WITNO08200200
WITNO8200200
Witness Name: Anthony Richard Utting
Statement No.: WITN08200200
Dated: 18/04/2025
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANTHONY RICHARD UTTING
I, Anthony Richard Utting, will say as follows...
INTRODUCTION
1. lama former employee of Post Offiice Ltd and held the position of National
Investigation Manager, amongst a number of others.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the
“Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request 2 dated 3" April 2025
(the “Request’).
BACKGROUND
3. I have been asked to set out a full account of my involvement in the case of
Cleveleys Modified Sub-Post Office. I can say that I have no recollection of
having any role or involvement in this case.
Page I of 7
WITNO08200200
WITNO8200200
4. I have been asked to consider Mr Coyne’s report WITN09020115. I do not
recall ever having seen this report until now and do not remember ever reading
it. It appears to relate to the case in question, but as this was a civil matter and I
worked in the investigation Team, dealing with Criminal cases only I am not
sure why it would have been sent to me. I likewise, have no recollection of ever
having any discussions with anybody about the report.
5. I have been asked to consider an advice of Stefan BrochwiczLewinski
POL00142504. This advice appears to have been forwarded to me by Mr Tony
Marsh in an email on 27 July 2004. I do not recall whether I read this advice or nd.
The email from Tony asked me to ask my operations lead to manage the case and
to liaise with Tony if he had any queries or issues.Not being able to remember
reading the report, I am unable to recollect what thoughts I may have had about it.
6. I have been asked to comment on Mr BrochwiczLewinski’s statement about being
asked to take into particular account that the Post Office is anxious for the negative
computer experts report to be given as little publicity as possible. I cannotsay what
I would have thought at the time, as I do not recall reading either the advice or the
report.
7. I have been asked to consider the email chain forwarded to me by Tony Marsh on
27 July 2004 POL00142505. I do not recall receiving this email or any discussions I
had with either Tony Marsh prior to the email being sent, orManish Patel once I
received it regarding what he was to do, or how he was to do it. From my way of
working, I would suggest that I had a conversation with Manish either by phone, or
in person (by phone would be most likely as we worked at different offices and
Page 2 of 7
WITNO08200200
WITNO8200200
didn’t see each other more than two or three times per month) and then forwarded
him the email that Tony had sent me. From the way the email to myself is written
by Tony Marsh, I think it would simply have been a case oftelling Manish what
Tony Had sent me and then asking him to take the case on and deal with Tony for
any issues that arose. I have no recollection of any activities that Manish undertook
and as far as I am aware he did not provide me with any reports of hé activities.
. I have been asked to provide details of any meetings and discussions I had with
David Miller after seeing the advice of Mr BrochwiczLewinski. I do not recall
having any meetings with anybody relating to this advice. I have been asked to
consider both Mr Miller's evidence of 16 April 2024 INQ00001130 and Mr Marsh's
second witness statement WITN06900200. After reviewing these two pieces of
evidence, I still have no recollection of any meetings on this matterand whilst Mr
Miller suggests he met with Tony Marsh, Tony suggests that it was me. I have no
recollection, but would say that at that point in time, I had only met Mr Miller once
or twice and so do not think I would have had the type of conversation with him that
he describes in his evidence about that meeting.Given that Tony Marsh forwarded
the email with the advice to me and asked me to put Manish in charge of the
matter, suggests that I was still reporting to Tony Marsh at this point. This view is
reinforced by Rod Ismay asking who from Tony’s team was involved. I only ever
reported to the two of them as head of investigationsin this period. Regardless of
which of them I was working for, Ido not understand why either of them would
send a member of the criminal investigation team to talk with the COO about a civil
case.
Page 3 of 7
WITNO08200200
WITNO8200200
9. I have been asked to what extent myself or others considered the implications of
the Coyne report for other civil and criminal cases. I havestated that I have no
recollection of ever seeing the Coyne Reportand I therefore have no recollection of
having given it any consideration. I am not aware of who did see the Coyne Report
and so cannot guess what was considered.
10.1 have been asked to consider the impact of the Cleveleys case on other criminal
and civil cases, including that of Lee Castleton. I do not recall there being any
impact, but that is simply because I do not recall the Cleveleys case and from my
recollection, I don’t think it ever came up in respect of any cases I was involved
with or oversaw. In respect of the Lee Castleton case, where I had some
involvement, I do not recall Cleveleys being mentioned. Though itwas a long time
ago and it may have been.
11.1 have been asked to what extent I reflected on POLs conduct in pursuing shortfalls
and/or prosecuting SPMs following the Cleveleys case. I have no recollection of the
matter and so cannot say whether I reflected on this case at all. It is difficult to
consider hindsight in this matter, as I do not recall what was sent to me and what
was Said to me. My recollection is that I had no involvement in the Cleveleys case
whilst the evidence that has been provided suggests that I was askedto ask
Manish Patel to lead on the matter by Tony Marsh.
12.In the evidence I have been provided, there appears to be some confusion around
who the Investigation Team reported to.I believe the investigation Team worked to
Tony Marsh from 1999 up untila little after he went to do the network
transformation project some time in 2004. Both my predecessor, Phil Gerrish and
myself worked to Tony Marsh in the Security Team during this period. At this point
Page 4 of 7
WITNO08200200
WITNO8200200
Tony and the whole Security Team in POL were employed by Post Office Ltd, with
Tony Having a dotted Line to the Corporate Security Director. Soon after Tony
moved to the Transformation project the Investigation Team was moved over to the
Finance function under Rod Ismay and I continued to report to him until mid 2006,
when Tony returned from the project and took over the Security function once
more. I continued to report to Tony Marsh until he moved to Corporate Security
Page 5 of 7
WITNO08200200
WITNO8200200
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 18/04/2025
Page 6 of 7
Index to Second Witness Statement of Anthony Richard Utting
WITNO08200200
WITNO8200200
INo.
URN
Document Description
(Control Number
WITN09020115
ason Coyne Expert
Opinion 21.04.04 and
fssociated documents
WITN09020115
POL00142504
(Advice on Evidence and
Quantum by S.A
Brochwicz-Lewinski in
POCL v Julie
‘olstenholme, Case No.
(CR101947
POL-BSFF-0001780
POL00142505
Email chain from Tony
arsh to Tony R Utting,
Rod Ismay, cc'ing Carol
ing and others re: Legal
case - Cleveleys PO 153
#05 Mrs J Wolstenholme
POL-0143796
NQ00001130
Transcript (16/04/2024):
Post Office Horizon IT
nquiry - David Miller
WITN0347] and David
ills [WITN1095]
INQ00001130
WITN06900200
Second Witness
Statement of Tony Marsh
WITN06900200
Page 7 of 7