POL00004074
POL00004074
OPUS 2
INTERNATIONAL
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
Day 4
March 14, 2019
Opus 2 International - Official Court Reporters
Website: https: //www.opus2.com
B10.1/4/1
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 ‘Thursday, 14 March 2019
2 (10.30 am)
3 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Iam not going to deal with this now but
4 just to ask you both to remind me, at the end of the day
5 can you remind me to deal with 8 and 9 May.
6 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes.
7 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Ihave written a note for myself so
8 I should
9 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Between us I'm sure we will
10 MR RICHARD ROLL (continued)
11 Cross-examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON (continued)
12 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Mr Roll, justa brief recap on whatwe
13 were discussing yesterday. In your various witness
14 statements you use the phrase "software errors” and just
15 so that I can confirm my own understanding, when you say
16 “software errors” you don’t mean coding errors, you mean
17 a much wider category of errors, including data
18 problems, yes?
19 A. Generally, yes, including coding errors as well though.
20 Q. Butsometimes you use the phrase -- perhaps it is unfair
21 of meto ask it, but sometimes when you say "software
22 errors” you actually mean data problems in the context
23 in which you use it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. But given that I'm not putting anything to you, I will
1
1 take that as read
2 And when you say data errors or data problems you
3 generally mean operational type data, don't you? You
4 don't mean things like configuration data, things like
5 that?
6 A. I generally mean the data that’s been written to the
7 message store, so transaction data.
8 Q. Well, yousay -- if I maysayso, generally speaking
9 transaction data -- well, let_me ask you actually.
10 Let's agree some terminology so that we don't get
ii confused going forward. Could I go to the defendant's
12 witness statement bundles to tab 14 please (E2/14).
13 Paragraph 3, Mr Roll, perhaps you could briefly read it
14 I'mnot interested in the first sentence, it is the rest
15 of the paragraph.
16 A. This is MrGodeseth’s statement, yes.
17 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Which paragraph, sorry?
18 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Paragraph 3, my Lord.
19 When you get to the end perhaps we could ask and
20 then the page can be turned for you.
21 (Pause).
22 A. Canyouturn the page please, yes. {E2/14/2}
23 (Pause).
24 So, sorry, what was your question again?
25 Q. So if you go back to page 1 you see that Mr Godeseth is
2
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OIAUORYNE
©
a1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>
2
>
CoPOoP o>
drawing a distinction between transaction data on the
one hand and data in the background, operational parts
of Horizon on the other. Are you aware of that
distinction , does that have any resonance for you?
1 was -
It does. in my mindit is very similar. The
data that postmasters -- that’s going into the message
store when you are doing a transaction, how it is
replicated up to the server and then how it is
processed, that’s the sort of information I was talking
about.
But when you talk about data corruption often you're
talking about things like for examplea bit being a zero
instead of a 1 -
Yes.
-- you described that in your witness statement. That's
not transaction data of that sort, is it, it’s different
kinds of data?
It could be transaction data that’s been corrupted.
I will take you to the relevant passage of your witness
statement later but for present purposes can we please
agree that when I say transaction data I meana record
of a transaction undertaken in a branch, or a branch
activity that causes a change in the branch's cash or
stock, 1 don’t mean the wider collection of data, for
example all sorts of data have fields that are allocated
3
to all sorts of tables throughout the database, correct?
Right, yes
‘That kind of data, even if it is attached, if it’s
relevant to a transaction, that kind of data isn’t seen
by the subpostmaster, is it?
No.
And it won't affect his branch accounts at all, will it?
I don't know.
Well, often it won't.
Often it won't.
Do you know that often it won't?
It is to do with things like harvesting. That data will
be harvested by the system for other purposes?
Yes.
For example to monitor what transactions are being done,
what products are being sold by Post Office, that kind
of -- and many many other things. You do recognise
that?
Yes.
So that kind of data, which I think you may previously
have been referring to as transaction data, that’s not
what! mean when I say transaction data, I mean data
relating to transactions that actually has an impact
that the postmaster sees in his branch accounts?
Right.
Okay, thank you.
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts
024
GRO.
B10.1/4/2
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
wyAnRone
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And are you going to adopta similarly
precise term for the other sort of --
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Yes, I'm going to call that
operational data
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So, Mr Roll, just so we're all using the
same terms and we all understand --
A. 1 will try and stick to
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Do you now understand the
differentiation as far as today is concerned?
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: There's transaction data and operational
data, is that --
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes. I'm sure there are
better terms but those are the terms I’m going to use.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Now, having established points of
nomenclature, could I ask you, MrRoll, to go to your
It is E1, tab 10and it is
paragraph 14 of that witness statement which starts at
page 9 {E1/10/9}. You have it in hard copy I think with
you, It may be more easy to use that.
Now, what I'm interested in is some ~ 1 will let
you find it. You will see that it is under the heading
“Transaction corrections and patterns of software
second witness statement.
errors”, so in this section you are talking about TCs
5
and software errors and paragraph 14 you then start
talking about software errors and what I’m interested in
is the text that’s in red over the page at page 10
{E1/10/10}.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Which I don’t think will come up on the
common sereen but it doesn’t matter because you are
using the hard copy. Have you got your amended one,
Mr Roll? Have you got your amended one with the red
text?
A. Yes I have mine.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Now, I only saw this shortly before
you started giving evidence yesterday -- well, I saw it
shortly before court sat at 10.30 yesterday morning.
The first thing I would like to ask you is why was this
text added to your witness statement here?
‘A. [was trying to clarify something that had come to mind
after re-reading this a few days ago. It is possible
that if a postmaster is doing a transaction and as he
between pressing “enter” and the data being written
there could be a corruption or an error that would cause
that data to change.
Q. And why did you include it in this particular paragraph?
A. [had specifically said “bugs” before that, in the line
above it, and 1 wanted to clarify that there were other
things that could have caused problems,
6
eIAHkYOnE
22
23
24
25
Q. Oh, so you're not talking about bugs here, you're
talking about other causes?
A. Yes.
And you say:
“As well as being caused by bugs, software errors
could also be caused by data corruption *
Stopping there, when you say “software errors” -
Transaction data errors.
you mean data errors?
Yes.
Corpor
So when you say “data errors could also be caused by
data corruption”, is that circular, or are you -- could
you explain whatyou mean? It looks like you are saying
data corruption could be caused by data corruption
A. Sorry, I see what you mean,
Q. — and I would like to give you the opportunity to
explain what you mean?
A. There could be some corruption of data at that point
that might cause the postmaster to -- for the account to
say he has a certain amount of money perhaps that he may
not have
Q. Youare talking about hardware errors causing data
corruption, aren’t you?
A. It needn't necessarily be the hardware that caused the
problem, it could be the software that’s become corrupt,
7
the transaction
Q. Well you have just told me you weren't talking about
software bugs, you were talking about --
A. No, sorry, the transaction data could be corrupt at that
point
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Just pausing there, you said software
Just one of those spurious things that happens.
bugs, I think yesterday we worked out that’s coding.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Coding.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can we keep to that.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: So you're not saying these kind of
things are caused by coding?
A. Sometimesit is caused by coding bug, or it could be
a potential bug, other times it could have been
something else. It could just be data corruption that
just happened at the moment.
Q. I'm struggling to understand this, Mr Roll, because you
say “as well as being caused by bugs” and you just told
me about a minute ago that you put this in here because
you were distinguishing between issues that are caused
by bugs and issues that are caused by other things. Now
you are saying these things are caused by bugs after
all. Which is it?
A. Sorry, what I'm trying to say in this added bit is it’s
not caused by bugs, it’s data that has become corrupted
at a specific moment in time just because it has become
8
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/4/3
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 corrupted.
2 Q. AndI'm suggesting to you, Mr Roll, that in that
3 scenario it will generally be because of some hardware
4 error in the counter in which the transaction is being
5 entered. Would you accept that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Well, let's proceed. You then sa
8 “If the corruption happened just as a transaction
9 was being written to disc, it could have altered the
10 value of a transaction and the subpostmaster may not
11 have realised ”
12 So what you are suggesting is the subpostmaster
13 types in a number on the screen and actually the number
14 that comes up is different from the number thar he or
15 she has typed?
16 A. No, the number thathe or she has typed would be
17 correct, but in-between pressing the “enter” key and it
18 going off you've got milliseconds between it going
19 between there and being written to the disc. If the
20 data corruption occurs in that instant
21 Q. I see.
22 You then say:
23 “This would not be detected by the system as there
24 would not be a mismatch in the figures ”
25 Is that your evidence?
9
1 A. That's what I’m suggesting there, yes
2 Q. Well, could I suggest to you, Mr Roll, that where that
3 happens there are cyclic redundancy checks being
4 constantly done which check to see whether the amount
5 typed in is the sameas the amount that goes into the
6 system. It is something that's continually done within
7 the Horizon system, isn’t it?
8 A. Youare probably right there.
9 Q It is doneat both levels. We're talking about
10 Legacy Horizon. It is done at the Riposte level which
11 operates the message store, as it were, and it is done
12 at the operating system level, the NT which operates
13 sorry, the NT, the Windows that operates the counter
14 itself. There are cyclic redundancy checks that are
15 applied as these processes are being done at both of
16 those levels, aren't there?
17 A. I don't remember that precise detail
18 Q. ButI suggest to you that that is the case and are you
19 in a position to dispute that?
20 A. I'mnotin a position to dispute that, no.
21 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Are you saying six on Legacy Horizon?
22 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I'm talking about Legacy Horizon, the
23 counters that were used in branch at that time and
24 your Lordship will remember that
25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: No, you don't need to go into any more
10
explanation, I just wanted to check
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: And those checks will automatically
and immediately tell if there is a difference between
what the application is attempting to write, what's
actually being typed in, and whatis actually being
written into the system; that’s right, isn’t it?
A. Usually, yes
I would suggest to you, Mr Roll, it always happens, it's
a constant feature of the Legacy Horizon system. It’s
one of the fundamental consistency checks that is always
applied in the operation of the system. Do you accept
that?
A. I accept that’s how it is supposed to work, yes. I’m
still not sure that it would be 100%, but
Q. Well, let me ask you about your experience. In your
44 months at the SSC did you ever encounter a situation
where a cyclic redundancy check missed an error of this
sort?
A. I can’t remember that.
I suggest to you didn’t, Mr Roll.
Could I also ask you whether you were ever aware of
this -- in your experience you ever actually saw this
problem happening with a subpostmaster?
A. I don’t think I did, no.
You said
I don’t think I did
You don’t think you did?
No.
oreor
So what you're saying in red text here in paragraph 14,
it’s really largely a -- andI don’t mean to be rude
whenIsay this —- it’s an armchair theoretical exercise
that you are discussing, it’s not something that
actually reflected your experience when working at the
SSC, is it?
A. No, it was something I was thinking of hypothetically
I'm grateful
Then just to complete this point -- and this may be
beyond your experience because it appears that you
didn’t actually see any of this happening while you were
there, but just to complete, would you accept that if
and when the cyclic redundancy check spotted there was
the mismatch of figures being typed in and figures going
into the system, as well as sending an event straight
away to the SSC which would be picked up by the SSC’s
automatic systems, it would also prevent the counter
actually undertaking the transaction
that?
AL Yes:
Q. I'm grateful.
Do you accept
Now, I would like to go to paragraph 8 of
your first witess statement please and that’s at
12
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/4/4
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(£1/7/2}. I would like to pick it up at the third
sentence where you say:
“Any errors made by subpostmasters would be
relatively easy to identify, and would normally be
picked up by 1st or 2nd line support. If an error was
referred to us then it was extremely unlikely to be due
to a mistake made by a postmaster ...”
Do you see that?
AL Yes
Q. Having read that could we then move please to what
Mr Parker says about this and I would like to go to
bundle E2, tab 11 and it is at page 6 {E2/11/6) and it
is the text just underneath the numbered
paragraph 26.1.3. Mr Parker says
“If a branch required assistance to attempt to
determine the cause of a discrepancy they would contact
NBSC in the first instance. Discrepancies are not
unusual in a retail system.”
I imagine you would accept that, Mr Roll.
“They indicate a difference between the operator's
declaration of cash and stock on hand and the system's
calculation and as such are a business operation issue.
However ...”
He says and this is the point I’m going to ask you
about:
13
".. itt was not always possible for NBSC to identify
the cause of a diserepancy. For example, a user may
enter a deposit of £100 into a customer's bank account
on Horizon but rather than taking £100 from the
customer, they may make a mistake and give the customer
£100as if it had beena withdrawal, In that scenario,
NBSC would not have been able to identify the cause of
a discrepancy. Clearly, NBSCis also unable to assist
when losses have been caused by theft”
Now, do you accept what Mr Parker says in the
paragraph I have just read out?
AL Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: NBSC is the helpline, isn't it?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes. It's the first line
of support.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And is that Fujitsu or Post Office?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: The NBSC is run by Post Office. It
then goes through to the second line
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson, I just wanted to
check that
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Because in other statements it is
referred to as the helpline
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, it is sometimes referred to
as the helpline. It is confusing because there is the
1 just wanted —
14
eIAHkYOnE
HSD as well as the NBSC and they are both elements of
the first line of support.
So where you say, Mr Roll, in paragraph 8 of your
statement that any errors made by subpostmasters would
be easy to identify and would normally be picked up,
that’s not right, is it? Thereare all sorts of errors
that are made by the postmaster that will not be picked
up. Would you accept that?
From my memory of when we were working there, no, but
from reading this... yes.
You would accept that. So, for example, if an irate
subpostmaster phones into the NBSC and says “These
figures aren't right, there’s a glitch in the system,
there’s a glitch in the system”, keeps insisting there’s
a glitch, it would not be easy -- in fact in many cases
it would beimpossible for the first or the second line
of support to say categorically “That's definitely
a user error” and close the matter down. In that kind
of situation wouldn't what would happen be that the
second line of support would refer on to SSC for
investigation ; do you accept that?
Yes
‘Then I would like to go back to your witness
statement -- it is quicker to do it in hard copy,
Mr Roll -- paragraph 10 of your first witness statement
15
{E1/7/2} you must have in front of you. You say, second
sentence -- so we havea problem like that, it gets
passed to the SSC and I think you would accept that the
SSC would always investigate to see if it could be
attributed to a bug or other fault within Horizon
Yes.
yes? So you then say:
“If we were unable to find the cause of the
discrepancy then this was reported up the chain and it
‘was assumed that the postmaster was to blame.”
‘That's your claim. 1 would like now to compare it
to what Mr Parker says about this. It is in his first
witness statement again, this time at page 13
{E2/11/13}. Paragraph 46, Mr Parker says:
“In paragraph 14 Mr Roll states, "I would reiterate
that the main recurring issues were software issues °
It is a symptom of working within a software support
team that the majority of issues that come in have been
attributed to a software issue by, for example, a lower
line of support. This can lead to a mindset of ‘look at
all these Horizon errors’ but what this indicates to me
is that the previous levels of supportare functioning
correctly, removing the majority of other causes
(user/hardware problems). It does not indicate that the
majority of Horizon errors could be attributed to
16
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/4/5
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 software” 1 that’s available to Fujitsu, and they would work very
2 By “software” he means coding, Would you accept 2 carefully through to try and see whether there's
3 that, Mr Roll? 3 a credible explanation that’s based upon a coding bug or
4 AL Yes. 4 some other systemic problem with Horizon, yes?
5 Q. Thankyou. And then if we could move on over the page 5 A. Usually.
6 to page 14, paragraph 49 (E2/11/14}, he says: 6 Usually.
7 “Mr Roll further states that if SSC was ‘unable to ‘7A. There were instances which I can’t remember but I know
8 find the cause of the discrepancy then this was reported 8 that at the time I felt uncomfortable with what was.
9 up the chain and it was assumed that the postmaster was 9 going on because of the pressure that was put on us to
10 to blame’ (paragraph 10). That is not my experience: it 10 find -- to either find a problem or to say that we
11 is a simple truth of support that the majority of issues 11 couldn't find a problem. So there were time constraints
12 reported in the system are attributable to user action 12 and we weren't given -- this is my recollection, but
13 or user misunderstanding much system functionality” 13 I can’t give you specific details. And this is why
14 Stopping there, Mr Roll, would you accept that? 14 Q So
15 A. I would accept that -- andas he says, those issues 15 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Can you just let him finish
16 would have been picked up at first or second line 16 A. This is why! first spoke to people about this, because
17 support. The way] remember itis that we were dealing 17 there are instances that I remember being unhappy with
18 with issues not necessarily the majority of issues 18 it.
19 caused by the user, but that’s howI remember it. 19 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: But you can’t give any specifics
20 Q. I think I’m seeking to suggest to you, Mr Roll, that as 20 A. No.
21 a matter of just common sense the majority of issues 21 Q ~ andwecan't look at the documents to see what you
22 reported in a system, whether it goes to first, second 22 are talking about?
23 or third line of support, the majority of issues 23 A. No.
24 reported in the system are attributable to user action 24 Q. And it’s not that -. I think we discussed this
25 or user misunderstanding of system functionality? 25 yesterday. You are not suggesting that there was any
17 19
1 AL Yes. 1 pressure put upon you to put it down to human error,
2 Q. Asa matter of common sense you would accept that? 2 it’s simply that you are saying that not enough time was
3 AL Yes. 3 given to do the job to your satisfaction , is that right?
4 Q. So “Hence”, Mr Parker says: 4 A. Yes.
5 *.. someone working in a support environment 5 Q I challenge that, MrRoll. I formally suggest to you
6 analysing a new issue would examine the possibilities of 6 that that didn’t happen.
7 user error as a first hypothesis but any final 7 A. All I can say is that is howI remember feeling, but it
8 conclusion is only generated based on the evidence. 8 wasa long time ago.
9 Where the evidence does not support a conclusion that 9 Q. But fromthe SSC’s perspective your job was to
10 there's a problem with Horizon, the SSC feeds the 10 investigate a problemas thoroughly as it needed to be
a1 existent factual data back to Post Office and might say 11 investigated?
12 something along the lines of ‘all indications are that 12 A. Ourjob in the team; it wasn’t always me who was doing
13 the branch has made a mistake’ but Fujitsu neither 13 the work that I was worried about.
14 attributes ‘blame’ or agrees the final conclusion 14 Q. Well, quite often it was -- looking for these kind of
15 What I would like to suggest to you, Mr Roll, is 15 problems, quite often it was someone more senior in the
16 that when a problem was, when you were there, reported 16 team that was looking at these kinds of problems.
17 into the third line of support and the problem would 17 A. Yes
18 then be allocated to a member of the SSC, that SSC 18 isn’t it? And you can’t speak to the amount of
19 member would look for ways in which the symptom that’s 19 pressure that they were under, can you?
20 complained about could be attributed to a coding error 20 A. Notfrom direct memory, no. It’s just, as I said, the
21 or other problem within Horizon; that’s right, isn’t it? 21 impression I took away with me.
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. So you would accept, wouldn't you, that everyone in the
23 Q. And they worked quite hard to try and figure -- they 23 SSC including you did a professional, rigorous and
24 would look at all the data, the system log, the event 24 thorough job?
25 log, transaction data; all the data, vast array of data 25 A. Wetried to, yes.
18
20
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/4/6
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 Q. If wecould go to your second witness statement please
2 now which is at E1, tab 10 and 1 would like to ask you
3 about paragraph 14 {E1/10/4}. You say:
4 "I do not believe that it is realistic to say that
5 all. software errors would have been picked up by the
6 processes which were in place, or that the likelihood of
7 software errors staying disguised as human errors was
8 very small ... I believe there were likely many cases
9 where subpostmasters would have been held responsible
10 for problems which had not at the time been identified
at as software errors, either because they could not
12 identify the problem and did not pursue these with
13 Post Office or Fujitsu, or because when they were raised
14 we ... were ultimately unable to identify the problem at
15 the time”
16 Now, I would like to ask you about your belief that
17 there were” likely many cases”. Mr Roll, that’s
18 speculation, isn’t it, that’s not a statement of fact?
19 A. Thatis how! felt, yes, that’s
20 Q. You felt it? Whatwas the basis of your feeling?
21 A. Going back to whatI have said a moment ago about
22 feeling that at times we were under pressure and we
23 couldn’t do the job properly.
24 Q. Howoften-- do youhavea recollection as to how often
25 you were under pressure?
21
1 A. No.
2 Q. Mysense of the evidence you have given -- and I want to
3 tell you this so that youcan tell me whether you agree
4 or not - is that it didn’t happen very often?
5 A. Notvery often, no.
6 Q. Okay. So can you say how many times
7A. No.
8 Q. -- youhada sense when faced witha problem that it was
9 likely to be a bug but you hadn't
10 A. I wouldn't be able to say.
11° Q. Youcouldn’t say how many times -
12. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Keep your voice up, Mr Roll
13 A. Sorry. I have no idea
14 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Itis just your language. You say
15 “I believe” -- that’s your present state of mind --
16 “there were likely many cases where subpostmasters would
17 have been held responsible for problems which had not at
18 the time been identified ". How can you say "many"?
19 When I ask you about the problem you say it is because
20 “Sometimes I was busy and wasn't given enough time to
21 investigate". You very fairly say -- although you
22 cannot be categorical, youcan’t identify particular
23 incidences but you don’t believe that happened very
24 often
25 A. First of all
22
On that basis how can you say that you believe there
were likely many cases where it happened?
First of all, it wasn’t necessarily me that was busy, it
‘was comments from other people in the team about how
busy they were trying to find a solution and I heard
that infrequently, but that led me to the belief --
that’s the way! think I feel it, that if I was aware of
a few then there must have been more. So it's
speculation, yes.
You accept that it is speculation. Youare talking
about something that happened between 15 and
19 years ago
18 years ago. It would be fair to say, wouldn't it,
that your recollection is very hazy about these kind of
things?
Certainly some of it, yes
Would you accept that your recollection of this kind of
thing is hazy?
It is quite hazy, but the feeling persists that
sometimes things could have slipped through.
Sometimes things could have slipped through. One last
question before I move on, When you were under time
pressure and you didn’t feel that you were being given
as long as you needed to do your job, is it that you
were given ten minutesand told to do something else, or
23
is it that you needed four hours and that you were only
given three? I would like a sense of what you mean when
you say that you didn’t have the time that you wanted?
You might have had eight or ten hours. From my
recollection -- I maybe getting different things mixed
up here, but we had so many days to come to
a resolution, to resolve a problem, so if we didn't get
the problem for a couple of days then our window had
closed. It was shorter than it should have been.
And did you communicate concerns about this to anyone
else -- to Mr Peach, your superior?
I believe that was -- it was mentioned at times, yes.
You mentioned it to Mr Peach. And did you mention it to
Mr Parker?
I don’t think so, no. Mr Peach was the manager.
But Mr Parker was your deputy manager, wasn’t he? He
had authority over you, didn’t he?
T never saw it as that, no.
So it’s not something you discussed with Mr Parker, it's
just something you discussed with Mr Peach who isn't
giving evidence, is that right?
Yes.
I see.
Then there’s one phrase I would like to ask you
about. It is where you say:
24
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/4/7
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
“I believe there were likely many cases where
subpostmasters would have been held responsible for
problems which ... we (Fujitsu) were ultimately unable
to identify the problem at the time.”
Are you suggesting that problems reported to the SSC
would not be resolved at that time, but then at some
later time when a further problem arose it would then be
identified ?
wyAnRone
Are you suggesting -
9 A. T wasn’t trying to suggest that, no.
10 Q. It is just your use of the words “at the time”?
11 = A. I'msorry, that is misleading, yes.
12 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I'm sorry, Mr De Garr Robinson, I have
13 lost where - the passage you were asking about.
14 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Iris the sentence beginning
15 “I believe there were likely many cases”
16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Can you maybe give mea paragraph and
17 page number?
18 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Paragraph 14 of Mr Roll’s second
19 statement.
20 MRJUSTICE FRASER: It is just the screen had moved, that
21 was all, So weare still on paragraph 14,
22 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Well, the sentence starts on page 4
23 and then goes over to page 5.
24 So you are not suggesting that you are aware of
25 a problem that was identified at some later stage but
25
1 manifested itself at some earlier stage and was not
2 corrected at that stage and therefore was left there,
3 you're not suggesting that that happened in your
4 knowledge?
5 A. Sorry, could you say that again.
6 Q. I'mnot being very clear, I'm so sorry.
7 I’m trying to investigate with you whether you are
8 seeking to allude to the following scenario and
9 I suspect that you are not, so I will be quick. At time
10 T zero someone phones in with a problem, gets through
a. the two lines of support, gets through to the SSC, it is
12 investigated. The investigator tries very hard to find
13 a coding problem or some other problem in Horizon that’s
14 responsible for it, can’t, puts it to one side, closes
15 it down and then the problem reappears through some
16 other postmaster at some later stage, gets through the
17 first and second lines of support, gets to the SSC and
18 a coding problem is then identified , but that leaves the
19 poor first subpostmaster in the cold. I was just
20 seeking to investigate with you whether you are seeking
21 to suggest in that sentence that that ever happened?
22 A. No.
23 Q. I'mgrateful. Because the truth is that in that kind of
24 scenario, when the second problem is identified and the
25 root cause determined then all occasions on which this
26
eIAHkYOnE
problem has manifested itself in the past would then be
investigated and identified , would they not?
A. Yes.
So in that scenario information would be provided to
Post Office to allow the earlier subpostmaster to be
made whole I don’t know if I'mallowed to use that
expression, my Lord,
A. Yes, I would ~
Thank you. Then I would like to go to Mr Parker's
second witness statement now please, which is (E2/12/5).
1 would like to ask you about paragraph 15 of
Mr Parker's witness statement which is about recovery
processes. He says:
*Mr Roll states that ‘Fujitsu's stance was generally
that if there was a problem with transactions following
a recovery process and if SSC could not identify the
cause, then the problem must have been caused by the
subpostmaster not following the recovery process
properly
‘And then Mr Parker says:
*I agree that if Fujitsu was unable to identify the
cause of a discrepancy that was said to relate to
a recovery issue, having investigated the matter, the
likely conclusion would be that the discrepancy
(if there was one following the recovery process) was
27
probably the result of human error. The key point
here ..”
And this is whatI'm seeking to discuss with you,
Mr Roll.
“The key point here is that the SSC would thoroughly
review all of the available evidence. I am confident
that if there had beena software issue in relation to
the recovery process, the SSC would have identified it
or in the very unlikely case that we could not determine
root cause, would have at least documented its
symptoms.”
Full stop. Would you accept that, Mr Roll?
A. Yes, if we couldn't determine the root cause then it
would have been documented. But I should say, if we
couldn't determine the root cause then that would have
been passed on to the Post Office and the assumption
would have been that the postmaster had made a mistake.
Q. I would like to suggest to you that Mr Parker here is
saying that if there had beena software issue -- he
means coding issue
MR JUSTICE FRASER: That means coding, does it, there?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I believe so.
if there had been a [coding issue] in relation
to the recovery process, the SSC would have identified
it
28
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/4/8
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 Stopping there, do you accept that?
2 A. No.
3 Q._ And why do you not accept that?
4A. We may have passed it -- if we may have suspected --
5 sometimes it would have been identified as a coding
6 issue, Sometimes if we couldn't identify it and
7 suspected it as a potential one, it would have gone to
8 development. But we may not have detected the software
9 issue -- the coding issues ourselves.
10 Q He goes onto say:
at *.. in the very unlikely case that we could not
12 determine root cause
13 Would you accept that the situation you have just
14 described would bea very unlikely one?
15 A. Terminology! suppose. Unlikely
16 Q Very unlikely, Mr Roll
17 A. I wouldn't agree with that
18 Q But you would agree unlikely?
19 A. Unlikely, yes.
20 Q. Thenhe says:
21 *.. [we] would have at least documented its
22 symptoms.”
23 Would you agree with that?
24 A. They would have been recorded.
25 Q. They would be recorded in a what, in a KEL?
29
1A. I don’t know.
2 Q. Ina PEAK?
3. A. Lean’t remember.
4 Q. The system would maintain knowledge of the symptoms and
5 would be aware of or would be looking out for any
6 recurrences?
7 Yes.
8 Q. Andyou said I think that this would then be passed on
9 to the fourth line of support, is that right?
10 A. Frommy recollection of it, yes.
11 Q Andwhat would the fourth line support then do with it?
12 A. I think they would look at the code and see if they
13 could find a problem with it
14 Q. Soin mostcases, save in the unlikely case, the third
15 line of support would have spotted the problem. If they
16 didn’t spot the problem they would document the symptoms
17 so that the system would be alive to the possibility of
18 recurrences and at the same time they would pass the
19 problem over to fourth line support who would give the
20 problem an even more thorough investigation, is that
21 right?
22 A. Usually, except if we were under pressure, as I said
23 before -
24 Q. Well, if you were under pressure, Mr
25 A. ~ to provide an answer to our manager who was probably
30
eIAHkYOnE
oPreor
under pressure himself to provide an answer to
It is very hard to discuss the pressure you were under,
Mr Roll, because you are talking in such generalities
I'm sorry.
I don't criticise you for that because it is a long time
ago, you are doing what you can do. But can I suggest
to you that in circumstances where there's a problem
that’s been encountered and it is suspected that it may
be the result of some kind of bug or other problem in
Horizon, the matter is not going to be closed by anyone
at the SSC. One way or another, either at third line or
at fourth line, the people are going to keep going until
the suspicion has been fully exhausted; would you accept
that?
No. If we couldn't find a problem, then it may have
been closed. The information could have been passed
back to Post Office saying "We can’t find any problems”
and from then on it would have been -- I assume it would
have been put down as a postmaster’s error or whatever.
So you don’t know what it would have been put down as in
relation to the postmaster?
No.
What I'm asking you is not just about the situation
where you haven't been able to attribute a problem to
a coding issue or some other problem in Horizon. You
31
try and attribute and you fail, If you had been given
proper time, which I think you say happened in most
cases, then you would be satisfied that it wouldn't be
the result of a coding problem or some other problem in
Horizon, is that right?
Yes.
But you say sometimes -- not very often, but sometimes
you didn’t get the chance to spend as much time on it as
you would have liked; is that what you are saying?
Yes.
I have already challenged you on that evidence, But
here is my suggestion to you, Mr Roll. In circumstances
where having got as far as you've got you actually
suspect that a coding issue or some other problem in
Horizon is responsible, you would not stop, you would
not close down the PEAK
No, you would pass it on.
You would, wouldn't you?
Yes.
So in any case where you have a lingering suspicion that
there’s a problem in Horizon of some sort causing this
symptom, you would never close it down but you would
always pass
If you thought it wasa coding issue, yes.
it on for further investigation?
If you suspected it was a coding issue?
32
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@opu ~
0203 0(B10.1/4/9
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
>
oProp
Yes.
Or other problem in Horizon?
I'm not sure whether we would have closed some of them
down or not at that point
What, with other problems? Why would other problems in
Horizon be dealt with differently ?
Some of the areas we hada lot of control over -
I don't really know how to explain this, I can't really
remember much about it, but there were times when we
couldn't find a problem with the message store and the
data —- it was passed back to the Post Office as closed
because we couldn't find any supporting evidence for
what the postmaster was saying
Yes. But how does that answer my question?
I think I’m getting side-tracked here, I’m sorry,
My suggestion to you is that on any occasion when you or
anyone else at the SSC hada lingering suspicion that
a problem that had been identified -
Yes.
was the result of the Horizon system
If we hada suspicion then it would be passed on.
~~ it would absolutely not be closed down and blamed on
the subpostmaster, would it?
No.
Thank you. But however, if having done your
33
investigation and having formed the view that you don’t
have a suspicion of a problem in Horizon, does the last
sentence of paragraph 15 of Mr Parker's statement
{E2/12/6} apply? He says:
“Having conducted a careful investigation which did
not reveal any software issues, human error would be by
far the most likely explanation”
Would you accept that as a matter of common sense?
I need to backtrack a bit here because sometimes, going
back to the pressure, we would not suspect a software
coding issue, a bug, a coding bug, there might be
something else, but if we were under pressure then we
wouldn't necessarily have the time to fully look at that
to understand what was going on, so then we would close
the KEL.
Are you suggesting to me that in your situation as
an SSC team member there would be checks that would need
to be done in order to answer the question whether there
was a problem in Horizon causing this situation and you
would deliberately close a PEAK and close down the
problem even though the check had not been done?
‘As far as I can remember, on occasion that did happen.
Mr Roll, I suggest that’s extraordinary and it's
unprofessional and it’s not what any member of the SSC
should ever have done?
34
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
oPOoP
I know.
Are you saying it’s what you did?
On occasion I was instructed to close a particular call
which was not software related or anything, basically to
quieten it down.
Well, that’s quite remarkable, Mr Roll.
that in your witness statement?
Why is none of
It is
Youare telling me there was a specific occasion when
someone with authority over you told you to close down
a call when you hadn't finished your investigation ,
are you?
I'm not putting that very well, but yes.
Who was the person who told you that?
Mik Peach.
So Mr Peach told you -- what was the nature of the
problem?
The nature of the problem was that a postmaster was
reporting that a system was rebooting unexpectedly. We
looked -- or I looked at it and found that the -- she
was actually powering the system off and she insisted
she wasn’t. It was a mobile system and she was -- as
I said, we could see from the message store that the
system was being rebooted and she insisted she wasn’t
rebooting it. So I did some tests on the test rigs in
35
the testing area at the end of floor 6 where we were and
I found that on one of the test rigs I could simulate
the same problem. If I turned the sereen off, it
actually turned the whole computer off. And when
I dismantled the equipment I found that the screen
button had been miswired and it had been wired into the
motherboard so that it actually cut the power off and
not the power to the screen, so it rebooted the system.
That's documented in the PINICLs.
I asked for the base unit to be brought back but in
the meantime ~ we then found out that this was a known
build error but somebody in the hardware department had
built a batch of computers and wired them up
incorrectly
they
about it but they hadn't informed anyone else.
They had sent them out to the estate but
they had realised they had done it and they knew
So I pinpointed the problem, spoke to Mik Peach.
Mik Peach got back to me later and said "Yeah they know
about this". When the system came back and I confirmed
it, I was asked not to put any more information on this
on the PINICL and it was being dealt with internally .
Let's talk about - I was going to ask you about that
later. So that’s not an occasion where Mr Peach told
you to stop investigating something that needed to be
investigated?
36
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/10
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1A. Notto stop investigating, no, he told me
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Both of you, if you talk over each other
wy HAneRwn
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
wecan’t transcribe it. So you wait for
Mr De Garr Robinson to finish. He will, I can assure
you, wait for you to finish
Sorry, your Honour.
‘MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, Mr De Garr Robinson.
‘MR DE GARR ROBINSON: The answer you have just given me was
A
Q.
‘MR JUSTICE FRASER: Line 171 think.
the result of a question which I asked which is are you
seriously -- 1 now can't reformulate my question.
My question was based upon a claim that you have
just made to the effect that there was problem which
required further investigation. You said this didn’t
happen with coding bugs but sometimes with other issues
that were less the SSC’s purview, sometimes it did,
where more investigation was needed and you said
Mr Peach told you not to do that investigation but to
close it down. Now, do you remember giving that
evidence?
That's
We could go back to the transeript, if you like,
Mr Roll
What was it you said exactly before that part?
Page 35 of the transcript.
Well, the passage goes
37
from line 3 to about line 13
Can we go higher on the common screen
Page 35.
that’s it,
just stop there.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: You say:
“Answer: On occasion I was instructed to close
a particular call which was not software related or
anything, basically to quieten it down.”
And if we could go actually further up, it is at
line 16 on page 34:
“Question: Are you suggesting to me that in your
situation as an SSC team member there would be checks
that would need to be done in order to answer the
question whether there was a problem in Horizon causing
this situation and you would deliberately close a PEAK
and close down the problem even though the check had not
been done?”
That was my question to you. So I was asking you
whether there were occasions when you needed to do
further sessions and you were told not to. And you
said
"Answer: As far as I can remember, on occasion that
did happen”
So that’s quite a bold claim. And then say:
“Question: ... I suggest that’s extraordinary and
it’s unprofessional and it’s not what any member of the
38
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SSC should ever have done?”
And you say “I know" and I say:
Question: Are you saying it’s whatyou did?”
And you say:
“Answer: On occasion I was instructed to close
a particular call which was not software related or
anything, basically to quieten it down”
Now, I took you, Mr Roll, to be saying “Yes, I was
told not to perform investigations that I felt I needed
to perform’, but the example you have just given, which
1 will be coming to, is not an example of that at all,
is it?
No, it’s not. ‘The line on 16 and my response at 22,
1 -- the way remember that happening in the SSC is
that not myself but other people were under a lot of
pressure to come up witha “can you find anything, we
have to know by lunchtime if you can find anything in
this message store” and then they would come back and
say "No, we can't find anything”
MrRoll, first of all that’s not addressing the point
that I’m suggesting to you. You are not suggesting,
are you, that people in the SSC were told not to perform
checks that they felt they needed to perform in order to
do their job properly?
Oh, I see. No.
39
And can I suggest to you that no one in authority at the
SSC would ever have wanted a team member not to perform
a check that needed to be done in order to satisfy that
team member whether there was or wasn’t a problem in
Horizon?
The feeling I still have is that on occasion we could
have done more if we had had more time but that
occasionally due to time pressures we didn’t have the
time. That's -- it’s just my feeling from 19 years ago.
Your feeling from 19 years ago and could I suggest to
you, Mr Roll -- it may be wrong, but my understanding of
your evidence is that that feeling is that it only
happened on relatively rare occasions, it wasn't
something that was frequent.
Rare occasions, but that was the feeling I had then and
it has persisted.
Very good.
If we could move to page 6 of Mr Parker's second
statement (E2/12/6) and look at paragraph 19 at the
bottom of the page. He says:
"Fujitsu has mechanisms in place for detecting
potential issues. In ... my first statement! briefly
explained that the system management centre monitors
system events and I briefly described the work of the
communications management team in paragraph 26.1.2.
40
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/11
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
Each of these teams would generate support actions based
on system generated event information”
That's true, isn't it?
A. Horizon was an evolving system, it probably still is
In the early days a lot of the processes weren't in
place and we had to find them, we had to find the
problems and develop the processes to -- so that by the
wyAnRone
end of by the time I left then yes, this was true
9 QI suggest to you that this sentence is true of the
10 entire time that you were working at SSC, Mr Roll.
11 A. My recollection is that we improved the systems
12 tremendously over the years.
13 Q. But from the word go these teams did exist and they
14 would generate support actions based on systems
15 generated event information from the first day that you
16 were there?
17 A. Yes, if the system was able to generate the event.
18 Q Butyou're not, I presume, in a position to tell_ me what
19 events it was able to generate when you arrived
20 A. No.
21 Q. -- andwhatevents it was able to generate when you
22 left?
23 A. No, but as we put more processes in, the system is much
24 more able to detect errors
25 Q Well, it’s difficult for me to ask you questions about
a
1 that kind of claim,
2 Then he says:
3 "It is also the case that the sheer number of
4 subpostmasters using the service and reporting issues
5 via the help desks make it very unlikely that there is
6 any significant number of hidden errors.”
7 Would you accept that?
8 A. A significant number, yes. There may have been the
9 occasional one.
10 Q. Yes, but can we say the vast majority of problems that
11 were caused by the system would have manifested
12 themselves in some kind of reporting
13° A. Yes.
14 Q. Thankyou. And he says:
15 “These mechanisms are so effective at identifying
16 when bugs area cause of problems that it would be very
17 rare for a bug to not be detected.”
18 Would you accept that?
19 A. If it wasa known bug, yes.
20 Q. Whatdo you mean by that?
21 MRJUSTICE FRASER: We are talking coding, yes? Coding.
22 A. Coding, yes
23 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Yes.
24 A. If a coding bug was detected then we could put in place
25 mechanisms to detect when that was -- when that bug had
42
eIAHkYOnE
had an effect
I think Mr-- I'm grateful for that answer, but I think
Mr Parker is making a slightly different point. He has
described the mechanisms in place and you generally
agreed them,
Right
And he says:
“These mechanisms are so effective at identifying
when bugs are a cause of problems that it would be very
rare for a bug to not be detected.”
That's true, isn’t it? Sometimes the bug could get
through ~~
Yes.
but it would be very rare for that to happen, would
you accept that?
Yes.
‘Thank you. Then on to paragraph 20 (E2/12/7}:
“Once an issue has been raised, Fujitsu is
experienced in providing support and will go to great
lengths to investigate the root cause”
Stopping there, would you accept that? Thar that
was true of your time when you were at the SSC?
Yes.
“In paragraph 61 of my first statement I explained that
Fujitsu. use a custom solution, developed and
43
administered by the SSC, which allows us to record
support knowledge into a known error log .... KELs record
support knowledge which is intended to assist staff in
the support and understanding of the Horizon system.”
I apprehend you won't disagree with any of that?
No,
He then says:
“Mr Roll’s statement that ‘subpostmasters would have
been held responsible for problems which had not at any
time been identified as software errors because when
they were raised we (Fujitsu) were ultimately unable to
identify the problem at the time’ assumes that if
Fujitsu was not able to get to the root cause of an
issue, it must have been a software error rather than
a humanerror. But as I explain ... above, if Fujitsu
was unable to identify any software issues after
carrying out a careful investigation, human error would
be by far the most likely explanation.”
Now, would you accept that, Mr Roll?
I would accept that it is the most likely explanation,
yes.
Thank you.
‘Then if we can move on to paragraph 23 {E2/12/7} ~
I’m reading this to you to give you an opportunity to
disclaim any intention of what Parker thinks you might
44
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/12
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
be doing. He says:
“I think that Mr Roll may be trying to suggest that
Fujitsu were quite happy to assume that issues were the
responsibility of subpostmasters. That is not the case.
We investigated matters thoroughly and if we identified
an error in Horizon, we dealt with it appropriately.
Our investigative and analytical procedures have always
been thorough in my view and while I obviously cannot
say that in each and every case our diagnosis was
correct, 1 amconfident that that was the case in the
overwhelming majority of cases.”
Now, Mr Roll, a couple of questions, perhaps three
or four. Given the discussion we have just had, could
I invite you to indicate whether you are or are not
trying to suggest that Fujitsu were quite happy to
assume that issues were the responsibility of
subpostmasters?
A. I don’t know what the management's position was on how
protective they were of their system, the directors
et cetera at that level. At our level certainly we
would -- I would certainly agree with what Mr Parker has
put in the second part there
Q. What, you mean "we investigated matters”
A. ~ “in the overwhelming majority of cases”
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You said the second part, which part do
45
you mean?
A. Sorry
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Do you agree then that "We
investigated matters thoroughly and if we identified an
error in Horizon we dealt with it appropriately"?
AL Yes.
Q. You agree with that. Do you agree that:
“Our investigative and analytical procedures have
always been thorough in my view
Do you agree with that? Is that your view too?
‘A. Generally speaking, yes
Q. *.. and while 1 obviously cannot say that in each and
every case our diagnosis was correct, I am confident
that that was the case in the overwhelming majority of
cases.”
Is that your view?
A. In the majority of cases, yes
Q. Thank you.
A. I wouldn't want to suggest that Fujitsu. were happy to
assume.
Q. Very good
that means! don’t need to ask you any more questions.
I'mvery grateful for that, Mr Roll, and
Could we now move on to your second witness
statement please. I would like to ask you about
paragraph 9, it is (E1/10/3). It is under the heading
46
eIAHkYOnE
21
22
23
24
25
>
oPrPoPr
“Transactional integrity *, and here you are taking
Dr Worden to task about something he said in his expert
report and you say:
“At paragraph 156, Dr Worden describes zero sum
baskets, other branch actions being zero sum, and
transactional integrity. I agree that the system was
designed with these intentions in mind but there were
limitations and errors in the system. Data corruption
and glitches sometimes meant that transactions were not
zero sum. I recall on more than one occasion where
subpostmasters had problems with a deficit showing in
their accounts, and then as a result of working through
a process to try to resolve it, the deficit doubled”
Let’s just break that down, if wecan, You refer in
that paragraph to three concepts.
I think you will accept, won't you, that
‘Transaction baskets
and accounts.
when you are doing business at a counter, several
transactions can go into a basket, yes?
Yes.
And then many baskets, once they are entered into the
accounts, make up the accounts, yes?
Yes
The zero sum point only relates to baskets, doesn't it?
I can't remember. I'm not sure.
So I'm just trying to understand what you mean when you
47
“Data corruption and glitches sometimes meant that
transactions were not zero sum.”
A transaction is never zero sum, is it, it’s the
basket that’s zero sum having summed up all the
transactions that are in the basket?
I think you're correct there, yes
Then if I could ask you to go to what Dr Worden says
That's at (D3/1/39).
it is quite long so 1 won't
about transactional integrity
Could I ask you to read
read it out, you will be pleased to know. Could I ask
you to read paragraph 156.3. This is the paragraph that
you take issue with.
(Pause).
Okay, I have read that now, yes.
Now, you say -- we have just read the relevant paragraph
from your witness statement, You said you agree that
the system was designed with these intentions in mind
but you say there were limitations and you go on to say
that data corruption and glitches sometimes meant the
transactions were not zero sum and we have discussed the
difficulty 1 have with your use of the phrase
“transactions "
You then go on to give an example. You say in
paragraph 9 of your witness statement (E1/10/3}:
48
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/13
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 “I recall on more than one occasion where
2 subpostmasters had problems witha deficit showing in
3 their accounts, and then as a result of working through
4 a process to try to resolve it, the deficit doubled.
5 Sometimes we found the source of the problem as a known
6 bug... and we could resolve the problem, but we were
7 not always able to find or understand the cause”
8 Mr Roll, I'm slightly bemused by that because the
9 example you have just given there is not an example of
10 a limitation or error in transactional integrity, is it?
11 A. No, it’s not, 1 .. I must have misunderstood or misread
12 what Dr Worden was saying in paragraph 156.3.
13 Q. Well, could I suggest to you, Mr Roll, that what
14 Dr Worden is saying in paragraph 156.3 is true and that
15 you don’t have any contrary examples to offer to suggest
16 that it didn’t always happen?
17 A. No, I misunderstood his -- what he put.
18 Q. Were you asked to -- did someone invite you to disagree
19 with this paragraph?
20 A. No.
21 Q. That's not what happened?
22 A. No.
23° Q. Isee.
24 Then the example you give is discussed by Mr Parker
25 at paragraph 8 of his second witness statement, which is
49
1 {£2/12/4}. If I could ask you to read paragraphs 8 and
2 9, is that the example that you have in mind?
3 A. I can’t remember exactly.
4 Q. Have you looked at the KEL that Mr Parker refers to in
5 paragraph 8?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So youhaven’t looked at any of the underlying
8 documents?
9 AL No.
10 Q. Orthe PEAKs?
11 A. No.
12 Q. MrParker says at paragraph 10:
13 “I am not aware of any case in which baskets were
14 not zero sum (ie any case in which a non-zero sum basket
15 was accepted into Horizon), although given the lack of
16 detail in Mr Roll’s statement on this point it is
17 difficult for meto state definitively that such an
18 issue never arose.”
19 Would I be right in thinking that you can’t think of
20 an example of that happening either?
21 A. Yes, I think I got my terminology wrong in the zero sum
22 basket
23 Q. So would the answer to my question be right: you can’t
24 think of an example of that happening
25 A. No. Youare right, yes.
50
eIAHkYOnE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So what terminology should I read it as
saying?
A. I'mafraid I can’t remember the full terminology that
I should be using for the Horizon system, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm notasking about that. Is there any
other word that I should change to reflect what your
evidence is on this, or not?
A. No, your Honour. I was trying to point out in this that
due to errors sometimes when a postmaster tried to
correct it actually doubled the error.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
Back to you, Mr De Garr Robinson.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Then if we could continue with
paragraph 10 of Mr Parker's statement, halfway down he
says
“I would expect any such issue ..”
This is a true transaction integrity issue:
“I would expect any such issue to result in
a receipts and payments mismatch which would be (1)
picked up by Fujitsu’s reconciliation reporting ..”
Stopping there, that’s right, isn’t it?
A. Yes
And secondly be:
visible to the branch when they balanced at the
end of the trading period.”
51
That's true also, isn’t it?
A. I don’t know.
Fair enough, Mr Roll. But you accept, do you, that when
you were there it would have been picked up in
reconciliation reporting?
A. I believe so, yes.
And it would have resulted, as he says in the last
sentence, in investigation and resolution by the SSC?
A. We would investigate it, yes.
I'mvery grateful, thank you.
‘Then if we could go back to your second statement,
paragraph 10 {E1/10/3}. It’s a very long paragraph and
I'mnot going as quickly as I expected. If I could ask
you just to have a quick look at paragraph 10 so you can
remind yourself what you're talking about.
Have you
AL Yes.
Now, I would like to ask you, Mr Roll, how good is your
recollection of this particular instance?
A. It’s a bit hazy but I can remember the sort of basies.
Q. AndI'minterested in your suggestion that it was
“impossible to fix”, Wasit really impossible to fix?
A. From my understanding of the problem, yes. To fix the
software, to recode the amount of software that would
have needed to be recoded would have meant, from my.
52
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/14
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 understanding, a basic rebuild, so it would have taken 1 with it in that situation as well?
2 too much effort. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You refer to your understanding; was this a problem that 3 Q. Buteven before that had happened though, this wouldn't
4 you yourself worked on? 4 have an effect on any branch accounts, would it? It
5 A. Lean’t remember. It’s certainly one I was aware of, 5 wouldn't affect the net position on any branch accounts?
6 because we discussed it. 6 A. No.
7 Q So it mighthave been something that you picked up in 7 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, Isee the time.
8 discussions with other people? 8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Do you want a break?
9A. Yes 9 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I'm nor going as quickly as I expected
10 Q Andyousay you havea recollection of something you 10 and I need to tighten up.
11 can't actually remember -- it is not clear enough for 11° MRJUSTICE FRASER: Sure. So we will come back at 5 to.
12 you to know whether you actually worked on it or not, it 12 Are you going to go into the afternoon with Mr Roll?
13 might just be what other people told you, is that right? 13 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Most certainly.
14 A. It wasa fairly common problem this. 14 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And then you have just got Mr Henderson.
15 Q. A fairly common problem? 15 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Yes, and we are not allowed more than
16 A. Fromwhat I remember. 16 an hour with him anyway.
17 Q So this is a problem that you suggest happened a lor of 17 MR JUSTICE FRASER: No, I rechecked my transcript of that.
18 times, did it? 18 I said that I was imposing that limit to make it clear
19 A. Periodically, We were aware - we kept an eye out for 19 you didn’t need to put everything to him but you could
20 it because we knew it would happen. 20 have longer than that if you wanted
21 Q Andthen you refer to a workaround. You say at the top 21 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: I wish Ihadn’t said it, my Lord,
22 of page 4 (E1/10/4}: 22 because you are quite right and 1 really ought to be
23 “Eventually the problem would be escalated to SSC 23 careful about my mouth,
24 and a workaround established.” 24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: No --I have just been asked for the
25 Again, are you speaking from your experience, or are 25 short break for the shorthand writers but we were
53 55
1 you speaking from your recollection of what people may 1 1 think 30 seconds ahead of that.
2 have said when you were at work? 2 Same formas yesterday: don’t chat to anyone about
3 A. Lcan’t remember if1 worked on that or not. It was 3 your evidence.
4 something we all kept an eye out for 4 (11.46 am)
5 Q. So it is something you keptan eye out for. Is it 5 (Short Break)
6 something you ever actually saw in your own experience? 6 (11.58 am)
7A. I think so but I can’t be certain 7 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Mr Roll, I'm going to try to deal with
8 Q. Very good. And you saya workaround established. What 8 some evidence that you give about the recovery process
9 was the workaround? 9 as quickly as I can. If I could ask you to go to
10 A. You basically had -- the net result of this would be 10 paragraph 11 of your second statement {E1/10/4}. We are
it that because the system wasn't able to differentiate 11 in the same section of your witness statement that we
12 which organisation the money would go to, it could have 12 were in before, so this is all under the heading
13 gone to the wrong one, So we could monitor the systems 13 “Transactional integrity” and you say:
14 processing this data, pick it up and then by examining 14 “I do recall that problems sometimes arose after
15 the actual reference data we could see which 15 subpostmasters used the recovery process and that this
16 organisation it should go to and then wecould make sure 16 was a not uncommon problem which affected even
17 it went to the right one. 17 experienced subpostmasters. This might suggest that
18 Q. So is that what happened, the SSC set up a system 18 there was a problem with the recovery process itself , or
19 A. Yes. 19 at least that it wasnotas straightforward as it should
20 Q. -- to monitor where these problems might be occurring? 20 have been.”
21 =A. Yes. 21 "Might suggest”: I don’t mean to be discourteous,
22 Q. And fix them when they did? 22 Mr Roll, but that’s a mealy mouthed phrase. Are you
23 A. Yes 23 positively claiming that in your judgment there was
24 Q. I'mgrateful. And presumably you would go back andlook 24 a problem with the recovery process?
25 in the past to see if it happened inthe past, to deal 25 A. No. Therewasa possibility but that’s all. It’s
54
56
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/15
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 a long time ago and I can’t remember what the process
2 was now.
3 Q So youare not suggesting there was a coding bug in the
4 software dealing with recovery --
5 A. No.
6 Q. -- which affected branch accounts, are you?
7A. No.
8 Q. So would it be fair to say -- I use this term
9 advisedly -- that in that sentence what you are doing is
10 speculating as to the possibility of a problem, you're
at not suggesting that there is likely to be one?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Are you suggesting that there were investigations that
14 should have been undertaken by the SSC that weren't
15 undertaken?
16 A. No, I'mnot suggesting that
17 Q Sowhyareyou even mentioning it, Mr Roll? I'm
18 slightly puzzled.
19 A. It sticks in my memory that there were problems with the
20 recovery process that we got involved with that we had
21 to try and fix. At times there were the -- I suppose it
22 was either the number that came in or something that
23 stuck in my mind about this that made me feel there was
24 something that could have been not quite right with it.
25 Q. Are yousuggesting -- let metake it in stages. First
57
1 of all, you are saying problems were reported to the SSC
2 by subpostmasters in relation to the recovery process,
3 is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Andyou will accept, would you, that whenever those
6 problems came in they were investigated?
7 AL Yes.
8 Q. Andyou will accept, would you, that when they were
9 investigating they were investigated thoroughly?
10 =A. Yes.
11 Q Andthat thorough process, I think you have already
12 accepted very helpfully in a prior discussion with me
13 that generally speaking, when there is a thorough
14 investigation of that sort if there is a problemit’s
15 likely to be identified ?
16 =A. Yes.
17 = Q. And! infer that it is your evidence that all of those
18 investigations you are referring to were unable to find
19 any problem with Horizon itself, is that right?
20 A. I don’t knowif it was ever considered there was
21 ‘a problem with Horizon itself .
22 Q. But, Mr Roll, let’s just be clear. When an investigate
23 is carried out -- it’s a bit like philosophers trying to
24 test a theory, you try and find something that disproves
25 the theory that you're trying to establish. In the same
58
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way, your job at the SSC, when you geta problem in is
you are looking for something in Horizon that could have
caused it; that’s where you are starting, is that right?
Yes.
Thank you. And that process was followed whenever there
were these problems reported into the SSC about the
reconciliation process, yes?
Yes.
And on each oceasion when these investigations were done
the investigators were unable to find a problem with
Horizon that was responsible for it, yes?
Yes.
So why do you now suggest that despite all of that,
there could have been a problem with the recovery
process in Horizon when you worked there?
I’mnotsure what it is, but I was not happy with the
way that some of these were dealt with. But I can’t
I can’t remember why, butI know that at the time there
‘was something that made me uneasy about it
So are you suggesting that on every occasion that
a problem came in, something was reported in in. relation
to reconciliation , you were the one that investigated
them all?
it would have been
Oh, no, I wasn't -- everybody
farmed out.
89
So are you saying that you knew enough about everybody
else's investigations to be uncomfortable about the
investigations your colleagues were doing?
No.
Right, so are you saying that you were uncomfortable
with the investigations that you did?
No.
So what were you uncomfortable with?
Sometimes the pressure we were under, the timescales.
I think that’s what it musthave been. Again
So are you suggesting that there was particular
timescale issue with respect to reconciliation processes
that hada particular application to reconciliation
problems that didn’t apply to other problems that you
were investigating in Horizon?
All I can remember is that I felt uneasy about
something, about this process, but I can’t tell you why,
so
My attention has been drawn to the fact that ona number
of occasions I have talked about reconciliation when
I should have been talking about recovery, I do
apologise, but I think we have understood what I'm
talking about.
Yes.
I apologise.
60
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/16
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 Well, let's just go quickly. In principle, when 1 see that indeed it had not gone through.
2 a system goes down when a transaction is being done at 2 Now, I would suggest -- I will be suggesting to the
3 the counter, either because the system itself has gone 3 judge in due course that that’s an example of the
4 down or there is a power outage at the branch or 4 Horizon system doing what it is supposed to do, namely
5 whatever the reason might be, there's always going to be 5 to produce some evidence identifying the transaction
6 a possibility that some transactions being undertaken at 6 that hasn't actually reached the Horizon accounts.
7 the counter may not have reached the Horizon accounts of 7 Isn't that what the recovery process is designed to do?
8 that branch when the system goes down, is that right? 8 A. That's I think what it is designed to do, but I think
9 Yes 9 what she was trying to point out was that the
10 Because, for example, there’s an outage before the stack 10 paperwork -- some of the paperwork that she had wasn’t
11 has actually been settled by pressing the button that 11 produced by the Horizon system and
12 enters the stack into the branch's accounts, yes? 12 Q. Well, I'mnot sure that this is very helpful
13 Yes 13 MRJUSTICE FRASER: That's just what! was about to say
14 And that’s inevitable. You can’t design a system which 14 actually. Whatever the Mrs Burke situation was or
15 doesn’t have that problem, it’s an inevitable part of 15 wasn't
16 a system design where there’s a possibility that crashes 16 A. Sorry.
17 may happen mid-transaction, yes? 17 MRJUSTICE FRASER: ~ I'm not sure you are necessarily
18 Yes 18 going to be able to help me with and I’m not sure,
19 So in that situation what do you do to build resilience 19 Mr De Garr Robinson, that it's necessarily a correct
20 into the system? Could I suggest to you, Mr Roll, that 20 question for this witness, other than to say: when you
21 what you do is you build into the systema facility 21 were asked about the recovery process and you said that
22 which identifies the transactions that were mid-way but 22 you thought there was more to it than that -- do you
23 that didn’t actually reach the accounts, that have not 23 remember that?
24 recovered, yes? 24 A. Yes, your Honour.
25 Yes 25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And then there was a phrase I think
61 63
1 And that is the recovery process that we're discussing? 1 where you said "I would have included "and then it
2 There is -- I scem to remember there being far more to 2 appeared to me, if I may say so, that you then got
3 it than that, but 3 distracted talking about Mrs Burke.
4 If you want to elucidate then I don’t want to stop you, 4 So far as your recollection is when you worked for
5 Mr Roll, but I really don’t know what you mean. 5 Fujitsu, Mr De Garr Robinson is now going to suggest to
6 I... I would have included - there wasa lady giving 6 you I think again, or reput the question, about what the
7 evidence yesterday about having to go and find 7 recovery process involved and if you think there are
8 a transaction hadn't gone through, it hadn’t been 8 other steps or other examples of what the recovery
9 recovered. She was able to find the customer. I don't 9 process either did or ought to have included then you
10 remember the full story about it. But she went to the 10 can tell me what they are.
11 bank and she found that -- she was able to find the 11 A. Right.
12 money or to find a paperwork trail to get the money put 12. MRJUSTICE FRASER: So, Mr De Garr Robinson, do you want to
13 back into her account. That's all part of the recovery 13 do that
14 process for me, it's not just I'm not making myself 14 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: I rather think you have actually asked
15 very clear, I'm sorry about this 15 the question already
16 Well, you are talking about Mrs Burke and in Mrs Burke's 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I would rather you put it, if that's all
17 case what happened, in short, was that the system went 17 right.
18 down before she had entered the transaction into her 18 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Mr Roll, as I have explained, the
19 accounts, then when the system came back up again the 19 recovery process is a form of resiliance designed into
20 system identified the transactions in relation to which 20 the system to ensure that if a transaction doesn’t reach
21 there was a problem. Later on the system identified the 21 the system, which is always possible because of timing
22 transactions that had gone through, so there was 22 issues in the nanoseconds before you press “enter” to
23 a physical piece of paper identifying the transaction 23 push the stack into your accounts and so on, the purpose
24 that hadn’t gone through and she was able to look at 24 of the system is to ensure that the missing transaction,
25 that physical paper and look at her transaction log and 25 the transaction that hasn't reached the branch accounts,
62
64
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/17
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 has been identified , both to the postmaster and indeed 1 Office would soon suspect a software error” and so on
2 to Fujitsu, because Fujitsu can see this material in 2 and you then say:
3 their own log. 3 “I do not recall Fujitsu carrying out any analysis
4 Are you saying from your own experience that there 4 of transaction corrections to try to identify if there
5 were any occasions where that did not happen? 5 may be an underlying software error”
6 1 can’t remember. 6 Now, I only want to ask you a couple of questions
7 ‘Thank you. 7 about this, Mr Roll, but why are you talking about
8 ‘Then going back to paragraph 11 of your witness 8 transaction corrections? When you worked at Fujitsu
9 statement {E1/10/4}, this is a sentence we have already 9 there was no such thing as a transaction correction, was
10 been discussing the first part. You say: 10 there?
11 "This might suggest that there was a problem with 11 A. I don't know, wasn't there? 1
12 the recovery process itself.” 12 Do you honestly not remember?
13 ‘Then you say: 13 (Pause)
14 *. or at least that it was not as straightforward 14 A. Nol don't. There were corrections made ... we made
15 as it should have been.” 15 corrections to transactions.
16 Let me repeat my question. Are you saying from your 16 Q. “Transaction corrections” is a term which refers to
17 own experience you can recall examples of where the 17 ‘a message that’s sent by Post Office to
18 recovery process was not as straightforward as it should 18 a subpostmaster’s branch suggesting that there ought to
19 have been? 19 be a change, a transaction entered into their branch to
20 No. My understanding of the recovery process is that it 20 change the accounts in some way, that the subpostmaster
21 should have been -- it should have been able to be dealt 21 then gets to accept or if he disputes it not to accept
22 with at first or second line and if we got involved then 22 into his branch accounts. It’s an electronic message
23 there was a problem with it 23 that goes from Post Office to the branch and it is
24 So it’s simply the fact that if a subpostmaster was 24 generated usually as a result of quite sophisticated
25 insisting there wasa glitch or something and in 25 reconciliation processes undertaken both by Post Office
65 67
1 circumstances where the first and second line couldn't 1 and Fujitsu.
2 categorically say that it wasn't the result of a glitch, 2 At the time that you worked for Fujitsu TCs didn’t
3 it would go to the SSC and you're saying the mere fact 3 exist. What they had instead were what were called
4 that that would on occasion go to the SSC is a basis for 4 error notices and error notices would be sent from
5 suggesting there's something wrong with the system, is 5 Post Office to the branch but a similar practice was
6 that right? 6 followed. That's what Dr Worden is talking about.
7 No. What I'm saying there is that some of them came 7 AL Right
8 through to us and then my recollection is that the 8 Q. Were you not aware of that?
9 majority of them we would have dealt with and we would 9 A. I wasn’t aware that he was talking about those.
10 have found a problem, but that on some times we couldn't 10 Q. So you thought he was talking about something different?
11 find a problem and we couldn't identify where there had 11 A. Something completely different
12 been a problem. 12 Q. Did younot -- I don’t wish to probe into privileged
13 Well, could I suggest that another way of putting that 13 matters, but was it not explained to you what he was
14 is that you looked at the symptoms that were complained 14 perhaps I am probing into privileged matters.
15 about and you checked -- there was a very thorough 15 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, you are if you put the question
16 investigation as to whether Horizon might be responsible 16 that way.
17 andas a result of that thorough investigation you 17 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Yes.
18 couldn't figure out a way in which Horizon could have 18 MRJUSTICE FRASER: You could say "Did you know ‘transaction
19 been responsible; would that be another way of putting 19 corrections’ was a specific term that hada specific
20 ‘what you have just said? 20 meaning in Horizon?”
21 Yes. 21 A. I didn’t know they had that specific term -- meaning.
22 Thank you. Then let’s move on to paragraph 12 of your 22 MRDEGARR ROBINSON: Well, here Dr Worden is talking about
23 statement {E1/10/4}. You refer to paragraph 167 of 23 TCs. Wasit not necessary for you to be told what TCs
24 Dr Worden’s report {D3/1/43} where he deals with what he 24 ‘were?
25 calls TCs, that’s transaction corrections, that “Post 25 A. I misinterpreted the term "transaction corrections ”.
66
68
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/18
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
Q. TCs were actually identified , they were defined in
Dr Worden’s report. Did you read the definition?
A. No.
Q._ It does look as if you are making quite a convenient
claim on the basis of -- well, I don't understand the
basis upon which you are making it. What did you think
Dr Worden was talking about when he talked about TCs?
‘A. We corrected transactions -- it was part of our job, if
you like -- on the message stores at times.
Q. Ob, you are talking about transaction insertions that
were undertaken by ~ that’s what you thought --
A. That's what I --
Q. ~ Dr Worden was talking about?
A. That's what I misinterpreted there, yes
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I wonder if you could possibly finish
your sentences. Mr De Garr Robinson isn’t interrupting
you but you will often start a sentence, stop it, and
then start another one. If you could just answer in
complete sentences it would help enormously.
Right, Mr De Garr Robinson.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I'm sorry, would your Lordship give me
a moment,
(Pause).
My Lord, 1 will move on. I don't think this is
going to be a productive line of cross- examination
69
bearing in mind 1 hadn't prepared for it in that way.
Let’s stay with your second statement, Mr Roll, and
go fo paragraph 19 (E1/10/6}. Perhaps I could ask you
to simply read the paragraph to save time.
(Pause).
A. Yes.
Q. You say at the end of the paragraph:
generally this was a developing area, so
generally if the SSC found something that should have
been picked up by the system we notified the developers
so they could fix the software, so it did incrementally
improve over time. However, sometimes the decision was
taken that the chances of the unexpected error happening
again were too remote to merit a development/fix. In
this case the developers would be instructed not to work
ona fix?
Were you involved in these cases? So do you have
personal experience of these cases?
‘A. I think I had experience in one or two where we found
a problem but it was deemed ~ it was one that could be
easily monitored and checked out for by writing a small
bit of code and that was-- it was easier to do the
workaround than it was to do the software fix, so that's
what we did. There is a bit of a syntax error where it
should have read instead of “instructed not to” it would
70
eIAHkYOnE
be “not be instructed” to workon the fix. They
wouldn't be told not to do it
I see. First of all, youare not talking about
a decision not to doa software fix or a coding fix for
bugs causing an impact in branch accounts; we're not
talking about that kind of problem at all, are we?
It would bea ... no, it’s not an error that the
postmaster would have been aware of. It wouldn't have
affected his accounts.
So you are talking about problems that didn’t affect
branch accounts. You have said one or two cases. Could
you describe either of them or both of them?
No, I couldn't, just the recollection
Could you give some indication of the nature of the
problem?
I can’t even give you that, I'mafraid.
Well, could you give some indication of the process that
was gone through to decide what the appropriate response
was, whether there should be a workaround or a fix?
Well, the
what the impact was, how easy it was to find the problem
and then that information would be passed on up the
management chain for them to decide whether it warranted
‘we would find out what the problem was,
a software fix to be developed and released, or whether
it would be faster andas reliable to put a workaround
7
in place rather than a fix.
And what's the nature of the workaround you're talking
about? You're talking about some facility built into
the system which would pick up when this thing
happened
Yes.
-- and made sure it was made good?
Yes, it could be corrected at -- whenit was picked up
rather than writing software to make sure it didn’t
happenin the first place.
But you're talking about something within the system, so
the system would automatically monitor for these
occasions
Yes.
and make sure that they were fixed more or less
automatically, is that what you mean?
Yes.
Thank you. So really what you're talking about is
a debate between how best to fix a problem, do you do it
by way of some kind of change of coding so that the
problem never arises, or do you do it by way of change
of coding to ensure that when the problem does arise it
is immediately fixed; would that be fair?
Ye
‘Thank you.
72
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/19
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
SIYIAHRONKE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR JUSTICE FRASER: And in either situation is the code
changed?
A. The underlying code -- in the first situation where you
directly change the code so that the problem doesn't
arise, that is when the code would be changed for -- on
the Horizon system, but in the second scenario then no,
the code for the Horizon system need not necessarily be
changed, but something running on one of the servers
you could write a small batch programme that would be
supplementary to the code
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right.
Mr De Garr Robinson.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Thank you.
1 would like to move on to paragraph 16 of your
statement [E1/10/5}. You say
“In my first statement, I refer to the pressure that
the SSC team and Fujitsu were under generally due to an
awareness of the financial penalties imposed by the
service level agreements between Post Office and
Fujitsu .. I believe that although individual penalties
were quite modest, when applied across multiple
counters/post offices the cumulative figures involved
were very high, potentially amounting to tens of
millions or more. 1 disagree with Stephen Parker's
statement that these potential financial penalties were
73
not a factor for the SS
a8 we were aware of them
and often commented on them, eg ‘That's saved Fujitsu
another 25 million ‘”
So I'm now going to ask you some questions about
this general issue. Could we first of all go to
Mr Parker's first witness statement, that’s at
(£2/11/12}. He starts by saying in paragraph 43:
“Mr Roll refers to a "perception ... that the Service
Level Agreements between Post Office Ltd and Fujitsu
involved financial penalties payable by Fujitsu to Post
Office’ (paragraph 12). I am aware that there were
Service Level Agreements for issues such as stuck
transactions (Fujitsu had 10 days to retrieve
transactions that had not replicated from a counter)”
Stopping there, Mr Roll, did you know that?
‘A. I couldn't remember the timescale for that. But I knew
there was timescale to get them off and sent across.
Q. He then says:
“It is quite normal for contracts such as the one
between Fujitsu and Post Office relating to Horizon to
have such agreements”
Yes
Would you agree with that?
Yes
oreor
"The same level of diligence was (and is) applied to all
74
eIAHkYOnE
incidents, whether an SLA was relevant or not.”
That's Mr Parker's evidence. Do you disagree with
it?
No,
And then he says:
“The possibility of financial penalties was never
a factor for the SSC”
Would you accept that?
I don’t see that as a yes or no answer I'm afraid
‘There were SLAs for the harvesting of batch transactions
from the correspondence servers which I think it was
supposed to get from the correspondence server to the
bank within three days or something. Now, we were aware
that if the harvesters failed for a couple of nights in
a row then you would have a huge backlog of transactions
which you were then we were aware that Fujitsu was
facing or could potentially have faced penalties for not
getting those transactions through in time.
Right.
So there was perhaps -- we were aware -- I wasn't
involved in the work of getting those transactions
through, that was not my area of technical ability, or
whatever. So -- but there was the awareness that
certainly if we managed to get them through in time then
we would save Fujitsu. a lot of money.
75
So that's the £25 million reference
‘That was an example, yes.
that you give.
So let me get this straight, because there's
a danger of a false impression being given by your
evidence, both in paragraph 12 of your first statement
{£1/7/2} and indeed in the paragraph of your second
statement we have just read out. You are not talking,
are you, about pressures on the process by which
problems being reported in to the third line of support
would be investigated, that could affect branch
accounts; you're not talking about those things at all?
‘They they were also -- we were aware of the penalties
for those but not to -- the pressure wasn’t as great for
those.
What penalties were you aware of in relation to problems
coming into the SSC?
The problems regarding the counters coming into the SSC
you're thinking of now,or ..? Because these other
problems for the servers, the harvesters, they would
come into the SSC as well.
But those problems won'thave any impact -- I’m sorry,
I'mbeing slightly unfair to you, MrRoll. This entire
extraordinary trial process that we're engaging in
Sorry, yes.
76
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/20
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 Q. ~ is about whether branch accounts generated by Horizon
2 were accurate or not, or reliable or not,
3 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Why isitan extraordinary trial
4 process?
5 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Because it’s so large and I don’t mean
6 that in any critical way. I probably shouldn't have
7 used that word
8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: The group litigation.
9 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Yes. In my experience it is unusual.
10 This is my first GLO, your Lordship may have noticed.
at So my concern is the process by which the work that
12 was done in the SSC to investigate problems with Horizon
13 that might have had an impact on branch accounts.
14. A. Mmhm,
15 Q Andit’s fair to say that’s the concern of most of the
16 people sitting in this court today. And so when one
17 reads your witness statement, one’s natural reaction
18 and I don’t mean this as a criticism, but one’s natural
19 reaction is to think that that’s whatyou are talking
20 about. The impression that I'm getting from what you
21 are saying now though is that you are not saying that
22 the service level agreements, which may have had targets
23 for harvesting data for banks and so on and so forth,
24 you're not saying that those service level agreements
25 created a perception within the SSC which caused people
7
1 in the SSC to think that when they were investigating
2 problems that might have an impact on branch accounts,
3 they would have to doa quick job and not doa proper
4 job?
5 That's an extraordinarily long question and if you
6 would like me to make it shorter I'm happy to do so but
7 if you've got my point then I would invite you to answer
8 it.
9 A. Frommy recollection there was pressure if you
10 weren't -- if youcouldn’t pinpoint the fault in the
at counter, the problem with the data, whatever, then there
12 was — you know, there was the -- there was pressure put
13 on you, you were asked "How was it going? We need
14 an answer", which was a degree of pressure.
15 Q Well, youuse the phrase “there was. perception”, you
16 use the impersonal, One often sees that phrase used,
17 Are you saying that you, Mr Roll, physically were aware
18 that there was an SLA that had the effect that the SSC
19 couldn't or shouldn't properly investigate any bugs that
20 might affect branch accounts?
21 A. Wewere aware that there was an SLA and that we had to
22 investigate within the timescale.
23 Q. Andwas there a perception -- because I'm going to
24 suggest to you that there wasn't, Mr Roll -- was there
25 a perception that this SLA of which you were aware meant
78
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP,
PoPpoP
CoPOoP
that you couldn't do your job properly?
I felt that that might be the case in some areas.
You felt that it might how strong and
accurate is your recollection of all of this?
this is
Vague.
I see. Well, let's
And this is another -- sorry.
No, I think it was me talking over you, Mr Roll.
This is another one of those things where I had
a feeling that things weren't right, but
But it’s difficult at this remove in time to put your
finger on it?
Yes.
Well, let me continue with paragraph 44 of Mr Parker's
statement [E2/11/12}
“I do not understand what Mr Roll means when he says
that ‘any discrepancy in the Post Office accounts had to
be resolved speedily’ .. there was (and is) a process
run by the management support unit ..”
Do you remember the MSU?
Now you mention the term, I do remember the term.
But nothing else?
No.
which involves examination of various system
reporting and may result in business incident management
79
service ... entries going to Post Office ”
Was that true? Is that in your recollection?
I don't remember.
“An incident may also be raised by MSU with the SSC to
provide support to the MSUin resolution of the BIMS”
But you probably can’t comment on that either.
What he is talking about here is various systems
reporting. It may be consistent with what you were
talking about before about harvesting. He is not
talking though about the identification and fixing of
coding issues in Horizon that might impact on branch
accounts
Mm-hm.
Are you aware of any case where there was a contractual
pressure on Fujitsu. to speed up that process or to deal
with that process in a given space of time?
I don't remember any specific details, no. I don't, no.
Then he says:
“These are subject to service level agreements and
Mr Roll may be referring to this process. However, if
Mr Roll is suggesting that Fujitsu routinely rushed out
fixes or workarounds due to SLA time pressure, that is
not the case.”
Mr Roll, I would like to give you an opportunity to
say that you are not suggesting that.
80
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/21
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1A. Which paragraph are we looking at now?
2 Q. Paragraph 44, last three sentences. It's the sentence
3 beginning:
4 “However, if Mr Roll is suggesting that Fujitsu
5 routinely rushed out fixes or work-arounds due to SLA
6 time pressure, that is not the case.”
7 I'm inviting to you say that you are not suggesting
8 that this is the case.
9 A. I would agree with what Mr Parker has put here, yes, and
10 it is wrong to suggest that they were not done properly
11 because of SLAs.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 ‘Then would you also agree with what he says in the
14 next sentence, “fixes would be expedited based on
15 service impact”?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And would you agree that "it would be quite wrong to
18 suggest that they were not done properly because of any
19 SLAs”?
20 A. No, the fixes would be done properly.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 Then if we could go back to your second statement,
23 paragraph 15, it’s (E1/10/5). To save time could I ask
24 you simply to read paragraph 15 please.
25 (Pause).
81
1A. Yes.
2 Q. First of all, you say:
3 "The test team felt they were under enormous
4 pressure to complete the testing within certain
5 timescales which negatively affected the test regime.”
6 That's quite a bold claim. The testing wasn't your
7 team, was it?
8 A. No, they were on the same floor as us, some of them.
9 Q. So you're talking about your recollection of -- would it
10 be fair to say office gossip?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. From 15 or 19 years ago?
13° A. Yes.
14 Q. How many conversations of this sort did you have during
15 your time at Fujitsu?
16 A. I don't recall.
17° Q. Wasit a view that was expressed by the entire test team
18 ona regular basis, or was it something that was said to
19 you by one or two peoplea couple of times?
20 A. Myrrecollection is that the majority of the team felt
21 pressured.
22 Q. The majority of the team felt pressure. What did they
23 say about this pressure? What did it make them do?
24 A. I can’t remember.
25 Q. Budget restrictions , you refer to them in paragraph 15.
82
eIAHkYOnE
What did you know about Fujitsu’s budgets, Mr Roll?
‘A. ICL were bought out or taken over by Fujitsu and at the
same time an American company was taken over as well.
ICL were not, from my recollection, were not very
profitable at the time and nor were the American
company, so shortly afterwards when Fujitsu couldn't
turn them around they were merged into Fujitsu. There
were lots of redundancies. My recollection is that the
Horizon project, which I seem to remember had originally
been joint DSS project but they had backed out, the
Post Office went with it on their own, my recollection
is that Horizon was the only profitable part of Fujitsu
at the time.
Q. And consistently with Horizon being profitable , there
were no redundancies in the SSC when the takeover
happened, were there?
A. No. I think one or two people were a bit worried there
might have been, but there weren't.
redundancies in the test team from what I remember.
‘There were
Q. There were redundancies in the test team? I’m not in
a position to deal with that point now.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: What year are we talking?
‘A. 2002 maybe.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Could I just advance some general
propositions and see if you will agree with me.
83
Isn't it the case that Fujitsu had every incentive
to make the support operation work, to minimise the
problems requiring changes and to minimise the problems
requiring fixes down the line; wouldn't that be right?
AL Yes.
It would be more expensive in the long-run for a company
such as Fujitsu to do the support work badly than it
would be to do it properly, wouldn't it?
AL Yes.
That's a statement of the obvious.
And the £25 million that you referred to, that
was -- bearing in mind the focus that this trial has,
that has no bearing on the kind of transactions that
we're talking about, does it?
‘A. No, that was the servers and the batch transactions
Okay. If we could just move on to Mr Parker's second
witness statement at paragraph 24 at page 7 (E2/12/7}
I would like to suggest to you -- I'm going to read out
passages and invite you to agree or disagree, Mr Roll
At paragraph 25 (E2/12/8} he refers to paragraph 16
{E1/10/5} which we have been looking at from your
statement:
“At paragraph 43 of my first witnes
I explained that the possibility of financial penalties
statement
or service level agreement breach was never a factor
84
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/22
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
oPrpoPro>
which affected the diligence with which SSC would
investigate an issue”
1 have already put that to you:
“By way of further explanation
Then he talks about schedule 15 to the service level
targets for Horizon services and perhaps! could invite
you fo read paragraph 25.1 to yourself.
(Pause)
Yes.
‘At the time had you ever seen this document?
No.
Were you aware of what was in it?
Not directly , no.
Then he says:
“There were no specific financial penalties relating
to the SSC processing of incidents *
And then he quotes some text from the service
description
Did you know that at the time?
No. This is the 2005 version, is it, 30 November 2005.
Is this -- was this
there in 20042
I believe so, yes.
Right.
some incidents weren't subject to SLAs but the ones
is this the sameas when I was
Mr Parker is nodding at me.
My recollection is that incident processing,
85
I have already mentioned, the harvesters, were, and that
some of the financial data from the counters
But not incidents of the sort that this trial is
concerned with, perhaps I could ask you that. You
weren't aware that there were any
No.
SLA targets which related to the incidents with which
we are concerned in this trial?
No.
Thank you. Then! can skip over paragraph 25. Let me
finish with 25.4 {E2/12/9}:
The SSC had operational targets to turn incidents
around based on an order of priority. As explained in
paragraph 22 above, if an issue was causing a financial
impact in a branch’s accounts, it would be treated as
high priority
Stopping there, Mr Roll, would you agree with that?
Yes.
and high impact by SSC.”
Would you agree with that, it would be treated as
high impact?
Yes.
“However, any increase in priority would not adversely
impact the diligence with which work was done”
Do you agree with that?
86
eIAHkYOnE
2
oreoPr
I still feel that some work was rushed. I can't tell
you why, but I feel that.
Very good and I won't -- I don’t wish to discuss your
feelings on the point any more than we have already.
Let's just talk briefly about getting fixes out.
If I could go to paragraph 13 of your first statement
please (E1/7/2} and again to save time let me just ask
you to read that paragraph,
Sorry, which paragraph is that?
Paragraph 13 at the bottom of the page
13, thank you very much.
(Pause).
Yes.
First of all, the need for multiple upgrades, that’s
normal in any IT infrastructure of this sort, isn’t it?
Yes.
The fact that there were a limited number of time
windows, that’s also normal for any large IT
infrastructure of this sort?
Yes.
These things are unavoidable given the scale of the
Horizon system, aren't they?
Yes.
Then you say:
there could be six weeks delay before a fix
87
could go out, and during that period Post Office
branches could continue to be affected by the coding
issue”
But you would accept, wouldn't you, that if there
was an urgent fix dealing with a high priority, high
impact problem, that would generally be treated as an
urgent matter requiring a hot fix; would you agree with
that?
Yes.
Urgent fixes were expedited, weren't they?
Probably within two or three days from what I remember.
And that’s just normal -- what you are describing
here -- the impression might not be coming through from
paragraph 13, but actually what you are describing is
the normal operation of proper risk management process
in a commercial business, isn't it?
Yes.
Thank you. And then you say:
there could be six weeks delay before a fix
could go out, and during that period Post Office
branches could continue to be affected by the coding
issue”
Let me just make it clear, Mr Roll, if you had
identified a coding issue that was affecting branches
and if there was a period of time between identifying
88
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/23
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 the problem and getting it fixed, however long that time LA. Paragraph?
2 was, Fujitsu had in place a mechanism by which all the 2 Q Paragraph 14, page 3. It is only a sentence:
3 branches that would pop up being affected by that 3 *As well as software issues, I can also recall that
4 problem would be identified; that's right, isn't it? 4 there were regular IT hardware issues at branch level .”
5 A. Overtime, yes 5 What kind of issues are we talking about, Mr Roll?
6 Q Sothe fact that there wasa gulf in time, however big 6 A. I'msorry, I still haven't found the page.
7 or small the gulf might be, between spotting the problem 7 Paragraph 14?
8 and getting a fix released onto the entire network, 8 Q. Paragraph 14.
9 regardless of how long that period of time was, the 9 MR JUSTICE FRASER: You are in the wrong statement. We're
10 postmasters that would be affected by the problem in the 10 in your first statement.
11 meantime would be identified so that they could be 11 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Iris your first witness statement,
12 sorted out; would you agree with that? 12 Mr Roll
13° A. Yes 13 MR JUSTICE FRASER: It doesn’t have any red on it
14 Q Thankyou. Then you say: 14 A. I'msorry.
15 *1 also recall situations where software developers 15 (Pause).
16 worked on a coding fix which was then sent out, however 16 Yes.
17 the bug reappeared several weeks later because, it 17 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: What kind of issues are you talking
18 seemed, the IT team responsible for developing upgrades 18 about?
19 had been working on an older version of the 19 A. Hardware issues could have been keyboard failure, or
20 software ..” 20 a hard drive failure. “Software” here mean
21 Mr Roll, I don’t know what you are referring to 21 Q I don't need to ask you about that otherwise we will be
22 Are you seriously suggesting that there were times when 22 here forever and it is not your fault, I just
23 the development team would actually be looking at 23 So you're talking about those kind of issues and you
24 a historical version of the Horizon software? 24 say “regular”, Later on in your second statement you
25 A. Yes 25 say that you personally received one of these about once
89 91
1 Q. Really? 1 ‘a month, yes?
2 A. Yes. 2 A. That's what! was thinking, yes, when! ...
3 Q Howis it that happened, can you explain? 3 And would that be reflective of what other people at
4 A. Myunderstanding of this was that the development team 4 your level of seniority in the SSC team were also
5 had the current version of software and they were 5 receiving?
6 working on that, a bug -- a coding bug was then 6 A. I don't know.
7 identified , a hot fix was written and sent out, but it 7 You don't know. I was going to take you to numbers, but
8 wasn’t implemented onto the code that the developers 8 1 won't. Let me move on instead to your second witness
9 were using, so six months later when this new batch of 9 statement, the one with red in it. It is El, tab 10 and
10 code went out it overwrote the hot fix that had been 10 I would like to ask you a couple of questions about
it sent out, so then the hot fix had to be re-applied. 11 paragraph 6 (E1/10/2}. This is all under the heading
12 Q. Oh,I see, so youare not suggesting that the team would 12 "Hardware failure”, It is on page 7.
13 be working on an already historical version of Horizon, 13 You talk about hardware failures in paragraph 5 and
14 what you're talking about is regression, you're talking 14 you say:
15 abouta later update undoing the good things that was 15 *I would estimate that I was involved with
16 done by an earlier update? 16 a hardware failure on average at least once a month.
17 A. Yes. 17 These problems could and did affect branch accounts.”
18 Q. I see, thank you. That did happen but it was very rare, 18 How would they affect branch accounts?
19 wasn't it? 19 A. I can’t remember.
20 A. It wasrare but it did happen. 20 Q. Thenyou give an example:
21 Q. Very good. 21 The most extreme case that I can recall was
22 I would like to ask you now about hardware failures. 22 a complete failure of a counter to communicate with the
23 Could we go back to your first witness statement please, 23 server, which required the server to be removed to the
24 paragraph 14 {E1/7/3}. I’m sorry, you haven't got there 24 SSC so that the data could be recovered, and
25 yet. 25 a replacement counter installed in the sub-post office
90
92
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/24
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 Prior to the problem being identified, data could be
2 accumulating on the counter without it being replicated
3 to other counters or the correspondence server”
4 This is something you experienced personally, is it?
5 AL Yes
6 Q. Anddol infer from your use of language that this
7 happened to you once?
8 A. I remember one specific instance fairly clearly whenit
9 happened.
10 Q Doyou remember any other instances? Can you say for
at sure that there were any other instances?
12 A. No.
13 Q. So it maywell be that this happened only once in your
14 four years at the SSC, is that right?
15 A. For me, yes.
16 Q. Youare talking about stuck transactions, aren't you,
17 what we saw on a PEAK yesterday, marooned transactions,
18 yes?
19 A. In this instance because the counter couldn't
20 communicate at all, well, yes, they were marooned
21 transactions. It was just very difficult to get them
22 off.
23 Q. And the way to get them out was to move the machine from
24 the branch to the SSC so that it could be downloaded, is
25 that right?
93
1 A. Very briefly , yes.
2 Q Yousay -- it is a phrase in paragraph 61 would just
3 like to ask about. You say:
4 “Prior to the problem being identified , data could
5 be accumulating .."
6 Why do you say could be rather than was? Was it not
7 clear whether that was happening or not?
8 A. Sometimes you may not have been aware ~ if the counter
9 hadn't been switched on for a while then data might not
10 be actually accumulating, there might not be any stuck
11 transactions on it.
12 Q. Whenthereis a stuck transaction ona machine, that is
13 something that’s going to get identified as night
14 follows day, isn’t it, and spotted?
15 A. Eventually, yes
16 Q. It’s not something that’s going to be missed and just
17 allowed to lie there? Fujitsu itself
18 A. It would be spotted.
19 Q. Fujitsu itself would spot that this was happening?
20 A. Eventually, yes.
21 Q. Fromits own monitoring, yes?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So that’s one example of a hardware failure that could
24 affect branch accounts because a transaction is stuck on
25 a machine and isn't getting through to the system and
94
eIAHkYOnE
OIA RWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the truth of the matter is that was in an extreme case
that was very rare, yes?
Yes
And when it did happen it would be spotted and it would
be fixed in the way that you described, yes?
Yes
‘Then in paragraph 7 you say:
“I recall there were also PIN pad problems which
caused issues in branches, and problems with other
peripheral devices such as keyboards which only occurred
intermittently, although 1 cannot recall the specific
detail of these now”
Can I just get this out of the way quickly now.
PIN pad problems, those are not problems which could
affect branch accounts, are they?
I don't recall what the problems were with them or how
they affected the system.
And problems with other peripheral devices such as
keyboards, they wouldn’t affect the branch accounts,
would they?
Probably not, no.
And then you come to paragraph 8 which I think is the
example that you tried to give earlier when we were
discussing -- and let’s see if wecan finish this off
before lunchtime, Could I ask you to read paragraph 8
95
please, Mr Roll
(Pause).
Yes.
So you are describing there a problem that was
spotted -- it’s the kind of problem that’s always
ultimately going to be spotted, isn’t it?
This particular problem,no, it -- I don’t think any of
the other counters that were affected had the problem,
becanse most postmasters don’t bother turning the screen
off, to save the screen, it’s .. so
So you're saying it’s very rare?
It’s very rare that it would have been spotted.
And it’s to do with a mobile post office which makes it
even rarer
Yes
because they are a tiny proportion of the branch.
network, yes?
Yes
So we're talking abouta tiny, tiny incidence, a tiny
problem, but my question wasn’t about how frequent it
‘was, my question was it’s a problem when it does arise
that’s always going to be spotted?
I don't know if it would always be spotted. If it
was -- caused a problem at one point then it might be
that it would be 24 hours before the system fixed
96
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/25
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 itself , in which case it might not actually
2 Q I see. So if the problem caused a persistent failure to
3 replicate, that is a problem that
4A. Yes.
5 Q. -- wasalways going to be spotted?
6 A. Yes
7 Q. So when you say it wouldn't necessarily be spotted,
8 that's because the system itself might deal with it
9 appropriately?
10 A. Yes
11 Q Bur if it didn’t, it was always going to be spotted?
12 A. Yes.
13° Q. Very good. Andin this particular case the problem was
14 spotted and the data was replicated , yes?
15 A. Yes
16 Q Andagain, that would always be the position,
17 wouldn't it: once the problem is spotted this is very
18 easy to deal with?
19 A. In this case, yes
20 Q Well, in all cases of this sort, yes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thankyou.
23 ‘Then Mr Parker deals with that in paragraph 7 of his
24 second statement, that’s {E2/12/3}. Could I ask you to
25 read paragraph 7 to yourself. It is quite long.
97
1 (Pause).
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Have you read that paragraph before?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Andhave you looked at the PEAKs that Mr Parker refers
6 to?
7 AL Yes.
8 Q. Andare those the PEAKs that actually describe the case
9 that youare talking about?
10 =A. Yes.
11 Q Very good. Thewell, let's havea quick look at those
12 PEAKs. The first one is at {F/197}. So this is
13 PCO100174. It happened on 4 March 2014 and the summary
14 says "Kit rebooting itself for no apparent
15 And 1 think it must mean “reason”. And you will see
16 from the bottom of the first large paragraph:
17 “Information: contacted SSC and spoke to
18 Richard Roll.”
19 So you are the contact man for this and later on
20 down the page, three boxes up from the bottom,
21 1 March 2014 at 16.56 and 40 seconds, Barbara Longley
22 assigns this to you.
23 If we go over the page {F/197/2} there's
24 a description of the problem. Perhaps we can pick it up
25 at 5 March at 10.50, about nearly halfway down the page:
98
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
“Evidence (from event logs) shows that the power is
being switched off every morning shortly (ie 5 or 6
minutes) before the [postmaster] logs on”
So that was the problem?
AL Yes.
‘Then if we go three boxes down, 5 March at 12.09, this
is you:
“After carrying out tests on our rigs...”
Stopping there, what rigs are you talking about?
A. I think we had three mobile test rigs in the
floor.
on our
Q. So youare not testing the postmaster's equipment, you
are testing your own equipment, the sample equipment?
A. Yes, this was in Scotland I think.
Q. So very properly you go and look at the rigs and you
test them, and you say:
*I have been able to duplicate the problem here on
one of our rigs.”
So did you say there were three
A. [tested all three and it only happened on one.
Q. “It seems thar the screen power button is incorrectly
connected to the motherboard, operating the power switch
turns off power to the entire unit, not just the screen,
We have now identified two instances of this, one in
live. This is a hardware build quality issue”
99
So you clearly flag this as a hardware issue.
AL Yes.
And then in the next box it says:
“Responded to call type L as category 70 - Avoidance
Action Supplied”
What did that mean?
A. I don’t know.
‘Then you saya little further down:
“Defect cause updated to 42:Gen - Outside Pathway
Control.”
>
I don’t know.
Q. Doesn't it mean that it’s a hardware issue that’s the
ity of another
responsi
Probably, yes.
institution that deals with hardware?
Probably, yes.
If we could then move on there's a second associated
PEAK, Mr Roll, that’s at {F/201/1}
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Is this just a two-page document, this
one?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Itis four pages.
‘a two-page document, my Lord, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The last one was.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I'm so sorry, I didn’t understand your
question
A
Q
A
Q.
‘The last one was
100
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/26
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OIYHORWNHE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Right, this is PCO100899. This one is dated
21 March. The summary refers to the branch and it is
the same you can take it from me, it’s the same
branch number, FAD number.
The first big box, about four lines down,
17 March 2004, so that’s 12 days after you had spotted
the problem on one of your three test rigs
“SSC request base unit is removed and sent to
Bracknell for investigation
So you asked for the postmaster’s mobile laptop to
be physically removed and brought to you?
Yes
‘Then if we move down to the next box, 18 March, 15.55,
about four lines down:
“Recommend: base unit (node 1) to be swapped for
investigation purposes”
What did that mean?
Bring it back to Bracknell so we could look at it.
Very good. And about halfway down that same box, if you
could look at the screen, it says “Recommend” and in
capitals :
*PLEASE SWAP MOBILE UNIT AND RETURN TO SANDIE
BOTHICK FOR PROGRESSION TO SSC”
Who was Sandie Bothick?
I can’t remember.
101
Then over the page (F/201/2}, on the first big box it
says, youcan take it from me, that the engineer has
arrived at the site andthe unit will not arrive in
Bracknell until later in the week. Towards the bottom
of the page, page 2, 18 March 16.04 Barbara Longley
assigned it to you.
‘Then on page 3 (F/201/3}, 24 March at 2.15 and
25 seconds it is recorded that you record that the base
unit is received, do yousee that? It is the
penultimate box, Mr Roll?
Yes
And then I would like to then go to the last box on that
page
“Tests carried out on screen power switch working
correctly, no further action required *
So does that -- I mean the impression I get from
reading this is that although you had found this problem
ona test rig, in fact it wasn’t a problem that was
affecting the laptop that was used in the
subpostmaster’s branch. Would that be right or wrong?
No, it was affecting it. Youdidn't necessarily put
these in, enter the data as it happened, if you like
So the base unit would have arrived, I worked on it and
then I went and -- so I changed the switchover so it
worked properly and then we put it back into stock and
102
eIAHkYOnE
then I filled the data in on that.
I see. So wehavea batch of faulty laptops and then if
‘we go back to paragraph 8 of your witness statement, at
the bottom of page 7 that’s El, tab 10, page 7, you say:
“When Iraised this with my manager, Mik Peach, he
initially told me not to do anything until he had spoken
to someone about this.”
Who would he have spoken to about it?
I don’t know.
It would have been the people who were responsible for
hardware issues, wouldn't it?
Probably.
So you raised the problem with him and he said “Hang on,
I will just speak to the responsible people”, would that
be a fair way of describing whatyou are saying?
Yes.
‘And then you say:
“Mick did subsequently talk to the hardware team.
They were responsible for ensuring that
I’meertain it was them that he spoke to.
‘And then you say:
*At which point I found out that this wasa known
problem.”
Is that whatMr Peach told you?
‘At some point I found out that there were several units
103
out there that had been changed. I’mnotsure if it was
Mik Peach that told me or if somebody else told me from
the hardware team, I can’t remember.
Well, it is quite important, bearing in mind the
impression given at the end of this witness statement.
Can you really not remember whether Mr Peach was aware
of this?
Mr Peach was aware of it at some point, that he knew.
And would it be fair to infer that he probably knew
because he had spoken -- if this is true he would have
spoken to the hardware team about it?
Yes.
‘And then you say:
“No one outside the team responsible for building
the laptops had been informed of this, which meant that
I had spent several days investigating the problem’
Is this why you remember, because you were cross?
Yes.
"Whereas the subpostmistress in this case was provided
with a replacement laptop, knowledge of this problem was
kept within the departments concerned and the batch of
faulty laptops was not recalled .”
Are you saying that there was prior knowledge in the
hardware team of the problem and the hardware team had
not recalled the faulty laptops?
104
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/27
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OIYHORWNHE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opop
Yes.
Is that whatyou are saying?
of knowledge for that?
And what was your source
I was told there were several laptops that had the
problem on them that had actually gone out into live
into the estate.
How did the hardware team know that the laptops had
problems with them given that they had already been
distributed out? You're not suggesting that the
hardware team identified a problem witha laptop and
then sent it out to branches, are you?
No, I think what happened is that they suddenly realised
they made a mistake at some point but by that time
several had already gone out, so then they were able ro
fix the ones they had ..
And you're saying they didn’t recall the others. And do
you know how many we're talking about?
No.
Could it be two, could it be one?
It could have been two, it could have been half a dozen.
So that’s the period leading up to the point when the
SSC gets involved and you write two PEAKs saying “There
is faulty hardware here’. Are you in a position to
say - or are you claiming that once Mr Peach had spoken
to the hardware team, that remained the position, that
105
the hardware team continued to not recall these units?
I don’t know what happened after that.
Isn’t it fairly obvious that once someone quite senior
like Mr Peach from the SSC had spoken to the hardware
team, the people involved would very quickly have
thought "Good gracious me, I had better recall these
outstanding laptops”; would that not be a fair inference
as to what happened?
My inference from this was that it was kept in-house and
‘as a favour and that: okay, we know it happened, it’s
not going to happen again, it was very limited impact,
it’s having probably no impact on the estate, so it’s
not worth recalling the laptops.
You say “inference” and that's a fair word to use
because it’s a word! think I put to you, but you are
not saying, are you, that you were told by anyone that
after Mr Peach had told the hardware team of the problem
that was being encountered, you're not saying that you
know that the hardware team continued to sit on their
hands and not call the laptops back?
Something at the time made me certain that was what was
going on.
Something at the time made you certain?
Yes. I don't know why I've got that certainty in my
mind, but -- and then I was told to put minimal details
106
on that last -- the last PINICL.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, two more minutes and then we
break, would your Lordship give me some indulgence?
minutes.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I'm grateful.
v
3
oPreoPr
This looks as if it mightbe quite a serious
1
2
3
4 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I will on this occasion give you the two
5
6
7
8
allegation. It is one you have just made by this
amendment that I received at 10.30 yesterday morning
Yes.
You say:
“I was told by Mik Peach not to include any details
of this when I closed the PINICL.”
Which is the predecessor of PEAKs. That's
an extraordinary -- are you suggesting, Mr Roll, that
the manager of the SSC -- which that’s a senior
position, isn’t it?
Yes.
It’s a senior management position?
Yes.
‘That he took the view that the hardware team having done
this thing that was bad, having allowed bad laptops to
remain in circulation, he also took the view that the
hardware team should be protected from any criticism and
they should be allowed to continue the process under
107
which those laptops remained in circulation?
I've got no idea what view he took, but I was asked
or told rather not to put -- not to include too much
detail in that PINICL.
Why? Did he tell_you why?
I can’t remember.
What conceivable motive would someone like Mr Peach have
to affect the record in this extraordinary way?
The only motive I can think is that if he was friends
close friends with another manager on the same level and
that manager had covered up something in his department
then Mik Peach out of friendship andas a favour might
have decided that it wasn’t worth - having passed the
information on to his manager -- the other manager, it
was then his responsibility whatto do with it. I got
the impression nothing was going to be done with it
because of what I was told, but I might be wrong.
Well, Mr Roll, I had thought that when! asked you
questions about this you would rather retreat from the
allegation that Mr Peach -- who obviously isn’t here to
defend himself did this thing.
it is within your knowledge that Mr Peach was a friend
Are you saying that
of the person who was in charge of the hardware team?
No.
So that’s speculation?
108
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/28
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1A. That's speculation.
2 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Butto be fair to the witness,
3 Mr De Garr Robinson, you did put the question what
4 conceivable motive might Mr Peach have, which is in any
5 case inviting speculation I think
6 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: That's true.
7 But that’s all you have, you have no basis for
8 A. No.
9 Q Noother basis for thinking that Mr Peach would ~
10 A. No.
11 Q. The extraordinary thing about this, Mr Roll, is you
12 accept, don’t you -- and these are my last questions --
13 you accept, don’t you, that it is not in anyone's
14 interests, it’s not in the SSC’s interests for these
15 faulty laptops to remain in cireulation ; you accept
16 that, don’t you?
17 A. The only people who would have an interest in this would
18 be the person who might be sacked for trying to cover it
19 upin the first place.
20 Q. So it is not in the interests of the SSC team that they
21 remain in circulation?
22 A. No.
23. Q. It’s not in the interests of Fujitsu that they remain in
24 circulation?
25 A. No.
109
1 Q. Yousay it could be in the interests of the person who
2 was responsible for not having pulled them back, but if
3 the machines remain out there in circulation , that just
4 increases the likelihood of that person ending up being
5 sacked, doesn't it? Isn't it in that person’s interests
6 to get these damn machines back as quickly as he or she
7 can?
8 A. Yes, then that would -- yes, it would be.
9 Q Butyoudo maintain, do you, that you think that person,
10 whoever it was, didn’t do that?
11 A. That was the impression got at the time, yes.
12 Q. Theimpression from whom?
13° A. Lcan’t remember, but that is how -- that is what
14 I think happened. You might be right though, you could
15 be right there that -- I was1 suppose basing my.
16 presumption, which is what it was basically , on the
17 thought that to have to recall the laptops would expose
18 the person to, you know, “Why were you recalling them?”,
19 but as you have just pointed out it would probably have
20 been better to recall them and then not have to worry
21 about them sitting out there and potentially causing
22 a problem later.
23 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Right. If you are going to pursue this
24 any further you can do it at 2.15. We really have to
25 try and finish at 1 for the shorthand writers, really
110
eIAHkYOnE
It’s not for any personal convenience.
Right, we are going to come back at quarter past 2.
You are still in the witness box. You mustn't talk to
anyone about your evidence.
2.15,
(1.15 pm)
And I will see everyone at
(The luncheon adjournment)
(2.15 pm)
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, good afternoon.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: We have to stop at 4.30.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I'm conscious of the need to speed.
I'm going to. move on to remote access now, Mr Roll
Could I ask you to go to paragraph 15 of your first
statement which is at (E1/7/3}
“During the course of resolving software issues
And I asked about software issues.
You said:
You said:
we would frequently access a Post Office
counter IT system remotely. Anexample of a relatively
common problem that arose was when a binary bit would
‘flip’ thus a ‘l’ became a
1 want to ask you what you are talking about when
you describe that phenomenon and I want to ask you
whether you are talking about what Mr Parker talks about
in paragraph 55 of his witness statement, so could we go
to bundle E2 behind divider 11 please. It is at page 15,
i
{E2/11/15} and perhaps I could ask you to read
paragraph 55 through and stop at the end of 55.4,
(Pause).
A. I have read that page.
Q. Very good. When yon are describing what you describe in
paragraph 15 are you referring to the condition known as
CRC errors?
A. This problem would probably cause - would cause a CRC
error.
Q. And would Mr Parker be right when he says at the end of
paragraph 55.1
“To clarify , this process did not involve changing
any transaction data”
In accordance with the definition we have discussed
A. This error would occur in a line of transaction data
Now, every digit, every character in that transaetion
data is made up of bits, binary bits. So an A
I don’t remember the full binary code for it, but it
might be 101010 for instance. Now, times that could
flip so it would become 110 or whatever, one of the
digits would change. That character would then cease
becoming an A and might become a non-principal character
or an ampersand or something. That would then cause
a CRC fail because the data wouldn't be -- it wouldn't
add up.
112
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/29
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 To correct that when we detected that what would 1 unlock a counter so that it is able to replicate onto
2 happen at that point is that that message store would 2 other counters.
3 then stop replicating. So transactions would then start 3 AL Yes.
4 accumulating on the message store after that point. 4 And what I’m suggesting to you is that the process of
5 We could copy the data that had been -- we could 5 doing that does not involve changing/editing any actual
6 copy the message store off that counter intact, from 6 transaction data, any -- as we have discussed -- data
7 what remember, so we would get all of it off 7 that shows up in the accounts. That doesn't involve in
8 Q. Yes. 8 he changing of transaction data at all, does it?
9 A. Youcould then identify the line that was broken, for 9 A. I'msorry, I'm- I think we're talking -- I'm obviously
10 want after better word, and by looking at it, it was 10 not understanding what you're getting at because to me
11 quite obvious then which character was wrong, if it 11 what I'm discussing is changing the transaction data
12 was if it should have been an angle bracket, it was 12 I'mat a bit of a loss here.
13 something else, so you could then correct that in a text 13 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, you are explaining that that’s the
14 editor. And basically you could then put that 14 change which happens.
15 transaction back in to the message store and then copy 15 A. Yes
16 the rest of the data back on top of it that you had 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson is either putting to
17 taken off, so you have corrected that particular line of 17 you that that physically can’t happen, which I think is
18 code. So in this instance we have rewritten a line of 18 one of the questions he put, or he is putting questions
19 code into the message store to correct it 19 in relation to something else. So he is just going to
20 Q MrRoll, 1 wantto distinguish now between inserting 20 explore that with you.
21 individual transactions into a message store -- which 21 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Could you go please to Mr Godeseth’s
22 you could do and you have read the witness statement so 22 witness statement which is in E2 behind divider 1 and
23 you know it is accepted that you could do that. I want 23 I would like to go to page 11 please {E2/1/11). Perhaps
24 to talk though about the process that you appear to have 24 we could pick it up at paragraph 35, Mr Roll. Could you
25 describing here. It's not possible, is it -- if there’s 25 read paragraph 35 very quickly and then indicate whether
113 115
1 data on the message store, it’s not possible for you to 1 you agree with it or not.
2 gain access to the message store in Riposte and alter 2 (Pause).
3 any line of transaction data? It’s physically 3 AL Yes.
4 impossible to do that, isn’t it? 4 And you agree with it?
5 A. Thewayl understand it and what! believe is that if 5 A. Normally that’s what was happening, yes, unless
6 that data hadn't been replicated, if it was ona single 6 something had broken.
7 server -- sorry, a single counter, if we took that data 7 Q. Then if we go to paragraph 37:
8 off and deleted some of it, we could possibly then have 8 “All accounting at the counter was carried out based
9 created something else and put it on and then by 9 on the data held in the message store.”
10 importing it into Riposte it would then have rewritten 10 That's right, isn't it?
a1 the cyclic redundancy check correctly so it wouldn't 11° A. I’mjust reading it
12 have flagged an error. 12. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson, I know that you
13 Q. MrRoll, you started by explaining a situation where 13 have slightly run out of time but you can’t really rush
14 transactions are stuck ona particular counter and they 14 him too much.
15 are not replicating 15 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: You are right.
16 =A. Yes. 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: You are putting 12 or 14 lines of text.
17 Q. The moving ofthe bit from 1 to 0 is what you could do 17 Right, have you read it now?
18 remotely in order to unlock the counter so that the 18 A. Yes.
19 replication process would occur as normal? 19 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: So the first sentence is right,
20 A. Yes, but to do that we would have to delete -- fromwhat 20 isn’t it?
21 I remember, we would have to delete the existing data, 21 A. I believe so, yes
22 including the broken line of data, and then import the 22 Q. And the second sentence:
23 data back into the counter, so we were writing code into 23 “The Riposte product managed the message store and
24 the message store remotely. 24 it did not allow any message to be updated or deleted,
25 Q. MrRoll, I’masking you about the process by which you 25 although it did allow for data to be archived once it
114
116
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/30
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 had reached a sufficient age
2 A. Yes
3 Q. It is correct, isn’t it, that Riposte didn’t allow any
4 transaction line in the message store to be individually
5 deleted or changed or edited in any way?
6 A. Youcouldn’t do it through Riposte, no. You had to hack
7 the system to do it
8 Q. So would this be right then, that it wouldn't be
9 possible to remotely access a counter and change the
10 data on the message store of that counter remotely?
11 A. I believe that theoretically it would.
12 Q. How would that be possible? Riposte wouldn’t allow you
13 to do it, would it?
14 A. By doing the system that I have just said. If you
15 could -- without the message store replicating , so
16 there’s no other copies of it, if youcould get that
17 message store off, alter the data in some of the lines
18 of code, to do that you would need to strip out all of
19 the preamble and the post-amble, so you're just then
20 left with the basic data as if it had been on the stack
21 or whatever ~ forgive me, I'm very rusty on this -- but
22 then by -- I think it was the Riposte import but it
23 might have been something else, you could then reinject
24 that data which is the process we would have used to
25 rebuild a counter. But if you had changed some of that
117,
1 data, I think that it would then have rewritten the CRC
2 when it imported it so that then whenit replicated, the
3 data could theoretically have been changed.
4 Q. I'mfinding it difficult to follow you and it may be my
5 fault
6 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I follow what the witness is saying but
7 keep exploring it
8 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: I would like to distinguish though
9 between transactions insertions -- the process of
10 injecting particular transactions into the message
a1 store, which could be done, with the process of actually
12 manually changing a transaction line that is in the
13 message store and you could insert new transactions,
14 couldn't you, but what you couldn't do is you couldn't
15 edit or indeed individually delete lines that were in
16 the message store itself ?
17 A. Youwould have to delete all of the message from what
18 I remember, delete all of the messages down to a certain
19 point to the one you wanted to amend and then inject
20 a load more text, or insert more transactions in to make
21 the message store and Riposte think that it had been put
22 in by Riposte and by the postmaster.
23° MRJUSTICE FRASER: I think you can probably explore this
24 with the experts
25 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I think I probably should.
118
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So if we go back to Mr Parker's witness statement
{E2/11/16}, the process that’s described in
paragraph 55.4, would you agree that -- you have already
read this paragraph, would you agree with what Mr Parker
says in
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Wait, it is not on the sereen yet.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: E2/11/16.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Page 1 is up but 16 isn’t
(Pause),
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Paragraph 55.4, you have read this,
already. Is whatMr Parker says there true?
‘A. In that case, yes, nonew data is added, what we have
done is correct data and put it back in
Q. And paragraph 55, Mr Parker -- you will recall how 55 is,
structured. Mr Parker is trying to figure out what you
are talking about and he suggests first of all you might
be talking about the process that’s described in
paragraphs 55.1 to 55.4 and then he says:
* Alternatively , Mr Roll’s reference to a binary code
flipping may relate to a configuration item
And then he goes on, he gives an example of:
a stock unit lock whieh, in the wrong state,
would prevent updates to stock units within a branch.
This issue was corrected by a member of the SSC
accessing Horizon remotely, but it did not involve
119
accessing or editing transaction data in any way or
re-creating databases.”
Is that true?
A. [can’t remember that. I was not referring to that
process.
Q. Very good. And then Mr Parker says:
“I cannot think of any other examples of incidents
that Mr Roll may be referring to in paragraph 15”
And you are suggesting there is another way, the one
that you have just described, are you?
A. That's the way I remember doing it.
Okay. And you continue -- if we go back to paragraph 15
of your original statement (£1/7/3} -- would you excuse
me a moment.
It is suggested ro me that you may be describing
a process that Mr Parker describes in his second witness
statement; let me goto that very briefly just to see if
{E2/12/12} paragraph 38.2. Let’s read the
whole of 38 together. He says:
“For completeness, in the rare circumstances where
you are
it wasnecessary for Fujitsu to rebuild transaction data
in Legacy Horizon, there were three possible scenarios:
“[1] when a counter failed and there was a complete
replication of that counter’s transactions elsewhere,
Fujitsu. simply deleted the message (transaction) store
120
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/31
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 on the faulty counter and used the standard_ facilities
2 of the Riposte software to rebuild the data from the
3 replicated copy. In this scenario, the branch would be
4 unable to use the counter while this process was carried
5 out
6 Is that correct?
7 A. I think so.
8 Q Youdon't havea clear recollection?
9 A. I don't havea clear recollection of that
10 Q 382:
11 “Where no replicated copies of the transactions
12 existed on the network, Fujitsu would physically
13 retrieve the disc from the faulty counter. The disc
14 should hold all of the transactions that had taken place
15 onthe counter. At its own office, the SSC would
16 extract the transaction data and deliver it to the
17 replacement counter without amending that data.”
18 Stopping there, is that true?
19 A. In someinstances, yes
20 Q. "The SSC would need the subpostmaster's memory card ...
21 to decrypt the data, This wasa physical card
22 (a subpostmaster had two) and Fujitsu would have to
23 borrow one - so the subpostmaster would know what was
24 happening”
25 Is that true?
121
1 A. I don't remember the memory cards. I don’t remember
2 that process of it.
3. MRJUSTICE FRASER: You might be able to save time by
4 jumping to the penultimate sentence of that paragraph,
5 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: If I could do the intermediate ones.
6 Next sentence:
7 “If Fujitsu were to change anything, it would be to
8 remove the envelope around the transaction data. ‘The
9 envelope contains the system admin data ie the sequence
10 number of the data and its ID”
11 A. That's whatI remember doing, yes
12 Q. That's whatyoware talking about?
13 A. That's one of -- yes.
14 Q. And just now when you were describing the process that
15 I'mafraid rather confused me, that’s what you are
16 talking about here?
17 A. Yes, that was one of the steps in it
18 Q. Thankyou. And then it says
19 "Fujitsu would not change the transaction data
20 itself and in removing the envelope data, they would
21 simply be allowing the system to automatically renumber
22 the transactions when they were reinserted.”
23 Is that whatyou are talking about?
24 A. Effectively, yes, but this is where-- if it was that
25 transaction data that had the corruption in it then all
122
we would dois correct it to put it back to what it
should have been, so in that instance -- in that effect
wi
not changing the data, we're merely correcting it
Q. Well, my suggestion to you will be that you never and
would never manually change a transaction line of data
that a postmaster had keyed in, That's just not
something SSC would ever do.
A. The process I have just described is something we did,
as far as I remember it.
‘The process of actually changing line of code to
change it from £100 to £10, we would never have done
that
Q. So -- I mean Mr Parker says
sentence:
let's go back to this
* Fujitsu. would not change the transaction data
itself and in removing the envelope data, they would
simply be allowing the system to automatically renumber
the transactions when they were reinserted.”
I’m suggesting to you, Mr Roll, that that’s the most
that anyone at the SSC would ever do in terms of
changing transaction data?
A. That's not my recollection of it.
ago though.
Q. And then he says:
“Ultimately, when the counter was replaced at the
It wasa long time
123
branch the subpostmaster would be able to see what
Fujitsu had done.”
Is that true?
A. Again, my understanding is that in certain circumstances
the data would be indistig .. sorry.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Indistinguishable, is that what you are
trying to say?
A. Yes. Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: You couldn't tell the difference?
A. Youcouldn’t tell the difference. The postmaster
wouldn't be able to tell the difference from data that
he had entered as he was scanning a stamp or whatever
and to what we had putin. That's my understanding
my recollection.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Well, I suggest to you, Mr Roll, that
no one at SSC would ever manually change a line of
transaction data and then reinsert that transaction data
into the message store of any branch. There might be
occasions when new transactions were inserted, but it
‘was more than the job of an SSC member was worth to
actually start mucking about with lines of existing
transaction data
A. Can say that we were not "mucking about” with lines of
transaction data, We were trying to rebuild counters.
If I can take the instance after single counter
124
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/32
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
post office where one of the lines of data had been
corrupted. Without correcting that corruption and then
reinserting it, if the corruption remained then that
line of data would have continued to cause problems.
Well, you have heard the case I have put to you. Could
I ask you this -- well, actually, can I please ask you
to go to E2/13/4, which is the third witness statement
wyAnRone
2
of Mr Godeseth. Page 4, paragraph 17. Perhaps I could
9 ask you to read that.
Sorry, paragraph 17 was this?
11. Q. This is where Mr Godeseth is referring -- I don’t have
12 time to take you to the underlying PEAKs ~
13. MR JUSTICE FRASER: We are in Parker 3.
14 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: We should be in Godeseth 3, E2,
15 tab 13, I'msosorry, it should be (E2/14/5}. Could
16 1 ask you to read paragraph 17 please.
17 (Pause).
18 A. [have read that, yes.
19 Q. Might that be whatyou are talking about?
20 A. No,I don't recognise this
21 Q Soare you in a position to confirm what Mr Godeseth
22 says or not?
23 A. No, because the data that I'm unsure what BRDB refers
24 to
25 Q I'msosorry, that’s Horizon Online.
125
1A. ~ but the data would have been transaction data that we
2 could have been changing, from my recollection of it.
3 Q Then the process you are describing in your witness
4 statement -- you say that you would - I"m looking now
5 at paragraph 15 of your first statement (E1/7/3}, you
6 say that you would contact the branch and arrange for
7 them to stop using the computer for a limited period of
8 time. You would then log on to the branch’s system,
9 download all the data from the relevant computer. Now,
10 stopping there, when you say “log on to the branch’s
a. system”, which system are you logging on to?
12 A. Sorry, we would log into the counter that was faulty
13 Q. Whenyou say log into it, you wouldn't physically log
14 into the counters, you wouldn't be in control of the
15 counters, would you?
16 A. Thecounter had to be switched on -- my recollection is
17 that if the postmaster hadn't logged on then we could
18 log on with our ID to access the message store and the
19 Riposte system. In that instance there would be an
20 audit trail because our user ID would bein the message
21 store not the postmaster’s.
22 In certain circumstances we could do that. In other
23 instances, the wayI remember itis that for the system
24 to operate correctly for the accounting, it had to be
25 the same user ID logged on, so that postmaster, or that
126
eIAHkYOnE
©
orore
clerk or whatever would have to be logged in with their
ID and password so that any data we changed, or put back
on, would then go in with their ID, which is why they
couldn't use it, then that data would then be picked up
correctly by Riposte, Riposte would assume that the
postmaster had been operating as normal and would accept
the data into the message store and process it
correctly
Could you tell_ me what were the circumstances in which
you had to use the same user ID as the original user?
1 can’t remember what the differences were for the
different errors, but it depended on what error was
coming up and what bit of data was corrupt -- where the
corruption lay in the message store.
So you can’t think of a specific reason why it would
have to be the same person, but you're saying that it
did sometimes?
Yes, it -- sorry.
I didn’t let you finish
I have lost my train of thought now, sorry. It often
made it much cleaner for accounting reasons, from what
I remember, if it wasthe same user ID. All of this
all of these actions would be detailed in the PINICL and
if —- from what I remember, if you were accessing
a counter in this way, two people had to be there, one
127
as an independent witness to make sure that everything
‘was going correctly
So there would have to be what we now call PEAKs and
there would have to be two pairs of eyes
‘That was what
it would never be left to one particular member of
the SSC team to do it on his own?
It was never supposed to be and I don’t think it ever
was but I'm not sure.
So this is a formal process then, is it
Yes.
-- which the SSC took very seriously?
It was developed and taken very seriously, yes
Andis it also the case that Post Office consent was
always needed for this kind of process?
When I wa
postmaster to get his consent.
there we were supposed to speak to the
So from Post Office
consent, that’s whatI believe you mean by that. Formal
consent from the Post Office itself , maybe not.
Do you remember the phrase OCPs? The operational change
process
No,
-- does that ring a bell? Do you remember that a form
needed to be filled in in which Post Office consent was
obtained for alterations to data that could affect
128
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/33
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
branch accounts?
No.
You don’t remember? Can I suggest to you that that was
the process and that did have to be complied with.
Right. It may have been, yes.
And you are also saying that it was also required that
postmaster consent had to be obtained for this kind of
change, yes?
‘That was my understanding of the consent that was.
obtained, It was just one of those things that if you
were going to log on to a counter remotely for whatever
reason then you spoke to the -- you should speak to the
postmaster first and get his consent.
And it stands to reason, doesn’t it, that if you
started -- forgive me for the loose form of language,
but if you start fiddling with data on his machines that
could have an impact on his branch accounts, he or she
could hit the roof, couldn't he? He or she would need
to know what was happening so as to avoid any upset?
Yes.
And is it the case that when you engaged in this process
you ensured that proper protocols were followed that you
have just described?
Yes.
Excuse me, I have just got cramp in my leg, sorry
129
about that
Mr Roll, we have discussed what you say you could do and
I have put my case to you. The controls, the permission
controls, the change controls that we have just
discussed, that is having another colleague in the SSC
review what changes you are making, obtaining
Post Office consent and obtaining subpostmaster consent
to anything that could have an impact on branch
accounts, you followed those processes both for the
process that you're describing, with which I have
certain reservations, but also with the process of
transaction insertions that we're coming to in a few
minutes, yes?
Yes, as far as I'm aware.
If you did anything that could have an impact on branch
accounts, those processes had to be followed,
didn’t they?
Yes.
Thank you. So in paragraph 16 of your first witness
statement {E1/7/3}, you say:
* Still on the subject of remote access to branch
systems, as I recall some errors were corrected remotely
without the subpostmaster being aware.”
Those errors are not errors -- or rather those
corrections were not corrections which changed branch
130
eIAHkYOnE
25 Q. Could I just ask you about that, Mr Roll
>
eorer
accounts in the way that we discussed?
No.
You're talking about other errors, aren't you?
Yes.
Could you give some examples of the kind of errors you
are talking about?
I can’t remember I'm afraid.
But would it be things like changing configuration
items?
Probably, yes.
That sort of thing, which would not have an impact on
the branch accounts in the way that we have previously
discussed?
I think so, yes
Now, the process that you describe in paragraph 15, you
say "We would frequently access a post office counter IT
system remotely”, The occasions on which you would
access a post office counter remotely in order to change
lines of transaction data, whether by inserting
something or engaging in the other process that we have
discussed and I have queried, these changes would only
arise in circumstances where the cyclic redundancy check
had been triggered where there had been some problem
which the CRC system had identified as requiring
attention, would that be right?
131
I'mnotsure. I think so.
Very good. Then could I ask you just to look back to
Mr Parker's first witness statement at paragraph 55.3
{E2/11/15} and the top of page 16. He is talking about
the CRC process and he says:
“If one of the sets of data ona branch counter
became corrupted it would generate an event that would
be picked up by the SMC and/or reported to HSD by the
branch (an incident reporting a ‘CRC error’). There
were a total of 629 CRC errors over the life of
Legacy Horizon ..”
Would you bein a position to challenge that
calculation?
That's not my recollection of it. My recollection is
that some of these errors that I'm describing we would
detect because a counter perhaps hadn't replicated for
two or three days, so we would then look to see why it
had not replicated and that’s when we would find out
that the postmaster was still using it, transactions
were accumulating on the counter and a corruption at
some level had stopped the counter replicating after
that point, so we would from my recollection it
wasn't an error that we were receiving, it was something
‘we were monitoring on an ongoing basis.
It's always
132
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/34
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 dangerous to ask a question to which you don't think you
2 know the answer, but I can understand that something may
3 happen toa counter which means it stops replicating to
4 its fellow systems within the branch; what I don’t
5 understand is why it would stop replicating because of
6 a problem witha particular line of -- with a particular
7 transaction message. Why would a particular transaction
8 message stop the unit communicating with its fellow
9 units?
10 A. Acorrupt line of code in the message store would, from
at my recollection, stop that message store replicating
12 I can’t remember why, but the messages, as I say,
13 including that corrupt one wouldn't get replicated .
14 That's how you could find out which one was broken, you
15 could look at the message store and see that up to
16 line 9,004 had come through, so you would know, if the
17 postmaster had carried on using it, that 9,005 was the
18 bad message.
19 Q. Andwould1 be right in thinking that the problem with
20 9,005, there would bea problem in the envelope, the
21 data in the envelope around the transaction?
22 A. Not necessarily, it could be in the data itself
23 Q. Why would that be
24 A. Because of data corruption.
25 Q But why would that-- why, for example, if there was
133
1 a problem in the amount that was recorded in the
2 relevant transaction, why would that stop the counter
3 replicating
4 A. 1 don’t know, but it did. That’s the way remember it.
5 Q. Let's move onto transaction insertions. Paragraph 18
6 of your first witness statement, that’s page 3 (E1/7/3},
7 you say:
8 “The ability to remotely access the Horizon system
9 at branch level was extensive, in that we were able to
10 change not only data and transaction information, but we
11 also had the abi to insert transactions and transfer
12 money remotely ..”
13 I'mnot going to ask you about transferring money
14 remotely, the evidence has been explored in a series of
15 witness statements, but what I’m seeking to ascertain
16 from you is that you are talking about two different
17 forms of changing data, are you: firstly , the form of
18 data that you have just discussed, data changing that we
19 have just discussed; and secondly, the form of
20 transaction insertions? Are they entirely separate, or
21 are they the same thing?
22° A. Separate.
23° Q. They're separate, are they?
24 During the course of your time at the SSC did you
25 ever insert a transaction using that facility ?
134
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
POP o>
I don't think so.
You don’t think you did?
No. I believe there were instances where corrections
had to be made because data hadn't been written in and
some members of staff were able to add lines in to
correct the problems that were coming up, but I can't
remember ~-I think -- I can’t remember which ones they
were.
So when you say in paragraph 18 “we were able to change
not only data and transaction information, but we also
had the ability to insert transactions ", when you say in
the next sentence “obviously this was not done by me”,
are you referring to the ability to insert transactions
and the ability to transfer money?
Yes.
So you couldn't do either of those things?
I could have done. From my recollection.
I'mso sorry, you didn’t do either of those things?
No. What I’m referring to here is somebody ~ if you
want to be dishonest -- if the postmaster was using the
counter then my recollection was that you could have
logged onto the counter without the postmaster
knowing
I don’t need to ask you any questions about that,
MrRoll, but I understand why you want to tell me.
135
Going back to the form of access you refer to in
paragraph 15, this is the situation you're referring
to: the counter would stop replicating , you would be
aware that the counter would stop replicating. Would
that come up in the automatic checks?
Yes, I think it was something that certainly in the
early days we were looking for, was counters that hadn't
‘communicated for three days or so.
And then you would gain reading access to that counter
and see what had happened?
You would just log in.
And you would see that the transactions had stopped
replicating at a particular point, is that right?
Basically, yes. Quite often the postmaster would have
gone on holiday, so the counter was turned off or
something and that’s why it wasn’t replicating. In that
case there was no need to do anything. In other
instances you would see that the postmaster was still
using the counter and that's when you would realise
there was a problem.
And what would the nature of the problem be? What would
be wrong with the line of data that would make the
machine stop replicating?
As I have previously said, one of the lines of
a digit or a bit somewhere, from what I remember, would
136
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/35
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 have been flipped
2 Q Andare you suggesting that that wrongly flipped bit
3 could also have the effect of, I don't know, making the
4 transaction wrong, making it for £100 rather than £10,
5 something like that?
6 A. Originally 1 thought that, but I don’t think it would,
7 because merely flicking one bit wouldn't alter the data
8 that much. It would make one of the digits wrong but
9 not to the extent that it
10 Q So the basie features of the transaction, whether it was
at a purchase of stamps, or a sale of insurance or whatever
12 the transaction was, and the amount involved, the sort
13 of basic features of the transaction that end up having
14 an impact on the branch accounts, the problem you're
15 talking about requiring fixing wouldn't involve any
16 corruption of those features, would it?
17 A. It could be that if it was £100 then one of the zeros
18 would get flipped to a non-numerical value,
19 Q Andthat error might itself , what, prevent — might it
20 also prevent the machine from replicating?
21 A. That might then prevent the message store from
22 replicating
23 Q. This is a voyage of discovery for both of us.
24 In that situation you say that you would correct the
25 data in the way that you have described?
137,
1A. Yes.
2 Q. Andwehave already discussed whether you could or not,
3 but how would you know what change to make to the data?
4 How would you know, for example, that it should be £100
5 or £105 or £10, what investigations would you carry out?
6 A. You would - by looking at the value, for example if it
7 was 100, or should have been, then it would be 1 and
8 maybe a backspace character anda zero. Now, if you
9 change any one of those bits, from my recollection only
10 one of them would result in a numerical value. If you
a1 wanted a different numerical value to the original one
12 you would have to change two bits and the chances of two
13 bits becoming corrupted at once were astronomically
14 small.
15 It would also then if youcorrected it -- if you
16 changed to put the wrong value in then there would be
17 probably an accounts or a cash balance mismatch, so you
18 knew that by changing one of the bits you would then get
19 a numerical value and that should -- whenit is run
20 through the books properly, it wouldn't affect -- there
21 would beno errors.
22 Q. Soare you saying that when you did this there was
23 a means by which you could be absolutely sure what the
24 right figure should be?
25 A. Yes.
138
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oP
oper
POoOPOoP OS
And how often I’m inferring, but it may be optimism
bias on my part, but I’m inferring that of the problems
that caused counters to stop replicating there were many
many problems that didn’t involve the basic features of
the transaction data being wrong and I'm thinking that
the cases in which that problem was caused by the
transaction features. itself being wrong wasa very, very
Would that be right?
Unfortunately this is one of the things where the
mundane solutions, which are very easily fixed, you tend
to forget about and this, which is a very complex
small proportion.
solution, tends to make more ofa -- more of a memorable
impact. So my perception is that it was frequent, or it
certainly sticks in my mind more, but wouldn't
I would say it was only a small -- a
Would you be able to give an estimate
No.
~- as to how many times you didiit in the four years?
No.
Would it be -- it would be less than a handful?
I would think every couple of months, but I could be
wrong.
You could be wrong,
It is right, isn’t it, that Fujitsu generally, the
SSC, was extremely reluctant to make any changes to the
139
basic features of transaction data that we have been
discussing?
Yes.
That's not something they regarded as their job,
correct?
Sorry, the changes to the transaction data?
‘The basic features of the transaction data?
How do you mean by .?
Well, changing a figure in the -- the discussion that we
have just been having?
Right. That would have been our job because it was
trying to fix a corruption in the data
All right.
something you only did when you absolutely had to do it?
And let me suggest to you that it is
Yes
So I would like now to ask you to go to your second
statement, paragraph 20 please {E1/10/6}. You say about
halfway down that paragraph - we may have discussed
this already, but here you are describing transaction
insertions and there's a discussion about whether you
could use the correspondence server to piggy-back
through the gateway. And then you say:
“The nature of many problems meant that we had to
implementa fix in this way rather than going to the
correspondence server, and we frequently did use this
140
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/36
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 method in practice”
2 Could you explain the nature of the problems which
3 meant it was necessary to use that mechanism?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Canyou identify a single problem that requires you to
6 do it that way?
7A. Ican’t remember any specific examples, but it was
8 1 do remember that quite often we went to the counter as
9 opposed to the correspondence server.
10 Q. And then you say:
aL "If we injected transactions in this way, at the
12 counter position, then the counter position would be
13 shown in the branch records and reports as the relevant
14 counter position used in the branch
15 ‘Then going to the next sentence:
16 "Sometimes we had to ask for a specific person to
17 log in to the counter before injecting transactions so
18 that the software would not detect any discrepancies *
19 Could you explain why that was?
20 A. Thewaythat I rememberit, if you. if the system
21 if Riposte was looking at a batch of transactions going
22 through, so you hada certain user ID logged in, if it
23 then suddenly saw right in the middlea different user
24 ID, it would reject that transaction, it wouldn't
25 process it, it would
141
1 Q. When you say transaction, we are obviously not talking
2 about transactions undertaken at the branch, we're not
3 talking about sale -- we have already established
4 A. [amin this instance, sorry.
5 Q. Wasn't your previous evidence, Mr Roll, that you have
6 never used transaction insertions so as to insert
7 transactions into --
8 A. I'msorry, we're ... I misunderstood your question in
9 that case. Yes, I did insert transaction data on
10 occasion into the counter servers under the processes
11 that we have discussed where we would correct data,
12 log into the server -- sorry, into the counter and then
13 put the corrected data back in. I wouldn't insert
14 data or I don’t recall inserting data to correct the
15 system when data had not been written by Riposte.
16 I believe that on occasion lines of transaction data
17 ‘were not written into the message store when they should
18 have been and that there was a way of correcting that
19 and inserting newlines into the message store, perhaps
20 not with accounting data in it, but with ancillary data
21 to -- so that the message store would continue
22 processing and running properly and I believe that
23 certain members of SSC did that.
24 Q. Youdidn’t though?
25 A. I don't recall ever having to do that myself, no.
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
©
Qa
ereor
>
If we could look at the transcript at the bottom of
page 134. My question to you at the top of the page
was:
"Question: during the course of your time at the
SSC did you ever insert a transaction using that
facility ”
‘And you said
“Answer: I don’t think so.”
Could we scroll upa little bit further please
Yes, if we could just go up the page
‘Thank you.
So I say at line 5:
“Question: Let’s move on to transaction insertions .
Paragraph 18...”
You refer to them and 1 quote
‘what paragraph 18 says.
Right.
And I say:
Question: I’m not going to ask you about
what I'm seeking to
I read out
transferring money remotely ...
ascertain from you is that you are talking about two
different forms of changing data, are you: firstly , the
form of data that you have just discussed, data changing
that we have just discussed; and secondly, the form of
transaction insertions? Are they entirely separate, or
143
are they the same thing?
“Answer: Separate.
“Question: During the course of your time at the SSC
did you ever insert a transaction using that facility 2°
“Answer: 1 don't think so.”
I’msorry, you've got two types of data here which we
were discussing. The first one yes, the second one no.
Sorry, and what are the two types of data?
So the first one is where we have had the bit that’s
been corrected, as I have described, and where we have
corrected the bit, created a text file which we then
log on to the counter via the server with the postmaster
logged on but not using the machine. We then ran
I think it was animport tool to rebuild the message
store onthe counter, That's the waythat I recall it
Yes.
So that is the process I was involved in
I see. I think there may bea very large penny
dropping, Mr Roll
perhaps 40 minutes ago that threw me somewhat, Iwill be
So the process that we discussed
frank, was a process -- I think what you're saying
involving two different actions. The first one was the
action to get hold of the data that hadn't replicated
and make sure it did get onto the system, but the second
was to deal with the problem ofa line of transaction
144
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/37
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 data that was stopping the counter from operating? 1 had an impact on a set of branch accounts?
2 A. By-- sorry, if I can just stop youthere. Getting that 2 A. Yes.
3 data copied, it meant we had to correct that line of 3 Q And what you say is you can’t remember how often you did
4 data first to get the data to replicate properly. 4 it, but it could have been once every couple of months?
5 Q. Right. Butare you saying that the line of data that 5 A. Yes.
6 you corrected was actually a new transaction that you 6 Q. And how clear are you in your memory as to how often you
7 inserted using the transaction insertion facility ? 7 did it? Might it have been much less frequent than
8 A. It was- in this instance no it wasn't a new 8 that?
9 transaction, it wasan existing transaction that was put 9 A. It mighthave been,
10 in, but there was the facility to create -- from what 10 Q. And might it have a bigger impact on your memory because
11 1 remember, to create a new line of code. Not 11 of the -- frankly the palava you had to go through -
12 a transaction in the terms of selling a stamp or 12 A. Yes
13 something, but in the process of creating -- processing 13. Q. -- before youhad sufficient permissions to do that?
14 a sale to a customer there would be numerous lines of 14 A. Yes.
15 code, lines of data written to the message store. Now, 15 Q. Thank you, Mr Roll.
16 sometimes one of those might not have got written. The 16 Now, one thing I want to ask you about, Mr Roll, is
17 data regarding the sale, the value, et cetera, would 17 that on those occasions when you inserted transactions
18 have been and maybe one of the other lines wasn't. 18 piggy-backing off the correspondence server, you don’t
19 Q. Yes. 19 remember why you had to do it but you do say you had to
20 A. So there wasalso the facility to correct that, which 20 do it
21 I believe involved putting a new line into the message 21 A. Yes.
22 store as a correction and that’s what! wasn't -- 22 Q. Would be right in saying though that the default
23 I didn’t -- I don’t remember ever doing that. 23 process of doing it was doing it through the front door?
24 Q. So the process that we spent some time discussing 24 A. Yes. It was always safer to do it fromthe
25 earlier on this afternoon, did that process -- I had 25 correspondence server. The further you got away from
14s 147
1 understood you a couple of minutes ago to be saying that 1 it, if you like, the more risks and
2 as part of that process you did do transaction 2 Q. Andasa general rule the SSC didn’t like taking risks
3 insertions and those transaction insertions were the 3 of that sort, that’s not what they were there for?
4 kind of transaction insertions that involved putting 4 A. That's not what we were there for.
5 lines of transaction data in in the way that we have 5 Q. I'm grateful for that.
6 defined? 6 And could I suggest to you that in those situations
7A. Yes, reinserting existing 7 when it was necessary to use the piggy-back procedure
8 Q. And that was part and parcel of the process you 8 and indeed perhaps even more widely, that care was taken
9 described at say 10 past 2 this afternoon 9 to insert something in the message that was sent through
10 A. Yes. 10 to make it clear it did come from the SSC?
11 @ when we started talking about paragraph 15 of your 11° A. I don’t remember that in the message. In some instances
12 first statement, is that right? 12 from what I recall, youcouldn’t do that. I could be
13° A. Yes. 13 wrong, but the way! remember itis that it was-- when
14 Q Isee. And that’s the only kind of transaction 14 we did this it was documented in the paperwork, so there
15 insertion that you say you ever did - 15 wasa record of it on that side of things.
16 A. As far as I can remember, yes. 16 Q. Well, let’s look at an example. It’s an example when
17 Q. -- that involved actually inserting transactions? 17 you weren't there, but could we go to {F/485} please.
18 A. Yes. 18 This is a PEAK that took place in 2009 so it’s a long
19 Q. Andyou say it is correcting data, but the truth of the 19 time after you left, Mr Roll, and you will see that the
20 matter is it is just putting in a new transaction line 20 summary indicates there is a harvester exception and
21 that you yourself have formulated, is that right? 21 I think we have already discussed -- or could you
22 A. Yes. 22 perhaps explain what a harvester exception is?
23 Q Isee. Now that makes more sense to me. And what you 23 A. I think a harvester exception was when the servers --
24 say is that’s the only time you ever did use the 24 the correspondence servers overnight -- they were, from
25 transaction insertion facility in a way that would have 25 what I remember, UNIX servers handling huge amounts of
146
148
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/38
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 data from all of the Post Offices and the harvesters 1 (3.24 pm)
2 would run sequentially from sort of 2 o’clock in the 2 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Mr Roll, you will be pleased to know
3 morning or something, one would run for 15 minutes, it 3 that we are going to have some expedited
4 ‘would allow 15 minutes to run and then the next one 4 cross-examination now. Could you please go to
5 ‘would run and then the next one would run. So they were 5 bundle E2, tab 12. This is Mr Parker's second witness
6 not directly related to the counters at all. 6 statement and I would like to ask you to read at page 9
7 Q. Then if we go to page 2 (F/485/2} just to see what the 7 paragraphs 27 and 28 please {E2/12/9}
8 problem was in that case. Someone called 8 (Pause).
9 Garrett Simpson - I don’t know whether you know who 9 A Yes.
10 Garrett Simpson was? 10 Q. Have you looked at the PEAK to which Mr Parker refers in
11 A. Hewas probably the one who knew most about UNIX 11 paragraph 28?
12 servers 12 A. I can’t remember if! saw that one or not.
13 Q. Andhe says at the bottom of the page: 13 Okay. Well, we actually looked at it just before the
14 “After discussion with Cheryl and David I think the 14 break -- I didn’t give you the number so there's no
15 situation was this 15 reason why you should know that. But you will see what
16 "1) The session ... had four Mode:SC transactions 16 Mr Parker says in paragraph 28.4 and that is a point
17 for different currencies. Each one of these messages was 17 I would like to put to you {E2/12/10} he says:
18 missing mandatory fields so the harvester rejected 18 “The messages were inserted with the additional
19 them” 19 property <Comment:PC0175821>..”
20 Stopping there, could you explain to the court what 20 Which was the name of the PEAK.
21 these mandatory fields would have been? 21 to allow them to be identified ..”
22 A. [can’t remember. I think -- well, no, I can’t 22 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Hold on one second something has gone
23 remember. 23 wrong. Can we jump back a page to page 10 please
24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson, this is an example 24 {£2/12/10}
25 from five years after he has stopped working there 25 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Yes, paragraph 28.4
149 151
1 I think, is it? 20092 1 ~The messages
2 A. It is, yes, my Lord. 2 This is the transaction insertions and this is in
3. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, just hold on one second. 3 Legacy Horizon that you worked on, although it is
4 AmI right it is a 2009 incident? 4 five years after your time. He says:
5 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Yes. 5 "The messages were inserted with the additional
6 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I question how much help any of 6 property <Comment:PC0175821> to allow them to be
7 Mr Roll’s evidence might be about something in 2009. 7 identified in the audit trail
8 MRDEGARR ROBINSON: All right. Let me do this very 8 Now, what I would like to suggest to you, Mr Roll,
9 quickly in that case. 9 is that when steps were taken to insert transactions
10 Asa result of this PEAK atransaction was inserted 10 into branch accounts, that was the practice that was
11 into the message store of the relevant branch and 1 followed: you would do something in order to enable the
12 there’s a copy of the transaction that was of what 12 source of the transaction to be identified from the log
13 was done at (F/416.1} and perhaps we could look at that. 13. A. This, as you pointed out, is Legacy Horizon from 2009.
14 (Pause). 14 I would not say that was the same version as the
15 This may be a convenient moment. 15 software that I worked on. There were constant changes
16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: All right. We will have five minutes. 16 and upgrades going out all the time. I can’t remember
17 I do draw your attention to time. 17 if wehad the facility to insert comments into the
18 MRDEGARR ROBINSON: Yes, I'm well aware of that. 18 version that I was working on, It may be that we did,
19 MR JUSTICE FRASER: Good. 19 but my recollection first of all is that when we were
20 All right, we will havea five minute break for the 20 doing it it was documented in the PINICL and also this,
21 shorthand writers, Mr Roll. Same form as before, back 21 is for the creation of a new item, a new transaction,
22 for 20 past 3 please, don’t talk to anyone about your 22 that I was not involved - I do not think I actually got
23 evidence. 23 involved in that side of things. It was the correction
24 (3.15 pm) 24 of the corrupted ones that I was working in.
25 (Short Break) 25 So it’s possible, yes, that there was, but, briefly ,
150
152
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/39
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
1 don’t know, I can’t remember.
If we go down to paragraph 31 {E2/12/10}, Mr Parker
says:
“Transactions injected into a counter would appear
on the transaction logs available on Horizonas if it
had been carried out by the user that was logged into
the counter at the time (if nobody was logged on, the
user ID would be missing).”
Is that right?
Yes.
“However, when injecting such a transaction, the SSC
user would ensure that it was clearly identified in the
audit trail as having been inserted by SSC. Examples of
such identification I am aware of are the use of an SSC
user as the clerk ID and/or details of the incident
number as an additional property.”
You could put additional properties into the
transactions you inserted, couldn't you?
1 didn’t think
wecould, or I didn’t think we did at that point when
I don't recall that - I don't recall.
1 was working on it. There's a point here where it says
that “Examples of such identification I am aware of are
the use of an SSC user as the clerk ID". That is where
if the SSC user had logged into the counter and was
inserting a new transaction, rather than getting the
153
clerk to log in and then injecting a transaction as if
it were the clerk who were logged on, so that would
in this instance if you were creating a new transaction
to balance the accounts then you probably won't need to
log in as that clerk who had done the original
transactions, in which case it would make sense to log
in as yourself because then from the user ID it would be
clearly identifiable that it wasn’t a Post Office
employee doing it, it was someone from the SSC.
What I'm suggesting to you, Mr Roll, was that when you
worked at the SSC, first of all there wasthe ability ,
when using transaction insertions, to include additional
properties which made it possible for it to be
identified that you were the one inserting the
transaction and I want to suggest to you, Mr Roll, that
it wasthe practice to use that facility so as to be
clear as to the state of affairs where the transaction
came from.
1 would disagree, to put it briefly, bluntly. If it was
a new transaction of the type we are discussing here
which I didn’t do then yes, it’s possible it was, but my
recollection is that if we were rebuilding the message
store and correcting a piece of data then -- effectively
creating a new item to go in to replace the broken item,
then it wouldn't have any comment put into it, but that
154
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oreo,
>
is my recollection
And how clear is that recollection? 1 will give you an
opportunity to indicate whether you
It is 15 or 19 years ago, so
Say again?
I might be mistaken.
You fairly accept that you might have just overlooked or
forgotten?
Yes.
That's very kind of you, Mr andvery fair of you, if
I may say so.
‘Thenin the last few minutes let’s go to
paragraph 23 of your second statement {E1/10/7). We are
now talking about rebuilding branch transaction data
where a particular counter becomes corrupted. You will
recall that before the break I read you paragraph 38 of
Mr Parker's second witness statement where he went
through those stages?
Yes.
And my recollection is that you essentially accepted the
processes that Mr Parker described?
Yes
You say:
“As part of my role in the SSC, I was involved in
rebuilding branch transaction data... whilst in general
155
terms I agree with Dr Worden’s summary... his
description is very mucha simplification .... when data
ona counter became corrupt, the effect was that data
transmitted after that corruption could become
stuck.
Then moving on, you say halfway down:
“There was clearly room for error in this process,
where data could be lost, or mistakes made when
replicating data”
Now, 1 would like to ask you first of all what room
for error was there in the process where data could be
lost?
When you are copying the data froma counter, in my
recollection , if it’s a remote counter, you're copying
across the network and then editing it yourself on
a computer, you might make a mistake and you might
delete something that you shouldn't have deleted. And
that is the error the room for error that I'm talking
about. There were processes -- I have to admit there
were processes in place to minimise this risk, such as
having two people checking it and so on.
Well, that was going to be my next question, Mr Roll.
Why didn’t you mention the fact that there were these
protections that were specifically designed to reduce
that risk to a really infinitesimally small level?
156
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/40
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
oro,
It didn’t seem necessary to put that in.
It does give a rather unfortunate impression which is
rather different from the fact of the matter, would you
accept that?
To my mind, no, but I will accept that it —- to other
people it could perhaps.
Well, could I suggest this to you, Mr Roll, You
download this data, you get the line that you think
needs correcting and you correct it and this is all with
someone else formally sitting there watching what you
are doing, is that right?
Not at that point necessarily, no.
When would they be watching?
When you're about to insert the data.
So let's imagine a situation where that’s happening.
‘The person comes along. What does that person -- he
obviously have has to cheek that the data you are
inserting is going to be right --
They check the data that you've got and then make sure
the process is followed correctly to insert the data.
So that person would, for example, make sure that no
data has been lost?
Yes.
He or she would make sure that the change being made is
the correct change?
187
Yes.
And only when both he or she and you are satisfied that
it is all correct would be possible for you to press the
button and insert the transaction, is that right?
Yes.
Now, doesn’t that suggest that the chances of an error
being made such that a wrong transaction being entered
into a branch accounts really is infinitesimally small?
It is quite small, yes.
Thank you. Then in paragraph 24 of your statement
{E1/10/7} you say:
"The process that I describe at paragraph [23] above
could be carried out without the subpostmaster's
knowledge ... and in my recollection it sometimes was
done without the subpostmaster’s prior knowledge, for
example if the subpostmaster was away from the branch on
a lunch break and had not logged out of the system”
‘And then you say at the end of that paragraph:
*.. there were times where the job needed to be
done quickly to prevent potentially catastrophic failure
and we were unable to contact the subpostmaster
beforehand.”
Were those the only oceasions in which you would
have inserted a transaction without informing the
subpostmaster beforehand?
158
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. That is the only time we would have got onto a counter
without --
Q. Right, so 1 would just like to ask you: in relation to
the particular transactions we're talking about, in what
situations would that potential catastrophe arise?
A. Lean’t recollect exact scenarios. I can’t remember.
Can you not give me an idea of what you're talking
about?
A. No.
Q. So let us assume there was a situation of potential
catastrophe, you would never allow a subpostmaster to
have his or her accounts changed without them knowing
about it, would you? It mightbe that you might not
have told them beforehand, you would certainly tell them
afterwards?
A. You would tell them afterwards.
So it is absolutely standard SSC practice, isn’t it,
when you are dealing with a branch and correcting,
problems that the branch has got that the branch will
see, it is absolutely standard that you will communicate
with the subpostmaster to ensure that the subpostmaster
knows what changes you are making?
AL Yes.
Q. Thank you.
My Lord, I have rather hurriedly come to the end of
159
my cross-examination.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much. Mr Green.
Re-examination by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: A few points if 1 may.
Mr Roll, could you please be shown (F/1839}. 1 will
tell you what's coming up. It’s the spreadsheet you
were shown a whole load of figures were put to you
and you were challenged on your recollection on the
basis of various statistics .
A. Yes
Do you remember?
Just a couple of quick points. First of all, can we
just look at the RRP live PEAKs into SSC. And scroll up
please. Sorry, I thought it was that tab, apologies.
Can we try by category, sorry, "RRP live PEAKs by
category”. That's better, apologies
just to the top very kindly.
Can we seroll up
So you've got the closure category codes down the
left-hand side: 0, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 40, 42 andso
forth.
AL Yes.
Q. And you have the legend or the description against them
and if welook, for example, at number 63, "Programme
approved - no fix required”, 115 of those.
distance in time can you remember what was
160
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/41
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 encompassed in those descriptions? 1 multiplied twice to give a total of BBF of 2,279,189.04.
2 I've got no recollection at all I’m afraid 2 The diserepancy was therefore 1,082,540.28. This was
3 Okay, And we see another one “Administrative response” 3 due [to] a known software error which bas [now] been
4 at line 21. 4 resolved ”
5 Again, I can’t remember that. I can't remember any of 5 Do you see that?
6 them. 6 A. Yes
7 But that one seems to have quite a lot: 5,358, so about 7 Q. So that would have been quite a bad one, is that fair?
8 a fifth of the overall total. Do you see that? 8 A. Yes
9 Yes. 9 Q. If that had come across your desk?
10 Okay. You weren't shown it, but the court was told 10 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr Green, on the basis you still have
at there was a document which was broadly consistent with a1 another witness...
12 what those codes meant and if we can look please at that 12 MRGREEN: I'm really rushing, it is the last page.
13 document, it is at (F/823/23). Mr Roll, Im only going 13 MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, you are almost getting to the
14 to give a couple of examples of this. If we look at 63, 14 outer envelope of arising out of cross-examination, so
15 which is the line welooked at first. If youcomedown 15, put one more or two more questions.
16 the left-hand code side to 63. Doyousee this table 16 MRGREEN: Iwill, my Lord. It was just on those codes.
17 actually only starts at 60, it doesn’t have any of the 17 If you look please at -- there are two last places
18 earlier codes? 18 to look in the document. One is on page 11 (F/16/11},
19 Yes. 19 where it has been given a categorisation “Fix for first
20 But it does have 63 and you look across and it says 20 maintenance release”, Can you just tell the court what
21 “Programme approved no fix required” which on the face 21 that would normally mean as far as you remember?
22 of it sounds quite chirpy and positive and then we look 22 A. [can’t remember.
23 and it says: 23 ‘And then at the end it is closed, on page 13 (F/16/13},
24 “Rarely used. Covers the case where there IS 24 as “Administrative response”. Can you see that?
25 a fault in the product and this is acknowledged by both 25 A. Yes.
161 163
1 Fujitsu and [Post Office Limited], but the fault is 1 Q. And just above it says * Insufficient evidence”.
2 there as a result of an agreed design specification and 2 A. Yes.
3 Fujitsu would require POL to fund any correction. MUST 3 Can you remember how frequent it was for PEAKs to be
4 NOT be used without approval from HNGX Programme Manager 4. closed with insufficient evidence while you were there,
5 or authorised representative .” 5 or .2
6 At this distance of time can you remember seeing any 6 A. Iean’t give youan accurate —- I can't say how often
7 examples of those that you dealt with? 7 I'mafraid. I can’t remember. I know it was used but
8 No, I’mafraid 1 can’t. 8 I can’t remember how often.
9 Just one other one if 1 may. Canwe please see 9 Q. Last point if I may. Can you please be shown {F/99.2}.
10 {F/16/2}. This is PEAK PC0027887 and you will see it 10 You were asked about pressure in relation to service
11 comes in on 21 July 1999. Can you see the narrative 11 level agreements and if we look at {F/99.2} -- sorry, on
12 there, for FAD code in the third line of the light green 12 my copy
13 box, for FAD code 0011523 on week, 9 receipts and 13 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Do you want 99? We are on 16/13 at the
14 payments misbalance of £1,337.05, week 10 misbalance of 14 moment.
15 £24,000, week 11 misbalance of £12,000, week 12 15 MRGREEN: I've got printed out on mine F/99.2.
16 1,051,111.48; do you see that? 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: It might not be wrong, we just might not
17 Yes. 17 have got there yer.
18 And if we could go forward please to page 3 {F/16/3} and 18 MRGREEN: Well, my Lord, I can probably deal with it with
19 look in the bottom yellow box, 27 July at 10.09, do you 19 another witness.
20 see "CAP12" on the left -hand side? 20 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I think you probably
21 Yes. 21° MRGREEN: Itwasa point of fairness to this witness. He
22 Tt says 22 ‘was challenged on something and there was evidence about
23 alance brought forward was multiplied twice due 23 it, but I will deal with it with Mr Parker.
24 [to] known software error. The initial balance brought 24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr Roll, no questions from me. Your
25 forward for this CAP was 1,196,622.72. This was 25 evidence is at an end now, you can now leave the witness
162
164
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/42
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
wyAnRone
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
box and you can chat to people about the case if you
would like to. Thank you very much,
A. Thank you, my Lord,
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much.
Right, next witness.
MR GREEN: My Lord, it is Mr Henderson if 1 may.
MR IAN HENDERSON (sworn)
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you, Mr Henderson, do have a seat.
A. I would prefer to stand if I may.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes, of course you may.
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN
MR GREEN: Mr Henderson, in front of you there is a file and
if you turn to tab 5 you will see an “Amended witness
statement of Ian Henderson” {E1/5/1} and if you turn to
the back of that witness statement on page 7 (£1/5/7}
you will see a signature. Is that your signature?
AL Yes, it is
Q. Andis that statement true to the best of your knowledge
and belief?
A. It is, subject to two points. Firstly, I originally
prepared a much longer witness statement but I was told
that because this is a time limited trial it was not
appropriate to submit one of that length, so this is
substantially shorter.
Secondly, I think the court is aware that I'm
165
a party to an agreement between sort of Post Office and
the claimants that restrict the matters on which I can
give evidence, so that is a further limitation in my
evidence today.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Understood.
Have you any questions in- chief?
MR GREEN: No questions in-chief, my Lord.
Cross-examination by MR DRAPER
MR DRAPER: Good afternoon, Mr Henderson.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. You make very clear from your witness statement that you
don’t propose to give opinion evidence and I’m not going
to ask you any questions about the opinions set out in
Second Sight’s reports.
What it may be helpful to do is to take you through
some of the background to Second Sight’s involvement and
some of the chronology as to what happened at various
stages and your involvement in the mediation scheme.
A. Fine
Q. With that said, there's one very general point about the
scope of Second Sight’s work that I would like to
confirm with you. As you are aware, the issues to be
determined in this trial and to which you refer in your
statement are purely technical issues about the Horizon
system as to its functions, reliability , robustness.
166
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PoPror
You are aware of that, aren’t you?
Yes, I am.
It is fair to say, isn’t it, that the scope of
Second Sight’s work was substantially broader than that?
You also considered, for example, issues as to training
and support?
Sorry, was there a question there?
Yes: that’s right, isn’t it?
That our scope was much wider?
Yes.
Well, our scope changed quite substantially during the
terms of our appointment. We issued an interim report
and it was that that gave rise to Post Office deciding
to offer a mediation scheme. Our role at that point
changed from being an in-depth investigation to being
one of supporting the mediation scheme primarily and
dealing with the 150 or so applicants to the scheme
We adopted the definition of Horizon that
Post Office itself adopted, so it was much more than the
coding or the software, it also included the way that
processes operated, the impact of Horizon on.
subpostmasters and the various sort of remediation
procedures that were available
Yes, thank you.
So just to -- I’m going to run you
through the chronology if I may and at the end of my
167
doing so there will be an opportunity for you to comment
on that but I think everything I'm about to say to you
ought to be uncontroversial.
You were engaged first in July 2012, so the total
time span of your involvement is 2012 to 2015. You have
just_ mentioned the CRRs we're going to come on to and,
as you have you have said, the interim report was
produced in July 2013, the mediation scheme was set up
around thenin the latter half of 2013 andit is right
I think to say that the applications to enter the
mediation scheme had to be in by November 2013, so
roughly towards the end of that year?
My recollection is actually slightly different to that.
We were first appointed around about July 2012. Towards
the end of 2012 we were in active discussions with
Post Office and JFSA who invited applications for us to
consider various matters. After we issued our interim
report, that was the point at which Post Office decided
that we should move to the mediation scheme phase.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don’t think the witness did mention
A
a CRR.
No, I didn’t, my Lord. Case review report.
MR DRAPER: He may not have used the words but I think you
said “individual reports in the mediation scheme’,
didn’t you? I may have misheard you.
168
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/43
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Rather than be combative, Mr Draper,
when you puta question to the witness that says "You
mentioned the CRRs” and he didn’t, I just wanted to
check you weren't at cross-purposes.
MR DRAPER: No, [had understood him to be referring to what
1 would call a CRR, but we shall come back to those in
more detail
wyAnRone
It is right to say, isn’t it, that there were
9 initially 150 applicants to the scheme
10 A. Of which 136 were finally admitted into the scheme.
11 Q. Thank you, you finished my question.
12 Once the mediation scheme started -- and again you
13 have already said something of this -- it is fair to say
14 that you had essentially two roles at Second Sight. The
15 first was the production of thematic reports, which are
16 the reports you describe in your witness statement;
17 that’s right, isn’t it?
18 A. Correet.
19 Q. And the second was the production of what 1 have called
20 CRRs which are individual reports relating to
21 a particular complainant's case?
22 A. Correct
23 Q. Now,with that background can we turn please to the
24 Second Sight engagement letter which is at {F/1228.1}.
25 Do that you have on the screen there, Mr Henderson?
169
1A. Dated 1 July 20147
2 Q. That's the one, yes. It says in “Background” there that
3 this letter sets out the arrangements for your
4 engagement on behalf of the working group in relation to
5 your role in the scheme. And we can read further just
6 under 2
7A. Can I just makea point, I’m sorry to interrupt, it is
8 dated July 2014. I mean that is a long time after the
9 mediation scheme started, so I'mnot sure that that is
10 the first letter, or wasthe letter that was relevant at
it the time that we started our workin relation to the
12 mediation scheme.
13 Q I'msure if it is going to be said that there was
14 a different arrangement that had materially different
15 terms, that can be suggested by the claimants. So
16 I just wanted to take you to some key elements of this.
17 Obviously if you have that concern, you can raise it
18 If we could skip down quickly please to clause 4.1,
19 which appears on page 3 (F/1228.1/3}, that’s the
20 provision allowing for termination on notice and that’s
21 the provision that was relied on the following year,
22 isn’t it?
23° A. That's correct.
24 Q. 42 refers to the services being provided exclusively by
25 Second Sight directors. That’s you and one other
170
eIAHkYOnE
director, isn’t it?
Correct.
Go forward to page 5 please (F/1228.1/5}, just the
signature page, to orientate everyone. Then over the
page (F/1228.1/6], “Scope of services *, is where this
agreement describes what you are actually intended to
do. If you could just remind yourself please of 1.1
down to 1.4.
(Pause),
Yes, I have read that.
Does that accord with your recollection of what your
role was?
I remember this letter, but as I said earlier , this
letter arrived probably at least halfway through the
mediation scheme so we had already done a great deal of
work, possibly on terms different than the ones
deseribed in this. letter
Understood. If you could tur then to look at 3
{F/1228.1/3} please, towards the bottom:
“It is recognised that Second Sight is not required
to definitively determine every issue raised by
a subpostmaster but rather is required to reasonably
investigate and, where appropriate, offer an opinion on
the key issues in dispute between a subpostmaster and
Post Office
171
So it was recognised, wasn’t it, froman early stage
that it might not be suitable for Second Sight to be
required to determine each and every issue that arose?
I take dispute with “at an early stage". As I said,
this letter is dated at least halfway through the period
of us supporting the mediation scheme.
Putting to one side whether the situation may have been
different , you can confirm I think that it was certainly
the position fromthe date of this agreement, that that
was recognised?
Yes, I can
If welook please at 5 which starts at the bottom of the
page but really the meatof it is over the page please
{F/1228.1/7}, §.1 refers to your expertise and the scope
of that expertise. 5.2, just remind yourself of that
And 5.3 Second Sight shall
”. use its reasonable endeavours to comply with
any deadlines or timeframes set by the working group”
I just want to see whether you will agree with this
in relation to timeframes: is it fair to say that the
anticipation at the outset was that the working group
would set relatively demanding timeframes and hope to
move forward quite quickly?
I think that’s a reasonable sort of expectation. It’s
got to be measured by reality though and we had regular
172
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/44
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 meetings of the working group and timetable was always 1 reviewing all of that information, Second Sight would
2 on the agenda. 2 then produce its consolidated report.
3 Can I come back to 5.1, which you started to draw my 3 Q And that suite of documents was intended to go before
4 attention to. ‘That was substantially varying the 4 the working group and inform the decision it would then
5 previous scope of our engagement which was that the 5 take on whether or not to recommend mediation?
6 scope of our work was to be set solely by Second Sight, 6 A. That's correct
7 We believed, as we said in our part 2 report, that 7 And without attributing blame to anyone -- not
8 issues relating to criminal law and so on were relevant 8 Second Sight, not the subpostmaster, not Post Office
9 to the mediation scheme, so this was inserted fairly 9 but looking purely at a factual level as to what
10 late in the day. 10 happened, would it be fair to say that the progress in
11 I'm not going to ask you about what you said or didn’t 11 the scheme, in the production of those three documents,
12 say in the Second Sight report, but I think you will 12 and in obtaining a decision from the working group, went
13 acknowledge that this isn’t something that was inserted, 13 somewhat slower than had been hoped at the outset?
14 this was something that you agreed in July 2014? 14 A. That's correct
15 Halfway through the mediation scheme, yes. 15 Q. CanI show you briefly a couple of documents relevant to
16 Just to get the timeline right, the briefing report 16 that. The first is at (F/1325/137). I think,
17 part 1 was produced in July 2014; that’s right, 17 Mr Henderson, you may or may not have seen this before.
18 isn’t it? 18 It is a letter from Sir Anthony Hooper to Ms Swinson,
19 Yes, I think that’s right 19 who is an MP, in fact Minister for Employment Relations
20 And I’m not going to ask you about any opinions 20 and Consumer Affairs. This was in mid-December 2014.
21 expressed in that report, but purely as a matter of 21 Have you seen this before?
22 getting some understanding of how it all fits together, 22 A. [can’t see a date on that letter, I may be missing it.
23 1 think you will agree with me that the part 1 report 23 You can take it from me for now that wecan tell from
24 was intended to be a largely uncontroversial account of 24 other documents that it is mid-December.
25 Horizon’s functions, Post Office's operations, things 25 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mid-December which year?
173 175
1 like that, with the part 2 report being intended to 1 MR DRAPER: 2014.
2 contain your opinions on issues? 2 If we look at the second paragraph,
3 Part 1 was intended to be, yes, uncontroversial, to 3 Sir Anthony Hooper is saying here the thing that you
4 reflect the permanent information relevant to the 4 have just agreed, Mr Henderson:
5 matters that we were looking at. The part 2 report was 5 "The progress of cases at every stage of the scheme
6 dealing with the thematic issues that we had identified 6 has taken longer than the working group would have
7 from our previous work. 7 wanted”
8 And it is right, isn't it, that there were two versions 8 He then sets out those various stages. He then
9 of the part 2 report, the first of those being published 9 says
10 in August 2014, so really not long after the part 1 10 “In addition disagreements within the working group
11 report? 11 as to whether individual cases should proceed to
12 That's correct, which was very shortly followed up by 12 mediation has led to further delays because such
13 a very substantive response by Post Office 13 disagreements can only, for reasons of fairness, be
14 Yes. If we could turn to the CRRs that we have already 14 resolved at face-to-face meetings.”
15 discussed briefly, It is fair to say, isn’t it, that 15 He then gives some further detail and over the page
16 they were intended to be one of three key documents that 16 please {F/1325/138}. Doyou recall seeing this update
17 ‘would go before the working group: there would be the 17 on progress at the time, Mr Henderson?
18 written complaint from the subpostmaster, there would be 18 A. I don’t recall seeing this letter or this appendix, but
19 Post Office 's written response and there would be your 19 those numbers do look broadly familiar and we may well
20 CRR? 20 have discussed them in a mediation working group
21 My recollection is slightly different to that. There 21 meeting.
22 would be the application to the scheme which I think was 22 Q. Soby this time in mid-December, if we look down to
23 knownas the CQR, the questionnaire. At that point we 23 roughly two-thirds of the way down the table, we see the
24 would request such files that were available from 24 cases that had been mediated to date, there were seven
25 Post Office together with a report. Asa result of 25 of those; that’s right, isn’t it? And we see from the
174
176
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/45
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
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
very bottom that there were 110 left in the scheme.
I see that
If we could go forward please then -- I should just say
for completeness there's a document I won't go to which
is a later letter from Sir Anthony Hooper which is at
{F/1325/165}. That just provides an updatea couple of
months later.
Moving on then to March 2015, so a few months after,
there’s a report from CEDR on progress and that’s at
(F/1325/186).
Can I make an observation on this appendix and the
apparent slow progress. I can’t remember precisely at
what point CEDR was selected but it took some time to
make the decision that CEDR was going to be the
nominated body to administer the actual mediation
process and I think that more than anything else
reflects the relatively sort of small number of cases
that were listed on that schedule.
It is fair for you to add that consideration.
If we look now at the document we have on screen,
here from CEDR, CEDR explains that by this date -- which
you can see fromthe top is 6 March if you look at
the second paragraph:
As you know, since July 2014, CEDR has been
referred 31 cases for mediation under the scheme. So
V7
far 12 mediations have been taken up by the parties,
using six different mediators, and 2 are currently being
scheduled for mediation this month.”
So this is coming upto a year anda half since the
scheme closed to applicants and by this stage there has
heen 12 mediations. Does that accord with your
recollection of the kind of progress that was being
made?
Well, perhaps I can make another point before I answer
that. I meanthis letter is to Post Office general
counsel. I would nothave necessarily seen this letter
1 certainly don’t recall this letter. Those numbers are
broadly sort of consistent with my sort of recollection .
Is it fair to say that by this stage in March 2015 there
wasa desire within the working group to make somewhat
faster progress?
Well, I think we had already made faster progress. You
will also recall that it was in March 2015 that our
appointment under the previous letter that you showed
the court was terminated. 1 think at that point we had
reviewed and produced reports for something like 116
sort of cases, so the vast majority of our work was
actually complete by that point.
Yes, that’s a very fair point for you to make.
If we could just look at it very briefly, the
178
eIAHkYOnE
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
termination letter to which you have just referred is at
{F/13/24.1}. That's the termination letter I think to
which you at least indirectly referred.
That's correct
If we could look then to {F/1324.2}, This is a much
longer letter from Post Office that came to you on the
same day. Do you recall this longer letter? If 1 maybe
tell you broadly what it is to do with. It’s a letter
in which Post Office sets out a plan for how
Second Sight could finish its outstanding work. Do you
remember that letter?
Yes, I do.
And the second paragraph makes clear that Second Sight
was expected fo continue working during the notice
period and that even beyond the notice period there
would bea proposed future role for Second Sight.
That's what this document dealt with, isn’t it? It's
a fairly long document,
It is, but there’s another document of that date or very
close to that date which you haven’t mentioned which was
the press release from Post Office announcing the
winding up with immediate effect of the mediation scheme
itself. That I understand was the primary decision and
our termination was a consequence of that not a separate
issue.
179
Well, I think when you say mediation scheme it's fair to
say, isn’t it, that this winding up process, as you
describe it, did not put an end to mediations; in
fact
It put an end to the mediation working group with, as
I understand it, no consultation and the announcement
was made I think the day immediately before the next
planned meeting of the working group, so it was
a considerable sort of shock to everybody.
The rationale from Post Office because
Post Office general counsel was kind enough to explain
this to mein a meeting had with her when I was handed
this letter, that Post Office felt that we had reached
the point of -- it mightbe unfair to say sort of
diminishing returns, but we were at the point where the
mediation process using CEDR could continue without any
further input from the mediation working group and that
alternative arrangements would be made for Second Sight
to complete the I think it was 20 outstanding reports at
that point.
And in fact although there was not much time required
for this, but also to complete your version 2 of the
briefing report?
Yes. That was already substantially complete. Within
the letter I seemto recall was the requirement to
180
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/46
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 complete that by 10 April which we were happy to agree
2 to and I think it was signed off on9 April or
3 thereabouts.
4 Q. Andit is right to say, isn’t it, that that version 2 of
5 the briefing report part 2 wasin fact -- Second Sight
6 had told the working group that at least the first draft
7 of that report would be produced onthe 11th, so the day
8 after this letter, and youin fact did produce a draft
9 very shortly afterwards?
10 A. Yes, that’s my recollection and we invited comments from
11 Post Office to enable us to complete the report and we
12 issued it I think early May early April
13 Q. AndI’mnot going to take you through all of them merely
14 because of the time so please do tell me if anything
15 1 say here is unfair, but there is then an exchange of
16 letrers between Second Sight and Post Office and indeed
17 at least one meeting of which I’m aware in which the
18 terms of Second Sight’s ongoing engagement were
19 discussed and agreed over the next couple of weeks.
20 A. Therewasa certain amount ofto and fro-ing. I do
21 recall that one element of the proposal that was not
22 acceptable to Second Sight was that we were going to be
23 instructed directly by claimants. We felt that that
24 potentially compromised our independence and objectivity
25 and we suggested an alternative , which I seem to recall
181
1 Post Office readily agreed to
2 Q. Yes. Just so wehave the full detail on that,
3 Post Office proposed to pay to applicants the amount
4 that it would otherwise pay to you and for them to pay
5 you directly. You said, for the reason you have given,
6 you weren't comfortable with that and Post Office agreed
7 to essentially continue the existing arrangement which
8 was direct payment from Post Office to Second Sight?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Andis it fair to say that that was the main point of
11 difficulty between you in reaching agreement?
12 A. That's the main point that I recall but I haven't
13 revisited the documents recently.
14° Q. That's fair
15 Last point just to confirm -- I think this is
16 probably implicit in what you have already said to me,
17 Mr Henderson, but it is right, isn’t it, to say that
18 looking at both the CRRsand the briefing report part 2,
19 version 2, each of those was ultimately produced
20 slightly -- I make no criticism -- slightly later than
21 had been anticipated by the working group, but in
22 relatively short order nonetheless?
23 A. [think that’s a fair comment.
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 I have no further questions, my Lord.
182
eIAHkYOnE
24
21
22
23
24
25
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Re-examination?
MR GREEN: My Lord, no.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I have some questions.
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE FRASER: The first is the two points that you
made at the beginning of your evidence -in- chief
effectively qualifying your evidence. You don’t need to
tell_me what you were told by whom, but your
understanding was thar there was some restriction in
length on your written witness statement because this
was a time limited trial, is that correct?
A. Lwastold that the draft -- or my first witness
statement that I prepared stood the risk of being
rejected by the court as going into too much detail and
being too long and that 1 should preparea much shorter
version, which 1 ultimately did
MR JUSTICE FRASER: All right, well, just to be clear, no
such restriction has ever been imposed by the court on
your witness statement.
The second one, I understand and you have identified
this in your witness statement and it leads into a point
I’m going to ask you in a moment, that you remain
subject to a confidentiality agreement that you entered
into with the Post Office, is that right?
A. Modified by a protocol agreement that released us in
183
some respects so that we could work with the solicitors
to the claimants and give the evidence that I have
given. Werefer to it as the protocol agreement but it
was quite clear that there were certain matters that
I am notallowed to discuss.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, well, that sort of answers my
next question, but I just wantto be clear: is it your
evidence therefore that because of that protocol
agreement your evidence of fact to this court is
narrower in scope than it would be absent the protocol
agreement?
AL Yes, it is.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you.
Next document please - or the first document!'m
going to show you, which Mr Draper took you to:
{F/1228.1/1) please. Now, that’s the letter that you
were shown which you point out is July 2014. As
I understand your evidence you were engaged in
July 2012, which is two years before that; is that
right?
A. Correct.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Was there a letter in similar terms sent
to you for July 20127
A. I think not because the scope was still evolving over
that initial sort of six to 12 months. I mean there was
184
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/47
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 certainly correspondence; I don’t recall a formal 1 didn’t feel, did you, inhibited in answering any of the
2 engagement letter in this sort of style at that point. 2 questions that I asked you?
3 MRJUSTICE FRASER: All right. Can we go please to page 3 3 A. Lhadat the back of my mind that protocol agreement and
4 of that letter {F/1228.1/3}. There's a clause at the 4 I tried to make sure that my answers did not infringe
5 bottom of that letter, 6.2, which runs over to the next 5 that agreement.
6 page which says that: 6 Q. It is fair to say they didn’t risk doing so, did they,
7 "Second Sight will not, and will ensure that the SS 7 because of the nature of the questions that I asked you?
8 directors and any SS personnel will not, act directly or 8 A. I would have to refresh my mind as to the questions, I’m
9 indirectly in any capacity ... against Post Office or 9 sorry.
10 any of its officers, directors or employees save to the 10 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I think that’s probably a point for me
11 extent (a) that it is expressly agreed in writing 11 actually. ‘Thank you, Mr Draper.
12 that the work proposed to be undertaken will not have 12 Mr Green?
13 a material adverse effect on Post Office's commercial or 13 MRGREEN: My Lord, no.
14 financial interests or reputation ..” 14 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much for coming,
15 And then there are some other exceptions which 15 Mr Henderson. That's the end of your evidence, you are
16 effectively relate to court orders. 16 now free to leave the witness box.
17 Do you know if there was a similar provision in 17 Mr Green, that’s your factual case I think.
18 respect of your work between July 2012 and July 2014 to 18 MRGREEN: My Lord indeed.
19 that provision? 19 Housekeeping
20 A. I don't recall that, I'm sorry. 20 MRGREEN: My Lord, there is one housekeeping thing
21 MRJUSTICE FRASER: You can’t recall 21 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Well, there are about five but let's
22 When you received this letter in July 2014 did you 22 start with yours first
23 form the view that it made any material impact or 23 MRGREEN: -- upon which I think Post Office might be
24 difference to the terms upon which you had been engaged 24 assisted by an indication from your Lordship, because
25 for the twoyears earlier than thar? 25 the
185 187
1 A. I think we anticipated that it was certainly possible ‘1 MRJUSTICE FRASER: An indication?
2 that at some point we could be asked either to give 2) MRGREEN: It mighthave to go further than that but we hope
3 factual evidence or support in some other way to 3 the help might sort it out. The Ernst & Young reports
4 claimants in an action against the Post Office. We were 4 in relation to the Horizon system, we have reports
5 quite upfront about that. There is another document 5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Which you dealt with in opening I think
6 where! seem to recall that there was originally 6 MRGREEN: Yes. We've got the ones from 2011. As far as
7 a clause referring to 12 months’ gap between the 7 I can tell we seem to have most of them from 2011 going
8 completion of any work for Post Office and us working 8 forwards, it may be we have all, but the position on the
9 for in this case sort of claimants. I recall 9 earlier_ones which we have been asking about for
10 a handwritten amendment that I made where we agreed to 10 a little while is that the latest position I think is
14 extend that 12-month period to 15 months and I notice 11 that Royal Mail -- from whom Post Office split on
12 that in paragraph 6.3, 15 months is the date mentioned 12 1 April 2012 -- have said, according to my learned
13 there. So at an early point in all of this I think 13 friend's solicitors , that they are concerned -- is the
14 there was a mutual recognition that as experts 14 word that’s used in the letter -- about providing them
15 independently appointed to look into these matters, we 15 withouta third party disclosure order from the court.
16 could end up acting for either the Post Office or 16 Wearea little surprised.
17 claimants and that was envisaged in the documentation. 17 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Would they be coming from the
18 MRJUSTICE FRASER: All right, thank you very much. 18 Post Office or would they be coming from the Royal Mail?
19 Mr Draper, any questions arising? 19 MRGREEN: Post Office say that apparently they don’t have
20 Re-examination by MR DRAPER 20 them and that only Royal Mail has them and Royal Mail is
21° MRDRAPER: IfI may, just one point of clarification 21 saying that they are concerned about providing them
22 arising out of your Lordship’s first question. 22 without a third party disclosure order, notwithstanding
23 You have mentioned the confidentiality restrictions 23 that Post Office was part of Royal Mail and normally
24 that were relaxed to enable you to speak to the 24 when these organisations are split there are transfer
25 claimants for the purposes of these proceedings. You 25 orders in the usual way. So it’s a surprising position
186
188
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/48
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1 which we hope might be lightly resolved initially 1 do it
2 MRJUSTICE FRASER: All right, well I will hear what 2 Order
3 Mr De Garr Robinson has to say. I'm effectively being 3. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Royal Mail are not here today so
4 invited I think to make a third party disclosure order 4 I cannot make, as it has been expressed in the letter of
5 but against Royal Mail who you probably aren't 5 the Post Office's solicitors on 27 February 2019,
6 instructed for. 6 a third party disclosure order against the Royal Mail
7 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I have no brief for Royal Mail. 7 However, what I am going to do is make the following
8 My Lord, last year my instructing solicitors 8 order,
9 I think actually Post Office contacted Royal Mail and 9 I am going to order the claimants to issue an
10 said "Could we have these documents, they are being 10 application for third party disclosure of the
aL requested in these proceedings” and Royal Mail said 12 Ernst & Young reports prior to 2011, to be supported by
12 “We're not going to give them voluntarily, if you want 12 a witness statement and that should be issued by
13 them you will needa court order”. 13 1 o'clock tomorrow. I am going to give permission for
14 MR JUSTICE FRASER: And this was last year, was it? 14 short service. It is to be served on the Royal Mail if
15 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: This was towards the end of last year, 15 at all possible tomorrow and no later than 12 noon on
16 yes, in the late part of last year. I’m looking around 16 Monday.
17 to 17 In the event that the Royal Mail still decline to
18 MRJUSTICE FRASER: All right, if that’s the situation 18 produce these documents voluntarily they can come at
19 then -- do you need them for Monday, Mr Green? 19 10 o'clock on Tuesday and I will hear the application
20 MRGREEN: Itwould be quite helpful 20 then and if I do make an order against them in respect
21 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Buthow is -- I don't see howl can make 21 of third party disclosure, the necessary order and the
22 an order against Royal Mail if they are not here. 22 relevant timings of that can be dealt with on Tuesday.
23 MRGREEN: I’m not inviting your Lordship to make a order. 23 Hopefully, considering the transcript, which I’m
24 The issue that concerned us. the letter is at 24 sure you will provide to them, they will realise there
25 (H/227/1} from Wombles dated 27 February where they 25 is little to be gained by doing anything other than
189 191
1 explain 1 being cooperative but I am not going to pre judge the
2. MRJUSTICE FRASER: Give mea second while it is pulled up 2 outcome of the application
3 on the screen if you're going to ask meto look at it 3 AIL right?
4 H what? 4 MRGREEN: I'm most grateful.
5 MRGREEN: H/227/1. What they say is they don’t say they 5 MRJUSTICE FRASER: So that's that done. Is that the only
6 are refusing - it’s the letter of 22 February — they 6 housekeeping from your point of view?
7 say: 7 MR GREEN: My Lord, the only one from me
8 ".. Royal Mail Group are concerned about providing 8 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Mr De Garr Robinson, do you have any?
9 these documents without a formal order from the court 9 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I have your housekeeping
10 for third party disclosure” 10 points. You asked me to remind you to discuss
11 So it is pitched at the level of concern rather than 1 8 and 9 May.
12 anything more. 12 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes,I have that on my sticker, we will
13 + MRJUSTICE FRASER: The problem is, just purely in terms of 13 come to that at the end.
14 logistics well, it’s a fundamental principle that 14 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: I havea file of claimants’ witness
15 1 can’t make an order in these circumstances against 15 statements, my Lord.
16 Royal Mail. 16 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Excellent, thank you very much.
17 + ~MRGREEN: Of course. 17 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: IfIcan hand that up. That includes
18 = MRJUSTICE FRASER: I can express my views on the transcript 18 some sheets of corrections to the extent that any
19 and I can also make an order, which I’m going to do, you 19 witnesses have minor corrections to make to their
20 just have to give mea moment to consider what it is 20 witness statements. I have also a document which
21 going to be. 21 contains all the corrections in one place if
22 (Pause). 22 your Lordship is interested to see that.
23 Right, your juniors are going to have to take a note 23 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes please, thank you very much
24 when I get to the order. First of all I will say what 24 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: The corrections will of course be
25 I'm going to do on the transcript and why I'm going to 25 provided straight away. We have copies for my learned
190
192
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 (B10.1/4/49
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1 friend
2 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
3 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yesterday you asked for
4 a Word version of opening submissions. Your clerk
5 should now have that.
6 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
‘7 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: You wanted me to address your Lordship
8 on the question of redactions
9 MRJUSTICE FRASER: I wanted you to tell me how many
10 documents had been disclosed as a function of the review
11 that you have told me about.
12 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, the figures are as follows
13 ‘There was a request to review 31 documents.
14 MRJUSTICE FRASER: And that was a request from .?
15 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: From Freeths. Pursuant to that
16 request, WBD and junior counsel, Mr Draper, reviewed
17 31 documents. The redactions were maintained on 16 of
18 those documents on the basis of privilege
19 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
20 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Redactions were maintained on four of
21 those documents on the basis that redacted information
22 was both confidential and irrelevant
23° MRJUSTICE FRASER: Four of the 16, or another four?
24 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: Four of the 31. So we are up to 20
25 now.
193
1 MRJUSTICE FRASER: On privilege, did you say?
2 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: And four was confidential and
3 irrelevant
4 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Confidential and irrelevant.
5 MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, redactions for privilege were
6 narrowed or removed on seven documents.
‘7 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
8 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: On the basis that the redactions had
9 been applied too widely for privilege. And, my Lord,
10 I can give your Lordship an example of one of those so
11 your Lordship will see the kind of error that was made.
12 If I could ask your Lordship to look at {F/1251.1}.
13 Your Lordship will see an email, This is a Second Sight
14 email involving Post Office. Indeed Mr Henderson I see
15 is one of the recipients. If you go down to the bottom
16 of this page your Lordship will see a script "Privileged
17 and confidential - created for the purpose of obtaining
18 legal advice”, That was inserted by Mr Henderson in his
19 email and that resulted in that email, or large portions
20 of that email being redacted. A similar phenomenon
21 occurred on I think four of the seven occasions. That's
22 what led to that judgment call, which on reflection it
23 was decided was incorrect.
24 MRJUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
25 MR DEGARR ROBINSON: And, my Lord, in relation to
194
WIAHRWNE
©
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
redactions for confidential and irrelevant documents,
they were narrowed or removed in four documents,
essentially for pragmatic reasons.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: So of the 31, 16 maintained on
privilege, four maintained confidential / irrelevant ,
seven led to a narrowing and four were handed over, is
that right? Or have I got the last four wrong?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Four was confidential or irrelevant,
so it led to either a narrowing ora withdrawal
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right. Which led to some material being
disclosed that hadn't been disclosed already?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes. If give your Lordship
an example. {F/619.1}. Your Lordship
will see this is a document where the tracking summary
and the executive summary were previously redacted on
the grounds that they were both confidential and
If we look at
irrelevant. One may well think that they are completely
irrelevant, but on a pragmatic view -
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, redaction on the grounds of
relevance is a potential two-edged sword, isn’t it? But
this is the version that has now been disclosed?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: This is the version that’s been -- the
original version is at
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't need to see the original one.
But it is the tracking summary and the executive
195
summary.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Yes
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Okay.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: So that gives your Lordship an idea of
the scale.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Thank you very much,
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I had thought there was
something else. Oh, your Lordship during the course of
‘Tuesday asked for memo views that were talked about in
the evidence of Mr Latif.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Post Office has acquired what it
thinks are the memo views for January. There’s nothing
relevant in there that they have found so far, but they
want to ensure that they've got all of them so
your Lordship may have to bear with us for a while
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Well, that’s all right. When they've
got them all -- I don’t necessarily want them but you
ought to give them to the claimants.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Right, so is that all the outstanding
points?
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: Would your Lordship give me one
moment?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes
196
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/50
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
wyAnRone
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIYIAHRONKE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Pause).
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: The only outstanding question is
something that actually it’s really outside my job
description but it’s judgment on the common issues
trial. 1 don't know whether your Lordship has any
thoughts as to
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I'm going to come on to that now, but as
fa
with all the currently loose ends except for
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: 8 and 9 May.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: -- 8 and 9 May.
In the time from telling you I was keeping those
as housekeeping for this trial, I think that’s dealt
first two weeks of May clear to you saying when you
wanted, I’mafraid the Thursday 9 May is no longer
available. It would have to be the 7th and the 8th
Now, I'm not going to mess around too much about this.
I don’t want because we're moving it I’m going to be
relatively flexible. I would like you please both to
see if youcan do the 7th and 8th rather than the
8th and 9th.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, yes, we will.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Ifthere is an insuperable problem we
will revisit it on Monday morning first thing. The
trouble is there are so many cogs going behind the
scenes
197
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: I can imagine.
MR JUSTICE FRASER:
to and has a certain degree of autonomy, it is just not
possible to keep dates open for the length of time that
that despite the fact that one wants
counsel might expect.
So unless you tell me on Monday morning first thing
that the Tuesday and Wednesday of that week, so the 7th
and the 8th, are simply not possible for good and proper
reasons, that’s whenit is going to be. If you say it
has to be the Wednesday and Thursday then I'm afraid
there’s going to have to be yet more to-ing and fro-ing
about it. So I need to tell you about that straight
away. I only found out yesterday.
MR GREEN: My Lord, if we can give you a completely sure
indication by tomorrow lunchtime, would that help?
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes.
MR GREEN: Bearing in mind on the
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Yes. You can do it tomorrow if you
want.
MR GREEN: Most grateful.
there is
MR JUSTICE FRASER: By all means. But given the general
level of judicial business across all the divisions it's
I'mjust trying to help in case
not possible to keep everybody happy all the time.
So that then leads me on to the only other thing,
198
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which is the common issues judgment. I am going to hand
it down at 12 o'clock tomorrow. I have had
typographical and other suggestions from both parties
They are relatively reasonable in scope. I’m fairly
confident that although I haven't incorporated all of
them now, I will have done either by the end of today or
first thing tomorrow and I think we will keep with
12 0’clock tomorrow. I don’t intend to deal with any
consequential applications at all, but I will be making
the relevant order in the relevant terms to extend time
as I identified at the beginning of last week and you
will be expected to draw it up.
MR GREEN: My Lord, we have already done a draft which
1 think
MR JUSTICE FRASER: I don't need it in advance and it
depends what it says, but you will be the one doing it
so I suggest you bring it with you tomorrow.
MR GREEN: Very grateful.
TICE FRASER: Anything from the Post Office about
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, I have nothing to say.
I think my learned friend's order has been shared with
my instructing solicitors and if we have any issues with
it we will communicate them.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Can I make it clear, for the purposes of
199
assisting in terms of cost, I don't require -- and
I will read nothing into -- either party turning up in
any numbers at all.
claimant to be here just because of the order.
1 will expect one person from the
It will
be open to the public. There will be printed copies.
There are unlikely to be as many printed copies as
people might want them but it will be instantly posted
on the relevant websites and all those details will be
given tomorrow, so please -- particularly for the
Post Office team, Mr De Garr Robinson, because I know
you have two different teams, please nobody should think
that there will be any discourtesy assumed if nobody
decides to come.
MR DE GARR ROBINSON: My Lord, thank you.
MR JUSTICE FRASER: Finally, I have something for Opus which
is a hardly used envelope, compliments slip and plastic
folder which can be reused.
Thank you all very much. 10.30 -- well, 12 o'clock
tomorrow and then 10.30 Monday.
(4.34 pm)
(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Monday,
18 March 2019)
200
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts@op
0203 1B10.1/4/51
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1
2 INDEX
3
4 MR RICHARD ROLL (continued) 1
5 Cross-examination by MR DE GARR ROBINSON .....1
(continued)
6
Re-examination by MR GREEN 160
7
MR IAN HENDERSON (sworn) 165
8
Examination-in-chief by MR GREEN 165
9
Cross-examination by MR DRAPER evs 66
10
Questions from MR JUSTICE FRASER 183
it
Re examination by MR DRAPER neon] 86
12
Housekeeping son 87
13
Order cnn OT
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
201
202
Opus 2 International transcripts@or
Official Court Reporters 0203 (B10.1/4/52
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
cs
ability (7) 75:22
1346.11 135:11,13,14
1541
able (25) 14:7 22:10
31:24 41:17,19,21.28
443 49:7 5411
62:9,11,24 63:18
65:21 99:17 105.14
11521 1223 126,11
134.9 13559 139:16
above (5) 6:24 44:15
96:14 158.22 164.1
absent (1) 184:10
absolutely (5) 33:22
13823 14014
159:17,20
accept (45) 95
41:11,13 125,21
13:9 14:10
1581121163
17:214,15 182 2022
23:10,17 28:12
29:13:13 31:13 348
427,18 43:15,21
44.19.20 47:16 523
505,8 67.21.21 758
98:4 109:12,13,35,
1276 1557 157.45
acceptable (1) 181.22
accepted (4) 50:15
58:12 11323 15520
‘access (11) 1111217
1142 1179 12618
130.21 131:16,18
1348 1361.9
accessing (3) 119:25
1203 12724
accord (2) 171:11 1786
accordance (1) 11214
‘according (1) 188:12
account (4) 7:19 143
62:3 17324
accounting (4) 116:8
126-24 127.21 142:20
accounts (49) 4:7,23
47:12,26,21.21 49:3,
55:45 57:6 61:7,12,28
62.219 63:6 64:23.25
6720.22 7159.11
76:12 77:1,13 782.20
79:17 80:12 86.15
92.17.28 94:24
95:15,19 1157
1291.17 130:9.16
131,12 13714
138.17 147.1 15210
154-4 1588 15912
accumulating (5) 93:2
94:5,10 113:4 132:20
accurate (3) 772 79:4
1646
acknowledge (1) 173:13
acknowledged (1)
161.25
‘acquired (1) 196:12
across (6) 73:21 7437
156.15 161:20 163:9
198:23
acting (1) 186.16
action (6) 1712.24
1005 10215 14423,
1864
actions (5) 41:1.14 475
127.23 144.22
active (1) 168.15,
activity (1) 3:23,
actual (3) 54:15 115:5
amas
actually (46) 1:22 29
422.93 1155.22
128,14,21 3233,
35:21 36:4,7 38:8
5110 53:11,12 546
61:11.28 636,24
64:4 69:1 88:14
8923 9410 97: 988
1055 11811 123:10
12421 125:6 145:6
14617 15113 152.22
16117 16813 1716
17823 187-11 1899
1973
add (3) 112.25 13535
w7a9
added (3) 6:15 8:23
n9a2
addition (1) 376.10
additional (5) 15218,
1525 1531617
15412
address (1) 1937
addressing (1) 39:20
adjourned (1) 200.21
adjournment (1) 111:7
admin (1) 1229
administer (1) 177.15
administered (1) 442
administrative (2)
1613 163:24
admit (1) 156:19
admitted (1) 169:10
adopt (1) 5:2
adopted (2) 167:18.19
advance (2) 83:24
195
adverse (1) 185:13
adversely (1) 86:23,
advice (1) 194:18
advisedly (1) 579
affairs (2) 154.17
17520
affect (13) 47 55.5
72:20 76:11 78:20
927,18 94:24
95:15,19 108.8 12825
13620
affected (11) 5616 57:6
719 625 85:1 88:2.21
893,10 95:17 968
affecting (3) 88:24
10219.
afraid (10) 51:3 71:16
759 12245 13:7
1612 1628 1647
197.14 198.10
ater (22) 617 821
4416 56:14 998
1016 106:2,17
1134.10 124.25
132.21 14619
149:14.25 152:4 156-4
168.17 170:8 174:10
178 1818
afternoon (6) 55:12
1119 145:25 146:9
1669.10
afterwards (4) 83:6
159,15,16 181:9
‘again (15) 2:26 1613
265 53:25 60:10
62:39 64:6 70:14 87:7
97.26 106-11 124:4
1555 161:5 169:12
against (8) 160:21
185,9 166-4 18915,22
19015 191:6,20
age (1) 117
‘agenda (1) 1732
‘ago (15) 6:17 8:18 20:8
2121 231243 16
409,10 57: 82:12
123.23 144.20 1461
1554
agree (33) 210 3:21
327201
29:17,16,28 45:21
463,7.7,10 47.6 487
7423 619,317
8325 b4:19
86:17.20.25 88:7
8912 1161.4 11934
286:1 172.19 173:23
yeh
‘agreed (9) 43:5 1622
17314 176:4 181:19
1821.6 185:11 16:10
agreement (12) 8425
166:1 171.6 1729
162,11 183:23,25
104:39,11 1873.5,
agreements (8) 7339
749,12,21 7:22.28
0:9 164:12
‘agrees (1) 18:14
ahead (1) 56:2
ative (1) 30:17
allegation (2) 107.8
108:20
allocated (2) 3:25 18:18
allow (9) 27:5 116:24.25
107-3,32 149:6 151.2
1526 159-11
allowed (6) 27.6 55:25
94:7 107.22.25 1845
allowing (3) 12221
12317 170:20
allows (1) 44:1
allude (1) 268
‘almost (1) 1633,
slong (2) 18:12 157.16
stready (24) 321
58:11 64:15 65:9 85:3
86: 87:4 90:13
1058.14 1193.11
138:2 140:19 142:3
148.21 16933 17115,
174.14 17817 18024
182:16 19521 199.13,
also (33) 7.6.12 11.21
12:20 148 423 521
7643 604 81:13
27:28 69:15 91:3 924
95:8 107:23 128:14
12966 130:11 134.12
13510 137:3,20
138,15 145;20 152.20,
1675.20 17818
180,22 190:19 19220
ater (3) 116:2 11717
137.7
alterations (1) 12825
altered (1) 9:9
alternative (2) 10:18,
101.25
alternatively (1) 11929
although (9) 22.21
50,15 73:20 95:11
102.17 11625 1523
180.21 1995
always (22) 11:8.10
14:1 164 20:2 32:23
45:7 469 49:7,26 61:5
64:21 96:5,22.23
97:5,11,26 12835
152.25 147.24 173
amend (1) 11819
amended (3) 67.8
16513,
amending (1) 121:17
amendment (2) 107:9
186.10
american (2) 83:35
amount (9) 7:20 104.5
20:18 52:24 1361
13712 181.20 1623
amounting (1) 73:23
amounts (1) 148:25
ampersand (1) 112:23
analysing (1) 18:6
analysis (1) 673
analytical (2) 45:7 46:8
‘ancillary (1) 142:20
andor (2) 132:6 15315
angle (1) 113.2
announcement (1)
1806
announcing (1) 179.21
‘another (18) 31:11
6613.19 69:18 74:3
7917.9 100:13 108:10
1209 12055 161:3
16:11 164:19 1789
17919 1865 193:23
answer (20) 30:25 31:3
33:14 34:18 37:8
385,12,21 395 43:2
50:23 69:18 75:9
Ter714 1332 1438
14:25 1789
answering (2) 167:
answers (2) 184.6 187:4
anthony (3) 175.16
176331775
anticipated (2) 162:21
1861
anticipation (1) 172.21
anyone (10) 24:20
31:40 38:17 36:16
56:2 106:16 1114
12320 150.22 1757
anyones (1) 109:13
anything (17) 1.25 35:4
387 397,26,17.19
1036 122-7 130,15
136:7 17.6 181:14
190:12 191.25 199.19
anyway (1) 55:26
apologies (2) 160:13.15
apologise (2) 60:22.25
apparent (2) 98:14
waz
apparently (1) 188:19
appear (2) 113.26 1534
appeared (1) 64:2
appears (2) 12:13
1709
appendix (2) 176-18
waa
applicants (4) 167:17
169.9 1785 1823
application (6) 11-4
60:13 17422
191:10,19 192.2
applications (3)
168:10,16 199:9
applied (5) 10:25 11:1
73:21 74:25 1949
apply (2) 34:4 60:14
appointed (2) 168:14
186.5
appointment (2) 167:12
378.19
apprehend (1) 445
appropriate (3) 71:18
165:23 171.23
appropriately (3) 45:6
465 979
approval (1) 162:4
approved (2) 160:23
161:21
april (4) 161:1,2.12
188.12
archived (1) 116:25
area (3) 36:1 70:8 75:22
areas (2) 33:7 79:2
arent (8) 7:23 10:16
1513 87:22 93:16
131:3 1672 1695
arise (5) 72:22 735
96:21 131.22 1595
arises (1) 72:22
arising (3) 163.14
186:19,22
(1) 126
arose (5) 25:7 50:18
56:14 11219 1723
around (8) 83:7 86:13
1228 133:21 168:9,14
389.16 1976
arrange (1) 126.6
arrangement (2) 170.14
1827
arrangements (2) 170:3
180.18
array (1) 18:25
arrive (1) 1023
arrived (4) 41:19
302:3,23 17114
ascertain (2) 13415
143.21
ask (63) 1.4.21 2.9.19
5:7 61411521
13:24 21.2.6 22:19
24:28 27.11 36:22
41:25 46:22.24
48,10,1 5021
52:13,16 56:9 67:6
70:3 Tad 81:23 06:4
97:7 90:22 91:21
92:10 94:3 95:25
97:24 111:3,21,22
1121 125:6,69,16
1322.25 133 13613
135.24 140.16 141.16
armehi
a3.19 147-16 151.6
156:10 159:3 16:13,
173:1,20 18322
1903 19412
‘asked (19) 36:10,20
37:9 49:18 55:24
63:21 64:14 7603
101.10 108:2,18
312:16 168.20 186:2
18727 192.10 1933
1969
asking (6) 25:13 31.23
387 515 11425
188.9
‘assigned (1) 1026
assigns (1) 98:22
assist (2) 14:8 443
assistance (1) 19:15
‘assisted (1) 167.24
assisting (1) 200:2
‘associated (1) 100-17
assume (6) 31:18
45:3,16 46:20 1275
15910
‘assumed (3) 16:10 17:9
20012
assumes (1) 44:12
assumption (1) 2836
assure (1) 37:4
astronomically (1)
13813
attached (1) 4:3
attempt (1) 15.15,
attempting (1) 114
attention (4) 60:19
13125 150:17 173:4
attributable (2)
yaa.24
attribute (2) 91:24 32
attributed (4)
165,19.25 18:20
attributes (1) 1814
attributing (1) 175-7
‘audit (3) 126:20 1527
15313
‘august (1) 174:10
‘authorised (1) 1625
suthorty (3) 26.17
35:0 4021
‘automatic (2) 12:20
1365,
utomaticaly (5) 11:2
72.32,16 122.21
12317
‘autonomy (1) 198:3
available (6) 19:1 28:6
1535 167.23 174:24
19735
average (1) 92:16
‘avoid (1) 12939
avoidance (1) 100:4
‘aware (37) 33.12.21
23:7 25.24 30:5 50:13
535,19 68:89 718
742,11 75:13,16.20
76:33,16 78:17,21,25
e0i24 05:12 865 94:8
1046.8 130.1423
136:4 15038
3531422 165.25
166.22 167:1 181:17
awareness (2) 73.18
75.23
away (6) 12:19 20:21
147.25 158:16 192.25
19813
back (46) 2:25 15:23
yean 2121 3117
3521 3410
36:10.18,19 37:21
398 51125211
54:26 55:11 623.19
65:8 81:22 90:23
101.18 102.25 103:3
106:20 110:2.6 1112
113:15,16 114.23,
319,13 12012
3981.13 127.2 1322
136:1 14213 150.21,
151:23 165:15 169.6
1733 1673
backed (1) 83:20
background (4) 32
166:16 169.23 170:2
backlog (1) 75:35
backspace (1) 138:8
backtrack (1) 34:9
bad (4) 107:22,22
13318 1637
badly (1) £47
balance (4) 138:17
14:6 1622326
balanced (1) 51:24
bank (3) 14:3 62:22
7533
banks (1) 77:23
barbara (2) 98:21 102.5,
base (5) 36:10 101.8,15
1028.23
based (8) 18:8 19:3
S711 41-114 81:14
8613 1168
basic (7) 53:1 117:20
137:10,13 1394
140.1,7
basically (7) 35:4 38:7
39:7 54:10 110.16
11314 136:14
basies (1) 52.20
basing (1) 12015,
basis (14) 21:20 23:1
66:4 695.6 62:18
109:7,9 13224 1609
163:10 193:18,21
1948
basket (5) 47:18 48:5,6
5016.29
baskets (5)
475,15,20,23 5013
batch (8) 36:13 73.9
75:0 84.15 909
103:2 106.21 141:21
bor (1) 165:2
bear (1) 196:16
Dearing (5) 70:2
84:12,13 1044 198.17
became (3) 111:20
1227 1563
become (6) 7:25
8:24,25 1220.22
1564
becomes (1) 15:15
becoming (2) 112.22
13813
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts, GRO i
203
B10.1/4/53
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
before (30) 6:1113.23 I body (1) 17:5 193 229 319 carried (7) 58:23 10214 I 102.24 1041 1175.25 I closed (10) 24:9 169:21
23:22 30:23 37:23 bold (2) 38:23 626 342111 1168 121:4 13:17 1183 1272 130.25 31:20.16 33:3.11.22 I complained (2) 18:20
55:3 56:12 61:10 books (1) 13820 4217,19,24.25, 153.6 158:13 138.16 15912 107.13 163.23 166:4 664
62:18 64:22 80:9
87:25 86:19 95:25
96:25 98:3 99:3,
441.17 147.13 150:21
151.13 15516 17417
1753.37.21 1789
1807 184.19
beforchand (3)
158:22,25 159.14
beginning (4) 25:14
81:3 1836 199.11
behalf (1) 170:4
behind (3) 111:25
15:22 197.24
being (54) 3:12 414,15
6:19 75 8:17 9:49.19
10:3,15 11:55 1247
19:17 23:23 26:6
35:24 36.21 475
61.2.6 62:2 765,10,28
83:14 69:3 93:1,2 944
99:2 106:18 1104
13023 130:5,7 157.24
1587.7 167-15,15
170.24 1741,9
178.2,7 183:13,15
189:3,10 192.1 194.20
19510
belief (3) 21:16 23:6
16539
believe (20) 21.4.8
22:16,23 23:1 2412
251,15 28:22 52:6
73:20 86:23 1145
116.21 11711 128:18
1353 142:16.2
145.21
believed (1) 173.7
belt (1) 128123
bemused (1) 49:8
best (2) 72:19 165:18
better (5) 5:14 106:6
110.20 113:10 160:15
between (23) 1:93
6:19 819 918,19 11:3
13:20 23:11 72:19
73:19 749,20 88:25
29:7 113.20 1189
1661 171.26 181-16
162.11 185:18 186:7
beyond (2) 12:13
y7935
bias (1) 139:2
big (3) 89:6 101:5 1021
bigger (1) 14710
bims (1) 80:5
binary (4) 11:29
1127.18 11919
bit (18) 312 8.23 349
52.20 58:23 70.22,24
3.7 11139 11417
15:12 17:13 136:25
137.2,7 1439
14491
bits (6) 112:17.7
1389,12,13.18
blame (4) 16:10 17:10
18:14 1757
blamed (1) 33:22
bluntly (1) 14:19
borrow (1) 121:23,
both (16) 1:4 10:9.15
15:1 37.2 65:1 67-25,
71:2 766 1309
137.23 158:2 161:25
182.18 193.22 19516
197.18 199:3
bother (1) 96:9
bothick (2) 102:23,24
bottom (14) 40:20
87-10 98:16,20 1024
108-4 143:1 149:13
16219 17119 17212
172 1855 196.15
bought (1) 83:2
box (12) 100:3
10153,19
1021,20,12 1113
1623.19 16551
18736
boxes (2) 98:20 99:6
bracket (1) 123.22
bracknell (3) 101.9,18
1024
branch (69) 3:22.22
4.7.23 10:23 13:15
16:13 475 51.28
5545 57.6 6148
64:25 67:18,19,22.28
685 715,11 76:11
771.13 782,20 60211
91-4 92:7.18 93:24
94:24 95:15,20 96:26
1012.4 102:20 119.23
1213 124,18 1266
1291.7
1308,25,21,25 13112
1326.9 133:4 1349
137.14 14193,14
14221472 150:12
152:10 155:16,25
1588.16 159:28,19,19
branches (6) 68:2,21,24
89:3 95.9 10511
branchs (5) 3:23 61:12
86:5 1268.10
brab (1) 12525,
breach (1) £4.25
break (10) 47:14
558,25 56:5 1073
150:20.25 151.14
155.6 158.17
brief (2) 1:12 1897
briefing (4) 173.16
18023 1815 182.18
briefly (11) 253,
40.22.26 87:5 94a
12017 152.25 154.19
1745 1755 178.25
bring (2) 101:18 199:17
broader (1) 167.4
broadly (4) 161.22
176.19 176:13 1798
broken (5) 113:9 114.22
1166 133:14 154:24
brought (4) 36:10
1011 162.2324
budget (1) 62:25
budgets (1) 83:1
bug (19) 612,13 165
43:10.11 496 57:3
89:17 9066
bugs (14) 623 72.5,
83,717.20.21,24
37:14 4216 43:9 715
7e19
build (4) 36:12 62.29.21
99:25
building (1) 104.24
buitt (2) 36:13 72:3
bundle (3) 13:12 112.25
1515
bundles (1) 2:12
burke (3) 62:26 63:14
43
burkes (1) 62:26
business (5) 13:22
ATT 79.25 88:16
198:23
busy (3) 22:20 28:35
button (4) 366 61:12
99:21 1584
calculation (2) 13:22
13213,
call (10) 53.35.11
38:6 3996 1004
106.20 128:3 169:6
194-2
called (3) 68 1498
169.19
calls (1) 66:25
came (8) 36:19 57:22
58:6 5921 62:19 66:7
54:18 179:6
‘cannot (6) 22:22 45:8
4612 9521 120.7
roa
cant (68) 11:19
197.13,19.21 2038
20:22 2614 303
gua7 338 373,10
39.19 47:24
503,19.23 51:3
535.11 543.7 572
5927.28 607 61:14
656 71:16 806 6228
871 9239 201:25
104:3 108:6 110.13
1257 11613 1204
273s 131.7
19312 135.67 14:7
1473 149:20.22
151,12 152.16 1532
159:66 1615.5 162.8
163.22 164:66.7.8
175.22 17732 185.21
190.15
cap (1) 162.25
‘capl2 (1) 162:20
capacity (1) 185.9
capitals (1) 101:22
card (2) 121:20,.21
‘cards (1) 1221
cate (1) 1488
‘careful (3) 34:5 44:17
55:23
carefully (1) 192
carry (1) 1365
caning (3) 44:17 67:3,
998
cases (24) 15.5,
21:8.17 22:16 23.2
25:1.15 30:14 323
45:11,24 46.15.17
70:17.18 71:11 97:20
139.6 1765.11.24
177-17.25 178.22
cash (3) 323 13:21
138:17
catastrophe (2)
1595.12
ic (1) 158:20
categorical (1) 22.22
categorically (2) 15:17
66:2
categorisation (1)
163:19
category (5) 1:17 10:4
160:14,15.7
cause (24) 6:20 7:19
13:16 142,7 166 178
26:25 27.17.22
28:10.13,15 2912
42:16 43:9.20 44:13
49:7 1009 112:8.8.23
1254
cused (24) 6.25
75.61.1424
8:11,12,17,19,20,21.24
14917392737
42:11 59:3 77:25 95:9
96:24 97-2 139:3.6
causes (3) 3:23 7:2
16:23
causing (7) 7.22 32:21
34:19 38:13 71:5,
86:14 110.21
‘cease (1) 11
cede (7)
177:9,13,14,21,21,24
160.16
ccemtre (1) 40:23
certain (15) 7:20 54:7
82:4 103.20 106:21,23
118.16 1244 12622
130:11 141.22 14223
181.20 1644 1983
certainty (1) 106:24
cetera (2) 45:20 145:17
chain (3) 16:9 17.9
ee)
challenge (2) 205
13212
challenged (3) 32:11
160:8 164:22
chance (1) 328
chances (3) 70.13
138:12 1586
change (28) 3:23 6:21
51:6 67.19.20
72:20.21 73:4 11221
n5:14 1179 1227.19
1235.11.15 12416
128:20 129.8 1304
131:18 13410 1359
138:3.9,12 157.2425
changed (14) 732.58
1
167:11,15
changes (7) 84:3 1306
281.21 139.25 1406
152.15 159.22
‘changing (15) 112.12
315:8,11 11832
123:3,10.21 1262
1318 1347.18
138:18 140.9
143:22,23
changingediting (1)
155
character (5)
112:16,21.22 11311
1388
charge (1) 108:23
chat (2) 56:2 1651
heck (13) 10:4 11:1.17
12:16 14:20 34:21
38:15 403 114.11
331.22 1577.19
1694
checked (2) 66:15 70:21
checking (1) 156:21
checks (8) 103,14
11:2,10 3417 3821
39:23 1365
cheryl (1) 149.24
chirpy (1) 361.22
chronology (2) 166.17
16725
circular (1) 7:12
circulation (6) 107:23
108:1 109:15,21,24
1103
circumstances (9) 31°7
32:22 66:1 120:20
124:4 12622 1279
331,22 19015
claimant (1) 200.4
claimants (11) 1662
170:15 181.23 1842
166:4,9.17.25 1919
192.14 19619
claiming (2) 56:23
105.24
clarification (1) 186:23
laity (3) 616.24
aaa
clause (3) 170:18 185:4
1867
leaner (1) 127:21
lear (20) 26.6 53:11
95:18 58:22 62:15
99:23 94:7 12189
147:6 148:10 15417
155.2 16611 179.13,
163.17 184:4,7 197.13
199.25
clearly (6) 14:8 95:8
100.1 15312 1548
1567
clerk (7) 1271
153:15,23 1541.25
1934
close (15) 15:18
32:16,22 34:14,20.20
35:3,10 37:18
38:5,14.15 395
108:20 17920
1785
loses (1) 26:14
closure (1) 160:17
code (28) 30:12 70:22
73,345,710
908,10 11218
1131819 114.23
17:8 19:19 123:10
13310 145:11,25
361:16 162:12,13
codes (4) 160:17
161:12,18 1636
coding (39) 1:16.19
8:78,11,12 17:2 1820
193 2613.18
28,202.23 295.9
31:25 32:4,16,24.25
34a 37:14
42:21.21,22.24 573
7:4 72:20,22 80:11
88:2,21,24 89:16 906
16720
cogs (1) 197.28
cold (1) 26:19,
colleague (1) 13055
colleagues (1) 60:3
collection (1) 3:24
‘combative (1) 169:1
come (23) 615,16 16:18
246 39.16.18 55:11
7621 95:22 1112
13316 12635 14810
15925 161.15 1639
16856 1696 1733
aoiae 192.13 197.7
20:13
comes (3) 9:24 15716
y6231
comfortable (1) 182:6
coming (12) 39:11
76a7.18 88:13 127.13
130.12 135:6 1606
3764 167.14
188.1718
‘comment (4) 806
154.25 168:1 182.23,
‘commented (1) 74:2
‘comment pc0175621
(2) 151.9 1526
‘comments (3) 23:4
3527 161-30
commercial (2) 88:16
18533
‘common (10) 6:6 17:21
182348 362
5314.15 11219 1974
1994
‘communicate (5) 24:10
92:22 93:20 159:20
199.24
‘communicated (1)
1368
‘communicating (1)
1338
‘communications (1)
4025
company (3) 83.3.6
846
‘compare (1) 16:11
complainants (1)
complaint (1) 174:18
complete (12) 1212.15
69139 62:4 92:22
320.23 178:23
180:19,22,24 181:1.12
completely (3) 68:22
195.17 198.14
completeness (2)
32020 17:4
completion (1) 186:6
complex (1) 139:12
complied (1) 129:4
compliments (1) 200.16
comply (1) 17217
compromised (1)
yei24
computer (4) 36:4
12679 15616
computers (1) 36:13
conceivable (2) 108:7
09:4
concepts (1) 4715
concem (8) 77.11.15
37037 19021
concemed (8) 5:9
86:4,8 108.21,
198:1321 169:24
1908
concems (1) 24:10
conclusion (4) 18:6.9,14
228
condition (1) 112.6
conducted (1) 345
confident (4) 28:6
450 4613 199:5
confidential (7) 193:22
1942427 195:1.8.16
confident
(1) 1955
185:23 166:23
configuration (3) 2:4
11920 131:8
confirm (5) 1:15 125:21
366.22 172:8 182.5
confirmed (1) 36:19
confused (2) 2.11
a22a5
confusing (1) 14:25
connected (1) 99:22
conscious (1) 112.1
consent (10)
328:14,17,18,19,24
1297,9.13 130.77
consequence (1) 179:24
consequential (1) 199.9
consider (2) 16817
390:20
considerable (1) 180.9
consideration (1)
amas
considered (2) 58:20
1675
considering (1) 191:23
consistency (1) 11:10
consistent (3) 80:8,
36111 178:13
consistently (1) 83:14
consolidated (1) 175:2
constant (2) 11:9
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcript!
203 F
B10.1/4/54
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
1s25, corrupt (6) 7:25.84 I ereation (1) 152:21 156:23,6,9.11,13 deemed (1) 70:20 aman i723 18954 190:10
constantly (1) 10:4 12713 133103, credible (1) 193, 157:8,1417,19.20,22 I default (1) 147:22 determined (2) 26:25 1916.10.21
constraints (1) 19:12
consultation (1) 1806
consumer (1) 175:20
contact (4) 13:16 98:19
12666 158:21
contacted (2) 98:17
1899
contain (1) 174:2
contains (2) 1229
192.21
context (1) 1.22
continually (1) 10:6
continue (10) 51:13
79:14 88:2,21 107.25
12012 142.21 17914
18016 1827
continued (7) 1:10.11
106:1,39 125:4
20145
contracts (1) 74:19
contractual (1) 80:14
contrary (1) 49:15
control (3) 38:7 100:10
12614
controls (3) 130:3,4.4
‘convenience (1) 112:1
convenient (2) 62:4
15015,
‘conversations (1) 82:14
cooperative (1) 192:1
‘copied (1) 1453,
copies (5) 117.16
12411 192.25 20056
copy (9) 5:20 67 15:24
1135625 1213,
150.12 164.12
copying (2) 156:13,14
conrect (35) 41 9:17
45:10 46:13 48:7
5110 63:19
113:,33,19 1173
1193 12:6 1232
13566 137.24 1405
142:11,14 1453.20
157.9,25 1583
1698.22 170:23
1712 17412 1756.14
1794 162.9 18311
184.21
corrected (11) 26:2
69.8 72.8 13:17
119.24 130:22 1385
14233 144:10,11
1456
correcting (7) 123:3
1252 14218 146.19
154223 157.9 159.18
correction (4) 67:9
145.22 152.25 162:3
corrections (16) 5:28
66.25 67:4,8,14,15,16
68.19.25 130:25,25
13533 192:18,19,21,24
correctly (8) 16:23,
10235 11432 126.24
127:5,8 128:2 157-20
correspondence (10)
75:1,12 93:3
140.2125 141.9
147:18.25 148.28
1851
1563
corrupted (8) 3:18 824
9:1 125.2 1327
13853 152.24 155.5
corruption (23) 3:11
620
7612.1414,18,23
8:14 98,20 478
482,20 122.25
125223 197.26 13220
13324 137.16 14012
156:4
cost (1) 2001
couldnt (31) 1912
21:23 221 26.13.15
296 31:5 33:10,12
663,20,11,18 71:23
74:6 7810.19 79.
8366 93:9 1176
116:14,14,16 128:9,10
127-4 129.18 135:16
146.12 158.18
counsel (4) 178.1
18011 193:16 1985
counter (68) 9:4 10:13
1220 4717 613.7
74:4 Tei 92.22.95
932,19 94:8 111:18
1136 114:7,16,18,23
1151 1168
117.9,30,25 120.23
1241.4,13,15,7
123.25 126:12.16
12725 12911
1311618
1326,16,20,21 1333
1342 135:21,22
1363.4,9.15,19
1418,12,12,147
142:10,12 1461215
1452 153:4,7.28
155:15 1563.13.14
1594
counters (13) 10:23
76.8 86:2 93:3 96.8
1152 120:24 124:24
126:14.15 136:7 1393
1496
counterspost (1) 73:22
couple (14) 26:8 45:12
6746 75:14 82:19
92:0 139.21 146:1
147-4 160:11 161:14
175.5 177.6 181:19
course (9) 63:3 13:35
134.26 143.4 144:3
165:10 190.17 192.24
1968
cover (1) 109:18
covered (1) 108:11
covers (1) 161:24
car (1) 174.25,
ramp (1) 129.25
crashes (1) 61:16
cre (8) 1327,8,24 12821
131-24 1325,9,10
create (2) 145:10.11
created (4) 77:25 1149
144: 19437
creating (3) 145.13
1543.28
criminal (1) 173.8
critical (1) 77:6
criticise (1) 31:5
criticism (3) 77:18
307:24 182:20
‘ross (1) 108:17
<crossexamination (8)
111 69.5 151:4
160:1 16314 166.8
201:5.9
rosspurposes (1) 169:4
cere (3) 168:21 169:6
174:20
‘errs (5) 168:6 169:3,20
174.14 18238
‘cumulative (1) 73:22
‘currencies (1) 14917
‘current (1) 90:5
‘currently (2) 1782
1979
‘custom (1) 43:25
‘customer (4) 14°55,
629 145.14
‘customers (1) 14:3,
cut (1) 36:7
cyclic (6) 103,14 1117
32:16 114-11 131.22
43139 (1) 48:9
143143 (1) 66:24
‘damn (1) 10:6
danger (1) 765
dangerous (1) 133:1
data (187) 1:17.22
22.23.46,7.9
3:1,26.11,16,17,18,21.9
433,4,11,19,20,21,21
54.11.12 619.21
76,8.9.11,12.14,14,18.2
84,14,24 9:20
18511,24,25,25,25
33:11 47:8 482,20
54:14,15 77:23 7811
86:2 92:24 93:1 94:4,9
‘9724 102:22 108:
112:13.15,17.24
1135.16
114:1,3.6,7,21,22.23
115:6.6,8,11 169,25
117:10,17,20.24
118.13 119:12,13,
1001.21
301:2,16,17.21
122:8,9,10,19.20,25,
123:35,15,16.21,
306:5,1,17,17,22,24
125:1,4,23 126:1,1,9
107:2.4,7,13 128.25
329:16 11:19 1326
133:21,22,.24
134:1017,18.18
135:4,10 136:22
137:7,25 138:3 1395
¥40:1,6,7,12
142:9,11,13,14,14,15.16,
143:22.23,23,
146:6,8,23
145:1,3.4,4,5.57
146:5,19 149:1 154.23
155:14,25
database (1) 42
databases (1) 120:2
date (7) 372.9 175:22
176.26 17.23
17919,20 186:12
dated (5) 101:1 1701.8
1725 189.25
dates (1) 198-4
david (1) 149.4
day (7) 14 41.15 94:24
173510 179:7 160:7
1817
days (12) 6:17 28:68
415 74:3 7523
88:11 1016 108:16
13217 1367.8
ée (117) 169.21.12
248 53.13.16 611
88.10 1022 11.2
14:14.17,19.21.24
19:19 22:14
25:10,14.18.22 26:22
37:4,7.8 38:4 42:23
46:3 9112.13
557,9,13,15.21 567
63:19 64:5,12,14.18
6:17.22 69:16,20.23
73:12,13 775.9 63:24
91:11,17 100:21,24
107.26 1093.6
1119.11 1153621
126 12,15.19 118.825
119:7,10 1225 124.15
12514 149.24
150:5,8,18 151.2.25
189.375
19289,34,17.24
25 193:3,7,22,15.20,24
194:25.8,25
195812.22
196:2,4,7,12,20,23
197:2,10.21 1981
19921 200:0,14
2015
eadtines (1) 1728
dal (13) 1.3.5 54:25
56:7 80415 85:21
97.818 148.25
164:16,28 172.15
198
eating (6) 17.7 57:4
88:5 159:18 167:17
1746
deals (3) 66:24 97:23
1005,
dealt (12) 33:6 26:21
45:6 4655 59.17 65:22
66:9 162:7 179.17
1885 191:22 197.8
debate (1) 7229
ecide (2) 71:18,23
decided (3) 108.13
16818 19423
decides (1) 200:13
deciding (1) 167.23
decision (6) 70:12 71:4
2975.42 17714
179.23
eclaration (1) 13:23,
ect (1) 191.17
decrypt (1) 121.21
defect (1) 1009
defend (1) 10822,
dofendants (1) 2:13,
deficit (4) 4721.13,
49.2.4
defined (2) 69:1 1466
definitely (1) 15:17
efintion (3) 69:2
ni214 16718
definitively (2) 50:17
maa
degree (2) 78:14 198:3
delay (2) 87:25 88:19
delays (1) 176:12
delete (6) 114:20,21
318:15,17,18 15617
deleted (5) 114.6
116.24 1175 120.25
356.17
deliberately (2) 34:20
3a4
deliver (1) 12:36
demanding (1) 172.22
department (2) 36.12
08:11
departments (1) 104:23
depended (1) 127:12
depends (1) 199.16
deposit (1) 143
deputy (1) 24:16
describe (8) 71:12 988
11.22.1125 13115
156:12 169.16 180:3,
described (15) 3:15
29:14 40:26 43:4 95:5
119:2,17 120:10 1238
129.23 137.25 14:10
146.9 15521 17117
describes (3) 47:4
320.16 1716
describing (12)
88:12,14 96:4 103:15
1125 11325 120.15
122:14 1263 130:10
132.15 140.19
description (5) 85:18
98:24 1562 160.21
197.4
descriptions (1) 1611
design (3) 61:14.16
1622
designed (6) 47:7 48:18
63:78 64:19 156.24
desire (1) 17815
desk (1) 163:9
desks (1) 425
despite (2) 59:13 198.2
detail (8) 10:17 50:16
95:12 108:4 1697
176.15 182:2 183:14
detailed (1) 127.23,
details (6) 19:13 8017
10625 107.12 153.5
20:8
detect (4) 41:24 42:25
132.16 14118,
detected (6) 9:23 29:8
42:17,24 43:10 113.1
detecting (1) 40:21
determine (7) 13:16
289,13,35 2912
16623
develop (1) 41:7
developed (3) 43:25
71:24 12813
developers (4) 70:10,35
99:15 908
developing (2) 70:8
e938
development (3) 29:8
29:23 904
developmenttix (1)
70:34
devices (2) 95:10,18
diagnosis (2) 45:9 46:13,
didnt (45) 11:20 12.14
20:6 22:4 23:23,
28:3,7,27 30:16 328
37:13 408 49.16
55:19 60:14 61:23
68:2,21 71:10 72:9
97:21 100-24 102:21
05:16 110210 117.3,
127.19 130.17 135:18
139-4 142.24 14:23
gaa 15144
153:19,20 15421
156.23 157-1
1168.22.25 1693
173,11 187.16
difference (6) 11:3
13:20 1249.10.11
18524
ifferences (1) 12711
different (22) 3:16 9.14
24:5 43:3 68:10,11
12712 134-16 138-11
141.23 143:22 144,22
149.17 157:3 168:13,
170.1414 171.16
1728 174-21 178:2
200-12
differentiate (1) 54:12,
differentiation (1) 5:9
differently (1) 33:6
difficult (5) 41:25 50:17
7911 93.21 1184
difficulty (2) 48:22
36211
digit (2) 112.16 136.25
digits (2) 112:21 1378
diligence (3) 74:25 85:1
26:24
diminishing (1) 180:15
dinect (2) 20:20 1828
rectly (6) 73:4 85:13
1496 181.23 182:5
directors (4) 45:19
170.25 1858.10
disagree (6) 44:5 49:18
73:24 752 64:19
1213333
disclaim (1) 44:25
disclosed (4) 193:10
19512,11,21
disclosure (7) 18815,22
discourteous (1) 56:21
discourtesy (1) 200:12
discovery (1) 137.23
discrepancies (2) 1317
sans
discrepancy (9) 13:16
1428 169 178
27.22.24 79.17 1632
dliscuss (5) 26:3 31:2
87:3 1865 192.10
discussed (25) 19:24
24:19,20 48:21 49:24
536 112.14 1156
130.25 131:1,13.21
1341819 138.2
Mos 14231
143:23,24 144.19
148:21 174.15 176:20
31:19
discussing (10) 1:13
12:7 62:1 65:10 95.24
15:11 140.2 144.7
145:24 154.20
discussion (5) 45.13,
58:12 140:9,20 149.14
discussions (2) 538
168.15
disguised (1) 2:7
dishonest (1) 135:20
dismantled (1) 365
disproves (1) 58:24
dispute (4) 10:19.20
17124 1724
disputes (1) 67:21
dlistance (2) 160:25
1626
distinction (2) 3:1.4
distinguish (2) 113:20
uss
distinguishing (1) 829
distracted (1) 64:3,
distributed (1) 105.9
divider (2) 121.25
15:22
divisions (1) 198:23
document (17) 30:16
85:10 100:19,22
361:11,13 163.18
1774.20 1797.18.19
164:14,14 186:5
19220 195:14
documentation (1)
196:17
documented (6)
2810.14 29:21 36:9
148.14 152.20
documents (19) 19:22
508 17416
375:3.11,15,24 162:13
109:10 190.9 191:18,
193:10,13.17,18,21
3946 1951.2
does (20) 3:45 16:24
189 28:21 33:14 342
69:4 7222 64:14
96:21 102:16 11558
128-23 157:2.16
361.20 171:11 1786
doesnt (12) 6:6 47:23
61:5 64:20 734
91:33 10012 1105
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripti_ GRO
203 —
B10.1/4/55
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1157 129.14 1586
1617
doing (23) 3:7 618
20:12 31:6 45:1 47.37
57.9 60:3 63:4 1155
117-4 1201 12211
145.28 147:23,28
152.20 1549 157.11
1681 187:6 191.25
19916
one (41) 414
10:46.9,10.12,15
33.25 34:18,21,25
36:15 36:12,16 39:1
4037 599 61:27:12
81:10,18,20 86:24
90:16 107.21 108.16,
11811 11913 12311
1242 1352.17
15013 1545
156:15,20 271.5
192 199:6,13
dont (106) 1:16
2:34.10 3:28 68 65
10.17.25 11:24
122.5 22:23 24.5
276 301 315,20338
34:1 45:18 46:22
49.28 522 562.21
58:20 624.59
67.34 68:2
695,24 75:9 775.18
8031727 82.16 873
89:21 91:21 92.6.7
95:16 96:7.9.28,
1007.21 1039
106:2.24 109:12,13,16
126 12189
1221.1 125:11,20
1288 129:3 1331.4
1344 1351,2.26
1373.6 14216,25,
1438 1445 145.23
147.6 148:11 149.9
150.22 1531.19.19
16:12 168.20 176.18,
176.12 183°7 186:1,20
18819 189.21 1905
195.24 196.18
197,17 199:8,15
2002
door (1) 147.23
doubled (3) 47:13 49:4
sito
down (43) 15:28 202
26:5 31:19,20
321622 33:42
34:20 35:5,10 37:8
38:7,15 39.7 47.14
Sila 61:2.48 6298
84:4 98:20,25 99:6
1006 101:5,13,14.19
11618 140:18 153:2
156.6 160:17 161.15
17018 1718
176:22.28 198.15
1992
download (2) 126:9
1878
downloaded (1) 93:24
dozen (1) 105:20
dr (12) 47.2.4 48.8
4912.14 66:24
68:6,22 69:2,
1563
draft (4) 161:6,8 183.12
19933,
draper (14) 1668.9
168.23 160:1,5 1761
14:15 186:19,20,21
167.11 193:16
2019.11
raw (3) 150:17 173:3
19912
drawing (1) 3:1
drawn (1) 60:19
drive (1) 91:20
dropping (1) 14:19
dss (1) 83:10
due (9) 136 408 51:9
63:3 73:7 60:22 815,
162.23 1633,
duplicate (1) 9917
during (10) 62:14
8:1,20 111.15 134.24
143:4 144-3 16711
17914 1968
43
el (4) 5:18 21:2 92.9
1034
e11010 (1) 64
e102 (1) 9211
e103 (3) 46:25 40:25,
s2a2
e104 (5) 21:3 53:22
56:10 65:9 66:23
e105 (3) 73:15 61:23
8421
£1106 (2) 70:3 140.7
e107 (2) 15513,
15811
e109 (1) 5:20
e151 (1) 16514
e157 (1) 165:15
e172 (4) 13:1 161767
877
0173 (6) 90:24 111-28
120:13 1265 130:20
1346
2 (5) 13:2 111.25
11522 125.14 151.5
e2111 (1) 11523,
c241i2 (2) 74:7 79:15
e21113 (1) 16:14
e21114 (1) 17.6
c2U1is (2) 1123 1324
c2t116 (2) 119:2,7
2416 (1) 13:12
24210 (3) 151:17.26
1532
21212 (1) 12028
©2123 (1) 97.24
©2124 (1) 50:1
©2125 (1) 27:10
£2126 (2) 34:4 40.19
©2127 (3) 43:17 44:28,
aaa7
£2126 (1) £420
©2129 (2) 8611 15:7
©2134 (1) 1257
e244 (1) 212
2142 (1) 2:22
2145 (1) 125.5
earlier (9) 26:1 27:5
90:16 95:23 145:25
362-18 171.13 185.25
1689
carly (7) 41:5 1367
2:14 161:12,12
186:13
‘easier (1) 70:
easily (2) 70.21 139:10
easy (6) 5:21 134
155,15 71:21 9718
ceait (1) 118.15
edited (1) 1275
(2) 2201 156.15
editor (1) 11314
effect (9) 37:12 43:2
55:4 76:18 123.2
137:3 156:3 179:22
105:13
effective (2) 42:15 43:8,
effectively (5) 122.24
154:23 183:7 165:16
1893
‘effort (1) 53:2
eg (1) 742
ight (1) 244
cither (18) 19:10 21:21
31:11 50:20 57:22
613 649 71:12 73:1
80:6 115:16 135:16.18
186:2.16 195:9 199:6
20:2
‘electronic (1) 6722
‘element (1) 161.21
‘elements (2) 15:1
170.16
else (15) 8:14 23:25
2432 33:17 34:12
36:26 79:22 104:2
13:13 114911519
117-23 17:20 17736
1968
elses (1) 60:2
‘elsewhere (1) 120:24
‘elucidate (1) 62:4
email (5)
194:13,14,19,19,20
‘employee (1) 156:9
‘employees (1) 185:10
‘employment (1) 17519
enable (3) 152.12
ye111 186.24
‘encompassed (1) 161.1
‘encounter (1) 11:16
‘encountered (2) 31:8
106:18
end (24) 1-4 2:19 36:1
41:8 51:25 70:7 1045
3122.0 137.13
158.18 159:25 163:23
164525 167.25
168:12,15 180:3.5
186:16 187.15 19:15
192.13 1996
‘endeavours (1) 17217
‘ending (1) 1104
fends (1) 1979
engaged (4) 129:21
168:4 184:18 185:24
engagement (5) 169.24
370-4 1735 181.18
1952
‘engaging (2) 76:24
131:20
cengincer (1) 102:2
‘enormous (1) 82:3
‘enormously (1) 69:19
‘enough (6) 20:2 22:20
52:3 53:11 60:1
180-11
censure (7) 64:20,28
72:20 183.12 159:21
185:7 196.15
censured (1) 12922
‘ensuring (1) 105.19
enter (6) 6:19 9.17 16:3
64:22 102:22 168:10
centered (7) 9:5 47:20
62.18 67:19 124:12
158:7 183:23
centers (1) 61:12
entire (5) 41:10 76:23
82:17 69:8 99:23
entirely (2) 134:20
143.25
entries (1) 60:2
cevelope (8) 122:8,9,20
12816 1320.21
165:14 20036
‘environment (1) 185
envisaged (1) 18617
equipment (4) 36:5
9912.13.13,
cermst (2) 18:3 191.11
error (42) 6:20 9-4
11:7 135 158
18:7,20 20:1 28.1
31:19 34:6 36:12
44:214,35,17 45.6
465 49:10 51:20
67:15 684.4 7013.24
m7 112.9,5 11412
127.12 1329.23
13719 1567,11,1838
158 6 162:24 163:3
194.11
errors (40)
1:14,16,16,17,19,22
25:25 61.2
757.89,31,22 133
15:46 16:21,25
215,7,7,11 4124 426
44:10 47:8 51:9 1127
12712 130:22,24,24
13135 1520.15
138.21
escalated (1) 53:23
essentially (4) 155:20
169:14 182.7 195:3
establish (1) 58:25
established (4) 516
53:24 54:8 142:3
estate (3) 36:24 1056
106:12
estimate (2) 92:35
13916
ct (2) 45:20 145.17
even (11) 4:3 30:20
34:21 38:15 55:3
56:16 57:17 72:26
96:14 148-8 179.15
cevent (8) 12:18 18:24
41:2.15,17 99:1 1327
11:17
events (3) 40.24
ani921
‘eventually (3) 53:23
9415.20
fever (22) 11:16,21,22
26:21 34:25 39:1 40:2
54,6 58:20 85:10
123:7,20 124.16 1288
134.25 142.25 1435,
144-4 145:23
146:15.24 163:18,
every (12) 45:9 46:13
59:20 84:1 99:2
112.16.16 13921,
1474 171.21 1723
1765
everybody (4) 59:24
60:1 180.9 198:26
everyone (3) 20.22
mia iia
everything (3) 55:19
128.1 168.2
evidence (40) 6.12 9:25
18:8,9 22:2 2421 286
32:11 33:12 37:19
40:12 51:7 56:38
58:17 62:7 63:5 75:2
76:6 99: 1114
134.14 1425 1507.
164:1,422.25,
166 :3,4,12 1837
164:2.8.9,18 16:3
187:15 19610
evidenceinchief (1)
1836
evolving (2) 41:4 184.24
exact (1) 1596
exactly (2) 37:23 50:3
examination (1) 79:28
cexaminationinchiet (2)
165:11 2018
examine (1) 186
‘examining (1) 58:14
example (35) 3:12.25
414 142 151 16.19
39:10,11 48:24
49:9,9.24 50,2.20,24
61:10 63:3 76:2 92:20
94:28 95:23 111.18
119-21 13325 13846
148:16,16 149.28
157.21 158.16 160:22
167.5 194.10 195:13,
examples (10) 49:15
64:8 65:17 1207
331°5 141.7 15313,
161.14 1627
exeelient (1) 192:16
except (2) 30:22 1979
exception (3)
148:20,22,23
‘exceptions (1) 185.15
exchange (1) 181.15
‘exclusively (1) 170.24
excuse (2) 120:13,
129.25
executive (2) 195:15,25
exercise (1) 126
exhausted (1) 31:13
exist (2) 41:13 683
existed (1) 121.12
existent (1) 18:12
existing (5) 114-22
124.21 145.9 1467
1827
expect (4) 51:16,18
208:5 2003
expectation (1) 172.28
expected (4) 52:3 55:9
379.14 199.12
expedited (3) 81:14
88:10 151:3
expensive (1) 84:6
‘experience (12)
31:15,22 12813
17.20 53:25 546
65:4,17 70:18,19 7.9
experienced (3) 43:19
56.7 93:4
expert (1) 47:2
expertise (2) 17224,15
experts (2) 116.24
186.14
explain (11) 7:13.17
33:8 44:15 90:3
1412.19 14822
149:20 10:21 190.1
explained (6) 40:23
43:24 64:18 68:3
84:24 86:13
explaining (2) 124:13
533
explains (1) 177-21
‘explanation (6) 12-1
193 34:7 44:18,20
854
‘explore (2) 115:20
11823
‘explored (1) 134-14
exploring (1) 1187
expose (1) 11017
express (1) 190.18
‘expressed (3) 62:17
17321 1914
‘expression (1) 27.7
‘expressly (1) 18511
‘extend (2) 186511
39910
extensive (1) 1349
‘extent (3) 137:9 185:1
19238
extract (1) 121.16
extraordinarily (1) 785
extraordinary (7) 34:23
38:24 7624773
107.15 108-8 109.11
extreme (2) 92:21 95:21
extremely (2) 136
139.25
eye (3) 53:19 54:45
eyes (1) 1284
£12201 (1) 16924
#122611 (1) 16416
#122013 (3) 170.19
i719 185.4
#122015 (1) 1713
122816 (1) 1715,
#122017 (1) 17214
£12511 (1) 19412
f132a1 (1) 1792
#13242 (1) 1795
#1325137 (1) 17516
11325136 (1) 176:16
1325165 (1) 17.6
1325106 (1) 17:10
front (1) 163.18
‘1613 (1) 163:23
f62 (1) 162:10
163 (1) 1628
£1039 (1) 1605
‘197 (1) 98:12
£1972 (1) 98:23
2011 (1) 10:18
2012 (1) 3021
2013 (1) 1027
4161 (1) 150:13
£495 (1) 1487
4952 (1) 1497
fo191 (1) 195.13
£82323 (1) 16113
#902 (3) 164:9,11.15
face (1) 161.21
faced (2) 22:8 75:17
facetoface (1) 17614
facitities (1) 1211
facility (14) 61:21 72:3,
134.25 143.6 144.4
145:7.10,20 146.25
182:17 154:16
facing (1) 7537
factor (3) 74:1 75:7
8425
factual (4) 16:11 1759
366;3 187.17
fad (3) 101.4 1622.18,
fail (2) 32:2 122:24
failed (2) 75:14 120.23
failure (8) 91:19.20
92:12,16,22 94:23,
97:2 15820
failures (2) 90:22 92:13
fair (26) 2313 523
57:8 7223 77:15
82,10 10315 104.9
106:7.14 1092 185.10
1637 167:3 169:13,
17220 174:15 175:10
37719 178:14,24
160:1 182:10,14,23
1876
fairly (9) 22:21 53:24,15
93:8 106.3 155:7
1739 17918 19:4
faimess (2) 164:21
17633,
false (1) 765
familiar (1) 176.19
far (16) 5.9 32:13
347,22 38.21 44.18
622 644 1239
130:14 146:16 163:21
178:1 188:6 196:14
1978
farmed (1) 59:25
faster (3) 72:25
1781617
fault (6) 165 78:10
91:22 1165 161.25,
3624
faulty (8) 1032
104:22,25 106.23,
208.15 1215113
32622
favour (2) 106-10
08:12
feature (1) 11:9
features (7)
137:10,13,16 1394.7
1401.7
february (3) 109.25
190.6 1915
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
03 6
B10.1/4/56
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
feeds (1) 18:10
feel (6) 237.23 57:23
87:12 1872
feeling (10) 20:7
21:20,22 23:19
40:6.9,10.12,15 79:10
feelings (1) 87:4
fellow (2) 133:4.8
felt (13) 19:8 2119.20
399,23 60:16 79.23
8232022 190.3
18123,
few (6) 6:17 23:8
13012 155:12 160:4
178
fidating (1) 129.16
fields (3) 3:25
14916.21,
firth (1) 162.8
figure (5) 18:28 66:18
119.5 136.26 140.9
figures (7) 9:24
12.17.17 15:13 73:22
1607 193:12
file (3) 14421 16512
ro2a4
files (1) 174.24
filed (2) 103:1 128:24
final (2) 187,24
finally (2) 169.10
200.15
financial (9) 73:18,25
74:0 75:6 84:24
8515 86:2,14 18524
find (31) 5:23 168 17.8
19:10,10,11 235
26:12 30:13 31:15,17
3:10.12 39:16,17,19
4166 497 58:18,28
59:10 62:7,9.11,12
66:11 71:20,21 13238
13314
finding (1) 1184
fine (2) 166:19
finger (1) 79:12
finish (9) 19.15 37:45
69:5 86:11 95:28
11025 127.19 179.10
finished (2) 35.12
16911
first (81) 2:14 6.24
12.25 13:17 14:14
15:2,16,25 1612
17.16.22 18:7 19.16
22.25 23:3 26:17.19
39:20 40:22 41:15
43:24 57:25 65:10,22
661 71:3 72:20
733,16 7435.6 76:6
77:10 62:2 84:23
87:6.14 90.23
9210.11 98:12,16
10155 1021 109:19
11113 11619 11916
1265 129:13 13019
1323 1346
147,922 45:4
146:12 152.19 154:11
156:10 160-13 161:15,
16319 1684.14
169.15 170:10 174:9
17516 181.6 1835.12
184.14 18622 187.22
190.24 197:13.23
1986 199.7
Firstly (3) 134:17 243:22
165:20
fits (1) 173.22
five (5) 149.25
150:16,20 152:4
18721
fix (30) 52:22,22,23
54:22 57.21
7021,26.23
711,4,4,19,24 72:19
87:25 885,7.19
898,16 90:7,10.11
105:15 140:12.24
160.23 161:21 163:19
fixed (6) 72:15.23 89:2
9555 96:25 139.10
fixes (7) 80:22
815,14,20 84:4 875
88:10
fixing (2) 80:10 137.15
flag (1) 100:
flagged (1) 124.12
flexible (1) 197.18
flicking (1) 137.7
flip (2) 11:20 112:20
flipped (3) 137:1,2,18
flipping (1) 119.20
floor (3) 36:1 82:8
goa
focus (1) 8412
folder (1) 200:17
follow (2) 1184.6
followed (8) 59:5 68:6
12922 1309.16
152:11 157-20 174.12
following (6) 26:8
2715.18.25 170:21
1917
follows (2) 94:14 193:12
forever (1) 91:22
forget (1) 139:11
forgive (2) 117:21
12915
forgotten (1) 155:8
form (11) 56:2 64:19
12623 12915
136:17.19 1362
143:23,24 15021
185.23
formal (4) 128:10.18
1851 1909
formally (2) 20:5 15710
formed (1) 34:1
forms (2) 134:17 14322
formulated (1) 146:21
forth (2) 77:23 160:29
forward (7) 2:11
162:18,23,25 1713
172231773
forwords (1) 186.8
found (15) 35:20
36:2.5,11 495 6211
66.10 709,19 91.6
102.17 103:22.25
196:14 198.13
four (19) 24:1 45:13,
93:14 10021 101:5.14
139.18 149.16
193:20,23,23,24
1942.21 195:2,56,7.8
fourth (4) 30.9.12,29
siaz
frank (1) 14421
frankly (1) 14721
fraser (151) 13,7 247
51,511,158 65 869
20:21,25
14:13,16,19,22 19:15
22:12 26:121620
28:21 37:2,7,25 42:21
45:25 511,51
§58,11,14,17.24
6813.17.25 6412.16
66:5,18 69:15
734,11 73,8 6322
91:9,13 100:19.23
107-4 109:2 110:23
nin10 115:3,16
136:12.16 118.623
11968 1223 1246.9
12513 149.24
150:3,6,26,19 151.22
160:2 163:10.13
164:13,16,20,24
165:4,8,10 16:5,
168,20 169:1 175:25
183113,457
104:613,22 1953.21
386:18 187:10,14.21
188:15,17
109:214,18,22,
1902.13.18 1913
19215,8,12,16.23,
193:26,9,14.19.23
194:14,7.24
1954.10,19.28
196 3,6,11,17.21,25
197-712
198:216,18,22
199/15,19,25 200.15
201.10
free (1) 18716
freeths (1) 1935
frequent (5) 40:14
96:20 139:13 147.7
164:3
frequently (3) 112.17
13116 140.25
friends (4) 108.9.20
18818 199.22
friendship (1) 10612
froing (2) 181-20 196.12
front (3) 162 147.23,
165.12
fujitsu (56) 14:36 16:13
19a 21:13 25:3 27.21
4021 4318.25
4421,13,15 453.15
4619 645 652.2
67:3,8 68:1,2 7337.20
742,9,10,13,20
7516.25 80:15.21
#14 6215 832.67.12
24,7 89.2 9417.19
10923 120:21,25
3211222 122:7.9
12815 124.2 139:24
16213
fujitsus (3) 27-14 51:20
saa
full (5) 26:2 51:3
62:0 112-18 182.2
fully (2) 32:13 3413
function (1) 193:20
functionality (2)
1713.25
functioning (1) 16:22
functions (2) 166.25
17325
fund (1) 162:3
fundamental (2) 11:30
190.14
further (19) 17:7 25:7
32:28 37:13 388.19
85:4 1008 10215,
120:24 1439 14725
166:3 1705 176:12,15
100.17 18225 1882
future (1) 179:16
sain (2) 1142 1369
gained (1) 191.25
ap (1) 106:7
gor (117) 1.6.9,11,12
248 53,13,16 611
88,10 1022 1.2
16:16.17,19.21.24
19:19 22:16
25:12,14.18.22 28:22
37:47,8 38:4 4223,
46:3 5112.13,
55:7.9.13,15,21 567
63:19 645,12.16,18
68:17,22 69162021
73:23 775.9 83:28
oxi1a7 100:21,24
107.26 1093.6
ning. 115:16,21
116:12,15,19 118.825
1197.10 122:5 12615
12514 149.24
150:5.8,18 151.2.25
1993715
19289,36,17.24
193:3,7.12,15,2024
194:25,8,25
195:8,12
196:24,7,12,20,23
197-20. 1981
199.21 200:0,14
2015,
garrett (2) 149:9,10
gateway (1) 14022
save (1) 16713
seneral (8) 74:5 63:24
148:2 15:25 166:20
17810 180: 198.22
generalities (1) 31:3
generally (14) 1:19
23.6.8 93 27:14 43:4
46:11 58:13 70:89
737 88:6 139.24
senerate (6)
411,14,17,19.21
132.7
generated (5) 16:8
41:25 6724 72
get (31) 230,19 247
32:8 43:11 44:13 592
62:12 74.17 75:12,24
764 93:21,28 94:13
95:13 102:16 1106
1137 117.16 128:17
129,13 13383 13738
138.18 144:23,28
145:4 157-8 17336
190:24
gets (7) 162
26:10,11,16,17 67:21,
75:18,21 77:20 87:5
89:1,8 94.25 11510
145,2 153.25 16313
17322
sive (42) 7:16 14:5,
19:13,19 25:16 30:19
44:24 48:26 49:24
56:8 69:21
71:14,16,17 76:3
80:24 92:20 95:23,
1073.4 1315 139.16
151:14 1552 1572
159:7 161.14 163:
164:6 166:3,12 184-2
186.2 189:12 190:2,20
191:13 194:10 195:12
196:10,23 198:14
aalven (24) 1:25 19:12
20:3 22:2,20 23:23,25
24:2 321 378 39:20
45:13 49-9 50:15 765
80:16 87:21 1045
105:8 163:19 162.5,
184:3 198:22 200:9
sives (3) 119.21 176.15
196:4
giving (4) 6:12 24:21
37:18 626
ailiteh (5) 15:13,14,15,
65:25 662
ailitches (3) 47:9
alo (1) 77:10
godeseth (5) 2.25
125:8,11,1421
godeseths (2) 216
15:21
goes (10) 10:5 14:18
17:22 28:28 29:10
37:25 61.28 67:23
19.21
going (90) 1:3 2:11 36
5:1.3,14 9:18.18 1217
13:24 19:9 21.21
31;10,1212 349.14
36:22 52:13 55:9,12
56:7 61:5 63:18 64:5
65:8 69:25 744
78:13,23 80:1 84:18
92:7 94:13,16 96:6,22
97:5,11 106:11,22
108:16 110.23,
111.212 11539 1282
129:11 134-13 1361
140:24 141:15,21
143:19 151:3 152.6
15622 157.18 161:13
16:12 167.24 168:6
170:13 1731120
a77ag 1811322
163:14,22 18415,
188:7 169:12
190:3,19,21,23,25,25
191:7,9.3 1921
197:7,16.17,28
198:9,11 199:2
gone (12) 20:7 54:13
61:3 62:6,22,24 63:1
71:8 105:5,14 13635,
15122
‘good (20) 40:17 46:22
52:18 54:8 72:7 87:3
90:25,21 97:13 98-11
101-19 106:6 111:9
1125 1206 1322
15019 1669,10 1988
gossip (1) 82:10
sracious (1) 106.6
‘grateful (12) 1211.24
26:23 43:2 46:22,
52:20 54:24 107.6
1485 192:4 198.20
i998
sreat (3) 43:19 7614
anas
green (38) 160:2.3.4
162-12 163:10,12,16
164151821
16546,11,32 16:7
1832
187:12,13,17,18 20,23
1882.6.19
189,19,20,23 1905.17
1924.7 198:14,17,20
199:13,18 201:6,8
‘grounds (2) 195:16,19
‘group (18) 77:5 170:4
172:18,21 1731
1747 1754.12
1766.10.20 178.15
1805,8,17 181:6
182.21 1908
gulf (2) 69.6.7,
h(a) 1908
2271 (2) 189:25 190:5
hhack (1) 117.6
hhadnt (16) 22.9 35:12
36:26 55.21 628,8.24
701 949 1146
326.17 132.26 135:4
1367 14428 195:11
half (3) 105:20 168:9
wea
hhaway (8) 51:14 98:25
101.19 140.18 156:6
ariag 1725 1735
hhand (4) 32:13:21
19247 1992
handed (2) 180:12
1956
handful (1) 139:20
handling (1) 148.25
tnands (1) 106-20,
hrandwritten (1) 196:10
thang (1) 103.13,
fhappen (19) 15:19 20:6
20:4 34:22 37:14
38.22 43:14 49:6
53:20 61:17 655
72:20 90:18,20 95:4
306.11 13:2 1157
1333
happened (32) 8:15 9:8
22:23 23:2,11 263.21
322 40:13 49:21
537 54:16,25 55:3
62.27 725 83:16 90:3
93:7,9,13 98:3 99:20
10222 10512
106 2.8.10 110.14
13630 16617 17510
happening (12) 11.28
1244 3914 502024
7033 947.39 1165
12124 12019 15715
happens (4) 8:5 10:3
118 11514
happy (7) 45:3,15 46.19
5016 786 161
19624
hard (7) 520 67 1524
1823 2612 312
9120
taraly (1) 20036
hardware (32) 7:22.24
913 36:12 90:22
01439 99132,1316
0423 9925
30033235 10321.18
1045311 2428
2057 10.23.25
1063.47.19
10721.24 108.23
harvested (1) 4:12
harvester (8)
148 20.2223 149.18
harvesters (4) 534
7620 663 1492
harvesting (4) 4:11
7510 7723 609
hasnt (2) 63:6 64:25
havent (7) 31:24 50.7,
9024 916 17920
18212 1995
having (20) 536 1320
2723 3013 3325
34315 485.607
106 32 10721.22
10633 1102 1305
13723 14010 14225
15513 15621
tagy (4) 23:34,16.19
5220
beading (4) 523 4625
5612 9011
hear (2) 189:2 19119
heard (2) 23:5 125:5
held (5) 21.9 22:17 25:2
449 1169
bp (7) 425 63:18
6019 1506 188.3
196.1520
tepfl (2) 63:22 16635
16920
tetpflly (1) 58:32
helpline (3) 14.13,23,25
tence (1) 184
henderson (16) 5:14
1656,78.12.14 1669
36025 17517
176417 16237
18725 19416318
2017
bore (35) 625 7.1 818
124 246 2825.18
so2 3315 349 473
6022 607 619 8633
9:20.22 997 10523
10620 11325 15:12
1226 13519 14019
1446 15821 15420
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
203 *
B10.1/4/57
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1763 177.21 181.15
189.2 191:3 200:4
hidden (1) 426
high (6) 73:23,
96:16,19,21 8855
higher (1) 36:2
bimse¥f (2) 31:1 108.21
Historical (2) £9.24
9013
fie (2) 129.8
tong (1) 162-4
hold (4) 12114 144-23,
1503 151:22
hroiday (1) 136:25
honestly (1) 67:12
honour (3) 37:6 51:8
6324
hooper (3) 175.18
17631775
hope (3) 172:22 188:2
1891
hoped (1) 175:13
hopefully (1) 191.28,
horizon (70) 3:3,
107,10.21,22 119
14:4 165,21.25
18:10.21 19:4 26:13
31:10,25 32:5,15.21,
33:2,6,20 342.19
38:3 40:5 41:4 444
45,6 46:5 50:15 51:4
56:19,21 59:2.11,15
60:15 61:7 63:4.6,11
(66.16.18 68:20 73:6,7
7420 77:1,12 80:3
839,124 85:6 87:22
89:24 90:13 119:25
120.22 125:95 132411
1348 152,13 1535
166.24 167:18.21
1864
horizons (1) 173:25
hour (1) 55:16
hours (3) 24:1,4 96:25
housekeeping (6)
187:19.20 1926.9
1978 20132
however (11) 13.23
33:25 70:12 80:20
814 86.23 89:1.6.16
15311 1917
had (2) 15:1 1328
huge (2) 75:15 148.25
thuman (6) 20:2 21:7
28:1 34:6 46:15,17
bhuriedly (1) 159:25
hypothesis (1) 18:7
hypothetically (1) 12.20
fan (3) 165:7,14 201:7
Fel (2) 83:24
fd (44) 2122:10
126:16 20,25
127.2,310.22
141:22,24 153:8,15,23
1547
idea (4) 22:13 108:2
159.7 196:4
Identifiable (1) 154:8
Identification (3) 80:10
153:14,20
Identified (37) 21:10
22:38 25:8,25
26:18,24 27:2 28:8,24
295 33:8 44:10 455,
46:4 58:15 62:20.21
65:1 69:1 28:24
89:4,11 90:7 93:1
94:4,13 99:24 105:10
13124 15121
1527.12 15312
15414 174:6 183:20
199.11
Identifies (1) 61:22
identify (17) 13:4
14:7 155 21:12,14
22:22 25:4 27:16.21,
296 44:12,16 66:11
6741139 1415
Identifying (5) 4225
43:8 62:23 63:5 88:25,
fe (3) 50:14 99:2 122.9
Im (150) 1:9,25 214
5313.14.22 62
8:16.23 9:2 10:1 20,22
1153 121,24 13:24
17:20 25:11,12
26:6.6,7.23 27:6 28:3,
314,23 33:3,15.15
35413 39.01 43:2
44:24 46:21 47.24.25
4985135
52:10,13,21 54:24
55:9 56:7 57:16,17
59:16 60.22 6214.15
63:12,17,18 66.7
69:21 7116 74:4 759
76:22,28 77:20
786,23 81:7 83:20
84:18 90:28 91:6.14
100:24 103:20 104:1
1076 131112
11425,
115:4,9,99,11,12
1161 117-21 1184
12245 12319
125:15,23,25 1264
1289 13014 131.7
1321,25 13413,15
135:8,19 139:,2.5
1428 143:19,20 1446
14855 150:18 154:10
156:16 161:2,13 1628
163:12 164-7 165525
16:12 167-24 168:2
1707,9,13 173:11,20
161:13,17 18322
14:14 185:20 187:8
1893.16.23,
100:19.25,25 191:28
1924 197-7,14,16,17
198:10,20 199:4
imagine (3) 13:19
157.15 198.2
immediate (1) 179.22
immediately (3) 11:3
72:23 180-7
impact (25) 4:22
745,21 76:22 77:13
78:2 80:11 81:15
86:15,19,21,24 88:6
106:11,12 129.17
1308.15 13112,
137.14 13033
147-110 167.21
105:23
impersonal (1) 78:16
implement (1) 140:24
implemented (1) 90:8
implicit (1) 162.16
import (3) 114:22
1722 144d
important (1) 104:4
imported (1) 118:2
importing (1) 126.10
imposed (2) 73:28
163:18
imposing (1) 55:18
impossible (4) 15.16
5222.20 1144
impression (10) 20:21
765 77:20 88:13
102.16 104:5 108:16
no.11.12 187.2
improve (1) 70:12
improved (1) 41:22
inbetween (1) 9:17
Incentive (1) 84:1
inchief (2) 166:6,7
incidence (1) 96:19
incidences (1) 22:23,
incident (6) 79:25 00:4
85:24 132:9 150-4
153:15
incidents (7) 752
85:16.25 86:3,7,12
1207
include (4) 6.22 1072
106:3 154.12
included (4) 62:6 64,9
167:20
includes (1) 192.17
including (5) 117.19
20.23 11422 133:13
incorporated (1) 1995
incorrect (1) 194:23,
incorrectly (2) 36:14
goat
increase (1) 86:28
increases (1) 110:4
incrementally (1) 70:11
independence (1)
191.24
independent (1) 1282
independently (1)
106:15
indepth (1) 167.15
index (1) 2012
indicate (5) 1320 16:24
45:14 15:25 155:3,
indicates (2) 16:22
148,20
indication (5) 7114.17
107.24 166:1 198.15,
Indications (1) 18:12
indirectly (2) 179.3,
1859
indistig (1) 1245
indistinguishable (1)
1246
individuat (8) 73:20
113:21 168:24 169:20
y7621
individually (2) 117:4
18:15
indulgence (1) 107:3
inevitable (2) 61°14,15
infer (3) 58:17 93:6
1049
inference (3) 106:7.9.14
inferring (2) 139:1,2
infinitesimally (2)
156.25 1588
Inform (1) 375:4
information (14) 39
27:4 3116 36:20
41:25 71:22 9837
108.14 134.210 135.0
1744 1752 193.22
informed (2) 36:6
104315,
informing (1) 358:24
infrastructure (2)
873519
infrequently (1) 23:6
infringe (1) 187.4
inhibited (1) 207.1
inhouse (1) 106:9
Initial (2) 162:24 188-25
initially (3) 103-6 169:9
18911
inject (1) 118.19
injected (2) 14112
1534
injecting (4) 128:10
14417 153: 15431
Jnput (1) 180:37
insert (17) 118:13,20
134:11,25 135:11,13
14269.13 1435,
144:4 148-9 1529.17
157-1420 158.4
inserted (12) 12419
145;7 147.17 150:10
151:16 1525
153:13.18 158.28
1739.13 194.18
(8) 11320
13119 14214,19
14617 153.25 1544
157.18,
insertion (3) 1457
1461525,
insertions (14) 69:10
1189 130:12 1345.20
140.20 1426
14313.25 146.334
152.2 154.12
insisted (2) 35:21.28
insisting (2) 15:14 65:25
instatled (1) 92:25
instance (12) 13:17
52:19 938,19 11219
11318 1232 124.25
126.19 142.4 145:8
15433
instances (10) 19:7,17
93:10,11 99:24 121:19
12623 135:3 136.18
14a
instant (1) 9:20
instantly (1) 200°7
instead (4) 3:13 68:3,
70:25 92:8
institution (1) 100:25
instructed (8) 35:3 38:5
395 7015.25 711
181:28 1896
instructing (2) 1698
199.23,
inser
insufficient (2) 1642.4
insuperable (1) 19722
insurance (1) 137:11
intact (1) 1136
integrity (6) 47:16 48:9
49:10 51:17 56:13
intend (1) 1998
intended (7) 44:3 171.6
37324 1742.36
1753
intention (1) 44.25
entions (2) 47,7
46:18
interest (1) 10917
interested (5) 2:14 5:22
625221 19222
interests (7)
209:24,14,20,23,
110:1,5 185.14
interim (3) 167.12
168:7,17
Intermediate (1) 1225
intermittently (1) 95:11
Interally (1) 36:21
interrupt (1) 170.7
interrupting (1) 69:16
into (68) 3.6 10:5.25
16 12:38 14:3 15:12
18:17 36:6 46:2
47:18,20 50:15 55:12
59:6 61:12.20.21
62:13,18 64:19,23,
67:19,22 68.12.14
72:3 7617.18.21 83:7
102.25 1055.6
313:19,21
114:10,23,28 118-10
124.18 12612,13.14
17
142,7,1012,12.17.19
145.21 150.11
35220,17
153:4,6,17,24 154.25,
158.6 160:12 169:10
1683:14,21,24 186.15,
20:2
investigate (13) 16-4
20:10 22:21 26:7.20
43:20 52:9 58:22
77:12 78.19.22 85:2
an.23
investigated (12) 20:11
26:12 27:2.23 36.25
455,23 46:4 586.9
59:22 76:11
investigating (6) 36:24
37:1 58:9 60.15 78:2
104.16
investigation (17) 1521
30:20 32:28 34:1,5
35:11 3713.16.17
44:17 52.8 58:14
66:16,17 101:9.16
167.15
investigations (8) 39.9
57:13 56:18 59.9
60:2.3.6 1385
investigative (2) 45:7
468
investigator (1) 26:12
investigators (1) 59:10
invite (5) 45:14 49.18
78:7 8419 85:6
Invited (3) 168:16
81:10 189:4
inviting (3) 61:7 109.5
189.23
involve (6) 112:12
11557 119.25 13745,
1394
Involved (18) 57:20
64:7 65:22 70.7
73:22 74:10 75:21
92:25 105:22 106:5
137.12 14:17 145-22
1464.17 152:22,23
155.24
involvement (3)
166:16.18 168:5
involves (1) 79:24
involving (2) 144:22
roaaa
irate (1) 15:12,
irrelevant (7) 193:22
1943,4 195:1,8.17,18
fant (48) 4:4 10:7 11:6
1433 1821 2038
21:38 24:20 41:3,
43:21 51.21 52:1 63:7
69:16 841 87:15
88:16 89:4 94:14,25
96:6 106:3 107.17
108.20 1105 114:4
1161020 1173 1198
139.24 159-17 167-38
1698.17 170.22 1711
173:13,18 1748.15
17625 179:17 180.2
1814 18217 195:20,
issued (4) 1672
168.17 161:12 191-12
Issues (42) 8:19,20
16:26,16.18
17:21,15,28,1821,23,
29:9 34:6 37:14 40:22
42:4 44:16 45:3,16
64:22 74:12 60:11
91:3,4.5,17,19,23 95.9
031 111:15,16
166.2224 1675
17124 1738 174:2.6
1974 1991.23
item (4) 11920 152:21
15424,24
items (1) 131.9
its (93) 3:16 4:3 8:23.24
11:8,9 125,6,7 14:14
19:24 202.20 23:8
24:19,19 26:10 29.21
34:23,24 35:2
38.25,25 393,13 40.9
41:25 484 49.2
52:12,20 53:5 56:25
58:14.23 61:15 62:14
63:19 65124 67:22
717 7755 79:11
81.2,23 94:16,21
96:5,10,11,12,13,21
00:12 101:3,
106:10,12,12,15
107.19 109-14,23
1h 113.25 11413
12:15 122-10 132225
1334.8 148:16,18
152.25 154:21 156.14
1606 16:25,
37237,24 175:2
1798.10.17 1601
18510 188:25
190618 197334
198.23
Itself (22) 10:14 26:1
27.1 56:16 58:19,21
61:3 65:12 98:17,19
97,8 9814 118.16
12220 123:16 126:19
13322 13719 1397
1679 179:23
Ive (4) 106.24 108:2
161.2 16415
january (1) 196:23
isa (1) 168.16
job (17) 203.9,12.24
21.28 23:24 39.24
59:1 698 78:34 79:1
124.20 140:4.11
156:19 197:3
joint (1) 63:20
judge (1) 63:3,
judgment (4) 56:23,
194:22 197-4 19:1
judicial (1) 198.23
july (16) 16222,19
1684.84 1701.8,
3731417 177.24
396.17,19.23
105:18,18,22
jump (1) 151.23,
jumping (1) 122.4
junior (1) 193.16
Junlors (1) 190:23,
keep (7) 89 22:12
3142 116-7 198.428
199.7
keeping (1) 19712
keeps (1) 15:4
kel (3) 29:25 34:15 50:4
kels (1) 44:2
kept (5) 53:19 54:45
104:21 106.9
key (6) 9.17 28,5
17016 171:24 174.16
keyboard (1) 91:19
keyboards (2) 95:10.19
keyed (1) 123:6
kind (29) 4:3,4,15,29
8:0 15:18 2014
23:14,17 26:23 31:9
42,12 7146 72:20
24:13 91:5,17,23 96:5
128,15 129.7 1315
1464.14 155.0 178.7
190-11 194:11
kindly (1) 160.16
kinds (2) 317 20:16
kit (1) 98:4
knew (8) 36:15 53:20
60:1 74:16 104:8,9
1388 149-11
know (59) 4.8.9 19.7
276 30:1 31:20 33:8
35:1 36:18 39:2,17
45.18 4811 52.2
53:12 58205918
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcript¢_
GRO
203 F
B10.1/4/58
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
62:5 67:11 68:18,.21,
74:15 78:12 83:1
85:19 89:21 92:6,7
96:23 100:7,11 103:9
1057.7
106.2,10,19.24 110:18
13:28 11612 121:28
129.19 133:2,16 134-4
1373 13834 149:9,9
151.2,15 153.1 1647
177.24 185:17 1975
20:10
knowing (2) 135:23
15912
knowledge (11) 26:4
30:4 44:2,3 104:20,23
105:3 10822
158:14,15 16518
known (9) 36:12 42:19
44:2 49:5 103:22
1126 162.26 1633
174.23,
knows (1) 159:22
11) 1004
tack (1) 50:15
lady (1) 626
language (3) 22:24 93:6
129.15
laptop (4) 101:10
102.19 10420 105:10
laptops (13) 103:2
104:15,22,25 105:4,7
106:7,13,20 107.22
108:1 109:15 11017
large (5) 77:5 87:28
96:16 14428 194.19
largely (2) 125 173.24
last (21) 23:21 342
52:7 81:2 100:21.23
302412 107:1,1 109:12
155412 16312,17
164.9 16215
189:6,14,15,16 195:7
911
late (2) 173:10 169.16
later (18) 3:20 25:7.25
26:16 36:18,23 62:21
89:17 909,15 91:24
98.19 1024 11022
1775.7 182:20 191.15
latest (1) 166:10
latif (1) 196.10
latter (1) 168:9
lay (1) 127.14
lead (1) 16:20
feading (1) 105:21
leads (2) 18321 198:25
feared (3) 168:12
192.25 199.22
least (10) 26:10 29:21
56:19 65:14 92:16
171.14 1725 1793
1816.17
leave (2) 164.25 187.6
eaves (1) 2618
led (6) 236 17612
194.22 195:6.9,10
left (7) 26:2 41:8.22
11720 1286 148.19
wa
lefthand (3) 160:18
161:16 162.20
teg (1) 129.25
legacy (8) 10:10,21,22
119 12022 132612
152313
legal (1) 296.18
legend (1) 160.22
length (3) 165:23
18310 198-4
lengths (1) 43:20
fess (4) 37:15 72:35
13920 147.7
tet (17) 29 5:2212:5
19:15 57:25 65:16
76:4 79:14 86:10 87:7
88.23 928 120.17
127.19 140.13 1508
15910
lots (20) 2:20 9:7 36:22
47-14 58:22 61:1
66:22 70:2 79:6 875
95:24 981 12018
125513 1345 143:13
148.16 15512 157.5,
18721
letter (35) 169:24
1703.10.10
1713.14.17 1725
175:18.22 176.18
177 178:10,11,12.19
1791.2.67.811
1801325 1818
1841622
185:2.4,5,22 186.14
189.24 1906 1914
lotters (1) 161.16
level (23) 10:10,12
45.20.20 73:19
749,12,25 77:22.24
80:19 64:25 855 914
924 10810 132:21
1349 156.25 164:11
1759 190:11 198:23
fevels (3) 10:9,16 16:22
We (1) 947
life (2) 132.10
igh (1) 262.2
lightly (1) 1892
like (54) 24.4 322.41
614 7:13,16 12:24
132,11 1528 162.11
18:15 21.216 24:2.28
279,11 28:18 3721
46.24 5218 58:23
699 73:14 78:6 80.24
84:18 90:22 92:20
94:3 102:12,22 1064
1087 11523 1188
1318 1375 140.16
1481.2 151:6,17
1528 15610 159:3
1652 166.21 1761
17821 197.18
tked (1) 329
likethood (2) 21:6
nies
likely (13) 21:8,17
229,16 23:2 25:1,15
27.24 34:7 44:18,20
57-11 58:35
limit (1) 95:8
16:3
limitations (2) 47:8
4829
limited (6) 87:17
106:11 126.7 1621
165:22 163.11,
line (54) 6:23 13:5
1414.18 152,16.20
1620 1716.23 18:17
309,11,15,19
312112 37:25
38:1,1,9 39:13 65:22
66:1 69:25 76:10 84:4
u2as 113.9,17,18
114:3.22 1174 11812
1235.10 124.16 125-4
133:6,10,16 136.22
34312 14425
145:3.5,11,21 146.20
157:8 161:4,15 162.12
lines (20) 18:12
26:1,17 1015.14
16:16 117.27 118.15
326:21,23 125:1
192,19 135:5 136.24
142,169
145:14,15,18 1465
lingering (2) 32:20
3317
listed (1) 177:38
litigation (1) 77:8
little (5) 100.8 143.9
188:10.16 191:25
five (4) 99:25 205:5
160:12.14
load (2) 118:20 1607
lock (1) 119.22
log (20) 18:24.25 44:2
6225 653
126:8.10.12,13,13.18
329.11 136.2 141.17
342;12 144.22 15212
156:15.6
logged (11) 126:17,25
yo71 135:22 141.22
14:13 153:6,7.24
154:2 158:17
logging (1) 12612
logistics (1) 190.14
logs (3) 9911.3 1535
long (16) 20:8 23:28
3155 48:10 52:12 571
735 891.9 97:25
12:22 14818 1708
174:10 179.18 163:15
longer (6) 55:20 165:21
3766 179:6,7 197.14
longley (2) 98:21 1025
longrun (1) 84:6
look (45) 16:20
3819.24 1921 3012
3423 40.29 52:14
54:24 62.24.25 69:4
98:11 99:15 101:18,20
3822.7 13315 14332
48:16 150.3,
160:12,22
361:12,1420,22
362:19 163:17,18
y64:11 171.18 17212
176:2.19.22 17.20.22
178:25 179:5 16:15
200:3 194-12 195:23
looked (9) 35:20,20
50:47 66:16 98:5
151:10,13 16115,
looking (16) 20:14,16
30:5 59:2 81:1 84.21
09:23 113:10 1264
136:7 138.6 141.21
1745 1759 182.18
18916
looks (2) 7:13 107.7
loose (2) 129.15 197.9
lordship (20) 10:24
69:21 77:10 107-3,
187:24 19:23 19222
193:7
194:10,11,12,13,16
195:12,13
196:4,8,26,23 1975
lordships (1) 186.22
loss (1) 115:12
losses (1) 14:9
lost (5) 25:13 127:20
156:8,12 157:22
lot (6) 33:7 39:15 41:5
53:17 75:25 16.7
lots (1) 83:8
lower (1) 16:19
led (1) 74:9
lunch (1) 158:17
luncheon (1) 11:7
lunchtime (3) 39:17
95:25 196.15,
machine (6) 93:23
94:12,25 136.23
137:20 14413,
machines (3) 110:3,6
12916
‘mail (16)
188:11,18,20,20.23
1895,7,9.11.22
190:8,16
1913.6,14,17
main (3) 16:16
182:10,12
maintain (2) 30:4 110:9
‘maintained (4)
193:17,20 195:455
‘maintenance (1) 16320
‘majority (16)
16:18,23,25
17/11,16,21,23 42:20
45;11,24 46:14,17
66:9 62:20,22 178:22
makes (3) 96:13 146:23
17933,
‘making (9) 43:3 62:14
69:4.6 1306 1373.4
159:22 199.9
man (1) 96:29
managed (2) 75:24
116.23,
‘management (7)
40:23,25 71:23,
79.1925 8:15 107.19
managements (1) 45:18
manager (10) 24:15,16
30:25 1035 107:16
108:10,11,14,14 1624
mandatory (2)
149:18,21
‘manifested (3) 26:1
27a 4241
manually (3) 11812
12355 12416
many (23) 416.16
15:15 21.817
22:6,11,16.16 23:2
24:6 25:1,35 47:20
82:14 105:17
139:3,4.18 140.23
193:9 197.24 2006
march (15) 2:1
98:13,21.25 996
101:2.6.15 1025.7
178,22 178:14,18
20:22
marooned (2) 93:17,20
material (4) 65:2
195:13,23 195:10
materially (1) 170:14
matter (12) 66 15.18
37:21 18:2.27:23,
31:10 34:8 68:7 95:1
146.20 157:3 173:21
matters (10) 45°5.23
46:4 68:13,14 166:2
168:17 1745 1844
306.15
maybe (6) 25:16 83:23
128.19 138.8 145.18
197
‘mealymouthed (1)
56:22
mean (38) 1:16,16,22
234.6 321.24
421,21 79,13,15,27
12:5 26:2 42:20 45:23,
46:1 47:25 56:21 62:5
726 775,18 91:20
98:15 1006.12 101.17
102.16 12313 128:18
140.8 163:21 1708
178:10 18425,
‘meaning (2) 68:20,21
‘means (8) 17:2
28:20,21 46:22 79:16
133:3 13823 196.22
meant (10) 47:9
48:2.20 52.25 78:25
304.25 140.23 141:3
145:3 161.12
‘meantime (2) 36.11
eon
measured (1) 172.25
‘meat (1) 17213
mechanism (2) 89:2
1413
mechanisms (5) 40:22,
42:15,25 43:48
‘mediated (1) 176.24
‘mediation (25) 166:18
167:14.16
1688,11,19,24 16912
170:9,12 171.15 1726
1739.15 1755
176:12,20 17.15.25
1783 179.22
100:1,5,16.17
imediations (3) 178:1,6
1803
mediators (1) 178:2
‘meeting (4) 176.21
160:6,12 181:17
‘meetings (2) 173:
v6.14
member (11) 18:38,19
34:17.24 381,25
40:2,4 119:26 12420
1286
members (2) 1355
4223
memo (2) 1969.13
‘memorable (1) 139:12
memory (7) 15:9 20:20
57:19 121.20 1221
147610
mention (4) 26:13
79:21 156.23 168:20
mentioned (8) 24:12,13
86:1 1686 1693
17920 186:12,23
mentioning (1) 57:17
mere (1) 66:3
merely (3) 123:3 137.7
yeas
merged (1) 637
merit (1) 70:14
mess (1) 197.6
message (53) 2.7 36
10.11 33:0 35:23
go.18 677,22 699
3132,4615,19.21
m4i.224
1169.23.24
3174.10.57
316203,36,1721
12025 12418
1261620 1277.14
1337,8,10,11,5,18
33721 14227,9.21
144.14 145:15.21,
3469.11 15012
15422
messages (6) 118.18
13312 49:17 15118
1521.5
method (1) 141:2
mick (1) 10328
‘middecember (4)
175:20,24.25 176.22
mide (1) 141.23
midtransaction (1)
eur
midway (1) 61:22
might (64) 7:19 18:11
24:4 34:11 44:25
53:7,13 54:20
56.17.21 61:5 65:11
66:16 77:13 782,20
79.2.3 60:11 63:18
88:13 897 94:9,10
96:26 97.1.8 1077
1082.17 109:4,18,
i014 11219,22
11723 119.16 122.3
12436 1259
13719,19.21 14516
1477.9,10 150.7
1556.7 156.16,16
1591313 164:16,16
3722 16014 167.23
30823 169.1 1985
2007
nik (7) 35:15 96:17,28
1035 1062 10722
10812
million (3) 74:3 76:1
aan
rmiions (1) 73:24
miliseconds (1) 9:18
mind (16) 3:5 6:16
22:5 47:7 48:18 50:2
57:23 70:1 64:12
104:4 106:25 139.14
1575 1673.8 198.17
‘mindset (1) 16:20
imine (2) 610 164.15
‘minimal (1) 106:25
minimise (3) €4:2,3
156.20
minister (1) 175.19
minor (1) 19219
minute (2) 8:38 150.20
minutes (11) 23:25 99:3
10725 130.13 144.20
46:1 149:3,4 150:16
15512
misbalance (3)
162:14,14.15
imisheard (1) 168:25
misinterpreted (2)
6825 6914
‘misleading (1) 2512
mismatch (4) 9:24
3227 51:19 138:17
misread (1) 49:11
missed (2) 11:17 94:16
missing (4) 64:24
149.16 153.8 175.22
mistake (6) 13:7 145
16:3 28:17 105:13,
156.16
mistaken (1) 155:6
mistakes (1) 156.8
misunderstanding (2)
1733.25
misunderstood (3)
4gan.a7 1428
imiswired (1) 36:6
mixed (1) 245
smumbim (2) 7:14 80:13,
mobile (5) 35:22 96.13
99:20 101:10.22
smodese (1) 149.16
‘modest (1) 73:21
‘modified (1) 183.25
moment (10) 8:15.25
21:21 69:22 120:14
150.15 164:16 163:22
190:20 196.24
‘monday (6) 189.19
191.16 197.23 198:6
200:19,21
money (9) 7:20 54:12
62:312,12 75:25
134.12,13 135.14
14320
monitor (4) 4:14
54:13.20 72:12
‘monitored (1) 70:21
‘monitoring (2) 94:21
13224
‘monitors (1) 40:23,
month (3) 92:1.16
1783
‘months (10) 11:16 90:9
139:21 147-4 17-78
14:25 186:7.11,12
more (38) 5:21 10:25,
20:5 23. 30:20
3620 37:16 407.7
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts
203 F
B10.1/4/59
POL00004074
POL00004074
March 14, 2019 Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited Day 4
41:23,24 46:22 47:10 I nearly (1) 98:25 ‘number (18) often (23) 3:11 4:9,9.10 I others (1) 105-16 146-11 151:11,16,25 26:11,13,15,20
49:1 55:15 62:2 63:22
72:5 73:24 84.6 87:4
1072 118:20,20
124-20 139:12,12.14
146.23 1481.8
168:15.15 167.19
1697 17:36 19012
yen
morning (6) 6:13 99:2
107.9 1493 197.23
1986
most (14) 30:14 32:2
34:7 44:18,20 55.13
77:5 92:21 96:9
12319 14911 188.7
192:4 198:20
motherboard (2) 36:7
99:22
motive (3) 1087.9
1094
mouth (1) 55:23,
move (19) 13:10 17:5
23:22 40:18 44:23
46:23 66:22 69:24
73:14 64:16 92:8
93:23 10017 101:13
nina? 1345 14323
168:19 172.28
moved (1) 25:20
moving (4) 1147
1566 1778 197.17
mp (1) 175:29
ms (1) 175.18
su (3) 79:20 80:45
much (32) 137 17:13
32:6 33:9 41:23 53:2
87-11 1083 11614
127-21 1378 1477
150.6 1562 1602
165:2.4.21 1679.19
1795 180.21 16224
183:14,15 18618
187.14 1926.23
196.6 197.16 200.18,
mucking (2) 124:21.23
multiple (2) 73:21 87:14
multiplied (2) 162.23
1631
‘mundane (1) 139.10
must (8) 161 238
277 44.14 49:11
60:10 98:15 162.3
smustnt (1) 1113
‘mutual (1) 186:14
myself (4) 1:7 39:5
62:14 14225
fname (1) 151:20
namely (1) 63:4
nanoseconds (1) 64:22
ative (1) 162:21
narrowed (2) 194:6
1952
narrower (1) 164:10
narrowing (2) 1956.9
satura (2) 77.17.18
nature (8) 35:16,18
Thad 72:2 136.01
14028 141.2 1677
nibse (8) 13:17
1417.8,1317 152.12
necessarily (13) 7.24
17.28 23:3 34:13
63:17,19 73:7 97.7
302.21 133.22 157-12
178:11 196.318
necessary (6) 68.23
12021 141:3 1487
172 191.21
need (24) 10:25 34:9.17
38:12 46:22 55:20.19
73:7 78:13 87:14
9121 11a 17318
121.20 129.18 135:24
136:17 1544 183:7
189:13,19 19524
198.12 19915
needed (13) 20:10
23:24 24 36:24
37:16 38:18 39.9,23
40:3 52:25 126:15,24
15819
neednt (1) 7:24
needs (1) 157.9
negatively (1) 62:5
neither (1) 1833
net (2) 54:10 55:5,
network (4) 89:8 96:17
12112 156.15
never (14) 24:18 32:22
48:4 50:18 72:21 756
84:25 1234,5,11
126.68 142.6 15911
next (15) 81.14 1003
yo113 122.6 135:12
141,15 149°4,5 15622
165:5 1807 161:19
1947.14 1855
night (1) 943,
nights (1) 75.14
nobody (3) 1537
20012,12
nodding (1) 85:23
node (1) 101:15
nomenclature (1) 5:17
nominated (1) 17.15
none (1) 35:6
nonetheless (1) 182.22
rnonnumerical (1)
13718
nonprineipal (1) 112:22
nonzero (1) 50:14
noon (1) 191.15
nor (1) 83:5
normal (7) 74:39
87.15.18 88:12.15,
11419 127.6
normally (5) 13:4 155
11655 163:21 168:23,
note (2) 17 190:23
nothing (5) 79:22
108.16 196:13 199.21
2002
notice (4) 170:20
1791415 18611
noticed (1) 77:10
notices (2) 68:4,4
notified (1) 70:10
notwithstanding (1)
18822
november (2) 85:20
168.11
nt (2) 10:22.13
913,13,14,16 25:17
423.6,8 67:22 6019
87:7 101:4,4 122.10
351:14 153.16 160:22
war
‘numbered (1) 13:13,
‘numbers (4) 92:7
176:19 17812 2003
‘numerical (3)
338:1011,19
‘numerous (1) 145.14
o
(0011523 (1) 162:13
objectivity (1) 161:24
observation (1) 17713,
‘obtained (3) 128:25
129:7,10
obtaining (4) 1306.7
17512 194.17
‘obvious (3) 84:10 106:3
1311
‘obviously (8) 45:6 46:12
108:20 115:9 135:12
1421 157-17 170-17
‘occasion (17) 33:16
34:22 35:3,9 36:23,
385,21 30:5 40:6
47.0 491 599.20
66:4 1074 142:10,16
‘occasional (1) 42:9
‘occasionally (1) 40:8
‘occasions (12) 26:25
38:18 40:13,15 60:20
655 7213 12819
331.17 147.27 15823
194:21
‘occur (2) 11235 11419
‘occurring (1) 5420
‘occurs (1) 9:20
‘clock (6) 149:2
1911319 19928
20:18,
‘cps (1) 128:20
offer (3) 49:15 167-14
a3
office (75) 415
143617 18:31 2113
275 26:16 31:17
33:21 67:,27,23.25
685 73:19 74:9.11,20
70:7 60:1 62:10
23:1 88:1,20 92.25
9623 11:17 12135
125.1 128:1417.19,24
130°7 131:16,18 1548
1621 166:1 167:13,19
168:16.18 172.25
1743.25 175.8
178:10 1799.21
y80.1011.13
L116 162.1368
183.24 185.9
186;4,8,16 187.23
188;11,18,19.23 1899
194:14 196312 19919,
200:10
officers (1) 185:10
offices (6) 73.22 149:1
17325 174:9 1853,
1915
2014.15 2124.24
22:4,5.26 32:7 69:17
74:2. 78:16 127:20
136:14 13911418
147:3.6 16468
oh (6) 7:1 39:25 59:24
69:10 90:12 1968
‘okay (10) 4:25 226
48:15 84:16 106:10
32012 15113,
161:3.10 196:3
older (1) 89:19
once (13) 43:18 47:20
92.95 92:16 93:7.13
97:17 105:24 106:3,
116:25 13813 1474
269:12
‘ones (10) 77.17.18
85:25 105:15 12235,
135:7 152.24 171.16
108:6.9
ongoing (2) 13224
1118
contine (1) 25:25
onto (6) 89:8 90.8
11:1 135:22 14424
15921
‘open (2) 198:4 200:5
‘opening (2) 168:5 193:4
‘operate (1) 12624
‘operated (1) 16721
operates (3)
2011213
operating (4) 10:12
99:22 127.6 145.2
operation (4) 1122
13:22 64:2 86:15
operational (6) 23 32
5:4,11 66:12 128.20
‘operations (1) 173:25
‘operators (1) 13:20
‘opinion (2) 166:12
171.23
opinions (3) 166:13
173:20 1742
‘opportunity (5) 7:26
44:24 80:24 155:3
168:1
‘opposed (1) 141.9
‘optimism (1) 139:2
‘opus (1) 200.15
order (29) 34:18 38:12
39:23 40:3 86:13
14:18 131-16 15221
162:22 18815,22
199:4,13,22,23,
190.9,15.19.24
191:2.68,9,20,21
199:10,22 200-4
20113,
orders (2) 185:26
108.25
‘organisation (2)
54:12,16
organisations (1)
188:24
ovientate (1) 1714
original (6) 120.13
127-10 13811 1545
195:23,24
originally (4) 83:9 1376
165,20 1866
otherwise (2) 91:23
182.4
cought (5) 55:22 64:9
67.16 166:3 196:19
ourselves (1) 29:9
outage (2) 61:4,10
‘outcome (1) 192.2
outer (1) 1634
outset (2) 172.21
1753,
outside (3) 1009
10414 197:3
outstanding (5) 06:7
179:10 160:19 196:21
1972
over (25) 63 175
2417 25:23 30:19
3377 35:10 37:2 41:12
70:2 79:8 83:23,
86:10 69:5 98:23
102: 1320 71:4
172.3 17635 181:19
188-28 18555 1956
overall (1) 1616
‘overlooked (1) 1557
overnight (1) 148:24
overwhelming (3)
45;11,28 46:14
coverweote (1) 90:10
‘own (10) 1:15 54:6
65:3,4,7 631 94.21,
99:3 121.15 1287
Pe
pad (2) 95:6,14
pages (1) 10021
pairs (1) 128:4
palava (1) 14712
paper (2) 62:23,25
paperwork (4) 62:12
63:10,10 148.14
paragraph (135)
213,157.18 5:19
62.22 124,24 13:4
14:11 153,25,
16:14,15 176,10 213
25:16,1821 271
343 4019.25
43:17,24 44:23 46:25
47435
48:12,12.16.25
49:22,14.19.25
505,12 51:14
52:12,12.14 56.0
65:8 66:22,23 703.47
73:14 747.1 7667
7o.34 01:1,2.23,24
22:25 e417,202023
95:7 661024
87.68.9,10 8814
9024 9112.78
92.11,13 942
95:7,22.25 97.23.25
983,16 1033
111:13,24 1122.61,
115:24,25 1167
1193.40.14
1208.12.18 1224
125.8,10.16 1265
33039 131.15 132.3
1345 1359 1362
0-17.16 1433416
1532 155136
158:10,12,38 1762
177.23 179:13 186:12
paragraphs (3) 50:1
1198 151.7
parcel (1) 1468
parker (36) 13:11,24
420 1612.14 184
24:24, 16.19 27:20
28:18 43:3 44:25
45:21 49:24 504,22
81:9 85:28 97:23 985
31123 11220
119:4,11,16,15
12056,16 12353
325:13 1510.16
1532 155.21 16423,
parkers (14) 279,12
34:3 40.8 51:24
13:24 746 75:2 79:14
e436 119. 1323
1515 1557
part (28) 37.28,
45.22.2525 61:15
62:13 65:10 698
8:2 1392 1462.8
38524 173:7,7,23
17413590 1815
182:18 186.23 189:16
particular (21) 6:22
22:22 35:3 38:6 39:6
52:9 60:11,13 96.7
973 11317 11414
11610 1286
133667 13623
155:15 159:4 169.21
particularly (1) 200:9
parties (2) 178:1 1993
parts (1) 32
party (9) 16:1
188:15,22 1894
190.210 1916.10.21
2002
pass (3) 30:16 32:17,23
passage (3) 3:19 25:13
3725
passages (1) 84:19
passed (9) 16:3 28:6
294 308 31.16
33:1,21 71:22 1083
password (1) 127-2
past (6) 27:1 54.25.25,
12 1469 150:22
pathway (1) 100:9
pattems (1) 5:24
pause (21) 2:22,23
48.14 67.13 69.23
70:5 01:25 05:8 87:12
91:25 96:2 98:1 112:3
1162 1199 12537
150.14 151:8 1719
390.22 197:1
pausing (1) 8:6
pay (3) 182:3.4,8
payable (1) 74:10
payment (1) 1828
payments (2) 51:19
16234
0027887 (1) 162.10
peoio0174 (1) 98:13
0100899 (1) 101.1
Peach (25)
35:15,16 36:17,18,23
37:7 103:5,24
104:2,6,8 108:24
106:4,17 107.12
1094.9
peak (11) 30:2 32.16
3420 38:14 93:17
100:18 14818 150:10
151:10,20 162.10
peaks (11) 50:10
965,812 105:22
107.14 125.12 128:3
160:12,14 16:3
penalties (10)
73:18,20,25 74:10
75647 7633.16
8426 85:15
penny (1) 144.18
penultimate (2) 162:10
a2
people (22) 19:16 23:4
31:2 39:15,22
538,13 64:1 77:16,25
8239 63:17 923
103:10,14 106:5
109:17 127.25 156:21
157.6 165:1 200:7
perception (6) 74:8
7725 7815.23.25
13013,
perform (5)
399,10,22,23 40.2
perhaps (22) 1:20
213,19 7:20 45:12
68:14 70:3 75:20 85:6
86:4 98:24 1123
115:23 12598 132.16
14229 14:20
148:8,22 150.13 1576
ae9
period (11) 51:25
88:1,20,25 69:9
105:21 126.7 172.5,
179:15,15 186:11
periodically (1) 53:19
Peripheral (2) 95:10,18
permanent (1) 174-4
permission (2) 130:3
qs1as
permissions (1) 147.13,
persisted (1) 40:16
persistent (1) 97:2
persists (1) 23:19
person (13) 35:14
108:23 109.18
310:1,4,9,18 1276
141.16 187-16,16,21
20:3
personal (2) 70:18
ma
personally (2) 91:25
934
personnel (1) 185°8
persons (1) 110:5
perspective (1) 20:9
phase (1) 168:19
phenomenon (2) 111:22
194:20
philosophers (1) 58:23
phones (2) 1512 26.10
phrase (10) 3:24.20
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts”
203 F
B10.1/4/60
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
24:24 48:22 56:22
63:25 7815,16 94:2
12820
physical (3) 62.23.25
poses!
ysically (6) 78:17
101111143 11547
12112 12613
pick (5) 13:1 54:14 72.4
99:24 11528
picked (13) 12:19 13:5,
1557 1716 215
51.20 52:4 53:7 70:10
728 127.4 1328
piece (2) 62:23 154:23
Piggyback (2) 140.22
“a7
Piggybacking (1)
1738
pin (2) 95.0.4
pint (6) 36:21,
107:1,13 108:4 197.23
15220
pines (1) 36:9
pinpoint (1) 78:10
pinpointed (1) 36:17
pitched (1) 190-11
place (13) 21:6 40:21
41:6 42:24 43:4
72,10 89:2 1099
121:14 148:18 156:20
19221
places (1) 163:17
plan (1) 179.9
planned (1) 160.8
plastic (1) 200:16
please (49) 2:12.20
3:20 12.25 13:0 21
27.20 46:24 81:28
87.7 90.23 9611
10122 111.25
11521,23 1256.16
woa7 1439 14827
150.22 151:4,7,23
160,13 161:12
1629,18 163:17 1649
16923 17018
1713.79 1721213
176361773 181.34
18414,16 1853
19223 19718
2009.11
pleased (2) 48:11 151:2
pm (5) 111:6,8 150.28
151:1 20020
pointed (2) 110:19
15213
points (7) 5:16 160:4,11
165.20 1835 192.10
196.22
pot (1) 1623
poor (1) 26:19
pop (1) 89:3
portions (1) 194.19
Position (20) 10:19,20,
41:26 45:8 555
83:21 97.16 105:23.25
107.17,19 12521
1322 141:12,12.14
1729 188:8,10,25
positive (1) 161:22
Positively (1) 56:23
possibilities (1) 18.6
possibilty (7) 30:27
5625 57:10 616.16
756 84.28
possible (17) 6:17 14:1
64:21 11325 14:1
1179.12 12022
152.25 154:13,21
156.3 18621 191.15
198.4.8,24
possibly (3) 69:15 1148
17116
post (77) 4:15 1416.17
yeai 22:3 275
2616 2147 332
66:25 67:17,23,25
685 73:19 74:9,10,20
797 60:1 83:11
881,20 96:13 11117
125: 12814,17,19,24
1307 131:16,18 149.1
1548 1622 166:1
167:13.19 168:16.18
17125 173.25
17413,19,25 1758
17810 1796.9,21
18010.12,13
181:11,16 1022.3.68
16324 1859.13
1964,8,36 167:23
186:11,18,19,23 169:9
1915 19614 196:12
199.19 200:10
Postamble (1) 117.19
posted (1) 200:7
postmaster (32) 4:23
618 7:19 13:7 15:7
1610 179 26.16
2617 31:21 33:13
35:18 51:9 65:1 718
993 11822 1236
12420 126:17,25
2276 12817 1297.13
13219 13337
135:20,22 136:14.18
14432
postmasters (7) 36
31:19 69:10 969
9922 101:10 126.21
potential (7) 813 297
40.22 73:25 159:5.10
19520
potentially (5) 73:23
75:7 11021 158:20
e124
power (8) 36:7.8 61:4
991,21,22.23 102.16
powering (1) 35:21
Practice (5) 68:5 141.1
152,10 154.16 159.17
pragmatic (2) 195:3,16
preamble (1) 117.19
Precise (2) 5:2 1017
precisely (1) 177:12
Predecessor (1) 107.14
prefer (1) 1659
prejudge (2) 1922
prepare (1) 10315
prepared (3) 70:1
165.21 183513
present (2) 3:20 22:15,
press (3) 64:22 158:3,
1921
pressing (3) 6:19 9:27
eal
pressure (26) 19:9
20:1,19 21:22,25
23:23 30.22.24 311.2
34:10,12 39:16 60.9
73:46 76:14
78:9,12,14 60:15,22
81:6 82:4,22,28
164:10
pressured (1) 82:21
pressures (2) 40:8 769
presumably (1) 54:24
presume (1) 41:18
presumption (1) 110.16
prevent (6) 12:20
119:28 137:19,20.21
158:20
previous (5) 16:22
142:5 173.5 174:7
17819
previously (4) 4:19
331:12 136:24 19515
primarily (1) 167:26
primary (2) 179:23,
principle (2) 61:1
39014
printed (3) 164.25
2005.6
prior (6) 58:12 93:1
96:4 104.23 158:15
yal
priority (4) 86:13,16.23
885
privilege (5) 193:18
196:15,9 1955
privileged (3) 68.12.14
198:16
probably (27) 10.8 28:2
30:25 41:4 776 806
88:11 95.21 10014.16
103:12 104:9 106:12
0:19 1128
118:23.25 13110
138:17 149:11 1544
166;18,20 171:14
162:16 187:10 169.5
probe (1) 68:12
probing (1) 68:14
problem (143) 7:25
11.23 16:2
38:10.16,17,21
19:4,10,11 20:10
212,14 228,19
26:7,8 25:4,7,25
26:10,13,13,15,18,24
27a.a5,17
30:13,15,16,19,20
317,9,18,28,25
92:4,4,14,21,
33:2,10,16 34:2,19,21
3537.18 363,17
37:12 38:13,15 40:4
48:12 4956 52:23
53:3,14,15,17.23
5616.18.24 57:10
5814.19.20
59:1,10,24,21 61:15
62:21 65:11,23,
66:10,11,12 70:20
716.15,20,21
72:19,21,22 73:4
78:1 886 89:1.4,7,10
93:1 944
96:4.5,7,8,20,21,24
97:2,3,13,17 98:24
99:4,17 10:7
102:17,18 103:13,23
104:16,20,24 105:5,10
206:17 110.22 111.19
1128 131.23
133:6,19,20 1341
136:20,21 137.14
139:6 1415 144.25
149:8 190.13 197:22
problems (54) 1:18,22
22 6:25 16:24
20;15,16 21:10 22:17
25:35 3117 33:55
41:7 42:10,16 43:9
44:9 47:11 49:2 54:20
56:14 57:19 58:1.6
59:6 60.14.16 71:10
76:10,16,18,20,22
7732 782 643.3
s2a7
95:8.9,14,14,16,18
105:8 125:4 135:6
139:2.4 140.23 141.2
15919
procedure (1) 148:7
procedures (3) 45:7
46:8 167.23
proceed (2) 9:7 17611
proceedings (2) 186.25
89:11
process (86)
27:16,18,25 288,24
47:13 49-4
56:8,15,18,24 871,20
58:2.11 59:5,715
60:17 62:1,14 63:7,21
64:7.9.19 65:12,18,20
717 769.28 77:4,31
79:18 80:15,16,20
88:15 107.25 11232
13:24 114:19,25
15:4 117.24 116:9,11
119.217 1205.16
1214 122.2,14
123:8,10 126:3 127.7
328:10,15,21 1294.21
130:10,11 131:15,20
1525 141.25
144:17,19,21
145:13,24,25 146:2.8
147.28 1567.12
157:20 15812 177.16
180:2.16
processed (1) 39
processes (15) 10:15
216 27:13 41:5.7,23
60:12 67:25 130:9,16
142;10 155:21,
156:19,20 167:21
Processing (5) 54:14
5:16.24 142-20
145.13,
produce (4) 63.5 175:2
118 191518
produced (6) 63:12
168:8 173:17 178.21
181.7 18219
Product (2) 11623
161.25
production (3)
169:15,19 175.11
productive (1) 69:25
products (1) 4:15
professional (1) 20:23
profitable (3)
835,12.14
programme (4) 73:9
160:22 161.21 162:4
progress (8) 17510
376517 179.12
1787.16.17
progression (1) 102.23
project (2) 839.10
proper (5) 32:2 78:3
88:15 129.22 1988
property (14) 21:23
27:19 39:24 78:19
79:1 81:10,18,20 84:8,
99:15 102:25 138.20
142.22 1454
properties (2) 153.17
35413,
property (3) 151:19
152.6 15316
proportion (2) 96:16
1398
proposal (1) 161:21
propose (1) 166:12
proposed (3) 179.16
182:3 18512
propositions (1) 83:25,
protected (1) 107.24
protections (1) 156.24
protective (1) 45:19
protocol (5) 183.25
184:3,8,10 1873
protocols (1) 129:22
provide (4) 30:25 31:1
80:5 191.24
provided (4) 27:4
104.19 170.24 192.25
provides (1) 177:6
providing (4) 43:19
168:14,21 1908,
provision (4) 170:20,21
265:17,19
public (1) 2005
published (1) 1749
pulled (2) 110:2 190.2
purchase (1) 137:11
purely (4) 166.24
17321 1759 190.13
purpose (2) 64:23
194.17
purposes (5) 3:20 4:12
101:16 186.25 199:25
pursuant (1) 193:15
pursue (2) 21:12 110:23
purview (1) 37:15
push (1) 64.23
puts (1) 26:14
putting (11) 1:25 35:13,
66.13.19 1156.18
116.16 145.21
146 :4,20 1727
puzzled (1) 57:18
4 (575) 120.25 28,25
392,159
437,9,11,14,19.25
6:22 7:1,4,9.11,16,22
82.16 9:2,7.21
10:2.9.18
11:6,1520.25
12:2,4,11,24 13:10
15:11,23 16:7 17:5.20
18:2,4,23
19:6,14.21,24
20:5,9,14,18,22
21:1,20.24 22:2.6,8,11
23:1,10,13,17,21
24:20,13,36,19.23,
25:10 266,23 27:49
28:18
29:3,10,16,18 20.25
30:2,4,8,11,14,24
31:2,5,20,23
32:7,11,18,20,25
38:2,5,14,16,20,22.25
34:16,23
35:2,6.9,14,16 36:22
37:21,24 39:20
402,017
41:9,13,16,21,25
42:20,14,20
48:2,7,14,17,24
44:7,22 45:23
46:7,12,18,21
47:20,23,25 488,16
49:13,18,21,23
50:4,7,10,12,23 51:23
52:3,7,10,18,21,
58:3,7,10,15,17.21
54:5,8,18,20,22,24
55:3 57:3,6.8,13,17,25,
58:5,8.11,17,22
59:5,9.13,20
60:1,5,8,11,19,25
61:10,14.29 62:1.4.16
63:12 65:7.24
66:13,22 67:12,16
68:8,10.12
69:1,4,10,13 70:7
73,1047
722,7.1,15,18,25
74:38,23,25 75:5,19
76:1,3,16,22 77:,15
78:15.23
79:3,6,8,11,14,29.24
80:4,14.18
812,127.23
82:2,9,12,14,17,22.25
83:14,20 84:6,10.16
85:10,12.14,23
86:3,7,20,19,23,
87:3,10,14,17,21,24
88:10,12,28 89:6,14
90:1,3.22,18,21,
91:2,8,21 92:3,7.20
93:6,10,13,16,23
94:2,12,16,19,21,23
95:4,7.18,22
96:4,11,13,16,19
97.2,5,7,11,13.16 20.22
98:3,5.8.11
99:6,12.15,21
100:3,8,12,15.17
101:13.19 102,12
103:2,10,13,17.21
1044.93.19
1052,7.16,19,21
106:3,14,23
107:11,19.21
1085,7.18,25,
1099,11,20,23
110:1,9,12 1125.10
138,20 114:13,17.25
15:4 116:4,7,22
1173812 184
119.14 120612
121-8,10,20
322121428
1254.13.28
12555,11,19,21,25
3263.13 1279.18.39
128:36,10,12.14,20,23
32936,1421
1302,5,19
1513581115
1222,25 135:19,28,25
1365.23,
135:29,6,16.24
1369.12.21
1372,10,19,23
1382.22
139:1.16,10,20.23
140:47,9,13.16
1415.10 1421,5.28
143:2,10,12,18
1488.16.18,
1455.19.28
1468,12,14,17,19.23
147:36,10,13,15.22
1482.5.16 149.713
151:90,13 1532.11
15410
155:2,5,7,10,20.23,
156.22
1972.7,13,5.21,28
1582,6.10
159:3,7,10,7.28
360:13,21,25
361371020
1629,18,22
1637.9,23 164:1.3.9
165.18 166:11,20
167381024
369:211,19.23
370.2:13.28
3743,11,18 1727.22
17311,16,20 1748.14
175:3,7,15,28 176.22
1773.19 176:16,28
379513 180,21
yeas
1822,10,14,24 187.6
qualifying (1) 1837
quality (1) 99:25
quarter (1) 1112
queried (1) 132-21
question (39) 2:24
2322 3314 3418
379,101
39:10,13.17,24 393
50:23 63:20 646,15
65:16 68:15 785
9620.21 100:25 109:3
1331 1428
1432.43.19 1443
150.6 156:22 167.7
1692.11 1847 166.22
1938 1972
‘questionnaire (1)
17423
questions (24) 41.25
45:12 46:22 67:6 74:4
92:10 106-19 109:12
1158.18 135:24
16315 164.24
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcript
203 F
B10.1/4/61
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
166:6,7,13 162.25
1633.4 186:19
187.2,7,8 201:10
quick (5) 26:9 52:14
78:3 98:11 160:11
quicker (1) 15:24
quickly (12) 52:13 55.9
56:9 61:1 95:13 1065
1106 11525 1509
158.20 170:18 172:23
quieten (3) 35.5 38:7
307
quite (33) 18:23
20:14,15 23:19 35:6
38:23 45:3,15 48:10
55.22 57:24 67.24
69:4 73:21 7419
81:17 82:6 97:25
1044 106:3 107.7
11341 13614 14:8
1589 161.7,22 163.7
167.11 17223 164:4
1865 169:20
quote (1) 143:15
quotes (1) 85:17
raise (1) 17017
raised (7) 21:13 43:18
44:11 60:4 10355,33
win
ran (1) 148:13
rare (11) 40:13,15 42.17
43.10.14 90:18,20
95:2 96.12,12 120:20
rarely (1) 161.28
rarer (1) 9634
rather (21) 14:4 4414
64.14.36 72:1,9 946
108:3,19 122.15,
130.24 137:4 140.24
153.25 157:2,3 159:25
1691 171.22 1901
19719
rationale (1) 160:10
reach (2) 61:23 64:20
reached (5) 61:7 63.6
64:25 1171 180.13,
reaching (1) 18221
reaction (2) 7717.19
read (39) 2:1.13 13:10
yeu
48:10,11,12.15,36
50:1 51:1 69:2 70:4,25
76:8 61:24 84:18 85:7
87:8 95:25 97:25 98:3
112:1.4 113:22 115:25
11617 1194.10
120.18 1259.16.18
143.15 151.6 15516
1705 171:10 2002
readily (1) 182-1
reading (5) 1510 44.24
102.17 11611 136.9,
reads (1) 77:17
realise (2) 136:19
19124
realised (3) 9:11 3615
10512
realistic (1) 21:4
reality (1) 172.25
really (18) 125 338.8,
52:22 55:22 625
72:18 90:1 1046
110:24,25 11613
156.25 158:8 163:12
17213 17410 1973,
reappeared (1) 69:17
reappears (1) 26:15
reapplied (1) 90:11
reason (7) 61:5 98:15
1275 129.12,14
151.15 1625
reasonable (3)
172:17,24 1994
reasonably (1) 171:22
reasons (4) 127.23
176:13 195.3 1989
rebooted (2) 35:24 36
rebooting (3) 35:19.25
osa4
rebuild (6) 531 117.25
12021 121:2 12424
14414
rebuilding (3) 154:22
155:14.25
recall (40) 47:10 49.1
56.14 6517 673,
9236 8915 91:3,
92:21 95:8,11,16
105.16 106:1,6
110:17,20 119.14
13022 142:14.25
144.15 14812
153:19,19 1556
176:16.18 178:12.18
1797 180-25
181:21.25 16212
185:1,20,21 1866.9
recalled (2) 104:22.25
recalling (2) 106:13
1018
recap (1) 112
receipts (2) 51:19
16213
received (4) 91:25
1029 1079 185:22
receiving (2) 925
13223
recently (1) 162.13
rechecked (1) 55:17
recipients (1) 194:25
recode (1) 52:24
recoded (1) 52:25
recognise (2) 4:16
12520
recognised (3) 171:20
1721.10
recognition (1) 166:14
recollect (1) 259:6
recollection (50) 19:12
21:24 23:14,17 245
30:10 41:11 52:19
53:10 54:1 64:4 66:8
71:13 789 79:4 802
829,20 83:4.8,11
85:24 1218.9 12322
126.14 1262.16
132141422 13311
135:17,21 1389
152:19 154.22
155:1,2,20 156:14
158:14 160.8 161:2
168.13 171-11 174-21
1787.13 18110
recommend (3)
8
101:16,20 1755
reconciiation (8) 51:20
525 597,22
60132,13,20 67:25
record (6) 3:21 44:1.2
1028 108:8 148.15
recorded (4) 29:26,25
102.8 1341
records (1) 142.13
recovered (3) 61:28
6299224
recovery (26)
2712,16,16.28.25,
288.24 56:6,15,10.24
57:4,20 58.2 59:14
60:21 62:1,13 637.21
647,8,19 65:12.18,20
recreating (1) 120.2
recurrences (2) 30°6.18
recurring (1) 16:16
red (5) 63,8 124 91:13
929
redacted (3) 193:21
19420 195.35
redaction (1) 19519
redactions (6)
1938.17.20 1945.8
19511
reduce (1) 156:24
redundancies (4)
838,15,19,20
redundancy (6) 103,14
ua7 1216 1411
13122
reexamination (5) 160:3
18311 186:20 201:6.11
refer (11) 15:20 47:14
53:3,21 66:23 73:16
£2.25 136.1 143:15
166,28 184:3
reference (3) 54:15
7a 11919
referred (7) 13:6
14:23,24 84:11 177.25
17913
referring (13) 4:20
58:18 60:20 89:21
1326 120-48 125.1
135:13,19 136.2 169:5
1867
refers (10) 50:4 67:26
‘Té8 84:20 98:5 101:2
12528 151.10 170.24
aaa
reflect (2) 51:6 1744
reflected (1) 12.8
reflection (1) 194:22
reflective (1) 92:3
reflects (1) 177:17
reformulate (1) 37:20
refresh (1) 187:8
refusing (1) 190.6
regarded (1) 140:4
regarding (2) 76:18
usar
regardless (1) 89:9
regime (1) 825
regression (1) 90:14
regular (4) €2:18
91:4,28 172.25
reinject (1) 127.23,
reinsert (1) 12417
reinserted (2) 122:22
338
reinserting (2) 125:3
1467
reiterate (1) 165
reject (1) 141.28
rejected (2) 149.18
16314
relate (3) 27:22 119:20
19516
related (5) 35:4 38:6
36 86:7 1496
relates (1) 47.23
relating (5) 4:22 74:20
85:25 16920 1738
relation (15) 287,23
3:21 56:2 59.21
62:20 76.16 11519
159:3 16410 170:4,11
172:20 188:4 198:25
relations (1) 275.19
relatively (8) 13:4 40:13
uun:te 17222 177
182.22 197.18 199:4
relaxed (1) 186.28
release (2) 163:20
179.21
released (2) 71:24 698
183:25
relevance (1) 195:20
relevant (17) 339 4:4
48:16 75:1 126.9
1342 14113 15021
170.10 1738 1744
175.18 191.22 19614
199:10,20 2008
reliability (1) 166.25
reliable (2) 72:25 77:2
relied (1) 170.21
reluctant (1) 139:25
remain (6) 107:23
109:15,21,23 1103
1832
remained (3) 105:25
108:1 1253
remarkable (1) 356
remediation (1) 167.22
remember (101)
10.17.26 1119
1747.19 197,17 207
30:3 33:9 34:22 3718
38:21 39:14 47:26
50:3 51:3 52.20
53:5.11,16 54:3 57:1
59:18 60:16 62:2,10
63:23 656 67:12
7416 79.20.21
90:37 62:24 839.19
29,11 92:19 938,10
101.25 1043367
108.6 11013 11238
1137 11421 838
12041 1221,1.01
123:9 12623
27.11.2224
128:20,23 1293 181.7
13:12 134:4 135:7.7
136.25 1417,8.20
145:11,23 146.16
1473.19 148:11,1325
149:22,23 15112
152:16 153:1 1596
160:9.25 16155
162:6 163:21,22
164:3,7.8 17113
y77a2 17911
remind (6) 1:4,5 5215
177 17235 19210
remote (4) 70:14
a1:t2 130.21 15614
remotely (14) 11:18
114:18,24 117:9,10
39:25 12911 130.22
131,17,18 1348,12.14
143:20
remove (2) 79:11 1228
removed (5) 92:23
101:8,11 1946 195.2
removing (3) 16:23
122:20 12316,
renumber (2) 122:23
33:7
repeat (1) 65:16
replace (1) 154:24
replaced (1) 123:25
replacement (3) 92:25
104.20 12117
replicate (3) 97:3 15:1
145.4
replicated (12) 38
74:14 93:2 97:14
21496 1182 1223.12
132:16,18 1333,
144.23,
replicating (17) 1133
114.15 197.15 132.21
133:3,5.11 1343
136:3,4.13,16,23
137:20,22 139:3 1569
replication (2) 11419
12024
report (24) 47:3 66:24
69216712
168:7,18.22
173°7,12.16 21,23
174.1,59,11,25 1752
17:9 180.23
1615,7.11 16218
reported (12) 16:9
17:8,12.22.24 16:16
25:5 58:1 596,21
76:10 1328
reporting (8) 35:19
42:4,12 51:20 52:5
79:25 60:8 1329
reports (11) 141:13
166:14 168.24
169:15,16,20 178:21
160.19 1883.4 191.11
representative (1) 1625
reput (1) 64:6
reputation (1) 165:14
request (5) 101:8,
174.24 193:13,16.16
requested (1) 169:11
require (2) 162:3 2002
required (11) 13:15
37:13 92:23 10215
129.6 160.23 161:21
371:20,22 1723
180.21
requirement (1) 180:25
requires (1) 1415
requiring (5) 84:34
88:7 131.24 137:15
rereading (1) 6.17
i (2) 130:22
resilanee (1) 64:19
resiience (1) 61:19
resolution (3) 24:7 52:8
205
resolve (4) 24:7 47:13
49.46
resolved (5) 256 79:18
163:4 176.14 189:1
resolving (1) 111.15
resonance (1) 3:4
respect (3) 60:12
185218 191:20
respects (1) 184:1
responded (1) 100:4
response (6) 39:13
Tas 161:3 16324
3743319
responsibility (4)
4514.26 100:13 10835
responsible (15) 21:9
227 25:2 26:14
32:5 44.9 59:11
66.16.19 69:18
103:10.14,19 10414
u02
rest (2) 214 123.16
restrict (1) 16:2
restriction (2) 1639.18
restrictions (2) 62:25,
186.23
result (17) 28:1 31:9
324 33:20 37:9 47:12
49.3 51:18 54:10
662,17 67:28 79:25
136:10 150:20 162.2
17425
resulted (2) 52:7 19419
retail (1) 1338
retreat (1) 108:19
retrieve (2) 74.13
qaia3
return (1) 101:22
retumms (1) 18025
reused (1) 200:17
reveal (1) 34:6
review (5) 28:6 1306
168:22 193:10.13
reviewed (2) 178:21
19316
reviewing (1) 175.1
revisit (1) 197:23
revisited (1) 182:13
rewritten (3) 113:18
1410 1161
richard (3) 110 98:18
ron
ig (1) 102.18
igorous (1) 20.23
Figs (8) 35:25 362
99:8,9,10,28,18 101:7
ring (1) 126:23
Fiposte (16) 10.10
1142.10 11623
1173.62.22
31821,22 1212
126.19 17:55 141:21
aa2as
fise (1) 167:23
Fisk (5) 88:15 156:20,25
18313 1876
risks (2) 148:1.2
robinson (117)
1:6.9,13,12 238
5:3,13.16 6:11 68,10
10:22 11:2
14.14,17,19,21,24
1939 2214
25:12,14,18,20 28:22
37:4,7.8 38:4 42:23
463 511213,
55:7,9,13,15.21 56:7
6329 645,12,1418
68:17,22 69:16,20,21
731213 775.9 83:24
911,17 100:21,24
107:2,6 1093.6
1219,11115:1621
116:12,15,19 116:8,25
1197.10 1225 124.15
125114 149.24
1505,8,18 1512.25
1093,7.15
1928,9,14.17.24
193:3,7,12,15,20,24
194.2.5,8,25
1958.12.22
196:2.4,7,12,20,23,
1972.10.21 1981
199.21 200:10,14
201:5
robustness (1) 16:25
role (5) 155:24 167:14
1705 17112 179.16
roles (1) 169:14
roll (106) 1:10.12 2.13,
55,17 68 8:16 92
10:2 11:8,20 13:19
153,25 165
173,740 1815
205 21:17 2212
274 284,12 29:16
313 32:12 34:23 356
37:22 398,20 40:11
41:20 44:19 452,12
46.21 498,13 523,18
55:12 567.22 57:17
58:22 61:20 625
64:18 67:7 70:2
748,15 76:23,
78.17.24 79:8,16
80:20.21,24 81:4 83:1
88.19 86:17 88:23,
89.21 915,12 96:1
98:18 100-18 102:10
107.15 108-18 109:12
aa.a2 123:20
11413,25 15:26
1208 123:19 124.15
130.2 132.25 135:25,
1425 144.19
147.15,16 148:19
150:21 151:2 152:8
154:10,15 156:22
157-7 160:5 161:13
16424 201:4
rolls (5) 25:18 44:8
50:16 119:19 150:7
roof (1) 129.18
room (3) 156:7,10,18
root (7) 26:25
28:10,13,15 29:12
43:20 44:13
roughly (2) 168:12
176.23
routinely (2) 60:21 81:5
row (1) 75:15
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcript? GRO }
203 ~
B10.1/4/62
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
royal (16)
186:11,18,20,20.23
1895,7,9,11,22
1908.16
191:3.6147
rrp (2) 160:22,14
rude (1) 125,
run (10) 1417 79:19
13613 13819
1492.34.55 167.24
running (2) 73:8 142:22
runs (1) 3855
rush (1) 11623
rushed (3) 80:21 61:5
ara
rushing (1) 16322
rusty (1) 117-22
sacked (2) 109.18 110:5
safer (1) 147.24
sale (4) 13711 1423
145147
same (24) 5:6 105
30:18 36:3 56:2.11
58:25 74.25 02:8 83:3
95.21 1013319
108:10 126.25
127:10,16,22 136.21
1441 150.21 15234
1797
sample (1) 99:13
sandie (2) 101:22,24
sat (1) 6:13
satisfaction (1) 20:3,
satisied (2) 32:3 1582
(1) 403
save (8) 30:14 704
75.25 61:23 07.7
96:10 122:3 185:10
saved (1) 74:2
sow (8) 6:11.32 11:22
24:8 54:6 93:17
14123 15112
saying (48) 713 8:10.22
10:21 12:4 20:2 28:19
a1a7 329 33:13 35.9
39:38 4912.14 51:2
58:1 601.5 65:4.16
6637 747
77.21,21,24 78:17
96:11 10315 10423,
105:2,16,22 106:16,18
108.21 1166 127.16
1296 13822 144.21
1455 146:1 147.22
176.3 188:21 197.13
seale (2) 87:21 1965
scanning (1) 12412
scenario (7) 93.146
26824 27:4 736
1213
scenarios (2) 120.22
1596
scenes (1) 197.25
schedule (2) 855
yas
scheduled (1) 178.3
scheme (26) 166:18
167:14,16.17
1688,11,19.26
1699.10.12
1705.92.171.15
1726 173:9,15 174.22
175:11 176:5 17:1.25
1785 179.22 180:1
scope (11) 16:21
1673,9,11 17:5
17214 17356
184:10,24 19:4
scotland (1) 99:14
screen (17) 6:6 9:13,
25:20 36:3.5.8 382
969,20 99.21,23
101:20 102.14 119:6
169:25 17:20 190:3
script (1) 19416
scroll (3) 143:9
160:12,15
seat (1) 1658
second (71) 5:18 1418
15:16,20 16:1
17:16,22 21:1 25:8
26:17.26 27:10 40:18
45:22,25 46:23 49.25
52411 56:10 65:22
66:1 70:2 73:6 76.7
81:22 84:16 91:24
928 97:24 100.17
16:22 120:16 14016
146:7,24 1503
151:5,22 155:13,17
166:14,16,21 167-4
169:14,19,24 170.25
171.20 1722.16
1736.32 17518
176217723,
179:10,13,13,16
180.18 161°5,16,18,22
1628 183.20 185:7
190.2 194:13,
secondly (4) 51:23
13419 143:24 165:25
seconds (3) 56:1 98:21
1028
section (2) 5:25 56-11
see (73) 2:25 5:23 715
921 108 1214 138
16:4 19:2,21 24:23,
30:12 35:23 39:25,
49:23 54:15,25 55.7
63:1 652713759
796 83:25 90.12.18
95:24 97.2 98:15
1029 103.2 1114
120:17 124.1 132:17
133:15 136:10,12.18
144.18 146:14,23,
148:19 149:7 151:15
159.20 161:3,8,16
1629,10,11,16,20
163:5,24 165:13,16
17239 175:22
176:23,25 177:2.22
169.21 19222
19411,13,14,16
195:14,24 19729
seeing (3) 1626
176.1618
seeking (7) 17:20
26:8,20,20 28:3
136.15 143:20
seem (7) 62:2 83:9
157:1 180.25 181:25
1866 188.7
seemed (1) 89:18
seems (2) 99:21 161:7
seen (5) 4:4 85:10
17517.21 17811
sees (2) 4:23 78:16
selected (1) 177:13
selling (1) 145:12
sending (1) 12.18
senior (4) 20:15 106:3
107:16.19
seniority (1) 92:4
sense (8) 1721 182
222.8 242 348
14628 154.6
sent (11) 36:14 67:27
68:4 74:7 89:16
907.11 101:8 105:11
1489 184-22
sentence (22) 234132
162 251422 26:21
343 41:9 52.8 57.9
659 6917 612.14
912 116:19,22
122.46 123:16 135:12
wns
sentences (3) 69:16.19
e12
separate (6)
134:20.22,23 14325
14:2 179:24
sequence (1) 122.9
sequentially (1) 149:2
series (1) 134.24
serious (1) 107°7
seriously (4) 37:10
99:22 126:12.13
served (1) 192.14
server (13) 3:8 75:2
92:28,28 93:3 1147
140.21.25 1419
142.12 14412
147:18.25,
servers (9) 738 75.11
76:20 84:15 142:10
148:23,24,25 149.12
service (14) 42:4 73:19
148.12 77:22,28
8013,19 61:15 8425
855,17 16410 19114
services (3) 85:6 170.28
as
session (1) 149.16
sessions (1) 38:19
set (7) 54:18 1472
166:13 1688
1721822 1736
sets (4) 1326 1703,
1768 179:9
settled (1) 61:11
seven (4) 176:24
194.621 195:6
several (6) 47:17 89:17
103,25 1046
105-44
shall (2) 1696 17236
shared (1) 199.22
sheer (1) 42:3,
sheets (1) 19218
shock (1) 180:9
short (6) 55:25 56:5
627 150.25 182.22
oer)
shorter (4) 269 786
165.24 183.35
shorthand (3) 55:25,
120.25 150.21
shortly (6) 611,13 83:6
99:2 174.22 161:9
should (41) 1:8 24:9
28:14 34:25 39:1
511,46 54:16 56.19
57:14 60.21,
65:15.18.21.21
709.25 71:19
107:24,25 113.12
128.25 12114 1232
125:14,15 129.12
1384,7,19,24 14247
151:15 166:19 176.2
177.3 183:15 191:12
1935 200.11
shouldnt (3) 77:6 78:29
186.17
show (2) 1755 164.15
showed (1) 178519
showing (2) 47:11 49:2
shown (6) 141-13
160:5,7 161:20 164.9
147
shows (2) 9911257
side (7) 26:14 148-25
15223 160:18 16116
162:20 1727
sidetracked (1) 33:35
sight (20) 169:14.24
170.25 171:20
172.216 173:6.12
17518 1790.13.16
10018 181:5,16,22
182.8 165:7 194.13
sights (5) 166:14.16.20
167-4 161.18
signature (3) 165.16.16
ima
signed (1) 161.2
significant (2) 426.8
similar (5) 3:5 68:5
18422 185.7 19420
similarly (1) 5:1
simple (1) 17:11
simplification (1) 1562
simpson (2) 149°9,20
simulate (1) 362
since (2) 177:28 1784
single (3) 1146,7 1415
singlecounter (1)
12425
sie (3) 17528 1763
178
sit (1) 1069
site (1) 1023
sitting (3) 77:6 12021
15710
situation (21) 11:16
15:19 20:13 31:23
34:16.19 38:11,14
55:1 61:19 63:14
73113 11433 1362
137-24 14925 15715
159,10 1727 189.18
situations (3) 69:15
148:6 1595
six (6) 10:21 67:25
88:19 90:9 178.2
184.25
skip (2) 86:10 17018
sla (7) 75:1 78:18,21,25
80:22 81:5 86:7
slas (4) 75:10 8:11.19
85:25
tly (9) 43:3 49:6,
57:18 76.23 11633
368:13 174.21
18220,20
stip (1) 200.16
slipped (2) 23:20.21
slow (1) 17:12
slower (1) 175.23
small (11) 21:8 70:21
73:9 69:7 138:14
139:8,15 156.25
158:8,9 177.17
sme (1) 1328
software (54)
4:14,16.21 524622
757.25 8:36
36:16,17.19 172
2157.11 287,19 298
346,10 35:4 38:6 396
44:10,14.16 52:24,24
57:4 67.1.5 70:11,23
T1424 729
89:15,20,28 905
91:3.20 111:15,16
121.2 141,18 15215
162.24 163:3 167:20
sold (1) 4:15
solely (1) 173:6
solicitors (5) 184:1
188:13 1898 1915
199.23
solution (3) 235 43:25
339.22
solutions (1) 139:10
somebody (3) 36:12
1042 13519
someone (11) 16:5
20:15 26:10 35:10
49:18 103:7 1063
108:7 14938 154.9,
157:10
something (72) 6:16
8:14 106 127.10
16:12 23:11,25
24:19,20 34:12 36:24
40:14 47:2 53:7.10
54:4 5,6 57.22.24
58:24 59:2.19.21
60:17 65.25 66:5
68:10,11 70:9 72:11
73:8 75:13 62:16 93:4
94:13,16 106:21,23
108:11 11223 113:13
1149 11529 1166
127:23 123:7,8 131:20
132.28 1332 1366.16
137°5 140:4,16 145:13
148.9 1493 1507
151.22 152.11 156.17
164-22 16913
173:13,14 17821,
196.8 1973 200.15
sometimes (28) 1:20.21
8:22 14:24 22:20
23:20,21 29:56 327,7
34:9 37:14,15 43:11
47:9 48:2,20 49:5 519
56:14 60:9 70:12 94:8
127.17 141.16 145.16
158.14
somewhat (3) 14:20
17513 178.15
somewhere (1) 136.25
soon (1) 67:1
sophisticated (1) 67:24
sort (30) 39,16 5:2
318 32.21 5220
58:14 8214 86:3,
87.15.19 97:20 13111
137.12 1483 1492
166:1 167.22 172:24
A777 178131322
180:9.14 1646.25,
185:2 1069 168:3,
sorted (1) 69:12
sorts (3) 325 4:1 156
sounds (1) 16122
source (3) 49:5 105:2
35232
space (1) 8036,
span (1) 1685
speak (5) 20:18 103:24
128.16 129:12 16:24
speaking (5) 28 46:11
53:25 54:1 58:13,
specific (13) 6:25 19:3,
35:9 68:19,19.21
80:27 85:15 938
95:11 127.15 141:7.16
specitially (2) 6:23
15624
specification (1) 1622
specifics (1) 19.19
speculating (1) 57:10
speculation (6) 22.18
23:9,10 108:25
1091.5
speed (2) 80:15 12111
speedily (1) 79:18
spend (1) 32:8
spent (2) 104-16 145.24
split (2) 188:21,24
spoke (8) 19:16 36:17
98:17 103:20 129:12
spoken (6) 103:6,8
104:10,11 105:24
106:4
spot (2) 30.16 94:19
spotted (16) 12:16
30:15 94.14.18 95:4
965,6.22,22,23
97:5,7.11,14,17 101.6
spotting (1) 89:7
spreadsheet (1) 1606
spurious (1) 85
35 (2) 185:7.8
ssc (94) 21:16 229.19
15:20 163.4177
18:10.18,18 20:28,
25:5 26.11.17 27:16
2858.24 31:11 3317
34.17.24 38:11
39:1,14.22 402 41:10
43:22 44:1 52:8 53:23
548 57.14 582
59:16 66:34 709
73a7 742 75:7
76:17,18,21 7:12.25
7B:2,18 80-4 63:15
85:,16 8612.19
924,24 93:14.24
98:17 101:8,23 105:22
106:4 107.16 109.20
119.24 121:15,20
1237.20 124:16,20
1287.12 1305 134.24
139.25 142:23 1435
144:3 148:2,10
153:11,13,14.23,24
1549.11 155.24
159.17 160:12
sses (4) 1219 209
37:35 10914
stack (4) 61:10,12
64:23 117.20
staff (2) 44:3 1355
stage (9) 25:25,
262,216 1721.4
1765 178:5.14
stages (4) 57:25 15518
166.18 1768
stamp (2) 12412
145.2
stamps (1) 137-11
stance (1) 27:14
stand (1) 165:9
standard (3) 121:2
159:17,20
stands (1) 129.14
start (7) 6:1 697,28
1133 124:21 129:16
187.22
started (8) 6:12 114.13
129.15 14611 169:12
1709,11 1733
starting (1) 59:3
starts (5) 5:19 25:22
747 161:17 172:12
statement (89) 2:12.16
3:25,20 5:18.19 615
12.25 15:4,26,25
1623 21:1,18 25:19
270,12 34:3 35:7
40:19,22 43:24 448
46:24 48:17,25 49:25
50:16 51:14 5241
56:10,11 65:9 66:23,
70:2 73:15,16,25 74:6
766,8 77:17 79:15
81.22 84:10.17,22,23
876 90.23
91:9,10,11,24 92.9
97:24 103:3 1045
114,24 11322
115.22 119-1,
120:13,17 125:7
126:4,5 130:20 1323
1346 140:17 146:12
1516 155:13,17
158.10
165,14,15,18.21
166:11,24 169:16
183:10,13,19.21
i912
statements (5) 114
1422 13415
192:15,20
states (3) 1615 17.7
2734
statistics (1) 160.9
stay (1) 70:2
staying (1) 21.7
stephen (1) 73:24
steps (3) 648 122.17
1529
stick (1) 5:7
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts
203 F -
B10.1/4/63
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
sticker (1) 19212
sticks (2) 57:19 139.14
stil (13) 21:14 25:22
40:6 41:4 87:1 916
1113 130.21 13219
136-18 16310 104:24
y1i7
stock (5) 3:24 13.21
10225 119.22,23
stood (1) 163:13
stop (20) 28:22 32.15
36:24 37.1 38:3 62:4
69.17 11110 1122
1133 1267
1335,6,11 1342
136:3.4,23 139:3
452
stopped (3) 132.21
136.12 14925
stopping (12) 7:7 27:14
29:1 43.21 51:21
7425 86:17 99:9
121.18 12610 145:1
149:20
stops (1) 1333,
store (43) 27 3:7 10:11
33:10 35:23 39:18
113:2,46,15,10,21
114.224 1169.23
117:4,10.15.17
116:11,13,16.21
120.25 12418
126:18.21 1277.14
133:10,11,25 137.21
142:17,19,21 144.15
14515,22 15021
154.23
stores (1) 69:9
story (1) 62:20
straight (4) 1218 76:4
19225 19812
straightforward (3)
56:19 65:14,16
strip (1) 1378,
strong (1) 79:3
structured (1) 11915
struggling (1) 8:16
stuck (8) 57:23 7412
93:16 94:20,12,24
11414 1565
style (1) 185:2
subject (5) 80:19 85.25
130-21 165:20 18:23
submit (1) 165:23,
subpost (1) 92:25
subpostmaster (26) 4:5
91032 11:23 15:12
26:19 275,18 33:23
(65:24 67:20 12122.23
1261 130:7,23
158:16.21.25
35911,21,21
171.22,24 17418
1758
subpostmasters (20)
133 15:4 21:9 22:16
25:2 424 44:8 45:4,17
47.11 49:2 56:15,17
58:2 67:18 10220
121.20 15813,15
16722
subpostmistress (1)
104.19
subsequently (1) 1038
substantially (5) 165.24
267:4,11 173:4 180:24
substantive (1) 174:13
suddenly (2) 105:12
141.23
sulficient (2) 117.1
wara3
suggest (43) 102.18
11:8,20 17:20 18:15,
205 25:9 26:21 28:18
31:6 34:23 38:24
40:1,10 41.9 45:2.15
46:19 49:13,15 53:17
56:17,21 59:13 61:20
63:2 64:5 65:11 6613
78:24 81:10,18 64:18
124.15 129:3 140.23
148.6 1528 154.15
157:7 1586 199:17
suggested (3) 120:15
17015 181:25
suggesting (35) 9:2,12
1021 19.25 255.824
263 34:16 38:10
3921.21
573,11,13,16.25
59:20 6011 63:2 665
67:18 80:21,25 61:4,7
89.22 90:12 1059
107.15 115-4 120:9
12319 137.2 15410
suggestion (4) 32.12
33:46 5221 123.4
suggestions (1) 1993
suggests (1) 119:16
suitable (1) 172:2
suite (1) 1753
sum (11) 47:4.5.10,23
4983.45.21
5014.14.21
summary (8) 98:13
101:2 148:20 156:1
195:14,15,25 1961
summed (1) 48:5
superior (1) 24:13
supplementary (1)
7320
supplied (1) 100:5
support (33) 13:5 1415
15:2,17,20
16:7 20,22
17:11,17.23 1859.17
261,17
309,11,15,19 411,14
43:19 44.2.3.4 76:10
7929 805 84:2,7
167.6 1863
supported (1) 191:11
supporting (3) 33:12
167.16 1726
suppose (3) 29:15 57.21
110.15
supposed (5) 11:13
63:4 75:2 1268.16
sure (29) 1:9 5:13 11.14
333 47:24 54:16
55:11 59:16
63:12,17,18 7279.15
9321 1041 12819
1321 136.23 144:24
157:19,21,24 1709.13
167-4 191.24 198:14
surprised (1) 18:16
surprising (1) 186.25
suspect (4) 26:9 324
3420 671
suspected (4) 29:4,7
31:8 3225
suspicion (5) 31:13,
32:20 33:17,21 34.2
swap (1) 101:22
‘swapped (1) 10115
‘swinson (1) 175.18
switeh (2) 99:22 102:14
switched (3) 94:9 99.2
126:16
switchover (1) 102:24
‘word (1) 195:20
swom (2) 165:7 2017
symptom (3) 16:17
16:19 3222
symptoms (5) 28:11
29:22 304,16 66:14
syntax (1) 70:24
system (91) 4:12 9:23
106,7.22 169,11
1216 13:18 15:13.14
17.22.13,22,24,25
18:24 304,17 3320
35:29.21,22,24
36:8,19 40:23,24
41.2.4,17,23 4211
44:4 45:19 476.8
48:18 51:4 5411.18
61:2.3.814,16,20,21,
6237.19.20.21
(63:4,11 64:20,21.28
665 7010 72.41.12
736.7 79:26 87:22
94:25 95:17 96:25
97g 11118 1177.14
122.9.21 1237
126:8.11,11,19.23
1311726 1348
141.20 142.15 144:24
158:17 166:25 188:4
systemic (1) 19:4
systems (6) 12.20 13.21
41:11,14 5413 607
130:22 1334
£2610
tab (10) 212538
1312 21:2 929 1034
125:15 1515 160:13
165:13,
table (2) 161.16 17623
tables (1) 4:1
taken (11) 53:1 70.13
03,3 1347 12.14
128.13 1488 1529
176.6 1781
takeover (1) 83:15
taking (3) 14:4 471
148.2
talk (9) 31 36:22 37.2
8755 92:13 108:18
1113 113:24 10:22
talked (3) 60:20 69:7
1969
talking (77) 39,12 5:25
6271222623
109,22 19.22 23:10
313 4221 5245
67:7 6869.10.22
69:7,10,13 71:3,6,10
72:2.3,11,18 76:8,12
77:19 798 80:7,9.10
82:9 63:22 64:14
90:14,14 91:5,17.23
93:16 96:19 98:9 99:9
305.17 111:21.23
1159 1196.17,
122:12,16,23 12519
131:3.6 1324 13616
137-15 1421,3 14321
146:11 155.14 156:18
159:47
talks (2) 85:5 111.23
targets (4) 77:22 85:6
96:7.12
task (1) 47.2
tes (7) 5:25 66.25
68:2.28,23 69:1,7
team (41) 16:18
20:12,16 23:4 3417
36:11 40.2.4.25 73:17
82:3.7.17,20.22
93:19,20 89:18.23,
90:4,12 92:4 10318
104:311,14.24.26
105:7,10,25
106:1.5,17,19
107:21,24 108.23
109:20 128:7 200:10
teams (3) 41:13
200.12
technical (2) 75:22
166.24
telling (2) 35:9 197:12
ten (2) 23:25 24:4
tend (1) 139.10
tends (1) 139.12
tens (1) 73:23,
term (8) 52578 67:16
66:19,21,25 79.21.21
terminated (1) 178:20
termination (4) 170:20
1791.26
terminology (5) 2:10
29:5 50.21 51:1.3
terms (15) 5:6.14.14
123:20 14522 1561
167.12 17035 171:16
191-18 18422 185:24
190:13 199:10 2001
test (12) 35.25 36:2
58:24 62:35,17
83:19,20 9910.16
1017 102.38
tested (1) 99.20
testing (5) 36:1 824.6,
9:12.13
tests (3) 35:25 99:8,
102.14
text (10) 6:39.15 124
13:13 86.17 113.13
116.16 11820 144.11
thank (46) 4:25 175
27:9 33:25 4214
43:17 44:22 46:18
52:10 59:5 65:7 66.22
72:18,25 7313,
1:12.21 86:10 67:11
88:18 69:14 90:18
97:22 122.18 130.19
14a 147.5 158:10
159.24 1602
165:2,3.4,8 167.24
69:11 162.24 18413,
19616 167:11,14
192.16,23 1966
200:14.18
thats (165) 26
3:6.9,15,18 4.20 6:3
7:25 87 101.6
12:63 1225 15.627
16:11 17:19 18:19,21
19:1,3 21.7,18,19
15 23:7 26:13 31:8
34:23 35:6 36.9.25,
37.20 38:2.23,24
39,20 40:9 41:3 43:1
485.9 49.21 51:23
521 56.22.25 593
60/10 61:24 62:13
63:3,6,13 64:16 66:25
67.7 68:6
69:01,12.14 70:23
74:26 752 761
7725,19 78:5 826
84:10 87:14,18 88:12
89:4 92:2 96:23,16,23
965,22 978.24
100:12,18 101:6 1034
105:21 106-14
107:14,16 10825
109:1,6,7 11533,
136,10 119:2.17
2011
12291,12,13,15
3236.19.22 126:13
125.25 12828
132:14,16 13334
1344,6 136:16.19
140.4 1449.15 145.22
146:14,28 1483.4
355:10 15725 160.15
167:8 16917
1702,19,20.23,25,
37224 173479
374312 175614
176.25 1779 178:24
3792.47 18110
182.12,14,23 184.16
187:10,15,17 188.14
389.18 1925 194.21
195:22 196.7 197.8
198.9
theft (1) 149
thematic (2) 169:15
1746
themselves (1) 42:12
theoretical (1) 12:6
theoretically (2) 127.11
83
theory (2) 58.24.25
thereabouts (1) 1813
therefore (3) 26:2 163.2
1848
theres (29) 5:11
15:3,14,14 18:10
39:2 26:26 31:7 32:21
61:5,10,16 66:5 76:4
98:23 10087 11325
127.16 14020 150.12
151:14 153.21 166-20
17.49 179:19 185:4
396.13 19821
theyre (1) 138-23
theyve (2) 196:15,17
thing (17) 6:14 23:18
67:9 72:4 107.29
208:21 109-11 11-11
336.21 14633 147.16
1763 187.20 197.23
198.625 199:7
‘thinking (7) 12:10
50.9 76:19 922
1099 13319 1395
thinks (2) 44.25 196.13
thied (48) 13:1 27:23
38a7 3024 31:1
76:0 125:7 162:12
188:15.22 19:4
390.10 191:6,10.21
‘thorough (8) 20:24
30.20 45:8 46:9
5811.13 66:15.17
thoroughly (5) 20:10
285 45,5 46:4 58:9,
though (13) 1:19 36-21
38:5 55:3 77.21
80,10 11014 113.24
1168 12323 142.24
147.22 172.25
thought (11) 32:24
63:22 68:10 69:11
106:6 1088 110:17
127:20 1376 160.13,
1967
‘thoughts (1) 197.6
three (17) 24:2 45:12
47.5 7543 812
8811 98:20
9916,10,19,20 101:7
120.22 152.17 136.8
3741617521
‘threw (1) 144:20
‘through (38) 14:18 19:2
2320.21
26:10 11,15,26 43:12
47.22 49:3 62:8,20.24
63: 668 71:18
75:28,2,26 88:13
9425 1122 1176
13316 138:20 140.22
a4n.22 147:11.23
M89 155.18 166.15,
167.25 171.6 1725
37345 161.13
‘throughout (1) 4:1
thursday (3) 2:1 197.14
198:10
‘thus (1) 111-20
‘tighten (1) 55:10
time (93) 8:25 10:23,
16:3 198,11 20.28
21:10,15 22:18,20
23:22 24:3 25:4,6,7.10
26.9 30:18 31:5 32.28
34:13 407.89 418,10
43.22 44.10.12 55:7
57:1 59:18 682
To:4,32 75:18.24
791 €0:16,22
01:6,23 62:5
833,513 5:10.19
877,17 88.25
£911,5,6,9 10513
306:21,23 120.11
11613 1223 12322
12512 126:8 134:24
1434 14:3 145.28
146,24 14819 150.17
1524.16 1537 1593
160:25 162:6 165:22
1685 170:8.11
176:17,22 177.13
180.21 161:14 183:12
19712 198.4,24
199.10
timeframes (3)
172:18,20,22
timeline (1) 17316
times (15) 8:13 21:22
226,11 24:12 33:9
53:18 57:21 66:10
699 82:19 89
11219 130.18 158:19
timescale (4) 6012
7426.17 78:22
timescales (2) 60:9 82:5,
timetable (1) 173:
timing (1) 64:21
timings (2) 191.22
tiny (4) 96.16,19.19,19
today (5) 5:9 77.16
1664 191-3 1996
together (3) 120:19
173.22 17425
toing (1) 19812
told (33) 8:2,17 23:25
35:10,14,16 36:23
371,17 38:19 39:9,22
53:13 6823 71:2
1036.24 1042.2
105.4 106:1617,25
107.12 108:3.17
159.14 161:10 165-21
181.6 183:8,12 1931
tomorrow (10)
191:13,15 198:15,18
199.2,7.8,17 209,19
t00 (9) 46:10 53:2
70:14 108:3 116:14
193:14,15 194-9
197.16
took (10) 20:21 39.8,
107-21,23 108:2 114.7
128.12 14818 17:13
18415
tool (1) 144-14
total (4) 132:10 161:8
1631 166:4
towards (5) 102:4
168:12,24 171:19
199.15
tracking (2) 195:14.25
trading (1) 51:25
trail (4) 62:12 126:20
152.7 153413,
train (1) 127:20
training (1) 1675
ction (132) 2.7.9
3:1,7.16,28,21,22
4:4,20.21 5:11.24 6:18
7:88:14 9:48.20
1221 1825 4735
48:4 51:17 61:2
62:8,18,23,25 635
64:20,24,25 66:25
67:4,8.9,16,19
68:18.25 69:10
94:12,24 1123.15.16
tran
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcript! GRO I
203
B10.1/4/64
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
1135 1143
115:68,11 1174
11812 12031,21,25
121.16 1228,19.25
1235.15.21
126:17,17,22,24 1261
13012 13119
1337,7.21
1342,5,10,20,25
13510 137:4,10,12.13
1395,7 1401.67.19
141.24 1421,6,9.16
1435.13.25 144.425
145:6,7.9.9,12
146:2.3,45,14,20.25
150:10,12 1522,12,21
1535.11.25
154:1,3,12,15,27,20
155:14,25 158:4,7.24
transactional (5) 471.6
48:9 49:10 56:13,
transactions (58)
414.22 27:15 47:9,18
48:3.6.21.23 616,22
62:20,22 67:15 68:8
7413.16
75:10,15,16.21
4:13.25 93:26,17,21
9411 1133,21 14.14
118:9,10,13,20 120:24
yyan.a4 12222
12318 12419 132:19
3341 13511,13
136.32 14112,17.21
1422.7 146:17 147.17
149.16 1529 153.4.18
1546 1594
transeribe (1) 37:3
transcript (7) 37:21.24
55:17 143 190.18,25
191.23
transfer (3) 134:21
135:14 188.26
transferring (2) 134:13
14320
transmitted (1) 1564
treated (3) 86:15.20
986
tremendously (1) 41:12
tial (10) 76.26 7:3
84:12 86:3,8 165.22
16:23 18311 197:5.8
tried (4) 20.25 51:9
95.23 1674
tries (1) 26:12
triggered (1) 131:23
‘rouble (1) 197:24
true (17) 41:3,6.9
43:11,22 49:14 51:17
52:1 60:2 106:10
10956 11911 1203
121:18,25 1243,
16518
truth (4) 17:21 26.23
95:2 146.19
try (12) 5:7 1823 192
32:1 47:13 49:4 56:7
57:21 58:24 67:4
110.25 160.14
trying (18) 6:16 6:23
235 25.9 26:7 45:2.15
47:25 51:8 58.23.25
639 109.18 11915,
1267.24 140.12
19820
tuesday (4) 191:19,22
1969 198:7
tum (8) 2:29 637 8612
165:13,14 169.23
171s 17434
tumed (8) 2:20 363.4
13615,
turning (2) 96:9 200:2
tums (1) 99:23,
twice (2) 162:23 1631
twoedged (1) 195:20
twopage (2) 100:19,22
‘wothirds (1) 176:23
type (3) 2:3 100:4
15420
typed (5) 9:15.16 105
115 a7
types (3) 9:3 1446.8
typographical (1) 199:3
uiimately (7) 21:14
253 44:11 96:6
12325 16219 18336
unable (12) 14.8 168
177 21:14 25:3 27:21
44:11,16 58:28 59:20
1214 15821
unavoidable (1) 87:21
uncomfortable (4) 19:8
60258
uncommon (1) 56:16
uncontroversial (3)
1683 17324 1743
underlying (4) 50:7
675 73:3 125:12
underneath (1) 1313
understand (17) 5:6.8
8:16 34:16 47:25 49:7
695 79:16 10:24
1145 133:2.5 135.25
17923 1806 183:20
18418
understanding (14)
15 40:11 44:4 52:23
53:3 65:20 90:8
115.10 124.413 1299
17322 1839
understood (5) 60:22
1461 166:5 1695
amas
undertaken (8) 32:
57.14.15 61:6 67:25
6921 1422 165:12
undertaking (1) 12.22
undoing (1) 90.15
uneasy (2) 59:19 60:16
unexpected (1) 70:13
unexpectedly (1) 35:29
unfair (4) 1:20 76:23
180.14 181-15
unfortunate (1) 157:2
unfortunately (1) 1399
unhappy (1) 197
unit (11) 36:10 79:29
99:23 1018.15.22
1023,9,23 119:2
1338
units (4) 103:25 106.2
11923 1339
unix (2) 148.25 149:22
unless (2) 116:5 198:6
niikely (11) 13:6 289
29:31,14,15,16,28,19
30:24 425 200:6
unlock (2) 11428 115:
‘unprofessional (2)
3424 36.25
unsure (1) 12523,
‘until (4) 3112 1024
103:6 20021
‘unusual (2) 13:18 77:9
update (4) 90:15.16
176.16 1776
updated (2) 1009
16:24
updates (1) 119:23,
upfront (1) 1865
upgrades (3) 67:14
99.18 15216
‘upon (6) 193 20:2.
37:11 69:6 185:24
187.23
upset (1) 129.19
urgent (3) 88:5,7.10
used (15) 10:23 56:15
777 7816 102:19
1724 ima aaa
142.6 161:24 162-4
164:7 168:23 188.14
20:16
user (22) 14:2 15:18
¥722,13.19,24,25
18:7 126:20.25
327,1010,22
141:22.23
153:6.8,12,15,23,28
1547
userhardware (1) 16:24
using (18) 5:5 67 424
51:4 90:9 1267
152.19 133.17 134.25
135:20 136.19 1435,
144:4,13 145:7 154.19
17:2 160:16
usual (1) 188:25
usually (5) 117 195.6
30:22 67.24
v
vague (1) 795
value (8) 9:10 13728
138,6,10,11,16,19
445.17
various (8) 1:13 79:28
20:7 160:9 16:17
16722 168.7 1768
varying (1) 173:4
vast (3) 18:25 4210
1e22
version (15) 85:20
9:9.28 90:5,13
152:14,18 180:22
181-4 162:19 183:16
193:4 195:21,22,28
versions (1) 1748
via (2) 42:5 1442
views (3) 190.18
196:9:3
Visible (1) 51:28
voice (1) 22:12
voluntarily (2) 169:22
1118.
voyage (1) 137.28,
wait (3) 37:35 119:6
wants (1) 198:2
warranted (1) 71.23
wasnt (33) 20.12 22:20
23:3 28:16 25:9
35:22,24 404,13
54:11 59:26 63:10,15
6:2 67:13 68:9 75:20
76:14 78:24 826
90:8,19 96:20 102:18
10813 132.23 1366
1425 145:8,18,22
1548 1721,
watching (2) 157:10,33
way (45) 17.17 23:7
3h: 39:16 59:17
6613.18.19 67:20
68:16 70: 722021
776 85:4 93:23
955,13 10315 1088
145 175
120:1,9,31 226.28
127.25 131,12 1344
137.25 140.24
141:6,11,20 14218
144.15 1465.25
148:13 167:20 17623
186.3 188:25
ways (1) 18:19
wbd (1) 193:16
websites (1) 200.8
wednesday (2) 1987.10
week (7) 102:4
162:13,14,15,15 198:7
19911
weeks (5) 87:25 68:19
e927 181.9 197.13
went (9) 54:27 62:10,17
85:11 90:10 102:24
14:8 155:17 17512
werent (14) 8:2 19:12
415 67:14 78:10
79:20 88:18 85:25
86:5 66:10 148:17
161:10 169:4 162:6
weve (1) 186:6
whatever (11) 31:19
61:5 68:14 75:23
yaa 11220 11721
124312 12721 129.11
urn
whats (3) 114 72:2
1606
whenever (2) 585 595
whereas (1) 108-19
whilst (1) 155:25
whoever (1) 110:10
whole (8) 27:6 364
120.19 160:7
whom (3) 110-12 1838
1881
widely (2) 148:8 194:9
wider (3) 147 3:24
1679
winding (2) 179:22
1802
window (1) 24:8
windows (2) 10:13
e78
wired (2) 36:6.13
wish (3) 55:21 68:12
ars
withdrawal (2) 14:6
195:9
witness (68) 1:13 212
3:15,19 5:18.19 615
12:25 15:23,25 16:13,
2a 27:20,12 35:7
46:23 48:17,25 49:25
56:11 63:20 65:8 74.6
THAT 84:17,23 90:23
onal 928 103:3
108:5 1092 111:3,24
113:22 11522 1186
119:1 120.6 125.7
126:3 1281 120:19
1823 134-6,15 151.5
155:17 16311,
164:19,21,25
165;5,13,15,21 16621
168:20 169:2,16
183:10,12,19,21
187:16 191:12
wombles (1) 189:25
wonder (1) 69:15
wont (12) 4'7,9,9,10
44:5 47-26 48:10
76:22 87-3 92:8 154.4
174
worden (9) 47:24 48:8
49:12,14 68:6,22
697,13
wordens (3) 66:24 69:2
156:
work (25) 11:13 191
20:13 40:24 54:2
70:15 Tl 75:21
T7AI 842.7 86.24
87:1 166.21 1674
170:11 171.16 1736
174:7 17822 179.10
1841 185:12,18 1868
workaround (8)
53:21,24 54:8,9 70:23
72:19,25 72:2
workarounds (2) 80:22
as
worked (15) 8:7 18:23
53:4,12 54:3 59.15
64:4 67:8 68:2 89:16
102.23,25 152,15
15411
working (33) 128 15:9
16:17 185 41:10
47:12 49:3 89:19
90:6.13 102:14 149:25,
152:18,24 15321
1704 17218,21 1731
174.17 175432
176:6,10.20 178:15
179:14 1805,8,17
181:6 162.21 1868
worried (2) 20:13 83:17
worry (1) 110:20
worth (3) 106.13
10813 124:20
wouldnt (36) 15:19
20:22 22:10 28:13,
29:17 32:3,18 34:13,
46:19 55:35 7128
8:4.8 88:4 95:19
977,47 108.11
112.24,24 1411
1178.12 12431
1261314 13313
137:7,15 13820
39:14 141:24 142-13
154.25
write (3) 11:4 739
105.22
writers (3) 55:25 110.25,
15021
writing (4) 70:21 72:9
11423 185.01
written (15) 1:7 26
6:19 9:9,19 11:6 90.7
1354 1425,17
145:15,16 174:16,19
1830
wrong (24) 40:12 50:22
54:13 66 81:10,17
91:9 102-20 108:17
1131 119-22 136.22
137-48 138:16
1395,7.22,23 14813
151.23 158-7 164:16
1957
wrongly (1) 1372
yeah (1) 36:8
year (9) 63:22 16:12
370-21 175.25 178:4
1998,14.15,16
years (13) 23:12.13
40,9,20 41:12 82:12
93:4 139.28 149:25
152:4 1554 16419
185.25
yellow (1) 162.19
yesterday (11) 1:23
612,13 87 19.25 56.2
62:7 9317 1079
1933 19813
yet (4) 90:25 1196
166:17 196.21
young (2) 186:3 191.12
youre (39) $11 7a,
8:10 12-4 26:3 41:18
48:7 52:5 57:10
58:25 66:3,
722,3.11,38 7622.19
77-24 82:9 90:14,14
91:23 96:11 105:9.16
106:18 115:10 117.19
127.16 130:10 1313,
1362 137.14 14:21
156.14 157.16 1597
3903
yours (1) 167:22
yourself (9) 52:15 53:4
95:7 97:25 146.21
4567 15615 17:7
a2a5
youve (6) 9:18 32:13,
787 144.6 157.19
16017
zero (13) 3:12 26:10
47:4,5,10.23
48:3,4.5,21 50:14,21
1388
zeros (1) 137.7
0 (3) 111:20 114.17
160.18
1 (22) 2:25 3:3 51:19
9821 101-15 110.25
anig0 14:17 115.22
11938 120:28 138.7
149.16 1701
1737.23 174:3.10
189:12 102:13 201:455
10 (20) 5:18 6:3 15:25
1720 21:2 50:12
514 524214 74:13
92.9 103:4 123.1
1374 1385 146:9
151.28 162:16 181
asa9
100 (9) 11:24 14:3.4.6
3981 137:47
13847
1009 (1) 162:19
yo1010 (1) 11219
1030 (6) 12613 1079
200:18,19,21
105 (1) 1385
1050 (1) 98:25
105141148 (1) 162.16,
108254026 (1) 163.2
11 (6) 13:22 56.10 65:8
102.95 11523 162.15
36318 171.7
110 (2) 112.20 271
1146 (1) 564
115 (2) 111.6 160.23
1158 (1) 566
116 (1) 178.21
119062272 (1) 162.25
ith (1) 1817
12 (16) 66.22 74:11
766 1016 11616
1515 160:18 16215
178.16 164.25 106:7
19115 199:2 20028
12000 (1) 162.15,
1209 (1) 996
L2month (1) 186.12
13 (8) 16:13 38
876,101 88:14
125:15 163:23
4133705 (1) 162:24
134 (1) 1432
136 (1) 169:10
14 (17) 13 212 5:19
62 124 165 176
21:3 25:18,21 90:24
912,78 11616
16018 171:8
45 (23) 23: 27-11
343 8123.28
622.25 65:5
113,25 1126
320812 1265 13115
1362 14611 149:3,4
155.4 16038
38611,12
150 (2) 167.17 1699
1555 (1) 10113
156 (1) 47:4
1563 (3) 48:12 49.12.14
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts
203
B10.1/4/65
March 14, 2019
Horizons Issues - Alan Bates & Others v Post Office Limited
POL00004074
POL00004074
Day 4
16 (10) 389 39:13
73:14 84:20 1198
130.19 1324
193:17,23 195:4
160 (1) 201:6
1604 (1) 1025
1613 (1) 16413
165 (2) 201.78
1656 (1) 98:22
166 (1) 202.9
167 (1) 66.23
17 (8) 37:25 1016
125:6,10,16
16 (8) 23:13 101.13
1025 13435 135.9
143:14.16 20022
103 (1) 201:10
106 (1) 201-12
107 (1) 20012
19 (7) 23:12 40.9,10.19
70:3 62:12 155:4
391 (1) 201.13
1999 (1) 16212
ast (1) 135
2 (16) 102°5 111.2
1469 149327 1706
1737 1741591762
10022 10145
16236,19
20 (5) 43:7 140317
150.22 160.19 193:24
002 (1) £3:23
2004 (2) 85:22 101:6
2005 (2) 85:20,20
2009 (5) 148.18
1502.47 15213
gor (3) 1866,7 192.31
aoi2 (0) 1664.54.15
194:19.28 16518
e212
2013 (3) 168:8,9,11
2014 (13) 98.1321
1703.8 173347
17410 17520 1764
177-24 18417
165:16.22
2015 (4) 168:5 177.6
17e14,18
2019 (3) 1:1 191:5
20022
21 (3) 101-2 1614
16221
21s (4) 102:7 110.26
mise
22 (3) 39:13 86-14
1906
227918004 (1) 163
23 (3) 46:28 155113
15812
24 (4) 86:17 96.25
1027 158:10
24000 (1) 162.15
25 (6) 74:3 761
4:11,20 66:10 102.8
251 (1) 85:7
254 (1) 86:11
2612 (1) 40:25
2613 (1) 13:18
27 (4) 151.7 16239
16925 1915
28 (2) 1517.1
264 (2) 151:16.25
2nd (1) 135
3 (13) 213,16 361 912
1027 1251314 1346
15022 162:18 170.19
171g 1853
30 (2) 56:1 85:20
31 (6) 1532 177.25
19313.17,28 19514
315 (1) 250:24
324 (1) 1512
34 (1) 38.9
35 (4) 37:28 383
11524.35
aa) 167
38 (2) 12039 155.16
382 (2) 120:18 121:10
4 (4) 2522 53:22 983
1258
40 (3) 98:21 144:20
16018
41 (1) 170.18
42 (2) 160:18 170.24
42gen (1) 1009
43 (2) 74:7 64:23
430 (1) 11110
434 (1) 200:20
44 (3) 11:16 79:14 81:2
46 (1) 16:14
49 (1) 176
5 (10) 25:23 551
92:13 98:25 99:26
143:12 165:13 171:3
17232
51 (2) 17234 1733
52 (1) 17235,
53,(1) 17236
5358 (1) 161.7
55 (4) 11124 1122
119.14,14
581 (2) 112.11 11938
553 (1) 132-3,
554 (4) 112.2
1193.10.18
6 (7) 1312 361 40.18
9231 942 99.2
17722
60 (1) 161.17
61 (1) 43:28
62 (1) 1855
629 (1) 132:10
63 (5) 160.22
161:14,16,20 18612
7 (8) 84:17 92:12 95:7
97.23.25 103:4,4
16535,
70 (1) 1004
7th (3) 197:15,19 198.7
8 (13) 15 12:24 15:3
49:25 50.1,5 95:22.25
103:3 160-18 192:11
1971011
8th (4) 197:25,19,20
1088
9 (13) 1.5 5.20 46.25
48:25 50:2 151:6
160;18 162:13 1812
39211 197:10,11,14
‘9004 (1) 133:16
‘9005 (2) 133-17,20
99 (1) 16413
‘th (1) 197:20
Opus 2 International
Official Court Reporters
transcripts! GRO I
0203 Tn
B10.1/4/66