SUBS1000004
SUBS1000004
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
Note for the Inquiry on behalf of Anne Chambers
1. The Inquiry will recall that in the Phase 4 closing submissions provided on behalf of Mr
Castleton an allegation of perjury was made against Mrs Chambers by the Hodge
Jones and Allen team, alongside other unfair and unrealistic criticisms of her. On her
behalf, we submitted a short document rebutting that allegation of a criminal offence
and making the point that counsel for interested parties should not abuse the privilege
afforded to them in the Inquiry to make unsupported allegations which would otherwise
be defamatory, and which are published on the Inquiry website.
2. The Chair made a statement published on 19 March 2024 in which he explained that
exceptionally, our document would be placed on the website so that it could be read
alongside the Castleton document. The Chair made clear he would receive no further
submissions on the topic save that he explained Core Participants and others should
understand that opportunities exist to make submissions at the conclusion of all of the
evidence of the Inquiry, and that any person who it is proposed should be explicitly or
significantly criticised in the Inquiry Report will receive a warning letter in accordance
with Rules 13-15 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 and will be given a reasonable opportunity
to respond to it.
3. In their final written closing submissions following conclusion of the evidence, counsel
for Mr Castleton have repeated and attempted to reformulate their perjury allegation.
On Mrs Chambers behalf we therefore seek the opportunity (through this document)
to make these points. We submit that, in these particular circumstances, it is
appropriate that a person accused of a criminal offence has the opportunity of a reply
and, primarily, a facility to assist the Inquiry by correction of points of fact, prior to the
Inquiry considering whether it is proposed to criticise the witness in the report. For the
avoidance of doubt, this short document is not provided as a substitute for participation
in the Maxwellisation process should that be necessary. We acknowledge of course
that the Inquiry may already have the points made here well in mind.
4. The reformulated allegation is at paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Hodge Jones and Allen
submission (page 9). As before, we do not propose to engage here with any of the
comments made elsewhere in the document about Mrs Chambers; this does not imply
they are accepted as true or fair.
10.
11.
SUBS1000004
SUBS1000004
It is alleged that Mrs Chambers suppressed knowledge of KELs. That is not true for
the reasons set out below.
Mrs Chambers gave oral evidence to the Inquiry over four days. On the 27 September
2023 she was asked questions about the evidence she gave in the civil trial in
December 2006 concerning Lee Castleton and the Marine Drive post office
[poh_27_september_2003].
In answer to questions from Counsel to the Inquiry [at pages 49 to 50], Mrs Chambers
gave evidence that, shortly before she was called as a witness in the Castleton trial,
she was told, she thought either by her manager or someone in the Fujitsu security
team, that Known Error Logs (“KELs”) were not disclosed and that she should refer in
her oral evidence to the records of Powerhelp Calls rather than to PEAKs.
Later during her 27 September 2023 evidence to the Inquiry, questions were put to
Mrs Chambers on behalf of Mr Castleton [at pages 145-147]. She was asked: Did it
not strike you even then as perhaps slightly suspicious that nobody wanted you to
mention known error logs with that title being what it was? She answered that she
thought it was strange, not suspicious and that she was in a very unfamiliar situation.
In point of fact, Mrs Chambers did give evidence about KELs in the Castleton trial. Mrs
Chambers signed a witness statement dated 14 September 2006 [LCAS0001265 and
LCAS0000112]. Paragraph 6 of that witness statement recounts part of the
investigation she had conducted in February 2004 and reads:
I refer to the call log of 25 February 2004, 4.56pm, call reference e-0402251011
(pages 12 and 13). This states "Critical event seen @13.00.36 18/02/04 on
21333700101. This particular call was raised several days after the event
occurred, by a member of the team responsible for monitoring system events. I do
not know why they raised this call so long after the event. The Known Error Log
entry quoted did not match the specific symptoms of this instance. Upon checking
further, I found that hundreds of branches had had the same event at the same
time. The cause had already been investigated by another member of the SSC on
18 February 2004 (call reference e-040218083 at pages 5 and 6) and was benign.
The event would not have been seen by users at the branches, and in no way
affected the branch accounts.
Paragraph 2 of the witness statement explains that the references to page numbers
were references to Mrs Chambers’ exhibit. “AC1”. The call log referred to in her
paragraph 6 is at pages 12 and 13 in the exhibit [LCAS0001265, at pg 20]. The Log
reads “KEL Ref No. KEL Reference: Stephenson5630V"
Page 14 of her exhibit [LCAS0001265, at pg 22] is a further call log which gives the
same Stephenson5630V KEL reference and states: “could ssc please investigate why
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
SUBS1000004
SUBS1000004
this P.o is experiencing large discrepancies ever since BT engineer has moved BT box
in preparation for ADSL Install. Kel ref given as possible problem. NBSC have said
there is no user error, Thank you”.
Page 5 of the exhibit [LCAS0001265, at pg 13] is a call log opened 18 February 2004.
It reads: “These events were from a number of FAD's - An error has occurred see audit
log for details" Source CASEPOSSDailyRecon, KEL DRowe24Q ... I am raising this
call as KEL seems to indicate this should not occur on a large amount of FADs at the
same time. KEL will also need updating with actions for the SMC.”
Mrs Chambers’ witness statement and exhibits were adopted as her evidence in chief
at trial in the usual way [LCAS0001382 at page 218, (trial transcript)]. Mr Castleton
then cross-examined as transcribed [LCAS0001382 at pages 218-231 (internal
pagination 33-46)]. He began his cross-examination by turning to bundle 12, tab 106,
page 4120. The index to the trial bundle shows this to have been the December 2003
HSH Calls Log [LCAS 0000365 at page 12]. He then moved on through the bundle of
call logs.
The suggestion put before the Inquiry on behalf of Mr Castleton that there was no
mention of KELs because their very title disclosed the existence of bugs, is clearly
wrong given the contents of paragraph 6 of Mrs Chambers’ witness statement (which
include the full title) and the further references to KELs in the exhibits which Mr
Castleton had in his hands. There are complaints Mr Castleton can properly make
about the conduct of his civil trial; criticism of Mrs Chambers is not one of them.
It is further alleged she suppressed knowledge of remote access. There is no basis
for any suggestion that Mrs Chambers thought remote access was somehow relevant
to the Marine Drive losses.
Finally, it is alleged she suppressed knowledge of her work on the Week 42 data which
had revealed a known error. The known error relied upon here related to a sale of a
Smartpost stamp and Mr Beer covered this in his questioning of Mrs Chambers on 27
September 2023 at pages 17 to 24. Her work in respect of week 42 had culminated in
the production of a report by Mr Jenkins. Mrs Chambers was not asked about the
Smartpost stamp or week 42 when she gave evidence in the Castleton trial (Mr
Castleton had given evidence about Week 42 but Mrs Chambers would not have
watched that evidence being given and he did not ask her any questions about it). It
is clear from her answers to Mr Beer's questions that Mrs Chambers had no reason to
think it was incumbent upon her to raise it of her own volition in the Castleton trial.
SUBS1000004
SUBS1000004
17. The suggestion that by not mentioning these things in her oral evidence at the
Castleton trial (notwithstanding that the first was expressly referred to in her witness
statement adopted as her evidence in chief) Mrs Chambers rendered her answers in
chief and cross-examination untrue and perjurious is unsustainable.
19 December 2024
Stuart Biggs
Cloth Fair Chambers