WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Witness Name: Kay Linnell
Statement No.:WITN00550100
Dated: 16/05/2024
THE POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF KAY LINNELL
I, Kay Linnell, will say as follows:-
1. I was appointed as an accountancy and litigation advisor to JFSA (‘Justice for
Subpostmasters Alliance’) and my part in the long running dispute with Post Office
Limited is as part of JFSA. All the views in this witness statement are my own and
do not represent those of JFSA.
2. This witness statement has been prepared in response to the request made by
the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the ‘Inquiry’) pursuant to Rule 9 of the Inquiry
Rules 2006, dated 9 April 2014 (the ’Rule 9 Request’). In this statement I have
addressed each of the questions set out in the Appendix to the Rule 9 Request. I
have used the headings set out in those questions where appropriate and for ease
of reference. I have been assisted by David Enright of Howe & Co in relation to
the preparation of this witness statement.
Introduction and Personal Background
3. In summary, I am a Chartered Accountant, having qualified with the ICAEW in
1979, I am also a Certified Fraud Examiner (2001), a Chartered Arbitrator and
Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, an Accredited Mediator by the
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (2001), a Life Member and Fellow of the
Expert Witness Institute and a Member of the Fraud Advisory Panel. I have an
MBA from the University of Sheffield and am a part-time lecturer at the University
Page 1 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
of Portsmouth, where I obtained my doctorate in 2024. I am in public practice
offering forensic accountancy and dispute resolution services worldwide.
4. I specialise in forensic accounting and tax investigations, financial disputes and
areas of litigation support including civil, family and criminal matters. I have
experience in specialist commercial matters including share valuations, insurance
claims, management consultancy, construction disputes, business interruption,
insolvency and corporate recovery, fraud investigations, forensic reconstruction,
tax and professional negligence.
Involvement with the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance ‘JFSA’
5. I became involved in the Post Office treatment of its sub postmasters (SPMs) in
2009 because of my local postmistress, Jo Hamilton. My business partner, Mrs
Barbara Jeremiah JP, used to drop into Jo’s shop in South Warnborough to buy
her lunch on the way to Court. One day in 2005, she found Jo in tears because of
ever-increasing unexplained shortfalls in her business accounts. Barbara told Jo
she needed the services of an accountant to fully understand the causes of the
losses and differences shown on her computer branch terminals.
6. Jo did not take this offer up and went to her trial in Winchester with Issy Hogg a
local criminal solicitor. Jo was advised by her legal team to accept a plea bargain
changing the indicted offence of “Theft” to the “False Accounting”. She pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to community service.
7. When Barbara made me aware of this, we were naturally disappointed, as we
wanted to help a trusted neighbour. As a forensic accountant, I was curious to try
to find out how the Horizon terminal in Jo’s shop had alleged losses, but no
evidence was available to check the entries.
8. Sometime in around June 2012 Barbara spoke to Jo, who suggested that I phone
Alan Bates, who was the centre of JFSA, as its organiser because he had a
Page 2 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
forthcoming meeting in the House of Commons and Barbara and Jo believed that
I could add value and help Alan.
9. As the Inquiry will be aware, the SPMs had banded together and formed the
Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (‘JFSA’). JFSA is an unincorporated affiliation
with no constitution, rules, or hierarchy but simply united by a common problem
which is to get back the money wrongly taken by POL and attempt to recover
losses and damages caused by the POL operation of the Horizon computer and
support system in the SPM POL network.
10.1 telephoned Alan Bates and volunteered to provide what assistance I could. Alan
had clearly appreciated that there seemed to be a much wider problem of SPMs
affected by Horizon being pursued in the civil Courts for money by POL for alleged
shortfalls and possibly being prosecuted for theft and summarily terminated by
POL causing financial distress by POL on what appeared to be little or no reliable
shared evidence.
11. There was no need for me to have a ‘lightbulb moment’ as I knew Jo Hamilton's
case inside out and she told me of other SPMs. In my opinion none of the POL
prosecutions should have taken place because in POL’s own manuals it specifies
there will be no prosecution without a full investigation and POL should have, as
the prosecuting authority, investigated the cause of all differences, given
evidence to the accused SPM to check and an opportunity with all the figures to
defend themselves. What actually happened was an extreme form of self-justified
bullying and prosecuting SPMs without any evidence - like ‘shooting fish in a
barrel’.
12.As a forensic accountant I was aware of some aspects of civil and criminal
litigation, to assist JFSA. Alan Bates agreed that I should attend a meeting with
him at the then James Arbuthnot MP’s office on 7 July 2012 to meet potential
independent accountant investigators nominated by POL being Second Sight
Support Services Limited (‘Second Sight’) Ron Warmington and lan Henderson.
Page 3 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
First meeting with Second Sight
13.1 first met Second Sight on 7 July 2012 with Alan Bates in James Arbuthnot MP’s
office. I was extremely suspicious of Second Sight, as they had been nominated
by POL as independent forensic accountants, and I was concerned that their
access to documents and review of POL’s Horizon system might be a whitewash.
I challenged them at our meeting in 2012 but was satisfied with their responses.
14.My role was to monitor the work of Second Sight to verify their independence and
it was agreed that I would be paid a fixed fee for this service however long it took.
As the Second Sight investigation progressed, I worked with them, and saw first-
hand their approach, and attended some of the meetings with SPMs and I was
impressed.
Meeting with Paula Vennells and Alwen Lyons
15.1 attended a meeting at POL with Alwen Lyons and Paula Vennells (I think in
around in June or July 2013). We asked to meet Paula Vennells as CEO to try
and get a reality check on the POL opposition to recognising the plight that POL
had caused SPMs, to admit Horizon was not 100% perfect (as no computer
system can be) and to get money paid back to SPMs asap.
16.At that stage, JFSA did not want a full public exposure just proper care for SPMs
in giving money back wrongly taken and paying for losses and damages. We
were asking for substantial amounts but nothing compared to their own bonuses
published in great detail in the POL annual accounts.
17. However, this meeting was not a productive experience and the responses we
received were laced with platitudes such as “we are listening” and “the important
thing is the future of POL” and “lessons learned from the past”.
Page 4 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
JFSA meeting at Kineton
18.Sometime later, Jo Hamilton asked Barbara and I to go to a JFSA meeting on 28
July 2013 of other SPMs in a village hall in Kineton to meet them and perhaps
give some assistance with their financial affairs, accounts, tax, creditors and POL
claims.
19.As an experienced forensic accountant in criminal and civil matters, I was well
used to the type of documents and evidence that were needed by the prosecution
and defence. I was persuaded to help by Barbara as a hobby without any charge
to SPMs and, as Barbara says, this is a hobby that has now ‘got out of hand’.
20.1 took on the role as the accountancy and litigation advisor by JFSA and my
position was later confirmed at the JFSA Kineton on 28 July 2013 by a show of
hands by the members of JFSA [WITN00550101].
Assistance to SPMs
21.1n talking to other SPMs, I began to understand the scale of the problem as so
many SPMs were, like Jo, in a dreadful financial and stressful position and very
few had any documents that supported the alleged losses/shortages. I came to
discover that no documentary evidence was provided to SPMs by Post Office Ltd
(‘POL’). As such, SPMs faced with Horizon computer shortfalls appeared to have
no access to the standard type of documentary evidence a defendant should have
in a case of civil recovery of a debt or accusations of criminal theft, false
accounting or fraud.
22. These SPMs had been left with huge debts, mental distress, losses and tax
compliance issues and creditors.
23. Since that time, I have been contacted directly by many JFSA SPMs as their
confidential trusted adviser and have assisted them in preparing accounts, dealing
with tax, debt collectors, financial arrangements, claims and any other financial
Page 5 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
matter or correspondence that I was able to. There is no formal engagement letter
or contract with SPMs as working for JFSA members is a public service initiative
for my firm Kay Linnell & Company Limited (‘KLL’).
24.I should emphasise that everyone in my firm, KLL, spent time on the SPM’ affairs.
In particular, Barbara Jeremiah has provided extensive personal time to SPMs in
the JFSA to support them over many hours in the last 15 years. The work has
been extensive. I have 6 shelves of lever arch files on the JFSA matters.
25.KLL are still here to help them whenever the SPMs need it. We have not been
paid for our services except for the first fixed fee in 2012 and for a brief period
during the Initial Mediation Scheme sponsored by the MPs and administered
through POL with Second Sight, and again during the GLO, both of which are
described later in this statement in the interest of transparency.
26. JFSA has no funding apart from gifts from friends and donations to my knowledge,
except for one Crowd Funding appeal to make an application to the Privy Council
to apply for a Statutory Public Inquiry rather than the non-statutory Public Inquiry
that was offered. This application in the event proved unnecessary as at the
eleventh hour HM Government changed its position.
SPMs unable to defend themselves against POL allegations.
27. I have always been struck by the obvious unfairness of POL placing SPMs in a
position where they were unable to defend themselves.
28.When I gave evidence before the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on
3 February 2015 [UKGI00013818 — at page 8] I summarised the position that they
faced through referring to a pub analogy that one of the MPs had given. Essentially
a landlord has access to all the accounting records, he can see when cash is
missing. What happened in the case of Horizon was that even where there was
only an SPM operating the tills, money had gone missing which was out of their
control.
Page 6 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
29.As I stated, for example, if cash collection is picked up and remitted to head office,
it is sometimes not logged against the SPM in head office and a shortage arises.
Sometimes an entry goes through - a transaction correctional credit (TCC) and
the SPM does not know about it. Although the SPM is personally responsible to
pay cash, they are not aware of how the differences have arisen. If the mediation
scheme had told the applicants where the money had gone within POL there
should have been lots of settlements - but the SPM and JFSA still didn't know.
30.The accounting was always outside the SPM’s control - yet under the contract
with POL, the SPM was held responsible.
31.We later added in written submissions through JFSA [INQ00000399] that due to
the complexities in the Horizon system there was a lack of intuitive flow with this
operation. Furthermore the failure in the system design led to problems of
tracking down where or if mistakes had been made, or what had happened to
particular money.
32. In the long run it was always the SPM who had to pick up the tab - so POL didn't
need to worry. The POL strategy was really all about transference of risk from
the POL to the SPM.
Second Sight — current involvement.
33.After Second Sight had completed their task and POL had closed down the Initial
Mediation Scheme in 2015, I had no reason to be in touch with Second Sight
again. However, Second Sight remained in touch with Alan Bates and Freeths,
who JFSA appointed as the lawyers to take their GLO case. Ron Warmington, lan
Henderson and myself remained in contact but in separate ‘camps’ in so far as
POL was concerned.
34. After the High Court action ended in March 2020 and before the Court of Appeal
March 2021 hearing (to overturn some GLO SPM criminal convictions) Ron
Page 7 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Warmington, lan Henderson and I spoke about working together on other non-
POL related investigations as I intended to remain part of JFSA and have nothing
to do with the Second Sight work that Ron Warmington and lan Henderson had
done on the POL case. We agreed to put up a “wall” between me and them on all
POL matters. I have never been involved in any Second Sight casework
concerning POL as I retain my JFSA identity concerning the POL GLO action and
its consequences as I consider my obligation to SPMs as an overarching
instruction.
35.Ron Warmington formed a new Second Sight company called Second Sight
Investigations Ltd (‘SSIL’) on 31 May 2021 Company Number 13429845 and we
three Ron Warmington, lan Henderson and myself became directors and equal
shareholders. We looked for and found new assignments unrelated to POL and
continue to trade as SSIL together.
36.Ron Warmington was the majority shareholder of Second Sight, which had other
shareholders in May 2021 but after that Ron Warmington arranged to buy out the
other shareholders and terms were agreed on 29 June 2022. I believe that Ron
Warmington and lan Henderson consider themselves, as I do, to be in a quasi-
partnership with each other and me as trusted forensic accounting colleagues
having complementary skills and experience.
37.We agreed to operate on new assignments in resolving investigations and asset
recovery in the new SSIL. Ron Warmington considered that as we considered
ourselves as quasi-partners that we should also all be joint owners of Second
Sight as well, which made sense for tax purposes. Ron Warmington appointed me
as a Director of Second Sight on 1 July 2020 and I resigned on 1 July 2023 as
soon as Second Sight Investigations Ltd (‘SSIL’). SSIL was trading on new
assignments unrelated to POL.
The Run up to the First Interim Report
38.1 confirm that I have considered the following documents provided to me:
Page 8 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
(i) the email dated 12 July 2012 at POL00096817;
(ii) the emails dated 18 July 2012 at POL00091028;
(iii) I the emails dated 13 and 17 September 2012 at POL00096962;
(iv) the emails dated 10 August 2012 at POL00058188;
(v) the email dated 1 October 2012 at POL00096980;
(vi) the email dated 25 January 2013 at POL00097402.
39.1 note the email exchanges between Second Sight, James Arbuthnot MP, Susan
Crichton and others concerning my meeting with Alan Bates and Second Sight
on 12 July 2012; and part of the September 2012 email chain discussing the type
of cases to be included in the MP’s sponsored independent case review by
Second Sight to be paid for through POL.
40.1 had no involvement with POL concerning the gathering and production of data
and documents and no contact with Fujitsu.
Initial investigation by Second Sight
41.After the interview in July 2012 in James Arbuthnot MP’s office there was a
dialogue between all the MPs who had affected SPMs in their constituencies
represented by James Arbuthnot MP, Second Sight, POL and JFSA.
42. There was no consultation at this point about terms of reference because Second
Sight were charged by the MPs to go inside the POL systems and find out what
had happened in the case of each SPM constituent that had raised a complaint.
It was clear to me that the MPs’ SPM constituents had tried in many ways to trigger
assistance from POL to get to the bottom of how shortfalls or differences had
Page 9 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
arisen but in every case they had been blocked in accessing data, or ignored in
that POL refused to investigate and their complaints were treated as trivial.
43.The scope of the Second Sight initial investigation was limited to the MPs’
complaint cases and formed a series of ‘Spot Reviews’ where Second Sight were
given extensive access and assistance by POL as directed by the POL in-house
lawyer and General Counsel, Susan Crichton. The completed Spot Reviews were
used to select 6 cases to be investigated in depth, which eventually led to the
production of the Second Sight interim report in July 2013. [POL00099063]
JFSA strategy
44.As advisor to the JFSA I discussed strategy with Alan Bates to consider how we
could obtain information from POL that related to every SPM’s own transactions
that should already have been disclosed to them but was withheld by POL. We
adopted this approach because SPMs applications under Freedom of Information
requests had produced little, and SPMs were told the information was legally
privileged and redacted or that it had been destroyed.
45.Alan Bates had put pressure through MPs on POL to investigate the SPMs’
complaints of “false” figures from the Horizon system and there was finally a
spoken willingness through MPs from the CEO, Paula Vennells, to engage and
mediation was suggested. I understand that Paula Vennells had expressed this
willingness to James Arbuthnot MP and this has been dealt with in his evidence.
46.After much negotiation, and only on the basis that JFSA’s SPM members could
keep any document disclosed, JFSA agreed to participate in the proposed
mediation scheme. The JFSA members appointed Alan Bates and myself to
represent them as it was imperative to involve every JFSA member.
Page 10 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Systems error and Systemic error
47.\t is worth noting the difference between a ‘systems error’, [that is an IT coding
error that will replicate an error of the entry of the same data and processing of
transactions in the IT system] and a ‘systemic error’ [that is one caused by
incorrect implementation and management of the sub postmaster network using
the Horizon computer accountancy system]. An example of a systemic error was
the fallacy by POL that all shortfalls were recoverable from SPMs rather than only
shortfalls arising from SPM errors or those of their staff.
The Interim Report
48. The Second Sight interim report was produced solely by Ron Warmington and lan
Henderson (Second Sight), although I now understand that POL saw an early draft
and made or suggested some changes. JFSA did not see any draft and first saw
the report at the meeting with the MPs on 8 July 2013.
49. I have seen an attendance note of this meeting at the Houses of Parliament which
I attended with Alan Bates on 8 July 2013 [POL00029664]. The note records Alan
Bates saying that the report was quite new and that JFSA needed time to reflect.
The note also says that Alan said that he was aware that POL were present and
so he was restricted in what he could say.
50. My understanding of this comment is that Alan would only talk openly without POL
being present because whenever he said anything openly in POL’s presence, POL
would try to use it against JFSA and its campaign to uncover the facts. I felt the
same way, and perhaps Paula Vennells’ extraordinarily inaccurate record of our
conversation in Bonn (which I detail later in this statement) demonstrates that our
instincts were right.
51.The Second Sight report could have been much stronger with regard to the POL
field operation and systemic working errors of POL as well as program system
errors found in the spot reviews.
Page 11 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
52.1 am not aware of JFSA member differences in our group opinion of the interim
Second Sight report as it hinted at errors which confirmed our suspicions but was
restrained in its criticisms of POL.
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme (‘The Mediation Scheme’)
53.1 confirm that I have considered the following documents provided to me:
a.
b.
POL00043636 (minutes of the Working Party meeting on 21 August 2013);
POL00060760 (the emails from August and September 2013);
POL00099551 (the emails of 10 September 2013);
POL00108122 (brief for meeting with Sir Anthony Hooper on 24 September
2013);
POL00108207 (report on the Chair of the Working Group dated 25
September 2013);
POL00026625 (minutes of the Working Group meeting on 25 October
2013);
POL00043641 (minutes of the Working Group meeting on 31 October
2013);
POL00043622 (minutes of the Working Group meeting on 7 November
2013);
POL00043623 (minutes of the Working Group meeting on 14 November
2013);
POL00043624 (key points and actions of the Working Group meeting on 28
November 2013);
POL00043625 (key points and actions of the Working Group meeting on 5
December 2013);
Page 12 of 46
aa.
bb.
cc.
dd.
ee.
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
POL00026666 (key points and actions of the Working Group meeting on 12
December 2013);
POL00026638 (key points and actions of the Working Group meeting on 3
January 2014);
POL00026639 (standing agenda for Thursday calls and note for 16 January
2014 meeting);
POL00026640 (note of Working Group Meeting on 23 January 2014);
POL00026635 (note of Working Group meeting on 6 February 2014);
POL00026636 (note of Working Group meeting on 20 February 2014);
POL00026637 (note of Working Group meeting on 27 February 2014);
POL00026656 (note of Working Group meeting on 7 March 2014);
POL00026643 (note of Working Group meeting on 13 March 2014);
POL00026642 (note of Working Group meeting on 20 March 2014);
POL00026644 (note of Working Group meeting on 27 March 2014);
POL00026633 (note of Working Group meeting on 1 April 2014);
POL00026652 (note of Working Group meeting on 17 April 2014);
POL00026653 (note of Working Group meeting on 24 April 2014);
POL00026663 (note of Working Group meeting on 1 May 2014);
POL00043627 (note of Working Group meeting on 6 May 2014);
POL00026657 (note of Working Group meeting on 15 May 2014);
POL00026662 (note of Working Group meeting on 20 May 2014);
POL00026667 (note of Working Group meeting on 29 May 2014);
POL00026668 (note of Working Group meeting on 5 June 2014);
POL00026664 (note of Working Group meeting on 12 June 2014);
Page 13 of 46
gg-
hh.
nn.
oo.
Pp.
qq.
Ir.
ss.
uu.
vw.
XX.
yy.
2Z.
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
POL00026673 (note of Working Group meeting on 16 June 2014);
POL00026665 (note of Working Group meeting on 26 June 2014);
POL00026672 (note of Working Group meeting on 10 July 2014);
POL00026671 (note of Working Group meeting on 17 July 2014);
POL00026683 (note of Working Group meeting on 24 July 2014);
POL00026676 (note of Working Group meeting on 28 August 2014);
. POL00026679 (note of Working Group meeting on 4 September 2014);
POL00026685 (note of Working Group meeting on 16 September 2014);
POL00101367 (email dated 17 September 2014);
POL00043628 (note of Working Group meeting on 25 September 2014);
POL00026684 (note of Working Group meeting on 2 October 2014);
POL00040475 (note of Working Group meeting on 17 October 2014);
POL00043629 (note of Working Group meeting on 30 October 2014);
POL00107151 (letter dated 10 November 2014);
POL00043630 (note of Working Group meeting on 14 November 2014);
POL00043631 (note of Working Group meeting on 8 December 2014);
. POL00043633 (note of Working Group meeting on 14 January 2015);
UKGI00013818 (which includes my oral evidence to the Business,
Innovation and Skills Committee on 3 February 2015) and INQ00000399
(supplementary written evidence from JFSA);
POL00043634 (note of Working Group meeting on 13 February 2015);
POL00022446 (letter dated 10 March 2015).
Page 14 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
54.1 have examined all the documents in the above list. I confirm the above list
includes all the minutes of all the working group meetings as prepared by Belinda
Crowe.
55.The minutes for 30 January 2014 at POL00026641 which dealt with revising the
terms of reference for the working group. POL sought to narrow the terms of
reference and JFSA objected, Chris Aujard went away to review the terms for POL
and report back. He did not report to any other working group meeting, and to my
recollection simply imposed the POL new terms unilaterally to restrict the authority
of the working group that effectively further slowed up the completion of cases and
passing cases to mediation.
56. In addition, there are documents [POL00060760], such as an email exchange
ending on 1 September 2013 between Ron Warmington and Angela van den
Bogerd where POL’s control over the working group procedures is demonstrated,
by Angela van den Bogerd refusing a proposal for input from an experienced and
neutral relief SPM at a forthcoming meeting. Anil (the relief SPM concerned) was
someone who Second Sight wanted to add to their team to speed up the
production of reports by Second Sight. The email exchange shows that Angela
van den Bogerd refused to permit him to attend a meeting.
Appointment of Sir Anthony Hooper
57. I suggested Sir Anthony Hooper, a retired Court of Appeal Judge with
considerable criminal law experience, as an independent chairman. I telephoned
Sir Anthony on 21 August 2013 [see WITN00550102] and discussed the potential
of him coming in to chair a mediation scheme. The scheme became the ‘Initial
Complaint and Mediation Scheme’.
Page 15 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
58. Sir Anthony was known to me as Chairman of the Expert Witness Institute when
I was vice chairman and served for as a director for many years. Sir Anthony
Hooper accepted and met with all parties.
Briefing paper for meeting with Sir Anthony Hooper
59. The self-determining and callous ‘protection of the POL brand’; policy is shown
again in [POL00108122], which is an undated and unsigned briefing paper
prepared for a meeting with Sir Anthony Hooper that was to take place on 24
September 2013. The document shows that POL appeared to want to control the
process and was keen to ensure that it achieved a favourable outcome through
the mediation process — ‘the right judgments’.
60. The third bullet point in the heading ‘Suggested questions to stimulate
discussion’ contains the statement: ‘Ultimately it will be for the Post office to justify
its stance (to subpostmasters, MPs, BIS, the NAQ — but how can we ensure
mediation process helps us to reach the right judgments?’
61.1 further note that POL did not wish to be particularly transparent with Sir Anthony
because of his connection with me. The document states (at the bottom of the
page): Topics to avoid .... In talking about the other stakeholders involved (JFSA,
SS, JA etc.), it will be important to be neutral and suitably circumspect (not least
because we know he has been briefed by Kay Linnell and may talk to her again).
Minutes of Working Group meetings
62. The first meeting of the working group committee under Sir Anthony Hooper was
held on 25 October 2013 [POL00026625], when the future arrangements were
Page 16 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
agreed. I note the minutes of the working group meetings were in a ‘military’ style
where progress was recorded but certain items like requests to POL not to destroy
documents or requests for explanation of where suspense account balances held
by POL from SPMs had gone were simply not recorded or minuted.
POL failure to consider compensation/ redress in 2013
63. It is noteworthy that JFSA and Alan Bates continued to ask POL for compensation
and redress through James Arbuthnot MP. [POL00099551] shows that on 10
September 2013 Susan Crichton wrote to Alwen Lyons in anticipation of a
meeting with James Arbuthnot on 11 September 2013 and stated that: James
may ask about compensation as Alan Bates keeps referring to us needing a fund
(of) between £50 - £100 million...’ However, POL never discussed any of these
issues with JFSA and did not indicate to James Arbuthnot that they were
prepared to provide any meaningful redress.
150 applications to the Scheme
64.There was considerable negotiation with Post Office Limited, (Susan Crichton
and Simon Baker) MPs, (Lord Arbuthnot) and JFSA (Alan Bates and myself)
about the scheme, the structure, the documents and invitations. Once these were
agreed and the terms for Second Sight were signed off by the JFSA and the MPs
then an advertisement ‘window’ was opened to allow SPMs to apply to join the
initial mediation scheme. The window was short, opening on 27 August 2013 and
closing on 18 November 2013, after 150 applications had been received. I
understand that the Inquiry has seen a letter that was drafted by Post Office and
edited by the MPs and JFSA which deals with these arrangements.
65.Fourteen cases out of 150 cases initially accepted were struck out by POL for
various reasons (such as those cases relating to Crown Office employees, non-
SPMs, pending prosecutions etc.).
Page 17 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Training day
66. Generally, the scheme ran smoothly during its design and set up. POL organised
a training day on 5 September 2013 at the Thistle Hotel in Birmingham. I attended
that day with Julian Wilson (who acted as deputy to Alan Bates) to represent
JFSA. The training day was also attended by Second Sight, and presentations
were given by Susan Crichton, Angela Van Den Bogerd and Andy Parsons.
[WITN0055103]
67.It was essential we all had a proper overview of the way the Horizon computer
system operated, was completed and how training support and the whole POL
SPM network was managed. However, I came away from the training day with the
impression that POL had simply provided their version of how they thought the
Horizon system was supposed to work. The way the system operated was actually
more nuanced than POL’s assessment of it. We know there was a huge disparity
between what the POL manual said, what Horizon did and how the POL system
actually operated in SPM’s branches.
Second Sight commissioned by MPs
68. It should be noted that the MPs commissioned Second Sight and instructed POL
to assist MPs by administering the Second Sight contract and initial complaints
and mediation scheme, as the MPs had no direct budget.
69.Second Sight was supposed to report to the MPs, JSFA and POL. My view was
that Second Sight were formally instructed by the MPs, and it is a matter of some
regret that POL, who were supposed to be only providing administrative and
payment services, hijacked the process and ultimately saw fit to unilaterally
terminate the engagement of Second Sight without consultation with or the
consent of the MPs for whom Second Sight was actually working.
70.1 understand that Chris Aujard later required Second Sight to sign a second and
more restricted contract solely with POL in January or February 2015 in an attempt
Page 18 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
by POL to directly control Second Sight, who at that stage were still working on
the initial mediation scheme cases. Under this more restrictive contract, Second
Sight was effectively to report solely to POL and not SPMs, through JFSA, or the
commissioning MP committee through James Arbuthnot. JFSA was unaware of
this development at the time and, as far as I know, this matter was not
communicated to the Working Group.
The Working Group
71. The timetable for cases was set at the initial meeting and confirmed after the
appointment of the independent Chairman. The working group meetings
consisted of monthly face-to-face meetings with fortnightly telephone updates in
between to check on the progress of cases. Meetings were held at the offices of
Bond Dickinson (now Womble Bond Dickinson) and latterly Matrix Chambers.
72. The agreed case process was that an SPM would make a claim, POL would reply
and that was followed by an investigation and recommendation by Second Sight.
The mediation scheme was set up, after the full review of the first few reports, that
if Second Sight recommended that a case was fit to go to mediation, then that
case was meant to progress immediately to the independent dedicated CEDR
panel of mediators. Only cases where Second Sight did not recommend mediation
were to be reviewed by the working group.
73.After the working group was set up to oversee the initial mediation scheme it was
agreed that only the first few cases would be reviewed in full by the working group
to test the system and make sure the differences on Horizon and any other
complaints were being addressed and the facts provided.
74.The principal process was that the SPMs (136 in the scheme) made a claim
describing their history as an SPM, any problems with Horizon, losses and other
compliance and personal issues. Next, POL would prepare their reply. Angela Van
den Bogerd investigated and oversaw the POL report and investigations, including
POL's explanations of any difference, after her investigation, to expose the
Page 19 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
reasons for any differences or shortfalls. POL’s report in response to the SPM was
delivered to the SPM and Second Sight. Finally, Second Sight would look at both
documents and after their own inquiries were complete made a recommendation
to the working group as to whether the SPM’s case was fit to mediate or not.
75.POL had been asked by MP's (led by James Arbuthnot) to organise, administer
and facilitate the working group meetings. These meetings were held at the
offices of Bond Dickinson (now Womble Bond Dickinson), POL’s external
lawyers, near Butler’s Wharf, alongside the Thames. The meetings were hosted
by Andy Parsons and was provided. All administration (including the minutes and
document packs) were provided by POL and in particular Belinda Crowe.
76. Belinda Crowe was the POL appointed administrator and acted as secretary to
the working group keeping a flow chart updated for all cases which was circulated
and reviewed at each working group meeting. Belinda Crowe kept the minutes
which recorded each case’s progress but are not a full record of the other
discussions and agenda items. Face to face meetings usually took a whole day.
77.I was not aware at that time that POL had a separate committee chaired by Belinda
Crowe called Project Sparrow, which was only revealed after the High Court trials.
The fact that JFSA did not know about this is typical of POL’s behind the scenes
obsession with secrecy and control.
78. The timeline and progress of every case, (coded by “MO” number) was monitored
by the working group and the reasons for delays were probed. Requests were
made to extend time limits. POL took time to investigate the earlier shortfalls in
depth. Angela Van Den Bogerd demonstrated that it was possible to explain the
Horizon differences in individual cases.
79.It was clear that this level of investigation into individual cases had not been
properly undertaken at the time the Horizon differences arose in the individual
cases. It was also clear that POL had taken no corrective action at the time of the
Page 20 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Horizon difference because, until the working group was established, there was
no explanation or information to correct.
Preparation of individual reports by Second Sight
80.Second Sight fell behind in providing their “recommendation” reports but explained
they needed sufficient time to make their own enquiries fully before opining. This
included meetings with SPMs as well as reviewing the IT data and other material.
JFSA worked closely with the SPMs and Second Sight and, as I have previously
stated, I attended some SPM and Second Sight meetings to satisfy myself that full
and proper enquiries were being made by Second Sight.
The Initial Mediation Scheme
81.The Working Group met weekly or fortnightly during this period from 21 August
2013 to 13 February 2015 to try to maintain momentum in passing cases to the
mediation panel. I had suggested that a specific CEDR mediation panel should
be set up at CEDR. I am a CEDR trained mediator and understood how the
mediations should take place - but obviously once any mediation case passed
from the working group into its CEDR mediation panel, then the case became
confidential between the SPM and POL. This meant that JFSA and the working
group had no visibility of any SPM case discussions or settlements.
82.1 heard anecdotally at the time that POL had turned up at the mediations with two
lawyers, and with no intention of settling or really taking time to deal with the SPMs’
complaints. During mediations, POL apparently simply fell back on the Statute of
Limitations to tell the SPM that there would be no apology or offer as the SPMs
were ‘out of time’. I have been following the Inquiry and the examples that have
been given in evidence are consistent with my understanding of how Post Office
approached mediations - essentially by refusing to mediate.
Page 21 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Gina Griffiths
83.There were tensions during the day long meetings of the Working Group and I
recall in particular a conversation that Alan Bates and I had with Angela Van Den
Bogerd over a sandwich lunch regarding the case of Martin Griffiths (deceased).
Alan and I obtained a promise from Angela that she would not go and see Gina
(Martin’s widow) without allowing Alan Bates to go with her. This was a promise
that Angela broke. My understanding of the ramifications of Angela’s conduct is
that Gina Griffiths was put into a position where she was unable to pursue a claim
that would have potentially been substantial and accepted a far lower sum
equivalent to one under the POL Network Transformation payment scheme. Alan
had wanted to accompany Angela, so as to protect the Griffiths family from the
very actions that Angela took.
Disappearance of Susan Crichton and approach of Chris Aujard
84.During the working group chain of meetings, without notice, the in-house POL
legal counsel Susan Crichton disappeared in September or October 2013 and was
replaced by Chris Aujard. I had limited contact with Susan Crichton but she gave
the impression of being competent and interested in getting to the truth of what
had happened. She was obviously tarnished through her work with POL, but it is
important to note that upon Chris Aujard ’s appointment the entire tone of POL’s
attitude changed from trying to investigate and discover what had happened to
one of ‘closing down’ any criticism, queries or challenge to the Horizon system.
85. Chris Aujard ‘s attitude was one of a litigator protecting POL, imposing deadlines,
refusing access to data. He acted to minimise POL’s damage. Essentially, Chris
Aujard approached the mediation scheme as if it were an arm’s length litigation
against external aggressive individuals who were trying damage the reputation
and business of POL. He came across as a very aggressive litigation solicitor.
Page 22 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Controlling behaviour by POL
86. The Second Sight reports (and their earlier first interim report [POL00099063] did
not mention systemic issues that is the way that Horizon had been implemented
and regulated by POL in the SPM network) and there seemed to be some
reluctance by POL to allow Second Sight to control its own narrative.
87.After the interim report in July 2013 and Susan Crichton’s departure, POL (under
Chris Aujard and Paula Vennells) became more controlling and attempted to limit
Second Sight’s access to documents. I understand that Second Sight complained
about these restrictions on access to documents at the time. I recall one example,
where Chris Aujard prevented Second Sight from seeing prosecution files, which
they had previously been able to review. This was a matter that was raised at the
Select Committee meeting in February 2015, when Paula Vennells tried
unsuccessfully to deny lan Henderson’s accusation.
Letter to Jo Swinson 16 April 2014
88.On 16 April 2014 JFSA (through Alan Bates) wrote to Jo Swinson MP, who was
the Minister for Postal Affairs within BIS. He expressed the concern of JFSA that
POL had failed to finalise a single case report to the point where it was ready for
the working group to consider whether any case should be referred for mediation.
He noted that POL was not providing proper funding to representatives or forensic
accountants and was constantly seeking extensions of time for its own responses,
notwithstanding Paula Vennells having informed MPs on 24 March 2014 that POL
had 22 trained investigators working on cases.
89. Alan Bates stated: ‘Regardless of what it says publicly, POL in practice seems
not only to be hardening its corporate defence, but now seems to be prepared to
Page 23 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
invoke the protection of the public purse as their last line of justification for not
righting the wrongs they have inflicted on so many. It appears that whatever POL
can block, it does, for some reason POL is the only one that doesn’t seem to be
able to recognise what everybody else can see so clearly.’ [POL00022683].
90.1 note that this letter was raised by POL at the Working Group Meeting on 6 May
2014 and that POL expressed dissatisfaction that JFSA had broken the
confidentiality of the process [POL00043627]. I take the view that JFSA’s action
were entirely justified in the face of the delays and continual POL requests for
extensions. POL were also operating a costs clampdown to prevent proper
investigation by suitable experts. I thought Alan was completely right to write to
the Minister. This is particularly true when looked at in the context of the desperate
situations that were being faced by SPMs.
91. I have not been directed by the Inquiry to Jo Swenson’s reply to Alan’s letter, but
recall from memory that it was non-committal, dismissive and very similar to
previous Minister's letters replying to Alan Bates. The response looked like it had
been drafted from somebody within POL.
Meeting with Paula Vennells — September 2014
91.Coincidentally when I was flying home from another forensic appointment on 17
September 2014 I saw Paula Vennells in Germany, at Bonn airport, and went
over to her to ask her to speed up dealing with the claimants and paying out
compensation to the SPMs. I have now seen her extremely inaccurate file note
of that conversation — [POL00101367].
92.1 am surprised that Paula Vennells has made such a number of inaccurate
observations from our discussion. As one example, I actually said that Jo
Hamilton had done nothing wrong but her accounts might have been muddled
because Jo felt she had been forced to roll over Horizon differences.
Page 24 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
93.We did not discuss ‘pay-outs’ and I did not opine on their size or settlements. I am
shocked by the extent of Paula Vennells misrepresentations in this document. Her
summary is inaccurate, misleading and mainly untrue.
94.1 told Paula she had better sort out the SPM MPs complaint situation or it would
blow up in her face. I said Angela was the best person to go and find the facts
because she knew her way around the Horizon system. I did not say that Angela
was credible and stood the best of getting people on side. I did mention about
SPMs being given an opportunity to be heard not to ‘vent’. I think it was important
for POL to meet the SPMs and allow the SPMs to have their complaints heard and
receive explanations, be given facts about differences charged to them, get POL
help and perhaps get issues ‘off their chest’. I recall that Paula was concerned
that the SPMs might shout at POL and I said something along the lines that POL
was ‘big enough to take any shouting ‘and that ‘it might be deserved’.
95.1 repeat that it is absolute rubbish to suggest that I said that Jo had done something
wrong, in fact I said she had done nothing wrong. It is an utter fabrication for Paula
Vennells to suggest that I said I did not expect SPMs to ‘reap great pay-outs’.
SPMs have always been entitled to recover all the money wrongly taken from them
by POL relying on false Horizon figures, especially when POL and Paula knew
Horizon was unreliable. Continuing to take the SPM’s money was wrong and
there was always going to be a large quantum of recoverable losses and
damages. I can only think this was wishful imagining by Paula.
96. I am quite appalled that Paula Vennells recorded conversations in a completely
fabricated way. The Inquiry may consider this is a matter that is relevant to other
communications or notes made by Paula Vennells on other occasions.
Page 25 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Lack of progress in the mediation scheme — JFSA letter dated 10 November 2014
97.The JFSA dissatisfaction with the lack of progress into getting money back for
SPMs is clearly set out in the JFSA letter from Alan Bates [POL00107151] dated
10 November 2014 addressed to Sir Anthony Hooper. In that letter Alan Bates
wrote: ‘ JFSA is now of the opinion that the Scheme has strayed so far away from
the original purpose for which it was intended, that the few applicants who have
actually reached a mediation meeting through CEDR have expressed such
disappointment with the Scheme, that at least one applicant has withdrawn’.
98. At this point the scheme had been going for nearly a year and the scheme
timetable (had it been met) should have ensured that the majority of cases should
have passed through the Second Sight review. Yet no SPM could realistically
say that they had been through the process believing that they had been heard
or had received some sort of satisfactory offer. On the contrary, SPMs were
receiving derisory and insulting treatment.
99.The letter refers to an exchange between Chris Aujard and myself concerning
disclosure of prosecution files to Second Sight. I have not seen the relevant
correspondence to this issue, but recall that there was some concern that POL
were refusing to disclose such material to Second Sight. Chris Aujard asked me
to disclose the documents that I held. I think he wanted to know what material
JFSA might have had, which could be used against POL.
100.In the 10 November 2014 letter to Sir Anthony Hooper JFSA also expressed a
wider concern that the further the scheme was progressing and the longer it ran,
the more entrenched and defensive POL’s position had become. POL no longer
seemed interested in getting to the truth, but were now fixated on denial and
attribution of blame to SPMs.
Page 26 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Practice by JFSA of retiring during discussion of individual cases
101. There was a development in the working group meetings where the originally
agreed terms for the working group were unilaterally varied by POL when the
working group attempted to discuss cases where Second Sight had
recommended mediation. It is important to note that the process that was
originally agreed was as follows:
(a) If Second Sight recommend the a case is suitable for mediation that
automatically goes to mediation
(b) If Second Sight recommended the case is not suitable for mediation
the working group should discuss that recommendation
(c) If Second Sight does not make a recommendation on whether a case
should be mediated the working group should make a decision
102. However, I believe that POL misrepresented the position to Sir Anthony Hooper
when they originally briefed him. This was first known to JFSA when POL
attempted (through Andy Parsons and Chris Aujard and Angela van den Bogerd)
to discuss individual SPMs cases, where Second Sight had recommended
mediation. Alan Bates and I left these discussions and waited outside as this was
a significant departure from the remit of the working group. The working group
remit was only to discuss cases where Second Sight did not recommend
mediation for individual SPMs.
103.As I have stated above, it had originally been agreed that if Second Sight
recommended that a case was going to mediation then that was the end of the
matter. However, POL ‘moved the goalposts’ by insisting on discussing cases
that Second Sight had recommended should go to mediation. This appeared to
be a tactic to delay mediation for SPMs or any payment to them by POL.
Page 27 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
104.1 recall in one of the meetings that a POL representative said that POL wanted to
discuss every case. JFSA objected and both Alan Bates and I left the meeting as
it was not appropriate for Alan and I to endorse a departure from an agreed
process and delay mediation. We would wait outside the working group meeting
until POL had finished those case discussions. We would then return to the
working group meeting to discuss other agenda items concerning case progress
and reports.
105. To reiterate, JFSA took the view that nothing should be discussed on any case
where Second Sight had recommended mediation. The whole point of the
Second Sight review was to assess whether a case was fit to mediate if Second
Sight opined it was then the case should have gone immediately to mediation.
Concems raised at Working Group meetings — Where had the money gone? Destruction
of documents.
106. I recall that at nearly every meeting of the working group after Sir Anthony Hooper
had taken up the chair he had asked for two things:
107. Firstly, where has the SPMs’ money gone? He asked for explanations and figures,
especially from the suspense account. POL indicated this would be an onerous
task but in my opinion access to the POL accounts would provide an easy
explanation. Second Sight offered to assist but POL refused to allow Second Sight
access to the POL accounting records at their Chesterfield HQ. POL failed to
provide any explanation or figures at all. Chris Aujard said he would get this
information on several occasions but never did.
108. Secondly, Sir Anthony Hooper asked how the documents for the SPMs and other
affected cases were being preserved. He warned Chris Aujard not to destroy any
documents at all. Chris Aujard replied to Sir Anthony Hooper that POL would
continue to destroy documents following its usual six year statute of limitations
document destruction policy. I understand that there was actually a 7 year
retention policy. This was not minuted by Belinda Crowe of POL.
Page 28 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
109.1 am now aware that the Fujitsu contract with POL was onerous in terms of the
financial penalties Fujitsu imposed on POL for keeping or accessing documents.
Fujitsu charged penalties for this because this was not their job to store or archive
material. POL did not disclose at the time that there were stringent contractual
clauses regarding this. Neither does it seem that POL took any meaningful action
to resolve this issue.
Termination of Second Sight and the Working Group
110. The initial mediation scheme was summarily terminated unilaterally by POL
without notice or consultation, and JFSA was informally told that Second Sight had
been sacked and had been told to return all the documents to POL and not to
discuss the SPM cases with anyone.
111.1 have no direct knowledge of this, nor any meetings between Second Sight and
POL or fee negotiations or termination or contract negotiations. I was not involved
with Second Sight at that time. I am still not connected with Second Sight and as
previously stated the work of RJ Warmington and lan R Henderson for POL or
SPMs. A ‘paper wall’ has been erected and maintained between us.
112. The unilateral closure of the working group with unfinished business is set out in
the letter to me from Jane MacLeod of POL on 10 March 2015 [POL00022446]
and epitomises POL’s takeover of the whole mediation process and POL’s
attitude. Jane MacLeod basically said that the scheme was closed and that I
should send my final invoice. This letter was terse, dismissive and, high handed
with no explanation.
The Group Litigation
Engagement of Freeths
113. Alan Bates and I discussed the outcome of the closed incomplete initial
mediation scheme and a way forward for JFSA SPM members. Alan agreed to
Page 29 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
continue his campaign with MPs which continued to drive the JFSASPMs’ cause
forward. At the same time after reviewing the newly revealed evidence from the
initial Mediation Scheme of SPMs, Alan and I agreed there was at least enough
to consider taking a High Court case against POL.
114. Alan Bates and I went to several law firms, Neumans, Edwin Coe and latterly
Freeths. Alan Bates happened to meet James Hartley (GLO Leeds office Freeths
team), at the same time I was making inquiries in the Freeths Nottingham office
where my cousin was a family law partner. All three of these law firms were well
known for GLO expertise and their contacts with litigation funders.
115. Once James Hartley, Alan Bates and I had talked it was clear that Freeths were
eager to take this on and identified and introduced litigation funders Therium; after
the event insurers; and the counsel team from Henderson chambers. The GLO
SPM litigation team was assembled. SPMs were invited to sign up as all the
necessary protection was in place for the High Court litigation to go ahead without
any further financial exposure for SPMs.
POL strategy during Group Litigation
116. Freeths took the lead and advertised for SPMs to join the GLO group of claimants.
Freeths introduced and managed the Therium Litigation Funding Agreement
[SMIS0000097]. Freeths helped SPMs complete schedules of client information
(SOCIs) and liaised with the Counsel team at Henderson Chambers.
117. Furthermore, Freeths asked SPM GLO litigants to sign 3 client care and retainer
letters to set out the intended scope of work, the funding arrangements and in
order to protect the Claimants from an adverse Costs Order. The letters were:
(i) a contract with Freeths;
(ii) a contract with after the event insurers and;
(iii) a contract with Therium as funders.
Page 30 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
118. [SMIS0000097] page 7 names Alan Bates and me as the JFSA GLO steering
committee members for JFSA. The documents were explained to each GLO
claimant by Freeths who masterminded the extremely successful High Court
litigation. It was the start of a ‘dream come true’ for the GLO SPMs and opened
the way for redress, recovery of money wrongfully taken, losses and damages.
119. The Freeths legal team put in place all the necessary mechanisms and steps to
cope with and respond to the aggressive POL litigation strategy, which in my view
and the view of others, was primarily designed to run the GLO claimants out of
funding. Fraser J refers to this in his judgment by implication.
120. Further POL tactics included limited and sporadic late disclosure, contested costs
applications and other litigation “tricks” such as POL’s recusal application to derail
the planned five trial litigation.
121. The facts concerning obtaining the GLO before the Senior Master and having Mr
Justice Fraser allocated as the High Court trial judge are known to the Inquiry. The
JFSA SPM GLO group were fortunate in having Mr Justice Fraser as the trial judge
(now Lord Justice Fraser) because he was so competent in dealing with large
numbers of documents.
122. There were over 4.5 million electronic documents and there were inevitable
document management issues which arose from consistently late disclosure by
POL. It is my understanding when he was in charge of the Technology and
Construction Court Mr Justice Fraser had designed and implemented an
electronic document handling system that could effectively mark documents and
allocate them to designed IT rooms. The parties in the litigation were able to use
such electronic document handling rooms.
123. Mr Justice Fraser had a remarkable knowledge of the documents in the case and
quite often when lawyers were unable to locate a reference during the hearing he
would say try number ‘xxx’ and the document would come up.
Page 31 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
124. An example of POL’s conduct in the GLO arose in relation to their lamentable
approach to disclosure. I specifically recall that in October 2019, at the end of
the Horizon issues trial, Mr Patrick Green and Mr De Garre Robinson had both
finished their closing submissions when Mr Robinson stood up and said ‘I have
one further matter to raise’. Mr Robinson proceeded to offer to the court another
tranche of the disclosure ordered documents. At this point Mr Justice Fraser
asked Mr Green if he would like Mr Justice Fraser to take these new documents
into account. Mr Green very politely said ‘no thank you my Lord’. While this was
mildly amusing at the time it is symptomatic of POLs disregard to disclosure of
important documents in Horizon related matters.
Support for SPMs during the litigation
125. Throughout this process between 2016 and March 2020 I and my partner
(Barbara Jeremiah JP) and our staff supported the SPMs in the GLO group
outside the litigation by providing accountancy, tax, creditor claims, bank finance,
insolvency and other business and personal help where we were able.
126. The SPMs had been put into a position of having to sell their assets, incur debts,
and had no funds to pay for professional advice or other assistance or pay their
bills. Barbara and I as directors of KLL, a small accountancy compliance practise,
made our resources and assistance available to assist them in any way we could
to relieve the SPMs’ problems.
127. The SPMs could not afford to pay KLL and were not charged. Over the entire
period it is important to note the actual fees paid to KLL on the grounds of
complete transparency. KLL had invoiced POL for the initial fixed investigation
fee in early 2014 to review the initial work of Second Sight. KLL had received a
monthly retainer during the working group for 20 months. KLL was also paid a
retainer for 54.5 months during the GLO. There were 2 additional fees charged
and paid for specific instances of work on a company restoration in March 2020
and for a mediation in July 2020. I disclose these fees to the Inquiry to ensure
Page 32 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
there is complete transparency. The fees were raised between January 2013 and
30 June 2020, the only period for which any fees have been raised by KLL.
128. As one example of the work done by KLL I recall a case where an SPM had no
accounting records for his own business because POL had taken them away with
their POL Post Office records and had refused to return his private business
records to the SPM. The SPM was consequently in default with both HMRC and
Companies House for failing to file accounts and tax returns as he had no records.
The SPM could not afford to obtain copies of bank statements as the SPM did not
have money to pay the bank fee. KLL obtained the bank statements for the SPM,
wrote to all the known customers and suppliers and reconstructed 4 years of
accounts. The estimated accounts were agreed, filed at Companies House and
with HMRC to restore the SPMs’ company to the Companies House register. This
enabled the company to transfer the right to take action against POL to the SPM
so the SPM could take part in the GLO Freeth’s litigation. This is one example and
the type of work that KLL undertook.
129. Our practice (KLL) also dealt with SPMs’ creditors, banks, landlords, insolvency
practitioners, HMRC for VAT and tax arrears. We also tried to give assistance
where we could to help SPMs with charges, IVAs, bankruptcy, rent arrears,
corporate insolvency, housing references, financial management, accounting and
tax (corporate and personal).
The Common Issues trial and the Horizon Issues trial
130. JFSA, through Alan and I, had been appointed by the SPMs in the GLO to
represent them, as a steering committee, in the legal proceedings and to represent
their views. I found this task to be a huge responsibility. I was not aware of POL's
Project Sparrow until March 2021 but it was clear to me that POL was operating
an aggressive litigation strategy headed by Andy Parsons and latterly by Herbert
Smith Freehills. We were extremely fortunate in the Freeths, Henderson
Chambers, Therium and insurers teams who were amazing in their prosecution of
the actual 2 trials and care of individual SPMs but JFSA knew it was ambitious
Page 33 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
with so little funding to manage to run all 5 planned trials. At all times neither Alan
Bates nor I wanted to settle the High Court litigation, although we knew it might
come to that but we did not want to do that until after the third trial, which I recall
was to deal with liability issues.
131. As the Inquiry will be aware, the first main judgment decided that the SPM/POL
contract was “relational” and not “commercial”. The second main trial judgment
noted that the Horizon IT computer system could be directly accessed on the live
online system by Fujitsu staff (and possibly POL staff) at will, without proper
controls and logs, meaning that there was effectively a “back door” ability to alter
live data and possibly create losses for SPMs to pay. Furthermore, it was
confirmed that Legacy Horizon and its Horizon Online replacement contained
numerous bugs, errors and defects. Essentially, the Horizon data and alleged
shortfall differences were unsafe and entries could be manipulated on the live
system through an IT back door completely compromising the Horizon data.
Funding issues prior to third trial
132. As Freeths and the Henderson team prepared for the third main High Court trial
the Claimants’ cash position was flagged up by Therium as the expenditure plus
contractual uplifts assessed at that point indicated that insufficient funds would be
available for the Claimant SPMs to receive any part of a likely settlement.
Therefore, Therium were considering withdrawing all future funding.
133. JFSA was faced with an impossible decision, to either ‘go on’ and be left without
funding and lose the Freeths/ Henderson legal team or to stop and mediate a
settlement in around November/December 2019. Alan Bates and I concluded on
the advice of the legal team that the claim could not continue and we were forced
to accept a mediation, as it was the only logical choice to achieve any possibility
of any financial settlement for individual SPMs.
Page 34 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Settlement negotiations
134. What followed was 11 1/2 days in December 2019 of mediation negotiations at the
offices of Herbert Smith Freehills in London. I attended every day on behalf of
JFSA. During the negotiation, Nick Reed, the new POL CEO visited HSF and met
several SPMs in person. I understand that, as a general rule, mediation
discussions remain confidential. However, I can say that during the negotiations,
I suggested that some mental health care of SPM victims and their dependant
families and partners should be given and I contacted Professor Rix to discuss
setting up a triage unit of psychiatrists and mental health professionals.
135. POLrefused this request and it was not included in the settlement. This suggestion
was typical of the protection for SPMs that JFSA attempted to ensure were
included in the POL settlement process, but which POL continued to block.
136. Settlement at this post High Court December 2019 mediation was made relying
on a representation (which I am now told was either misheard or misunderstood)
that the maximum settlement POL could offer and that JFSA could achieve for the
SPMs was fixed at £50 million. I was told during the mediation that a £50 million
settlement by POL would need the HM Government’s shareholder approval. In
fact, the true position from the POL’s Articles of Association is that any settlement
over £50 million would need the shareholder (i.e government) approval.
137. In fact, when the settlement was actually reached at 00:15am on 11 December
2019 (according to my diary) I was told that a Government minister had been ‘got
out of bed’ to sign it off. Alan Bates and I had agreed in these circumstances, in
addition to a cash sum of £50 million, we should request as many non-cash
elements as possible.
138. These non-cash terms included POL agreeing to:
Page 35 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
(i) to exclude SPMs with criminal convictions (to preserve the right to
overturn their convictions under a separate legal action and pursue a
new action for malicious prosecution);
(ii) writing off all POL debts against any SPM up to December 2019;
(iii) to obtain an undertaking from POL to give all assistance and cover the
costs of removing cautions of any SPM’s property or assets;
(iv) an undertaking to assist in overturning bankruptcies and supporting
applications for annulments;
(iv) _ to write off all POL claims and for POL to give all necessary assistance
to pay creditors and annul bankruptcies.
139. These are the main items but this is not an exhaustive list. Those benefits were
given by POL at its own full expense plus the cash £50 million settlement plus
the £8.75 million costs ordered against POL during the High Court trial already
paid to Freeths by POL. These formed the ‘pot’ for the settlement.
Settlement agreement and funds distribution
140. The mediation settlement agreement in December 2019 was signed off after
midnight on the day of a train strike before I left the UK for an arbitration hearing
in New York.
141. In January 2020, Alan Bates and I were advised by Freeths and worked with
Freeths to produce a mechanism to distribute the small amount of funds for the
SPM claimants. This pool of funds was created by many of the funders, lawyers,
insurers taking a haircut on the success uplift fees. The very complicated formula
attempted to take account of the loss of home, prosecution, loss of earnings, ill
health, loss of profits or other assets plus the return of funds wrongly taken due to
the Horizon system and incorrect POL accounting.
Page 36 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
142. This exercise was very difficult because the funds left for SPMs of about
£11million were estimated to be only about 10% of the redress funds required.
This was not compensation by POL. The JFSA Freeths payment plan had to
include hardship payments for SPMs in distress, whether the SPM had a criminal
conviction or not. This was extremely difficult as the funds available were less
than 10% of the estimated amount required to provide a proper restitution of
SPMs and restore the SPMs to their previous position but for the actions of POL
and it did not include any Judge awarded damages for mental distress, physical
health and dependent relatives or partner claims.
143. On average each Claimant received approximately £20,000.00 although in some
cases the sum was less as it was a percentage of the calculated value of their
financial losses, based on appropriate legal principles and contract terms and
actual costs suffered. In the vast majority of cases £20,000 fell substantially short
of the actual losses and represented a very small sum.
Ongoing JFSA campaign
144. In January 2020 Alan Bates and I discussed future possibilities to recover the
money owed to the 492 GLO SPMs remaining in the GLO group, excluding those
with criminal convictions. Alan Bates produced a JFSA invoice for approximately
£46 million plus interest, in respect of the GLO litigation costs actually suffered by
the GLO group, which he sent to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson MP,
demanding full repayment of all the legal costs in the High Court case as HM
Government was the owner of POL and had benefitted from the money wrongly
taken from SPMs. Earlier costs suffered by SPMs were not included as the JFSA
invoice was intended to follow the legal doctrine of ‘costs follow the evet’. JFSA
had won hands down and if we could have progressed to the 5" trial we would
have recovered all our costs.
145. Alan Bates maintained pressure through MPs and the Parliamentary Select
Committee and other campaigns to reopen the flawed POL High Court litigation
Page 37 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
mediation December 2019 settlement. The intervention of COVID-19 in March
2020 complicated and delayed matters and made face to face meetings with
SPMs more difficult. I supported Alan Bates whenever he requested my help.
JFSA continued its campaign and undertook crowdfunding to raise funds to apply
to the Privy Council to support the request for a Statutory Public Inquiry, although
this was granted in the event without Alan Bates evidence being required.
146. Alan Bates and I used the same lawyers to assist us in approaching the
Parliamentary Ombudsman to request an investigation into Government
Ministers, MP's and civil servants conduct. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has
now been accepted this application, but their investigation is stayed pending Sir
Wyn Williams’ Inquiry report.
147. Alan Bates and I have also contacted and assisted the Metropolitan Police criminal
investigation set up after a referral of the Fujitsu witnesses by Mr Justice Fraser
(now Lord Justice Fraser) after the Horizon High Court Trial Judgment. I have also
spoken with other regulators and I am aware of enquiries from other regulatory
authorities including the Bar Council and Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
Post Office expenditure in the group litigation.
148. JFSA and the GLO legal team incurred approximately £15,000,000.00 in legal
costs as claimants in the High Court litigation and I had expected that POL as
defendants would have spent 2/3 of this at, say £10 million. I was shocked to learn
from the POL published accounts that apparently nearly £140 million has been
spent on legal fees, which appears to have been a complete waste of public
money in defending the POL brand. It seems to me that POL senior staff have
perpetrated a cover up apparently at any cost to the to hide their criminal theft of
funds from SPMs, possibly orchestrating a conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice and endorse or commit perjury in the Court by themselves or others.
Page 38 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Dishonesty, cover-up and incompetence
149. Proportionality was used by POL to deny disclosure of cogent relevant material
that deliberately prevented SPMs from defending themselves and enabled POL to
frighten SPMs to agree to criminal charges without ever knowing the reason for
any difference. Investigations need to be made of the conduct on the Board of
POL, especially the two HM Government nominated POL board directors reporting
to the minister and the supervising department. Dishonesty, cover-ups and
incompetence created a perfect storm sacrificing SPMs in the wake of POL
executives’ brand protection strategies, for which conduct many of POL were
rewarded with honours and very large bonuses.
General
150. I would like the Inquiry to consider two matters further:
151. Firstly, concerning POL’s use of suspense accounts. There were two types of
suspense accounts; the first type of suspense accounts were made available to
SPMs to use when on-boarding Horizon between 1999 until 2005 when they were
withdrawn by POL. SPMs used these suspense accounts to effectively freeze
any Horizon difference until investigations had been completed to determine the
cause of any discrepancy. If payment was properly due to POL because the
difference was caused by the SPM’s own or staff wrongdoing then it would be
released and paid. If POL investigated and the amount was caused by an error
then POL would issue a Transaction Correct (TCC) and the error correction
removing the difference POL was obliged under the SPM relational contract to
investigate, provide an explanation of any difference and give the evidence to the
SPM to check themselves.
152. As far as I am aware despite being set out in the relational SPM / POL contract
these investigations were never done by POL. Instead, POL demanded and took
money without doing the investigation. In addition, when the suspense account
facility was withdrawn from SPMs by POL under the IMPACT programme in 2005
Page 39 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
it left the SPMs without the ability to challenge any entry or get hold of documents.
I would like to know what happened to the money on suspense account held by
POL when the facility for SPMs was closed.
153. POL also operated its own internal suspense accounts that probably held
balances of money wrongly taken from SPMs. If that money was properly due
under the Horizon accounting system then it would be shown as a debtor on the
POL Balance Sheet and when recovered it would be cash amount clearing the
debtor, again on the POL Balance Sheet. So why was there any balance carried
forward on this second internal POL suspense account at all?
154. Further, from time to time in the published annual accounts of POL there are
substantial credits to the POL Profit and Loss account of unreconciled ‘differences’
to POL profit. These cannot be money taken from SPMs as those are Balance
Sheet items unless the POL HQ accounting records do not balance, or Horizon
generated false difference, so what are these credits?
155. I have been following the evidence in the Inquiry and endorse what Sir Anthony
Hooper said in his oral evidence on 10 April 2024 concerning suspense accounts.
To the best of my memory, Sir Anthony raised the point about suspense accounts
at the start of every meeting of the working group. He was very aware that the
production of the suspense accounts should have enabled him to ascertain
where the money that SPMs has paid on account of shortfalls had gone. Clearly
if the Horizon generated shortfalls had not been real — this could be shown in the
accounts so that would exonerate SPMs and cast real doubt of POL’s repeated
assertions that the Horizon system was robust.
156. Finally, I am concerned as to how the POL board directors satisfied themselves
that they had discharged their statutory duties of keeping proper accounting
records and laying true and fair accounts before the HM Government sole
shareholder member. This concern applies especially to those Directors
nominated by HM Government and presumably regularly reporting to the
supervising department and Minister. The POL board directors needed to satisfy
Page 40 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
themselves that the relational implied contract terms were being fulfilled as duties
of care owed to SPMs. I would like to know how each director satisfied themselves
that their personai duty was properly discharged
157. Any director needs to satisfy themselves before signing off on the accounis that
the resort and financial statements properly reflect the assets and llabilities of the
business and its trading results. Directors should use the guidance set out at
Companies House on their duties and obligations. Directors must salisy
themselves that these POL accounts are true and fair. However the accounts
signed off clearly inciude figures that demonstrate the accounts are not accurate
because the directors have signed off on accounts that do not balance as they
include credits from suspense accounts in the profit and loss account. This figure
should be recognised for what itis. A sundry credit from the suspense account is
@ ‘plug’ to make the accounts balance without understanding what that sundry
credit represents. The accounts do not balance if they need an unidentified ‘plug’
figure to make them balance, or that figure has not been properly identified. if the
board directors had done their diligence and fulfilled their duties properly on the
published accounts then the Horizon system defects would have been exposed
as inadequate many years ago.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 16 May 2024
Page 41 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
Index to First Witness Statement of KAY LINNELL
NO.
URN
Document Description
Control Number
WITNO0550101
Letter of engagement with JFSA.
WITNO0550101
UKGI00013818
Transcript of Paula Vennells’, lan
Henderson and Angela Van Den
Bogerd's evidence to BIS Committee on
03/02/2015
UKGI02461 1-001
INQ00000399
Supplementary written evidence from the
Justice for Sub postmasters alliance
VIS00000682
POL00096817
Email from Paula Vennells to Alwen
Lyons, Theresa Iles, Susan Crichton in re
to printed subpostmasters and 2nd sight
POL-0096400
POL00091028
Email from Simon Baker to Jarnail A
Singh, Susan Crichton and Alwen Lyons
re: FW: The Post Office
POL-0090672
POL00096962
Email from lan Henderson to James
Arbuthnot, re Post Office Cases
POL-0096545
POL00058188
Email from Ron Warmington to Susan
Crichton, Alwen Lyons, Glenda C Hansen
and others re: Case Review
POL-0054667
POL00096980
Email from James Arbuthnot to lan
Henderson and Ron Warmington, re Post
Office cases
POL-0096563
POL00097402
Email chain from lan Henderson to Janet
Walker, Ron Warmington RE: Meeting -
25 March, 5-6pm
POL-0096985
10.
POL00099063
Signed Interim Report into alleged
problems with the Horizon system
POL-0098646
11.
POL00029664
External Meeting Minutes of 08/07/13 at
Houses of Parliament
POL-0026146
12.
POL00043636
Working Party 21st August 2013,
Attendees: lan Henderson, Susan
Crichton, Kay Linnell , Andy Parsons,
Alan Bates, Andy Holt, Ron Warmington,
Not Present: Alwen Lyons, Angela Van-
Den-Bogerd
POL-0040139
13.
POL00060760
Email from Ron Warmington to Angela
Van Den Borgerd re: INCONFIDENCE -
Anil PANDIT
POL-0057239
14,
POL00099551
Email chain between Susan Crichton and
Alwen Lyons Re: Meeting with James
Arbuthnot.
POL-0099134
Page 42 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
15.
POL00108122
Brief for meeting with Sir Anthony Hooper
POL-0110944
16.
POL00108207
Sir Anthony Hooper Appointment Report
- Chair of the Working Group to the Initial
Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme
POL-0106336
17.
POL00026625
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme - Key
Points and Actions from Meeting 11am
25 October 2013
POL-0023266
18.
POL00043641
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme - Key
points and actions from the conference
call at 1pm on 31 October 2013
POL-0040144
19.
POL00043622
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme - Key
Points and Actions from conference call -
Working Group applications to be
accepted onto Scheme
POL-0040125
20.
POL00043623
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme - Key
Points and Actions from the Conference
Call at 1pm on 14 November 2013 re
New applications, completed case
questionnaires, matters arising from
existing applications, and cases to be
discussed at the next full meeting
POL-0040126
21.
POL00043624
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme - Key
points and actions from the conference
call at 1pm on 28 November 2013
POL-0040127
22.
POL00043625
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme Key
points and actions from the conference
call at 1pm on 5 December 2013
POL-0040128
23.
POL00026666
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme (Key
points and actions from the conference
call)
POL-0023307
24,
POL00026638
"Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme"
Amended Minutes of 03/01/2014
POL-0023279
25.
POL00026639
“Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda" for 16/01/2014.
POL-0023280
26.
POL00026640
Meeting Minutes for Working Group for
the Initial Complaint Review and Case
Mediation Scheme
POL-0023281
27.
POL00026635
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda for Thursday Calls
POL-0023276
28.
POL00026636
"Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda" for 20/02/2014
POL-0023277
Page 43 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
29.
POL00026637
"Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda" for 27/02/2014
POL-0023278
30.
POL00026656
Face to face meeting of the working
group - Initial complaint review and
mediation scheme- 7 March 2014
POL-0023297
31.
32.
POL00026643
POL00026642
"Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda" for 13/03/2014
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Standing Agenda
POL-0023284
POL-0023283
33.
POL00026644
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme -
Minutes for 27/03/2014.
POL-0023285
34,
POL00026633
Initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme
Working Group Minutes of 01/04/2014.
POL-0023274
35.
POL00026652
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
minute dated 17/04/2014
POL-0023293
36.
POL00026653
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Minute
POL-0023294
37.
POL00026663
Minute - Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme - Working Group 1
May 2014
POL-0023304
38.
POL00043627
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme Working Group - Minute of
meeting dated 6 May 2014.
POL-0040130
39.
POL00026657
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme -
Minutes of case conference call 15 May
2014.
POL-0023298
40.
POL00026662
Meeting Minutes of the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme Working
Group (20th May 2014)
POL-0023303
41.
POL00026667
Meeting Minutes for the Working Group
for the Initial Complaint Review and Case
Mediation Scheme
POL-0023308
42.
POL00026668
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme -
Working Group Minute - 5th June
POL-0023309
43.
POL00026664
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Meeting Minutes - 12th June.
POL-0023305
44,
POL00026673
Minute - Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme - Working Group 16
June 2014
POL-0023314
45.
POL00026665
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme -
Minute of Working Group Call 26 June
2014
POL-0023306
Page 44 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
46.
POL00026672
Minute - Working Group for the Initial
Complaint Review and Case Mediation
Scheme - 10th July 2014
POL-0023313
47.
POL00026671
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme -
Minutes of the Working Group Call 17
July 2014
POL-0023312
48.
POL00022683
Letter from Alan Bates to Jo Swinson re:
Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance,
Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme
POL-0019162
49.
POL00026676
Minute - Working Group for the Initial
Complaint Review and Case Mediation
Scheme - 28 August 2014
POL-0023317
50.
POL00026679
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme -
Meeting Minutes (04/09/14).
POL-0023320
51.
POL00026685
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
Meeting Minutes - 16.09.14.
POL-0023326
52.
POL00101367
Email from Paula Vennells to Chris
Aujard, Gavin Lambert and others re: Kay
Linnell
POL-0100950
53.
POL00043628
Standing Agenda for Thursdays calls -
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
(25/09/14).
POL-0040131
54.
POL00026684
Minute - Working Group for the Initial
Complaint Review and Case Mediation
Scheme - 02 October 2014
POL-0023325
55.
POL00040475
Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Case Mediation Scheme
meeting minutes of 17/10/2014
POL-0036957
56.
POL00043629
Minute - Working Group for the Initial
Complaint Review and Case Mediation
Scheme - 30 October 2014
POL-0040132
57.
POL00107151
Letter from JFSA (Alan Bates) to Sir
Anthony Hooper, RE: Raising concerns
about the position and direction of the
Initial Case Review & Mediation Scheme.
POL-0105459
58.
POL00043630
Meeting Minutes - Working Group for the
Initial Complaint Review and Case
Mediation Scheme - 14 November 2014
POL-0040133
59.
POL00043631
MINUTE, Working Group for the Initial
Complaint Review and Case Mediation
Scheme, 8th DECEMBER 2014, MATRIX
CHAMBERS
POL-0040134
60.
POL00043633
Meeting Minutes - Working Group for the
Initial Complaint Review and Case
Mediation Scheme - 14 January 2015
POL-0040136
61.
POL00043634
Agenda for the Working Group for the
Initial Complaint Review and Case
Mediation Scheme - 13 February 2015
POL-0040137
Page 45 of 46
WITNO0550100
WITNO0550100
62. I POL00022446 Letter from Jane MacLeod to Ms K POL-0018925
Linnell re Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme ("the Scheme")
63. I POL00026641 Initial Complaint Review and Mediation POL-0023282
Scheme - Working Group - Minutes - 30
January 2014
64. I WITNO0550102 I Briefing to JFSA members regarding the I WITN00550102
JFSA meeting in Kineton on 28 July 2013
65. I WITNO0550103 I POL presentation on initial complaint WITNO00550103
review and mediation scheme
66. I SMISOO00097 Agreement between Therium Litigation VIS00010042
Funding IC and The Individuals listed in
Schedule A re: Litigation Funding
Page 46 of 46