WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Witness Name: Timothy Parker
Statement No: WITN00690100
Dated: 03 May 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY PARKER
I, Timothy Parker, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. I make this statement in response to a request for evidence dated 20 October
2023 made by the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the "Inquiry") pursuant to
Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rule 2006 (the "Rule 9 Request"). This statement relates
to my role as Chairman ("Chair") of Post Office Limited ("POL") between 1
October 2015 and 30 September 2022.
2. I have sought to focus my statement on the specific questions contained within
the Rule 9 Request to assist the Inquiry with its important work in fulfilling its
Terms of Reference. However, before doing so, I wish to acknowledge the
enormous impact of the failings relating to the Horizon IT System on Sub-
postmasters and Sub-postmistresses ("SPMs"), managers, assistants, other
Page 1 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
affected persons, and their loved ones, and to express my sincere regret for
this.
I have been provided with a bundle of documents by the Inquiry, which I have
been asked to consider alongside the Rule 9 Request. In addition, I refer to a
small number of additional documents which have been provided to me by
POL to assist with my recollection of the matters referred to in the Rule 9
Request. I understand that these documents have already been provided to
the Inquiry by POL. Accordingly, where I refer to any documents within this
statement, I do so by referencing the Unique Reference Number allocated by
the Inquiry
I am grateful for the documents provided to me, which have assisted with my
recollection of the matters on which I have been asked to comment. While I
have set out my recollections to the best of my ability in this statement, given
the passage of time, there are occasions where I am unable to recall anything
over and above what is contained within the documents. This is particularly the
case where I am referred to specific conversations that took place in the earlier
years of my role as Chair.
My solicitors, Fieldfisher LLP, have assisted me in preparing this statement,
including by signposting me to relevant documents to refresh my memory of
events.
Page 2 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Background
6. I have an MA! in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University
and an MSc? in Business Studies from London Business School. I have held a
number of executive and non-executive roles over the last thirty years, a
number of which I refer to in this statement. I started my career as an
economist at HM Treasury before working at Thorn EMI from 1981 to 1989
where I became head of various subsidiaries. In 1989, I led the management
buy-out of Kenwood and subsequently became Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") of Clarks, Kwik-Fit, the AA and Samsonite LLC. I remained Chair of
Samsonite LLC following my resignation as Chief Executive in October 2014.
In 2014 I was appointed as Chair of the National Trust, in 2015 I was appointed
as Chair of POL and in 2018 I was appointed as Chair of Her Majesty's Courts
and Tribunal Service. Since leaving POL in September 2022, I have continued
in my roles as Chair of Samsonite LLC, and as owner and Chair of the British
Pathé film archive, which is a leading archive of historical newsreel footage
7. During my career, I have worked with a range of companies with diverse
organisational structures and commercial objectives that operate within a
variety of industries and sectors. This has involved dealing directly with a broad
range of commercial issues, including those relating to enterprise strategies,
marketing, servicing, manufacturing, and finance. Where necessary, I sought
advice from experts and professionals within the companies and externally, for
’ Master of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
? Master of Sciences
Page 3 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
example in specialist or technical areas such as technology, regulation, and
legal.
The Roles and Responsibilities of a Board of Directors and Chair
8. In general terms, a board of directors is made up of both executive and non-
executive directors. Executive directors are typically responsible for the
management of the company on a day-to-day basis. Non-executive directors
are generally employed on a part-time basis and whilst they do not have the
same involvement in the day-to-day running of the company, they perform an
important supervisory role over the executive management. All directors attend
board meetings at which they consider and make decisions in relation to
significant matters affecting the company for example the company's goals,
strategy, policies and procedures, performance, current and prospective
opportunities, and risks.
9. Much of my career has been in the private sector in which the objectives tend
to be explicit in terms of performance of the company and delivering value to
shareholders. Although POL is a private limited corporation, its sole
shareholder is the Department for Business and Trade ("DBT"), which
effectively means that POL is a public sector organisation and has a broader
range of financial and non-financial targets and responsibilities. It is also
3 The DBT has been POL's sole shareholder since February 2023. Prior to this, the Department for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy ("BEIS") was POL's sole shareholder from July 2016 to February 2023 and the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills ("BIS") was POL's sole shareholder from July 2016.
Page 4 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
subject to greater public scrutiny and accountability. This makes chairing a
company such as POL more complex in relation to its scope of activities.
10. In my view, an effective Chair leads the Board in setting the overall strategy of
a business. It is therefore important for the Chair to have relevant experience
in the key areas of business for example: strategy, marketing, finance, IT, HR,
and procurement. They must also have a developed sense of how to prioritise
different issues. The Chair should play an important role in the selection of
board members, to achieve the right mix of experience around the table. The
Chair is especially important in the selection of the chief executive officer, and
establishing a relationship that is supportive, but also challenging. A good
Chair ensures that all board meetings are run efficiently and effectively, and
that all directors can contribute, is a good communicator and is approachable
to people at all levels of the company.
POL's Board of Directors
11. POL's Board of Directors (the "Board") is collectively responsible for setting
POL's strategic direction and primary business objectives. It establishes a
robust governance framework and ensures that POL has the financial and
human resources required to achieve its agreed objectives. The Board
currently comprises a Chair, eight other non-executive directors and two
executive directors 4
* This is correct as of November 2023.
Page 5 of 158
12.
13.
14.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
I was appointed as Director and Chair of POL on 1 October 2015. Shortly
before my appointment as Chair, the Board comprised a Chair, five non-
executive directors and two executive directors. There were a number of
changes to the composition of the Board during my tenure. Notices of these
changes were filed with Companies House and are recorded on the
Companies House register.
The POL Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2015/2016
(WITN00690101) states that "the Board is responsible for setting the business’
Strategic aims, putting in place the leadership to deliver them, supervising the
managementof the business and reporting to the Shareholderand determining
POL vision, values and organisational culture." It also refers to there being a
governance structure that includes three committees dealing with specific
topics requiring independent oversight, namely: Audit, Risk and Compliance,
Nominations and Remuneration. Each committee was chaired by an
independent non-executive director and had its own Terms of Reference. In
2015/20161 was a member of all three committees. During this time, I attended
all formal meetings of the committees that I was eligible to attend. I was Chair
of the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee between October 2015 and
January 2016, and I was Chair of the Nominations Committee between 1
October 2015 and 30 September 2022.
As set out in the POL Annual Report, the Board approved the business plan
each year and regularly reviewed reports on performance against that plan as
well as receiving periodic business reports from senior management. Day-to-
Page 6 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
day responsibility for particular divisions of the company rested with senior
managers. For example, the IT team and Chief Technology Officer were
responsible for POL's IT systems (including Horizon). POL's General Counsel
was responsible for managing legal matters, including litigation, across the
company and worked with the executive team and Board to mitigate legal,
regulatory and governance risk. Matters would be escalated to the Board as
appropriate, and the Board would seek advice from external professionals
where it was necessary for us to do so to proficiently perform our
responsibilities and duties as directors.
15 I have been asked to comment on my experience managing a large IT system
and my oversight of POL's IT systems in my role as Chair. POL was a retail
business, and Horizon was essentially an EPOS (Electronic Point-of-Sale
System), which is one of the key components of the operation of a high street
business. While I have been involved with retail businesses in the past, for
example Clarks and Kwik Fit, matters relating to IT and EPOSs (such as till
and accounting systems) would be handled by the company IT teams and it
would be an executive responsibility to escalate matters to the board as
necessary.
My Appointment as Chair of POL
16. On 1 October 2015, I was appointed to POL's Board of Directors as a non-
executive director, and took up the role of Chair, replacing Alice Perkins CB,
who had been Chair since 2011. Neil McCausland, former Senior Independent
Director, had been the Interim Chair during the intervening period. I was
Page 7 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
recruited through a search firm, Russell Reynolds, which I expect would have
drawn up a list of potential appointees through their network and by seeking
views of relevant stakeholders. I was appointed Chair at a time when POL was
on a transformation programme supported by government funding, and was
seeking to achieve cost efficiencies, increase its revenues, and modernise the
branch network. Prior to my appointment, I had experienced a long career
leading a range of different companies, and because of this, I believed that I
could assist in steering POL through this transformation programme.
The commercial viability of POL was especially pressing for me, given my
responsibility as Chair to promote the success of the company. The main
challenge the company faced, as I saw it at the time, was its enormous
dependence on the public purse. In the years before I was appointed Chair,
POL had received billions of pounds of funding from the British taxpayer and
was still incurring losses. Having been kept in effective public ownership, after
the flotation of the Royal Mail, POL faced a number of significant business
challenges. It was obliged to operate a very wide network and depended on
an exclusive arrangement with the Royal Mail, itself a business faced with
challenges of an increasingly competitive parcels market and falling letter
volumes. Much of government face-to-face activities, such as payment of
benefits and driving licences had progressively moved online and away from
Post Office counters, and low interest rates had significantly depressed the
profitability of the savings business. Given all of this, ensuring the company's
financial viability was a key priority for me as Chair.
Page 8 of 158
18.
19.
20.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
On appointment, I had a contract that specified a minimum of 1.5 days a week
in the business. In November 2017, I requested that this be reduced to half a
day a week or two days a month, in line with similar appointments I had held,
because I felt this was more proportionate to the work involved and allowed for
greater flexibility. Generally, a non-executive Chair is expected to 'do what it
takes' to fulfil their duties and respond to the demands of the business. This
requires flexibility in terms of what work is carried out and when that work is
carried out, rather than working in accordance with a fixed commitment that
does not take into account the changing demands of the business. The revision
to this term in my contract did not reflect a change in my commitment to POL.
I have been asked to comment on an email from Robert Swannell (Chair of UK
Government Investments ("UKGI")) to Mark Russell (UKGI) on 8 November
2017 (UKGI00007673) in which Mr Swannell recalls that during a meeting in
November, I had expressed concern about my contracted hours. In the email,
Mr Swannell notes: “His main worry is his contract as Chairman which requires
him to devote 2 days a week to the task — he thinks much less is required— he
said 2 days a month was more realistic”. This was not my 'main' worry at the
time, but I did consider the change to be appropriate, for the reasons I explain
above. My remuneration (which I donated to charity) was reduced
proportionately to reflect this change.
The time that I spent working on POL matters necessarily fluctuated over time.
However, my recollection is that over a period of seven years as Chair, I
missed only one formal Board or relevant committee meeting. There were a
Page 9 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
small number of meetings that I attended by phone, and via Microsoft Teams
during the pandemic. If there was some reason that prevented me from
attending a meeting, I would ensure that I was updated after the meeting took
place. As well as attending Board meetings and relevant subcommittee
meetings, I would ordinarily spend Tuesday afternoons at POL's head office. I
was always accessible to colleagues and as with all my appointments, I took
my commitment to POL seriously.
During my time as Chair of POL, around ten full Board meetings were held
each year. A summary of each Board member's attendance at these meetings
is recorded in POL's annual reports. A number of extraordinary meetings and
committee/subcommittee meetings were also held, as required. Matters would
generally be brought to my attention, as Chair, in the form of business reports
from senior management. We would usually be briefed on matters to be
discussed at Board and committee/subcommittee meetings by papers
distributed in advance, as well as by management presentations. Meetings
would ordinarily take place if there was a decision that the Board needed to
discuss and vote on, or some other issue or investment that needed Board
input. Summaries of these meetings would ordinarily be prepared by the
Company Secretary in the form of 'meeting minutes.' I would be asked to
approve the accuracy of the minutes for the meetings I was chairing. The
minutes would then be circulated to other attendees and interested parties.
Page 10 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
22. I have been asked to review and commenton an email! sent to Jane MacLeod
(Group General Counsel®) on 1 April 2016 (POL00103159) in which I said of
the minutes prepared by Alwen Lyons (Company Secretary) that they were
"the sort of minutes that seem to me appropriate." I cannot recall the context
of this remark, but I expect I was expressing that I considered the notes were
fit for purpose in my role as Chair. The minutes seemed to be intelligible,
accurate and recorded the key discussion points and decisions, rather than
providing a verbatim record of the discussions.
POL's Relationship with Government
23. I have been asked to consider whether POL's corporate governance was
effective when I joined the company. I do not recall having specific concerns
about its effectiveness when I took up the role of Chair in October 2015.
24. At the time of my appointment as Chair, POL was a wholly owned subsidiary
of Postal Services Holding Company Limited. As noted at paragraph [9] above,
DBT holds a special share in POL and the rights that attach to that special
share are set out within POL's Articles of Association. The Board is therefore
accountable to the Secretary of State for DBT for the performance of POL and
is required to notify the shareholder of certain actions, as set out in the Articles
of Association. The Shareholder Executive ("ShEx") was responsible for
managing the government's shareholder relationships with businesses owned
5 Ms MacLeod held the role of Group General Counsel from January 2015 to May 2019. Ben Foat replaced Ms
MacLeod in May 2019. References to "General Counsel" in this statement are to Ms MacLeod or Mr Foat and
their respective teams
Page 11 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
or part-owned by the government. In April 2016 ShEx was brought together
with UK Financial Investments under UK Government Investments ("UKGI").
While the Shareholder Executive ("ShEx") did not have day to day involvement
in the running of POL, Richard Callard (UKGI) was the ShEx/UKGI
representative and sat on the Board as a non-executive director from 2014 to
2018. Mr Callard was succeeded by Tom Cooper in 2018.
25. POL became independent of Royal Mail in 2012. In the POL Annual Report
and Financial Statements for 2014/2015 (POL00026722), Ms Perkins
described the work being done to ensure the effective separation of POL
systems from the Royal Mail systems as a "major undertaking’, but one which
was "almost complete". The POL Annual Report and Financial Statements for
2015/2016 noted the importance of POL continuing to develop effective long-
term relationships with Royal Mail (WITN00690101).
Knowledge of Horizon on my Appointment as Chair
26. ‘Horizon’ is the name of the computer system that was used in all POL
branches at the time I was appointed as Chair. My recollection is that at the
start of my tenure I attended a demonstration at POL's head office relating to
the functionality of Horizon. My understanding was that Horizon had a number
of functions but was essentially an EPOS system that was used in POL
branches to record transactions in and out, as well as cash and stock
management. Horizon was provided to POL under a contract with Fujitsu
Services Limited ("Fujitsu").
Page 12 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
27. During my time as Chair, matters relating to Horizon were often referred to
within POL using the shorthand of 'Sparrow'; it was POL's usual protocol to
assign code names to certain confidential projects or matters in this way.
28. When I was appointed as Chair, I was aware that concerns had been raised
about Horizon, including those relating to Fujitsu. I do not believe that I had
detailed knowledge of the specific nature of the complaints at the time and I do
not believe I had formed any views on how to handle the “Sparrow” issues at
that time. However, as I describe below, Mr Jonathan Swift QC® and Mr
Christopher Knight were being instructed in relation to the 'Swift Review'. My
recollection is that there was a general assumption within POL that there were
no systemic issues with Horizon and that it was robust, and this is consistent
with the statements made publicly by POL at that time.
29. I have been asked to comment on my awareness of certain clauses contained
within the agreements between POL and Fujitsu (specifically, the Annex to
Second Supplement Agreement dated 24 September 1999 (POL00090428)
and POCL and ICL Pathway 'Third Supplemental Agreement’ dated 19
January 2000 (FUJ00118186)). Both agreements predate my appointment as
Chair. I do not recall reviewing the agreements upon my appointment nor do I
recall the agreements or particular clauses of the agreements being brought to
my attention.
® Now Mr Justice Swift
Page 13 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Request from BIS in Relation to Horizon
30. Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Minister for Intellectual
Property from July 2014 until July 2016) asked me, upon assuming my role as
Chair, to examine the concerns regarding Horizon and the suggestions that
there may have been miscarriages of justice as a result of issues with Horizon.
31. In August 2015, shortly before I took up my appointment as Chair, I met with
Baroness Neville-Rolfe. I cannot now recall the detail of that meeting, but I
have been shown a copy of an email from Laura Thompson (ShEx) to Mr Lyons
and Mr Callard, which refers to the meeting taking place on 6 August 2015
(UKGI00005361). The email records Ms Thompson stating that the Minister
informed me that she would like me to look at the matters relating to Horizon
with "fresh eyes". I took this to mean that Baroness Neville-Rolfe considered
that it was important for me as the newly appointed Chair, to consider what
POL had done to date in responding to the concerns and whether any more
could be done.
32. On 14 September 2015, I received an email from Ms MacLeod
(POL00102550), which attached a letter from Baroness Neville-Rolfe dated 10
September 2015 (POL00102551). Baroness Neville-Rolfe wrote that:
"The issues surrounding the Horizon IT system have not been resolved.
Indeed, some of the MPS concerned have written to me again following the
Panorama programme pressing the case for an independent investigation."
Page 14 of 158
33.
34.
35.
36.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
"lam therefore requesting that, on assuming your role as Chair, you give this
matter your earliest attention and, if you determine that any further action is
necessary, will take steps to ensure that happens."
In her email to me Ms MacLeod stated: "As expected, and as we believe has
previously been flagged to you, the Minister requests you to review personally
the issues relating to the Post Office 'Horizon' system and determine whether
any further action should be taken".
Ms MacLeod refers to the fact that we (Ms MacLeod and I) were due to meet
on 25 September 2015 to discuss the best way for her to provide me with an
introduction to the issue, "such that [I] would be able to focus most effectively
on those areas which [I] feel is of greatest concern."
As the email suggests, I met with Ms MacLeod to discuss various matters,
including Horizon. I have been referred to an email between Patrick Bourke
(Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme Programme Director), Rodric
Williams (Solicitor, Corporate Services) and Ms MacLeod containing "Draft
Speaking Notes for JM/TP Meeting on 25.09.15" (POL00065606). It appears
that these speaking notes were prepared by Mr Williams for Ms MacLeod in
advance of our meeting. My recollection is that those speaking notes reflect
the broad tenor of the discussion.
I have been asked to describe my impression of how the Audit, Risk and
Compliance Committee had previously monitored 'Sparrow' issues and claims
Page 15 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
brought by SPMs concerning the adequacy of Horizon. I have been referred to
the Briefing Book for the Half Year ended 27 September 2015 which refers to
potential claims regarding Horizon (at page 72) (POL00110251). This 2015
Briefing Book describes the various claims that had been brought by SPMs
alleging defects in the Horizon system and POL's internal processes. The
report describes the work undertaken by POL to review the allegations,
including the commissioning of the independentinvestigation by Second Sight
in 2012-13 and the launch of an Investigation and Mediation Scheme aimed at
understanding and resolving individual complaints made about Horizon, as
well as POL's engagement with the Criminal Cases Review Commission
("CCRC") in relation to the application made by SPMs seeking a review of their
convictions. I do not recall what my impression was, at that time, of the way in
which the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee monitored "Sparrow" issues
and claims brought by SPMs concerning the adequacy of the Horizon IT
system.
I have seen a copy of an email chain, which includes an email dated 30
September 2015 attaching the draft response to Baroness Neville-Rolfe I
asked to be prepared on my behalf (POL00158249). I note that this email
correspondence was forwarded to Paula Vennells (Chief Executive Officer of
POL) on the same day. The response to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which was
finalised on 1 October 2015 (UKGI00000009), stated:
"Having had my first 2 days of induction to the Post Office just last week, I am
considering how to fulfil the commitment I gave you to take a fresh look at the
Page 16 of 158
38.
39.
40.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Post Office's handling of the complaints raised with it in connection with its
Horizon electronic point of sale and accounting system.
To this end, and to promote the independence of the exercise, I propose to
instruct a QC to advise me as to the appropriate scope of my investigation,
how I might best conduct the necessary enquiries, and to assist me in
considering both how to present and, as necessary, act on my findings.
I expect to finalise the appointment shortly and will be in a position to share the
Scope and timetable with you soon after my return from leave..."
I have seen a copy of an email from Ms MacLeod to me dated 1 October 2015
(POL00027126) attaching the CVs of two leading QCs. Ms MacLeod says that
"both are currently available, and would in my opinion, be suitable to advise
you having regard to the nature of the issues raised by Sparrow, Post Office's
position as a corporate entity in public ownership, and your responsibilities as
a new director and Chairman of Post Office Limited...
Subject to your views on these candidates, I recommend that we approach
your preferred candidate on your behalf next week such that he is available to
advise you on the question of scope..."
This email was also forwarded to Ms Vennells by Ms MacLeod.
It seemed to me that POL's General Counsel had understood the complexities
of the task when identifying suitable candidates. Jonathan Swift QC was a
senior barrister. He had worked as part of the Treasury Counsel team
prosecuting complex cases and advising and appearing on behalf of HM
Page 17 of 158
41.
42.
43.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Treasury and other government departments. He also had extensive
experience advising commercial entities and dealing with commercialsystems.
There were a range of issues to address, and I felt that Mr Swift QC was well
placed to do this.
Ms MacLeod and her team handled the arrangements for Mr Swift QC's
instruction and held a number of meetings with him with a view to coming up
with a proposed scope for the independent review Baroness Neville-Rolfe had
asked me to undertake.
I have been shown a copy of the ‘Instructions to Leading Counsel Jonathan
Swift QC to advise in consultation at 430pm 8 October 2015' prepared by Ms
MacLeod and Mr Williams dated 6 October 2015 (POL00114270). It appears
from the instructions that the purpose of the meeting between General Counsel
and Mr Swift QC on 8 October 2015 was to settle the scope of the review and
agree a process for conducting, concluding, and reporting on the review within
the desired time frame. The document states that a further meeting would then
be arranged at which counsel would present the proposed scope and process
to me as Chair for my consideration.
On 9 October 2015, I received an email from Ms Vennells (POL00117516),
explaining that Baroness Neville-Rolfe had indicated that she wished to speak
to various parties in relation to the Horizon IT issues. Ms Vennells thought that
I should meet with these parties instead to minimise the risk of undermining
the rationale for the independent investigation that I was undertaking with the
support of Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight. The email records Ms Vennells noting
Page 18 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
that the Minister speaking to those third parties risked creating an expectation
of some form of government intervention.
Scope of the Swift Review
44. On 20 October 2015, I met with Mr Swift QC to discuss the intended scope of
the review and the format of the report. I cannot recall the specific discussions
at this meeting. However, I have seen a copy of an email sent to me on 22
October 2015 (POL00104213) by Ms MacLeod, which included a summary of
the outputs of the meeting. In the same email Ms MacLeod explained that she
had tasked her team with setting up a plan to deliver the review and that her
team would have regular updates with Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight to ensure
they were delivering against the plan. Ms MacLeod also proposed to provide
me with fortnightly updates on progress with the Swift Review.
45. On 23 October 2015, I responded to Ms MacLeod's email to say that I was
happy with Mr Swift QC and the work he had done so far. I said that we had
had a useful discussion, fully reflected in Ms MacLeod's notes. I confirmed that
I was content to receive fortnightly updates in the first instance and that if
anything arose that Ms MacLeod thought I should be aware of, she should not
hesitate to get in touch (POL00065645).
46. The agreed scope of the Swift Review is set out at paragraph 4 and 5 of the
report titled ‘Review on behalf of the Chairman of Post Office Ltd concerning
the steps taken in response to various complaints made by Sub-Postmasters'
(the "Swift Report") (POL00103094):
Page 19 of 158
47.
48.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
"4. The purpose of this review was originally described in the following terms:
'To review the Post Office’s handling of the complaints made by sub-
postmasters regarding the alleged flaws in its Horizon electronic point of sale
and branch accounting systems, and determine whether the processes
designed and implemented by Post Office Limited to understand, investigate
and resolve those complaints were reasonable and appropriate.’
5. We have been guided by this. But we have concentrated on whether any
further action is reasonable and necessary in respect of these issues. This has
highlighted two principal questions (1) What has already been done in the
2010-2015 period? (2) If there are any gaps in the work done, is there further
action that can reasonably now be taken?"
In respect of those two questions, Mr Swift QC explained that he had
concentrated on four areas:
"Criminal prosecutions.
The Horizon system (i.e., the software).
The support provided to SPMRs through training and helplines; and
The investigations into the circumstances of specific cases where a complaint
has been raised."
Once the review was underway, Ms MacLeod and her team provided the
documents and other information that Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight required. I
have recently seen an email dated 28 October 2015 (POL00043789) from Mr
Page 20 of 158
49.
50.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Bourke to Mr Knight regarding the action points arising from the meeting on 20
October 2015 (see paragraph [44]). In this email Mr Bourke confirmed that he
would be Mr Swift QC and Mr Knights' primary point of contact, but that Mark
Underwood (Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme staff member) and
Steve Allchorn (Complaint & Mediation Scheme PMO Manager) were also
available for anything that Mr Knight and Mr Swift QC might need. In the same
email, Mr Bourke confirmed that he was sending Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight,
under separate cover, the s17 notices received from the CCRC.
I have seen emails in which Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight made requests for
information from the individuals identified in paragraph [52]. I was not party to
this correspondence and do not have an exhaustive list of the information
provided to Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight. However, I note that they confirm at
paragraph 3 of the Review:
"_..The legal department of POL has been the source of most of the information
provided to us, but we have determined what information should be provided.
No information we have requested has been withheld from us and we are
grateful for the assistance we have received from both POL and external
parties we have spoken to."
On 30 October 2015, Ms MacLeod provided her first update by email on the
progress of the Review (POL00102649). This email included information set
out under several headings namely: resourcing, scope, nature of the report to
be provided to you, and provision of information and meetings. Under the
heading 'nature of the report to be provided to you' Ms MacLeod noted:
Page 21 of 158
51.
52.
53.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
"At this stage we propose that Jonathan will provide you with a legally
privileged report structured along thematic lines. It is not our intention that this
report would be made public, and we will therefore need to consider the best
way for your findings to be presented in way that can be made public. We will
keep the thematic approach under review to ensure that it remains
appropriate."
On 24 November 2015, I met with the Secretary of State for the first time. I
cannot recall the specifics of this meeting, but while preparing this statement,
I have been referred to a briefing note prepared for the Secretary of State in
advance of our meeting (UKGI00006268). This briefing note refers to the fact
that Baroness Neville-Rolfe had asked me to undertake the review. It is
therefore possible that we discussed this at our meeting although I have no
specific recollection of this.
I have seen a copy of an email from Ms MacLeod dated 14 December 2015
(POL00103005), which demonstrates that the legal team continued to supply
documents to Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight, and that Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight
conducted meetings with key individuals and organisations with knowledge of
the matters under consideration, including Fujitsu, Second Sight, Deloitte, Lord
James Arbuthnot, as well as relevant individuals from POL.
I have been asked to comment on whether the independence of the Swift
Review was compromised by General Counsel being "the source of most of
the information" (POL00006355). As explained in paragraph [46] above, Mr
Swift QC and Mr Knight were instructed to "...review the Post Office’s handling
Page 22 of 158
54.
55.
56.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
of the complaints...". It therefore seemed to me that General Counsel were
well placed to provide the information that Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight required.
They understood the scope and purpose of the Swift Review having worked
closely with the reviewers in determining this, they were familiar with the nature
of the complaints and the previous work undertaken or commissioned by POL
in relation to Horizon, and they had access to the information that Mr Swift QC
and Mr Knight required.
On 11 January 2016, Mr Swift QC sent me his draft report. On 14 January
2016 I sent the report to Ms MacLeod.
I recall that Ms MacLeod was concerned to ensure, at all times, that the work
of the Swift Review remained confidentialand legally privileged. Therefore, she
advised that distribution of all information relating to the review should be
limited and that the distribution of the hard copy report should be limited to four
individuals (Ms MacLeod and three others) within POL. I have recently seen
an email from Ms MacLeod in which she states that she had agreed with me
that she would restrict distribution of the Swift Report and requests 4 bound
copies of the report numbered and with a confidential watermark for me, Mr
Bourke, Mr Williams and Mr Underwood. This email also says, "please do not
save a copy of the document’ (POL00022627).
As referred to at paragraph [36], Ms MacLeod notified Ms Vennells of the
intended approach to the Swift Review. I have seen documents that suggest
that the Swift Review was referred to during meetings/correspondence with
POL's Board of Directors in or around 2015/2016, including:
Page 23 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(a) Minutes of a POL Board meeting held on 22 September 2015 (before I
started as Chair on 1 October 2015) in which Ms Vennells reported that
the Minister had asked the new incoming Chair for his independent
review of Sparrow (POL00158255).
(b) A document titled 'Post Office Board Meeting — 22 January 2016 —
Speaking Notes' (POL00158304) which I understand to comprise Ms
Vennells' speaking notes for her meeting with the Board. This
document contains the following entry:
"Jonathan Swift QC and Christopher Knight, the barristers advising Tim
Parker on the adequacy of Scheme processes, shared their draft report
with the POL Chairmanlast week. The report sets out a limited number
of recommendations and POL will, where possible, take these forwards
to demonstrate the highest possible standards of rigour and fairness in
the handling of the Horizon related complaints."
I have not seen any information to suggest that the Swift Report itself or
substantive updates on the progress of the Swift Review were shared with the
Board and this would seem to be consistent with General Counsel's advice
about the legally privileged status of this information. If General Counsel had
considered it appropriate to update the Board, I suspect that these updates
would have been facilitated by Ms MacLeod. For the period during which Ms
MacLeod was Group General Counsel, updates were typically given to the
Board verbally and so I am unable to express a clear view on the extent of the
information that the Board was given.
Page 24 of 158
58.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Conclusions from the Swift Review
The Swift Report set out the scope of the review, the work carried out by Mr
Swift QC and Mr Knight, and their findings and recommendations. The
reviewers made the following recommendations:
"(1) Legal advice be sought from counsel as to whether the decision to
charge an SPMR with theft and false accounting could undermine the
safety of any conviction for false accounting where (a) the conviction
was on the basis of a guilty plea, following which and/or in return for
which the theft charge was dropped, and (b) there had not been a
Sufficient evidential basis to bring the theft charge."
"(2) If such a conviction could be undermined in those circumstances,
that counsel review the prosecution file in such cases to establish
whether, applying the facts and law applicable at the relevant time,
there was a sufficient evidential basis to conclude that a conviction for
theft was a realistic prospect such that the charge was properly
brought."
"(3) POL consider instructing a suitably qualified party to carry out an
analysis of the relevant transaction logs for branches within the
Scheme to confirm, insofar as possible, whether any bugs in the
Horizon system are revealed by the dataset which caused
discrepancies in the accounting position of any of those branches."
Page 25 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
"(4) POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out a full review of
the use of Balancing Transactions throughout the lifetime of the
Horizon system, insofar as possible, to independently confirm from
Horizon system records the number and circumstances of their use."
"(5) POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out a full review of
the controls over and use of the capability of authorised Fujitsu
personnel to create, amend or delete baskets within the sealed audit
store throughout the lifetime of the Horizon system, insofar as
possible."
"(6) POL seek specialist legal advice from external lawyers as to
whether the Deloitte reports, or the information within them concerning
Balancing Transactions and Fujitsu's ability to delete and amend data
in the audit store, should be disclosed to defendants of criminal
prosecutions brought by POL. This advice should also address whether
disclosure should be made, if it has not been, to the CCRC."
"(7) POL cross-reference specific complaints about misleading advice
from NBSC call-handlers with the possible employees who provided
that advice and consider their personnel files, where available, for
evidence as to the likelihood that the complaint may be well-founded."
"(8) POL commission forensic accountants to review the unmatched
balances on POL's general suspense account to explain the
relationship (or lack thereof) with branch discrepancies and the extent
Page 26 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
to which those balances can be attributed to and repaid to specific
branches."
When I read the Swift Report, it was clear to me that there were issues that
needed addressing through the recommendations. I recognised the
importance of the recommendations and the need for work on their
implementation to begin without delay. I refer to the work undertaken in
response to the recommendations by Deloitte and Brian Altman QC (now KC)
at paragraphs [95] and [110] respectively. Notwithstanding the
recommendations, my reading of the report was that Mr Swift QC and Mr
Knight had concluded that there were no insurmountable barriers with Horizon
For instance, the report stated, inter alia, in relation to bugs:
"It seems to us entirely unremarkable that the Horizon system, which is
enormous in terms of the range of matters it deals with and the number of users
it has, will occasionally discover bugs, errors or glitches in the way that it
works...Some of those bugs may impact on the financial position of a branch,
either positively or negatively. We do not understand POL or Fujitsu to suggest
anything otherwise. The important point is the ease with which such bugs are
noticed and corrected with remedial action to any financial position taken where
necessary.
Fujitsu confirmed to us that all of these bugs were generic ones, i.e., they could
have affected any branch. The reasons they affected only certain branches
Page 27 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
were accidents of processing, as the particular chain of actions and steps
required for the bug to apply happened to occur only on those occasions in
those branches. We accept, on that basis, that the general point POL makes
that the Horizon system works effectively and accurately for the overwhelming
majority of the time for the overwhelming majority of its users is accurate. We
have seen nothing to suggest that these specific bugs identified have been the
cause of wider loss to SPMRs in the Scheme cases or otherwise. We see no
basis upon which to recommend any further action in relation to those identified
bugs now."
Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight addressed the issues of "third party action" in Part
C of the Swift Report. They considered the work carried out by Second Sight,
the report by Helen Rose and the statements made by POL and Fujitsu about
the ability of branch balances to be remotely altered. Mr Swift QC and Mr
Knight also considered the documents prepared by Deloitte for POL in May
and June 2014, titled ‘Horizon: Desktop Review of Assurance Sources and
Key Control Features’ and an accompanying ‘Board Briefing’. They noted the
Board Briefing stated that administrators had the ability to “delete data from
the Audit Store during the seven year period, which was a matter...contrary to
POL’s understanding...This could allow suitably authorised staff in Fujitsu to
delete a sealed set of baskets and replace them with properly sealed baskets,
although they would have to fake the digital signatures.” They go on to say:
Page 28 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
"When we spoke to Deloitte, they described this functionality as resulting, in
essence, from the level of security contained in Horizon being a level down
from the maximum.
We have seen a response from Fujitsu concerning this aspect of Deloitte’s
investigation, which is based upon a summary of it provided by POL rather
than the original Board Briefing itself. Fujitsu appear to accept that Deloitte’s
interpretation is technically correct but emphasise the wide range of security
measures in the software, hardware and environment which reduce the risk of
interference. Fujitsu also, properly, stress that there is no evidence that any
such action has occurred and that likelihood of all the security measures being
overcome is so small that it does not representa credible line of further enquiry.
The fact that such activity is possible does not, of course, indicate that it has
actually occurred. We find it difficult to see why it would have done so. Second
Sight suggested to us orally that Fujitsu employees could, in theory, run a fraud
in collusion with an SPMR whereby transactions were added to the branch
records generating cash payments out. Even if it may be theoretically possible,
there is no evidence for this and it is inherently improbable. An alternative may
be closer to Mr Roll’s account, which would be that Fujitsu would use the
functionality to correct system bugs without drawing them to the attention of
POL or SPMRs in order to avoid any form of contractual penalty.
The second issue expressly noted by Deloitte, but not clearly seen elsewhere
in the documentation we have reviewed, is the existence of a third mechanism
by which errors can be corrected: a Balancing Transaction. This is “an
Page 29 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
emergency process, accessible only to restricted individuals in Fujitsu, which
can create transactions directly in Branch ledgers. This process creates an
identifiable transaction in the ledger, verbally asserted by POL staff to be
visible to Sub-postmasters in their branch reporting tool, but does not require
positive acceptance or approval by the Sub-postmaster.” Deloitte explain that
they were told that this tool had only been used once since 2008 — in 2010 —
and generated a full audit trail.
Although it is not entirely clear, it is likely that the admitted 2010 instance is the
same, or linked to, the 2010 documents referred to by Second Sight in their
Part Two Report. However, Deloitte have carried out no work to assure
themselves that it has only be used on the one occasion, or as to the position
before 2008. It is not clear to us why 2008 was the cut-off period for
information, as this pre-dates the introduction of Horizon Online.
It seems to us that the Deloitte documents in particular pose real issues for
POL. First, both the existence of the Balancing Transaction capability and the
wider ability of Fujitsu to ‘fake’ digital signatures are contrary to the public
assurances provided by Fujitsu and POL about the functionality of the Horizon
system. Fujitsu’s comment we quote above seems to us to be simply incorrect,
and POL’s Westminster Hall Response is incomplete. To the extent that POL
has sought to contend that branch data cannot be remotely ‘amended’
because a Balancing Transaction does not amend existing transactions but
adds a new one, we do not consider this is a full picture of Horizon’s
functionality. The reality is that a Balancing Transaction is a remotely
Page 30 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
introduced addition to branch records, added without the need for acceptance
by the SPMR, which affects the branch’s balance; that is its express purpose.
POL has always known about the Balancing Transaction capability, although
the Deloitte reports suggest the digital signature issue is something contrary to
POL’s understanding.
We recognise that the existence of the two matters highlighted by Deloitte are
most likely to be wild goose chases. It is improbable that they have been used
beyond the identified instance. However, in the light of the consistent
impression given that they do not exist at all, we consider that it is now
incumbent on POL to commission work to confirm the position insofar as
possible. Accordingly we make a recommendation to that effect."
61. When I read the report that Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight had prepared, it
appeared to me that they had considered in detail the issue of 'third party
action’ and the work done in that area to date, and indeed what further work
was required. They went on to make 4 recommendations (recommendations
3-6) in relation to this issue.
Next Steps Following the Swift Review
62. I recognised the importance of the work on the implementation of the
recommendations starting straight away, following receipt of the draft Swift
Report. General Counsel therefore began work on considering how the
recommendations could be implemented most effectively. I have recently seen
an email dated 21 January 2016 from Mr Underwood to Mr Swift QC and Mr
Page 31 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Knight in which Mr Underwood refers to a call with Ms MacLeod later that day
and attaches a ‘Proposal for each Recommendation’ document to inform the
discussion. Mr Underwood describes the attachment as "POL’s initial thoughts
on how best to take forward the recommendations’. I was not copied in this
correspondence, nor did I attend the call between General Counsel and the
reviewers (POL00103105).
On 26 January 2016, I met with Baroness Neville-Rolfe to discuss a range of
matters including the Swift Review. I cannot recall exactly what we discussed
but I have been referred to the notes from that meeting (UKGI00006482). I
have seen a copy of an email from Ms MacLeod to me dated 22 January 2016
in relation to this meeting, in which she explained that Mr Swift QC had advised
that "if a physical or electronic copy were provided, this could result in the loss
of legal privilege in connection with the document, recognising that, in the
absence of privilege, the report could be disclosable under a FO! request”
(POL00103110). While I cannot recall the meeting in any detail, my
recollection is that I followed this advice and did not provide a copy of the draft
Swift Report to Baroness Neville-Rolfe. The notes of the meeting record the
fact that I told Baroness Neville-Rolfe that Mr Swift QC was "about to report’
and that "he had found no systemic problem." These comments made it clear
that I had seen a draft of the Swift Report. I have been asked to comment on
the reference in the note that "7P thought the issue might have passed it [sic]
peak interest". I believe I made this comment in the context of the level of
reporting in the press, which I had perceived to have diminished.
Page 32 of 158
64.
65.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Mr Swift QC sent me a final draft of the report before it was finalised on 8
February 2016 - see the document entitled 'A Review on behalf of the
Chairman of Post Office Ltd concerning the steps taken in response to various
complaints made by Sub-postmasters' (POL00006355).
Additional consideration was given to how to further update Baroness Neville-
Rolfe on the findings in the Swift Report. In an email to me dated 19 February
2016, Ms MacLeod expressed concerns about providing BIS with a copy of the
Swift Report due to the risk that privilege could be lost, and the report could
become disclosable through FOI requests etc (POL00110382). Therefore, a
letter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe was drafted on my behalf, which provided
information about the findings of the Swift Review without enclosing a copy of
the report. I understand that Baroness Neville-Rolfe's Office was made aware
of this approach. The draft letter was reviewed by Mr Swift QC before it was
signed, and I was informed by General Counsel that it was amended to reflect
minor comments he had (POL00110382). I subsequently approved the
amended letter on 1 March 2016, and it was sent to Baroness Neville-Rolfe on
4 March 2016 (POL00024913). I have been shown the following documents
that appear to record the steps taken in respect of the drafting of the letter
between 19 February 2016 and 4 March 2016, when it was finalised and sent
to Baroness Neville-Rolfe:
(a) Email from Mark Underwood to Jonathan Swift QC, Christopher Knight,
Jane MacLeod, and others re: A letter drafted for Tim Parker to send
Page 33 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
to the Minister, briefing her on the outcome of your enquiry to date
(POL00103131).
(b) Draft Letter from Tim Parker to Baroness Neville-Rolfe re: Project
Sparrow (POL00103132).
(c) Email from Jonathan Swift QC to Mark Underwood, Christopher Knight,
Jane MacLeod, and others; re: A letter drafted for Tim Parker to send
to the Minister, briefing her on the outcome of your enquiry to date
(POL00103134)
(d) Draft Letter from Tim Parker to Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(POL00131715).
(e) Email from Ms MacLeod to Tim Parker re: Post Office — Chairman's
Enquiry (POL00103136); and
(f) Email from Jane MacLeod to Tim Parker re: Post Office - Meeting with
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Wednesday 27 April 2016, 3:30pm
(POL00103165).
As can be seen from the correspondence at this time, I was not involved in the
back-and-forth of drafting the letter and I am therefore unable to comment on
the decision making around what text was modified or removed and indeed
why.
On 27 April 2016, I met with Baroness Neville-Rolfe. I do not recall what we
discussed at this meeting, but I have been referred to the email from Tom
Page 34 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Wechsler to Ms Vennells (POL00103171), which summarises the discussion.
This email records the fact that we discussed the Swift Review, including the
conclusions and recommendations. There is a reference to me stating that I
"felt the non-Horizon strands of enquiry (essentially on prosecutions process
and policy) would be answered shortly and- that there wasn’t currently any
reason to think that the findings here would be problematic." I do not
specifically recall using those words and why I used them. However, I describe
the steps taken in response to the recommendations in the Swift Review
relating to the prosecutions at paragraph [110] below.
68. I received fortnightly updates from Ms MacLeod about progress with
implementing the recommendations; see for example her emails to me dated
19 February 2016 (POL00110382), 7 March 2016 (POL00103143), 18 March
2016 (POL00103154), 1 April 2016 (POL00103158), 15 April 2016
(POL00103161), 29 April 2016 (POL00103176), and 13 May 2016
(POL00241642).
Start of the Group Litigation and Progress with the Swift Review
69. In this section, I have relied heavily on the minutes, and documents prepared
for Board meetings and subcommittee meetings. The minutes of the meetings
do not always record what each Board member specifically said in relation to
decisions taken. Save where I state otherwise, I do not have any independent
recollection of the matters discussed. These matters span most of my tenure
as Chair and took place almost 8 years ago and during a time that I held a
number of other roles.
Page 35 of 158
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
As there were a number of claims by different parties relating to similar issues,
a Group Litigation Order was sought by the claimants. My understanding is
that GLO's are made in complex high value cases involving a number of
claimants and are relatively uncommon.
As far as I am aware, POL did not object to the claimants’ request for a GLO.
The GLO was obtained on 21 March 2017 ("GLO") (almost one year after POL
received the Letter of Claim from the claimants’ solicitors, Freeths LLP
("Freeths")) and was published on gov.uk as is required. A number of
applications were made by claimants to join the GLO after it was published. In
this statement I use the term "Group Litigation" to refer to those proceedings
conducted under the GLO.
The Group Litigation was complex. The 'Common Issues’ trial concerned
‘contractual issues’. The 'Horizon Issues' trial concerned the operation of the
Horizon system.
On 28 April 2016, POL received a letter from Freeths regarding the Group
Litigation pursuant to the practice direction on pre-action conduct
(POL0002551 1) (the "Letter of Claim"). I was informed about this via the email
from Ms MacLeod to Mr Bourke and others (POL00103177) the next day.
While I had a basic understanding of the steps involved in litigation at this time,
I did not have experience overseeing a company engaged in significant
litigation or proceedings conducted under a Group Litigation Order.
Page 36 of 158
75.
76.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
I have been asked to describe where the Postmaster Litigation Steering Group
(the "Steering Group") sat in the management structure of POL. This is not
something that I can independently recall and at the time of drafting this
statement and I have not seen any documents setting out the position.
I have, however, seen a documententitled 'Decision: Does Post Office support
the general strategy set out below' prepared by Womble Bond Dickinson
("WBD")’ for the Steering Group Meeting on 11 September 2017
(POL00006380). This document suggests that POL's external lawyers, WBD
led on the development of the litigation strategy in conjunction with General
Counsel. The Steering Group was asked to approve the general direction of
travel so that WBD could then take matters forward with Freeths, the solicitors
for the Claimants.
Continuing work on the implementation of the recommendations in the Swift Review
77.
On 14 May 2016, I asked Ms MacLeod to provide me with a projected timetable
for completion of the actions arising from the Swift Review. I have been shown
a copy of my email to Ms MacLeod (POL00103192) in which I refer to myself
as beginning to get "somewhat frustrated." I recall that at the time I felt it was
taking too long to implement the recommendations. Ms MacLeod sent me a
table dated 16 May 2016 outlining the status of the work undertaken in
response to the recommendations (POL00103193). I have been asked to
7 Formed in 2017 as a result of a merger of Bond Dickinson LLP and Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP.
Page 37 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
comment specifically on the work undertaken by WBD in response to
recommendation 7.
78. On 4 May 2016, WBD provided a report on its investigations into complaints
about advice provided by call handlers at the Network Business Support
Centre ("NBSC") (POL00022769). While I cannot recall whether I read this
report at the time, I believe that this work was undertaken in response to
recommendation 7 of the Swift Review which was set out in the report as: "POL
cross-reference specific complaints about misleading advice from NBSC call-
handlers with the possible employees who provided that advice and consider
their personnel files, where available, for evidence as to the likelihood that the
complaint may be well-founded."
79. I have reviewed a report (POL00241688) marked 'Post Office Board:
Postmaster Litigation’ which appears to have been written by Ms MacLeod and
Mr Williams for the purposes of updating the Board following receipt of the
Letter of Claim. Ms MacLeod's report set out two main objectives in responding
to the Claim:
"Proportionately manage Post Office's legal defence;"
"Protect the Network going forward so that the Post Office and current agents
have confidence in our systems."
80. This report includes information about the process and possible costs of the
claim. It explains that the Letter of Claim set out the allegations in some detail,
but that there was nothing "new or surprising" contained within it and that "apart
Page 38 of 158
81.
82.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
from some generalised statements, there is no allegation that there is a
systemic failure in the Horizon software. Rather, the Letter claims that because
Horizon has the potential to cause discrepancies in branch accounts, Post
Office should not have relied on it so heavily and done more to investigate it
as a possible source of branch shortfalls’. Under the heading "Input Sought"
the document records the fact that the Board was "requested to note the
content of this paper."
I have reviewed the minutes of the POL Board meeting held on 24 May 2016
(POL00021542) at which this report appears to have been introduced by
General Counsel. The minutes show that I attended this meeting. However, I
do not specifically recall what was discussed. In particular, I do not recall
whether the Swift Review was discussed, although as I explain above work on
the implementationof the recommendationswas ongoing. The minutes record,
amongst other things, that a response to the Letter of Claim would be sent in
July, that General Counsel proposed to continue to instruct WBD who are
described as having "detailed knowledge and experience of the claims", and
that Anthony de Garr Robinson QC (now KC) had been interviewed and
instructed to act.
On 27 May 2016, I received an email from Ms MacLeod (POL00103212) in
which Ms MacLeod confirmed that she had asked Mr Swift QC "what, in his
view, would be a reasonable course of action for [me] to take in relation to his
recommendationsas to the further lines of enquiry which could be undertaken,
now that POL faces litigation covering essentially the same ground." In the
Page 39 of 158
83.
84.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
same email, Ms MacLeod confirmed that Mr Swift QC "felt that [Mr de Garr
Robinson QC] the barrister retained to advise POL on its defence to the
proceedings should first be requested to advise POL whether in light of the
litigation, the various workstreams should be continued, paused or re-defined."
On 10 June 2016, I received an email from Ms MacLeod (POL00103214) in
which she explained that she had received strong advice from external counsel
that "the work being undertaken under the aegis of your review [the Swift
Review] should not continue in light of the litigation". It was recommended that
the subject matter of that work should continue provided it was re-scoped and
re-instructed for the purposes of the litigation. I understood this was to maintain
privilege, which was an important consideration now that litigation had
commenced.
WBD wrote to POL on 21 June 2016 (POL00103216) to confirm the advice
given by Mr de Garr Robinson QC. The letter explained that Mr de Garr
Robinson QC's "very strong advice" was that my review should cease
immediately and given the overlap of issues between the Swift Review and the
Group Litigation, POL should implement the 4, 5', 6t, and th
recommendations of the Swift Review to the extent these were required to
respond to the Group Litigation and that work should be appropriately adapted
to meet the needs of the litigation. Mr de Garr Robinson QC's advice was that
this re-scoped work should be overseen exclusively by POL's legal team to
maximise the prospect of maintaining privilege.
Page 40 of 158
85.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
My understanding is that work on the implementation of the recommendations
in the Swift Review did not simply stop, but rather the decision was taken to
subsume this work into the Group Litigation workstream and refocus it to reflect
the needs of the Group Litigation, and that dealing with the work in this way
would minimise the risk of privilege being lost. I have been shown the following
documents, which appear to be consistent with my understanding at that time:
(a) In an email to Mr Underwood dated 12 July 2016 Andrew Parsons
states (in relation to the briefing for your meeting with the Minister) "we
can't share details of our legal advice with the Minister for fear of
waiving privilege in that advice. In all privilege arguments, the risk that
pulling one thread leads to the unravelling of privilege in other areas..."
(POL00025169):
(b) Email from Mr Underwood to Ms MacLeod, Mr Bourke, Mr Williams cc:
Mr Parsons re: Draft Briefing for Tim's meeting with BNR on Tues 19
July (POL00025168);
(c) Meeting with Baroness (Lucy) Neville-Rolfe, Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State - Tuesday 19 July 2016 (POL00025170);
(d) Meeting with Baroness (Lucy) Neville-Rolfe, Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State - Tuesday 19 July 2016 - Tracked Comments
(POL00025171); and
(e) Brief for Tim Parker meeting with Baroness Neville-Rolfe 19 July
(POL00103225).
Page 41 of 158
86.
87.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
I understand that a number of steps were taken to update BEIS on this decision
to refocus the work on the Group Litigation. On 21 June 2016 I received an
email from Ms MacLeod (POL00103215) in which she stated:
"In conversations today with the Minister's office, they have confirmed that they
understand (and indeed had anticipated) the need for prioritising the litigation
and therefore for work to cease on your review, however we have been advised
that they wish to consider further the choreography — in particular: [...]
They are considering the best way to update the Minister and whether her
Officials should provide the Minister (and possibly the Secretary of State) with
a briefing ahead of receiving the letter.
Accordingly, I have prepared (and now attach) a suggested letter for you to
consider. I will update you on the suggested choreography once we have
received further advice from the Minister's office — which we expect tomorrow.
A letter was drafted by General Counsel for me to send to Baroness Neville-
Rolfe (POL00022776) to explain that a claim had now been issued. The draft
letter explained that I had received advice from external counsel that the issues
from the Swift Review should be addressed "through equivalent work taken
forward in the litigation.” The letter concluded: “Acting in accordance with the
duties I owe to Post Office Limited as a director and its Chairman, I have
therefore instructed that the work being undertaken pursuant to my review
should now be stopped.” Here I was referring to the duties that I owe to act in
the company's best interests.
Page 42 of 158
88.
89.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
I do not recall whether this letter was finalised and sent, sent in an amended
format, or not sent at all. I have, however, seen the brief for the meeting with
Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 19 July 2016 (POL00103225) which includes a
section titled "Sparrow/Horizon" and what is described as a "specific briefing
provided by Post Office Legal Services." This briefing includes reference to the
"...very strong advice that the work previously being undertaken under [the
Swift Review] should come to an immediate end and, instead, be carried
forward under the scope of the litigation."
On 19 July 2016, I met with Baroness Neville-Rolfe. I cannot recall precisely
how I was briefed for this meeting (i.e. if there were oral discussions beyond
my written brief) or what was ultimately discussed at my meeting, but I expect
we covered the topics outlined in my written brief. The written brief anticipated
that I would provide a verbal update on Horizon, and it therefore includes a
section with notes on ‘Sparrow / Horizon’ that was prepared by General
Counsel. The brief states that Minister's office had "confirmed that they
understand (and indeed anticipated) the need for prioritising the litigation and
therefore, that work would cease on your Review' and that it was understood
that the Ministerwas "aware of this position through updates from her officials".
The written brief sets out the advice that work going forward should be driven
by the needs of the litigation and work that that had already been undertaken
in relation to the Swift Review remained valuable and valid and would
"continue, albeit in a different context and potentially with a different emphasis"
and that the litigation would "cover a much wider range of the issue and to a
much fuller extent." Finally, the brief outlines the position that POL should not
Page 43 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
consider re-opening the review should the Claim not be 'served' or fall away.
Various reasons are provided, including that the review would still be viewed
as an essentially 'internal' exercise
90. On 28 July 2016, POL sent a response to the Letter of Claim. The documents
to which I refer at paragraphs [72 to 75] do not record General Counsel
requesting specific input from the Board or me personally on how POL should
respond to the Letter of Claim and I do not recall being involved in any
discussions about this. I have reviewed an email from Alwen Lyons to me, Ken
McCall, Carla [Stent] Virginia Holmes, Tim Franklin, Richard Callard, Paula
Vennells and Alisdair Cameron (POL00103232) provided to me by the Inquiry.
I do not recall who was responsible for the decision to adopt a 'more assertive’
tone in the response to the Letter of Claim than had been used previously.
However, I note Ms MacLeod's comments about the response having been
"discussed at length within Post Office", having been reviewed by Mr de Garr
Robinson QC and sent by WBD
Legal Professional Privilege
91. My understanding of legal professional privilege is that it is an absolute right
on grounds of public policy that a party receiving legal advice including in the
context of litigation can do so in confidence. It is therefore not normally
disclosable to a third party.
92. I received legal advice that the Swift Review itself and all communications and
information relating to that review were privileged. This made sense to me: Mr
Page 44 of 158
93.
94.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Swift QC and Mr Knight had been instructed to advise me (the client) in fulfilling
the request from BEIS to carry out a personal and independent review, and
accordingly, any communications about that review, including any draft and
final reports, would be legally privileged.
I understood the importance of seeking to maintain privilege and that one of
the best ways of achieving this was to restrict the distribution of the information
to a limited group of people. In this case, distribution of the draft Swift Report
was limited to 4 individuals at POL in accordance with the request from POL's
General Counsel, as explained at paragraph [55] above. Given the report was
distributed to a small number of individuals within POL, I do not expect it would
have been disclosed outside of POL. Baroness Neville-Rolfe (and her office)
was made aware of the approach being taken to the distribution of the Swift
Review to seek to maintain legal privilege. As I describe above, a number of
steps were taken to update Baroness Neville-Rolfe, without the Swift Report
itself being shared. I do not recall being made aware of any requests for the
Swift Review to be distributed more widely at that time.
I recognise that as a director and Chair of POL I was required to act in
accordance with my legal, regulatory, and commercial responsibilities, and
ultimately in the best interests of the company. I considered the legal advice I
received about distribution of information relating to the Swift Review alongside
my own knowledge, and exercised my judgment in a way that I considered to
be in the best interests of POL. I decided that in the circumstances it was
Page 45 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
appropriate to follow the legal advice I had received to seek to maintain
privilege in relation to the Swift Review.
The 'Bramble' Reports
95. I have been asked to comment on the work undertaken by Deloitte LLP in
response to the Swift Review and the Group Litigation. The code name for this
piece of work was 'Bramble’.
96. Deloitte was instructed by POL to address four scope areas relating to the
Horizon complaints. I have been shown a copy of Deloitte's 'Bramble' — Draft
Report dated 27 July 2016 (POL00030009), which is described as an interim
report and is marked as a "draft for discussion". The wording used to define
scope areas one, two and three reflects the wording of recommendations 3, 4
and 5 of the Swift Report:
"(3) POL consider instructing a suitably qualified party to carry out an analysis
of the relevant transaction logs for branches within the Scheme to confirm,
insofar as possible, whether any bugs in the Horizon system are revealed by
the dataset which caused discrepancies in the accounting position of any of
those branches.
(4) POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out a full review of the use of
Balancing Transactions throughout the lifetime of the Horizon system, insofar
as possible, to independently confirm from Horizon system records the number
and circumstances of their use.
Page 46 of 158
97.
98.
99.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(5) POL instruct a suitably qualified party to carry out a full review of the
controls over and use of the capability of authorised Fujitsu personnel to
create, amend or delete baskets within the sealed audit store throughout the
lifetime of the Horizon system, insofar as possible.
I have been shown a copy of Deloitte's 'Bramble' — Draft Report dated 31
October 2016 (POL00031502), which is again marked as a "Draft for
discussion" and "representing a work in progress". This report appears like the
July report.
After the initial phase of Project Bramble, I understand that Deloitte considered
three additional scope areas in relation to Super User Audit Logs from Branch
Database (phase 2), assessment of Non-Counter Transactions (phase 3) and
review and work in relation of the Fujitsu Report 'Database Security in Horizon
Online’ (phase 4). I have been shown a copy of the Bramble draft reports dated
1 September 2017 (POL00030068), 3 October 2017 (POL00028070), 15
December 2017 (POL00029097), and 19 January 2018 (POL00030075).
These reports set out Deloitte's findings in relation to all four phases.
Deloitte was engaged by POL to undertake the Project Bramble work. I
understand that General Counsel and POL's external legal advisers, including
WBD, liaised with Deloitte about the Project Bramble workstream. The Project
Bramble reports state that they are produced "for the General Counsel of Post
Office Limited". As far as I am aware, General Counsel assumed responsibility
for handling, distributing, and disclosing the reports. I understand that the
Project Bramble workstream was discussed at meetings of the Steering Group.
Page 47 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
100. To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall reading the Project Bramble
reports at the time they were prepared. I am therefore unable to comment on
what I thought about the findings and whether I discussed these with anyone.
101. In addition to being involved in Project Bramble, I understand that General
Counsel, WBD and the Steering Group were also heavily involved in the
strategy and day to day management of the Group Litigation including the
preparation of formal court documents. Accordingly, and as I would expect,
findings from the Project Bramble reports informed the preparation of POL's
defence in the Group Litigation.
POL's Prosecutorial Function & Review of Criminal Prosecutions
102. I have been asked to comment on my understanding of and involvement in
POL's role in prosecuting SPMs.
103. POL ceased private prosecutions related to Horizon prior to my appointment
as Chair. The appeals of those cases in which POL acted as a prosecutor
began in 2020 with referrals by the CCRC. These referrals followed the
‘Horizon Issues’ judgment in the Group Litigation. I share the sincere regret
POL has expressed for the past events and recognise both the impact on
individual lives and the length of time many victims have waited for justice.
104. I do not recall what specific knowledge of POL's involvement in prosecuting
SPMs in relation to Horizon I held at the time of my appointment as Chair. I
was aware of the general right to apply to the court to bring a private
prosecution. I also understood the seriousness of such an application and the
Page 48 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
need to seek legal advice both in respect of the application itself and ensuring
continuing compliance with the relevant legislation and rules, including those
in relation to disclosure. However, I had no previous experience of private
prosecutions.
105. The prosecution of SPMs in relation to Horizon was one of the areas that was
considered as part of the Swift Review. The Swift Report (POL00006355)
confirmed my understanding that POL's decision to conduct private
prosecutions was not "in exercise of any special statutory power" and that it
was "...the choice of POL to adopt this course of action."
106. As part of the Swift Review, Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight considered a report
that was prepared by a team of forensic accountants, Second Sight, instructed
by POL prior to my appointment as Chair. The reviewers identified one of the
themes arising from a report prepared by Second Sight as follows:
"(13) POL investigators were focussed on seeking evidence of false
accounting to aid asset recovery rather than identifying the root cause of
losses. In some cases, a charge of theft did not seem to have been supported
by the evidence and was dropped as part of a plea bargain. Some of those
decisions may have been contrary to the prosecutor's code (paragraphs 25. 1-
25.24)."
107. Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight considered the prosecution of SPMs by POL at
paragraphs 110 to 112 of the Swift Report. They addressed three 'broad areas
of concern’: i) the safety of the convictions and disclosure of information; ii)
Page 49 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
sufficiency of evidence; iii) POL's role as prosecutor. In doing so, they referred
to advice received/work commissioned by POL in relation to the prosecutions
prior to my appointment as Chair including Cartwright King Solicitor's
("Cartwright King") 2013 review of criminal prosecutions commenced by POL
since 1 January 2010 and the "detailed legal advice" provided by Mr Altman
QC. Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight confirmed that they themselves had reviewed
a small sample of cases considered by Cartwright King and had not identified
any issues with Cartwright King's approach. They described being "content
that POL has acted reasonably in its handling of disclosure issues arising in
relation to past criminal prosecutions."
108. The Swift Report contained recommendations relating to criminal prosecutions
and the 'sufficiency of evidence’.
109. When I received the Swift Report, I considered the reviewers’ findings in
relation to the prosecutions brought by POL. I noted the various references in
the report to the legal advice obtained by POL prior to my appointment and the
further work identified in recommendations 1 and 2 (paragraph 113 of the
report). I do not recall being made aware of any evidence that POL had not
acted in compliance with its legal obligations as a prosecutor in bringing
proceedings against SPMs. It appeared to me that legal advice had been
sought from a number of appropriately qualified lawyers, that the reviewers
had scrutinised this advice, that consideration was given to POL's continuing
duty to disclose information that comes to light that might undermine its
prosecution case or support the case of the defendant, and that further work
Page 50 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
had been identified to ensure that this advice and indeed the actions of POL
were appropriate.
Mr Altman QC was instructed to advise POL in relation to the following
recommendations in the Swift Report (a copy of which was enclosed with the
instructions):
"Legal advice be sought from counsel as to whether the decision to charge an
SPMR with theft and false accounting could undermine the safety of any
conviction for false accounting where (a) the conviction was on the basis of a
guilty plea, following which and/or in return for which the theft charge was
dropped, and (b) there had not been a sufficient evidential basis to bring the
theft charge.
If such a conviction could be undermined in those circumstances, that counsel
review the prosecution file in such cases to establish whether, applying the
facts and law applicable at the relevant time, there was a sufficient evidential
basis to conclude that a conviction for theft was a realistic prospect such that
the charge was properly brought.
POL seek specialist legal advice from external counsel as to whether the
Deloitte reports, or the information within them concerning Balancing
Transactions and Fujitsu’s ability to delete and amend data in the audit store,
should be disclosed to defendants of criminal prosecutions brought by POL.
This advice should also address whether disclosure should be made, if it has
not been, to the CCRC."
Page 51 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
111. As far as I understand it, the instructions to Mr Altman QC (POL00022765)
were prepared by General Counsel, agreed with the reviewers, and followed
the recommendations set out in the Swift Report without any amendments or
finessing. I do not know specifically what information was shared with the
Board in relation to Mr Altman QC's work in relation to reviewing past
convictions. Paragraph 21 of the instructions states that POL had already
notified the CCRC of the documents prepared by Deloitte for POL in May and
June 2014 and accordingly Mr Altman QC was not asked to provide advice in
relation to the second sentence of recommendation 6.
112. I have been shown a copy of Mr Altman QC's advice dated 26 July 2016
(POL00112884). At paragraph 8 of this advice, Mr Altman QC refers to the fact
that following the filing of the group civil claim, the Swift Review had been
"brought to a close". However, he was instructed to continue with the work
requested for the purposes of assisting POL's defence of the civil proceedings.
This accords with my recollection of the approach to the implementation of the
recommendations adopted after the claim was issued.
113. Given that the advice of Mr Altman QC relates to the recommendations in the
Swift Report and the Group Litigation, it is likely that I would have been briefed
on the advice by General Counsel. However, I do not have any independent
recollection of this briefing, nor do I recall what I thought about the advice or
aspects of the advice at the time it was received.
114. Reading the advice now, it appears Mr Altman QC reviewed 8 case files in total
(3 of which he considered within the terms of the review). He concluded that
Page 52 of 158
115.
116.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
these cases "were, in [his] judgment, conducted in such a way that any
allegation that POL operated a deliberate policy to charge theft when there was
no or no sufficient evidential basis to support it, just to encourage or influence
pleas of guilty chargers (said to be lesser charges) of false accounting, is
fundamentally misplaced..."He went on to say that he had "not discovered any
evidence in the cases that theft (or fraud for that matter) was charged without
any proper basis to do so and/or in order only to encourage or influence guilty
pleas to offences of false accounting."
I note that Mr Altman QC did, however, make some criticisms of POL that were
beyond the remit of the review including in relation to:
"i) use of inconsistent language in the recording of charging decisions, and
about offering no evidence on the theft count, resulting in the judge formally
entering a not guilty verdict, when the count ought technically to have been on
file.
ii) risk of challenge...that POL has been using the criminal justice system as a
means of enforcing repayment from offenders by charging and pursuing
offences that will results in confiscation and compensation orders. It might be
argued that as SPMR's are contractually bound to repay losses, POL is using
(and abusing) the criminal justice process rather than civil litigation to recover
from offenders."
He goes on to say "in the cases I have reviewed, I am satisfied that where
offences were indicated with an eye to the making of applications for
Page 53 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
confiscation and/or compensation orders on conviction, there was, in each
case, a proper legal and evidential basis for so doing, which included
consideration of the orders that might follow conviction" and that "only two
cases falling within the review...where POL recovered its losses from the
offenders through voluntary repayment"
117. I have been asked to comment on point ii). As explained at paragraph [113], I
do not have any recollection of my thoughts on the advice at the time. However,
I expect that this is a matter that would have been considered carefully by those
advising POL on the litigation.
118. On 22 January 2016, there was a POL Board meeting which involved a
discussion about POL's new prosecutions policy proposal. I have been referred
to a Board paper prepared by Ms MacLeod on this topic, which explains that
POL had reviewed its prosecution policy following its separation from Royal
Mail and in light of public criticisms in relation to 'Project Sparrow’. It was noted
that the new draft policy had been reviewed by General Counsel, Cartwright
King, and Mr Altman QC, and was approved by the Group Executive on 17
December 2015. The POL Board was requested to note the Policy
(POL00030953 and POL00125814).
Updates to POL Board about the Litigation Following Receipt of the Claim in
April 2016
119. Asnoted at paragraph [73] above, POL received the Letter of Claim on 28 April
2016. I do not recall the detail of any discussion, or update provided about the
Page 54 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Letter of Claim at the Board meetings held in the months that followed. I have
reviewed the minutes of the POL Board meetings held between June and
November 2016 and note that they do not record discussion of the Group
Litigation (POL00027643; POL00027582; POL00021543, POL00021544;
POL00021545; POL00027185). This may be because there was no material
update in the Group Litigation to pass on to the Board at this time before the
substantive preparation for the Common Issues trial had begun. Although the
claim had been issued, my understanding is that the Board was not requested
to take any decisions in relation to the litigation. If it had, I would have expected
these decisions to be recorded in the minutes of the meetings. I do not recall
the detail of any substantive discussions about the litigation or issues to do
with Horizon generally outside of the POL Board meetings.
120. On 26 January 2017, the first Court hearing in relation to the Group Litigation
took place. I note from the minutes of the POL Board meeting on 31 January
2017 (POL00021546) that Ms Vennells provided a brief verbal update to the
Board regarding the hearing, including that detailed information would need to
be provided for each Claimant and that the next hearing would likely be in
autumn for further procedural directions to be issued.
121. I cannot recall the substance of the discussions of the Group Litigation at the
POL Board meetings held in March, May, July, and November 2017 but I have
been referred to the minutes of these meetings. I note from the minutes that
on 28 March 2017, Ms MacLeod appears to have provided a high-level
summary of the procedural next steps in the Group Litigation (POL00021547).
Page 55 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
In particular, she noted that the Particulars of Claim were expected imminently,
which would set out the legal basis of the claims. She also confirmed that at
this stage there was no quantification of the claims. This verbal update was
noted by the Board.
Liaison with ShEx/ UKGI
122. Atthis point in time, BEIS had a 100% shareholding in POL and therefore had
an oversight function. The Board had a responsibility to report to UKGI, with
the Chair overseeing the Board in exercising this responsibility. This meant
that as Chair, I routinely met with UKGI representatives. I attended meetings
with Robert Swannell every 6 months. These meetings tended to involve high
level discussions about POL's progress on various key issues. Alongside these
meetings, I was in constant contact with the UKGI representative on the POL
Board, usually on a weekly basis. In this way, and supplemented by regular
meetings with senior executives, UKGI were well briefed on day-to-day
developments at POL. UKGI's role included supporting an effective
relationship between UKGI and POL, and providing oversight of POL's
corporate capability, performance, and business planning.
123. On30 March 2017, I attended a meeting with Mr Swannell. I do not recall what
we discussed at this meeting, but I have been referred to a written brief that
was prepared for me in advance. The written briefing includes possible
discussion points, including POL's current trading position, POL's progress on
key issues mentioned at the last meeting, and POL's overall strategy and
funding approach. I have been asked to address what, if anything, we
Page 56 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
discussed about the Swift Review, the Group Litigation, and the complaints in
respect of Horizon. The written brief does not address these topics
(POL00154182)
124. On 9Q May 2017, I met Sir Jeremy Heywood (Cabinet Secretary and Head of
the Civil Service). I have been referred to an email chain in which Mr Callard
liaises with Sir Jeremy's office to set up the meeting and arrange a briefing for
him (UKGI00000993). In this email chain, Sir Jeremy's team asks Mr Callard
to provide a brief on POL's funding, context around POL's performance, and
other interactions with HMG. I do not specifically recall what we discussed
during this meeting, but I expect our discussion centred on the topics included
in the briefing pack. I do not recall whether I would have discussed the Group
Litigation, or the wider Horizon issues with Sir Jeremy at this meeting or any
other time.
125. On 25 May 2017, there was a POL Board meeting. I have been referred to a
copy of the minutes of that meeting. A number of topics were discussed at the
meeting, including POL's funding plan. The minutes do not record a discussion
of the Group Litigation.
Updates to the POL Board about the Group Litigation Following Service of POL's
Defence
126. On 18 July 2017, POL served its Generic Defence and Counterclaim on the
Claimants (the "Defence") (POL00003340). I do not recall reviewing the
Defence before it was served on the Claimants. Having not been involved in
Page 57 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
drafting of this document, I am not best placed to speak about the rationale
underpinning the arguments put forward in the Defence.
127. The CEO's report dated 25 July 2017 (POL00027047) included a further
update to the Board on the litigation including: that the Defence was filed on
18 July 2017, the claimants were expected to respond to the Defence in a
formal document to be served on POL and filed with the court no later than 20
September 2017, and that the next case management conference would take
place on 19 October 2017. The report also set out the next procedural steps in
the claim, noted that details of the total claim had not been provided, and that
a more detailed update to the Board would be provided following the case
management conference. It said that the update was to include "an
assessment of the range of possible outcomes, based on the issues to be
considered through the Lead Cases, as well as the potential impact on Post
Office and its business and operations from these possible outcomes".
128. The minutes of the POL Board meeting held on 25 July 2017 (POL00021549)
do not record any discussion about the litigation specifically. However, they
record the Chief Executive saying that "the decision not to prosecute agents if
they could use the Horizon system as a defence would be reconsidered once
Deloitte had completed their work on Horizon and could be used in court as an
expert witness". I do not know the reasoning behind this decision. At this point
in time, the Project Bramble work (described at paragraph [95] to [101])
undertaken by Deloitte was ongoing and General Counsel were dealing with
this workstream with support of external lawyers.
Page 58 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
129. As noted at paragraph [76] above, the Steering Group was responsible for co-
ordinating POL's approach and response to the Claim and for bringing together
representatives from the relevant teams in the business. In September 2017,
WBD prepared a briefing note and a paper on the litigation strategy options for
the Steering Group, which provided advice in relation to the strategic direction
in the Group Litigation, and specifically, in relation to the upcoming case
management conference scheduled for 19 October 2017 (POL00006380 and
POL00006503). It is not clear who received copies of these documents. I do
not recall receiving the documents at that time. However, I have reviewed the
briefing note while preparing this statement and I have been signposted to the
following statements in the note:
“Our target audience is therefore Freeths, the funder and the insurers who will
adopt a cold, logical assessment of whether they will get a pay-out, rather than
the Claimants who may wish to fight on principle regardless of merit.”
"...the Claimants’ arguments on the postmaster contracts are not without merit.
There is a chance that they might be successful, in which case Post Office
would be left in a very difficult commercial position."
I cannot recall if I saw POL's strategy set out in this way at the time.
130. The CEO's report dated 26 September 2017 (POL00250666) noted the
upcoming case managementconference in the litigation and confirmed that an
update on the implications would be provided to the Board. I have been shown
a copy of the minutes of a Board meeting held on 26 September 2017
Page 59 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(POL00021550), which record that the Board received a verbal update on the
litigation from General Counsel. Although I do not recall the substance of the
discussion about the Group Litigation, the minutes show that the Board was
told that the case management conference would be held on 19 October 2017,
which would result in directions being given by the Court as to how the case
would be conducted over the next 12 to 18 months. There were also key
strategic issues to be decided as to POL’s preferences for the sequence in
which the legal arguments were to be addressed and POL had received legal
advice as to the preferred sequence. The minutes also record that the Board
discussed this legal advice and its implications and approved the proposed
strategy.
131. I have been referred to an email from Amy Prime (Solicitor, WBD) to Andrew
Parsons dated 28 September 2017 (within the thread of emails between Mr
Parsons and Anthony de Garr Robinson QC) (POL00006384), which sets out
Ms Vennell's talking points, one of which was “Would the court consider the
impact of the doomsday decision in particular, the impact on public funds and
POL business, when making a decision”. This email was not sent to me, and I
am not aware of the context of these ‘talking points’. I have been asked to
comment on whether I considered the Horizon litigation potentially posed a
‘Doomsday scenario’. I am not sure what Ms Vennell's meant by this comment
and it is not a term that I recall adopting. I do not recall whether I had
particularly strong views about whether to settle the Group Litigation at that
time. While POL was considering the possibility of settlement on an ongoing
basis, it had received advice that the claims were insufficiently precise (in terms
Page 60 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
of quantum) to settle at this point before the case management conference had
taken place. My understanding is that the quantum of the claim remained
unclear and was unlikely to be capable of being determined until after the
Common Issues trial in 2018 (POL00024273).
Next Steps Following Case Management Conference Held in October 2017
132. The case management conference took place on 19 October 2017. The next
day Ms MacLeod sent an email to me, Ms Vennells, and others to provide an
update on the case management conference (POL00103314). Ms MacLeod
said that she would be meeting with the legal team over the next few days to
understand in more detail the scale of work that would be required over the
next 13 months and the implications of the orders to select lead cases for
hearing at the trial and the categories of information that would be subject to
disclosure. Ms MacLeod said that she would be able to provide a more detailed
verbal update at the Board meeting scheduled for 31 October 2017, should
that be required. The CEO's report dated 31 October 2017 (POL00103898)
contained an update to the Board on the Group Litigation including: the
outcome of the case management conference and commencing work on
preparing the disclosure materials and a review of the likely costs over the next
13 months. It stated that a verbal update would be provided at the upcoming
October Board meeting and that a more detailed briefing had been scheduled
for the Board in November.
133. I attended the POL Board meeting on 31 October 2017. I do not recall what
the POL Board discussed at this meeting, but I have reviewed the minutes of
Page 61 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
this meeting (POL00021551), which record a discussion about how the
litigation was being accounted for in POL's finances.
134. I understand that the Steering Group met on 3 November 2017
(POL00024318) to discuss the Group Litigation, including the outcome of the
recent case management conference, and in particular the judge's comment
in the approved judgment that “fa] fundamental change of attitude by the legal
advisers involved in this group litigation is required. A failure to heed this
warning will result in draconian costs orders” (POL00004167). I was not a
member of the Steering Group, so I do not know what was discussed at this
meeting and whether the Group considered changing litigation strategy
following the case management conference decision.
135. I have been referred to an email from Mr Williams to Paul Loraine and Victoria
Brooks (WBD) dated 7 November 2017 (POL00025752) describing the
CCRC's enquiries about the Swift Review. As this email suggests, I understand
that General Counsel, with input from external lawyers, including WBD,
advised on POL's disclosure obligations. General Counsel also appear to have
correspondedwith the CCRC on behalf of POL, including in relation to the Swift
Review. I do not recall being involved in the decision to send the Swift Report
to the CCRC, but I understand that it was disclosed to the CCRC on 15
November 2017, following a request from the CCRC.
136. On 7 November 2017, I attended a meeting with Mr Swannell. I have been
referred to a briefing note prepared for this meeting, ‘Brief for Tim Parker
meeting with Robert Swannell - 7 November’ (POL00103319). I have also
Page 62 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
reviewed, while preparing this statement, an email from Mr Swannell to Mark
Russell (Chief Executive of UKGI) on 8 November 2017 in which he provided
a summary of the meeting on 7 November 2017 (UKGI00007673). I consider
this note is mostly an accurate summary of what we discussed. In this note, Mr
Swannell states that one of the 'worries' I expressed in our meeting was the
Group Litigation. He also refers to our discussion about my contracted hours,
which I have addressed at paragraph [18] of this statement.
137. On 10 November 2017, the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Bates & Others
v. Post Office Limited [2017] EWHC 2844 (QB) was handed down. The
judgment dealt with procedural issues.
138. The CEO's report dated 23 November 2017 (POL00251661) stated that a
verbal update on the Group Litigation would be given in the Board meeting on
the same date. I have been shown the minutes of the POL Board meeting held
on 23 November 2017 (POL00021552), which record General Counsel
providing an update on the case management conference and the dates set
for future hearings.
139. On 29 January 2018, there was a meeting of the POL Audit, Risk and
Compliance Committee. The minutes of this meeting (POL00021440) record
that Alisdair Cameron (POL's Chief Financial and Operations Officer) advised
that the recovery of agent losses and prosecutions had become significantly
more challenging because of the Group Litigation, which increased the risk that
the deterrent effect of recovery actions or prosecutions would be diminished.
The minutes also record that "more targeted audits" had been trialled and
Page 63 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
resulted in issues being identified earlier. I do not recall what explanation Mr
Cameron provided as to why this was the case or the implications of this.
Formation of the Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee in 2018
140. On 29 January 2018, there was a POL Board meeting at which Ms MacLeod
provided an update on the Group Litigation to the Board. The minutes of this
meeting (POL00021553) record that Ms MacLeod told the Board that a
procedural hearing was scheduled for 2 February 2018 where the Court would
determine the scope of disclosure required to be given by POL to support the
trial in November 2018.
141. At this POL Board meeting, the Board resolved to establish a subcommittee
for the purposes of monitoring the developmentin and strategy for the litigation,
the Postmaster Litigation Subcommittee ("Litigation Subcommittee"). I was
appointed as Chair of the Litigation Subcommittee. The other individuals
appointed to the Litigation Subcommittee were Ken McCall (Senior
Independent Director), Tom Cooper (Non-Executive Director and Shareholder
Representative), Ms Vennells (Chief Executive), Mr Cameron (Chief Finance
and Operating Officer). Ms MacLeod (Company Secretary) was the Secretary
to the Litigation Subcommittee. In terms of the selection of these people:
myself and Mr Cameron were senior POL Directors on the Board and Ms
Vennells was the Chief Executive who needed to be involved in the key
decisions; Ms MacLeod was our Group General Counsel and her legal input
was crucial; Mr McCall had a lot of broad business experience and was
therefore an appropriate candidate and Mr Cooper was a UKGI Director and it
Page 64 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
made sense to have a member of POL's shareholder sighted on key decisions.
The Board subsequently approved the Terms of Reference for the Litigation
Subcommittee (POL00006808), which state that it was established in order to
receive legal advice on POL's Defence in the Group Litigation as it proceeded
to final resolution.
142. On 2 February 2018, there was a case management conference before Mr
Justice Fraser. I have been referred to an email dated 4 February 2018 sent
by Ms MacLeod to me and other members of the Board (and copied to
members of POL's executive team) (POL00006520). In this email Ms MacLeod
summarises the outcome of this hearing, noting that Mr Justice Fraser granted
the orders for disclosure in the terms sought by POL. Ms MacLeod also
confirms that as discussed at the Board, a series of ‘Litigation Subcommittee’
meetings® would be scheduled to coincide with the key upcoming decision
points and to ensure that the subcommittee was apprised of, and supportive of
the strategy. I do not recall specifically what I thought when reading this email
and I do not recall having any particular concerns about whether Mr Justice
Fraser was or appeared to be biased against POL. Similarly, I do not recall
being made aware of other individuals within POL these types of concerns in
relation to Mr Justice Fraser at that time. I do, however, note from the email
that Ms MacLeod describes being "pleased with the outcome" while Mr
Williams, who appears to have attended the hearing in person, described the
® I understand this to be a reference to the Litigation Subcommittee of which I was Chair.
Page 65 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
hearing as having gone "well" and Mr Justice Fraser as "being committed to
moving it forward at pace".
143. The first meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee was held on 26 March 2018.
The minutes of this meeting (POL00117899) record the fact that the
Subcommittee was updated on developments since the January Board
meeting. The notes also record that "it was explained that day-to-day decisions
on the litigation were taken by the executive but that the Board was consulted
in advance of any significant decisions being taken". This accords with my
recollection of decision-making in response to the claim; prior to early 2018, a
lot of the discussions about the litigation were about the mechanics of the
Group Litigation and as the case progressed toward trial, there were decisions
that required a greater level of input and involvement and it was appropriate to
form a subcommittee for this purpose.
144. The notes also record discussions about the approach to disclosure and the
appointment of an IT expert, including the fact that the quality of the opinion
provided by the expert would be crucial. In relation to the appointment of an IT
expert, the notes state that "the appointment of IT experts by both sides to
support the Horizon trial was noted" and "the quality of the opinion provided by
the expert would be critical’. The notes also state that POL had appointed Dr
Robert Worden, who's previous experience as an expert witness was
discussed.
145. The notes also record that 33 Postmasters had applied to the CCRC to review
the terms of their convictions and POL was cooperating fully with the CCRC.
Page 66 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
but "Nevertheless, Post Office considered it unlikely that a decision would be
made public before the conclusion of the Horizon trial’. I have been asked to
comment on this statement. However, I do not recall who made this statement
or why it was considered unlikely that the CCRC would publicise its decision
before the conclusion of the Group Litigation.
146. I have been asked to what extent the Litigation Subcommittee challenged
those in the executive and/or the legal advice received on the approach to the
Group Litigation. I understood and took seriously my responsibilities as Chair
of POL and Head of the Litigation Subcommittee, and I understood the
importance of the litigation. While I cannot recall any particular instances of the
Litigation Subcommittee challenging the executive and/or the legal advice it
received, if I had concerns, was dissatisfied or felt the Litigation Subcommittee
required more information, I would of course have raised this.
147. On 27 March 2018, there was a POL Board meeting and a POL Audit, Risk
and Compliance Committee meeting. I do not recall the discussions that took
place at these meetings, but I have been referred to the minutes of these
meetings at UKGI00018134 and POL00021445, respectively. I can see that at
the POL Board meeting, it was noted that the Subcommittee had met the
previous day and was updated on the case and that the Board approved the
terms of reference for the Subcommittee (see paragraph [141]).
Page 67 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Opinion on Common Issues
148. I have been referred to the opinion on the common issues dated 10 May 2018
authored by Anthony de Garr Robinson QC (now KC), David Cavender QC
(now KC), Owain Draper and Gideon Cohen (POL00025892). I think it is likely
that I read this legal opinion at the time, but I do not recall what my views were
at that time or how exactly it impacted POL's subsequent approach to the
Group Litigation.
149. The opinionon the common issues was an item on the agenda for the Litigation
Subcommittee meeting on 15 May 2018. I have been referred to the minutes
of that meeting (POL00006754). The minutes record that Mr de Garr Robinson
QC, Mr Cavender QC and Mr Parsons were in attendance as well as Ms
MacLeod and other members of her team. I do not specifically recall what was
said at this meeting. However, I expect that it was intended to provide an
opportunity for the lawyers who prepared the opinion on the common issues to
explain their advice to the Litigation Subcommittee and for members of the
subcommittee to ask questions. The minutes note that Mr Cavender QC
“explained his thoughts on the interim opinion on the Merits Case". He said his
overall view was that "the PO has the better of args in most 23 args". He is
noted as saying "[djon't see there's anything to settle at the moment. But
always need to consider the option of settlement (otherside keen on this)." The
minutes record me as saying "From our perspective there are no decisions we
are being asked to take now? Will come back to us before the trial", to which it
appears Mr Cavender QC responded "One of the big milestones will be when
Page 68 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
they decided to serve their evidence. Once we've seen this, we'll have a much
clearer idea of where they're seeking to go and we've plugged in our feedback
on this provisionally for September 2018. Not within our power to stop these
two trial phases going ahead". The minutes also record Mr Cavender QC as
explaining that the litigation is "fujnsettleable at the moment. Would pay off
actually settle the case. Would probably end up with new litigants".
150. I cannot recall my specific thoughts on POL's prospects of success following
this meeting specifically, although I note that counsel's view at that stage was
that POL had the better of the argument on many of the 23 issues but should
not expect to win on all of them. My recollection is that we were not asked to
take any decisions as to the strategy and we took the advice of the two very
experienced QCs who had been instructed to assist with POL's defence.
151. The minutes of the meeting also record a discussion about a protocol for
engagement with UKGI. The minutes state that "The Committee noted that
such briefings could involve legally privileged information and that it was
important for such privilege to be maintained’. I am aware that POL
subsequently entered into an Information Sharing Protocol with UKGI (see
below at paragraph [163]).
152. Ihave seen a summary of the issues discussed at the Litigation Subcommittee
meeting on 15 May 2018 (POL00024273). As I have noted above, I cannot
recall the substance of the discussions of the Group Litigation at the meeting.
I have been referred to the minutes of the POL Board meeting on 24 May 2018
(POL00021555) where I understand the summary in this document was made
Page 69 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
available. I expect that these minutes are an accurate record of the discussions
that took place. The minutes record Ms MacLeod as providing an update on
the Litigation Subcommittee meeting that had been held on 15 May 2018 and
that the Board were told that an update would be provided by Mr Cavender QC
and Mr de Garr Robinson QC in September 2018.
153. On 29 May 2018, there was a meeting of the National Federation of Sub-
Postmasters ("NFSP") (NFSP00000040) that I attended along with Ms
Vennells. I have been referred to a note of that meeting. I can see that the
notes record that three concerns were raised during this meeting, one of which
was "will the ongoing technological issues around Horizon downtime and also
branch refresh give Freeths the evidence they need to cast reasonable doubt
over the robustness of the Horizon system?". In response to this issue, the
meeting note states "there is no evidence to link the Freeths case with the
current issue. Of the 6 network interruptions over the last few months, five are
linked to Verizon and capacity issues and one to Fujitsu and therefore Horizon
directly. A letter has been sent by Paula to Verizon, explaining POL's
continuing concerns around capability. The Fujitsu issue was in relation to
specific license being out of date and is now solved." I do not recall the
substance of our discussions and so cannot remark on the extent to which the
NFSP challenged POL's position on the robustness of Horizon during the
meeting.
154. On 11 June 2018, I attended a meeting with Andrew Griffiths (Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State at BEIS). I do not specifically recall what we
Page 70 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
discussed but I have been referred to an email from Sam Griffiths (BEIS) to
various UKGI and BEIS staff (UKGI00008158) which states that during this
‘introductory meeting’, I referred to the Group Litigation and stated that POL's
"lawyers are optimistic about the outcome. It was agreed that a meeting should
be scheduled for September to discuss contingency plans. Some concerns
were raised about how to present this case to the press."
155. On Q July 2018, a draft risk assessment table on contingency planning
(POL00024167) was circulated to me and other members of the Litigation
Subcommittee via email (POL00024166) in advance of the subcommittee
meeting scheduled for 10 July 2018. I have been shown a speaking note
prepared by WBD for this meeting (POL00024177). The meeting minutes
(POL00006763) record the fact that the barristers instructed by POL did not
attend but Ms MacLeod, Mr Parsons and Mr Williams and others did. An
update was provided on the court process and potentially related litigation. The
minutes also note that information continued to be exchanged in relation to the
Group Litigation, that POL was responding to a considerable number of
technical questions and that all technical documents were being reviewed and
the IT experts were working with assistance from Fujitsu.
156. I have been referred to correspondence that indicates I was in the US at this
time and did not intend to dial in to the meeting, but instead requested a report
on the updates arising from this meeting (POL00103339). I do not specifically
recall how I was updated on this particular subcommittee meeting. However, I
would usually consider any documents prepared for such meetings alongside
Page 71 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
the meeting minutes and ask for any further information I considered to be
necessary. As noted at paragraph [150] above, I cannot remember specifically
what I thought about POL's litigation strategy and prospects of success at that
point in time.
157. I do not recall being involved in any specific discussions about POL's approach
to its witness evidence in the litigation. As Chair, I would not have expected to
have been directly involved in the preparation of the witness statements. I
expect this would have been a task for POL's legal team with input from
external counsel. I have reviewed the minutes of the Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 10 July 2018 (POL00006763) and note the reference to
witness statements and the approach to disclosure on page one. The minutes
record the fact that, at that point in time, disclosure discussions were taking
place with the Claimants' lawyers, and over 200,000 documents had been
disclosed by POL for the Common Issues trial. The minutes also note that the
expert witnesses were reviewing technical documents and that Fujitsu were
assisting them. I do not recall the specific discussions of these topics at the
meeting.
158. Ms MacLeod prepared a paper dated 31 July 2018 for the POL Board
(POL00026843) which noted that no decisions were required but that she
would provide verbal updates on:
(a) Status update on the Court process;
(b) Disclosure in the Accounts;
Page 72 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(c) Contingency planning; and
(d) Review of Settlement Options.
In this paper, Ms MacLeod reminded the Board that the legal team had
instructed counsel to prepare a merits opinion following receipt of the
Claimants' witness evidence. She said that "/flollowing receipt of that opinion
[the legal team] will consider whether there are options for settlement of some
or all of the issues as between Post Office and some or all of the Claimants".
The Board was asked to note the update.
159. The Group Litigation was included on the agenda for the Board Meeting on 31
July 2018 for 'Noting and input' (POL00026843). I have seen the minutes of
that meeting, which show that Ms MacLeod provided a verbal update to the
Board about the litigation including that witness statements were being
gathered and were due to be exchanged during early August following which
POL's QCs would be able to update the Merits Opinion, and the two IT experts
continued to review documents relating to the issues to be addressed.
160. On 24 September 2018, there was a meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee.
I do not recall what was discussed at this meeting, but I have reviewed the
minutes of the meeting (POL00006757) and note that they do not record any
specific discussions on disclosure. The minutes show that Ms MacLeod
provided an update on the Horizon Issues trial. Ms MacLeod told the
Subcommittee that "the Judge would have 15 questions to answer on the
Horizon system", that "the outcome from which would be on a spectrum rather
Page 73 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
than a simple determination on whether or not it was a robust system", that
"the Judge was having to take a view on how the Horizon system had operated
in the past and the trial outcomes would be a question of fact and not law". She
added that they "faced the challenge of having to explain the Horizon system
in a plain English way and the Judge would have to choose between the two
experts’ views", and that "the experts would be in constant dialogue in advance
of the Trial and their primary duty was to the Judge". She further remarked that
"our expert's view was that Horizon was a robust system which had some
‘bugs' but which did not have a material impact on the operation of the system".
161. The CEO's report dated 25 September 2018 (POL00103345) stated that a
verbal update on the Group Litigation would be given at the upcoming Board
meeting. It also recorded the fact that at the request of BEIS, there would be a
meeting with the Minister and the Permanent Secretary on 17 October 2018 to
provide an update on the litigation and Ms MacLeod would provide more detail
at the POL Board meeting.
162. On25 September 2018, there was a POL Board meeting at which Ms MacLeod
provided an update to the Board on the Group Litigation. I do not recall what
we discussed but I have been referred to the minutes of the meeting
(POL00021557). The Board do not appear to have been asked to make any
decisions, but to note the update. The Board minutes record that in relation to
the Horizon Issues trial, POL was preparing for trial in parallel to the Common
Issues trial and "two experts (one for each party) had been appointed to
provide their view of the Horizon system and had a series of questions to
Page 74 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
answer from the Judge" and that "In effect the judge's decision would reflect
which expert he believed." It was anticipated that the first hearing for the
Common Issues trial would take place on 5 November 2018 and judgment
would be published in late December 2018 or early January 2019.
POL's Engagement with UKGI in 2018
163. On11 June 2018, POL entered into an information sharing protocol with UKGI
(the "Information Sharing Protocol"), on behalf of the Secretary of State for
BEIS (BEIS0000079). As I explain above, BEIS had a 100% shareholding in
POL and so had a common interest in understanding the matters in issue in
the Group Litigation. The Information Sharing Protocol set out the basis on
which information would be shared with the Secretary of State and UKGI to
promote their common interest and preserve privilege and confidentiality. In
2018, Tom Cooper was appointed to POL's Board of Directors as the
shareholder representative. Mr Cooper, in his capacity as a director, received
all information submitted to POL's Board about SPM complaints relating to
Horizon (comprising both the Group Litigation and the investigations by the
CCRC). The Secretary of State/UKGI was updated in a more general sense in
relation to risks and timetabling matters but was not routinely provided with the
same level of detail as the shareholder representative. Although the
shareholder representative was entitled to share information with UKGI that
was received in relation to SPM complaints, the Information Sharing Protocol
ensured that POL remained responsible for updating UKGI and BEIS on
significant changes to the litigation timetable, new press coverage, or case
Page 75 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
developments. This was presumably intended to avoid there being a single
point of contact — Mr Cooper — for all significant updates and obligated POL to
respond to related queries that UKGI and BEIS may have.
164. On 31 July 2018, there was a meeting of the POL Board. I do not recall the
substance of what we discussed, but I have reviewed the minutes of the
meeting (POL00021556) and the written update prepared for UKGI
(UKGI00008345) following the Board meeting which was sent thereafter on 8
August 2018 in accordance with the UKGI/POL Information Sharing Protocol.
This update for UKGI recorded that the Claimants had challenged the
adequacy of POL's disclosure and that this matter was being addressed in
correspondence. It also noted that disclosure for the Common Issues trial was
completed on 18 May 2018 with POL having disclosed over 200,000
documents, disclosure for the Horizon Issues trial was substantially completed
on 31 July 2018 with POL disclosing over 126,000 documents and that POL
needed to respond to requests for information from the Claimants’ expert. The
Board minutes do not describe the claimants' criticism of the adequacy of
POL's disclosure, and I cannot independently recall what was said about this
or the steps taken to investigate the concerns raised by the claimants.
165. The update for UKGI notes that the POL Board was examining options for
mediators for the purpose of reaching a settlement and considering options for
settlement in light of the updated merits opinion to be provided in September
2018. Any settlement discussions were said to be contingent on the Claimants
providing a financial value of the claims.
Page 76 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
166. On 12 September 2018, I met with Mr Swannell. I do not recall what I said
about the Group Litigation during this meeting, but I have been referred to a
briefing document prepared by Tom Aldred for Mr Swannell in advance of our
meeting (UKGI00008374) that was circulated via email (UKG1I00008373). This
briefing note contains the following comments in relation to the Group
Litigation:
Challenges and Opportunities
e Litigation — a group of former sub-postmasters claim they were wrongly
fined or prosecuted for discrepancies that they say arose from POL's
Horizon IT system and associated processes. The trial begins 5 November
and POL will brief BEIS Perm Sec and minister on 17 October. UKGI have
not yet been satisfied that the business has done enough to identify, assess
and manage the risks
UKGI/ POL Relations
e While we have a strong relationship with both Tim and POL's CEO (Paula
Vennells), there has been some recent tension with specific individuals
pushing back at what they see as undue interference. This has centred
around the litigation case and financial reporting..."
167. I have also been referred to an email from Mr Aldred to Stephen Clarke and
other UKGI staff dated 12 September 2018 (UKGI00008390) in which Mr
Aldred provides a summary of the meeting. The summary states that POL was
Page 77 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
due an update on the merits of the case, and the time for settlement, if
appropriate, would be after the first trial. Mr Cooper was noted as saying that
the 17 October 2018 meeting was not for decision-making or legal detail but
had more of a practical focus and to give confidence to the Minister and
Permanent Secretary. I have been asked whether I was aware of any concerns
as to the relationship between the representatives of POL and UKGI. I can see
that the briefing document (UKGI00008374) describes ‘tensions’, but I do not
recall being aware of these at that time.
Next Steps Following POL's Strike Out Application
168. On 15 October 2018, Mr Justice Fraser handed down Judgment No.2
(POL00023117)° rejecting POL's application to strike out parts of the evidence
contained in the Claimants' witness statements. In this judgment, Mr Justice
Fraser was critical of the conduct of the parties and the "aggressive litigation
tactics" that he considered were being used in the proceedings, which he
described as counterproductive. POL was criticised for adopting an aggressive
and dismissive approach in correspondence terminating work contracts with
the Lead Claimants and the Judge concluded by remarking that "an aggressive
and dismissive approach to such major Group Litigation (or indeed any
litigation) is entirely misplaced’. I have been referred to an email chain between
me and Mr Cooper dated 18 October 2018 (UKGI00008542) in which I
comment on the judgment: ".... Judge is critical of both parties, but already
® Bates v Post Office Ltd (No 2) [2018] EWHC 2698 (QB)
Page 78 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
sense he is not well disposed to us - the word ‘aggressive’ is used a couple of
times in connection with us, in relation to the inadmissible evidence claim, and
the treatment of an SPM. The tone of his comments on the comments at the
end, on the Common Issues trial, and the purported objection on our part for
PR reasons, is definitely not helpful. I've asked for an update on whether this
ruling and its tone, suggests any change of tack." This comment shows that I
was concerned by the criticism of POL's approach to the litigation and wanted
to ensure that Mr Justice Fraser's comments were carefully considered by POL
to determine whether any changes in the approach to the litigation were
necessary. I do not think my comments related to concerns I had about Mr
Justice Fraser himself.
169. I have seen exchanges between POL's executive team and other members of
the POL Board, which demonstrate that they understood the need for Mr
Justice Fraser's criticisms to be considered carefully by POL and for POL's
approach to the Group Litigation to be assessed with these criticisms in mind
I have been shown copies of emails (POL00103355 and UKGI00013491)
which show that there were discussions about refining POL's preparation for
trialin the context of the Judge's criticisms of POL and improving the way POL
positioned itself and the tone it adopted to avoid creating an
aggressive/defensive impression. I have been referred to an email from Ms
Vennells to me on 19 October 2018 noting that she had spoken with Ms
MacLeod about the judgment and Ms MacLeod understood the need for POL
to 'change tack' as a result of the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser. In this
email, Ms Vennells describes the ways in which POL would be more careful
Page 79 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
about the tone, messaging, and choice of wording put forward in the context of
the litigation:
"But the onus is on us to change our tack. We agreed Jane [MacLeod] will put
the following in place asap:
1) speak to the whole team - everyone needs to take a step back and think
more carefully about the ‘how’ not just the ‘what
2) she has already spoken to Rod[ric] [Williams], our litigation lawyer, who saw
the submission but didn’t spot the wording - no doubt he regrets the error
3) future submissions will have a second legal check and the comms team will
then read for ‘tone;’ Jane [MacLeod] will read all of the next ones
4) meet Andy Burrows, the WBD lawyer who wrote the offending statement;
reassure herself that he ‘gets’ the issue
5) meet the QCs and agree how they will redress the tone
! will support Jane, and follow up each action with her next week. Once I've
debriefed on 4), I will call one of the managing partners at WBD, which I know
well. I want a personal reassurance."
170. I note that Mr McCall responded on the same day to express his agreement
with this approach and Mr Cooper responded on the following day to say it
looked like a positive response (UKGI00008549).
Page 80 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
171. On 30 October 2018, there was a POL Board meeting attended by POL's
external legal advisers who provided an update on the Group Litigation. While
I do not recall what was discussed at the meeting, I have been directed to the
minutes of the meeting (POL00021558). The minutes show that Mr Cavender
QC provided a briefing on the judgment, noting that during the trial counsel
would politely but persistently challenge the claimants' cases where there were
inaccuracies or contradictions. Mr Parsons provided an update on the second
trial on the Horizon system.
172. Atthe same meeting, it was noted that "the Claimants’ IT expert had found that
Horizon was not a robust system but this assessment was founded on
identifying a large number of small problems with the system which our expert
was confident could be rebuffed." I do not recall when I first became aware of
the claimants' expert's position. While POL's expert reached a different
conclusion to the claimants’ expert, my understanding was that it was not
unusual for expert witnesses to reach different conclusions, and for the issues
to be independently examined and determined by the judge in the litigation. I
have been asked to comment on what steps, if any, POL took to investigate
the concerns raised by the claimants’ expert outside the litigation. My
understanding was that the investigation of these concerns was happening in
the context of the litigation since POL had already instructed an IT expert who
was examining the robustness of Horizon and it would then be for a judge to
make a final determinationon the issue. After this, POL would review the safety
of past convictions if the judge agreed with the claimants’ IT expert (as did
Page 81 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
eventually happen, as I describe at paragraph [262] below). At this time, the
focus was on the imminent litigation which concerned the reliability of Horizon.
173. On 27 November 2018, there was a POL Board meeting. My recollection is
based only on the minutes which are at (POL00021559). At this meeting, Ms
MacLeod reported on the Group Litigation including the first phase of the
Common Issues trial dealing with the construct of the contract. Ms MacLeod
provided an overview and timeline for the procedural next steps in the case.
The minutes note Ms MacLeod as saying "A significant volume of evidence
had been tabled. Much of this evidence was not relevant to the construct of the
contract but as previously reported we had not been successful in our
application to have inadmissible evidence struck out. Strictly, the only
admissible evidence was that which was known by both parties at the time the
contract came into force." She noted that once the judgment had been received
“urgent consideration would need to be given as to whether there were
grounds for appeal’ and "that an adverse finding would have ramifications for
a much wider group than just claimants’. She also referred to the proposal for
mediation and that the legal team were considering possible appointments.
174. Dr Robert Worden was instructed to prepare an expert report regarding
Horizon which addressed 13 'Horizon issues' determined by the Court, which
focused predominantly on whether Horizon was a robust system and whether
it was the cause of losses in Post Office branches or not. I have been referred
to a ‘Noting Paper on the Expert Report of Dr Robert Worden’ prepared for the
Steering Group Meeting on 28 November 2018 (POL00006471), which notes
Page 82 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
that Dr Worden's conclusion was that "Horizon was reliable and extremely
unlikely to be the cause of the Claimants’ shortfalls’. This paper notes that Dr
Worden calculated that "at the absolute worst there have been 672 bugs in
Horizon over the last 18 years" but that "the volume and effect of these bugs
is so small that they are immaterial’. I cannot recall what my views were when
I learnt of Dr Worden's report. It is likely that I took his expert report at face
value.
175. I understood that Dr Worden's expert evidence would be significantin this case
and this was something that the Litigation Subcommittee discussed at the
meeting on 26 March 2018 (referred to at paragraph [143] above). The minutes
of the meeting record that "the appointment of IT experts by both sides to
support the Horizon trial was noted. The quality of the opinion provided by the
expert would be critical. The Committee noted that Dr Robert Worden had been
appointed by Post Office Limited and a summary of his previous experience
as an expert witness was discussed." I was not directly involved in the
preparation of the expert evidence in the Group Litigation or considering the
strategy on how this would be deployed.
176. On 21 December 2018, Ms MacLeod sent an email to the Board
(POL00103372) with a report (POL00103373) on the status of the Group
Litigation and an update on the hearing of the Common Issues trial, which
concluded on 6 December 2018 and the Horizon Issues trial which was due to
commence on 11 March 2019. My comments are based on both documents.
Ms MacLeod noted that POL was developing an appeal strategy with the
Page 83 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
external legal advisers should that be required. POL's General Counsel
proposed that the Chair, Chief Executive, and CFOO be authorised to make
the decision as to whether POL should appeal the judgment when it is handed
down, and if necessary to instruct POL's external legal advisers to seek
permission to appeal (POL00103376). There followed an email discussion
between myself and Mr Cooper (POL00103375 and POL00103378) in which
I agreed with Mr Cooper that the decision to appeal would be too big a decision
not to expressly involve UKGI. Mr Cooper replied to my email to say that he
considered there would be time for the Board to decide whether to appeal, in
consultation with BEIS. I do not recall if there were any further conversations
between Mr Cooper and I about whether the authority to decide whether to
appeal the Common Issues judgment ought to be delegated to me, the Chief
Executive and CFOO. As far as I can recall, during this time I was working
closely with Mr Cooper who would have been briefing BEIS on the progress of
the litigation, including this particular decision. I have summarised the
relationship between POL and BEIS at paragraph [24] above.
177. I have been shown a copy of an email dated 22 January 2019 from Ms
MacLeod to me, Mr McCall, Mr Cooper and copied to Ms Vennells, Mr
Cameron, and Veronica Branton (POL00103379). This email sets out a
proposed agenda for the Litigation Subcommittee meeting on 28 January
2019, while noting the uncertainty as to the matters that would need to be
addressed in light of the judgment not having been handed down. The meeting
of the Litigation Subcommittee took place on 28 January 2019 as planned, and
a summary update was given to the POL Board the next day. The minutes of
Page 84 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
this meeting (POL00006756) record that Ms MacLeod updated the
subcommittee on progress. She explained that the Horizon Issues trial would
start on 11 March 2019 and in advance of this, POL was considering whether
Fujitsu could submit counter evidence in response to the claimants' expert
witness statement, and that a further briefing had been requested from the
QCs on their view of the evidence. The minutes record MacLeod saying:
"The claimant's position was that the Horizon system had bugs, that there
could have been more bugs and these bugs could have caused the
errors/losses in the claimants’ branches. Our expert witness was saying that
there were bugs in the Horizon system, as would always be the case in IT
systems, but given the volume of the transactions through the system it did not
seem probable that these could have caused the errors/losses in these
branches."
178. I do not recall reviewing the evidence submitted by the Claimants or receiving
a briefing on this. Insofar as POL's prosecutorial duties (see paragraph [260]
below) required immediate disclosure of new material/new issues, I would
have expected the legal advisers to have been leading on this.
179. The Litigation Subcommittee minutes (POL00006756) include an update on
mediation. They record the fact that both POL and the Claimants recognised
the need to wait for the judgments from the Common Issues and Horizon
Issues trials before mediation could begin, that POL had proposed two
mediators that had been rejected by the Claimants because they were not
Page 85 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
QCs, and that an agreement must be reached with the Claimants on what
could be mediated.
180. On 21 February 2019, there was a further meeting of the Litigation
Subcommittee (POL00006753). The minutes record the fact that Mr de Garr
Robinson QC provided the following briefing on the Horizon Trial:
"The key issue was the robustness of the Horizon system and our view was
that it was critically robust. The claimants’ expert had identified system errors
but his report lacked balance. There would be a number of additional lines of
attack but we would keep bringing attention back to the key issues. The
claimants would seek to criticise PO Limited for not providing sufficient
documents and for Fujitsu's ability to change branch data.
We were not seeking to prove that the system could not be improved or did not
have any bugs but would emphasise that it recorded data accurately in most
cases. No-one had found a fundamental flaw in the System; it had been well
designed and managed by the same provider throughout. When there had been
system issues the systems and processes to address these had worked well in
practice. Several of the bugs identified by the claimants’ experts were not in fact
system bugs and several would not have affected branch accounts. Several
bugs had been triggered by an unusual combination of events. For the vast
majority of the time, Horizon was a very reliable system."
181. Mr de Garr Robinson QC also set out the key risks in the case. He was noted
as saying that he "remained reasonably optimistic but somewhat less so than
Page 86 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
before Christmas’. He was asked whether an accusation was being made that
POL had been involved in instructing Fujitsu to change transactions. Mr de
Garr Robinson QC responded that "/t was noted that only Fujitsu could change
data and there was no suggestion that PO had operated a policy to get Fujitsu
to manipulate the branch data. The claim was that we had lied about Fujitsu's
ability to change branch data. It was noted that it was hard to capture the
number of instances in which data had been changed, especially in the legacy
Horizon System because of the way that data was captured. We could not
distinguish easily between maintenance access and making changes to
branch data. However, Fujitsu had been clear that branch data had only been
changed on very rare occasions’.
182. Mr de Garr Robinson QC was also asked where the line was drawn between
a bug and a systemic error. His response is noted as "there was no legal test
that one applied for this purpose. The practical question was how likely it was
that a set of Horizon accounts had been distorted by a bug in any given
instance. It was reported that appeals were rare in expert witness trials
because the findings were factual rather than arguing points of law’.
183. I donot recall what my views were on the various issues raised at this meeting,
but I would have noted and considered the advice.
184. On 4 February 2019, I received a letter from Alex Chisholm (Permanent
Secretary, BEIS) in which he set out the Government's expectations for POL
in FY 19/20 and asked that the Government be kept fully appraised of
developments ahead of significant decisions being taken in the ongoing
Page 87 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
litigation. I met Mr Chisholm on 5 March 2019. I have been referred to an email
from Mr Cameron to me on 1 March 2019 (POL00154691) in which he provides
me with a briefing for the meeting (POL00154692). The briefing note
addresses a number of issues, one of which is the litigation. In respect of the
litigation, the briefing note records:
"We understand BEIS' legitimate interests in this matter, and we will consult
and engage appropriately, including on any resulting decisions. The Horizon
trial begins on 11 March, and we will continue to ensure we keep BEIS fully
appraised of developments. We now understand that the embargoed verdict
on the first trial will be given to us sometime in the week of your meeting (w/c
4th) and may be made public on the first day of the Horizon trial"
Response to the Common Issues Judgment
185. On 8 March 2019, the Common Issues judgment was handed down. On the
same day, Ms MacLeod sent an email to me, Mr McCall, Carla Stent, Mr
Cooper, Shirine Knoury-Hagq and Tim Franklin (and copied to Ms Vennells, Mr
Cameron and Ms Branton) with a high-level summary of the judgment from her
initial review that morning. In the email Ms MacLeod explained that POL had
lost on all material points and had been criticised comprehensively as to
historic operations and behaviours and its conduct of the case
(POL00103409). I responded to this email shortly after it was received to
express my disappointment and noted that we needed to look at the matters
in detail (POL00103411). Later that evening I asked Ms MacLeod to provide
me with a copy of the judgment and she sent this to me (POL00103415). Upon
Page 88 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
reading the judgment, I was concerned that POL had lost on so many points
and I was anxious to understand the implications for the case and what it would
mean for SPMs, other stakeholders, and the business more generally.
186. On 12 March 2019, there was a POL Board call convened to discuss the
Common Issues judgment. I have been referred to a paper prepared by POL's
legal team summarising the position following the handing down of the
judgment (POL00111876), which was circulated via email by Ms MacLeod in
advance of the call (POL00103416) and (POL00111876). This paper
summarised the key findings and proposed immediate next steps. General
Counsel advised that they were considering whether there were grounds to
appeal the judgment and would be seeking input from external counsel,
including in respect of whether the conduct of Mr Justice Fraser was "so
serious that a reasonable independent observer would think he is biased and
therefore he should recuse himself from hearing further trials on the matter."
As far as I was aware, this was the first time that the partiality of Mr Justice
Fraser had been called into question. I had not questioned whether Mr Justice
Fraser was biased against POL prior to this. I do not recall whether there were
any other Board meetings or discussions with others at POL regarding the
Common Issues judgment between 8 and 15 March 2019.
187. On 15 March 2019, Ms MacLeod sent an email to me and other Board
members (POL00103438) explaining that she had sought advice from Lord
David Neuberger on whether POL had grounds to request the judge recuse
himself on the grounds of bias. She summarised his preliminary advice, noted
Page 89 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
the risks of making the application and set out the timeline for next steps,
indicating that this would be a Board decision and it was important to give the
Board time to consider the options. She also provided a copy of Lord
Neuberger's preliminary observations dated 14 March 2019 (POL00023899).
188. I was not involved in instructing Lord Neuberger to advise POL. Instructing
counsel would have been a matter for POL's legal team. I cannot therefore
comment on whether and if so, how, Lord Neuberger's opinion was affected by
the extent of the documentation he had been provided or his reliance on a
briefing by Mr Cavender QC.
189. In his written advice, Lord Neuberger explained that the advice was based on:
the draft judgment, a 'Note on background to possible recusal application’ and
a discussion with Mr Cavender QC. Lord Neuberger's opinion included the
following:
e ="....am left with the uneasy feeling that the real justification in the Judge's
mind for the implication for at least many of the terms which the Judge
implied was the raft of adverse factual findings that he has made. If this can
be shown, that is impermissible, as the question of the implication of terms
must be considered as at the date of contracting."
e "Reading the judgment, one is struck by the fact that the issues which the
Judge had to decide...all involve questions of interpretation or implied
terms. Yet many of the paragraphs in the Judgment are given over to
descriptions of evidence, and findings of fact, in relation to what happened
after the contracts had been entered into, often in trenchant, even highly
Page 90 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
critical, terms. And importantly, as I understand it, those descriptions and
findings relate to witnesses who will be called at later trials and evidence
which will have to be considered at later trials."
e '! would be very surprised if the Court of Appeal refused permission to
appeal on at least some of the interpretation issues, and I would be
surprised if they refused permission to appeal on the unfairness and
recusal issues."
190. Lord Neuberger's written advice set out in some detail the considerations
around any recusal application, but ultimately concluded as follows:
"In my view the Judge's attempts to distance himself from, or to water down,
his illegitimate findings, in some ways render them worse rather than better.
What was he doing making findings (sometimes in trenchant, even damning
terms about the PO's witnesses, and exculpatory or better about several of the
Claimants), if he knew that the findings were, at best, unnecessary, indeed
inappropriate ?...1do not think the notional "fair-minded and informed observer,
having considered the facts, would conclude that there was [no] real possibility"
of the Judge having made findings unfairly about a witness and/or his/her
evidence , which renders it unfair for the Judge to proceed further with these
proceedings."
191. Lord Neuberger's opinion was therefore that there were reasonable grounds
for POL to bring an application to recuse the Judge.
Page 91 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
192. The Board also received a note from WBD on the potential recusal application
(POL00103454). As well as summarising Lord Neuberger's advice, WBD's
note sets out the views of Mr Cavender QC as being that "it is difficult to see
how the litigation can be proceeded to a sensible (and fair) conclusion before
this Judge. He has behaved in a manner which can only be described as
biased against Post Office." Examples that were said to justify that view are
set out in an annex to the note. The note also explains that POL had briefed
Lord Anthony Grabiner QC (now KC) to act in any appeal or recusal
application. Lord Neuberger could not do so as an ex-Judge.
193. The WBD note further explains that the recusal application and any appeal
went hand in hand: "The C/T Judgement was meant to be about contractual
interpretation. In law, what occurs after a contract is formed cannot be relevant
to an enquiry as to what the contract means. Yet Mr Justice Fraser makes wide
findings of fact on post-contractual matters and this seems a fundamental flaw
in judgement. If Post Office is to forcefully assert procedural unfairness, it
would be inconsistent to not apply for recusal too as the prejudicial findings of
fact and adverse comments of the Judge are evidence (Post Office says) of
both bias and procedural unfairness. To make one application without the other
being made is inconsistent and weakens each position."
194. The note from WBD highlighted that there were both reputational, legal and
costs risks in making the application, including:
(a) If the application is unsuccessful (both directly to the Judge and in the
Court of Appeal) then "Mr Justice Fraser becomes emboldened and
Page 92 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
openly hostile to Post Office" risking further adverse findings. However,
they note that making the recusal application may make him more
cautious and receptive to POL's arguments.
(b) If the recusal application is unsuccessful, any consequential costs
incurred by the claimants would need to be paid by POL. "This could
be significant if the Horizon Issues trial is delayed", they estimated up
to £2 million. They noted the potential for a retrial (although they felt
that unlikely), which if POL lost, would lead to double trial costs being
awarded against POL.
(c) The note also referred to the fact that it is likely to "attract significant
media attention and is likely to be portrayed as reinforcing the Judge's
comments that Post Office is ‘arrogant'." They then note that there is
"no guarantee that staying quiet now will protect Post Office's brand
from repeat attacks in later judgments."
195. On16 March 2019, I attended a call with Kelly Tolhurst MP, Mr Cooper, Gavin
Lambert (BEIS), Mr Cameron and Ms MacLeod to discuss the Group Litigation,
including the Common Issues judgment. I do not recall the detail of the
conversations that took place during this call, but I have been referred to two
separate emails summarising the call (POL00103446 and UKGI00017593),
which I expect are accurate summaries of our discussion (albeit the notes have
differing levels of detail). The email from Ms MacLeod summarising the call
(POL00103446) records my initial reaction that the Board was unlikely to want
to go ahead with the recusal application, but that the Board must act in the best
Page 93 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
interests of the company and so this option would need to be considered
seriously. The reason why I considered it unlikely that the Board would wish to
pursue a recusal application is because we had received legal advice that there
were risks attached to such an application; not least that it could have an
impact on the timing of the subsequent trials, as well as the other risks
summarised by Ms MacLeod in her note to me on 15 March 2019
(POL00103438).
196. I have also reviewed an email from Hibaq Said, Assistant Private Secretary to
Ms Tolhurst MP (UKGI00017593), which is a separate summary of the call that
took place on 16 March 2019. The note records that I expressed surprise at
the outcome of the judgment but that "POL's intention is to be fair and not
defensive and aim to bring a good case to reach a fair settlement’. I mentioned
that POL would look at its procedures and the opportunities to improve. I also
mentioned that POL was receiving advice about whether POL should appeal
the judgment. The note records that there was a general discussion about
whether POL would issue a recusal application on the basis of apparent bias
from the judge. There were a number of other discussion points. Ms Tolhurst
MP stressed the importance of POL sharing information with BEIS and asked
to be updated throughout the process, including as to the POL Board's
strategy, and proposed next steps for dealing with the Common Issues
judgment.
197. On 18 March 2019, I asked Ms MacLeod to provide me with the following
documents:
Page 94 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(a) Common Issues Merits Opinion dated 10 May 2018 (POL00103462).
(b) Summary of Counsels' Opinion on the Common Issues prepared by
WBD dated 12 May 2018 (POL00103466).
(c) Updated Common Issues Merits Opinion dated 28 September 2018
(POL00103465).
(d) Draft Contingency Planning: Risk Assessment Table prepared by WBD
(POL00103463).
(e) Risk Assessment Table updated following the Common Issues Trial
dated 3 January 2019 (POL00103464).
Ms MacLeod emailed those documents to me that day (POL00103461).
Although I do not recall exactly why I asked for those documents, I expect it
was because I wanted to refresh my understanding of the legal advice provided
to POL previously, in preparation for the Board taking an important decision on
whether to proceed with the recusal application.
198. On 18 March 2019, there was a POL Board meeting to discuss the potential
appeal and recusal application. I understand that Ms MacLeod prepared a
report (POL00006700) in advance of this Board meeting, which set out the
following questions and answers for the Board's consideration:
(a) Should we appeal the Common Issues Judgment? — She considered
that we should.
Page 95 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(b) Why would we consider an application for the Judge to recuse himself?
— The Counsel team recommended this.
(c) What are the risks & benefits of such a proposal? — Whilst not without
significant legal and reputational risk, her view was that on balance the
risks of not making an application outweigh doing so.
(d) Should we consider changing our legal advisers? — She recommended
that Lord Grabiner QC should undertake the recusal application, Mr
Cavender QC supported by advice and strategy from Lord Neuberger
QC should undertake the appeal and that POL should retain Mr
Cavender QC and Mr de Garr Robinson QC in relation to the third and
fourth trials. She also recommended retaining WBD.
199. Ms MacLeod also summarised POL's position in respect of the litigation. She
said:
"Post Office position is now, and has always been:
e There is no evidence that suggests that there are systemic problems
with Horizon nor have we seen any evidence to suggest a technical fault
in Horizon resulted in a postmaster wrongly being held responsible for a
loss;
e We accept that in individual cases, Post Office may not have met its own
standards as to the training it provided, the service or information
provided through the helpline, or how it otherwise engaged with
individual postmasters."
Page 96 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
200. Finally, in relation to whether WBD remained the correct firm to advise POL,
Ms MacLeod's advice was that "The litigation strategy is firmly led by the
external counsel team. WBD do the ‘leg work' to support this. I am aware that
board members have queried whether WBD remain the right firm given that
they have been involved in these issues since the beginning. Nevertheless,
this gives them a very deep understanding of the history, the individual cases
and the political sensitivity. I have queried privately with the Counsel team
whether they're properly supported by WBD, and have had confirmation of this.
No matter what firm we instruct, there will be some degree of criticism, however
WBD are a good match for Freeths, and bringing in a ‘Magic Circle' firm would
only reinforce the ‘David v Goliath’ impression. While it would be possible to
bring in a new firm of solicitors I would be reluctant to do this now given the
tight timeframes and the potential impact on the agreed trial strategy and the
ability to properly support the Counsel team."
201. I declared a conflict of interest in advance of this meeting because at this time,
I was Chair of HM Courts and Tribunal Service, and in this role, I would
regularly meet with senior judges. I was therefore concerned there could be a
perception that my regular meetings with judges could risk affecting my
judgementon whether we should seek to request that Mr Justice Fraser recuse
himself on grounds of bias. My duty as a directorwas to act in the best interests
of POL, so I felt that in an abundance of caution, I ought to declare a conflict
of interest. Mr Cooper also declared a conflict of interest due to his position at
UKGI. It was determined that we should both be involved in the discussions
but that we would not vote on whether to seek the Judge's recusal.
Page 97 of 158
202.
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
I have been referred to the agenda for the meeting (POL00103468), and the
minutes of the meeting (POL00021562), which I expect to be an accurate
record of what we discussed. The minutes record Lord Neuberger attending
the meeting to provide legal advice and respond to questions from the Board.
It appears that a number of comments/issues were raised including:
a. "we might disagree with how the Judge has reached his conclusions but
needed to test whether the heart of his findings were correct, for example,
we funded the NFSP which could have affected their independence. It was
noted, however, that whatever the merits or otherwise of particularfindings,
where these had been based on partial evidence they could not be
regarded as fair."
b. "appeal on the contractual findings had merit from a legal perspective but
we must be clear that we were not being defensive. We were committed to
making operational changes and improvements."
c. "we needed a process for checking whether anybody had been treated
unfairly even if our case was ultimately successful. We also needed to be
sure that we were Set up to be fair in the future."
d. "the Board still needed a greater understanding of the "big picture" and
financial implications. The Board wanted to be confident that irrespective of
legal process, there was an understanding of whether claimants (and
others) had not been treated appropriately over the period of time in
consideration."
Page 98 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
203. By the end of this meeting, I believe I recognised that there were risks
associated with pursuing the application, but on balance, it may be more
advantageous than not to pursue the application. I cannot recall the views of
each of the other Board members and I do not recall who asked specific
questions of Lord Neuberger at this meeting. It was acknowledged that these
were not easy decisions to take, and the Board would need to have the
opportunity to speak to Lord Grabiner to ensure that it had received a range of
expert advice. It was noted that a decision on the recusal application would
ideally be taken at the Board call scheduled for 20 March 2019.
204. I have been referred to an email from Ms MacLeod to me and other Board
members on 19 March 2019 attaching a paper prepared by the legal team,
setting out the financial and operational issues raised by the Common Issues
judgment (dated 15 March 2019) (POL00103472 and POL00103473). I do not
specifically recall why the Board requested this prior to discussing whether to
issue the recusal application, but I note the comments referred to at paragraph
[189] to [194] above: that this was not an easy decision and one element of
making the decision was understanding the costs of making an appeal and
recusal application. I expect the Board also wanted to get a better
understanding of the wider litigation strategy (i.e. the context) in advance of
making this important decision of whether or not to pursue the recusal
application.
205. On 20 March 2019, there was a further POL Board meeting to discuss the
potential appeal and recusal application. I do not recall the specific discussions
Page 99 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
at this meeting and I am therefore unable to comment on the way in which Ms
MacLeod presented external legal advice, or the views expressed on next
steps by each person present. I have, however, been referred to the minutes
of the POL Board meeting on 20 March 2019 (POL00021563) and consider
these to be an accurate record of our discussion.
206. The minutes record the fact that Mr Cooper and I raised the same conflicts of
interest described at paragraph [201]. We were involved in the Board
discussions, but we did not participate in the decision to seek the Judge's
recusal. The minutes note that Ms Vennells was unable to participate in the
call.
207. The minutes also note the fact that Ms MacLeod and a number of members of
POL's legal team participated in a conference with Lord Grabiner QC earlier
that day. I have been referred to a note of that conference (POL00006397 ). As
I was not present, I cannot comment on the manner in which Lord Grabiner
QC provided his advice and the questions that were asked. However, the
minutes of the POL Board meeting held on 20 March 2019 record that Lord
Grabiner QC's view was that "we would only need to argue apparent bias,
although [he] believed that grounds existed to argue actual bias. In his view
there was no practical alternative to an application for recusal, and the risk of
not making the application was that the Court of Appeal (CoA) would ask why
we had not sought for the Judge to recuse himself".
208. Two partners from Norton Rose Fulbright attended the Board meeting on 20
March 2019, having been engaged by POL to provide independent advice to
Page 100 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
the Board. While they noted the advantages and the disadvantages of seeking
the judge's recusal, the partners supported the recusal application.
209. AsI explain above, Mr Cooper and I did not participate in the decision, but the
remaining Board members supported a resolution that "an application should
be sought for the Judge to recuse himself from the case, and should he not
elect to do so, to submit this application to the Court of Appeal. It was further
agreed that leave to appeal the Common Issues Judgement should be sought".
210. At the end of this meeting, I felt that that the recusal application had a
reasonable prospect of success considering the advice we had received from
Lord Grabiner QC and Lord Neuberger. The Board resolved that Lord Grabiner
QC should be briefed to prepare the recusal application.
211. During the meeting, there was discussion about the extent to which a judgment
from the second trial might undermine the reliability of Horizon and whether
this could destabilise the business today. I have been asked to comment on
whether POL's perceived need for a positive finding in respect of Horizon
outweighed a desire to determine whether Horizon was adequate. I do not think
this was the case. It is worth emphasising that at that point in time, the claimant
and defendant expert witnesses disagreed about the reliability of Horizon, and
it was for the judge to consider the evidence, test the arguments in court, and
make a determination.
212. On 25 March 2019, there was a POL Board meeting. I have been referred to
the agenda of the meeting (POL00103479) and the minutes of that meeting
Page 101 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(UKGI00017291), which refer to a discussion on the Group Litigation at
Appendix 1.
213. In the Appendix to the minutes of the POL Board meeting held on 25 March
2019 (POL00030887), Ms MacLeod noted that the Horizon Issues trial had
been adjourned pending the recusal application hearing. There was discussion
as to who should represent POL at the appeal and it was decided to defer that
decision until after the recusal application. The external lawyers from Norton
Rose Fulbright attended this meeting.
214. The minutes record that "Concern remained about the extrapolation of six
cases to the whole of PO Limited and how unrepresentative these were of the
system as a whole. We had focused on the implied [sic] that there was no
evidence to prove that errors within the Horizon system historically could have
caused losses in branches? It was noted the System was distinct from the
software and we thought it highly likely that the current Judge would give a
negative view on our processes." It was also noted that tone was important
and that in some instances some of POL's witnesses had "been wrong-footed
and as a result had sounded defensive".
215. On 2 April 2019, I attended a meeting with Mr Cameron and Mr Cooper. I do
not recall this meeting, but I have been referred to an email exchange between
me and Mr Cameron on 28 March 2019 (UKGI00009416) in which Mr Cameron
suggests the agenda for this meeting should include the following topics: (i)
prioritised outcomes; (ii) strategy (tone; ground we are fighting on; criticism of
claimants); (iii) advisers (recusal; appeal; trials 3 and 4 — QCs; solicitors;
Page 102 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
independent advice); (iv) people (running the GLO; mediation); (v) other
litigation.
216. On3 April 2019, there was a hearing in relation to POL's application to recuse
Mr Justice Fraser as the judge in the Group Litigation. General Counsel kept
me updated on the recusal application at the Board meetings held on 18, 20
and 25 March 2019 and via email (POL00103484).
217. On3 April 2019, I attended a meeting with Ms Tolhurst MP. I do not recall this
meeting, but I have been referred to an email from Tom Aldred (Executive
Director at UKGI) to other UKGI staff sent on 5 April 2019 which summarises
the discussion that took place during this meeting (UKGI00009551). The
summary records that I suggested at this meeting that if the recusal application
went to an appeal, there could be a delay of several months. The note also
states that Ms Tolhurst MP did not consider that she was seeing enough
information flow about the trial. It appears that Mr Aldred and Ms Tolhurst MP
discussed this after our meeting and identified that the "block" was between
Ms Tolhurst MP and her private office, rather than between POL and Ms
Tolhurst MP's office. I was not present for this discussion.
Response to the Common Issues Judgment
218. On 9 April 2019, Mr Justice Fraser handed down his judgment in which he
refused POL's application for him to recuse himself. Ms MacLeod informed me
and other Board members of this on that day by email (POL00103489) and
updated me with counsel's opinion on the appeal following the judgment on 10
Page 103 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
April 2019 (POL00103494). I was disappointed by this outcome. However, I
had understood that it would be challenging to satisfy the conditions necessary
for a judge to recuse himself and was aware that there was a possibility the
application would not be successful, and POL had discussed and considered
the potential consequences that might flow from that. As I explain above, POL
received advice advocating the merits of the recusal application: Lord
Neuberger had advised that he would be ‘very surprised’ if POL was refused
permission to appeal on grounds of unfairness and recusal issues
(POL00023899), WBD and Mr Cavender QC had advocated for the recusal
application and POL had sought independent advice from partners at Norton
Rose Fulbright who also supported the recusal applications (paragraph [208]).
POL ultimately instructed Lord Grabiner QC to prepare the recusal application
who advised that although the application would be tricky and contested, it had
a "serious prospect of success" (POL00006397). By this point, with POL
having been heavily criticised in the Common Issues trial and now having lost
the recusal application, I was concerned about whether POL was receiving the
correct legal advice. I recall that this was a feeling shared by others at POL at
this time and it is noted in Mr Cameron's email of 12 April 2019
(POL00103495). We were beginning to reassess Mr Cavender QC as POL's
lead advocate, and in April 2019, POL instructed Herbert Smith Freehills
("HSF") to provide a view on the appeal strategy.
219. In April 2019, POL instructed Brian Altman QC to review the Common Issues
judgment, including the appendices, handed down by Mr Justice Fraser on 15
March 2019 in order to advise on to what extent the judgment could undermine
Page 104 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
the basis of the historic criminal convictions of SPMs by POL. On 14 April 2019,
Mr Altman QC provided his written advice (POL00006399). I was not involved
in instructing Mr Altman QC to provide the advice. I expect this would have
been the responsibility of General Counsel.
220. Around this time, POL instructed HSF to assist with the appeal strategy. In my
view, the involvement of HSF had the effect of raising further doubts about
several aspects of the litigation strategy, which were becoming of increasing
significance. HSF had prepared a short supplemental paper in advance of the
Litigation Subcommittee held on 24 April 2019 (see below) in which HSF set
out where they agreed or disagreed with the advice of the existing POL Legal
team, focusing on the specific points of difference and decisions that needed
to be made imminently (POL00103502). In this paper, HSF stated that they
disagreed with the view that POL should submit its application for leave to
appeal the Common Issues judgment now so that the Court of Appeal hears
this application at the same time as the recusal application. HSF disagreed
with the view that it was advantageous to have both appeals heard at the same
time by the same panel of Court of Appeal judges. I thought at the time that it
was useful to get a fresh perspective on the issues.
221. On 24 April 2019, there was a meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee,
attended by Lord Neuberger, Mr Cavender QC, and lawyers from HSF and
WBD. I do not recall what we discussed at this meeting, or the questions Board
members asked of legal advisers, but I have been referred to the papers
circulated in advance of the discussion (POL00103498), WBD's appeal advice
Page 105 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(POL00103499), a common issues list (POL00103500) and the minutes of the
meeting (POL00006755). At this meeting, the Litigation Subcommittee was
asked to consider whether an appeal should be made against the decision in
the Common Issues judgment and, if so, to consider the scope of the appeal
and whether POL should seek to have the appeals of the Common Issues
judgment and Recusal judgment heard together. Lord Neuberger was asked
for his views, which are recorded in the minutes: "Lord Neuberger thought we
were likely to obtain permission to appeal the recusal on grounds of apparent
bias as the threshold for appeal was not very high. It would be very unusual
not to give leave to appeal on the Common Issues judgment." On balance, he
thought it better for both appeals to be submitted together. The papers
proposed a strategy of appealing and creating a window of time in which
settlement negotiations could take place over the summer of 2019. It noted
that mediation and settlement discussions had previously been restricted, in
part due to resourcing issues and an overlap with the trial.
222. The Board considered that "we had little control on when and how the appeal
cases would be heard. Further work was needed to determine the grounds for
appeal sufficiently well. In addition, Ministers needed to be briefed properly on
the issues. Seeking a settlement could be time consuming so a long appeal
could be advantageous. It might, therefore, be better to have the hearings
separated and we should not co-join the appeals if that gave us no scope to
separate the hearings’.
Page 106 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
223. Atthe end of this meeting, after discussion with the external legal advisers, the
Litigation Subcommittee agreed that (i) the appeals for recusal and on the
Common Issues judgment should not be co-joined; (ii) POL should write to
Lord Justice Coulson to advise that POL would be submitting the grounds to
seek leave to appeal the Common Issues judgment on 16 March 2019; (iii) a
meeting would be arranged in the week beginning 29 April to consider the
grounds for appeal.
224. On30 April 2019, there was a POL Board meeting. I have been referred to the
minutes of that meeting (POL00021565) and I can see that the Board was
informed that POL had applied to the Court of Appeal to seek permission to
appeal the decision in relation to the Judge's recusal. It was noted that Mr
Cavender QC's view was that POL should co-join the two appeals but on
balance the Litigation Subcommittee had decided not to do so and to first seek
leave to appeal the Common Issues judgment. Although considerable attention
was given to the Common Issues and recusal appeals, I do not believe this
prevented the ongoing management of the forthcoming Horizon Issues trial.
225. On 10 May 2019, Lord Justice Coulson handed down his decision refusing
permission to appeal against the decision concerning Mr Justice Fraser's
recusal application (POL00023207). I was disappointed to read the judgment
of Lord Justice Coulson. While I recognised, and indeed POL had received
advice on the possibility of the application not succeeding, it had submitted this
application on the basis of firm advice from external counsel that this was an
appropriate next step. By this point, I was beginning to lose confidence in
Page 107 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
counsel's advice and their suggested strategy in respect of the recusal
application.
226. I have been referred to an email from Alan Watts (HSF) to me and others on
11 May 2019 sent upon receiving the judgment of Lord Justice Coulson in
which he stated that he thought POL should change counsel for the upcoming
Appeal on the Common Issues judgment (POL00103536). This was a view I
shared, along with Mr Cameron, Mr McCall, and Mr Cooper (POL00103541).
I do not specifically recall the conversations I had with other members of the
Board regarding Horizon issues around this time. However, I note Mr
Cameron's comment in his email to me and others on 13 May 2019 that “Our
immediate focus, which we will discuss at May board, will be how we best
prepare for a very bad Horizon verdict, which is inevitable, both because the
[recusal] failed and because our witnesses did badly in court before the pause".
(POL00103541). Mr Cameron appears to have been referring to the increasing
pessimism around the outcome of the Horizon trial and perhaps reflecting
doubts more generally about the conduct of the litigation thus far.
227. On 15 May 2019, I attended a meeting with Ms Tolhurst MP, Mr Cameron, and
other individuals from BEIS. I have been referred to an email from Eleanor Beal
(BEIS) to Carl Creswell (BEIS) dated 16 May 2019, which includes what I
consider to be an accurate summary of the meeting (UKGI00009777). This
email records the fact that Ms Tolhurst MP queried why counsel 'seem to keep
getting it wrong’ and that in response, we explained POL's planned changes in
its approach to the litigation, which were: "removing internal legal Director,
Page 108 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
appointing new litigators and likely a new QC, taking a ‘more conciliatory
approach’ and focussing on realistic wins." POL decided to make these
changes because it was felt that a change in approach and personnel was
required following an adverse judgment in the Common Issues trial, an
unsuccessful recusal application, and then a refusal of permission to appeal
that judgment in relation to the recusal application. At that time, Ms MacLeod
was replaced by Ben Foat as POL's Group General Counsel.
228. On 28 May 2019, there was a meeting of the POL Board at which the Group
Litigation was discussed. These discussions are recorded in the minutes of the
meeting (POL00021566)
229. Ms Vennells stepped down as Group Chief Executive and at the Board meeting
on 28 May 2019 and Mr Cameron was appointed Interim Group Chief
Executive. At the same meeting, Mr Watts of HSF and Mr Foat provided the
Board with an update on the litigation. It was noted that POL had instructed
Helen Davies QC (now KC) to representit in the appeal of the Common Issues
judgment.
230. The minutes note that "Lord Justice Coulson had deemed Lord Justice Fraser
to have been fair minded in his Judgment of the Common Issues Trial so the
terms of the decision refusing permission to seek the Judge's recusal were not
a surprise. However, the Judge would be able to see our new approach to the
case with our new QC." It was reported that Ms Davies QC's first view of the
case was "that we had good grounds for success on relational and good faith
points and on the terms which the Judge has found to be implied by a duty of
Page 109 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
good faith...HD was not minded to appeal on all points as some grounds were
weaker than others which could tarnish our stronger points".
231. The minutes record the fact that a query was raised as to whether POL could
do anything to influence the outcome of the Horizon Issues trial. It was noted
that "Fujitsu's witnesses had not been strong, while POL's had been
Satisfactory. Only the expert witnesses had yet to provide evidence and it was
important that they did not renege on their previous position that Horizon was
a robust system. It was critical that Horizon was seen as a robust system today.
It was likely that the expert witnesses would say that the system had bugs.
This was not in dispute but the issue was the degree to which it was a robust
system that could be relied upon and that there was nothing in the Judgment
that suggested the system was unfit for purpose today ... a workshop on the
Horizon system was taking place. It was noted that there had been a useful all
about one of the cases and it was helpful to get under the skin of the facts and
test what had happened and whether we had any culpability."
232. I have been asked to comment on the following extract from these minutes: "it
was critical that Horizon was seen as a robust system today.” I do not
specifically recall who made these comments and the intended meaning.
However, they appear to reflect the fact that the Group Litigation was
concerned with earlier historic versions of Horizon and not the current version
of Horizon, which was recognised as being fit for purpose. The POL Board
would have been appraised of issues that the experts were considering in
relation to the upcoming trial.
Page 110 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
233. On 29 May 2019, I received a letter from Ms Tolhurst MP (appointed as
Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility in July
2018). In this letter Ms Tolhurst MP noted the Judge's decision to refuse
permission for POL to appeal the Common Issues judgment and the decision
to issue a costs order. She explained that she was aware that POL had
appointed a new legal team to assist in the Group Litigation and asked if I
would provide an update on POL's legal strategy in light of advice received
from the new external legal advisers. She wanted to understand the risks
presented by the litigation and to mitigate them to whatever extent was
possible. She also asked me to provide my assessment of how effectively the
POL Board was operating at that time (POL00023739). My impression was
that Ms Tolhurst MP was keen to get to grips with the issues arising from the
litigation, having been appointed after the commencement of the proceedings.
It seemed to me that BEIS was actively considering increasing the level of its
oversight of POL's handling of Horizon issues.
234. On 3 June 2019, I responded to this letter to provide Ms Tolhurst MP with an
update on the status of the litigation, including a summary of the changes to
POL's litigation strategy following the appointment of the new legal advisers
(POL00023738).
235. On 12 June 2019, there was a meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee. I have
been referred to the minutes of that meeting (POL00103595), which show that
Mr Foat provided an update on the Horizon Issues trial, which had resumed on
4 June 2019, and external counsel provided an update on the appeal of the
Page 111 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Common Issues judgment. Mr Cameron (Interim Chief Executive) provided an
overview of the objectives for the upcoming discussion with Ms Tolhurst MP,
that was due to take place on 24 June and explained that at this meeting POL
would acknowledge that its approach to the litigation had been flawed and that
POL had decided to change approach. I considered that POL's litigation
approach had been ‘flawed’ because of the series of judgments that had been
handed down at this point that had criticised POL's approach to the Group
Litigation. I believe Mr Cameron and others shared that view.
236. The minutes also note that potential costs were discussed and that "it was
reported that individual claimants had provided a schedule of information in
which they had set out their estimated losses, which WBD held. Previously,
the Subcommittee had only been aware that we held information for the 140
cases which had already gone through mediation. Previous discussions at
ARC around disclosure of figures in the Annual Report and Accounts (ARA)
for 2017/18 and in prior years were raised, and it was agreed that WBD should
be asked to explain the position to the Subcommittee. It was noted that we had
not held information on the probable economic output from the litigation
because there had been no crystallisation of the liability or quantum of figures
received from the claimants’ solicitors. The position would be different for
2018/19 because of the Common Issues Judgment and points on which we
had lost which meant that the claims were not without merit."
237. On 12 June 2019, I attended a meeting with Robert Swannell (Chair, UKGI). I
have been referred to an email from Mr Swannell to Mark Russell on 16 June
Page 112 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
2019 in which he summarises our discussion (UKGI00010190). In this email,
Mr Swannell states that I "didn't seem to be aware as [I] might be that this was
a significant issue for BEIS/Ministers'. I cannot comment on what exactly Mr
Swannell meant by this. It could be that we did not spend as much time as he
would have expected discussing the litigation issues. However, this was a fairly
brief meeting and POL was seriously considering the ramifications of the
judgment at this time and this was the focus of POL Board meetings and
Litigation Subcommittee meetings that took place in April to June 2019, as I
have outlined at paragraphs [224] to [240] above.
238. The emailalso records that I had explained to Mr Swannell that POL had "over-
relied on very eminent lawyers" and that I had wondered "whether the lawyers
had been so senior and eminent that they had been more interested in their
own reputations than that of the Post Office". What I meant by this comment is
that while I was sure these lawyers had their client's interests at heart, there
could be a situation where the interest in the legal points of the case received
more attention than the practical consideration of litigation.
239. In this email, Mr Swannell records that “he clearly still had a view that we are
too involved in the business and spend more time than any normal NED
‘tramping around the business’ and 'papering over the crack of the executive’.
He said it wasn’t our job to step in for any inadequacies of the executive team
or be consultants”. When I said this, I was trying to convey to Mr Swannell that
whilst UKGI could be helpful in assisting executives with decision taking, there
was a risk that excessive involvement could be demotivating to the executive
Page 113 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
team. In common with most management teams, POL was not perfect in all
respects and one of my responsibilities as Chair was to work closely with the
Chief Executive to improve the overall quality of the senior management team
240. On 20 June 2019, there was a further meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee.
Anthony de Garr Robinson QC joined this meeting and provided an update on
the Horizon Issues trial. I have been referred to the minutes of that meeting
which clearly set out the advice given by counsel during that meeting
(POL00006752). Mr de Garr Robinson QC advised that cross-examination of
the Claimants’ expert witness had gone well, and it had become clear that the
documents did not say what the expert witness had claimed. However, he
advised that there had been issues with POL witnesses; in particularthe Chief
Architect of Horizon who could be perceived as not credible to the court. Mr de
Garr Robinson QC considered that an objective judge would see that the
Horizon system was robust and reliable almost all of the time. He stated that
both expert witnesses were unsatisfactory, but the documents demonstrated
the reliability of the system. I understood from this that counsel's view was that
the judge should find, based on the documents, that the Horizon system was
sufficiently robust and could be relied upon, but I understood that it was also
possible that the judge might reach a different conclusion, preferring the
evidence of the Claimant's expert witness.
241. At the same meeting, Deloitte, who were working on possible responses for
POL to various scenarios, provided an update on the work they were
undertaking.
Page 114 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
242. On 30 July 2019, there was a POL Board meeting where Mr Foat updated the
Board on the Group Litigation (POL00021568). The minutes of this meeting
indicate that Mr Foat noted that work was taking place to prepare for mediation
and settlement, which could commence in the middle of October or beginning
of November 2019. As explained above, the possibility of settlement had been
considered throughout the litigation and was kept under review as matters
progressed. The minutes record that the POL Board discussed various options
for a settlement figure, and how to fund any settlement, including reaching out
to BEIS and HM Treasury.
243. On 17 September 2019, there was a further meeting of the Litigation
Subcommittee. I have been referred to the minutes of the meeting
(POL00103667). In September 2019, Nick Read was appointed as Group
Chief Executive Officer and he attended this meeting. Catherine Emmanuel of
HSF provided an oral update. She explained that the judgment following the
Horizon trial had not been handed down and the appeal of the Common Issues
judgment was listed for 12 November 2019. A third trial was scheduled for
March 2020, which would look at the principles of how loss would be
calculated.
244. On 23 September 2019, there was a POL Board meeting at which Mr Foat
introduced the paper that had been discussed at the Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 17 September 2019. The minutes of the meeting record that
Mr Foat provided an update on the litigation and discussed options for
mediation and settlement of the Group Litigation. The minutes further state that
Page 115 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
POL was "operating with a number of unknowns currently and could not
understand how the claimants had derived their numbers" and the Board could
not take a definitive view on pursuing settlement at this stage. In particular, the
production of a merits opinion was a requirement for obtaining approval from
BEIS for settlement and "it would be best to produce this after the Horizon trial
judgment had been issued" (POL00155497).
245. On 25 September 2019, Mr Watts sent an email to me and other POL Board
members notifying us that (i) WBD had identified that 3 pages had inadvertently
been omitted from a document filed at court, and (ii) new documents had come
to light about bugs in the Horizon system (POL00103654). Mr Watts explained
that WBD would be disclosing this additional material to the court that day so
that the Judge had the opportunity to consider the material before handing
down the Horizon Issues judgment. A Board meeting was arranged for 3
October 2020 to discuss the disclosure issue.
246. On 3 October 2019, there was a POL Board meeting. I have been referred to
the minutes of the meeting (POL00021570). The minutes record the fact that
Fujitsu had identified further relevant documents, which had meant that
disclosure provided by POL was inaccurate. The Board discussed how to
resolve this issue. I stated that I recognised that these issues can and do occur
and I agreed with the next steps proposed. I also reminded the Board and legal
team of the importance of managing these issues in the right way and being
transparent.
Page 116 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
247. The Board resolved to analyse the previously undisclosed material to
determine how it affected the evidence previously presented at court, and that
it would be appropriate to audit Fujitsu's disclosures. It was also noted by Mr
Watts of HSF that the team had been transparent in dealing with the issue and
followed all the correct legal procedures required.
248. Mr Foat explained that the Court and the Claimants had been notified of the
disclosure issue and the reasons for this. The POL response to Fujitsu was
discussed and it was decided that it should be escalated to the Chief Executive
Officer at Fujitsu. Reference was made to a previous discussion between a
Fujitsu Board Director and Ms Vennells "in which she flagged a serious
concern about the fragility of FJ witness statements which had either been
disproved or changed."
249. I have been referred to an email from Mr Read to me and others dated 10
October 2019 in which he informed us that Mark Davies (Communications and
Corporate Affairs Director) had been asked to leave POL (POL00103663). I
cannot recall the circumstances that led to this decision or the conversation I
had with Mr Read on the matter.
250. On 22 October 2019, there was a meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee. I
have been directed to the minutes of this meeting (POL00103694) that note
external counsel provided an update on the Group Litigation. At this point, the
Horizon Issues judgment had not been received. Mr Watts of HSF provided an
update on the litigation. The minutes record that a review had been undertaken
of the 'non-disclosed Known Error Logs ("KEL") and those that had been relied
Page 117 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
upon at trial’ and that "94 had been identified as having significant changes.
Counsel was reviewing all of these and of the 78 KELs reviewed so far 75%
were felt not to have had a significant impact on what happened at trial. The
other 25% were being reviewed in more depth." The claimants had been given
access to all 14,000 KELS. The minutes record that during this meeting, Mr
Cooper reported that he had met with HSF to review the settlement numbers,
including those for convicted cases. The treatment of these cases was
discussed and it was felt that POL needed to understand more about the status
of the cases and analyse the figures. It was noted that "Counsel's advice was
that a monetary settlement should not be offered to convicted claimants at
mediation because this risked undermining their convictions’ and that
"Counsel would read through the 61 convicted claimants' cases after the
Horizon Issues Trial judgment had been issued to see if this ought to affect our
approach". I have been asked to comment on whether POL considered it
appropriate to extend the course of the litigation to increase funding pressure
on the claimants. I cannot recall that I or any other POL Board members
considered this would be appropriate.
251. On 29 October 2019, there was a POL Board meeting. At the time of the Board
meeting on 29 October 2019 the Horizon Issues judgment was still awaited, as
was the hearing on POL's appeal of the Common Issues judgment. I have
reviewed the minutes of the meeting (POL00155496) which I consider to be
accurate. The minutes show that Mr Foat (Group General Counsel) provided
an update on the approach being taken to the upcoming mediation and there
was discussion about how to determine appropriate sums for mediation. At this
Page 118 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
meeting, the POL Board authorised the Litigation Subcommittee to delegate
authority to General Counsel to make settlement offers at the mediation on
terms to be determined by the Subcommittee
252. In November 2019, I attended a meeting with Alex Chisholm. I have been
referred to an email from Carl Creswell (BEIS) to Tom Aldred (UKGI) and
others on 4 November 2019 (UKGI00010672) in which he provides a high-
level overview of the meeting. This email states that we discussed the
mechanics for agreeing any potential settlement as well as responding to the
recent court judgment.
253. I have seen a paper titled 'Bates and ANR -v- Post Office Group Litigation,
draft/ Advice on Settlement’, prepared by HSF dated 12 November 2019
(POL00288649). The purpose of the paper is described as "...to provide an
overview of the Post Office Group Litigation and to summarise our [HSF's]
recommended settlement strategy for an upcoming mediation scheduled for
27-28 November 2019".
254. On13 November 2019 (POL00006759), there was a meeting of the Litigation
Subcommittee at which HSF provided further advice on settlement
(POL00288649). They summarised the position as follows:
255. The minutes record that after discussion, the Subcommittee approved for
recommendation to the shareholder (BEIS) a settlement figure of up to £48m
for the initial mediation, with a mechanism in place to seek approval from the
Page 119 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Chair and the shareholder for a settlement figure of up to £65m in the event of
being able to reach a settlement in respect of all the claimants.
256. HSF also prepared a paper titled 'Post Office Limited, The Post Office Group
Litigation, Criminal Cases' on how to approach settlement with the convicted
claimants (POL00288649) which was also discussed at the subcommittee
meeting. It was agreed that HSF would look further at the implications of
making settlement payments to convicted claimants and discuss the issue
further at a subcommittee meeting.
257. Mr Foat and Mr Williams prepared an update paper for the Subcommittee
meeting on 26 November 2019. Their paper (POL00030884) noted that the
"KEL Disclosure Issue identified in October 2019 has been resolved with the
Court and the Claimants, and should not impact delivery of the Horizon
judgment." The judgment had not been received but was expected imminently
and the Court of Appeal's judgment on the Common Issues appeal was
expected on 22 November 2019.
258. The minutes of the POL Board meeting on 26 November 2019
(POL00163726) record the fact that Mr Foat provided an update on the
litigation that the Court of Appeal had refused permission for an oral hearing in
relation to the appeal of the Common Issues judgment. Mr Foat noted that it
"was disappointing but reaffirmed our revised litigation strategy." Mr Watts of
HSF reported that the claimants' funders were "seeking to obtain three times
their costs before starting to make pay outs to claimants (i.e. the funders were
seeking £45m for their £15m investment)". The minutes also record that the
Page 120 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
"Horizon judgment was expected to be adverse. The question would be the
extent to which it was ruled that system bugs could have led to shortfalls and
how we could prove system shortfalls if we could not rely on Horizon."
The Horizon Issues Judgment
259. On 28 November 2019, Mr Foat sent an email to me [and others]
(POL00026420), confirming that the embargoed Horizon Issues judgment was
received just after 4pm that day. Mr Foat confirms that "broadly, it has been
found that the Horizon system in use today (HNG-A) is relatively
robust...However, the remainder of the Judgment appears adverse to Post
Office". Mr Foat then confirms that the ‘contingency planning’ will be
implemented, which includes "...further analysis on the implications in respect
of the convicted claimants (Brian Altman QC has been instructed this
afternoon)." Mr Foat sent a further email on 29 November 2019
(POL00026420) providing a "slightly more detailed review of the judgment’.
This email included a summary of Mr Justice Fraser's findings in relation to the
expert evidence, the claimant's evidence, and POL's approach to disclosure.
260. While I do not recall my exact thoughts upon reading Mr Foat's emails on 28
November and 29 November 2019, I recall that at this time, we were more
pessimistic about the outcome of the Horizon Issues trial. The categorical
terms of the judgment in relation to earlier versions of Horizon immediately
threw into question the legitimacy of SPM convictions that depended on
Horizon data. There was an urgency to address this and advice was sought
immediately on this. I could see that we were at the beginning of a complex
Page 121 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
process to ensure proper compensation was paid to those affected, and the
focus of the Board at that point was to get started on this without delay, as well
as implementing all the operational changes that needed to be made as a
result of the judgments.
261. On 9 December 2019, Mr Foat sent a further email to me [and others]
(POL00043341), which included a summary of the final 'Section M' of the
embargoed judgment and noted that a Litigation Subcommittee meeting would
be convened the next day to discuss the implications of the judgment and next
steps, including the steps to be taken in respect of the convicted claimants.
262. My recollection, which appears consistent with the emails from Mr Foat, is that
POL recognised the need to consider, without delay, the implications of the
judgment for those claimants convicted of criminal offences as a result of
shortfalls and discrepancies shown by the Horizon IT System. While I cannot
recall the specific conversations that took place at the time in relation to the
judgment and the convictions, I have seen the minutes of the Litigation
Subcommittee of 10 December 2019 (POL00128935). I expect the legal
advice we received on these issues was as set out in the minutes of the
meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not recall receiving any legal advice
independently of the Board. The minutes of the meeting show that Mr Foat
informed the Subcommittee that the previous evening the parties had agreed
a financial settlement of £57.7m in principle and that the settlement included
all the claimants for the civil case. He explained that what could not be included
was potential claims for malicious prosecution in the event of any of the
Page 122 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
convicted having their claims overturned. The convicted claimants could still
take a claim through the CCRC. It was noted that the most recent criminal
prosecution brought by POL against a SPM had taken place around 6 years
previously. It was reported that Mr Altman QC had been instructed to consider
the outcome of the Horizon Issues judgment and how that should influence
how POL dealt with the convicted claimants' cases.
263. In the Horizon Issues judgment, the judge noted that POL must have been
reliant on Fujitsu to a certain degree in terms of being provided with accurate
information of a technical nature, and that accuracy from Fujitsu was not
always available.’° Furthermore, Fujitsu personnel referred to the existence of
known bugs and debated whether POL or SPMs should be told."! Fujitsu had
powers which, until shortly before the trial started, they sought to keep from
the court and may not have fully disclosed to POL. The court criticised Fujitsu
for a lack of transparency, a pattern of considerable defensiveness, and lack
of accuracy in description.'2 The court also remarked that Fujitsu should have
been frank with POL so that there could have been no possibility of POL
making incorrect statements about remote access.'>
264. On 22 January 2020, there was a meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee. I
have been referred to the minutes of that meeting which show that we
discussed the ongoing work that POL's legal team were doing in relation to
1 Para 960 of the judgment
1! Para 935 of the judgment
*2 Para 932 of the judgment
18 Para 554 of the judgment
Page 123 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
reviewing the implications of the Horizon Issues judgment on convicted
claimants (POL00128937). Mr Foat also noted that the Historic Shortfall
Scheme was being set up to deal with future claims and there was a discussion
about that scheme. At this meeting, the Subcommittee resolved to engage a
mediation company as the Historic Claims Scheme's chosen mediation
provider and there was discussion about how the scheme would operate.
265. I have been referred to an email thread (POL00112873), which contains an
email from Mr Foat to me on 24 January 2020, copied to Mr Read, Avene
Regan and Diane Blanchard. The introductory paragraph of Mr Foat's email
suggests that he was responding to a request that I had made. While I do not
recall the specific terms of my request, I think it is likely that I had requested a
summary of the events leading up to this point in the Group Litigation to assist
me with my further consideration of the judgment and the implications and
actions arising from this. The email sets out what Mr Foat identifies as
‘significant milestones' that had led up to the proceedings being commenced,
namely:
(a) a summary of previous investigations into the issues raised by the
claimants in the Group Litigation.
(b) the Complaint Review & Mediation Scheme (the "Scheme").
(c) comments by Lord James Arbuthnot.
(d) the Second Sight reports and their public comments.
(e) Sir Anthony Hooper's work and comments in relation to the Scheme.
Page 124 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(f) BIS Select Committee and the BBC Panorama programme.
(g) House of Commons debate on the Horizon system.
(h) The Swift Review.
266. The email contains a section on the Swift Review, which includes a warning
that the work "is privileged and should not be the subject of email or other
written communication unless addressed to the General Counser'. In this
section of the email, Mr Foat reiterates the fact that Mr Swift QC and Mr Knight
were given unrestricted access to documentation and personnel, identifies the
principle findings of the review and notes that the review came to an end owing
to the litigation having commenced, but that further work was taken forward as
part of the litigation.
267. On 4 February 2020, there was a meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee the
minutes for which record further discussion about how POL might review the
criminal convictions (POL00128937). It was resolved that Mr Altman QC
should not lead on the disclosure review cases given he had previously
provided advice on an aspect of the GLO in 2013. This followed the discussion
at the meeting of the Litigation Subcommittee on 22 January 2020 where the
minutes note that that there was a desire to demonstrate a fresh approach,
and a risk that appointing a QC previously involved in litigation to advise on the
process for disclosure review may not appear satisfactory to outside observers
(POL00128937). Mr Cooper and I would speak with Sir David Calvert-Smith
before confirming his appointment to undertake the review of cases.
Page 125 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
268. On 5 February 2020, I attended a meeting with Sir David and Mr Cooper to
discuss the criminal prosecutions. I understand that individuals from HSF were
also present. While I do not specifically recall this meeting, I have seen an
email dated 6 February 2020 (POL00103840) which includes a draft summary
of the meeting prepared by HSF for sharing with the Litigation Subcommittee.
The summary includes reference to the following:
i) Retaining Sir David to act in a capacity as a special adviser to the Board to
in relation to criminal advice.
ii) Instructing Sir David to consider and advise on POL's approach to the
disclosure review, issues relating to the CCRC and the CoA.
iii) POL appointing a criminal with extensive experience to work alongside
Brian Altman QC.
iv) Sir David having shown a willingness in the meeting to challenge points
made on all sides.
269. I note that Mr Cooper responded to the email from HSF to request that the draft
summary of the meeting was amended to include reference to the discussion
(at the meeting) about the need to review individual cases before deciding on
the approach to disclosure.
270. I responded on the same date to ask how much information was held on the
circumstances of each of the claimants in the Group Litigation. I understood
that it was imperative that POL took immediate steps to understand the
judgment and what this meant for those claimants convicted of criminal
Page 126 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
offences as a result of shortfalls and discrepancies shown by Horizon. Given
a group of those involved in the Group Litigation were also subject to criminal
convictions, I believe at the time I wanted to further understand what POL's
position was in relation to these individuals.
271. The email correspondence confirms that at this time, POL was receiving legal
advice from HSF, Peters & Peters Solicitors ("Peters & Peters"), Mr Altman
QC and Sir David. POL was also considering the need to appoint another QC
experienced in criminal law to work alongside Mr Altman QC.
272. On 3 March 2020, I met with Mr Swannell. I have been referred to an email
from Mr Swannell to Justin Manson (UKGI) dated 3 March (UKGI00018737) in
which he states that during our meeting we discussed the litigation, lessons
learned and the emerging enquiry. In this email, Mr Swannell states: "/ think
Tim feels they badly misjudged the quality of their witnesses for the litigation
and thinks that their legal advisers had potential conflicts of interest." This is a
fair characterisation of how I felt at the time. I felt let down by these aspects of
POL's litigation strategy.
273. On 16 March 2020, Nick Read and I met with Paul Scully MP (then
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at BEIS and Minister for London). I
have been shown a copy of an email from Minister Scully's Private Secretary,
comprising a readout from this meeting (UKGI0001 1642).
Page 127 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
274. I have also been shown a copy of Minister Scully's letter to Mr Read following
the meeting (UKGI00016352), which includes a section on The Horizon
Shortfall Scheme ("HSS").
275. The HSS, previously known as the Historical Shortfall Scheme, was/is a
scheme for current and former SPMs who may have been affected by shortfalls
relating to the previous versions of Horizon. The HSS sought to provide
compensation for human costs, such as personal injury, distress and
inconvenience, harassment, loss of reputation and bankruptcy costs where
these are directly related to shortfalls. There are separate compensation
arrangements for people with Horizon-related convictions that have been
overturned.
276. I have been shown a copy of an email dated 9 March 2020 from Mr Foat to me
and copied to Ms Blanchard, Richard Taylor, and Mr Read (POL00103870) in
which Mr Foat provided an update on the progress that had made in relation
to the 'GLO Management workstream'. The email includes a number of
questions and preliminary answers, including in relation to the following:
(a) The circumstances of the approximately 150 cases that entered the
Mediation scheme, and the outcomes of the Post Office Investigation
Reports and Case Review Reports of Second Sight. The number of
cases that were settled and how many were considered to be not
suitable for mediation:
Page 128 of 158
(b)
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(i) A table with the outcome for the 150 applications made to the
Mediation Scheme was attached.
The background to the fall-out with the Justice for Sub-Postmasters
Alliance ("JFSA") during 2014 and the precise problems with Second
Sight:
(i) Criticism of POL's decision to engage in mediation for cases
involving criminal convictions.
(ii) Delays.
(iii) Second Sight recommending a large number of cases for
mediation regardless of available evidence.
(iv) Frustration on the part of JFSA due to expectations that most
or all cases would be mediated and compensated.
(v) Differing expectations on the nature of the Mediation Scheme
(compensatory versus legalistic).
(vi) Claims being raised after mediation.
(vii) Lack of agreement over confidentiality in mediation
proceedings.
The decision to mediate Scheme cases in March 2015, close the
working group and discontinue Second Sight:
Page 129 of 158
(d)
(e)
(f)
(h)
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
(i) The working group had no substantive role to play following a
decision to mediate all cases not subject to a prior court ruling.
(ii) The working group was considered to be becoming
dysfunctional.
(iii) Second Sight was engaged to provide services to the working
group, and therefore their services were no longer required in
that respect. They were re-engaged to review outstanding Case
Review Reports.
Action taken in relation to criticisms in the Second Sight part 2 report.
Extent of implementation of the recommendations of the Swift Review.
Status of the Cartwright King review of disclosure relating to cases
involving convictions.
Review of legal advice leading to the decision to defend against GLO
claimants rather than settling.
That certain terms of the contract were admitted in the trial and the
implications of this for claimants.
Review of available information on reliability of the two earlier versions
of Horizon at the time the decision was taken to go to trial with GLO
claimants.
Page 130 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
277. I have been shown a copy of an email chain (POL00104107), which includes
emails from Mr Cooper and Mr McCall to Ms Branton (Company Secretary),
copied to me and others, about the accuracy of the minutes from the ‘last
meeting’, which I believe to be a reference to the previous POL Board meeting.
In this email correspondence, Mr Cooper confirms that the "who knew about"
questions should apply to various pieces of work commissioned by POL,
including the Swift Review. In a later email in the chain, Mr McCall asks to see
a redraft of the minutes to include the points raised by Mr Cooper and indicates
that he does not "feel comfortable that the minutes truly reflect the complete
unawareness of the Board to the existence of a Deloitte report". I do not
specifically recall whether the Board had access to the reports prepared by
Deloitte in relation to Horizon. As I explain at paragraph [99] to [101], I
understand that General Counsel and POL's external legal advisers, including
WBD, managed the Project Bramble workstream.
278. I wrote to Minister Scully on 29 April 2020 (POL00031104) to notify him of the
potential exposure arising out of the announcement by the CCRC that it would
be referring the convictions of a number of SPMs to the appeal court, with a
further 22 cases under consideration. In this letter I confirmed that POL had
not privately prosecuted any SPMs since 2015 and had identified up to 959
cases privately prosecuted in which Horizon evidence was relied upon to
secure a conviction. I then explained that the POL Board, supported by Peters
& Peters, HSF and external counsel had taken a number of steps in order to
comply with its legal duties. I also explained the 'post-conviction disclosure
exercise’ was a lengthy and complex exercise covering not just material
Page 131 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
specific to the 959 cases, but any material that might reveal historical policies,
practices, approaches, or decision within POL that might amount to an abuse
of process. The CCRC work had been ongoing and reached a conclusion at
this point. At this stage I consider POL did everything it could to react as quickly
and comprehensively as possible to these issues.
279. In the email from Ms Branton to me (and others) dated 22 September 2020
(UKGI00017810), it was confirmed that the agenda and papers for the Board
meeting on 24 September 2020 had been made available to the Board. Ms
Branton provided an overview of these papers prepared by Nick Vamos. These
included documents relating to current (at the time) criminal appeals where the
Board had made decisions on the stance to be taken, along with a timetable
for the criminal appeals and civil claims; a presentation on the management of
future appeals for Board approval; and a summary of potential claims against
Fujitsu arising from the Horizon Issues judgment. I believe most of the Board
was engaged in these decisions, and I was involved in meetings at which the
Board extensively considered the decision making relating to criminal appeals.
280. POL received advice from Mr Altman QC, Peters & Peters, and HSF on how
to manage this process. The Board was committed to ensure that all decisions
were properly scrutinised.
281. The Board engaged in extensive deliberations about category 1 or category 2
abuse of process, and carefully examined the cases. POL accepted that in
cases where the reliability of Horizon data was essential to the prosecution,
and the findings in the Horizon Issues trial showed that there was inadequate
Page 132 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
investigation and/or that full and accurate disclosure was not made, the
conviction could be held unsafe by the court. There were 3 cases in which POL
did not agree that the convictions should be held unsafe. While the Court of
Appeal ultimately disagreed with POL's decision on these cases it commented
on the diligence of POL's disclosure exercise, and its acknowledgment of the
failings in the original prosecutions.
Reflections on my Time as Chair
282. The failings relating to the Horizon IT system have blighted the lives of innocent
people over many years and I strongly welcome this Inquiry.
283. As stated in paragraph [16], I believe I was appointed as Chair of POL primarily
due to my experience of implementing transformation and reorganisation
strategies. It was in this context that I initially approached my work for POL as
I set out to improve the commercial viability of the organisation which was
enormously dependent on the public purse and incurring significant losses.
284. When I joined POL, Baroness Neville-Rolfe asked me to undertake an
independent review of POL's handling of the complaints made by SPMs
regarding the issues with the Horizon IT system and POL's processes to
understand, investigate, and resolve those complaints (see paragraphs [30] to
[32]). I understood this to be a request for me to undertake a personal review
and to look at the matter with ‘fresh eyes' having just started in my role as
Chair.
Page 133 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
285. In my view, the Swift Review was thorough, objective, dispassionate and
helpfully critical of POL's handling of the complaints concerning Horizon. It
seemed to me that the report produced following completion of the Swift
Review addressed the matters that the reviewers were asked to investigate.
The report identified a number of areas in which further work was required and
the main task was to get on with implementing the recommendations.
286. As describe at paragraphs [55] to [57], I was advised to limit the distribution
of information concerning the Swift Review including the Swift Report itself, to
seek to maintain privilege over this work. I carefully considered the legal advice
I received alongside my other duties and obligations. I understood and
recognised the importance of seeking to maintain privilege and I decided it was
appropriate to follow the legal advice I received. In hindsight, it is very difficult
to know how matters might have unfolded if that advice had been different or
if I had disregarded it and come to a different conclusion and shared the Swift
Report with the Board
287. I have been asked to comment on the extent to which ShEx/UKGI and BEIS
maintained effective oversight of POL during my time as Chair. Whether
ShEx/UKGI and BEIS maintained effective oversight of POL is difficult for me
to assess. My responsibility as Chair was to oversee the POL Board. In terms
of the Board’s oversight of POL in relation to Horizon, POL instructed external
advisers, sought advice, and considered and relied on their advice throughout
the litigation.
Page 134 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
288. The Board was aware of political and public concern regarding the Horizon IT
system and POL commissioned reports and investigations in response. The
challenges to the integrity of Horizon crystallised in the litigation and
subsequent hearings during which significant new information was discovered.
Following the trials, for the second half of my tenure as Chair, we worked hard
to resolve these issues for those affected as soon as possible.
289. My involvement in the decision making concerning the Group Litigation was
necessarily informed by legal advice. I describe above the advice received
from counsel and solicitors, for example, on the merits opinion on the Common
Issues trial, the Horizon Issues trial, the recusal application, and the appeals.
This legal advice was considered thoroughly and certainly not unquestioningly
accepted. The Board was given regular updates and when a Board decision
needed to be taken, we were often presented with options with a summary of
the advantages and disadvantages of each course of action.
290. I began to lose confidence in POL's General Counsel and external legal
advisers and their suggested litigation strategy following the failure of the
recusal application in April 2019 which they had advised POL to make. As
mentioned at paragraph [227], following the Court of Appeal's decision to
refuse permission to appeal against Mr Justice Fraser's recusal application,
POL changed its litigation strategy, taking a more conciliatory approach and
changing the personnel involved, including General Counsel and the external
legal advisers.
Page 135 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
291. I would like to reiterate my deep sympathy for all those affected by these issues
and my desire for those SPM's affected to be fully compensated and
exonerated of any wrongdoing. I strongly welcome recent government
initiatives in this regard.
292. As Chair of POL from late 2015, at a time when the litigation process
accelerated, I recognise the way in which this impacted the affected SPMs and
feel a deep sense of responsibility for this. There were failures at all levels of
POL, over a period of many years and I also believe that POL may have relied
too heavily on the advice of lawyers in the way the case was conducted. I am
deeply disappointed that the Board's efforts to resolve these issues under my
tenure did not bring a swifter resolution of these matters for the SPMs affected.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
~~ GRO
Signed:
Dated: 24 pat APE
Page 136 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO00690100
Index to First Witness Statement of Timothy Parker
Statement No: WITN00690100
No URN Document Description Date Control Number
1 WITNO0690101 POL Annual Report and 2015/2016 WITNO0690101
Financial Statements for
2015/2016
2 UKGI00007673 Email chain between Robert 08/11/2017 UKGI018486-001
Swannell, Mark Russell, and
Rachel Mortimer, re: Post
Office and Richard Wohanka
3 POL00103159 Email chain between Jane 01/04/2016 POL-0102742
MacLeod and Tim Parker, re:
Post Office - Chairman's
review and Alwen
4 POL00026722 POL Annual Report and 13/08/2015 POL-0023363
Financial Statements for
2014/2015
5 POL00090428 Annex to Second Supplement 24/09/1999 POL-0087397
Agreement
6 FUJ00118186 Third Supplemental 19/01/2000 POINQ0124350F
Agreement, between Post
Office Counters Ltd and ICL
Pathway Limited
7 UKGI00005361 Email chain between Alwen 06/08/2015 I UKGI016175-001
Lyons, Neil McCausland,
Virginia Holmes, Tim Franklin
and Laura Thompson, re:
Panorama Programme
8 POL00102550 Email from Jane MacLeod to 14/09/2015 POL-0102133
Tim Parker, with Mark Davies
and Paula Vennells in cc, re:
Letter from Baroness Neville-
Rolfe
9 POL00102551 Letter from Baroness Neville- 10/09/2015 POL-0102134
Rolfe to Mr Tim Parker, re:
Unresolved issues relating to
Post Office Horizon System
and further actions to be
taken, dated 10 September
2015
Page 137 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
10
POLO0065606
Email chain between Rodric
Williams, Jane MacLeod and
Patrick Bourke, re: Draft
Speaking Notes for meeting
with Tim Parker on 25.09.15
24/09/2015
POL-0062085
1
POLO00110251
Post Office Limited, Audit Risk
and Compliance Committee
Briefing Book, Half Year ended
27 September 2015. Part of
the papers for Audit Risk and
Compliance Committee
meeting held on 10 November
2015
10/11/2015
POL-0108070
12
POL00158249
Email chain between Dianne
Blanchard, Tim Parker, Jane
MacLeod, Alwen Lyons,
Patrick Bourke, Mark Davies,
Rodric Williams, and Paula
Vennels, re: Draft letter to
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
30/09/2015
POL-0146546
13
UKGI00000009
Letter from Tim Parker to
Baroness Neville-Rolfe, re:
Post Office's handling of
complaints
01/10/2015
VIS00000970
14
POL00027126
Email chain between Jane
Macleod, Tim Parker, and
Paula Vennells, re: Project
Sparrow
01/10/2015
POL-0023767
15
POL00114270
Instructions to Leading
Counsel Jonathan Swift QC to
Advise in Consultation at
4.30pm on 8 October 2015
06/10/2015
POL-0113197
16
POL00117516
Email chain between Avene
O'Farrell (on behalf of Paula
Vennels), Tim Parker and Tom
Wechsler, re: Update
09/10/2015
POL-0118292
17
POL00104213
Email from Jane MacLeod
to Jonathan Swift QC, re:
Post Office - meeting with
Tim Parker
22/10/2015
POL-0103796
18
POL00065645
Email chain between Jane
MacLeod and Tim Parker, re:
Post Office - meeting with
Jonathan Swift QC
23/10/2015
POL-0062124
Page 138 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
19
POLO00103094
A Review on Behalf of the
Chairman of Post Office
Limited Concerning the Steps
Taken in Response to Various
Complaints Made by Sub-
Postmasters, by Jonathan
Swift QC and Christopher
Knight
11/01/2016
POL-0102677
20
POL00043789
Email chain between Patrick
Bourke, Christopher Knight,
and Jonathan Swift QC re:
Post Office Matter
28/10/2015
POL-0040292
21
POL00102649
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Post Office -
Investigation update
30/10/2015
POL-0102232
22
UKGI00006268
Memo from Annette Rusling to
Secretary of State, re: Meeting
with Tim Parker, Chair of Post
Office Limited, 24" November
2015
20/11/2015
UKGI017082-001
23
POL00103005
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Post Office -
Investigation Update
14/12/2015
POL-0102588
24
POL00006355
A Review on Behalf of the
Chairman of Post Office
Limited Concerning the Steps
Taken in Response to Various
Complaints Made by Sub-
Postmasters, by Jonathan
Swift QC and Christopher
Knight
08/02/2016
POL-0017623
25
POL00022627
Email chain between
Jonathan Swift QC, Tim
Parker, Jane MacLeod, and
Amanda Brown, re: Horizon
review
14/01/2016
POL-0019106
26
POL00158255
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 22
September 2015
22/09/2015
POL-0146551
27
POL00158304
Post Office Board Meeting —
22 January 2016, Speaking
Notes
22/01/2016
POL-0146587
Page 139 of 158
28
POL00103105
Email from Mark Underwood
to Jonathan Swift QC and
Christopher Knight, re:
Information to inform this
Afternoon's call @13:30
21/01/2016
POL-0102688
29
UKGI00006482
Note of meeting with Tim
Parker on 26th January 2016
at 9:30 am
26/01/2016
UKGI017296-001
30
POL00103110
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Paula Vennells, Mark
Underwood, Rodric Williams.
and others, re: FW:
Chairman's review - with
attachment
22/01/2016
POL-0102693
31
POL00110382
Email chain between Jane
MacLeod and Tim Parker re:
Post Office - Chairman's
Enquiry
01/03/2016)
POL-0111302
32
POL00024913
Letter sent from Tim Parker to
Baroness Neville - Rolfe, re:
Post Office Handling of
complaints made by Sub -
Postmasters review
04/03/2016
POL-0021392
33
POL00103131
Email from Mark Underwood
to Jonathan Swift QC,
Christopher Knight, Jane
MacLeod and others, re: A
letter drafted for Tim Parker to
send to the Minister, briefing
her on the outcome of your
enquiry to date
19/02/2016
POL-0102714
34
POL00103132
Draft Letter from Mr Tim
Parker to Baroness Neville-
Rolfe re: Project Sparrow
19/02/2016
POL-0102715
35
POL00103134
Email from Jonathan Swift QC
to Mark Underwood,
Christopher Knight, Jane
MacLeod and others, re: A
letter drafted for Tim Parker to
send to the Minister, briefing
her on the outcome of your
enquiry to date
24/02/2016
POL-0102717
36
POL00131715
Draft Letter from Tim Parker to
Baroness Neville Rolfe
24/02/2016
POL-0121501
Page 140 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
37
POL00103136
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Post Office -
Chairman's Enquiry
01/03/2016
POL-0102719
38
POL00103165
Email from Jane MacLeod
to Tim Parker, re: Post
Office - Meeting with
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Wednesday 27 April 2016,
3:30pm
24/04/2016
POL-0102748
39
POL00103171
Email from Tom Wechsler to
Paula Vennells, re: Feedback
from Tim/ BNR meeting
29/04/2016
POL-0102754
40
POL00103143
Email chain between Jane
MacLeod, Tim Parker, Patrick
Bourke. Mark Underwood and
Roderic Williams, re:
Chairman's enquiry
07/03/2016
POL-0102726
41
POL00103154
Email chain between Jane
MacLeod and Tim Parker, re:
Pst [sic] Office - Chairman's
review
21/03/2016)
POL-0102737
42
POL00103158
Email from Jane MacLeod
to Tim Parker, re: Post
Office - Chairman's review
01/04/2016
POL-0102741
43
POL00103161
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Post Office -
Chairman's enquiry and
telated matters
15/04/2016
POL-0102744
44
POL00103176
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Post Office -
Chairman's review and
potential litigation
29/04/2016
POL-0102759
45
POL00241642
Email chain between Jane
MacLeod and Tim Parker, re:
Post Office - Chairman's
review
16/05/2016
POL-BSFF0079705
Page 141 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
46
POL00025511
Letter from Freeths to Rodric
Williams (POL Solicitor), re
Bates & Others v Post Office
Limited Group Action Letter
pursuant to the practice
direction on pre-action
conduct
28/04/2016
POL-0021990
47
POL00103177
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Patrick Bourke and others, re:
Post Office -Chairman Review
and Potential Litigation
29/04/2016
POL-0102760
48
POL00006380
Post Office Group Litigation,
Steering Group Meeting -
strategy to disclosure for POL
11/09/2017
POL-0017685
49
POL00103192
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: PO-
Chairman's review
Confidential and legally
privileged
16/05/2016
POL-0102775
50
POL00103193
Update, re: Progress against
Jonathan Swift QC
Recommendations
16/05/2016
POL-0102776
51
POL00022769
Investigative Report by Bond
Dickinson - complaints about
the advice provided by
NBSC
04/05/2016
POL-0019248
52
POL00241688
Postmaster Litigation,
Executive Summary, by Jane
MacLeod and Rodric Williams,
Meeting date: 17 May 2016
18/05/2016
POL-BSFF0079751
53
POL00021542
Minutes of meeting held on 24
May 2016
24/05/2016
POL0000075
54
POL00103212
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Chairman's
review
27/05/2016
POL-0102795
55
POL00103214
Email from Tim Parker to Jane
MacLeod, re: Chairman's
review- Confidential and
Subject to Legal Privilege
14/06/2016
POL-0102797
56
POL00103216
Letter from Bond Dickinson
LLP to Post Office Ltd, re:
21/06/2016
POL-0102799
Page 142 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Bates and others v PO
57
POL00025169
Email from Andrew Parsons to
Mark Underwood dated, re:
Tim Parker Briefing
[BD4A.FID26859284]
12/07/2016
POL-0021648
58
POL00025168
Email from Mark Underwood
to Jane MacLeod, Patrick
Bourke, Rodric Williams cc:
Andrew Parsons, re: Draft
Briefing for Tim's meeting with
BNR on Tues 19 July
12/07/2016
POL-0021647
59
POL00025170
Meeting with Baroness (Lucy)
Neville Rolfe, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State -
Tuesday 19 July 2016
19/07/2016
POL-0021649
60
POL00025171
Meeting with Baroness (Lucy)
Neville Rolfe, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State -
Tuesday 19 July 2016 -
Tracked Comments
19/07/2016
POL-0021650
61
POL00103225
Brief for Tim Parker meeting
with Baroness Neville Rolfe 19
July
19/07/2016
POL-0102808
62
POL00103215
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Letter to
Minister regarding the
Litigation
21/06/2016
POL-0102798
63
POL00022776
Letter from Tim Parker to
Baroness Neville-Rolfe re
update on handling
postmaster's complaints
21/06/2016
POL-0019255
64
POL00103232
Email from Alwen Lyons to
Tim Parker, Ken Mccall, Carla
etc, re: Postmaster Litigation-
Update to Board
29/07/2016
POL-0102815
65
POL00030009
Deloitte Draft "Bramble" -
Interim Report
27/07/2016
POL-0026491
66
POL00031502
‘Bramble’ — Draft Report
31/10/2016
POL-0028404
67
POL00030068
Deloitte - Bramble - Draft
Report
01/09/2017
POL-0026550
Page 143 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
68
POL00028070
Deloitte's 'Bramble'’ Draft
Report
03/10/2017
POL-0023073
69
POL00029097
Deloitte - Bramble - Draft
Report
15/12/2017
POL-0025579
70
POL00030075
Deloitte - Bramble - Draft
Report
19/01/2018
POL-0026557
71
POL00022765
Instructions to Brian Altman
QC from POL
18/02/2016
POL-0019244
72
POL00112884
Review of Post Office Limited
Criminal Prosecutions report
written by Brian Altman QC
2016
26/07/2016
POL-0111598
73
POL00030953
Briefings, Policy Documents
and Reports for Board to
Consider at Meeting
22/01/2016
POL-0027435
74
POL00125814
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 22 January
2016
22/01/2016
POL-0131425
75
POL00027643
Minutes of POL Board
Meeting held on 29 June 2016
29/06/2016
POL-0024284
76
POL00027582
Post Office Ltd Minutes: Board
Meeting, re: Post Office Card
Account (POca) Procurement
Decision
11/07/2016
POL-0024223
77
POL00021543
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 25 July
2016
25/07/2016
POL0000076
78
POL00021544
Meeting of POL Board
meeting held on 29
September 2016
29/09/2016
POL0000077
79
POL00021545
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 25 October
2016
25/10/2016
POL0000078
80
POL00027185
Minutes of POL Board
Meeting held on 24 November
2016
24/11/2017
POL-0023826
81
POL00021546
Minutes of POL meeting held
on 31 January 2017
31/01/2017
POL0000079
Page 144 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
82
POL00021547
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 28 March
2017
28/03/2017
POL0000080
83
POL00154182
Brief for Tim Parker with
Robert Swannell
30/03/2017
POL-0143664
84
UKGI00000993
Email thread from Richard
Callard to Emily Beynon, Tom
Haswell, Mark Russell and
others, re: Briefing - Jeremy
Haywood's meeting with Tim
Parker
05/08/2017
VIS00009131
85
POL00003340
Letter from Andrew Parsons to
James Hartley, re: Bates &
Others -v- Post Office Limited
- Generic Defence and
Counterclaim
18/07/2017
VIS00004354
86
POL00027047
CEO's Report by Paula
Vennells, Meeting date: 25
July 2017
25/07/2017
POL-0023688
87
POL00021549
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 25 July
2017
25/07/2017
POL0000082
88
POL00006380
Post Office Group Litigation,
Steering Group Meeting -
strategy to disclosure for
POL
11/09/2017
POL-0017685
89
POLO00006503
Litigation Strategy Options
11/09/2017
POL-0017808
90
POL00250666
CEO's Report by Paula
Vennells, Meeting date: 26
September 2017
26/09/2017
POL-BSFF0088729
91
POL00021550
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 26
September 2017
26/09/2017
POL0000083
92
POL00006384
Email from Andrew Parsons
to Tony, re: talking points for
Paula
28/09/2017
POL-0017689
93
POL00024273
Summary of Briefing, re:
Postmaster Litigation -
Provided to the Board of
Post Office Ltd.
01/05/2018
POL-0020752
Page 145 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
94
POL00103314
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Paula Vennells, Alisdair
Cameron; Tim Parker, and
others, re: Postmaster
Litigation - Update from CMC.
20/10/2017
POL-0102897
95
POL00103898
CEO's Report by Paula
Vennells, Meeting date: 31
October 2017
31/10/2017
POL-0103481
96
POL00021551
Minutes of POL Board meeting}
held on 31 October 2017
31/10/2017
POL0000084
97
POL00024318
Agenda for Steering Group
meeting on 3 November 2017
03/11/2017
POL-0020797
98
POL00004167
Alan Bates etc v Post Office,
Approved Judgment
10/11/2017
VIS00005181
99
POL00025752
Email from Rodric Williams to
Paul Loraine and Victoria
Brooks (WBD), re: CCRC -
Content for Update on
Chairman's Review
07/11/2017
POL-0022231
100
POL00103319
Brief for Tim Parker meeting
with Robert Swannell - 7
November
07/11/2017
POL-0102902
10
UKGI00007673
Email chain from Rachel
Mortimer to Robert Swannell
CC Mark Russell, re: Post
Office and Richard Wohanka -I
Settlement Agreed with
BEIS/HMT
08/11/2017
UKGI018486-001
102
POL00251661
CEO's Report by Paula
Vennells, Meeting date: 23
November 2017
23/11/2017
POL-BSFF0089724
103
POL00021552
Minutes of POL Board meetingI
held on 23 November 2017
23/11/2017
POL0000085
104
POL00021440
Minutes of Audit, Risk and
Compliance Committee
meeting held on 29 January
2018
29/01/2018
POL-0018070
105
POL00021553
Minutes of POL board meeting
held on 29 January 2018
29/01/2018
POL0000086
Page 146 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
106 POL00006808 Postmaster Litigation 27/03/2018 POL-0018044
Subcommittee, Executive
Summary, by Veronica
Branton, Meeting date: 27
March 2018
107 POL00006520 Email from Jane Macleod: 04/02/2018 POL-0017825
Postmaster Group Litigation,
re: FW: Postmaster Group
Litigation - SUBJECT TO.
LEGAL PRIVILEGE - DO NOT
FORWARD
108 POL00117899 Minutes of Postmaster 26/03/2018 POL-0115399
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 26 March
2018
109} UKGI00018134 Minutes of a meeting of the 27/03/2018 I UKGI028141-001
Board of Directors of Post
Office Limited
110 POL00021445 Minutes of Audit, Risk and 27/03/2018 POL-0018075
Compliance Committee
meeting held on 27 March
2018
111 POL00025892 Alan Bates & Others and 10/05/2018 POL-0022371
Post Office Limited Opinion
on the common issues
112 POL00006754 Minutes of Postmaster 15/05/2018 POL-0018012
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 15 May 2018
113 POL00021555 Minutes of POL Board meeting) 24/05/2018 POLoo0008s
held on 24 May 2018
114I NFSP00000040 Summary of meeting with Tim 29/05/2019 VIS00007488
Parker and Paula Vennells on
29 May 2018
115I UKGI00008158 Email from MPST Griffiths to 21/06/2018 I UKGI018970-001
Oluwatosin Adegun, Stephen
Clarke, Nick Parker, re:
Readout: Introductory
meeting with Tim Parker
(11.06.18) - Horizon Litigation
case
116 POL00024167 Draft Contingency Planning: 09/07/2018 POL-0020646
Risk Assessment Table
Page 147 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
17
POL00024166
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, Ken McCall,
Tom Cooper and others, re:
Board Litigation SubcommitteeI
09/07/2018
POL-0020645
118
POL00024177
Speaking note for Board Sub-
committee on 10 July 2018,
prepared by Womble Bond
Dickinson
10/07/2018
POL-0020656
119
POL00006763
Minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 10 July
2018
10/07/2018
POL-0018021
120
POL00103339
Email from Tim Parker to Jane
MacLeod, re: Post Office -
Litigation Sub-Committee
meeting - 11am Tuesday 10
July
06/07/2018
POL-0102922
POL00026843
Papers for POL Board meeting
held on 31 July 2018
31/07/2018
POL-0023484
122
POL00006757
Minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 24
September 2018
24/09/2018
POL-0018015
123
POL00103345
CEO's Report by Paula
Vennels, Meeting date: 25
September 2018
25/09/2018
POL-0102928
124
POL00021557
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 25
September 2018
25/09/2018
POL0000090
125
BEIS0000079
Protocol between POL, BEIS
and UKGI for the POL
Litigation
11/06/2018
BEIS0000059
126
POL00021556
Minutes of POL Board meetingI
held on 34 July 2018
31/07/2018
POL0000089
12
N
UKGI00008345
PO Group Litigation:
Litigation Update for UKGI
following POL Board
Meeting on 31 July 2018
31/07/2018
UKGIO19157-001
128
UKGI00008374
Briefing for meeting with Tim
Parker
11/09/2018
UKGIO19186-001
Page 148 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
129
UKGI00008373
Email from Stephen Clarke to
Sally Ash and UKGI POL
Team, re: Briefing for Robert
Swannell meeting with Tim
Parker
03/09/2018
UKGIO19185-001
130
UKGI00008390
Email from Tom Aldred to
Stephen Clarke, Oluwatosin
Adegun, Nick Parker and
others, re: Summary of catch
up with Tim Parker, 11 Sept
12/09/2018
UKGI019202-001
131
POL00023117
Judgement (no.2) of the High
Court of Justice in Alan Bates
and Others v Post Office
limited [2018] 2698(QB)
15/10/2018
POL-0019596
132
UKGI00008542
Email chain from Tom Cooper
to Tim Parker, re: GLO Ruling
18/10/2018
UKGIO19350-001
133
POL00103355
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, Paula Vennells
and Mark R Davies, re:
Postmaster Litigation
18/10/2018
POL-0102938
134
UKGI00013491
Email from Tom Cooper to
Paula Vennells cc Tim Parker,
re: Postmaster Litigation -
Error in submission
19/10/2018
UKGI024284-001
135
UKGI00008549
Email from Ken McCall to
Paula Vennells, Carla Stent
and others, with Tim Parker in
cc, re Postmaster Litigation
19/10/2018
UKGI019357-001
136
POL00021558
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 30 October
2018
30/10/2018
POL0000091
137
POL00021559
Minutes of POL Board meetingI
held on 27th November 2018
27/11/2018
POL0000092
138
POL00006471
Steering Group Noting Paper -
Expert Report of Dr Robert
Worden
28/11/2018
POL-0017776
139
POL00103372
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, Ken McCall,
Carla Stent and others, re:
Board Report - Final
21/12/2018
POL-0102955
Page 149 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
140
POL00103373
Report for Post Office Limited
Board as at 13 December
2018 concerning the Post
Office Group Litigation
(Common Issues Trial)
13/12/2018
POL-0102956
144
POL00103376
Report for Post Office Limited
Board as at 13 December
2018
13/12/2018
POL-0102959
142
POL00103375
Email from Tom Cooper to Tim
Parker, re: Post Office Group
Litigation
06/01/2019
POL-0102958
143
POL00103378
Email sent from Tom Cooper
to Tim Parker, re: POL Group
Litigation
06/01/2019
POL-0102961
144
POL00103379
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, Ken McCall, Tom
Cooper and others, re: Post
Office - Litigation
SubCommittee
22/01/2019
POL-0102962
145
POL00006756
Minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 28 January
2019
28/01/2019
POL-0018014
146
POL00006753
Minutes of the Group
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 21 February
2019
21/02/2019
POL-0018011
147
POL00154691
Email from Alisdair Cameron
to Tim Parker, re: Alex
Chisholm briefing and general
update
01/03/2019
POL-0143665
148
POL00154692
Note for Meeting with Alex
Chisholm, Permanent
Secretary, BEIS
01/03/2019
POL-0143666
149
POL00103409
Email from Jane MacLeod
to Tim Parker, Ken McCall,
Carla Stent and Others, re:
Postmaster Litigation -
Confidential and Subject to
Legal Privilege - Do Not
Forward
08/03/2019
POL-0102992
Page 150 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
150
POL00103411
Email chain between Tom
Cooper, Jane MacLeod and
Tim Parker re: Postmaster
Litigation
08/03/2019
POL-0102994
151
POL00103415
Email Chain from Tim Parker
to Jane MacLeod, re:
Postmaster Litigation
09/03/2019
POL-0102998
152
POL00111876
Postmaster Litigation
Judgement - Board call -
setting out the key finding of
Justice Frasers Common
issues Judgement
12/03/2019
POL-0109447
153
POL00103416
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, Ken McCall,
Carla Stent, and Others, re:
GLO Board Call at 10.30 am
Tuesday 12 March
11/03/2019
POL-0102999
154
POL00103438
Email from Alisdair Cameron
to Thomas Cooper, re: Urgent:
Litigation Options
15/03/2019
POL-0103021
155
POL00023899
Bates and others v Post Office
Limited - Observation on
Recusal Application, by [Lord]
David Neuberger
14/03/2019
POL-0020378
156
POL00103454
Note from Womble Bond
Dickinson, re: Bates & others
v Post Office Limited -
Recusal Note
17/03/2019
POL-0103037
157
POL00103446
Email from Tim Parker to Jane
MacLeod, Alisdair Cameron,
re: Call with Kelly Tolhurst
Confidential & Subject to LegalI
Privilege
16/03/2019
POL-0103029
153
©
UKGI00017593
Email from Mpst Tolhurst
(BEIS) to Tom Cooper (UKGI),
Gavin Lambert cc William
Holloway and others, re: POL
discussion with SoS and Kelly
Tolhurst
16/03/2019
UKGI027600-001
159
POL00103438
Email from Alisdair Cameron
to Thomas Cooper, re:
Litigation Options -
15/03/2019
POL-0103021
Page 151 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Confidential and Subject to
Legal Privilege
160
POL00103462
Alan Bates & Others and Post
Office Limited - Opinion on the
Common Issue
10/05/2018
POL-0103045
161
POL00103466
Womble Bond Dickinson -
Post Office Group Litigation -
Summary of Counsels'
Opinion on the Common
Issues
12/05/2018
POL-0103049
162
POL00103465
In the High court of Justice,
Alan Bates & Others v Post
Office Limited - Update to the
Opinion on the Common
Issues
28/09/2018
POL-0103048
163
POL00103463
Womble Bond Dickinson
DRAFT Contingency Planning;
Risk Assessment Table
18/03/2019
POL-0103046
164
POL00103464
Womble Bond Dickinson
Updated Risk Assessment
Table
03/01/2019
POL-0103047
165
POL00103461
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, re: Requested
documents
18/03/2019
POL-0103044
166
POL00006700
Group Litigation, Executive
Summary, by Jane MacLeod,
Meeting date: 18 March 2019
18/03/2019
POL-0017958
167
POL00103468
Email from Jane Macleod to
Tim Parker and Ken McCall,
re: Board call tonight -
suggested agenda
18/03/2019
POL-0103051
168
POL00021562
Minutes of POL Board meetingI
held on 18 March 2019
18/03/2019
POL0000095
169
POL00103472
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, Ken McCall,
Carla Stent and others, re:
Postmaster Litigation
19/03/2019
POL-0103055
Page 152 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
170
POL00103473
Post Office Limited, Board
of Directors Discussion
Paper - The Background to
Recusal and other issues
20/03/2019
POL-0103056
171
POL00021563
Minutes of POL Board meetingI
held on 20 March 2019
20/03/2019
POL0000096
172
POL00006397
Note of conferences on
18/3/2019 and 20/3/2019 with
Lord Grabiner QC
20/03/2019
POL-0017702
173
POL00103479
Agenda for POL Board
meeting on 25 March 2019
25/03/2019
POL-0103062
174
UKGI00017291
Minutes of POL Board meeting
held on 25 March 2019
25/03/2019
UKGI028249-001
175
POL00030887
Agenda for POL Board
meeting on 28 May 2019,
with Reports/Policy
Documents
28/05/2019
POL-0027369
176
UKGI000094 16
Email thread from Tim Parker
to Alisdair Cameron & Tom
Cooper, re: GLO Tuesday
28/03/2019
UKGI020224-001
177
POL00103484
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker, Ken McCall,
Carla Stent and others, re:
Post Office Group Litigation -
Update on Recusal
Application
03/04/2019
POL-0103067
178
UKGI00009551
Email chain from Stephen
Clarke to Stephen Clarke, re:
Write up of Tim Parker - Kelly
Tolhurst meeting
13/04/2019
UKGI020359-001
179
POL00103489
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tim Parker and others, re:
Post Office - Recusal
Application
09/04/2019
POL-0103072
180
POL00103494
Email from Jane MacLeod to
Tom Cooper and Alisdair
Cameron, re: Post Office -
Recusal Application
10/04/2019
POL-0103077
181
POL00023899
Bates and others v Post Office
Limited - Observation on
14/03/2019
POL-0020378
Page 153 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
Recusal Application By [Lord]
David Neuberger
182
POL00103495
Email from Alisdair Cameron
to Tim Parker, re: Update
12/04/2019
POL-0103078
183
POL00006399
Brian Altman QC Advice on
the Common Issues Trial
Judgment
14/04/2019
POL-0017704
184
POL00103502
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
The Post Office Group
Litigation Board Litigation Sub-I
Committee: 24 April 2019
23/04/2019
POL-0103085
185
POL00103498
Post Office Limited Board
Litigation Sub-Committee
Postmaster Litigation -
Executive Summary
Confidential and Subject to
Legal Privilege
24/04/2019
POL-0103081
186
POL00103499
Womble Bond Dickinson
Common Issues Judgment:
Appeal Advice
11/04/2019
POL-0103082
187
POL00103500
Confidential and Privileged -
Alan Bates & Others v Post
Office Limited - Common
Issues List
23/04/2019
POL-0103083
188
POL00006755
Minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
Meeting held on 24 April 2019
24/04/2019
POL-0018013
189
POL00021565
Minutes of POL Board meeting}
held on 30 April 2019
30/04/2019
POL0000098
190
POL00023207
Permission to appeal
against Judgement No.4
(Recusal)REFUSED In the
Court of appeal civil
Division for Post Office v
Bates & Others. Order
made by the Rt. Hon. Lord
Justice Coulson
10/05/2019
POL-0019686
POL00103536
Email from Alan Watts to
Thomas Cooper, re: For info:
recusal application refused
11/05/2019
POL-0103119
Page 154 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
192
POL00103541
Email from Thomas Cooper to
Tim Parker and others, re:
GLO
13/05/2019
POL-0103124
19;
oO
UKGI00009777
Email from Eleanor to Carl
Creswell, Craig Watson,
Cecilia Vandini re Note of
Kelly/Al/Tim meeting on POL -
15/5
16/05/2019
UKGI020585-001
194
POL00021566
Meeting minutes: minutes of
Board meeting held on 28th
May 2019
28/05/2019
POL0000099
195
POL00023739
Letter from Kelly Tollhurst
MP to Tim Parker, re: post
office Group Litigation
29/05/2019
POL-0020218
196
POL00023738
Letter from Tim Parker to Kelly]
Tolhurst MP, re: UKGI/Post
Office Limited Information
Sharing Protocol
03/06/2019
POL-0020217
197
POL00103595
Minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 12 June
2019
12/06/2019
POL-0103178
198
UKGI00010190
Email chain from Mark Russell
to Robert Swannell and RoberiI
Razzell, re: Tim Parker - Post
Office
17/06/2019
UKGI020998-001
199
POL00006752
Draft minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 20 June.
20/06/2019
POL-0018010
200
POL00021568
Minutes of POL Board
meeting held on 30 July
2019
30/07/2019
POL0000101
POL00103667
Minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 17
September 2019
17/09/2019
POL-0103250
202
POL00155497
Minutes of POL Board MeetingI
held on 23 September 2019
23/09/2019
POL-0143662
Page 155 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
203 POL00103654 Email from Alan Watts to 25/09/2019 POL-0103237
Alisdair Cameron, Thomas
Cooper, Ken McCall and
others, re: Privileged &
Confidential
204 POL00021570 Minutes of POL Board meeting) 03/10/2019 POL0000103
held on 3 October 2019
205 POL00103663 Email chain from Tim Parker 10/10/2019 POL-0103246
to Nick Read, re: Mark Davies
206 POL00103694 Minutes Postmaster Litigation 22/10/2019 POL-0103277
subcommittee meeting held onI
22 October 2019
[207 POL00155496 Minutes of POL Board meeting) 29/10/2019 POL-0143661
held on 29 October 2019
208] UKGI00010672 Email chain from Carl Creswell) 04/11/2019 UKGI021480-001
to Tom Aldred, Tom Cooper,
and Beth White re: Few points
from the POL Chair meeting -
Performance, Governance and
Policy
1209 POL00288649 Papers for Postmaster 13/11/2019 POL-BSFF0126712
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 13 November
2019
210 POL00006759 Minutes of Postmaster 13/11/2019 POL-0018017
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 13 November
2019
211 POL00030884 Group Litigation Update, 26/11/2019 POL-0027366
Executive Summary, by Ben
Foat and Rodric Williams
212] POL00163726 Minutes of POL Board meeting) 26/11/2019 POL-0151897
held on 26 November 2019
213 POL00026420 Email from Ben Foat to Tim 29/11/2019 POL-0022899
Parker, Tim Franklin, Carla
Stent and others, re: GLO -
High Level Review
Embargoed Horizon Judgment
Page 156 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
214
POL00043341
Email chain between Ben
Foat, Tim Parker, Tim
Franklin and others RE:
GLO - High Level Review
Embargoed Horizon
Judgment - Section M
09/12/2019
POL-0039823
215
POL00128935
Minutes of Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting held on 10 December
2019
10/12/2019
POL-0132237
216
POL00128937
Agenda for Postmaster
Litigation Subcommittee
meeting on 3 March 2020
03/03/2020
POL-0132239
217
POL00112873
Email from Ben Foat to Nick
Read, re: GLO - Previous
Investigations & milestones
leading up to proceedings
20/02/2020
POL-0111597
218
POL00103840
Email sent from Tim Parker
to Alan Watts, Emanuel
Catherine and others, re:
GLO : Meeting Yesterday
07/02/2020
POL-0103423
219
UKGI00018737
Email from Justin Manson to
Tom Cooper re: Fwd: meeting
with Tim Parker Chair of POL
05/03/2020
VIS00012136
220
UKGI00011642
Email from Minister Scully to
Shanice Swales CC SpAds
Office and others, re:
Commission: Intro Meeting
with Nick Read and Tim
Parker from POL
16/03/2020
UKGI022450-001
221
UKGI00016352
Letter from Paul Scully MP to
Nick Read - Historical Shortfall
Scheme
01/03/2020
UKGI027145-001
222
POL00103870
Email from Tim Parker to Ben
Foat, re: GLO - Historic
Management of GLO - Q&As -
Response to Chairman
09/03/2020
POL-0103453
223
POL00104107
Email from Ken McCall to
Veronica Branton, Tom
Cooper, Tim Parker and
others, re: PDF of CCRC
Papers 23 April 2020
22/04/2020
POL-0103690
Page 157 of 158
WITNO0690100
WITNO0690100
224
POL00031104
Letter from Tim Parker (POL)
to Paul Scully MP, re: re-
exposure following CCRC.
decision to refer cases to the
appeal courts
29/04/2020
POL-0027586
22:
a
UKGI00017810
Email from Veronica Branton
to Tim Parker, Ken McCall,
Carla Stent and others, re:
Agenda and papers: Board
meeting CCRC
22/09/2020
UKGI027817-001
Page 158 of 158