WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
Witness name: Nick Read
Statement No: WITN00760500
Dated: 2 December 2024
THE POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIFTH WITNESS STATEMENT OF NICK READ ON BEHALF OF POST OFFICE
LIMITED IN THE POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
I, Nick Read of 100 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7ER, will say as follows:
A. Introduction
1 I am Nick Read, Group Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") at Post Office Limited
("Post Office"). This is my Fifth Witness statement to the Inquiry. As CEO I am
giving this witness statement in a corporate capacity on behalf of Post Office,
in response to the Rule 9 request dated 13 November 2024 ("R9(64)"). I am
aware of the steps Post Office has taken to respond to this R9(64) and, as such,
I consider that I am the appropriate person to give this witness statement on
behalf of Post Office.
2 I have aimed to include within this witness statement evidence relating to
R9(64) insofar as the relevant facts are within my own knowledge. The facts in
this witness statement are true, complete and accurate to the best of my
Page 1 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
knowledge and belief. Where my knowledge and belief, as set out in this
witness statement, has been informed by another person or by documents that
I have reviewed, I acknowledge that person or those documents. I have been
assisted in preparing this witness statement by Burges Salmon LLP and
Fieldfisher LLP (together "BSFf"), who act on behalf of Post Office in the Post
Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the "Inquiry").
B. Response
Question 1: Identification of who the “all” are in the “Dear All’ salutation in the first
line of the POL00448701
3 I understand that Post Office has taken steps to identify the original recipients
of this document (POL00448701). Post Office located an email originating from
Nick Vamos of Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP (“P&P”) with the email subject
line “Ministerial consideration of POL's role in appeals [PP-DOCS.FID71323]
dated 7 January 2024 timed 7:53:28 PM (the “Email”). POL00448701 looks to
be a PDF print out of the Email as it contains identical content. A copy of the
Email is to be produced to the Inquiry in PROD0157 (POL00460853).
4 The Email was addressed to the following recipients within Post Office:
(a) I Simon Recaldin (Remediation Unit Director);
(b) Ken Kyriacou (Remediation Unit, Horizon Shortfall Scheme contractor);
(c) Nicola Munden (Remediation Unit - Legal Services Director); and
(d) — Stuart Lill (Senior Legal Counsel - Criminal Law).
5 Accordingly, I presume that ‘Dear All’ is to those individuals listed above.
Page 2 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
6 The Email was also copied to Maria Cronin, and Charlotte Tregunna, both
Partners at P&P. To my knowledge, and Post Office’s knowledge, no individuals
were blind copied (BCC’d) into the email, but I cannot confirm this.
7 Post Office has carried out further reviews to identify whether Nick Vamos sent
any other email with the content in POL00448701 to other individuals at Post
Office. Post Office has not identified any such email.
Question 2: Identification of to whom POL00448701 was distributed within POL after
receipt by POL
8 R9(64) refers to document POL00448701 which, following reviews conducted
by Post Office (via BSFf), I understand to be from the Email referred to above.
The Inquiry has requested that Post Office identifies individuals within the
business to whom POL00448701 was distributed. Following identification of the
Email, and for completeness, Post Office has interpreted the scope of the
Inquiry’s request of “to whom POL00448701 was distributed” to include (i) any
copy of POL00448701; and (ii) any communication or document which includes
the same detail as contained in POL00448701.
9 Following the receipt of R9(64), Post Office took the following steps:
(a) Engagement with Post Office’s cyber department to run various
keyword searches (using keyword phrases and text strings from
Page 3 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
POL00448701) across the following repositories within Post Office’s
data universe:
(i) Mimecast, for email data;
(ii) I Microsoft Exchange, for email data and Microsoft Teams
messages data; and
(iii) I SharePoint and OneDrive, for any documents created or saved
to those locations.
(b) Engagement with KPMG to run the searches across Post Office’s
Relativity databases.
10 Following the completion of the above searches, responsive documents were
harvested and reviewed by BSFf (for Post Office) for relevancy as against
questions 2 of the annexure to R9(64) (and the rest of the notice). Appendix 1
to this witness statement lists to whom POL00448701 was distributed within the
scope as described at paragraph 8 above.
Question 3: How and in what circumstances POL00448701 came to be posted on
POL's main website
11 Post Office has made enquiries within the business to confirm why this
document was published on its website and also reviewed documents
responsive to this question. I understand the position to be as follows:
(a) After being forwarded the email from Nick Vamos by Simon Recaldin
on 7 January 2024 (POL00460857) I sent a copy of the Email (which
as explained, contained the contents of POL00448701), together with
Page 4 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
a covering letter to Alex Chalk MP (as Lord Chancellor) dated 9 January
2024 (the “Letter”) (POL00448381). This email (POL00461820) was
circulated to various group mailboxes within the UK Government.
The circulation of the Letter and POL00448701 attracted attention from
the public and Government:
(i) On 24 January 2024, the Financial Times published an article
which reported on the existence of the Letter (RLIT0000438);
(ii) I On 18 February 2024, Post Office received a request under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 for copies of both the Letter
and POL00448701. I understand that Post Office also
anticipated that it would receive further requests for disclosure,
in the context of growing media attention.
(iii) I On 21 February 2024, Post Office received an email from
Christopher Hodges (Chair of the Horizon Compensation
Advisory Board ('HCAB')) requesting copies of the Letter and
POL00448701. This email copied in Rob Brightwell, Deputy
Director at the Department of Business and Trade (DBT). Post
Office provided the Letter and POL00448701 to Chrisopher
Hodges by email on 22 February 2024 (POL00461053) and
advised that both would be published on Post Office's website
in the interests of transparency.
(iv) On 22 February 2024, Post Office received a letter from the
Business and Trade Committee (POL00448612) requesting
that Post Office “provide the following documents to the
Page 5 of 17
12
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
Business and Trade Committee before the oral evidence
session at which you [Nick Read] will appear on Tuesday 27
February 2024”. That letter stated that the Committee "has a
general presumption in favour of publication of documents,
which will apply in this case". Post Office provided copies of
both the Letter and POL00448701 on 23 February 2024 and
confirmed by its letter of response (POL00461138) that “on 22
February, Post Office published the correspondence from 9
January 2024, sent by the Post Office to the Ministry of Justice,
on its corporate website".
I understand that, as a result of the events listed above, including that the
content of POL00448701 was already in the public domain, and the document
itself was due to be made public by way of Post Office's FOI response, Post
Office took the decision to publish both POL00448701 and the Letter on its
website for the sake of transparency and to provide context by way ofa covering
statement, as follows:
“Post Office is today publishing correspondence from 9th January 2024,
sent by the Post Office to the Ministry of Justice, copied to the
Department for Business and Trade.
The purpose of the correspondence was to explain the work that Post
Office had requested its legal counsel, Peters & Peters, undertake to
proactively identify, on the papers available, any convictions that could
Page 6 of 17
13
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
be unsafe. This was primarily to offer the Government any support that
might assist them as they consider relevant issues in advance of passing
legislation, without any value judgement on what the correct course of
action might be.
The letter references a note provided by Post Office’s legal counsel, this
note was not solicited by Post Office and, as can be seen, was sent to
express the personal views of its author. Post Office was in no way
seeking to persuade Government against mass exoneration.
Post Office are fully supportive of any steps taken by Government to
speed up the exoneration of those with wrongful convictions and to
provide redress to victims, with the information having been provided to
inform that consideration.” (POL00461068)
The actual publication of POL00448701 was supported by a ‘publication
handling plan’ (POL00460717) (the “Plan”), which outlined Post Office’s
engagement with (i) key stakeholders and (ii) members of the Post Office team
in advance of the actual publication. In particular, Owen Woodley emailed Carl
Cresswell, Director of Business Resilience at DBT, on 21 February 2024 to
notify him that the Letter and POL00448701 would be provided to the HCAB the
following day (on 22 February 2024) and would be simultaneously published on
Post Office's website. Carl Cresswell responded stating "that’s a very good call
from my point of view" (POL00461005).
Page 7 of 17
14
15
16
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
Separately, and as detailed in the Plan, Post Office instructed BSFf to notify the
Inquiry of the publication of both the Letter and POL00448701. BSFf informed
the Inquiry on 22 February 2024, providing links to both documents on the Post
Office website.
. Documents produced to the Inquiry in response to R9(64)
R9(64) also requests Post Office to search for documents and, if found, provide
disclosure to the Inquiry of such documents. Post Office will respond to those
disclosure requests in writing.
One of the requests is “the contemporaneous notes made by Nick Read as
referred to by Mr Read in his oral evidence on 9 October 2024 (see Transcript
p.102 lines 12 to 19 (INQ00001193))”. The relevant extract of the transcript
(INQ00001193) is as follows:
Q. You essentially explained it on the basis that the Government said that the
Post Office needed to feel some of the pain?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that phrase used?
A. I looked at my contemporaneous notes and I think I may well have disclosed
something to this effect: that the way it was portrayed to me was that Treasury
were of the opinion that the chaos -- I think was the word that was used -- had
been caused by the Post Office. There was a desire for the Post Office to
experience some of the discomfort that had been caused. You could
Page 8 of 17
17
18
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
understand why that might be the case but I just think it's missing the point
completely.
I have taken photographs of extracts of my notebooks that I consider are
relevant to this point and have produced them to the Inquiry. They consist of 9
images:
(a) I POLO0461674 and POL00461675: These are extracts from my
notebook from September 2019.
(b) POL00461677: This is an extract of my notebook from March 2020.
(c) POL00461672, POL00461673, and POL00461676: These are extracts
of my notebook from May 2020.
(d) POL00461678 and POL00461680: These are extracts of my notebook
from August 2020.
(e) POL00461679: This is an extract of my notebook from September
2020.
These notes make various reference to concerns around how Post Office could
administer compensation schemes, and 'Good Bank / Bad Bank’, which was
the phrase used around this time to describe the idea that compensation should
be hived off from Post Office's usual business (akin to the way that banks hived
off parts of their business following the financial crisis) and be dealt with by an
entirely separate entity. My notes also make reference to the conversations with
the Shareholder, particularly the Treasury, around this time and the overall
reluctance of BEIS / DBT to fund litigation costs and compensation.
Page 9 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
19 Further, my recollection is that Tom Cooper told me, during a conversation in
person, that the Treasury wanted Post Office to share in the 'chaos' of its own
making and therefore handle compensation. I recall reading a note to this effect
in one of my notebooks, but I have not been able to locate it when searching
through my notebooks in response to R9(64). I am continuing to search for this
and will provide it to the Inquiry if I can find it.
20 On this topic, I note that I wrote to Mr Paul Scully MP on 5 March 2021
(UKGI00013382) expressing my view that the Shareholder, not Post Office,
should handle the administration of compensation for overturned convictions.
Mr Scully responded on 22 April 2021 (UKGI00013544) confirming that Post
Office needed to administer the compensation scheme for overturned
convictions. He stated that, "/ believe it is more appropriate for Post Office to
continue to have ownership over its past historical issues rather than
Government".
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Date: 2 December 2024
Page 10 of 17
APPENDIX 1: INDIVIDUALS WITHIN POST OFFICE LIMITED TO WHOM
POL00448701 WAS DISTRIBUTED
Name Date first received
Simon Recaldin I 7 January 2024
(original recipient)
Ken Kyriacou
7 January 2024
(original recipient)
Stuart Lill 7 January 2024
(original recipient)
Nicola Munden 7 January 2024
(original recipient)
Ben Foat 7 January 2024
Richard Taylor
7 January 2024
Nick Read
7 January 2024
Diane Wills
7 January 2024
Chris Brocklesby
7 January 2024
Michelle Storey
7 January 2024
Benjamin Tidswell
8 January 2024
Evelyn Hocking
8 January 2024
Andrew Mortimer
8 January 2024
Patrick Bourke
8 January 2024
Melanie Corfield
8 January 2024
Henry Staunton
8 January 2024
Page 11 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
Shabegh Singh Srai
8 January 2024
Brian Gaunt 8 January 2024
Andrew Mortimer 9 January 2024
Philippa Hankin 9 January 2024
Kate Dixon
10 January 2024
Alice Cookson
10 January 2024
Deirdre Gadsby
21 February 2024
Karen McEwan
21 February 2024
Kathryn Sherratt
21 February 2024
Chrysanthy Pispinis
21 February 2024
Andy Jennings
21 February 2024
Post Office internal
Data Protection and
FOI lawyer
21 February 2024
Gemma Ludgate
21 February 2024
Natalie Tomecki
21 February 2024
Jane Inskip
21 February 2024
Andrea Beveney
21 February 2024
Richard Paddington
22 February 2024
Mark Cazaly
22 February 2024
Jonathan Knox
22 February 2024
Owen Woodley
22 February 2024
Jack Foden
23 February 2024
Page 12 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
Rachel Scarrabelotti
23 February 2024
Saf Ismail 23 February 2024
Elliot Jacobs 23 February 2024
Karim Aziz 23 February 2024
Andrew Darfoor
1 March 2024
Jamie Park
1 March 2024
Simon Jeffreys
4 March 2024
Amanda Burton
4 March 2024
Julie Cummings
10 May 2024
Daniel Chumbley
18 October 2024
Page 13 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
WITNO00760500
Index to the Fifth Witness Statement of Nick Read
POL00448701 )A PDF printout of an email I POL-BSFF-WITN-006-
starting "Dear All". from Nick I 0029319
Vamos of Peters and Peters
Solicitors LLP (“P&P”)
POL00460853 I An email originating from Nick I POL-BSFF-157-0000075
Vamos of “P&P” with the email
subject line “Ministerial
consideration of POL's role in
appeals [PP-DOCS.FID71323]
dated 7 January 2024.
POL00460857 I An email from Simon Recaldin to I POL-BSFF-157-0000079
Ben Foat, Richard Taylor and
Nick Read attaching the email
listed at number 1.
POL00448381 I A covering letter to Alex Chalk I POL-BSFF-WITN-012-
MP (as Lord Chancellor) dated 9 I 0000019
January 2024.
POL00461820 I An email from Nick Read to the I POL-BSFF-157-0000908
Shareholder attaching ‘the
covering letter and P&P advice.
Page 14 of 17
RLIT0000438
Financial Times article dated 24
January 2024 titled ' Post Office
told UK government it would
half
oppose appeals’ by
convicted sub-postmasters'
WITNO0760500
WITNO0760500
RLIT0000438
POL00461053
An email from Post Office that
provided the Letter and
POL00448701 requested by
Chrisopher Hodges on 22
February 2024.
POL-BSFF-157-0000275
POL00448612
A letter from the Business and
Trade Committee on 22
February 2024.
POL-BSFF-WITN-021-
0000017
POL00461138
A letter of response from Post
Office to the Business and Trade
Committee on 23 February
2024.
POL-BSFF-157-0000360
10.
POL00461068
Email from Mark Cazaly to Owen
Woodley; Jonathan Knox, re:
Lord Chancellor — attachment.
Pdf.
POL-BSFF-157-0000290
Page 15 of 17
WITNO0760500
WITNO00760500
11.I POL00460717 I Post Office’s ‘publication I POL-BSFF-157-0000001
handling plan’ relating to
POL00448701.
12.I POL00461005 I An Owen Woodley email to Carl I POL-BSFF-157-0000227
Cresswell, Director of Business
Resilience at DBT, on 21
February 2024.
13.I INQ00001193 I Nick Read’s Oral evidence I INQ00001193
transcript
14.I POL00461674 I Extracts from Nick Read’s I POL-BSFF-157-0000901
notebook from September 2019.
15.I POL00461675 I Extracts from Nick Read’s I POL-BSFF-157-0000902
notebook from September 2019.
16.I POL00461677 I Extracts from Nick Read’s I POL-BSFF-157-0000904
notebook from March 2020.
17.I POL00461672 I Extracts from Nick Read’s I POL-BSFF-157-0000899
notebook from May 2020.
18.I POL00461673 I Extracts from Nick Read’s I POL-BSFF-157-0000900
notebook from May 2020.
19.I POL00461676 I Extracts from Nick Read’s I POL-BSFF-157-0000903
notebook from May 2020.
Page 16 of 17
20.
POL00461678
Extracts from Nick Read's
notebook from August 2020.
WITNO0760500
WITNO00760500
POL-BSFF-157-0000905
21.
POL00461680
Extracts from Nick Read's
notebook from August 2020.
POL-BSFF-157-0000907
22.
POL00461679
Extracts from Nick Read's
notebook from September 2020.
POL-BSFF-157-0000906
23.
UKGI00013382
Nick Read letter to Mr Paul
Scully MP on 5 March 2021.
UKGI024175-001
24,
UKGI00013544
Mr Scully MP's letter on 22 April
2021, sent in response to Nick
Read’s letter.
UKGI024337-001
Page 17 of 17