at {F/1889} please. Sorry, I hope I’ve
22 A. It is 22 got the right reference. We can come back to that
23 Q. But the number of disputed TCs apparently is estimated 23 reference in a minute, if wecan just check it. It is
24 to be the same? 24 the spreadsheet of TCs issued by branch. We can come
25 A. It appearsso, yes. 25 back to that in a second.
186
188
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/48
March 19, 2019
POL00004071
POL00004071
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
If we can just go in the meanwhile to paragraph 30
of your witness statement [E2/9/6} we see a reference to
paragraph 6.66 of a report by Mr Coyne in which he
refers to two TCs of £810,000in a Post Office Limited
disclosed document and suggests they might have been
madein error. You say:
“This is not correct. Two TCs were required in this
instance because the method of payment used was cheque.”
Then:
“TCs to the value of 810,00 are directly linked and
relate to a Bank of Ireland Post Office Savings Account
deposit on 24 August 2012.”
Let's quickly look at that. It seemsto be right
If we look at {F/1195} please, Youhad a look at that
Excel spreadsheet anyway to look at the two
1 did
There's an 810 and 810at the top and the bottom, isn’t
there?
There is.
And they cancel each other out. What! wanted to ask
you about is -- while that downloads it might
download in the background if we go to another document.
Shall we just look at (D3/1/205} please. Let’s get the
spreadsheet, thank you very much.
Can we goto the original data (F/1195} and there
189
we've got a long list of individual TCs issued in 2012,
with the date they are issued, going into 2013, the
early part of 2013, so it looks like the 2012/2013-year,
is that what you understood?
I haven't seen the full detail of this report, but it
does appear that way.
And if we goto the pivot table, the pivot report tab at
the bottom we can see there are 84,217 transaction
corrections recorded there, yes?
Yes.
Could we please go to (D3/1/205}. Now, this is
Dr Worden’s report, who is the expert for Post Office,
and he has reproduced a table which was produced by
Post Office in accordance with an order that the court
made for provision of this information. When we look at
the volume of TCs in 2012 it says 124,374 and when we
look in 2013 it says 105,876 and we can see that the
moving average in that period is a lot higher than the
figure that we saw in the financial year 2012/2013. Are
you aware of any reason why the numbers in what appear
to be a calendar year might be very significantly
different , other than the fact that the financial year
arts andends at a different time?
1 know of no other difference other than it would be
significantly different based on that premise.
190
Q. Can I ask you whether you have seen this document before
please?
A. I don’t recognise it, no.
Have a look at page {H/58}. This is the documentas
originally presented and sent through. If we look at
{11/57}, you can see what's said about this. Just come
down to the third paragraph:
“Post Office does not hold historic aggregated TC
data in a single searchable database, in Horizon or
otherwise.”
We have seen that 2012 spreadsheet of all those
transaction corrections individually and for what it’s
worth I have checked that there are 87,000 of them,
Have you seen other spreadsheets of transaction
corrections similar to that for different years?
A. Similar to that, no.
‘The one we looked at which had the 810 and the 810 that
you specifically looked at to check what Mr Coyne was
saying?
A. Notin that layout, no, but Post Office do hold a
1 will loosely call it a database, it’s a SharePoint
site, with Excel spreadsheets on that have been created
to hold transaction corrections, which our -- one of the
teams within Post Office appends to daily to create that
list .
191
Q. Which departmentis in charge of that list? Who is the
owner of it? I see it is ona SharePoint site, but who
would bethe natural person to talk about that list if
they were asked?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You have asked five questions, one after
the other.
MR GREEN: I'm sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you want to maybe put itas one
question.
MR GREEN: Who would be the natural person to speak to that
list_and explain it?
A. It will be somebody in the systems management team.
Okay. Can I ask you whether you had any involvement in
or about May 2018 in looking at any of those sorts of
documents to compile a table of how many transaction
corrections there had been?
A. It’s possible. I cannot explicitly remember, but
I could have.
Q. You can’t remember?
No, not at this stage.
>
Q. Can we just look at (F/889}, which is my missed note.
Can we look please at the "Branch type volume” tab
please and you can see there's an analysis. of
transaction corrections by branch type, yes?
AL Yes
192
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/49
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1 Q And then if we goto the "Summary by period” tab please. 1A. It did for the FSC, my Lord, yes.
2 You can see there -- if we just take DVLA as an example, 2. MRJUSTICE FRASER: And then you also referred to reports
3 where your evidence of the present number of TCs is 3 which you said had been generated very recently.
4 there is about a handful, if you go up to the top to see 4 A. Yes, my Lord.
5 the headings there, can you see "2010/2011 ourturn’, 5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Do you recall Mr Green was asking you
6 that's an annual figure, that's 2,717, do you see that? 6 about those?
7 A Ido. 7A. Ido.
8 Q. So that’s not very recognisable from what you have said 8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: What are they called?
9 in your witness statement. Is that because that’s gone 9 A. I don't think they have a specific name, my Lord,
10 down radically? 10 I think they are just reports that have been set up
11 A. It will have gone down radically, yes. 1 don't believe 11 within the Dynamics system to allow the team leader to
12 we actually transact that type of transaction with the 12 easily access, such as a dashboard to be able to see
13 DVLA any more. The transactions that we're dealing with 13 graphically volumes and information behind that.
14 where there are very few is we now have a corporate 14 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Per month or -- because it has not yet
15 relationship with the DVLA where we have fleetcompanies 15 been going a whole year -- or quarterly or what?
16 such as Arval or Hitachi Finance who tax their cars with 16 A. I believe it gives the data daily and monthly, but I'm
17 us ona bulk basis and they pay us a. significant amount 17 going on a conversation as opposed to something I can
18 of money maybe two days prior to when they are actually 18 give you concretely.
19 going to tax their cars and we request that the 19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: That's all right. It certainly can’t be
20 branches - or we task the branches in calling us before 20 annually, can it?
21 they do these transactions to make sure that the funds 21 A. No, absolutely not. It could be set up to be annually,
22 are available to actually pay for these transactions 22 but it wouldn't give you -- it would just give you up to
23 Q. Okay. MrSmith, looking at the figures for DVLA in 23 now, yes.
24 those earlier years that we have seen, it doesn't 24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: At the moment it won't be an annual one.
25 surprise you that they are of that order? 25 A. Yes.
193 195
1 A. I don’t have enough knowledge to know whether they are 1 MRJUSTICE FRASER: That's very useful
2 right or wrong I’m afraid 2 ‘Then the second question, if we can go forward
3 Q. So you wouldn't have been able to assess very well what 3 please to (E2/9/6}, which will be your paragraph 27. Do
4 the other people you were getting information from were 4 you see that?
5 telling you? 5 A. Yes, my Lord.
6 A. No, I wouldn't. 6 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Now, the only reason I'm going to be
7 Q. I'm grateful 7 a bit precise about this is because of the slight
8 ‘My Lord, I have no further questions 8 difficulty with headings in your tables earlier in your
9 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson? 9 statement. When you say "MoneyGram receive one or two
10 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: I have no further questions. 10 disputes a month”, is that MoneyGram the company
11 Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER 11 receiving disputes fromthe Post Office, is that
12 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I have two. 12 MoneyGram the team receiving disputes back from branches
13 Can we go to your statement please, which is at 13 about TCs, or is it something else? What does it mean?
14 (£2/9/3} and your paragraph 16 where you explain about 14 A. MyLord,I believe this is MoneyGram as the team within
15 this case management system. Do you see the first line 15 the FSC.
16 of your paragraph 16? 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: The MoneyGram team.
17 A. Yes, my Lord. 17° A. Yes, my Lord.
18 = MRJUSTICE FRASER: What is it called? 18 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Receiving one or two disputes a month
19 A. It is called -- you will have to excuse me, nerves. It 19 from .2
20 is dynamics, my Lord. 20 A. Branches.
21° MRJUSTICE FRASER: Dynamics. 21 + MRJUSTICE FRASER: From the branches. And is your
22 A. Dynamics, my Lord, yes. 22 understanding that they are disputes in respect of
23. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Iknow this is quite new because yousay 23. transaction corrections issued by the team, or in
24 it has not been fully rolled out and it only started 24 respect of something else?
25 in September 2018, is that right? 25 A. Myassumption based on what! put in paragraph 16, which
194
196
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/6/50
March 19, 2019
POL00004071
POL00004071
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
wyAnRone
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OIYHORWNHE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is that this is the information that I have gained from
team leaders, it would be disputes regarding transaction
corrections that have been received by branch.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: But your paragraph 16 is talking about
the sense of proportion of TCs that have been challenged
and what challenges were successful.
A. I'm specifically
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So the one or two disputes a month are
back in respect of TCs that have been issued, is that
right?
A. That is my assumption, yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And that would be as a proportion of,
what higher number, or any idea, or you can’t remember,
or you were never told?
A. I'm unaware of the number, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Unaware. All right, that’s very
helpful, thank you.
Mr De Garr Robinson, anything? No.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, no questions.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr Smith, that’s your evidence done so
thank you very much, You don’t have to come back
tomorrow. Obviously you are welcome to but you don't
have to come back to give evidence. ‘Thank you very
much.
Anything that needs dealing with?
197
Can I just raise a polite reminder about experts’
reports cross-referenced to the Opus - when! mentioned
it last week it wasn’t urgent. It is still not urgent
but I would broadly like them by the end of the week if
possible.
And then I was also going to havea file of PEAKs
and KELs.
MR GREEN: My Lord, do you want us to give it to you as we
go along?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I think so, yes please
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: It would be helpful if all parties
could have the same file.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Lagree, but I don't suppose the
claimants necessarily know which ones you are going to
use when you are cross examining Mr Coyne.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: No, no, absolutely.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I would have thought the task of
providing one by the end of the week for the evidence of
fact is probably going to be fairly straightforward,
because we haven't been using very many.
MR GREEN: My Lord, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And then after that it can be updated
every couple of days. And it doesn’t have to be updated
hefore they are asked questions, it can be updated
afterwards. It’s just to give mea useful working file.
198
1 Right, anything else?
2. MR DEGARR ROBINSON: My Lord, no.
3. MRJUSTICE FRASER: No. 10.30 tomorrow. Thank you very
4 much,
5 (436 pm)
6 (The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday,
7 20 March 2019)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
199
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/6/51
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
1
2 INDEX
3
4 Housekeeping 1
5 MSANGELA VAN DEN BOGERD (continued) sswemm5
6 Cross-examination by MR GREEN (continued) ...u5
7 Re-examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON e...79
8 Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER 106
9 Further re-examination by MR DE GARR ewrwne111
ROBINSON
10
MS DAWN PHILLIPS (affirmed) 113
11
Examination-in-chief by sesmnsonnnon 13,
12 MR DE GARR ROBINSON
13 Cross-examination by MS DONNELLY 14
14 Re-examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON ...145
15 Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER noun 145
16 MRS TRACY MATHER (sworn) 48
17 Examination in-chief by
MR DE GARR ROBINSON
18
Cross-examination by MR GREEN 150
19
Reexamination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON u.e171
20
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER 72
21
MR PAUL SMITH (affirmed) nnn 75
22
Examination-in-chief by MR DE GARR 175
23 ROBINSON
24 Cross-examination by MR GREEN wns 177
25 Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER mound 94
200
201
Opus 2 International transcripts@op
Official Court Reporters 0203 (B10.1/6/52
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
93 (1) 535
aa (5) 25:12 26.14.22
27:15 29:7
aakash (1) 68:9
abandoned (2) 5420
1593
able (29) 1:20,28 11-7
136 16:18 58:13
87:11,25 90:14,15,
1067 1073,11,12
108:3,5 120:21 133:16
142.15 145.10 160:16
164.14 165:22 166:3,
167.10 170.23 174:16
194:3 19512
aborted (5) 80:4,15.25
e1a7 ez
above (10) 31:11 49:12
70:4 73:2,20 110.23
1241.2 127:11 1529
absentee (1) 130:14
absolute (1) 30:25
absolutely (6) 10:18
55:9 1784 1793
19521 19816
absurd (1) 26:14
accept (4) 46:9
7:16.20 102.24
acceptable (1) 58:6
accepted (6) 15:18 767
94:22 1037 1045
13919
accepts (1) 46:19
access (12) 14:14 56:24
58.14,15 122.15,
15222,25 15324
156.23 163:10,22
19512
accessible (1) 8:24
accident (1) 3:3
accidently (1) 173:20
accord (1) 102.5
accordance (4) 49:22
51:8 62:3 190:14
account (13) 25:22
26:16 53:17 60:14
7420 77:15 83:8
95:13 1047 1278
130:15 158.6 169:11
accounting (8) 11:20
1149.12.16
115:14,21,26 139:25
accounts (19) 33:19
80:10 81:6
82.2.8 18.20.22
93:1,6,14.17,22.23
90.19 12119 1235,
124.16 17:23
‘accuracy (1) 125:20
accurate (3) 181:14
162.24 1877
acknowledgement (1)
oar
‘acknowledgements (1)
387
acronym (1) 51:38
across (12) 715 17:26
33:18 60:9,15 69.25
72:24 80:1 107-25
108.13 161:22 179:23
acting (1) 1413
action (3) 58:24
11921,25
actions (1) 135:20
activate (1) 44:6
activated (2) 44:3.13
actively (2) 88:9 89:22
activity (9) 149.15,18
1524 17231,12,17
1739.23 17812
actual (11) 55:11 57:21
62:6 1033 126.16
134:10 143:16 144.2
160.25 178.19 161.16
actually (97) 8:13
92,19 10:16
138,10,16 17.26 18:3,
203 26:17 28:19
2922 315 36:7.15
39:22,23 40:2,13,21
412,9,10 448.9
451.235 46:13
477.15 50:13,18,19
51:15.25 57:22 60:20
61:28 621,10 65:10
696 71:3 74:21 766
80.16 63:16 85:4
88:17 896 93:13,
95:6,22,23 1014
102:24
108:2,4,6.10.25
112:20,22 1217.10
1201.2 1231
1302.8,9 13911
1427 143:6,24 14710
146:13 149.19
15216,20 1531
161.9 16610
168:6,18,20 172:12
174:18 180.18 181.2
183:13 193:12,18,22
ad (1) 123:22
adamant (1) 707
added (1) 65:18
adding (2) 26:12 27:13
addition (1) 1665
additional (4) 207.8
42:21 16811
address (5) 113.20
148.24 175.25 176.10
1822
addressed (1) 164:25
addressing (1) £:9
adjourned (1) 199.6
adjournment (1) 94:7
adjust (1) 1754
adjustment (3)
1749.19 1753
adjustments (2)
154:20.23
administered (1) 188.10
adopt (2) 3:17.19,
adopting (1) 2.23,
advance (1) 12225
advantages (1) 1066
adverse (1) 4:20
advice (1) 74:7
advicehelp (1) 55:22
advise (1) 119:18
advised (3) 70:7 133:15
163:15
advisor (3) 119:20,24
1324
advisors (2) 132:10
156:19
affect (2) 121.19 123-4
affected (2) 10:9 86:20
‘affirmed (4) 113:10
1375:12 200:10,21
afforded (1) 60.23
afraid (6) 85:19 93:20
133:18 141:10 1845
194.2
after (29) 712 14.8
267 57.23
58:2.22,19,20 70:25
743,10 75:4,11,14
76:1 95:7 96:20
M219 121.20 124.19
127:6.12 135:5 148:20
160:17 170:9 175:20
192:5 198.22
afternoon (1) 114.6
‘afterwards (3) 74:22
159:24 198.25,
‘again (26) 35:9 36.20
39:4,15 47:11 506
5424 61:14 71:21
87:12 94:20 99:27
43:6 117.7 11811
19:14 1202.10 1248
328:11 131.21 1367
141.25 163:25 186:13
against (4) 5:21
1317.10 1612
agent (9) 64
1149.12.16
115:14.16,23.24
139.25
agentsaccountingteam;
(@) 1732
‘aggregated (3) 821.25
118
ago (4) 142:13 15212
159:7 168:2
‘agree (8) 27:20
26:13,15 413,13 424
162:14 1983,
agreeable (1) 309
agreed (4) 37:5 16914
17:20 179.21,
‘alexander (1) 12:9
align (1) 83:2
alison (2) 13269
allegation (2) 68:6.14
allegations (1) 11:21
allege (1) 162-15
alleged (2) 167:19
385:12
allow (2) 108:4 19521
almost (2) 81:18,22
atone (1) 63:22,
along (1) 198.9
alongside (2) 73:1
349.13
alg (1) 1359
‘already (14) 3:22 41:24
65:20 68:6 61:20
3221.21 131.19 135.7
143:12 146.21 151.24
arae 17813,
‘also (28) 15:15 193,
24:19 26:10 56:4
88:13 93:13 1056
16:3 128:11 15:15,
327:17.20 1395 149-4
153.23 154.22 1595
165:23 17313,
178:15,18,20,22 167.1
195:2 1986
although (3) 122:3
162:20 1786
altogether (1) 172-4
always (12) 8:13 59:21
126:23 125:1 128:23
15126 1617,9,24
163:15 168:1
amend (1) 25:22
amended (2) 49:24 74:1
amendment (2) 165:25
167.7
‘amount (29) 17:15
41:10 62:3 68:3
106:20 109:9,18 10:7
114:19 11620,22
117622 18:7,9,12
1196 120.9 1224
123:5,25 14:21 105.8
13118 170:7,9,12
186:1 193.17
amounts (1) 12214
analysis (6) 25:8 6718
1368 180.19 18318
192.23
analyst (1) 64:13
‘andor (2) 117:25 161.15
‘andrea (6) 186:7,16,17
187:12,1621
andrew (2) 66:14 67:1
andy (2) 137.22 138.1
angela (3) 5:5 14:13
2005
offinae dah 54:6
‘annexed (1) 33-11
annual (3) 104:22 193.6
195:24
‘annually (3) 157:2
195:20,21
annuals (1) 6.6
‘another (14) 10:16
57:17 107:19 131:4
139:2 1446 150.25,
158:19 17630
178:3,15 179:5 187-21
18922
answer (17) 8:16 9:25
21:20 40,9,10 62:18
73:24 108:12 120:1
130:6 1383 14312
146:21 147:10 156:2
159:20 178.22
answered (6)
9:11,12,14,19 86:16
1226
answers (2) 106:19
155:24
‘anticipate (1) 19:5
anybody (2) 1213
168:4
anyone (11) 20:20
34:2,12,21,25
39:16,20 54:4 57:23,
1587 171.7
anything (19) 2:12 17:3
50:11,21 52:17,24
58:18 62:11 80:22
97:8 1075 135:9
156:21 164:3 170:1
183:17 197:18,25
1991
anyway (9) 35:7 47:24
52:28 55.7 57:11
75:20 107:11 13110
109.15
anywhere (2) 62:14
or2
ap (3) 32,14 167.10
apart (2) 32:24 55.25
apologise (3) 65:24
124:10 1307
apparent (2) 75.18
109.17
apparently (2) 63:16
196.23,
appeal (4) 138:16.23
1391 1455
appear (7) 2:3 30.15
72:11 1397 1407
190:6,20
appeared (2) 75:10
aanas
appears (14) 8:7 31:14
37.25 38:8 49:23,
726 9214 1188
125:20 138.6 1606
186:1,25 1873
appends (1) 191:24
pplication (4)
163:6,925 16613,
applications (1) 149.13
applied (1) 163:14
applies (1) 130.21,
apply (2) 60:20 74:21,
appreciate (1) 135:2
appreciated (1) 166:24
apprehend (1) 93:11
approach (7) 2:10,19.28
5269 9323 12015
approaches (1) 109°
appropriate (1) 127:25.
approval (1) 163:17
approve (1) 163.13
approximately (1) 56:12
archives (1) 1611
area (5) 64:15 1512
16116 164:19,20
areas (4) 7:16 129:18
156.11 1808
arent (13) 17-4
24:13,16 2512 32:24
37.247 4014
118:20,21 12313
125.15 1642
arisen (2) 160:15
arises (1) 135:4
arising (5) 21:3 107:17
un4 147.12 175:7
armstrong (6)
96:12,13.19 99:21
100:9.28
armstrongs (1) 1009
arose (2) 79:6 80:8
around (9) 35:19 77:10
105:4 146,24 1478
164:5,18 169.24
ang (17) 1325 15.5
18:25 19.17.19 92:24
152.9,22 15625
157:5,8 167:12.20
169:20,22 1718
72313
arrange (2) 117-5 119:8
article (2) 57:25,20
artificially (1) 42:24
arval (1) 193.16
ascertain (1) 159.10
aside (1) 15:19
‘ask (36) 79:20 86:1,2.4
91:6,16 95:2 96:4
3001013 10129
10211,14 1086
10519 107:26,17,21
10933 1135 147.23,
1497.10.17 15213,
3582.10 165:
16717 168:2,3 17538
1766 189.20 191:1
as2as
‘asked (38) 3:24 16:16
1922 3921 57:5
58:2 63:15 66.16
95:23 8613 902
91:13 9525 98.23
106.16 108:20 1095
13522 1431227
1452320
1469,16.19.22.25
1475.89 17025
17120 1733 1884
1924.5 19824
asking (14) 14:23 22:20
40:1 58:23 65:20 765
£0:20.21 101.25
10516 1229 146.4
103.6 1955
asks (2) 98:4 10:8
aspect (1) 184:24
asserted (1) 15:16
assertion (1) 3:14
asserts (3) 97:25 989
999
assess (1) 1943,
assessment (1) 78:7
assist (2) 11:7 90:19
assistance (4) 10:20
13625 130:4 145:7
‘assisted (1) 1221
assume (2) 126:2
uaraz
‘sumed (1) 142:10
assumption (2) 196:25
as7at
atm (4) 180:13,23
1867.9
attach (1) 126.14
attached (8) 8:6 66:21
706 1017 11639
1176 1185 169:22
attempt (1) 54:20
attempted (1) 76:10
audit (7) 6.5,7,25 7.6
15625 164:13 169.10
auaiting (1) 1268
‘uattors (1) 12:17
august (12) 15:14 19.4
23:24 25:8 2613
45.9,12,16,19 697
1608 169.12
author (1) 67-1
authorise (1) 169:9
authored (2) 5222
536
automated (3)
157.820 16012
automatic (2) 98:5.
w219
automatically (4) 31:17
98:13 99.4.6
available (16) 5:2 8:19
115 143.5 33:22
110.23 1543.45.13
15516 157:14,22
e812 193:22
average (2) 185:4
19018
awaiting (1) 185:2
aware (39) 4.12 104
184 19.24 20:7 21:6
54:2,3,11,12 75:24
76:20,22 77:6,7.9,32
83:10 69:16 142:6,12
153:17,19 158:18
16317 164:4,24
168:1,4 169.1
1705,7.9 1716.22
180,16 181:9 185:7
190.20
away (8) 1:15.22 44:16
use
awry (1) 20:19
cs
b (1) 9:10
back (58) 6:20 9:8 13:1.
182 19:24 206 23:4
256 2921
95.12,15,7 484
50:26 52.15 58:20
64:8 66:4 67:8 71:66
73:25 77.9 8322
93:21 958 99:13,23
10212 1085 110.16
3155 11824 12316
12616 1339
137:11,20 138-6,15.24
143.21 146.9 145:19
1488 149: 151:2,10
3591 1610 1722
173.22 188:22,25
19612 1979.21.23
backend (3) 53:23 68:3
1633
background (5) 19:25
66.9 79.21 162.23
19.22
bad (2) 58:9 59:23
boker (3) 101:10,,11
balance (2) 24:18 44:22
balanced (2) 59:69
balances (1) 44:7
balancing (3) 56:12
105:3 109:17
bank (1) 189:11
banking (8) 49.7.7
535 1149 1395
1948 185:20.21
barkham (1) 169.6
base (1) 57:22
based (6) 57 15.20
304,12 139:21 190.25
19625
basically (3) 44:6 47:10
aaa
basis (8) 3:9 48:12 79:8.
92:20 108:5 140:12
ye1a7 19317
bear (4) 13:2 67:23,
942 12911
bearing (1) 89:20,
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/53
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
became (1) 163:7
become (3) 63:9
1428.12
before (34) 825
16:2.4,5 21:19 23:16
39:17,19 44:5 52:1,
20:15 064.7 92:3
1106 1127 3204
12135635 12317
1328 13939 15035
16216 168.24 165116
170.35 163:21 186:2
191:1 19320 198.24
beforehand (2) 68:24
299
begin (1) 31:14
beginning (7) 18:14
23:20 4015 99:24
1292,20 147.23
begins (3) 38.1737
1746
behalf (1) 143:15
behind (1) 195:13
being (52) 39724
18:13 27:1 2917 30.9
33:7 36:10 35:3 41.21
45:20 46:13 56:21
59:13 63:19 66:5
68:9 72:4 75:10 7639
173 79.8.7 60.25
012 6235
0556.12.21 67:25,
93:7 94:22 106.715
107.11 1083 11018
12018 1269 13238
139.19,20 15223
1558 1596 1625
1684 171.7 180.22
1187
belief (4) 15:9 114:1
14925 17617
believe (8) 1:8,11 68:17
10620 11316 193:11
195:16 196.14
believed (1) 76.14
believes (2) 70:9 171.23
below (9) 29:14 32:23
91.38 97:12 10135
1024 11024
132159
beneficial (1) 269.10
benefit (4) 1325 90:17
156.11 169.21
benefits (7)
105:23,24,25 155:10
1562.26 1659
best (5) 107:21 113:25,
117.13 149.24 17616
better (4) 72:7 90:15
1065 1284
between (24) 9:13
15:24 16:2,7 2019
214,21 26:16 34:19
35:1 41:20 73:20
75:13 845 1053
1323.9 142:22 168-25
177.15 1787 1855
1883
beyond (4) 29:15,19
13812 1529
bias (2) 51:22 77:17
big (1) 99:25
bit () 101-4 157.26 20
166:15,21 167-11
17220 17819
binding (1) 1485
bit (16) 17:16 31.5.8
49:20 51:6 67:15,
106:3 10912 11015
120:6.8 142:16 161:20
16221 1967
black (1) 91:17
blame (1) 51:24
block (3) 66:20 127.8
12815
blocked (2) 131:10,23
blue (3) 91:17,18 94:15
bogerd (19) 5:5.7 18.25
193 48:13,19 62:17
6714793 62:1 68:21
9325 949 100.31
103.15 10516 111.17
147.15 2005
bogerds (1) 47:22
boi (1) 186.19,
bold (2) 155:8,9
bolsover (1) 1326
book (1) 132:12
booked (6) 37:16
46:14.15 47:5 87:9,10
books (1) 24:24
born (1) 149.8
borne (5) 85:25,24
888,14 99:22
both (16) 21:2 25:13
2610 299,10 37:19
42:20 1135 1204
126:21.23 130,12
1413.13.17.
bother (1) 124:4
bothering (1) 1246
bottom (22) 5:17 18:24
1918 61:22 8417
giai 923 9413,
97:14,26,18,22 10013
101.23 137-12 139:25
156:11,12 168.25
180:25 169.17 1908
box (10) 46.17 53:4
61:22 11010,16 111.7
1135 147.24 1838
brackets (1) 57:23
branch (122) 6.23 728
10.24.25 11.8.18
1521 1920 21:17
328,14 33:18,21 35:6
36:3 40:25 41:24
4713.17 49:25 50:18
52:9 53:18 60:12
6931 798 60:18
922,11,20
83:20,22,22 845
86:17,18,21,24 67:14
86:10 90:16 98:16
1049 108.14.15
109:15,15,24 117.23
1188 12221 125:23,
127.17,18,21,23
1287,10,20,24
129:17,19,19,22
130:9,13,14,16,18,20.22
131:6,12,17 1327.25
133:9,20 1347.17
13519 1363
1373.15 13818
1409.10.13,
141646,12.18
142:11.21 143.15
14:8 145:12,25 1468
147:10 149:14,16
152:45,19 153-7
154:35,10 15:5,
15916 167.9 176:1.3
177.14 17823 183.10
188:24 192:22,24
1973
branches (14) 7:24
11:7,20 71:10 872
11415 131.2 1626
185:13 193:20,20
196:12.20,21,
branchs (5) 80:10 61:6,
836.7 85:12
brdb (1) 94:19
break (5) 48:3.16,17
147.17 148.20
breakdown (4) 116.23
127-20 145.13 157.1
bridges (1) 63:2
briefy (3) 5:7 16:22
104.18
bring (1) 205:4
bringing (2) 23:2
brings (1) 3:14
british (3) 101:16 165:3
166:20
broadly (3) 129:6
17713 1984
brought (1) 27:9
bst (1) 10017
be (1) 101-4
budget (2) 1023 122
bug (21) 22:2,3.21.22
338 34.12.13 85:25
861,2.6.20 878,18
£88,15,24 69:9.21,24
1629
bugs (5) 20:18,24 34:19
05:16:25,
building (1) 105.13
bulk (1) 1937
bullet (2) 5:12
bundle (5) 11314
375 17.19 17668
bunny (1) 58
burden (1) 3:23
bureau (2) 184:7 185:6
burke (3) 14:3 77:20
718
burkes (2) 55:7.16
business (14) 3:2 421
736 137.9 6413,
105,2.6,12 108:8,
13915 1562.3 1659
busy (1) 4.23,
button (2) 87:11,12
buttons (2) 58:13,
159,10
buy (1) 44:34
(1) 911
calendar (1) 190:21
call (43) 7:20 8:9,19,25
919,19 10:15
143,8,16,19,23,25
45:7 47:20 49:3 57.25
58:20 60:6,20 61:1
62:10 641 68:5 75:2
87:6 1093 1139
12021 121:18,
123:3,18 125:14
126:2.7 1339.13
145.6 148:12 169:19,
175:10 16413 191.21
called (14) 9:14 146
59:13 60:11 66:13,
67:1 692 12613,
153.23 1566 1659
194:18,19 1958
callendar (10) 22:2.8,22
85:17 661
88:13,1415,16 69:23
calling (5) 1:24 45:11
74:21 120:24 193:20
calls (25) 66 814.23
9:3,20,12,11,12,13.13
11:34 15:2 49:8 67.23
m7 62121
123.914.1721
125:12,14 127.6
came (17) 11:3 37.23
39:22,22,23 40.20.21
46:7 47.9 7422 75:4
n224 1122 1329
134:17 1478 16613
camelot (2) 186:7.9
cancel (9) 49:17 72:20
TBE? 7412 98:24 99:3
101:25 102:2 19:20
cancelled (2) 81:18,21
‘cancelling (2) 41:11,20
annot (9) 1332 1535
162:6,7 1798 185.18
196:5 188:6 192.17
ant (30) 13:23 17:24
23:15,17 333.9 37:23
51:23 55:4,20 111.9
1125 1223 123.9
126:19 131:24 1336
137.9 1383 143:12
146:21 147.10
159:7,20 168:9
179:10,24 192.19
195:19 1973,
capable (2) 105.9 145:9
capitals (1) 57:24
capture (3) 617.9
19.17
captured (2) 54:2
101.25
car (1) 33
card (9) 43:23,24 85:24
60:13 1172 17222
100:24 1867.9
cards (8)
43:7.9.15,15,20.23
45:10 10:13
care (3) 135 62:2 1025
careful (3) 7855.14.18
catied (2) 7:12 126.9
cars (2) 193:16,19
cases (1) 1311
‘cash (30) 29:12,12,22
31:11 43:17,21 4419
53:16 56:10 62:9 66:1
67:3 681123 725
73:6 748.9 75:9
90.11.22 115:7 172.21
173:20 175:4.4 1647
1855.13.25
catches (1) 93:23
categorically (1) 186:6
categories (2) 1444.4
causative (3) 50:23,24
51:3
cause (8) 35:9 46:10
75:16 76:18 78.7
98:10 1082 1587
caused (6) 33:20 43:23
45,20 69.23 94:23
953
causing (1) 77:21
amd (1) 56:4
cet (1) 4:17
centrally (27)
110-7 11,14 116:20.24
115:5,7 11633 117:22
1187 121:7.9.22
3223.72.25
1231,8.34,21
326:7,12.17,9 1254
152.22
contee (4) 98:6,23
173.15 16514
century (1) 104-23
certain (3) 158.23,
3707.9
cetera (4) 56:6 10637
13220 1409
chain (3) 67:4 96:12
1696
challenge (3) 13223
162.7 179:13
challenged (5) 13916
140,20 161:5,6 1975
challenges (7) 139:18
179.15,18
100/15,15,16 197-6
chambers (1) 54°6
chance (1) 147.24
change (11) 79:15,16
97.10 1054,8 115:20
329.15 139.18 16335
1649
changed (3) 8:15 26:11
537
changes (10)
1062,4,7.8
363:12.16,19,22.24
16417
changing (2) 108.24
3681
charge (4) 169:23,24
17043 192
chargeable (1) 170:8
charged (3) 45.16
170:10,15,
charging (1) 170:5
chart (1) 11022
chasing (1) 70:19
cheek (18) 121.25
1224,4,7,9.12,13.14.18
123:12,12 12421
325:3 127.24 13304
147.22 188.23 19118
checked (2) 12413,
aias
checking (2) 19:10
1244
checks (1) 17:21
cheque (9) 152:13,18
160.6 172:22 175:4,4
1781417 1898
cheques (10) 150:14
4s2:11,21 15323
35920
17341436.7
aea4
chesterfield (5) 56:52
619.6978
chime (1) 1701
choose (1) 3:11
chose (1) 125:5
‘chosen (1) 114.24
‘vistas (1) 24:24
chvistopher (3)
y711021.23
chronology (1) 96:22,
claimants (6) 1074
11119 135.1315
141.21 19814
claimed (1) 98:12
claiming (1) 161:29
claims (2) 11:19 1562
clarification (1) 149:23
clarify (1) 143:9
class (1) 108-19
classic (1) 73.4
classification (1) 6019
clean (1) 1:9
clear (10) 3:22 166
27.11 5614.25 1066
1438 14656 170.23
e233
cleared (2) 134:24
144s
clearly (8) 473
57.610 62:3 775
92.25 108.6 14216
clerk (8) 92:12 95.17.20
1594.10.11 161.2
1668
click (4) 23:4 70:3 73:2
7728
lock (2) 121:7,20
close (2) 4:21 24:7
closer (1) 40.15,
closings (1) 71:18
code (13) 24:4,5 29:22
3814.19 398,10 563
60:13 72:6 73a 80:3
aus
codes (4) 248 252
3721723
‘cohone (1) 12:10
colleague (3) 8:1
14225 167:12
colleagues (1) 176:23
collect (1) 129:18
collecting (1) 129:21
collection (1) 1347
column (14)
22:21.22,28 23.1,
702 14146 145:21
1461 162.19,20,28
16410
columns (1) 9:9
come (24) 638 131
25:4 40.14 48.14
56:22 59:2 60.25
733 77:9 93:20 95:8
ugar 13222 136.24
1488 167:3 195:18
1863 18.22.24 1916
1972123
comes (5) 10:13 19:24
4555 50:17 1355
comfortable (1) 47:19
coming (7) 7:16 47:7
87:13 112:25 126-4
147.13 1758
comment (7) 1025
1628.11.24 164:14.15
as78
comments (4) 33:17
301.15,16 1822
committed (10) 60:6.12
81:13,20 626,9,15,24
8313.15
common (4) 52:5 66:18
109:20 115:15
‘communication (1)
sean
‘communications (1)
781
companies (1) 193:35
company (3) 126:18,20
196.10
compare (2) 31:7 726
compared (1) 4221
comparing (1) 177:13
compass (1) 93:25
compensating (4)
139:20 1446 186:11
aera
‘compile (1) 192.15
compiling (1) 36:8
complained (1) 46:23
complaining (3) 44:22
4617 48.25
complemented (1)
ar
complete (5) 46.12
127.18 1318 1598
37922
completed (4) 4:1.53:5
6032 1313
completely (4) 2:6 34
52:16 141.9
completeness (1)
125:20
complicated (5) 69:3
328:6,14 144.11 164:4
computer (1) 1583
conceal (1) 68:11
conceivably (1) 13:17
concerned (1) 1197
concems (4) 64:16
TTAT 1645 168:18
conclusion (1) 159:12
concretely (1) 195:18
condense (1) 23:12
confident (1) 98:22
confidentiality (1) 225,
confirm (3) 8:20 149-23
17615
confirmation (1) 1593
contiemed (2) 56:6
1368
confirms (1) 12619
conformance (1) 156.16
confused (1) 109.12
confusing (2) 47:13
0s
confusion (1) 170.23,
connect (1) 986
connectivity (3) 95:5
98,36 1082
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/54
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
consider (1) 155:10 148:20,21 149:4,20 176:20 200:6,13,18,24 I dated (2) 96:19 165:10 I delivered (1) 96:24 168:3,20 170:12,14 1202,2,9,10.22
considered (2) 19:6 176.22 178:23 1835 I crossexamined (1) dates (1) 66:16 demonstrate (1) 98:2 172.12 183:17.25 121:3,5,19
1558 1909 191:12,15,23 2037 dawn (9) 113:9,10,18 I den (20) 5:5,7 18.25 184.21 187:20 122:1,22,25 1236
‘consistent (1) 187-10 192:16,24 196.23, ‘crossexamining (1) 140:1 142.25 176:23 19:3 47:22 48:13,19 ference (12) 9:13 a24an.3e
consolidation (1) 1973 19815 182:6 188-5 200:10 e217 6714793 821 I 15:26162,7 41:21 127.8,9,11,18,21
165:10
constantly (1) 51:24
consulted (3)
4161729
contact (3) 49:8 11711
1205
contacted (5) 49:2,7
1197 16614 1849
contacts (1) 12415,
contain (1) 1625
‘contained (1) 91:15
contains (2) 103:18
16822
‘content (4) 117.10
1207 165:7 1832
context (5) 85:18,19
93:7 102:18,20
continue (1) 10:12
continued (4) 55.6
2005.6
‘continuing (1) 48:2
contract (3) 156:19
16923 1687
contracts (5) 58:2
119:20,24 132:4,10
‘control (2) 25:3 163:6
ccontrots (1) 126:10
cconveniont (2) 48:3
1a7ar
conversation (3) 61:4
64.12 1957
conversations (1) 159:4
copied (1) 94:15,
copies (1) 1448
copy (7) 1:10 5:1
32:12,15,16 49:23,
12524
core (2) 87:9 166:13
‘comer (1) 66:22
corporate (1) 195.14
correct (42) 111 10:18
u-to 14:22 19:15
26:24 27:19,21 36:10
38:9 39:25 43:25 45:6
46:18,19 47:18
49:21,24 51:71
53:12,18,20 58:16
65.15.17 71:23 75:13
78:1 10:4 110:
145.22 14613 152:25
173241748
182:13,20,20 13:23
1097
corrected (8) 26:12
55:4 65:14,16 97:9
correcting (1) 76:11
correction (23) 48
26.16.19 27:3.8,24
43:7.2091.7
1102.16.24 135,56
143:16 1469.10 16021
1678.10 175:20
176.14 18318
corrections (29) 28:6
30:20 31:4,6 65:14
117.25 140.11 141.18
1421 1432,10
14525 146:19,20
correctly (3) 14:10
1104 147.21
corresponding (8) 15:14
1715 18:7 24.2 27.7
29:14 39:12 68:23,
correspondingly (1)
437
cost (9) 6:2,11,17.21
104:22 105:13,18
1573 16921
costs (4) 104:25 105:22
156.25 157:2
couldnt (10) 7:1 11.4.9
44:22 52:17 $8:15.18
631,220
counsel (1) 171:20
counted (1) 186:2
counter (8) 54:17
80.2.5 81:3 82:13
92:10 108:21 172:23,
countermeasure (3)
27.25 28:4,10
countermeasures (1)
287
couple (8) 47:12 78:23
106:14,15 145.18
171.19 173:3 198:23
course (8) 3:17.19 420
13:7 27:23 58:24
148:7 158:4
cover (1) 105114
covered (1) 65:19
coyne (9) 33:17 89:9
102:16,19 162:4
167:19 169:3 191:18
198.15
coynes (6) 33:16 88:19
164:24 165:21 167:24
1624
crashed (1) 92:31
create (2) 17315
19124
created (8) 66:13,24
84:18.24 859,12 87:7
191.22
credence (68) 11:9
69:10,16,18
706.710.1320
721,335.69 10318
1043.7 149:11,12
151.15,19 15212,14
153:2,8,11,12,14,18,20,
1547.88.21
155:15,16 15723
158.25 160:15
162:4,7,9 163:3,6,9.14
1646,9,17,20.25
165:7,12,22 166:3,4
1683.9 1723.58.14
173:13,16 1747.17
credit (3) 58:19 78:2
15816
critical (1) 185-2
criticising (1) 90:7
criticism (1) 1:22
cross (1) 173.9
crossexamination (8)
516 114:5 1503,
crossreferenced (1)
198:2
‘current (6) 105.11
35:16 116.13 137.18
162:24 169:12,
‘currently (3) 121.12
138;16 15335,
‘customer (18) 10:13.14
505,7 52:15 53:17
565,10 57:3 61:24
62:2,4,8 99:8 158:14
160:14 165:24 16614
‘customers (3) 53:17
1679.1
‘cut (1) 91:20
‘cutting (1) 94:1,
Py)
a (a) 922
2 (1) 88:18
142420 (1) 88:19
1431205 (2) 169.23
39011
daily (2) 191.24 195.16
dalmellington (18)
21:3,5,7.21 338
345,12,13 35:58
85:17.25 86:2,6,13
878.18 888
dare (1) 62:16
dashboard (1) 195.12
data (122) 8:9,20.25
116.9 141,13
15:10,15,20,21,21,22
1647,7.8,9,12,13,23,23I
47-4,11,13,13
18:4,7,8.20.25
39:4 5,10,17,19,20,23,
20:2.18 21:13,13,
238,19,19,20 24:1
28:16 31.7.7 325 33:4
35:15,16,17,20
36:2,3,6,7,9.10,12,13,14]
40:24 68:21
7111,22,23 726.22
73:1,12,14 75:25
88:10 89:11 98:6,23,
11213 125:8 149.19
152:8,10,23,
154:3.5,8,10,13,19
155:10.15 156:5
157:5.8,12 158:22,24
163:25 165:1,7.10
169:13
172:13,15,18,22
1741.2 173,14
185:2 188-12 189:25
191:9 195:16
database (3) 163:11
y91:9.21
date (24) 1:20 8:25
9:10 19:8 22.12.13
23:9 545 67:11 70:10
18:9 132:19,22
1335.17 149.16
15255 154-3 165:11
179:17,24,24 18320
190:
dawns (1) 16221
day (5) 29:16 605
121.11 1259 1726
sday2631 (1) 29:9
sday$8016 (1) 103.17
days (18) 1175 11816
ni9:10 127.10
131:2.8,18,21 132.18,
13355 154:4,7.9
159:25 160:13,17
193:18 198.25,
de (55) 1:4,6,16
22,1425 3:16 42
70:22.25 79.2.3 61:25
93:19,22 943.9
107-14 111:15,16,17
113:8.9,13,14
144:24,25 1451
147:16.20
148:12,16,17 1521
370:19,20,22 1735
175:10,16,17 194:9.10
197:16,29 198:11,16
19:2
200:7.9,12,14,17,19.22
deadline (1) 107.12
deadlines (1) 107.25
deal (11) 3:19 6:20
2122 643 72:17
14:11 1163 1336
134;10,13 168:10
dealing (9) 22:23 67:18
111.23 1381 150.23,
17:25 1783 193:13,
197.25
ueats (1) 180.12
dealt (3) 1359 1383
185:13
dean (1) 8
debit (7) 24:19 735
172:22 18013,24
1867.9
dbiteredit (1) 117:2
Sb (17) 64
115:16,20,23,25 1162
1177 11915 12816
132:17 1338,12,1217
134:24 1353.7
december (3) 49:1
158:15 160:10
decide (4) 3:12 10:12
123:24 1258
decided (3) 54:22
126:22 1322
decipher (1) 28:22
decision (1) 145:4
declarations (1) 66.2
declared (1) 114.15
declaring (1) 70:8
decreased (4) 38:7
39:23 40:21 47:10
deep (1) 973,
defensiveness (1) 161:4
deficit (1) 68:12
definitely (1) 148:4
degree (1) 47:20
deleting (1) 74:2
deliver (1) 104-21
88:21 93:25 94.9
100:11 10315 105:16
11:17 147.15 2005
deny (1) 179:20
department (2) 156:8
1921
departments (2) 139:17
156:4
depending (1) 109:9
depends (7)
80:11,15,18 122.17
125:3,4 133:13
deposit (2) 158.15
199.12
deposits (3) 140:3,4
3a
detb (1) 1210
describe (3) 79:14
33.17 11514
described (7) 11:25
49:12,18 83:12 1269
131.22 13612
describing (3) 130.24
149:11 175.21,
description (10) 60:4.10
61:3 78:11 80:20,21
82:3 65:11 145.22
182.25
design (2) 31:25 627
designed (6) 32:1 54.21
552.17,18 14913,
desk (1) 65:11
detail (13) 16:15 247
30:25 35:17 61:10
105.15 10616
107:4,12 127.2 17220
196:6 1905
detailed (4) 60:9 61:3
145:13,14
details (11) 49:8 68:16
16:24 1321213
158:13,19 1602.16.19
168:22
determine (1) 185:25
determines (1) 177
deterred (3) 167:20
168:4 17:7
developed (2) 180:22
16116
developers (3)
163:8,11.22
developing (1) 10521
development (1) 163:9
developments (1) 105:7
devote (1) 13:6
didnt (56) 1.14 18:10
20:10,11 21:4.9.25
22:5 26:16 28:18,21
29:22 34:16 35:5 36:9
44:8 46:14 47:3
50:8.11 5213.21
55:15 59:1 65:24
67:21,23 66:3.19
74:21 75:12 93:6
95:22,23 103:10
106:18,18,20 108:24
109:1 111.25 131:7.9
158.15 1598.8 164.17
42.20 44:11,22 46:16
90:8 1435 190-24
diferent (37)
2:20,19,23 15:20 229
24:26 35:6 41:19
52:0,11 $7.11 597
65:12 67.9 71:12
886,7 91:1,3 1026
107.9 109:8 116:24
12068 144:4 150:16
177.18 1855 186:21
1888.11.12
190.22,23,25 191.15
differently (2) 91:4
1462
dificult (4) 37:3 62:27
mat 12825
culties (3) 724
75:8 98:10
sificutty (1) 1968
digits (4)
24:29,20.21,28
insdale (1) 169:9
direct (1) 497
directing (1) 53:10
directly (2) 57:3 169.10
directors (1) 96:16
isagree (1) 41.3,
isappeared (1) 62:10
disclose (1) 135:38
disclosed (7) 420,11
20:3 26.812 66:7
1895,
disclosing (1) 97:1
disclosure (3) 3:6 414
2825
sisconnect (4) 75:23
9915.12 100:6
disconnected (9) 53:16
56:2 57.9 9014.24 99:4
10:25 101:2 102:3
discrepancies (7) 27:22
3393 1153 15135
37735,19 178
siscrepancy (21) 33:20
45:20 4610.21
95:3,8,12 80:3 63:25
91:1 09:16 117.24
uu6 12125 124:16
152:20,23,25 164.25
cussed (1) 176.21
siscussing (1) 81:22
discussion (3) 128:12
1529 15511
siscussions (2)
3531720
sishonest (2) 70:25,23
ishonesty (2) 68:9
displaying (1) 88:4
disprove (1) 161:1
dispute (69) 115:2,4
1164 11735 118:12
11923
128:1,2,7,10.20.28
329:11,13,17,19.19
1309.18.22
131:6.9,12,13,17,20,22,23,23,
33242 1334.20
1367,1037
135:19,22,23,24
136:3.4.15
138:7,18,28 140.12
143:16 145.2 160:3,
16216
disputed (10) 141.6
1443:11,14 146:20
147.20 185.22
166:10,23 187.7
368:17
disputes (24) 127.15
1382.4 1405,8.10
142:21,22 146.6,7.11
156.12 163:10.13,
365210,12 187.21
196:10,11,12,16,22
197.28
dlsputing (1) 127.17
dissect (1) 3:6
distinct (2) 177.22
10:8,
dive (1) 97-4
diverse (1) 32
divided (1) 177.22
divider (1) 17529
document (64) 1:6
39,9 5:2.8 1625,
1631 1925.16
28,8 33:4 61:11
6520,12,15,21
6621,12 67:8,9 71:23
79:14.15 64:14 863.5,
91.21 92.20.22 93:13
962,617 1019
104:13,13,19 10610
1093.4,6,13 111.9
1131617 136.9,21
1386.11 13924 241.2
149:1.4 1542 1583
165.9 175:21 186.14
169:5,22 1911.4
documentation (2)
163:13,23
documents (36) 1.7.11
2:2 4:3.6,11,16,18,20
135,16 1621 173.4
182,12,15,18 209.9
32:7 65:17 66:8 706
75:2 7614 102:11
306:17 107-19.23,
113.15 135.18 148:18
175:16 184.2 192.15
does (43) 21:13 30:15
359,10 40:23 41:1
47:20 51:15 615
70:23 75:16 76:18
787 81:5 852 67:2,23
89:16.19 90:19 93:15
982 99:19 1025
1071422 115:18
118.12 133:22 1346
39733 1402.00
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/55
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
151:5 152.9 1587
163:15 1686 17021
1797 1906 191:8
19613
doesnt (30) 30:5 31:19
35:20 47:21 56:23,25
60:20 61:1,47.9 62:13
70:11,22 73:19 89.6
1113 1281 1264
399:12 12:22 13:22
13811 139.1 1442
154.21 161:21 160:20
193:24 198:23
doing (8) 13:10 29:10
42:2 68:18 76:6
15:25 144:16 145:9
domain (7) 80:7 81:14
82:7,9,16,25 83:13
done (35) 1.21 13.24
12:14 26:19 27:8 29:2
36:17 44:21 52:17
55:10 69:21 79:17
21 91:20
100:19,20,21
103:11,11 1068
12616 1537
161:16,19 1675
1749,25,18 178:24,24
1794 181:12,17 1846
19720
donnelly (14) 114:3,5.6
124:10,14 125:11
12914 1307
1389,14,16 144-22
146.16 20:13
dont (83) 117 35.22
4:25 9:20.21
10:12,16,95,25 14.8.9
20:15 24:23 25:4
29:19 31:2 40:11 578
63:23 65.23 67:11
68:17 69:6 7159
73:21,24 75:24 82:18
85:19 86:4 89:6,19
91:2 95:18 98:7
1124.22 1151 119.23
12024 121:8.25
12311,18,20
128.21,23,23 129.5
13224 1332.5
134:4,20,21,26 137:24
1384 14422
152:22,25 15310
155:22,24 15613,
157-4 158:1 160:22
169:15,23 1723
179:24 185:8,9 191:3
19311 1941 195.9
197.21,22 198.13,
double (1) 47:6
doubling (2) 76.14
era
doubt (1) 161.20
down (28) 24:3 4315
ATU 53:4 54:13 595
64:6 72:19,21 73:3
79:20 84:17 91:12
92:8,23 95:15 96:10
97:12 104:25 108:4
20914 14:23 155:9
156:14,23 191.7
19310,11
download (2) 17417
18922
downloading (1) 7:23
downloads (1) 169:22
downwards (1) 100:22
dr (3) 28:2,6 190312
driven (1) 6:21
drivers (1) 105:12
driving (1) 365:9
drop (2) 10:6 217.22
dropofts (1) 108
due (11) 43.6 56:5,10
61:24 62:4 95:16
1199 15655 159:3
16325 179.22
duly (1) 99:23
duplicate (9) 33:13 35:2
45.24 46:3,
8418.20.24 85:8.12
duplicated (2) 79.6 85:5
duplication (2) 75:6.18
during (5) 3:23 55:23
143.2 16355 188:16
duty (2) 1603 174.16
via (5) 188.14
1932.13,15,28,
dynamic (1) 104.24
dynamics (4)
19420.21,22 195.11
© (2) 913 54:15
2 (1) 10322
£21126 (1) 38:10
e215 (2) 141:19 1768
e252 (2) 14218
17612
£216 (1) 2661
©2162 (1) 1661
e231 (1) 113316
€232 (6) 1141328
1167 11814 120.19
1275
£233 (2) 129:16 1311
e25ui (1) 11:13
£2518 (2) 65:9 67:19
©2519 (2) 72.21 742
£2520 (1) 48:20
£2523 (4) 15:8 18:3,
206 25:7
£2524 (1) 35.25
£2535 (1) 10213
£2542 (1) 7:22
©2543 (1) 8:17
£26 (1) 148.19
£281 (1) 1505
£282 (2) 103:24 151.14
£283 (6) 149:11 151.25,
161.12 165.18 166.17
172.25
©284 (2) 16712 170.24
£29 (1) 175.19
©293 (2) 177:1 194-14
£294 (2) 139:8 1647
£295 (6) 139:24 143.21,
145:19,20 1839 1868
£296 (3) 188:14 169.2
1963
£297 (1) 1764
earlier (9) 30:12 94.16
103:12 141.14 157-4
182.6 1865 193:24
1968
carly (2) 92:2 190:3
easier (2) 44:19 105:8
‘easiest (1) 37:2
easily (3) 11:4 16822
195:12
‘easy (2) 33:21 47:17
effect (9) 42:6,13,24
‘44:0 46:13,35 47.7
555 60.21
effectively (6) 26:7
40:23 44:3 136:12
16216 166:20
eg (1) 15419
ight (2) 160:1,2
either (9) 29:20
4720.21 49:16 71:9
168.25 172.21 17825
y79:10
‘elapsed (1) 160:13
electronic (2) 2:18.19
clement (1) 86:28
eliminate (1) 619
else (8) 80:22 1075,
1283 130:16 149:8
196:13.24 199:1
‘elsewhere (1) 41:17
‘email (28) 91:25 92.2
93:0,11,11 9416
962,391,218
9:24.25 1002
101:10.14 1024
1712 12982 1339
169.5 168-12.15
185/18.19 1866.17
‘emailed (2) 70:35
‘emails (5) 91:13,22.23
1017 184.16
‘emerged (1) 1884
‘enable (3) 105:6 106:2
13216
enclosed (1) 1209
‘encountered (4) 7:14
65:4 7613 788
‘encourage (1) 169:9
‘end (26) 3:15 6:19,20
26:12 41:11 50:16
764.14 63:3 10114
113.28 11689 117.24
12115 12366 145:4
16217 168-9 1665
1714 174.6 1759
176:3 198:4,18
‘endeavour (1) 94:3
fended (2) 138.18
1625
‘ends (1) 190:23
‘enormous (1) 10:20
‘enough (3) 165:6
169.24 19431
‘enquiries (1) 120:5,
‘enquiry (4) 783
159:13.20 160:2
censure (3) 2:7 94:3,
178.24
‘ensuring (1) 108.22
center (1) 87:22
centered (2) 70:17
amas
centering (2) 78:5.15
entirely (2) 47-19 137-9
entries (9) 27:7
29.21.21 37:4,7,7.10
39a 73:12
entry (5) 39:12 595
68:23 84:17 110.21
went (4) 104:24
163:10,22 164.2
cemst (1) 16214
ceroneous (1) 164:1
error (27)
50:1,4.8,12.2
51:2,3,22 52:15
54:23:26 7726 80.2.3
81:15 69:11 10221
321:11,22,20 148.36
166:13 162.23 183:4
1696
errors (9) 2:3 6:19.20
140-7 141:11,17
143:22 145:24 1625,
escalated (1) 119:20
eg (2) 70:35
especially (1) 37:3
essentially (3) 74:2
130:24 1381
established (1) 34:17
estimated (2) 186.23,
1871
et (4) 56:6 206.17
132:20 1409
even (7) 101.17 112.22
120:14 13119 1342
159:24 1675
evening (3) 56:12 74:10
761
‘event (23) 15:21
1679.23 173.11 187
19:23 23:19,20 24:2
31:7 525 33:4 366
43:14 67:13 698
71:22 73:12,14 60:1
93:2
events (6) 15:10 1619
18:4 92.10 933
151:20
eventually (1) 139.19
ever (7) 51:20 11110
156:17,20 157.7
158:47
every (17) 13:23 14.25
15:14 17.14 108.18
104:3.8,10 122:2,4,13
12312 12611.15
172:6.18 198:23,
everyone (1) 1498
everything (5) 13:22
16:8 11213 124.1
125:10
evidence (45) 1:25 3.23
4595111235
12.22.23 423 47.21
55:7.14 62.25 669
69:15 70:16 74:13
75:22 77-10 107.15
111.23 1128.19
124.19 12614,21
13213 140.2 142.14
143.15 1468.9 147.25
1595 161:10 163:17
168:16 173.7 1759
178:11 1933
197:20,23 198.18
evident (1) 185.25
‘exact (1) 106.19
‘exactly (14) 33:9 40:19
52:16 61:4 69.21
99:16 89:4 92:12
4
112:4,6 132.22 1335
1537 15918
‘examination (1) 10:22
if (6)
113:13 148.16 175:16
200:12,17,22
examined (1) 94:22
example (20) 3:3 178
24:19 7:19 109:16,21
118.1 129.16 1536
ye114 17219
173:18,19 1748.14
175:2 1761.13 1798
1932
examples (2) 42:6
157.17
excel (2) 189.15 191
excellent (1) 148:3
‘exchanges (1) 91:23
excuse (1) 19619
exercise (4) 4:17:13
16:3 23:16
exhibit (4) 19:1,18,20
28:19
exhibited (3) 117.19
3193 1843
exhibits (1) 19:3
exist (4) 137:13
163:15,18 1616
existing (1) 140.24
expanded (1) 27:10
expect (6) 3:5 61:19
73:11 111.23 16215
1752
expected (3) 46:10
31.22 1342
expecting (2) 1:21
66:28
experience (6) 13:10
57:4 $8:20,10 1613
1723
experienced (10) 62:25
T7421 798,25 86:16
87:4.24 170:2 167:17
cexaminati
experiences (1) 59:23
expert (2) 169:16
190.12
expertise (1) 89:15,
experts (4) 134.13
1413.13 198:
explain (23) 9:6 1224
31:5 44:2 52.8 85:4
90:22 94:25 95:1 97:2
108:1 131-26 142.15
145:7 149.17
151:13,14 153:4 1621
17412 18511 19231
194.14
explained (9) 63:13
69:2 15118 155:4
177-21 180-7 1827.11
188.15
explaining (1) 47-4
explains (1) 127.7
explanation (6) 26.18
26:15 1426,9
15971
explicit (5) 95:17,19
108:12 16:7 184:15
explicitly (2) 93:5
1217
explore (3) 48:5 81.25
104.18
‘expressed (1) 161:20
‘expressly (1) 33:5
extended (1) 15521
‘extending (2) 153:18,20
extemal (3)
126.1317 20
‘extra (2) 131:21 1393
extract (1) 97:13
extracts (2) 91:13
aozae
extremely (2) 3:2
1454
eye (1) 72:15
#1082 (2) 92:10 94:31
0922 (2) 91:11 94:13,
#10823 (1) 92:23,
1092 (1) 1542
£10981 (1) 96:4
#109813 (1) 101:9
#109514 (1) 100.10
1109516 (2) 96:18 99:23,
‘109517 (1) 97:5,
1109516 (1) 98:20
‘1120 (1) 158:2
‘11202 (1) 160.23,
#1195 (2) 169:14,25
£1225 (1) 19
#12571 (1) 55:20
125712 (1) 58:23
125716 (1) 59:4
(12872 (1) 1284
125723 (1) 1184
£1276 (1) 136.19
12701 (1) 2371
12762 (2) 137-20
£12861 (1) 603
#12922 (1) 24:12
£1330 (3) 719 88 9:8
£13531 (1) 208
11354 (2) 17:8 325
£1365 (1) 6218
#13651 (3) 208 22:3
287
fas714 (1) 208
£13991 (1) 63:10
‘1399114 (1) 63:12
11399116 (1) 64:5
#1426 (1) 86:3,
1435 (1) 73:14
#14361 (1) 71:24
14371 (1) 72:23
44g (1) 1093
1502 (1) 84:10
1150229 (1) £4.15
#15091 (1) 68:7
f15141 (1) 66.6
1549 (1) 1:12
1555 (1) 79:12
#16871 (1) 719
11700 (1) 544
117611 (1) 3620
1931 (1) 1322
1832 (1) 126:15
1633 (1) 129:2
£19341 (1) 45:7
#1899 (1) 188:21
1555 (1) 104:3
15556 (1) 104:19
15556 (1) 106:9
708 (1) 1312
£728 (1) 169:5
£72811 (1) 169:8
£7289 (1) 169:12
969 (1) 162.04
#06912 (1) 163:2
fo6014 (1) 164:6
#0694 (1) 162.18
1870 (1) 53:2
#8702 (1) 53:3,
fe712 (1) 93:25
989 (1) 192.21
1935 (1) 1058
face (2) 138:6 1605
faced (4) 56:25 59:18
63:20 95:12
facetoface (2) 63:21,24
failed (12) 50:12.15
528 54:1.25 60.13
61,10 98.21 992
102.18 1036 159.2
faiting (1) 98:2
failure (9) 49:15
5523.24 56:16 60:11
7@1 84:3 96:11 1081
fair (12) 610 11.23
34:3 526 772 78:7
145:23 162:16.17
165:6 167.17 181-20
fairly (7) 132 1412
35:8 27-21 94:22
15:1 19819
faimess (2) 43:19 76:23
fall (1) 43:4
falls (1) 135.24
false (1) 1625
jr (2) 63:18 88.15
famiirise (1) 96:5
far (7) 1:8 155 69:16
146:12 154:4 180:16
1a9
fault (8) 51:25 52.12.14
62:7 64:20 65:1 76:19
7720
feature (2) 35:8 76:15,
features (1) 66:1
february (11) 185.23
197 203.4 56:7
62:20 662.4 72:24
1366
foe (1) 1418
feel (4) 89:21 169:10
1846 1674
foes (3) 167-21 1601
a6
felt (1) 63:19
few (7) 58:13 869
94:20 105:15 121:13
1396 19314
fifen (1) 27013,
fighting (1) 147.26
figure (10) 44:28
55:4,68,10,13 708
125:2 190:19 193.6
figures (19) 44:22,23
139.7 1407.15
1423,5,5,20 14421
146:5 147:6 180:19
162:16,20 183:1 105:6
1875 193:23
file (12) 4:6,17 66:12,21
148:18,19 149:5
153:10 173.15
198:6.12,25
files (2) 92:24 112.36
fam
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
0203
B10.1/6/56
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
fm (1) 328.17
fiter (3) 23:23,25 242
fitered (4) 22:13
239,11 1258
final (2) 104-12 1787
finance (3) 125:7
16:13 193.16
financial (11) 33:18
78:2 13021 1406
1432 15623 16413,
17825 18612
190:19.22
find (13) 17:2 20:32
26:11 56:13 62:6,11
73:1 11619,24
11717 1209 13321
4422
fine (1) 155:25
finessing (1) 26.20
finish (2) 148:2 252.26
finished (8) 1:21 10.22
21 10122 15221
372.21 17317,20
finishing (1) 147.24
firm (1) 126.13
first (51) 26:20
29:13,13 37:10 40:13
45.2 61:14 73:18 79:4
e115 62:1 862
94:13.36 96:15,21,
99:25 100:23
103:16,25 108.12
13:16 11412
1161618 117.7
yi 12713 1289
13193 1413
142:2,8,20 1434
144.12 145.21 147-7
148:24 151-4 15811
159.25 16219 166.9
17525 17611,14.15
39210 19415
firstly (1) 1735
fit (2) 104:23 105:14
fits (1) 1023
five (12) 24:18,20 26.12
72:8,14,20 1299,10
1308 13116 1348
1925
fivefold (1) 143.5,
fix (1) 163:20
fixed (1) 88:25
fixes (1) 168.13
flag (1) 342
fleet (1) 19315
flow (1) 167:14
flowchart (3)
136.15,17.19
flowing (1) 40:25
flows (1) 40:19
focus (2) 11:2 83:4
follow (10) 36.11 385
47.17 49:14 52:23
59:24 69:21 98:11
13525 184.16
followed (5) 392
49:16,22 51:8 126:15
following (12) 5:22 49:6
9:12.15 123:7 139.20
14055 15621 1637
1623 1860.11
follows (1) 97.3,
force (1) 101.18
forecasted (1) 9:12
forefront (1) 34:16
forgotten (4) 1213.19
76:7 68:16
form (34) 22:16 63:14
1164 1271821
126-1 5,7.10.38,17,20.2
129131720
1309.18.22
1313,6,13.17.25
132,2,11 13320
135:19,23 1363
136:18 168.13 173:24
format (3) 135:22,25
1362
format (3) 8:13 66:8
168:14
former (3) 11:17
11523,24
forms (4) 63:15 1282
1367.17
forth (4) 58:24 67:19
1783 18319
forthcoming (1) 77:3
fortnight (1) 112.7
forum (3) 55:29 59:8
604
forward (5) 106:5 117:4
162:13 166.1 1962
forwarded (1) 16:18
found (6) 1:8 2:2 28:25
30:15 397 71:11
four (10) 24:23 26:11
37:7.10 73:16 96.25
110.19 116.16 163:16
198.17
fox (1) 12:10
fraser (160) 15.14.17
29.17 38,18 424
549 9:2 10191237
17.16 21:19,25 263.5,
32:38 38:13 41.25
42:4,10,26 47.19.25
4858.13 61:11,13
62:16 66:15,20
72.16.18 78:22 79.1
81:9,12,19,.24
937,20 945
106:12,13,14,22
1075.16
108:7,10,12,18,20
109:2,8,12,20,24
1104,13.16.21,
111.2.6,12 1134811
1248.13 1251.68
1298,10 1304
1374.7 138935,
14423 1457.18
146:1,4,12,15,25
147:2.5,11,18.23
148:3.5,8.15 15225
17019 171:18,19
1721,7,9.11,16,24
173:2.5,11,22
1742,12,20.24
17525,11,13
162:19,25 1836
187.25 19258
196:9,11,12,18,21,23,
195:2,5,8.14.19,24
196:1,6,16.18,21
197:4.8,12,16,20
198:10,13,17,22 1993
200:8,15,20,25
fraud (2) 156:14 1579
free (3) 45:16 1134
169:22
freeths (1) 433,
frequency (1) 31°3
fresh (1) 1254
friday (6) 4:32 1222
334:2 141.21 183:21
front (11) 6:19 16:13.18
64:25 63:3 108.6,
113:20 148.17 1495,
164:9 175.18
frustrated (3)
65:10,19,20
frustration (1) 65:3
fc (17) 145:10
150:6.6.8,9,28 151:4.6
156.7 16114
177'5.6,13,22 185.14
195:1 196.15
fujitsu (10) 49:5 50:16
58:19.21 865 152.23
157-2 165:1 169:13,20
fujitsus (1) 33.27
full (7) 26.18 27:2,1.4.5
99:10 1905
fuller (1) 154:25
fully (5) 164:15 160:5
162:7,11 19:24
funds (8) 80:5 81:13
£216.9,15.24 83:12
193:21
further (18) 53:24 68:24
78:21 98.9 106:11
311,16 119:20,25
14:20 142:8 144-22
34:16 170.8 171.17
178:12 194:8,10 200.9
future (2) 110.25 161:2
sain (2) 139:25 185.16
sained (2) 47:25 197.
gains (1) 126.2
‘gambit (1) 155:12
games (2) 45:16 467
‘gareth (2) 91:19 94:26
agareths (1) 102.15
arr (55) 1:46.16
2,14,25 3:16 42
7822.25 79:2,3 81:25
9319.22 943.9,
207-14 111.15,16,17
11389,13,14
144:28.25 1451
147.16.20
14812.16,17 1521
170:19:20.21 1735
175:10.16,17 1949,10
197,18.19 196:11,16
19912
200:7:9,12,14.17,19.22
gather (2) 127:16,19
save (5) 32:7 50:47
108.28 1444
general (1) 148.6
generally (3) 8:1 126.28
sr
‘generate (1) 50:17
‘generated (4) 51:3 95:4
18114 19533
generic (2) 136.3 150:7
got (51) 9:21 10:16 11:5
14:8,16,18 39:12 44:7
48,9 54.21.23 589.19
61:8 63:14.16,20 666
69:14 72:5 776
97:15,18 98:22
106:7,7 1071.13,
1121214161723
1131 125.6,11 1289
130.16 13116 13313,
13414 14022 157.4
159,12 161:22
169:12,22 178.21
180:25 184.6 169:23
gets (1) 65:2
getting (10) 9:15.17
16:15,19 27:20 63:20
106:24 107-7 120:12
194.4
gillian (3) 1869.20
185.17
sive (36) 1:6.8,19
321,25 995 15:12 343
36:2 40:10 50:11 628
869 9011 965
102:23,25 107.16
1306 140:19 148:6
151:8,12 152:9 1534
157.16 169:9
179.824 186.16
195:18,22.22 197.23
198.625
siven (10) 3:4 26:7
3616 58:4 59:20 98:12
1312 136:16 141:14
169.10
sives (4) 71:5 108:7
15425 19516
siving (4) 52:14 130.10
168,18 17:24
lance (1) 136.22
sling (1) 23
agmt (3) 101:16.17
16533
goat (1) 65:2
sgodeseth (3) 168:17
mat
oes (9) 76,6 8112
96:10 105.2 117:3
120.15 12924 1409
going (59) 2:17 10:19
19:24 20:19 23:25
41911,13,19
42:16,17 47.1023
48:9,10,14 50:20
52:23 4:10 58:1,
62:23 63:5 65:6
67.145 8322 67:14
93:20 97:12 102.14
10516 1065 107:16
108-4 118:14 121.19
12:18 1234.4 12617
1286.13.15 14115
147.25 15110 15235
173:22 17818 1794
183.22 190:2 19319
195:15,17 1966
198:6.14,19
gone (8) 25:9 68:24
yea2 1021 127.25
1326 193:9,11
good (8) 42 11:24
89:20 91:5 109:18
10:10 1146 1155
sraphically (1) 19513
srateful (9) 4:25 47.23
48:2 78:19 104:11
170:17 1837 188:
1987
great (1) 63:23
sreater (1) 109.20
sreatly (1) 78
sreen (71) 4:25 5:6.7.10
9:23 10:19,21 12:20
17:20 21:20 22:1,2
26:46 32:19 36:15
42:1,20 47:19,23
48:27,12,19 61.12.15
62:19 66:24 72:17,19
79:12 84:11,16 85:16
96:14 90:7 93:23,
94:22 102:23 103:16
104:3,14 10955 147.24
148:1,4,7 1503.4
153:4 170.25 1736
176:20,21 18386,7
306:7,16.17
197:12,21.25 188.1
1927.10 1955
1986.21 200:6,18.24
grounds (6)
2:11,12,14,16,18,22
group (3) 11:22 134-9
1516
guess (1) 129.7
sessing (1) 150:19
suidance (1) 133:10
guide (5) 49:23 51.9
61:16,19 63.1
1735 (1) 13522
n196 (1) 663
tn1962 (1) 18:22
‘n1863 (1) 19:9
196 (1) 664
19618 (1) 19:16
2273 (1) 1365
57 (1) 1916
50 (1) 1914
hhadnt (8) 21:7 45.4
76:1 101-4 103:9,11
106:1 16624
hailstones (2) 12:9 67:5
half (5) 100.14 104.25
137:12 15013 165:3,
halfway (5) 64:6 79:20
91:12 928 96:10
halted (1) 128.16,
hhand (5) 633.6 13:15
168:7 169.15
handful (1) 193.4
hands (1) 53:7
hhandson (1) 12:28
handy (1) 173:24
hanging (1) 9:16
hangover (1) 60:21
happen (6) 41:1
50:18,19 82:8 124:24
197
happened (31) 25:22
40:25 45.21 47.16
50:10,15 51:16 66:21
75:17 84:20 88:10
89:9 90.16 103:7,7.9
115.23 1239 131.16
1535 143.26 1453.12
9.14 152:3 155:5
159.18 16057 1812
186.14
happening (3) 85:4
87.33 12925
hhappens (8) 29:16 40:2
50.21.2278
821,2.25
hhappy (2) 52.2 59:25
hhasnt (5) 155.6 4125
5319 1438
havent (15) 1:23 6:22
32.9 25:23 52,2
64:3 66:10 68:16,24
1105 11914 169-4
19055 19820
braving (18) 29:2 3015
42.13 46:3 49:1 58:17
03 102.2 105.22
413: 137.7 1692
4716.13 1879
tread (3) 24:10 72:4
157.25
tneaded (3) 84:25,22
Bee
headers (1) 142°7
heading (5) 7:23 91:36
14631 1638.9
hneadings (6) 9:9 130.23
1461213 1935 1968
tneadwind (1) 5951
hear (1) 2:25,
fheard (16) 21:7 51:20
52,2 59:14,15.16
688 692 77:10.12
115.16 162:8 176:21
a77ae 178.13
tearing (1) 117-4
thearings (1) 15620
hea (1) 52:5
frelon (13) 91:7.8.20
94:20 96:20 101.8
30217,19 16520
166:6.10.25 167:2
hell (2) 59:11.14
help (12) 4:1 12:20 343
37:25 601 1173
143.22 149:16 151-25
1523 16124 1738
helped (2) 67:5 108:23
helpful (6) 36:25
155:15,25 15026
19727 196.31
helpfully (1) 60:7
helpline (56) 725
303,17.23 1635,19
45.1 572,12.19
58:11 593.13 60:35
61:7 62:1 65:11,11
693,7 747 758.20
7622 77.4.5 90.18.23
91:3 120:21,25
12135825
32210,12,15,1829
1983 1244,35,21
325:11,14,21,25
1265.23 127:24,24
61:15 16:14
helps (3) 90:12 130:2
1555,
tnenderson (1) 1003
hhore (28) 28:12 40:14
4201 503,15,18
62:33 64:1 68:13 714
7225 8021 823,18
83:12 907 955
977,813 109:19
118:1,7 1334 1308
149:11 16057
hes (5) 41:15 44:21
45:24 47:12 9015
hheshe (1) 161.16
bi (1) 55:21
high (4) 36:17 60:25
160:4.10
higher (5) 31:9
178:17,20 190:18
39733
highlighted (1) 32:20
highpowered (2) 13:2.5
himself (4) 35.20 43:6
95:23 171.24
historic (1) 1918
historically (1) 139:17
history (1) 463
hit (1) 1794
titachi (1) 19316
ting (3) 108-20 1052.6
hhoe (1) 128:22
hot (2) 85:23 56:16
hhold (9) 8:20.24
14:26.23 132.8
137.23 191:8.20.23
hholds (3) 153:24,16,21
thoned (1) 12:19
honest (1) 16419
hhop (2) 187:21.22
hhope (4) 100.23 147:20
1767 188:21
hopefully (1) 159.12
hoping (1) 148.1
horace (7) 11:5 7256.9
153:23,24 185:24
horizon (61) 6:24 7.23
20:23 27:25 26:3,7.10
31:7 32:1 33:23
49:26,22 50:21 519
530.21 55.23.25,
60.11 61:15 62:7 65:1
8910.13.37 94:23,
982,6,12,22.23
99:4,13.26 102:21
108:14,22 105:12.17
107.25 108.6 115:3,4
44a 151.1721
153:10 1545,11,13.14
1583 1612.4
369:11,15 17223,
1778.14 1962 1919
housekeeping (2) 1:3
20:4
however (7) 15:17
23:23 68:17 130:14
162:8 166:6 10:22
hhoyland (3) 1849.22
19517
thuge (3) 68:3 106:19,20
tough (1) 12:25
hhyperinked (1) 36:21
hhypertinks (1) 65:28
hypothesis (2) 42:13.20
lan (2) 1002 175:22
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/57
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
ta (@) 14:8 24:11,13,5
27:11 28:20 149.16
1525
idea (3) 170:13 171.25
19733,
ideal (1) 179:
‘dentical (2) 56:1 187-2
identified (8) 19:6 49:1
12114 13516 139.22
149.22 164:10 187.28,
identity (9) 227 191
33:22 69:26 90:12,15
15917 165.22 173.21
fds (2) 248 312
ie (2) 139:18 185.25
iil (2) 97:10 169:19
im (77) 121 2:10,19
3:13 4:25 833
12:12,18 26:7 38:15
4a 41-18 42:17
47-423 48:2 50:20
52:4,23 55.13 60:6
62:19 65:6 67:14.35
685 73:13 765
78:17,19 80:20,21
8125 83:4
85:19,21,21 90:7
93:20 94:1 100:20
20213 1042.1
105:16 10716 109:12
12120 123335
1249.23 133.8 137.9
1389 141:10 146:4
147.20 154:10 158.18
164:3 168:21 1707
180.16 181:9 183:7.22
1845 165:7 1661
1927 194:2,7 195:16
1966 197:7.15
imagine (2) 152 157.9
immediately (4) 128:16
13123 13225 1548
impact (10) 33:18
80.916 61:5.8,17
176:14,15,23,25
important (7) 20:23
27-21 29:25 49:20
51.6 08.25 125.21
impose (1) 3:23,
impression (1) 130.20
impressive (1) 23:22
improper (1) 3:38
improved (4) 97:9
12925 1308.3
improvement (1) 7:12
improvements (1)
ws118
inability (1) 156-4
inappropriate (1) 164:1
Inauelible (2) 160:3,
1746
inbetween (1) 118.22
incident (9) 19:8
160:16,23,25 96.23
97-8 98:17 1608
16612
include (2) 110.17
18317
included (4) 3:6 16:19
ni7as 13216
Includes (4) 8:9
1102.24 158:22
including (8) 7:16 35:19
36:3 53:6 74:3 96:23,
13520 15419
incomplete (1) 121:9
incorrect (2) 10617
1831
incorrectly (1) 15:10
increase (4) 10:23 11:1
43:20 46:19
increased (4) 7:8 38:8
40:22 43:22
Increasing (2) 39.26
479
incurred (1) 11621
indepth (2) 128:2 145:9
index (1) 2002
indicated (2) 145:5
1825
indicates (1) 93:13
indication (3) 92:9
11611 157.16
indicators (4) 5:20.22
61352
individual (6) 108:14.15
117.22 179.23 190:1
individually (1) 191.12
inflated (1) 42:24
inflating (1) 68:12
info (1) 70:7
information (73) 11:5
13:21,26 16:11,18
2012 21:15 40:18
44:20 50:8 54:21
57:18 58:15 65:23
66:20 70:24 73:10
75:19 101:6 106:24
1073.8 112:11,12.23
11720 127.1620
1283.9 129:18,21
13215 139.21,
14022,24 1451
14912 1529
153:9,14,10,21
156:22,23 155:2.18
159:16,21 160:4 164.6
168:2.7,11 170:25
1714.13 17417
176.22 181:25
1827.22.22 184:16,25
195:1 186:4,16 167.13
190.15 194-4 195:13,
asta
informed (1) 4:23
initial (2) 155221747
initialy (1) 1664
initiatives (1) 105:2
ins (1) 16.0
insist (1) 61:8
instance (9) 23:24
7712 817.9 90:13
91:2 95:22 108:4
1898
instances (3) 63:24 65.5
7738
instead (14) 261.6,7.11
33:1,7 40:22 41:10
42:12 475,910
1731223
instructing (2) 2.5 4:12
instruction (3) 74:24
752.21
Instructions (2) 98:21
ngs
integrated (2) 1805.9
integrity (3) 161:2
16325 164.6
intend (2) 1:14 52:13,
intended (4) 3:25 7:13
19:2 486
interaction (1) 178:7
interest (1) 169:11
interested (1) 1905
interim (1) 96:24
intemal (5) 75:12 76:14
107.23 135,20 14416
intermally (1) 56:20
interpret (2) 71:21
nos
interrogate (1) 156-4
interrogated (1) 40:18
interruption (1) 108:14
into (31) 67 116 13:22
16:15 25:19 26:14
20:24 55:2 62.18
6:11 76:21,22 77.5
87:14,18,25 90.18.23
91:21 97:4 107.3.
147.25 1512
168:12.17,23 16512
367-13 17:22 1902
introduce (1) 132-2
introduced (10) 5:27
13611 129:,2.17,20
17731 179:12,16.39
introduction (3) 6:14
105:17 15117
inundated (1) 77.6
investigate (9) 11:20
79:20 106:24 128:3
1332 151.15 15234
154:15 159.22
investigated (3) 64:9
975 1079
investigating (2) 1119
1536
investigation (7) 49:6
(64:11 132516 145913
78:12 188.1
investigations (1)
156.5
investigative (1) 11:18
investigators (1) 169:18
invite (1) 727
invoice (1) 11725
involve (1) 86:18
involved (4) 66:10
156:17.20 174:21
involvement (1) 19213
involves (2) 80:24
was
‘involving (1) 83:20
irate (3) 57:2,10.25
ireland (1) 289:12
irrelevance (2) 2:15.18
irrelevant (5) 2:6.20
3510.12
isnt (34) 6:10 9:15 13:3
26:20 27:2 26:14
29:23 419,22 43:25
46:22 54:10 55:5
58:16 65:4 70:25
79:8 92:3,22 1206
12:2 127-2 128.19
152.21 13802 1438
153,15 154.23 168.18
1809 181.21 184:5
186.21 189.37
Issued (32) 75:23
76:1,2,3 77:24 102.21
139:20 140.11
1414.12.18 1421
43.1741 14414
145:25 146:8,20 1601
162:6 167.8 1775
186:10,20 187:6
188:17.24 190:1.2
196:23 1979
issues (19) 3:7 10:20
11:20 35:1 52:6 62:24
63:19 71:18 76:16
98:16 106:25 107:4,8
209:20 115:15 159:17
163:7 164:10 17:8
issuing (3) 16:12
167:10 186:2
item (3) 73:2 152114
15414
items (1) 125:4
Its (101) 2.20 3:18 6:10
1713.13. 274,14
29:11 31:28 35:7
41:21 44.25 46:18
ATT 48,:26,24.25
52:11 53:25 55:20
57:7 58.25 59:24
60:20 61:6 63:5 71:3
72:9.23 772 78:16.17
79:15 83:7 86:5 88:7
91:3 92.2.3 96:25 98:9
100:7 1077 108:3
110:12,24 115:24
120:6,7 121-12 123.23
124:6.6,23 12518
128:19,21 1302.9
131.21 1345.25
135:19,24 1363
13719 13931425
143:6.13,19,20 14411
146:22 150:7
156:14,21 155.25
156:4 157:9.9,18
158:1,16 167.15
171:10,11 172:3,22
175:3 180:20,21
ye118 18211
187:16,21 191:12,21
192.17 19825
itself (8) 28:17 61:6
95:4 106-3 11317
175:21 178:19 160:20
ive (10) 16:15 57:9
78:23 111:9 123:10
158:16 159:4 162.8
168:4 188.21
ivr (1) 9:24
5 @) 3a
Jacqueline (1) 188-25
Jane (1) 148.22
January (12) 4:9 36:4,13
38:16,17 39:3 41.2
45:8,23 465 921
135314
jar001 (1) 94:19
jason (2) 169:14,19
Jenkins (7) 91:19 92.7
94:16 95:19
101:6.15.23
job (2) 151:5 155.23
john (3) 96:12,13,23
join (1) 151-4
joined (2) 151:7.9
joint (1) 13233
july (11) 22:21
23:4,9,10,11,24 25:25,
28:17 61:18 89:7
96:28
june (9) 353 194
23:24 69:7 91:16,24
96:19 10012 154.2
k (1) 232
karen (1) 12:10
ashi (1) 20:4
ath (1) 12:9
kb (1) 64:8
‘kba (1) 57:13
‘keep (5) 4:22 17:18
44:19 54:22 1356
keighley (2) 66:14 67:1
keith (2) 12:2
kel (5) 54:45. 8655
keels (1) 198-7
kept (3) 55:11 90:4
93.28
key (9) 5:20,22,25 6:10
103:19 108'8 108:3
12918,21
seystroke (9) 104:4
149;15,16 1524
372:1,12,16 173:9.23
keystrokes (5)
69:11,15,19 70:13,7
kind (4) 3:7 84:20
11123 1516
kindly (2) 729
kinglassie (1) 158.14
new (10) 205
34:13,15 75:21 96:13
303:11 140.19 26:11
167:3 170.16
‘knight (5)
37110,14,21,23,23
know (98) 3:5 4:25 15:3
16:2,16 20:10,11.22
24:4,5,9 25:4 29:10
30:2,0,1,16 37:21
40.811,13,16 422.
47:12 51.1617 549
58:9 62.7 65:19,20
667 71:1 723
73:21,28 91:2 93:25
95:18 96:3 97:10
2005.19 2012
307-20 116:11 122.28
1232.4 18:16 125.25
1262.4 130.16
132.7,22.26 1335
1344.12.17 136.16
137.24 1383412
140-7 141.3 1445
146.12 153.22 1545
155:21,24 156:1,33
4157:13 160.19 165:4
1702.14 172189
179.24
180:2.4.4,17.28,
1629 185:8.9 167.8
190.26 1941.23
198.14
knowledge (12) 11:18
16:21 57:15,20,22
68:23 99:20 1141
149.25 176:17 187:4
194
known (10) 10:2,7.9
35:2 62:20 64:20 65:1
75:6 79:69
pis (1) 611
13) 22:21,22,24
label (4) 24:18 62.24
63.2
Indy (1) 58:12
Iaid (1) 26222
language (1) 119:14
large (1) 1247
larger (3) 1225,12.14
last (16) 4:5 21:20
35:19 65:16,20 79:24
93:23 11019 115:15
1179 121.11 134.18
139.10 180:13 166:17
1983
latency (5) 74:15.18
755 76:15 64:15
later (10) 14:13 74:20
894 93:11 11038,
31820 121:21 229.1
133.15 159.25
latest (1) 62:21
lati (23) 4:6,11.25
159,16 18.26 19:7
20:4 21:14,28 20:17
34:21 35:18 85:20,21
86:16.23 87:4.24 88:3
892,127
lati (12) 16.7 20:12
29:6 35:10,16.25
44:13 47:21 66:18,21
88:9 69:23
lawyers (1) 169:25
lay (1) 7:12
layout (2) 162:19
19120
lead (1) 7:4
leader (10) 1149.16
139°5 1506.6,7.9
31:1 160:24 195:11
leaders (5) 139:14,22
150.25 187.17 197:2
leading (3) 91:23
139.8 1472
teamed (5) 1:10 30:20
79:4 85:22 93:7
least (4) 1214 1299
156.25 157-13
leave (7) 117 15:19
54.25 628 78:24
1135 16517
leaves (1) 804
lett (6) 43.28 61:13,
80:12 109.24 116:1
337.10
lefthand (1) 12016
legacy (2) 89:10.13,
legal (2) 22,20
legally (1) 33
length (1) 252
lengths (1) 24:16
lengthy (2) 91:6 94.4
lepton (1) 96.14
less (4) 109-25 124:21
14414 1744
let (9) 33:10 41:25
80.14.14 88:18 97:10
100.19 122.22 128:17
lets (55) 3:19 6:16.17
98 1111 157,1819
177.7 24:48 23:15
25:6,6 26:16,17 29.2
31:7 32:7 33:10
35:22.24 36:20 385,
392 411.5457
50:19,19 51:17 52.4
55:19 60:2 62:23 645
71:20 73:14 76
99:23 109:13.25
103 147:23 154-1
162.2,13,13 1632
1648 165:7 170.4
185:20 189:13,23
letter (33) 18.23 64:8
11625 117:6,11,14,19
1182.17 1192.10.13
1203,7.14,16
12420 127:10.13
129.13 131.4 134:3
13513 140.13 1448
1467 159°5 162.15
letters (6) 126:8,16
120:4,12,24 130:20
level (8) 6:6 16:16,21
30:25 36:17 139.2
153:3 17220
Ite (2) 43.2 105:2
light (2) 8:16 59:12
641 71:2 79:3.9 86:1
£8.20 91:6 99:25
102.25 108:21,23
108.18 105:2 1076
u3a1 1173 1188
3939 127:22 1283
329:7 130:13 1344
1359 139: 148.18
149.9 152:7 154:23
4156.21 157:11 1903
1984
tkethood (1) 7628
lkely (5) 219 6:24 7:3
3212 186:4
iit (6) 56:4 60:14
106:22 107-1 125:2
130.21
leited (5) 64:13 136-20
11986 168:1 189:4
line (14) 23.17.18 24:4
3822 59:11,14 703
7323 74:4 78:26
1521 16:13 1746
19835
lines (9) 29:18 71:12
728,11,20 73:22
30:19 114.23 168.25,
link (2) 36:32 168.18
linked (1) 169:10
fist (21) 246,7.12
2829,20 30:2,1215
31:1,1 106:21,23.24
125:6 152:13,16 190-1
19125 192331
listed (1) 119:12
tsten (1) 12517
lists (2) 24.13.16
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/58
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
Itigation (2) 2:22
litle (6) 31:8 10525,
1101 14235 161.20
five (1) 79:25,
load (1) 226:20
toading (1) 26:18
locate (1) 9621
Jocation (1) 162.23
log (18) 26:1 47:20
55:16 56:15 60:3.16
67:12 99:13,15 103.18
12464 125:24,19,2,25
151:20,20 1596
logged (2) 49:9 94:19
logging (3) 95:7.9.12
logica (2) 163:8.15
logs (23) 4:14 720
14:35 19:23 3322
457 65.11.11 673
65,6 70:20 101.37
11203 12225
12210,12,15.18
124.21 126:23 169.16,
Jong (15) 1:16 64:3
92.2 112:15,22 137.23
14213 151.10
154:13,16 159:7.24
16019 188:19 190.1
longer (5) 137:6 15319
155:6 157.22 160-17
look (165) 323,11 522
81617928
11.69.13 1316 158
1638 172,77
1867.9,14 19:16
2015 21:18 223.4
23:0 24:11 25:6
26:21 28:16,17 298
31:8 328 3310
35:13,17,18.22,24
36:5,20 37:6.8,22
385,12,24 40:6,28
4115 4578819
46:8 46:19 52:4 53:23,
54:4.14 55:19 59:4
60:2 61:15.19 63:10
6455 61.6.6
6872021 701.2
7115.25
72810,9.22
75:14,15,18 747
77.19,23 8422 69.7
91:10 92:6,6 936
94:12 95:23 106:4
1073 109:15,24
11422 11615
117437 120:19
123:11,18,24
125:17.19 126.28
127-4 129:35 130.25
1321.12.19 1349
135.12 13819 15055
152:1,16,20 153.25
154.1 156:24 1587.11
yor 12 1622.13 1632
1648 165:7.8
166:1,16,17 169:5
1704 17224 173:16
1747.17 181:10.11
1839 1846 185:20
188.21
18913.14,14.15,23
1905.17 19145
192.21.22
looked (24) 5:7
1313.22 18:6 21:12
23:24 30:25 35:16,16
369,14 44:23 604
67:12,12 76:21 99:24
109-4 120:24 128:13
160.5 161:9
1911718,
looking (27) 1:7 10:5
227,12 23:619.25,
40: 67:9 68:20 71:32
75:9 94:9 116:7.8
1182 1231316
12525 136:18 165.20
17214 173:19 174.21
1823 19214 193:23
looks (2) 70:10 190:3
toosely (1) 19121
lordship (11) 1:6
3:15.17 44.12.2252
413 76:20 10714
losing (3) 107.25
1083.13,
loss (12) 153 5613
57.2 56:4,22 59:10
68:28 955 123.19
133:11,25 16324
losses (5) 6:7 7:6 63:9
1142418,
lost (1) 32:17
lot (9) 44:16 45:21
57:12 59:24 106:18
1447.21,14 19038
lots (2) 40:20 46:20
lottery (8) 45.20.24
46:4 1783 180.3,23
196:19.21,
louise (1) 11318
low (2) 60.26.18
lowest (1) 61:3
luncheon (1) 947
machining (1) 151-11
mackenzie (1) 60:7
small (1) 24.18,
main (1) 87:14
mainly (1) 15313
maintain (1) 1083
maintained (1) 140:23
maintaining (1) 183.2
smajor (1) 105:7
majority (1) 122:4
makes (1) 76:20
making (7) 4:13 50:2
166.21 167-20 1685
1718 178.23
manage (1) 105:9
management (14) 6:4.5
67:3 157.2 1624.23
164-15 17912
180:17,20,21 187.9
192512 194:15
manager (7) 8:25 582
yoVi2 132.3 137:5.21
smanwal (5) 140:3,4
1432 144:1,20
many (25) 122.12
32.21 54:23 63:15.17
yaa 7341 122313
1267.7 125:4 1294
13418 143:10 14619
147-9 150:18 1682
170:14 179:25 1802
188.9 192.15 198:20
march (14) 1:1 4:9
8:10,12.21 36:7
66:7.13,24 88:25
342-21 162.15 161.23
197
mark (2) 5425 1699
‘market (1) 1057
massive (2) 3:2 74:27
‘mastermind (1) 1581
match (5) 47:21 65:17
7222 146:1,3,
imather (13) 103:24
104:6 147-20
148:12.14,15.17,22
149:7 10:4 170:21
175.8 200.16
mathers (2) 1037.22
‘matt (1) 12:11
‘matters (1) 103.15
‘maybe (5) 130:12
14:14 1806 1928
93:18
‘mean (24) 23°7 41:23
50:9 5214.17 57:8
58:9 61:1 65:23 70:24
71:3 74:24 619,10
85:2 97:17 107:22.24
19:22 131:5 1427
149:17 165:2 196.13,
‘means (11) 1614
3055,7 45:3 845
95:1,4,19,91 107.28
209.21
‘meant (12) 94:25
102:14 103:2,3,5.13,
106:25 115:6 149:19
152.6 172.15 173:25,
‘meanwhile (1) 189:
‘measure (1) 126:11
‘measures (2) 7:3 134.25
‘media (1) 69:22
‘mediation (1) 7:17
‘meet (3) 105:12 107.12
196:13
meeting (4) 63:21,14.16
42
meetings (1) 63:21
meets (1) 77:17
‘member (2) $7:1.10
‘members (5) 153.24
1374:23 187:28,19.22
memory (4) 99:19
108:23 112:5 184:23,
mention (5) 4:4
67.21.23 117114 1202
‘mentioned (8) 17:3
19:21 31:21 65:16
96:23 108:12 119:11
1982
‘mentions (2) 50:23,
1204
message (8) 9:24 102
803 101.25
‘method (3) 187:10.10
1898
‘methods (2) 116.25
88:11
img (2) 84:24 85.2
‘michael (1) 175.22
‘michele (1) 12:10
‘midair (1) 61:18
middle (2) 1:24 100.12
tmidtransaction (1)
54:19
midway (1) 12414
might (37) 1:20 33,18
41 106,7.8,13 136
42:4 59:19 7822 79:1
8616 963 110:24
nina7 11821 1212
13018 1352 141.13
142,9,15 150:25
161-14 168.24 170.23,
174:25,18 17:25
178;3 161:10 169:5,21
190:21
mildly (1) 61:5
millon (2) 62.4
mind (14) 7:3 22.9.22
34:7 37:22 25:23,25
26:15 08:9,16
£89:20,22 94:2 10:11
mine (1) 57:2
‘minimise (1) 178.22
minus (14) 23:5 38:21
3924.16 41°81427
42:12 44:9.25 46.15
47:6 56:4
minute (2) 96:5 168:23
minutes (1) 86:9
mirrors (1) 6:13
‘miscount (1) 56:13
miskey (5) 109.9,14
127.22 1786.16
smiamateh (1) 17318
misread (1) 143:4
tmistemembered (1)
19:8
missed (1) 192.21
missing (2) 90:14
naa
‘mistake (1) 18:20
mistaken (1) 1:9
‘mistakenly (1) 102:20
‘misunderstandings (1)
1883
mitigate (1) 378:22
mitigated (1) 178.25
mmm (9) 35:28 39:24
462 7419 119.16
1243 152:24 1773
185.23,
models (2) 6979
moment (6) 30:13 46:3
147.17 180:3 185:20
195.24
‘monday (5) 121:10,23
1237 128:20 1343
money (10) 53:7 59:24
07:13:25 116.28 1171
1u9:2 12038 167.9
19318
‘moneygram (43) 71:20
72912,15,16.20
73:2.3.46 T4A7
VB:T.A4 79:4,5,7,23,25
20:69
82:3.7.8,9,15,22,25,25
83:1314,17 847
8513.6 15013,
153.69,
196:9,10.12,14.16
‘moneygrams (3) 83:8
85:10 153:10
month (14) 137.24
123.19 12510
126:11,25 129:9,10
130.6 131.16 1348
105:14 19610,18
1978
‘monthly (1) 195-26
‘months (12) 71:6.7
79:24 897 92:3
153:15,22
155:12,12,18,21
157.14
more (43) 113,23 7:6
112 12:16 25 135
27:11 30:20 315
36:17 48:9 52:25 65:7
67.15 71:35 75:4
77:4 94:20 101.6
103:14,15 105:15
106:3,8 10:1 128:2.6
135:1 14236 14411
1459.11 155:15,
357.12 158:19,22
160:4,13 168:11 174.4
166:1 29313
morning (12) 119
38:21,24 39:4 45:15
56:14,15 60:11 65:16
106:15 124.20 169:19
most (4) 42:5 47:23
62:16 181.20
move (15) 12:11 47:23
62:23 65:6 a4:14
99:23 150:22,25 151.1
362.13 16811,17.22
165:11 1766
‘moving (3) 29:11,12
190.18
imps (2) 96:24 169.21
ims (27) 5:5 607
339,104
114:3,56,6.7.8
124:10,14 125.11
329:14 1307.7
136:9,14.16 14:2
145:1,15 146.16
200:5,10.13
much (28) 5.4 10.22
22:2 30:28 48:15
63:25 87:18 90:15
94:5 106.24 11:12
112.2:113:3,4 1144
127:16,20 14:23,
147:13,13 15917
175:6,8.13 189:24
197:21,24 199:4
must (9) 19.7 5613
62:2 64:22 1022
109:18 11010 132.15
1334
myself (2) 65:24 1329
name (15) 33.12.16
113:20 11517 1269
130:18,17 13736
147.21 148:13.24
150:12 175.5 176.0
1959
narrow (2) 243 93:24
natural (2) 192:3,10
‘naturally (1) 166.16
nature (1) 213
anbse (24) 67 7:23.25
8991112143 492
67:23 71:4 74:21 75:2
42:13 120:21 122.22
13220
133:1,10,13,15,19,23
13415
teary (1) 9629
necessarily (5) 66:18
307.20 127:22 128.28
198.14
necessary (2) 28:22
1092
ced (34) 113,18 217
6:20 20:15 24:6,10.11
29.29,22 30:2,11.12
31:2,5 49:14 52:25
53:24 63:16 647
mas 9741 98:7
127.25 130:16 151-25
13321 138-451
1356 157.12 160:25
aoa
needed (6) 107:9.9
31232 170.16 178.13
18521
needs (7) 78:18 97:8
10514 117:7 119.9
169:16 197.25
negative (5) 39:12 42:7
44:22,23.24
nether (1) 181-14
nerves (1) 194.29
net (2) 6-4 42-13,
netted (1) 42:22
network (6) 10.28,10
80 105:3 10833
never (10) 45:1 86:4
1119 12310 1319
1352 158.8 162.8
1684 19714
ext (17) 29:4 605
97:6,12 98:78 99:17
10:14 10:15 111-2
74 11947 147.18
154.18 17845
gel (1) 169:13
nine (3) 1237.18
10822
sods (2) 125:22 157.25
snoncommittal (1) 56:21
‘nonconformance (1)
156.19
snone (4) 4:11 81:7
1435 18817
snonsales (6) 149:20
15419.22 1721518
a7aie
noe (1) 171.7
‘normal (1) 13:7
normally (5) 13:6 14.5
71:9 11243 120.16
note (3) 15:5 15512
y9201
noted (1) 95:22
sotes (1) 4:16
sothing (5) 47:25 64:10
7ea2 12123 147312
notice (3) 24:25 33:1
rey
sotices (3) 192:8.23
1934
notified (1) 98:5
notify (1) 122-19
november (8) 8:10
25:9,21,22 67:6
115.5 129:23 139-10
‘number (49) 7:15 6:14
9:4 15:2 18:12,21
22:6,9 28:1 32:18 43:8
49:24 54:3 58:4,20
61:8 65:17 69:9 78:25
90:3 95:24 1078
11623 129:11 1295,
132.20
13304,14,19,24
136:16 140:5 142:21
145:22 162:20 164:11
179.17 180:6.24
186:10,11,20,23
187:1,6,7 193:3
1971315,
‘numbers (8) 9:3 10:7
15:22 181,10 39.9
185:4 190:20
‘numerous (1) 159:4
obtain (2) 112.11 1358
obtained (2) 69:15
170.25
obvious (2) 55:14 103:8
obviously (14) 2
3:14 6:20.21 9:10
23:12 3420 398 474
1135 137.18 158:22
379.3 197.22
‘occasion (2) 18417.28
‘occasions (2) 69:9 90:3
occur (2) 178:20.11
occurred (4) 4:9 49:
89:10,21
foclock (4) 74:10 75:11
93:18 945
odd (1) 58:9
offer (1) 66:19
offered (2) 9:10.13,
office (70) 3.2 8:20
11:6 12.4 19.6,7 25:3
2901 3211.15.16
44:14 45:15 5017.23
583,14 6413.18
7037.7 75:14.25
772,16 782 79:24
83:2 845,25 101:10
107.23 10858 11620
1177 1196 1366
140°5 141:4,7 142.29
143:14,23,23 15114
15814 159.45 1602
161.15 162.9 165.21
166:2.3 16720 168.1
1696.7 1707 171.7
179.12 189:4.11
390:12,14 191:8,20.24
196:11
offices (7) 49:4 52:5
75:12 108:6 135:14,18
76
official (1) 63:13
often (3) 87:19 1725,7
oh (1) 66:19
okay (61) 13:10 20:3
23:13 24:4 255
29.10.15 35:22 36:15
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/59
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
37:25 3655 41:25,
42.5 44:12 45:13
52:1 53:1 55:25 67:23
60:2 62:22 63:4 68:5,
73:7 76:12,17 78:13
80:23 61:8 635,17
869,12 88.28
97:22,23 137.1 1488
15312 1541 16022
yen? 1622.13,
164°8,23 165:14.16
1743 1779 1799.25
180:10,17 184:2
185:20 186.7 187.21
186-13 192:13 19:23
old (5) 60:21 115.17
1373.4 138:10
once (2) 134:24 1728
onerous (1) 15:2
ones (10) 2:18 29:8
37:12 38:4,10
1225.12 12324
317 19818
online (12) 69.1478
49.17.22 51:9 55:23
62.35 89.17 10414
105.17 1061
conto (3) 52:25 126.22
w7a4
open (7) 952.2 107.17
152.14 154116 155:11
17518
openly (1) 63:13,
operate (1) 108:5
operated (1) 108:6
operating (3) 6:1
104.15 105
operation (1) 168:19
operational (6) 79.25,
107:22,24 1082.15.19
‘operator (1) 69:11
opinion (1) 68:19
opportunity (5) 93:6
10223 103: 10717
18323
opposed (2) 185:14
19517
opposite (1) 46.13
opted (2) 98:25 99:2
option (3) 120:11,23
52
opus (2) 65:18 198:2
order (5) 14:28 131.12
139:15 19014 193:25
orders (1) 15015
ordinarily (2) 107-10
11223
organically (1) 181:19
organisation (1) 105:23
original (6) 31:25 32:6
13214 160.16 163:19
109.25
originally (2) 183.16
115
others (2) 112 187:24
otherwise (3) 131:3.18
rs10
urs (2) 154:7 16:12
ourselves (1) 96:21
outage (1) 49:15,
outline (1) 1486
outlined (1) 47:2
outreach (10) 21:66
3321 356
8617.18.25
87:30,15,21
outreaches (1) 34:14
outset (1) 32:2
outside (3) 19.5 163:14
m7
outturn (1) 193.5,
over (21) 68 12:20
199 58:23 63:19
9820 1109.12 1111
1335 137.20 142.18
150:14 160.23 166:11
169:15 172.22
167:21,22 188:1319
overall (2) 42:7 150:18
overdeclared (1) 68:22
overtap (2) 21:9,21
overnight (1) 17
1g (1) 708
oversee (1) 114:14
overshoot (2) 4323.24
overshot (1) 47:2
overspeak (1) 130:4
overview (1) 1199
owe (2) 11620 1196
owed (1) 116:22
own (8) 2:7 14:16,29
126:4 163:11,22 1786
werd
owner (1) 192.2
ownership (1) 104:22
pa (1) 151.21
packet (1) 1053
packs (1) 47:8
pages (2) 116 136:21
paid (10) 45:4 56:10
59:10 61.23 120:17
135:4,7 169:1 71:7
17220
pale (1) 94:35
pam (1) 169:7
paper (2) 22:16 32:3
paperwork (3) 132-15
144.29
paragraph (103) 5:17
7.22.24 11:13 15:8
179 182,24
19:1,3,10,13,18 20:6
25:7 26:3 31:21 35:24
48:20 49:12,13 54:14
61:17 62.9 65:8,16
6749 71.21 7325
74:2 86:20 92:6,7,.23,
94:17 955
97:6,12,22 98:8,8
99:25 100:1 101:23
102:13,15,16 103.24
11413,22 1152
1169.9 117:9,17
118:15 119:17 120:20
127:4,14 12819
129:16 130:25 139:12
141.23 142:19.24
149:10,23 150:4
151:14,18,26 15812
161.12 162.2
165:18,21 166:2,16
167.12 170:22,24
1715 1722.28 1745
177,221 79:1
183.9 186-7 185:11
167:12 169:1,3 1917
104:14.16 196:3.25
974
paragraphs (4) 94:14
yo1.19 1167.18
parenthetically (2)
1421 2818
parkers (1) 33:12
parkes (4) 164:9,20.21,
196:4
part (20) 6:12 28:3
29:25 51:5 637 67:3
92:24 99:15 103:3
132:7 134.25 135:12
139:9,11 149:8 151.6
153:13 169:23 1806
1903
Particular (23) 617
10.4 13:14 15:2 225
23:7,18,23 49:5 60:20
808 61:11 8421
85:25 90:3,11 155:22
156:3 159.20 161:23,
164:17.22 16:12
particularly (4) 27.9
47-17 1005 107.16
parties (2) 25:2 198:12
partly (1) 6:25
parts (1) 3:9
party (1) 1638
pass (8) 57:25 1263
13:12
234,102,124
passages (1) 2.4
passed (1) 13723
past (2) 146:6 186.16
pasted (2) 91.20 94:15,
patches (1) 16313
path (1) 54:24
paths (1) 54.23
patny (8) 68:9 69:15
70:15,19 74:3,22 75:9
7623
patnys (4) 65:6
67.10.18 75:17
pattern (1) 39:17
paul (6) 12:11 1466
175:10,12,22 200.2
paula (2) 64:21,25
pauls (1) 146:3
pause (11) 5:3 23:15
53:21 86:11 68:22
96:8 97:21 100:15.17
301:21 136.25
pousing (8) 20:17 58:25
692 12719 .17:17
pay (6) 14:18 52.19.22
309:21 193:17,22
payment (16) 24:19
5222 735 1175
119:5.8.9.19.23 1277
131-4 157-18 165:24
166:20 178.19 1898
payments (4) 116:25
157:19,20 180:12
payout (1) 250:15
pba (3) 1563.66
1pc0214226 (1) 49:6
peak (10) 49:6 53:2.28
54:2 566 74:15 755
76.26 15838
peaking (1) 76:24
peaks (1) 198:6
penalties (3) 167:21
1691 1716
people (24) 9:14 10:9
11:16.23 122.4 37
40; 44:20 51:28
50:18 63:21 64:15
74:20 106:21,28
150,18 158:19,23
184:8,17,16 1683,
1964
per (4) 6:6 182:5.21
195.14
perception (1) 141:20
perfectly (1) 40:9
performance (4)
5:20,21,22,25
performed (4) 149:15
152.4 1741.2
perhaps (10) 13:5 90:21
91:16 92:11 1065:19
107-25 1439 144:12
145:10 1728
period (15) 8:19 15:33
56:16 117.23
121:11,16 124.14
153:14,18,19,20 1855
188:19 190.18 1932
periods (1) 156:5
permit (1) 163:21
persisting (1) 20:8
person (7) 9:22 59:22
107-21 1336 13832
1923.0
personal (3) 184.8
185,20.21,
personally (1) 59.22
personnel (1) 163:26
peter (1) 1213
phitips (15)
113:9,10,14.18,
114168 1307 140.1
142.25 145:1,25
176.23 1826 168:5
20:10
phone (9) 9:25 10:14
118:20,20.21 12522
12813 160:3 161:24
phoned (2) 57:1 17414
phones (1) 90:18
phrase (2) 107:19
uss
physically (1) 186.2
pick (4) 9:25 75:12
125.22 1515
Picked (1) 50:16
picture (3) 16:20 34:3,
15425
piece (2) 13:23 32:3,
pieces (1) 176.21,
ping (1) 44:6
pivot (2) 190:7.7
place (18) 8:24 25:23
323.452 615 755,
103-45 12620 127.8
129.22 131:6,14,24
136;1,2 15164 161:16
plan (1) 84:6
planning (1) 48:12
please (110) 9:8
113.158
178,10,18 19.1.9
2213,4,20 2516 26:16
29:22 325,8.18 33:10
36:20 37:6 38:12.16
48:19 53:3 545,13
55:19 59:4 60:2.9,15
61:14,15 62:10,23
63:12 65:6 66:12 70:6
71:24.25 72:22.23
74 77:19.23,28
78524 7921 84:10
88:16,21 89:16 95:19
96:4 979,20 100:10
101:9,19 102:12
10323 1093
31615,19 1171.17
320.9 13233
135:12,16 137:1.11,20
1398 14248 14321
45:19 148:19 149:10
1502.5 154.1 1582
36112 16213418
163.2 1695,7 172-2
175:14,19 17625
18813,21 169:16.23
390.11 191.2
192.22,28 19381
194:13 1963 19810
plus (4) 38:25 39:2.7.16
pm (6) 45:15 946.8
1489.11 1995
po (1) 23:14
poca (4) 55:24 56:12
156.1,12
pointed (3) 35:3
39126,20
pointing (2) 41:18
382.10
points (2) 4:13 5:12
pol (20) 15:12 16:21
179 181,12 1915
2019 22.9 32:6 36:26
49.23 58:3 65:9,15
7:22 98:9.12 99:9
100.7
policy (2) 135.25 136:2
polite (1) 1982
politicians (1) 65:1
potting (3) 75:10,13
7601
pols (2) 97.23.25
potsap (1) 106:5
pops (1) 10719
position (5) 837.9
90116 137.23 1620
postive (8) 37:19 39:13,
41:5,15 427 68:8 764
130.24
positively (1) 62:2
possibility (3) 89.22
110217
possible (12) 49:7 58:22
86:15 11612 121.2
127.26,20 132.21
359:19 163:18 192.17
1985
post (65) 3:2 620
11:16 12:4 19:6,7 25:3
44:14 49:4 50:17,23
52:5 55:19 58:14 60:4
64:13,18 75:12,14.25
772,16 7924 832
84:5,25 101:10 107.23,
1088 116.20 1177
1196 135:14,18 1368
14055 141:4,7 142
143:14,23,23 151.14
15814 161.15 162.9
165:21 166:2,3 167:20
168:1 169:6,7 170.7
a7a7 1776 17942
189:4,11 1902.14
1918.20.28 196.11
postage (1) 63:13
postal (1) 15035
postmaster (23)
90:10.17 95:7,9.22.28,
96:24 103:8 108:4.8
1152 1276,11,15
128:4 130.20
1521315 161:6,23
166.23 172.19 174.16
postmasters (6) 64:12
314.15 120.21 13015
143.15 152.6
potential (3) 105:4
3702217738
potentially (3) 34:20
7oa8 11023
pouches (1) 185:12
pounds (1) 78:2
power (5) 49:15 107.25
108:13,13,14
powerful (1) 70:16
practice (3) 15:5
443,17
precise (3) 50:20 70:17
1967
precisely (5) 46:20,24
146 75:8 84.19
predate (1) 8:21
predominantly (1)
us
premise (6) 41:19
425,25 43:12.25
190.25
preparation (1) 12:22
prepare (3) 12:15
a2
prepared (6) 8:6
15:21,25 21:23 59.28
10237
preparing (4) 4:15.19
30.21 10622
present (1) 193:3
presented (4) 8:25
uni 148.22 1915
press (3) 58:3,4 67:11
pressed (6) 69:15.19
103:19 108-48 159.10
pressing (2) 56:13
30224
pressure (3) 107:1,6
432
pressurised (1) 112-25
pretty (6) 10:22 11:22
5911,23 67:25 181.21
previous (9) 5:18 19:21
35: 92:7 117.23
3213 123:18 139.12
ae2.01
previously (8) 5:14 2:8
26:7 1062 119512
137:25 1807
pricing (1) 79:15
Principally (1) 98-4
print (2) 53:6 63:7
printed (11) 17:20
3221 3327.23 348
635 98:11 99:4.16
10036
printing (1) 56:1
prints (1) 3:17
prior (8) 8:12 128
32411 1341 14:19
164:16 187-9 193:18
priority (4) 54:23,
6016.18.22
privilege (5)
2:12,16,21,21 3:14
privileged (1) 3:13
probably (8) 10:21
31:24 128:12 129.9
138:12 165:13 168:11
198.19
problem (27) 10:2
54.13.18 55:15 75:22
7616.24 775,6.7.8.21
788 79:6,9.18 80:8,24
8747.24 89:3,12.23
90:18 123:4 163:19
problems (10) 10:89
117 20:24 21:3 34.16
35:2 46:4 755.773
probs (1) 169:13
procedures (2) 13519
1636
proceeded (1) 99:10
process (48) 2:1 27:24
44:16 4914.16.21
517 55:24 631.8
86:22 9019 95:4,11
9936 114.14 1165
2175 12010 12219
128:22,23 126.6,15,16
327.12 128-16 129:21
130:21 135:23.25
136.1,2.35 137:16,25
138:3,7.16 139.1
144:20 1452.5 156.25
163:3,14 1649 167-4
processed (4) 96:22
1015 1731416
processes (2) 1776
1807
processing (1) 173.14
produce (3) 14:18
7913
produced (9) 35:3 56:15
712,14 93:14,15 99:8
1843 19013
producing (2) 102:2
a0735
product (19) 23:1
245,813.15 252
2819.19 30:2 311
37:21 38:13 132:20.23
33:17 134-11 150:23,
178.15 180:9
production (5)
163:10,12,17,23 1642
products (6) 106:8
17793 18134
1889.9
professional (2) 2:12.21
professionally (1) 3:13
programme (11) 5:21
61,24 7:18 1024.25
118 10420 105:5,11
128
progress (2) 423.920
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/60
POL00004071
POL00004071
March 19, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 6
project (1) 101:12 33:1.47.10.16 128:2.4.26 14791497 17021 I reading (8) 78:17 81:15 I recognition (1) 7:11 7122 637.9 96:11
prominent (1) 68:2, 342,7,10.15,19,25 125:14.17 20.24 173:22 1744 183:16 83:24 1108.22 111.11 I recollection (3) 1141 101.16 115:16 1226
Promise (1) 58:18 359,14,.22.28 126:4.8,12,17,22.25 192.9 1962 146:1 164.24 149.25 17617 az2a7
promised (1) 58:20 362,6,11,15,20,25 127:2.4 1266,9.19,23 I questions (40) 40:11 I reads (4) 129:24,24 recommendation (1) 133:14,14,19.23,
pronounces (1) 14823 I 37:3.6,10.12,15,17.19,21}95 120:1.4.6 42:17 78:20,23.25 166:2.17 16223, 188:22,23 180:2
pronouncing (1) 14721 I 36:3.5,10,22,21,24 130:2,18,21,24 90:2 91:13 9411 real (3) 15:11 43:2 reconcile (1) 84:3, referenced (2) 6510
properly (5) 4922518 I 39:2.6.15. 331:12.16 95:3.25 1062.13.14 I 1164 reconciliation (4) 83:3 I 9125
96:4 112:7.28 40158.13.16 132:15,7.12 107:17,38 1095 realise (1) 17212 84.17.22 14:18 references (6) 17.1.9
properties (4) 422,815.17 4224 13348,12,16 19.22 112141143 139.6 I really (13) 166,14 reconsider (1) 75:26 183 20:7 65.21
66:11,35,16.21 43:2.46.10.121417.1932 13426.15,17.21.23, 14:22 37:13 62:18 1065 record (14) 1481620 I 106.17
proportion (5) 4421 45:7,14,19.23 135:2.8,12 145:16.37,18,21 115:20 138.9 1628 23:20 41:12 56:16, referencing (1) 65:24
139:16,17 14019 462.317.2447 136:2.5,12,1419,21,24 I 155:24 17018, 167:2.15.17 17233 60:4,1261:2.8213 I referred (18) 721 13:15
1975.12 48:24 49:12 137:2.11,15,16,20,23.25] 171:17,18,19 175:7 187.25 115:3 146.23 16:19 1613 1920 228 33:5
protection (1) 158:22 506,14,19 136:6,16,22 1391.5 192:5 194:8,10,11 reanne (1) 12:30 1801421 59:13 61:16 709 96:1
protest (2) 63:14,15 512,5,13.17,20, 140:3,14,17,19,22.24 I 197:19 198.24 reappraise (1) 7618 recorded (14) 6:14 102:17,19 103:12
provide (10) 14:25 15-4 I 522,4,11,21.23 141:2.6.9,13.19.25 200:8,15,20,25 reason (16) 9:21,23 14:10 53:19 5620 320:1 127.11 165:20
70.15 12810 132.13 53:2,10,13,15,21,24 142:2.8,12,14,18,28 I quick (3) 49:23 51:9 67:25 68:17 746 60:6 73:8 75:25 a7 1952
13336 1393 141.15 5449.12.20 343:817,19.21 oni6 3042 1082411168 I 12525 1265.127:2 I referring (10) 345
145.11 1597 55107,19 144:11,16,18.20 ‘uicker (3) 39:8 63:25 140.7 168.24 171.21 I 14313,20 17938 36:22 789,17.18 96:3
provided (17) 110147 I 56:6,10,20.23 145:13.15 148:24 106:3 183:25 18555 190:20 1909 114:18,19 116.10
25:2 66.5 132.16 s7a712187,1923 I 149:16,7,21 quickly (9) 21:16 22.22 I 1966 recording (7) 41:10 1034
13922 14015 14.19 I 586,12,18 150:2.9,11,16,18,20.22 I 60:2 106:8 134:23, reasonable (1) 40:9 60:22 1257.19 refers (7) 18:25 86:22
142:3,14 146:5,10 59:4,16,18,22 151:48,13,17,24 136:5,22 18:11 reasonably (1) 52:24 127.23 13520 16710 I 69:10 1007 137:5
162:22,23 184.25 602,18,22 1529.18.22 18913 reasons (1) 47:2 recordings (1) 4:17 37212 1894
1966. 613,722.24 153121417 quite (24) 15:1 rebooted (1) 92:11 records (10) 4:7.14 820 I reflect (4) 61:4 78.7
provider (1) 1638 623,6.14.23 635.9 1541,8,11,131618.25 I 20:18,23 4618 45.22 I recall (18) 4:5 121 5712 1491518 1524 I 167:7 173:25
provides (2) 116.22, 64:3,18,20.25 656,14 I 185:2.4,7,15,19.21,24 I 59:24 616916 922.2 I 13:98 33:9 37:23, 3741 179135 reflected (2) 7:11 79:9
11720 6622 156:8,10,1417,10.23 I 12:25 12829 67:11 79:12 84:16 recover (1) 49:17 reflects (2) 14:11 26:16
providing (3) 14.24 671,5.8.14,16,21,23,25 I 157:7.11,13,16,20.22.24] 130:2.8,10 132.21 87:7 69:2 96:9 109:20 I recoverable (1) 49:18 I refresh (1) 99:19
49:16 19818 685,11,1417 158:1,7,10,21.25 133:22 14411 158.10 I 11120,181123,15 I recovered (2) 932 regard (1) 43:6
provision (1) 190:15 692,8,14.19,21.24 159:2,16,22,24 ye119 16211 16320 I 137.7 1955 998 regarding (7) 49:2 91:7
pull (4) 30:23 107:3 70:13,15,19,22 160:5,10.13,19.22 194.15 19423, recalled (1) 15:9 recovering (2) 117.10 1207 157:18
1257.10 711,815 72361014 I 1618.12.19 quote (1) 93:20 receipt (32) 3117.18 141418 3928 1972
pulled (1) 152.23, 73:31,14,18,25, 162:213,18,28 1632 I quoted (1) 10:7 32:9,14 536,11 55:2 I recovery (30) 49:22, regards (3) 266 583
pun (1) 7:23 746,13,17,20.25 164:8,20,23, 57.9 6013 62:3 63:78 I 50:12.16 51:7 52:18 aoa
Purpose (5) 4:15 7525.24 1653.6.14.16 —_,——_I_ 320 542,26.20.21,22,25 I regime (1) 1706
106:20,23 141.18 765,10,13,16,23 166:16,24 —— 4. — I 0049.24,17.21,2425 I 56:3 6013136110 I registered (2) 60:16
35113 77:2.16,19.23, 167:2.5.7.12.15,17.26 92:10,15.17.21, 90:24 94:20,25 856
putting (7) 6232120 I 787.11,14.19 168:6.9,13,15,17,21.24 I radically (2)1931011 I 93:4,13,5 995,816 95:4,12.16 99.16.16 I regularly (1) 12312
425,10 61:5 71:19 79:14.17,20 169:4 raise (6) 119:23 102:3 135:20 100.6 103:4 115.25 relate (5) 72:11,12
1042 80:14.17,20,24 170:4.9,121417 120:1.8,22 169:20 receipts (24) 17:20 3162 1327 133:12 32319 185:12 169:11
puzzle (1) 178:21 81258 372:432,13,16 17525 I 1982 337.23 5057.11 aera related (7) 20:18,24
puzzled (2) 62:6 1249 I 8255,12,13,15,16,20,22.2H 176:3.6,10,14,19,25 I ralsed (17) 11:22 13:7 51.14.15 52141821 I rectangle (1) 157.22 21:3 668,16 86.17
we (1) 126:19 83:4,6,12,17,20,22.95 I 177:4,10,12,21.25 27:22 48:21,22 526 53:16 55:67 rectified (1) 11:4 1328
843.5794 178:35,10 sae 7ra797e 154 I 56124210 recurring (1) 257:1 relates (6) 1823 245
852.4811.15,21 379:1,4.7.9.11,19,22.25 I 1235122112611 I 73.21,16.2 100625 I red (1) 61:22 55:20 136.6 136:9
86:9,13,20 180:2,10.14.17 160:7.8 164:16 1013 redacted (1) 5:14 160:10
4 (774) 5:14.37,20,25 872,46,13.17,21,23 181:2.4,6,810,20,23,25 I ralbes (1) 159:24 receive (7) 300-25 redaction (1) 1°9 relating (8) 36:3 54:9
6:4,13,16,.23 88:2,7,12,18,24 182:9,15.18 183:13,16 I raising (3) 46:4 122:24 118:16,24 119:18 redactions (3) 14,11. 86:5 135:18,23 140:13
73681119 89:2.6.9.15.20 104:2.6,12,16,20,22,24 I 127-7 138.18 1442 1969 220 37614 17:23
85.16.24 902.7.17.21 185:4.8,10,16.20,28 I random (1) 48:24 received (28) 4226.21 I redirect (1) 13225 relation (11) 19:25
925171910716 I 915,10,22 106:7,16,19,23, rang (2) 75:22 131.21 36:4 4510.25 reduce (3) 6:24 43:22 62:26 658 74:17 75:7
1811.25 922,617.20 931016 I 187:1,4,12,16.19,21 I range (1) 195 46:6,9.18 53:5 64:8 1056 87:26 9421 1306
122,4.6,8.14.16 95:9,11,15,25, 306:13,21 169:17,20 I rare (3) 130:2.8188:16 I 99:01 1006 127.25 I reduced (2) 45217825 I 140-4 162-4 169.6
1325,10,13,20.25 96:3,10,15.17 3907.21 1911,4.17 I rarely (1) 265:22 14058813 reducing (2) 104:15 relationship (3)
1435,8,1013,1618.21 I 97.6,10,23 98:20 192:1.13.19,21 rather (20) 211 10:14 141:11,17,20 14221 10513 1375.21 19315
1557.24 9923 1005,20,21,23 I 193:1,8,23 194:37 17:10 22:4 39.23 143.23 1452617724 I reduction (9) release (1) 16314
16261214.17,21.25 I 1012.6,13.23 ‘quantity (1) 23:1 4112 43:7 45:23 163:10,13 185113, 614,467.18 7.46 I relevance (5) 2:11.23
1771324 1029.11 1034.21 I quarter (1) 155:9 48:22 57:21 59:10 1973 104.21 1021 87.25
101,12,18.22 1042,11,16 105:21,24 I quarterly (1) 19515 69:7 96:21 101:7 receives (2) 76:11 1315 I reexamination (12) relevant (9) 15:13,
1913.15 1069 111.21,23, ‘queried (1) 1421 125:5,7 122:18 14214 I receiving (8) 101:2 7823 79:293:24942 I 293,56 3420 3613
20:3.6,12,18,17.22 1123,7,11,15.19 ‘queries (3) 11710 346.4 171.23 127:6 19611,12,18 11:16 144:24,25 20221 134:11 13619
21:2.9.18 1133.20,22.25 120-7 168:10 re (1) 25619 recent (7) 42614712 I 17020 200:79.1419 I relable (1) 197:5
22:12.14,16.108,20.24 I 1143.8,11.18.22 ‘query (3) 13:7 reach (1) 1787 181:20,21 1832022 I ref (1) 132.20 relied (1) 30.23
23:1.49,13.15 115:1,7,10,13,18,20,23,2 I 161:23.25 reaction (1) 93:32 recently (3) 129:20 refer (9) 26.22 22:5 relooking (1) 162:4
24:4,11,15,18,23 11647,13,15,18 ‘querying (1) 1624 read (23) 7:21 17:2 281.15 1953 28:19 57:22 695 rely (1) 12:25
25:15,12,16,22.25 117917 ‘question (32) 27:1.4 25:25 57:13 79:21 recognisable (1) 193:8 I 114.24 126811820 I rem (6) 16:10 33:13
26:10,16,20.24 116:1,7,11,14,19,24 34:21 426,16 62:17 86:49 88209713 I recognise (7) 19:7 12024 357.7 44:7 86:22
27:1.4,13.16,20.24 11925,17 815 63:4 95:2 99:24 1002.11.1416 I 50.25 57:6 115:1 reference (33) 1810 I remain (1) 11518,
28:2.6.9,14,16,22.25 12021.6,12,16,19,28 98:17.21 100:8 103:14 I 1011910521 10820 I 136.19 137.16 191.3, 19:10.15,17,19 2918 I remained (1) 1425
29:2.6.8,1012,1517.25 I 391:2.8,1418.25 104:7.12 105:19 11:3 I 10:4.13 141.213 recognised (2) 627 31:25 326 36:2.6.21 I remains (3) 10423,
30:2.5,7,913,15.18 1226.9,12,15,17.28 13055 138.10 143:13, 304:3 71a 7635 49:23 51.9 53:24 115:10.13
327.12.1417,21,24 1233,11,13,16.22,24 1451 146:16,22.25 I readable (1) 16812 recognising (1) 105:1 57:29 6116 659,15 I remedy (2) 607.19
325,11,1421,24 readily (1) 8:24
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters 203 6
B10.1/6/61
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others
v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
remember (24) 32:6.16
22:9 37:13 69:45
7418.22 9611.11
85:18 905 91:8
104.15 1095
112.4528 12619
185.18 19217,19
19713
remembering (1) 91:14
remind (1) 68:18
reminded (1) 60.7
reminder (1) 196:2
remittances (1) 15121
remmed (1) 40:23
remotely (2) 62:12
1875
removed (2) 166:20,22
reorg (1) 1053,
repaid (2) 49:10 117.7
repay (4) 11623 117.1
n9.12 16711
repaying (1) 134.19
repeat (5) 28:5
725,17 73:3 82:10
repeated (1) 63:9
repeatedly (1) 70:19
reply (2) 100.9 1339
report (46) 29:16 56:23
64:10 69:10,16,18
70:6,10,13,20 71:1
98:19,21 91:7.8,10,11
92:3 94:10 96:20.24
977.13 1018
102.16,17,19 1222
126:10,14,17.22
164.24 16520.21
182.4 185:24 1893
1905,7.12
reports (14) 155:17
15713,22 17213
190:22,25
181.2,3,14.18 18319
195:2.10 1982
repository (1) 155:10
represents (2) 91:18
w2ai
reproduced (1) 19013
reput (1) 42.16
request (13) 14:14
54:16 66:1 79.16.16
127-7 135:9,21 138:24
163:20 17016 104:25
19319
requested (5) 70:11
71:3 13215 1596
18024
requesting (7) 70:5,20
1195 1314 1468
146.6 16913
requests (8) 66:8 1572
167:12,20 1685
169.22 17014 171.8,
require (3) 128:7
15921 1688
required (11) 40:10
55:22 9912 128.21
132.19 13319 142.9,
161:1 1777 184.16
1997
requirement (1) 13323
requires (1) 169.17
reread (1) 51:5
rereviewed (1) 181:2
resisted (1) 92:18
resolution (6) 70:2
84:6 137.7 1362.7
1788
resolved (8) 495 63:25
12024 121.21 12417
127.9 13415 138:23
resolving (3) 10:20
27-21 17715
resources (2) 133.5
respect (6) 138:17
146.16 147.6
196:22.24 197.9
respond (2) 14:22 91:4
responding (2) 1222
5719
response (24) 4:20,22
1oa7 3317
575,6,1,13 59:3,19
91:14.19 97:24,25
98:9,22,24 100.7
unas 1123
1166.28 136.14
1366
ty (1) 1608
responsible (3) 121:20
1235 177.23,
responsive (1) 1128
rest (2) 135:24 143.25
restricted (1) 158.22
restructured (1) 12
result (8) 6:5,25 49:10
84.25 87.17 95:5
1625 17113,
results (1) 64:10
retail (3) 44:15 45:4
4735
retained (1) 163:25
retention (1) 156.5,
retracts (1) 196-19
retrieval (1) 156-25
retrieving (1) 160:25
retry (3) 98.24.25,
101.25
return (2) 151:2,18
returned (1) 92:25
revealed (1) 4:8
reversal (19) 75:23
766,10 92.25 93:3
94:23,
95:16,17,19,22.28
10221 103:3,6,12
161:16 166:7,7 174.15
reversals (4) 17:21
75:24 985 10218
reverse (5) 74:9,9.12
116.25 11913
reversed (15) 45:1
47.16 762.3 81:21
885 94:20.25 95:63
98:14 996,18 165.23
16ra
reverses (1) 43:14
reversing (1) 166:19
review (5) 3:3 97.2.5,
96:1 165:10
reviewed (3) 3:20 13:21
30:24
reviews (1) 96:25
revisit (1) 93:17
reymols (1) 64:22
vials (2) 269
righthand (8) 66:17,22
10015 1102 111:37
16224 16631
rights (1) 16520
ting (8) 101 59.22
752020 774 13310
eas
ringing (3) 10:1,3 90:23
riposte (2) 69.11,16
risk (7) 207-2224
108271519 165.24
robbery (1) 60:25
robinson (55) 146.16
2111425 316 42
792225 792.3 81:25
931922 9439
37 1411135,1637
1389234
142425 1452
1471620
14e.12.1627 1521
1701920.21 1735
175101637 194930
1971619 1961136
109.2
200°79.12141739.23
robustness (2) 287.20
role (3) 13:8 15038
165.22
rol (2) 160.1536
rolled (1) 194:24
rollout (2) 179:16,22
rollover (1) 45.19
ron (2) 96:12.15
root (1) 989
rose (12) 91:78 98:20
9620 1018 1021719
165,20 16661025
1672
roughly (4) 22:9 150:20.
17925 1802
round (3) 44817289
routinely (3) 147.25
129
vow (37) 172.2255.20
237 292.33 319
52818376
sersir.24
3936915 415
458.8.141923 465
6068 6114 6024
714525 7223 7335
7723 6422 931.3
rows (2) 22:5 92:25
royal (1) 2638
run (3) 72.14 1222
185.24
rung (3) 1431 578
762
running (2) 130.16
16119
runs (1) 52:5
runup (2) 64:3 98:17
rural (1) 305:2
sale (4) 22:24 44:16,20
454
sales (8) 149:20 151:19
152:7,20 154:22 155:2
372:14,18
same (22) 17:15 31:3
38:29 41:21 50:23,
59:8 93:2 99:24
115:16,23 1182
119:14 13041 1426
154.4 166.11 1745
178:24 179.2 166:24
168:4 198:12
sample (1) 163.16
santander (19) 14:9
1395 140:3.4.8
y4n11.37 142.22
143:1,14.23
144:1,10,14 145.26
146:6 17:25 183:13,
1887
sarah (4) 1849,20,21
196:4
satisfaction (3) 28 6.8
78
satisfactory (1) 14:21
satisfied (2) 138.22
1454
save (1) 152.15,
saved (1) 94:19
saving (4) 611.21
105:18,22
savings (1) 169:11
saw (6) 613 77
73:22,23 75:11 190:19
saying (21) 4:5,7 1318
17:2 18.16 26:8 36.23
55:13 64.8 65:1 63:15
84:19 86:16 91:1
100:24 12316 126:23
161,10,21 162.19
19119
scanning (1) 7:23
scatty (1) 85:21
scenario (4) 35:6 62:24
93:12 91:3
scheme (1) 717
seope (8) 712 164:13
177-7 181.13 1882
seott (1) 12.12
seratehcard (2) 44:25
466
scratcheards (12) 37:24
38:1,3.3 40.20 41:24
44:4,6.14 45,3 46.20
478
sereen (6) 66:18 98:12
106:4 125:19 145:20,
1538
screenshots (1) 64:11
script (1) 577
scroll (1) 62:23
sea (1) 129.15
search (2) 123:20
125.13
searchable (1) 191.9
searched (1) 47
searching (2) 398.10
seat (3) 113:21 148:15
17514
second (38) 17:6 24:24
29:14 31:8 326 53:4
54:20 59.5 92:21,23
94:12 96.16.22 97:3
98:20 100:1 101:9
104.25 118:17 1192
120:14,1620 1218
127.10 13911 1416
14412 1463338 147.7
15241 16220 1737
176.11 1838 188.25
196.2
secondly (1) 82:2
seconds (1) 32:24
section (2) 11-11 13:14
sections (1) 199.20
security (3) 156:3
157.210
see (208) 512.15,25
623 88 92 134
14:10,13 16:20
17.14,17:24 189.15
a9. 206
21:13,14,15 22:22.24
232 2611 28:13
319,15 328,12,19,21
332,13 341
36:20,25 37:6
38:21,25 39:3.6.15,
40:2,18,18.19.24 41.6
44:24 45:9,17 46:5
47.20 50:19 53:2,4.15
545 $5.20 57:12
58:18 60.15.16
6131422
64:10,12,20.25
66:12,17.22,28
68:5,21,22 69.24.25
70:1,46.19,24
72:17 9.1019,25.25
7329 747 75:22
77:28 Te e014
24:15 68:24
91:12,22.25 92:23
94:14 95:25 96:10
97.68 98:18 99.23
101/13,13,23 103-24
1069 11219 11338
114.23 1167.15.38
aie 122.2
133:10,15 13535
136:6,6.10 1372.11,
139:6,10.25 140:3.7
1411923 148:19.21
149.4,21 152:16,20
15355,7 1542.6
1955,7,7.8137
156:10,15,28
158:4,12.16 159:2.14
160:7,12,13,26.19.24
61:13 162.2125
163:4 164-9,17 165-8
166:2,18 168:9,10.11
16918 17220 1732
374:7,10 1752.23
185.22 1692 190:8.17
191:6 1922.28
193.2,4.5,6 19435
195:12 1964
seeing (4) 79:12 84:32
11:10 1552
secking (3) 414 48.1
8125
seem (3) 26 7319.21
seemed (1) 55:25
seems (4) 100:24
11041,36 169:13
seen (26) 5:14 822
1555 16:4 3921 41.17
52.16 56.8 57:24 68:6
75:9 76:13 86:46
93:10 1105 12310
151.24 152:10.22
162.16 1905
301:1,11,14 193:24
segments (1) 1059
selected (2) 1022
16316
sell (1) 4415
sells (1) 47.5
semantic (1) 115:20
send (32) 7215.17
7334 11817 19:24
121:3,8,10,22 124.20
15:24 127:10.17,20
328:1,10,18,17,17 28,
32912 1302,9,20
1314925 13214
144969152313
sending (2) 123:6
13022
senior (2) 1323.5
sense (7) 48:24 52:11
70:22 111.10 139:15
40:19 1975
sent (29) 14:8 39:24
43:22 4612,12 91.14
110:18.25 111.1
316.16 1183 120.16
121.6 1285 120:4
331:12,17 1342
135:13 136.19 140:12
1443.7 146.6,7 1595,
185:19 186.17 191:5
sentence (12) 19:21
26:13 102.25 108:25
32020 16657 171.9
173:2,7.25 1746
separate (8) 25:17
26:11 337.23 44:19
99:20 15825 17:18
separately (1) 114:12
september (5) 59:9
18:11 116.12 179:20
194.25
sequence (5) 16:19
31:14 69.22 1249.10
serious (2) 2:3 59:1
seriously (2) 61:1 161.7
serve (1) 1034
service (3) 65:11 1058
1083
serviees (7) 78:2
337:14,17 13825
130:3 1456.7
session (28) 15:22
1632.13 53:16.19
562 579 72622
73:2,11,16,20,22 90:4
93,345
94:18,20,20,24
95:1,24 100:25 1013
1023
sessions (1) 16:13,
set (5) 36:13,18 142.14
195:10,21
sets (1) 82:16
setting (2) 63:68
settle (12) 62:2 748.9
uo7.a1 1426
1155.7 1218.22
324:19 132.22
settled (21) 11420
3162 1172226 1187
aan7 12233,7.21
1231,7.1320.20
3247.17 22540
132.24 136:2 17817
settling (4) 759 10:14
12295 12611
seven (5) 151.2.618.21
1238
several (4) 1119 79.24
11724 14:4
shail (2) 119 18923
share (1) 66:15
sharepoint (2) 191.21
192
sheepishness (1) 149:6
sheet (10) 17:10 22:4
2420 71.25 73:5
148:20,21 175:20,21
7634
shirley (2) 12:9 675
short (22) 65 25:15,26
2724 331234
419,13.1923
432,4.25 455
49.14.17 765 941
133:4 148,10 153.14
1565
shortage (2) 53:18
69.25
shortages (2) 72
18512
shorter (1) 147.14
shortfall (7) 46:21
493,25 61:20
3974245 1313
shortfalls (1) 124.28
should (62) 3:1 44 6:8
14.24 15:4 16:24,25
25:25 298 38:7
41g. a2a2
435,17 442.4 455
4624.25 §3:7,17.22
57:10 60:18 70:11
71a4 76:21 77:14,14
81:7 05:22,26 a6:a4
888,14 69:21 90:4
99.9 1035.7 105:6.7,9
308.10 110:20.12
31334,17 152.104
14621 148.18 156.11
16:3 173:8.11,23
175:17,20.21 178318
show (21) 15:15 1822
33:0 35:20 36:18
42.21 48:20 53:16
544 55:15 56:23
69120 75:24 7635
83:17,23 9225 10310
154.22 162.8 1751
showed (10) 18:16
4222 56.2.4,10.12
995,17 103:10 183:20
showing (3) 4425 3:14
180.23
shown (9) 7:19 1813
426 69:19 70:13
Tat 1021 17:21
1582
shows (16) 15:13
3720.21 2136
36:3,22 53:25 93:1,3
94:8 10318 104:3
3098 15119 15219
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/62
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
1666
side (8) 24:6 29:20
6617 110.22 111.47
141-21 164312
sides (1) 179:
sight (4) 96:16,22 97:3
16025
sign (2) 32:3 41:21
signage (1) 3922
signature (4) 113.23
1492 176:4,12
signed (2) 21:22 30:18
significance (1) 110:6
significant (3) 90:8
10421 198.17
significantly (3) 1888
190.21,25,
silo (1) 10521
similar (3) 188.20
191:15.16
similarity (1) 67.23
simon (3) 101:21,12,14
simple (8) 34:21 54:22
127-23 126: 13033
simpler (1) 105:8
1293,23 151:7,17
single (6) 13:23,
104:3,8,10 12214
1919
site (2) 191.22 1922
situation (17) 21:11
35:10 50:10
51:1,12,14.16 6210
55:3 57:5 63:25
6710.19 71:2
90:11,13,25
six (3) 5:12 717 923,
sit (2) 1516.19
skills (2) 11:18,23
skimming (1) 22
skin (1) 16.20
slides (1) 105.15,
slight (1) 1967
slightly (10) 2.9.28,
26:20 48:26 52:10,11
65:7 72:25 95:2 1249
stip (5) 32.12.1515
33:1 35:3
slips (4) 32:21 346,7.22
slow (1) 21
slower (1) 48:10
small (8) 1:8 10:21
1116 122 19:7 342
103:15 10412
smith (18) 12:21 139:9
140.15 1411419
142.15 143.17 148:1
175:10,12,13.17,
17621 182.9 193:23,
197:20 200.21
smiths (5) 139.7 142.3,
143.4 14412 146.17
sold (1) 45:2
solicitor (1) 13513
solicitors (10) 2:5 4:13
185 49:4 66:3
135:14.16 176
ye1a2 18618
somebody (13) 10:17
58:3 66:13 67:1 69:7
20247 1306 132.21
13364 154-23 164:3
17239 19212
somehow (1) 167:12
someone (10) 10:6 13:6
675 1283 142.10
1434 157-7 159:24
167-24 174.21
something (44) 3:11
1220 15:4 309.19
311.3 35:12 40.8.3
412 57:20 62.11 652
888 107:24 1223
127-22 120.24 130.28
13452 1354
143:13,19,20 146-22
151315617 157:11
1603 161:19 162:10
16:10 167.2 174:20
179.16 182:12 183.24
185°7.7 187:7 195.17
1963.28
sometimes (6) 9:24
1041 75:28 120.14
1253 179.7
soon (3) 105 44:13
16418,
sort (14) 7:12 54:24,25,
5614 57:2,4 59:1,18
694 7937 1072
14:16 1514 188:4
sorts (2) 15917 19214
sought (4) 420 601
85.24 157.7
sound (1) 13931
sounds (1) 11:22
sources (2) 153:9
1735
spl (8) 15:17,19 22:20
25:13,19 26:22 27:15
297
speak (13) 2:4 58:2
1239 12523 13017
168:20
184:17,18,20,21,22.24
19210
speaking (4) 58:32
12224 13034
special (5) 150:11,22
1518,10,12
specific (17) 16:25 1821
34:13 37:3 39:9 61:6
69:1 75:7 81:10
12325 13337
136,36 177.23 161:3
1822 1959
specifically (13) 19:22
241,24 23:7 46:17
48.25 12320 135.23,
1363 14317 163:10
191-8 197-7
specified (1) 62:3
speed (2) 41:25 62.24
speedily (3) 52:24 65:7
6716
spend (1) 1512
spike (1) 74:17
spm (9) 146 27:22
50:22 55:3 58:15
61:9 1537 161:19
1689
spmr (10)
98:4,10,13,23.25
992,912 156.29
1626
spms (5) 63:18 65:4
77437 1615
spoiled (1) 63:2
spoke (5) 56:12 69:6
134.28 141.25 1848
spoken (6) 58:19
13914 166:17,25
yoo 71.34
spot (6) 34:11 367
9625 97:2.5.25,
spreadsheet (12) 7:20
86 23:12 66:28 69:24
140;24 168:13,14
108.28 189:5,28
isi
spreadsheets (5) 28:23
7138 140:23
r11422
square (10) 21:2,6.22
85:7 @6:1
88:13,14,15,16 69:23
1001 (2) 97:17.28
sc (2) 54:25 55:4
stall (6) 47 57.2.25,
38:11 167.20 177:14
stage (9) 80:11,18 97:1
118.22 12712 1593
185:19 187.8 192:20
stages (4) 15:18 29:16
5147 179.19
stamp (2) 24:28 93:2
stamps (5) 2420 67:21
6811.22 70:7
standard (5) 78:26
9224 99:8,15 12323
standing (1) 64:25
start (5) 95:11 1128
1248 128:12 138:7
started (3) 16512
183.21 194.24
starts (2) 13912 19023
stated (1) 62:4
statement (133) 4:16
721.92 1132
1313,14,18 16:
183,12 20,2022
21:10,23 226,7 25:79
27.6,12,14 28:20
3019.22 31.22 327
33:2.5,11 344
368,18,21 38:6
9:18.19 46:22 48:20
61:7 62:6 65:9 676
685 71:21 73:25
£95,6 10212
103:18.22,23
106:16.23 107.13
108:22.25 1128
1122.21 113:16,22,25
114822 11541
126.419.21 117.1821
118-45,11,1419
120,19 127'5 129.14
1301 135.26
139:7.9,21 141-20,
1424.20 1435.9
14:13 1463.28
147.78 148.21,
14915,10,24 1505
151:13.25 155:4
16128 1658 167.3,
168:19.22 169.2
170:24 1712.24
y72.37 175.22
176:1,3,10,15,25
161:21 1621,2.4,10
183:2.3,20 1843
188:14 169.2 193.9
194:13 1969
statements (6) 419
yina9.21 112:1.25
176.16
statistics (1) 3:4
stay (1) 154:16
step (2) 3:20 140.14
stepbystep (1) 181:17
steps (4) 42:2,4 69:3
128
still (17) 46 263.4
35,25 56:12 109:17
116.13 1236 130.12
134:455 137.13 155.17
167.9 179.15 1652
1983
stint (1) 147.24
stock (35) 15:16.17
18:9 20:12,19,24 21.4
2217 242
25:13,13,19 267.14
34:19 35:21 387.8
39:23,24 41:10
42.21.25 4320.23,
44:22,23,24 4620
47:45 87:14.15,19.21
98:2
stop (4) 52:24 9327.21
12614
stopped (1) 137.7
straight (5) 1:15.22
44:16 86:17 1158
straightforward (1)
198.19
strangely (1) 162.21
strategy (3) 1053.33
straying (1) 62:16
stress (1) 59:21
stroke (1) 104:10
strong (1) 15:9
stubbs (1) 169.7
subject (4) 4:3 1414
149.22 176.14
submitted (1) 107.13
subparagraphs (1)
5415
subpostmaster (25) 4:7
65,25 11:12 16:29
56:24 102:22 120:17
11:2 122.24 1233
12411,15 125.24
126.4 1315 134.19
136:22 145.3 161:14
165.22 1661924
1749 1794
subpostmasters (5)
12:22 33:21 49:14
1161 130.25
subpostmistress (1)
14:22
subspace (2) 64:14.15
substance (2) 115:18
164
substantiate (1) 163.24
subsumed (1) 157:1
successful (5) 254
26:10 12012 139.18
1976
successfully (3) 25:19
26:14 96:18
suffer (1) 156:4
suffered (4) 63:9
29:22 98:10
suffering (1) 98:26
suffers (1) 77:6
suggest (8) 26:9 41:2
50,20 52:13 59:22
85.24 18322 1876
suggested (12) 28:2
29:20 30:20 52:12
62:14 76.19 96:14
93:7 108.14 156:10
183.22 1865
suggesting (5) 262
52:4 67-17 92:14
1643
suggestion (6) 28:14
52:7 68:25 85:11
92:8 93:12
suggests (6) 50:24
92:10 133.22 161:20
185.10 1695
summary (7) 17-20 22:4
35:16 53:4 79:23
97:23 193
summer (2) 103.16
1653
supply (2) 67:3 16922
support (23) 6:23 7:18
10:24,25 11:38
13:17,17 152 18:15
2:13 1327.14
137:13,14.15,16
13825 1393 1456.7
163.9 1843,
supporting (1) 1059
supports (1) 13:23
suppose (1) 19813,
supposed (2) 119.22
126.16
sure (8) 613 73:13
137:9,9 138:9 156:10
378.23 193.21
surplus (2) 159:9 185.25
surprise (1) 193.25
suspect (1) 86:3
suspension (1) 15620
suspensions (3) 65.25
14
sustained (2) 49:25
51:10
sworn (2) 148:14 200.16
symptom (1) 87:7
symptoms (1) 87:6
system (50) 20:23
27:25 20:3 49:15 55:2
60:19,21 70:9 80:2
84:5 85:8 69.17,18,20
95:7 108-23
1058.12.14
1061,3.5,7 1082
115:10,13 121:20
105.7 127-9 134.25
3519 15323
158:4,19,25 1614
166.22 179:12.22
180/3,18,20.21 181.15
183:18,19 187.9
18819 194.15 195,11
systems (5) 84:24 85:2
10845 192.12
systemwide (1) 76:24
‘th (2) 114 54:16
w2() 125
ta (3) 40:6,23 46:11
tab (10) 60:7 88:18
10322 1135 14819
1767.7 190:7 192.22
a93a
‘table (8) 33:11 92:10
145.19 162.19 186.13,
3907.13 19235
tables (2) 164:4 1968
taken (13) 16:4 699
74:13 77.15 102:18,20
10345 1043
1129.20 135:20
16523,
‘takes (1) 111:2
taking (8) 29,19 42.2
475 61:21 84:16
maa 17939
talk (4) 79:4 67:6
aaa 1923
talking (7) 3:7 37:4
68:5 64:21 8623
1669 1974
tank (17) 4:5,10,16,18
49:22 497,18
50:1,410 51:25
62.25 902.39 1163
tas (5) 36:4 39.21
45:20.15.20
task (3) 15:1 193:20
sear
tax (2) 193:16,19
te (28) 39:24 4322
45:5,28 46:6.9,18,23
47.38 507 56:19
75:23 761,2,34 77:23
78:9,10,11 139:19,20
36111 177.7 17943,
12621918
tes (33) 36:3 786
13916 140:20
1414.62 1479
162517715
1791518 18318
10521
18610.11.20,23
3071.67 1685.24
1894,7,10 190,16
1933 19613 197.59
teta (1) 35:24
team (103) 11:6 122
19:7 24:9 30:23 31:3,
34:2 40.15.17 49:7
67:7 783 107771010
3149.16 115:14.16.25
3171 11825 120.22
32211,15,37,20
12420 125:21 1269
1276.15.25 13113,
1323.4 13322
1346.11.12 13510
13713145,17
33619.22
3395,14.22,95 140.28
13a
1506,67.7,9.12,11.24,
351115212,
1531326 157.7.9,10
158:7.18 167-10 168:6
1726 174.15,22,23
177.25 178:36
100:9,12,12,24 164:8
105:21 186:7.9
367:17,18,19.22
108:16,16 192:12
39531
196:12,14,16,23 197.2
teams (15) 155.22
168:1 177:18,22 178:7
179:17,23.25
160:2,4,6,7,10 181:17
191.24
telecom (1) 166:20
telephone (1) 161.14
telephony (2) 8:15
telling (2) 17122 1945
tells (3) 37:3 5522
90:10
ten (7) 12:34 108.23
173:1617,18.18
tend (2) 150.24 165:12
tends (1) 59:22
term (2) 1731.22
termed (1) 975
terminated (1) 116:
terminology (2) 97:3
36214
terms (11) 7:25 6:19
1635 16:20 35:15
Tae 7421 758
93:23 1081 146.28
tesqa (4) 158:16,17
1592 16019
testimony (2) 182:6.21
testing (1) 1635
text (6) 77:24
91.27.17,17 94:13
ova
thank (39) 4:24 5:4
7:39 202 48:15 61:14
80:17 849 85:15
88:12 901 91:5 93:16
945 111.12
1133.4,7,12 1143
13623 136.14 144.23
145.15 147-13 148:15
149:21 1502 171:16
1755,8,13,15 176.19
169:24 197.17,21.23,
1993
thats (148) 1:9 2:22
3:10 6.21723 9:14
3038 11:10 1220.24
132,824 1412.1
1820 215 23:4 24:18
25:20 26.15.20 27:19
28:16 2913.24.25
31-411 32:1 36:12
38.9 39:3,24 40:9
42:38 43.25
443,17,38 45:21
4620 47:14 502,
51:11 5310.12.20
55:4,17 56:20,22
576,15 58:15 60:19
62:18 637 65:14
68:16,17 70:24 71:4
746 759.25 78:9
8021 81:24 83:12
848,19 653.617 898
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/63
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
90.625 92:2 95:1,14
96:7 100:3,4 101.15
1028.9 103:12,19.22
104:4,8,20 106:5
1099.25 111.12
115.7 11726 126.28
125:0 12615 131.16
134.11 1359 13612
13716 140.1 1419.15
14420 147:7 148.12
152.23 15815,16
1554.6 156:6 158.25
161:19.25 162:10.17
167-25 169:3 17224
17319 175:3.5,8
17:0 178:13,20
17916 182.28
1857.35 187:25
1936689 19519
196: 197:26,20
theme (1) 525,
themes (1) 1349
themselves (3) 14:6
708 71:10
theory (1) 37:1
‘hereafter (2) 164:5.18
therefore (12) 20:14
40:22 41:13 43:24
44:4 49:19 51:7 685
101.5 1108 164:14
16924
theres (44) 1:18 33 5:1
9:24 129 17:2 19916
247 32.23 36:21
39:15 45:6 46:3 50:9
52:24 53:24 54:14
62:7 17:6,78,23 63:2
5:11 96:11 97-12
1008 101:16 115:2.20
1202 131:20 135:8.25
139: 148:20 153:23
15819 17818 180.18,
186:10 19:7 192.28,
theyre (4) 2.6 61:1
1317 161.21
theywe (8) 13:10 44:24
12114 1335.25
thing (5) 222 57:21
11528 167.15 1825
thinks (1) 7022
thi (7) 25:2 74:4
92:22 95:15 161:13
1638 19:7
though (7) 322 4114
473 101.17 131.19
13322 16612
thought (7) 56:13 69:6
793 107.21 1547
166:24 198.17
thousands (1) 129:8
three (22) 1:28 3:20
4:30 15:12 16.21.25
18:1 19.23 20:7 71:6
94:14 1125,7.20
11423 1335 146313
149:4,22 153:15,2
168.25
through (30) 7:16
915,17,20,22 10:16
16:19 17:7 33:22 385
39:10 405,25 42:2
52.5,23 55:25 59.11
69:3 71:24 7413
78:0 10119 102411
1067 124:14 135:5
1532 1659 1915
thrust (1) 618
thrusts (1) 6:12
thureday (6) 1:19.22
3:21,24 65:16 705,
thus (2) 155 1022
tickets (1) 163.19
tier (3) 112.69
til (3) 56.12 168:15.26
time (71) 1:13 3:20.28
135 2021 30.28
36:6 48:9 50:23
52.25 56:13 60:13
64:3 65:20 682.3,
73:38 749 752.1013
767,33,1320.22
7733 922 9325
101:12.17 1024
1039.24 105:7
106:10.18,20,22
1071.6 111.25
1122,19,24 120.16
12925 140.14 1475
14916 151,2,10 1525
154.16 15:25
159,9,24,25 160.14
1629 164:21,22.25
1653.16 17824 179.2
1852.3 190.23
Limeframe (1) 3:25
timeouts (1) 64:25
times (4) 24:2 54.16
10635 173:3
timescale (1) 11919
timing (4) 54:28 80:2
111s 1445
timings (1) 48:6,
title (1) 136.20
today (3) 115:10 147.25,
Ferd
todd (1) 121
tofrom (1) 62:4
together (13) 6:24
16:20 22:10,12
30.23.26 68:34
10620 107.7 1349
1782021,
told (29) 2:10 5219.21
57: 58: 61:7 62:9
63:2 74:8,12,20 758
16.23 77.25 92:12
999 101:3,4 109.16
13119 134-7 135:21
1438.19 177.10
81:12 185:17 187313
17a
tomorrow (3) 147.25
197.22 199:3
too (6) 54:22 87:18
105.23 12213 134.23,
15410
took (15) 25:23 44.9
47.6.1 58:20 61:4
63:16 64:1 69:3 755
26:12 1068 12215
1522 161.7
tool (1) 14912
topic (1) 1745
total (6) 26:12 56:5
61:24 62:4 104.21
11622 146517 179.25
totality (1) 422
trace (3) 17:7 40:5
724
tracing (1) 39:10
track (5) 5:21
134:15,24,24 18:20
tracked (1) 8:12
tracks (1) 160.18
traction (1) 126.13
tracy (4) 148:12.14,22
200116,
trading (4) 127.23
121:12,6 124.14
trail (1) 169.10
trainers (1) 11:37
training (7) 6978
150:22,24 151:8,10,12
transact (1) 19312
transacted (2) 63:16
25:7
transaction (120)
48,14 15.10.21,
167.8,23,28 173,
188,19 199,25,
202.15 23:19 24
27:28 286,16 29.25
31:7 93:22,26 36:2.12
386 405 43:6,14,19
4736 4917.18.19
535 551625,
5615,16,21 58:13
62:10:24 67:12
7128.22 7232
£02.4.5.5,9,1,12,15.18
81:2,16,20 2:11.13
83:18,23 8420
858,12 90:13 95:6,13
goo 1102.17.24
112:12.16 117.25
1355,6,8 140.11
14116 1420
143:2,10,16 165.25
146;8,10,18,20
159.236.8912
160%1,25 165:23
166:19 167:8,30
172:19,21 176:22
17817.19 183:418
19018 191:12.14,23
192:15.26 193:12
196.28 197:2
transactional (12) 19:4
#13 14919 152.8
1533 154-19
172:13,15,18.22
1412
transactions (37) 169
175 2523 27°6 29:20
402 541 72:04
738,19 75:6 705.15
79:7 60:1 837.9
8418.24 85:5
965,13,21,24.25
992.3517 13413
151:20 15237,21
173:7 193:3,21,22
transcript (7)
14:16,19,23 29.18
63:11 64:23 103:17
transcripts (1) 125:11
transfer (20) 15:14.15
1610 17:14,15 305,7
suaiieas
32:11,15,15.21 333
347.22 35:7 87.25,
88:4
transferred (5) 21:16,17
25:19 26:14 88:3
transfers (24) 16:8
20:13,19,25 21:4.16
23:20.21,21,22
2512.17 261,12,2
27:75 29,7 34:19
35/1,18 85:20 86.23
trends (3) 160:28,23
1821
trial (10) 0:22 28:3.9
30:21 109:21 15:15
147.3. 177.8 183.21
188118
tried (1) 528
tigger (2) 5720.11
triggered (2) 95:5.7
trouble (2) 12:18,20
true (3) 113.25 149:24
176.6
truth (2) 69:14 161:21
try (1) 17:1 2822
41:25 56:14 68:20
694 122:4 124-1
161:24 168:10 17322
trying (6) 12:12 42:18
59:1 61:8 161:22.25
tuesday (2) 12 100.11
tum (3) 157 72:20
97:20
type (3) 192:22,24
19312
typed (1) 15228
types (2) 15:20 168:12
typical (6) 57:47
588,10 59:20 65:3
typically (1) 178.20
typo (1) 1519
wu (1) 5139
wueb (2) 5:17.20
ultimately (3) 1336
134:18 1352
tunable (1) 96:6
‘unauthorised (1) 164.1
unaware (2) 197:15.16
‘mblock (2) 1313.8
unblocked (4) 131.19
13381217
‘uncontroversial (2)
31:24 100:23
underlying (3) 40:2
194:2 186.14
undemeath (10) 20:7
235 54.18 7345.6
79:21 184:8 156.23
158:12
understand (33) 2.5
8:11 15:20,26 21.20
27:13 34:15 35:14
37:1 409 494 59:18
67,5 84.19 124.12
118.19 1227 124.18
142.25 143.22
149:9.14 152:3 16719
166:19.21 169.16
1736.88 1775
195:11 188.18,
‘understanding (17)
4:10 16:6 35:22 47:22
60:24 81:16 86:24
1026,7.8,9 10410
1535 172.16 1623
185:16 196-22
understood (9) 3:1 17:5
18:19 202 81:19,24
3412:147:11 1904
unexpectedly (1) 113:1
unexplained (3) 3312
59:10 12115
unfortunately (1)
am2a3
unit (47) 15:16.17
18:10 20.28 20:17
24:2 25:13,13,19
267.4
87.14,15.19,21 882
1573
units (4) 20:19 21:4
3420 352
tuokown (1) 32:28
unless (6) 572 632
7820 61:20 121.10
‘otikely (1) 168:6
unpaid (2) 166:35,22
woredacted (1) 5:1
unsure (2) 125:22 151:3,
util (8) 1:18 66:7
75:14 93:21 1231
127.9 154.14 1996
suousual (1) 3:37
update (5) 16.18 3:21
10:5 162.25
updated (3)
198:22,28,28
upheld (1) 1852
upon (1) 104:12
uptake (1) 16216
urgent (2) 198:3,3
used (15) 16:4 65.23,
69:18 97:3 101.17
107.10 1176
149:12,34 151.25
15233 16:4 1738
181.8 1898
useful (6) 11113,
173.24 1755 18120
1961 198.25
ser (18) 24:3,
50:1,4,12,20,24
51:2,22.24 5215
54:23 59:7 77:16 80:3
94:19 149.16 1525
162.7
vers (2) 160:5,12
uses (2) 107:23 151.14
using (9) 28:18
89:12,17 164.20
165:12 1802.34.25
198.20
usual (2) 77 13:9
usually (7) 778 120.12
152112 157.18
369:17,23,24
a
value (10) 20:12
22:15,23,26 23:11
46:23 126:22
178:18,20 189:10
values (1) 18:9
van (20) 5:5,7 18:25
193 47:22 48:13,19
62:17 67:18 793 824
08:21 93:25 94:9
00:11 103-15 105-16
14a 147.25 2005,
variance (2) 17:21 76:4
varies (1) 12015
various (7) 64:12
91:13,22 10617
139,14 176.22 187.17
vary (2) 24:23 25:1
vernells (3) 64:22,23,25
versa (1) 186:2
version (1) 117:19
versions (2) 116:10.13
versus (1) 173:18
via (2) 13:9 161:2
vice (1) 1862
visa (2) 24:19 73:5
visit (3) 160:10,14,16
visited (1) 15814
voice (1) 17:18
volume (6) 8:19.25
180.4,10 190:16
192.22
volumes (4) 89,11
18223 195:13
wait (3) 10:12 150.2
17619
waited (1) 144:5
waiting (2) 10:15
13313
watk (1) 26:19
walkthrough (1) 163°5
waller (1) 12:1
wants (1) 70:24
warmington (5)
96:12,16,16,21 1008
wasnt (26) 18.6
26:17,18,24 338
48:22 5012 514
543,11 59:20 62:16
66:7 88:4 10368
105:22 155.22 164-19
166:24 167-2 161:12
1027 163:3,3,11
1641 1983
way (31) 10:16 14:22
26:8 27:16 30:7 40:21
448.4611
47:3,59,14.15.6
50:26 76:19 77.7
97:9 1087 1108.13
141-14 146-11 155:9
161.19 1728.9
179:4.5 188:7 190.6
ways (3) 11623 1192
115
wed (1) 1266
wednesday (1) 199:6
week (20) 45 35:19
4:8 65:16 74:24
755.7 761624 795
93:23 123:12 1255
126:15,25 1485 1728
198:3.4.18
weekly (1) 123.23
weeks (10) 96:20
1125.7.20
32:13,5,21 1471.2
16914
welcome (2) 135:6
19722
wendy (1) 14822
went (3) 20:4 46:13
1384
werent (13) 22:7.8
27.25 40:22,23 54:12
59.23 63:18 689
1475 155,23 16423,
yeaa
weve (25) 9.9 21:15
2220 24:23 32.4
35:21 38:17,24 415
72:16 7334568
836,6 126:13 152.17
13714 14355 1459
35214 173:18 1901
wien (2) 8:13
whatever (5) 9:21.23
90:25 126.15 161:25
whats (23) €3 24:12
4025 50:10 51:16
74,32 65:4 87:13
90:36 94:25 95:4
30721 17:16 119.22
32613 132.19 15535,7
156:10 156:17 182.9
1916
whereas (1) 46:14
whilst (3) 10:13 108-22
y2919
whitehead (1) 8:1
whole (6) 6:18 23°11
4818 107.25 180:9
195.5
whose (1) 85:¢
widely (1) 77:4
widespread (1) 20:18
williams (1) 12.25
winn (2) 137:22 1381
wise (1) 11:23
(359
wished (1) 98:24
withdrawal (4) 5319
55:24 6012.14
withdrew (1) 64:18
witness (107) 416.19
527:21,22 1101
13:3.14.18 16:22
383 201 21:10,23
226,7 25:8 30:19:22
3122 32:7 33:2.5.11
344,11 36.821 38:6
397,19 46:22
48:10.20 61:17 65:8
676 6815 71:19,21
7325 85:18 941
302312 106:11,16.23
107.1315 108:21,25
118,192
u124.2.21
1135.17.25 1148.22
11510 118:14,19
320.19 127:4 129.14
13020 135:16 138:10
1397.9,21 141:20,22
area 14349
147.1419 148:21
1495.24 150:4 151.25
165.18 167.13
168:19,22 169:2
370.24 171.28 175.22
1763,3,10,15,16.25,
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
203 F
B10.1/6/64
March 19, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004071
POL00004071
Day 6
181:20,25 182:2.9
188:14 189:2 1939
witnesses (1) 4:18
wonder (2) 124:8
urs
wont (6) 6:20 17:17
66:3 103:16 149.9
19524
worden (2) 28.2.6,
(a) 190:12
wording (1) 1176
work (15) 24:10 32:1
36:17 38:18 79:16,17
1128 149:13 150:18
1515 156:8 1565
18224 188:7.8
worked (3) 157.7
15818 161:6
workforce (2) 8:4.5,
working (10) 40:17,17
53:21 54:24 1320
164:19 178:20 13:24
187.13 198.25
works (1) 67:3
worried (1) 75:10
worry (3) 29:22 35:11
1581
worse (1) 131:6
worth (3) 44:3 91:14
y1a3
wouldnt (16) 30:3 47:17
53:11 69:12 70:16
AL1:20 1232 1244.21
1297 133: 15916
160:15 194:3,6 195:22
writes (1) 133.4
writing (1) 120:8
written (5) 91:23,23,
92:4 181:3,18
wrong (24) 27:2.4,14.15
28:11 39:22 40:21
14:8 45:10,21 57.6.7
65:22 78:12 102.25
141.9,10 145.2:
10212,14,15,7
183:10 194:2
wrote (3) 4:13 66:4
195
worder
x (1) 466
year (25) 3:4 626
75:14 88:24 89:2,20
15:15 134:18 135:14
13910 1406 1432
15013 16215,24
164:14,16 165:4
16:2 188.16
190:19,21,22 195.5
years (8) 11:19 63:17
150:14,14 15212
1682 191:15 193:24
yesterday (11) 4:21 58
6:13 7-25 55:23 60:12
7414.23 79:12 84:12
1094
yesterdays (1) 103:17
yet (2) 136-23 19524
young (1) 16214
youre (13) 227 10:13
40:10 48:9 50:2 87:17
9320 100.21 123116,
130:0 153:6 170:5
yourself (8) 36:15 40:13
96:6 144:18 165:12
166:11 1706.12
youve (10) 38:21
392,4.4,7 72:20
100.3 126:1 1346
1854
zero (7) 41:12
42:8,13,22 44:9
476.30
zones (1) 105:10
05114278 (1) 65:15
(093625 (1) 102-1
1 (23) 5:18 64 17:10
22:4 29:18,22 31:11
6613.28 71:25 724
73:5 90.10 91:10
20219 106.2 126:22
126-20 137.11 1388
150:4 1638 20:4
10 (9) 37:25 36:4 40:20
43:24 45:9 46-6,20
478 1274
100 (7) 43:23,
46:6.19,20 52:9 94.6
1865
1000 (6) 44:9 455
46:14,16,23 47.11,
10000 (1) 7:6
102 (1) 159.25
10202 (1) 39:5
1030 (3) 12 1993.6
10331 (1) 39:16
1036 (1) 1024
105876 (1) 190.17
106 (1) 20:6,
1066 (2) 71:25 728
109 (1) 126
10k (1) 67
WOpage (1) 97:25
11 (10) 810 1913.17
66:4 127.14 12819
130.25 136.16 164.14
1697
111 (1) 2009
113 (2) 20.10.11
114 (1) 20013
1145 (1) 48:16
1153 (1) 48:15
1154 (1) 48:18
12 (12) 91:15,24 129.16
135:16 149:10.23
151.24 163.223
17224172
120 (2) 606.8
1213 (1) 73:20
1225 (2) 59.10
1237 (2) 738,28
1282 (1) 739
124374 (1) 190-16
1249 (3) 73:9,19,21
12983 (4) 3769.10
415
13 (6) 45:16 15615
160:10 161.12 1648
wa
131604 (1) 22:21
138217 (1) 31.4
1354 (1) 29:13
137 (1) 164.22
13th (2) 493
14 (6) 29:18 45.19
63:12 1622 1648
yr
140 (2) 69:24 70:3
141 (1) 92:25
142 (1) 73:23
143 (1) 92125
144420 (1) 158.15
145 (2) 200:14.15,
149 (2) 200:16.17
15 (5) 165.16 166.2.16
16:77
150 (10) 78:2 109:10.25
110:6.9,12.28.24
11:1 20018
154 (2) 102:13.15,
16 (8) 64:5 1392022
79.11 198:14,16,
196.25 1974
17 (2) 1655 1687
17000 (1) 6925
171 (2) 4655 200.19
172 (1) 200:20
1749 (1) 141.21
175 (2) 200:21,22
176 (2) 59:21.25
17674 (1) 59:10
177 (1) 200.28
Ann (2) 5969
18 (5) 36:6 41:2 165:10
167:12 1851
16352 (1) 319
10350 (1) 292
104 (2) 7:22.24
11855 (1) 8:17
19 (4) 12 204
170:22,24
190000<d (1) 140.8
194 (1) 200.25,
195 (1) 91:2
19500 (2) 143.6,22
19504 (4) 53:17 56.416
02
ast (1) 25:8
2
2 (16) 5:11 112.69
53:3 9318,21 945
103:23 126:
137:1,2,20 146.1
163:13 16:6
20 (7) 38:21,25 39.2.2
88:19 148:8 199.7
200 (6) 56:13 91:1 94:8
309:14,17,22
2000 (11) 22:21
23:4,5,11 25:12,17
26:1 27:8 1245.16
1334
2003 (1) 155:23
2005 (1) 86:24
2006 (1) 88:25
2010 (3) 547,10 62:20
20102011 (1) 1935,
2011 (5) 49:1 162.15
164:5,18.19
2012 (7) 158:15 160:10
165:10 169:12
190:1,16 191:11
20122013 (1) 190.19
20122013year (1) 190:3
2013 (7) 92:1 15423
160:8 190.2.3.17
2014 (1) 11612
2015 (14) 810,12,21
19:4 22.21 25:18,25
45:9,12,14,19 61:18
89:7 137.9
2016 (3) 45:23 129.23
165:13
201617 (1) 1406
20162017 (1) 143:3,
2017 (1) 196.11
2018 (12) 49 8:10
36:47.13 45523 4655
129:2.21 179:20,
192:14 19425,
2019 (7) 151 18.23,
66:213,24 1366
19:7
21 (4) 203 2817 516
187.12
ist (1) 10423,
22 (1) 135.14
2237 (2) 38:17.17
23 (3) 182.7224 1839
2309 (1) 38:24
24 (6) 155:11,12,18,21
157.14 18912
24139 (1) 186:2
25 (19) 6:7 37-14 38:21
39:47.16.16
4181821 427,72
45:8.23 465 47:8
96:19 100:12
25plus (1) 41:16
25s (9) 37:16,17.19
41:58, 15,20 42:13
443
26052016 (1) 70.5
263 (1) 29:18
26th (1) 2538
27 (3) 136.6 1625
196:3,
2717 (1) 1936
28 (1) 547
28890 (1) 225
2890 (1) 142.20
29 (1) e44
3 (10) 62 26.13 38:3
56:1 101:8 113:15,22
1383 141.23 169:14
30 (7) 810.21 11:13
61:16 92:1 160:8
1891
310 (1) 1489
3100 (4) 72:9,30,10
75:8
320 (1) 148.21
32072 (4) 24:18
33327 (1) 383
334 (1) 68:20
3478 (2) 22:20 25:4
35341 (6) 37:25
38:12,19,25 39:4.10
384k (1) 156.25
3968 (4) 143:1,10
146:16,19
3rd (1) 25:8
4 (16) 5:21,18 18:23
20.21 23:49 2517
32:24 3816.17 66:2
92:16 1009 11413
162.18 1746
40 (1) 185:11,
4000 (2) 143.628
40170 (4) 72:14,16,21
naa
40173 (2) 7219.21
4174 (1) 186.21
422) 7321
429 (1) 735
436 (1) 199:5
4449 (1) 72:23
450 (1) 1573
48 (2) 458.8
4910 (1) 244
492 (1) 542
5 (6) 38:3 45:10 77:23
139.24 14229 183.9
2005.6
50 (26) 68
41:9,12,13,19,21,28
4ona.aa
43:2.4,7,9.14,15,17.
46:9,11.18 478.8
110: 144:7
500 (13) 43.24
44:3.8.10,12.16 45:1
46:13,15.15,22
47,0
5000 (5) 124:1,2,22.23
125.1
5175 (1) 10216,
53 (1) 49:13
537003 (2) 93:1 9418
537805 (2) 93:4 94:20
5073 (1) 383
549 (1) 165:21
56 (1) 45:14
56134 (1) 32.14
87 (1) 45:19
Sth (1) 25:18
6 (6) 59:4 96:17 99:23
10419 142.24 188.13,
60 (2) 66 15021
6046 (1) 39:3
61 (1) 1544
611 (1) 393
62 (1) 658
6213 (1) 39.6
6276 (1) 305
6277 (3) 30:7 31:91
63 (1) 65:16
655 (2) 36:10.21
66 (1) 67:19
666 (1) 109:3
680 (1) 185:10
7 (13) 66:7 74:10 75:21
97.14.19 11422
21679 1175 11816
ui9:10 127:10 176:3,
70 (1) 93:
04 (1) 76.11
712) 71:21 933
72 (2) 45:23 73:25,
720 (1) 1572
7609 (1) 165.23,
77 (1) 48:20
7 (1) 61:17
79 (1) 2007
8 (9) 18:24 96.28
103.22 106-9 116:7
141.21 148-19 151-14
181.23
80 (1) 103116
a1 (3) 116:9 118.15
ran
‘810 (4) 199:17,17
ao1a7ay
‘81000 (1) 18:10
‘810000 (1) 189:
94 (1) 80:3
4217 (1) 1908
8528 (1) 32:8
8534 (2) 32.19.19
854 (1) 38:24
87 (1) 49:12
‘87000 (1) 191.13
AB (1) 31.20
9 (12) 39:37:11
101:20,23 103:24
115: 120.20 135:15
1367 151.18 169:12
17519
90 (11) 15:8 182
19:1,3,18 20:6 263
1547.9 160:13,17
912 (5) 257.25 26.4.5
2ra4
‘913 (2) 26:10 27-9
‘915 (1) 396
95 (1) 69
9516 (1) 78:1
198 (2) 19:10 35:24
99 (1) 52.9
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opus2.com
020:
30
B10.1/6/65