WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
Witness Name: Martin John Smith
Statement No: WITN09680200
Dated: 19 March 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARTIN JOHN SMITH
I, Martin John Smith, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the
Inquiry) with matters set out in the Rule 9 Request (the Request) dated 1°* March
2024. I have previously made a statement to the Inquiry — my first witness
statement was dated 21st November 2023 (WITN09680100).
2. This statement has been prepared having regard to the documents provided
with the Request, documents previously provided by the Inquiry and from
memory. I have attempted to recollect events and the content of this statement
represents the best of my recollection as at the date of this statement.
Page 1 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
The Second Sight Interim Report
3. I believe that prior to the publication of the Second Sight Interim Report
(POL00099063) I had a number of telephone conversations with lawyers from
the Legal Department of Post Office Ltd. From the papers which have been
provided with the Request, I understand that these took place on 27" June 2013.
I am not certain with whom I first spoke due to the length of time which has since
elapsed and for that reason, it is also difficult to recall the precise conversation.
I was asked, however, whether I knew about the bugs in Horizon Online affecting
numerous branches. I inferred from the way in which the question had been
phrased, that the Legal Department had been unaware of the bugs. I too could
not recall being informed of any bugs and when I spoke to Jarnail Singh, he told
me that he was also unaware of the bugs.
4. Whilst I am unsure as to the exact chronology of events due to the passage of
time, I am able to recall that I accompanied Mr. Clarke to a meeting at the
premises of Post Office Ltd with a number of members of the Legal Department.
I took notes during the meeting but do not have access to them. I can recall,
however, that Simon Clarke advised that a review of cases should be
undertaken to determine whether post-conviction disclosure should be provided.
I believe it was also during that meeting that Simon explained the disclosure
obligations which applied in criminal law and advised that a weekly call be
arranged so that Horizon-related information could be collated in a central
record. I also made reference at the meeting to the case of Mr. Ishaq expressing
my concern that disclosure which should have been made had not been made
and that he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Page 2 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
5. I provided Mr. Clarke with copies of several statements of Gareth Jenkins which
had been served and I also expressed my surprise that Mr. Jenkins had not
referred to the existence of the bugs during Mr. Ishaq’s case. I also noted that
Mr. Jenkins had confirmed at Court that Mr. Ishaq’s branch had not been
affected by a bug and that Mr. Ishaq had pleaded guilty. Mr. Clarke advised that
the existence of the two bugs should nevertheless have been disclosed to Mr.
Ishaq. He explained that it would have been open to Mr. Ishaq to argue that
there were, perhaps, bugs affecting his branch which had yet to be detected. I
can recall feeling deeply unhappy about the situation and asked Mr. Clarke to
review Mr. Ishaq’s case.
6. Mr. Clarke and I also discussed a case listed for trial before the Crown Court at
Birmingham in which he was Counsel for the Prosecution. I think it was due to
commence the following week and he was concerned that he could not properly
deal with disclosure. It was in those circumstances that Mr. Clarke and I called
Mr. Jenkins. During the course of the telephone call he confirmed that Fujitsu
had declared the existence of two bugs to Second Sight. He also indicated that
Fujitsu was confident that the audit trail being used for the purposes of
prosecution had not been compromised by the bugs.
7. Simon Clarke advised that a team of solicitors should be assembled to conduct
a file review process from the Derby Office of Cartwright King. I can recall that
a meeting took place at which the questions to be asked were formulated and
following that meeting a template document was designed for use during the
review process. I was one of the solicitors who reviewed the case files. Given
that the review process included cases prosecuted by Post Office Ltd prior to
Page 3 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
the date upon it became a separate entity, it was also necessary to liaise with
the Royal Mail Group.
8. I do not recall the date when I first saw a draft copy of the Second Sight Interim
Report. I believe, however, that it was made available to Cartwright King prior to
its publication. I cannot recall whether the report of Helen Rose of 12 June
2013 (FUJ00086811) was provided at the same time or subsequently.
9. Due to the passage of time, I am unable to recall my initial thoughts when I first
saw these reports. I do not recall considering the extent to which either the
Report of Helen Rose or Second Sight’s Interim Report might support an
argument that there was a lack of integrity in the Horizon IT system.
10.Similarly, I do not recall considering whether either document might support an
argument that there had been a failure to provide adequate disclosure in respect
of convictions based on data generated by the Horizon IT System.
11.1 did not consider whether there were, or might be, other underlying documents
relevant to (a) the issues specifically identified or alluded to by Second Sight or
Helen Rose, or (b) other issues with the Horizon System’s integrity. I do not
believe that I provided any advice to Post Office Ltd to search for any such
documents.
12.I have been asked to consider an email of Rodric Williams of 5" July to myself
and Simon Clarke (POL00062162) to which Spot Reviews and Responses had
been attached. I do not recall giving any consideration to whether the Spot
Reviews should be disclosed to convicted Subpostmasters. I cannot recall
whether I discussed this with Simon Clarke.
13.I have been provided with a copy of the Advice of Simon Clarke of 8" July 2013
(POL00006365). I am unable to recall the extent to which I was involved in the
Page 4 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
preparation of this advice or discussing the issues referred to therein with Mr.
Clarke. It was not uncommon for Mr. Clarke to prepare a document and to ask
either myself or another member of staff to take a look at it before it was
dispatched. In such instances he would often explain the reasoning behind his
advice.
14.Mr Clarke referred to two bugs — B63 and B14. I had not appreciated at the time
that I might have already been provided with some information about the latter.
Following the submission of my first witness statement to the Inquiry I was
provided with a number of documents to consider. Although my recollection is
limited due to the passage of time, I believe that I may previously have had sight
of an earlier version of the Peak Incident Management System Report
(FUJ00084852) or something very similar. I also believe that I concluded that
the error referred to therein would not have affected the integrity of the Horizon
data i.e. the record of transactions securely locked away, on the basis of the
description of the operation of the system provided by Gareth Jenkins in his
witness statements. I did not, at the time, fully appreciate the disclosure
obligations which arose. I was unaware of the post-conviction duty of disclosure
under common law.
15.Mr. Clarke also advised that considerations as to the selection of the start-date
“included proportionality, resourcing, transparency and POL reputation.” He
went on to note that he had “come to the view that all of these considerations
militate in favour of a date close the initial HOL migration date of 2010, perhaps
using the 1%‘ January of that year.”
Page 5 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
16.1 did not disagree with Mr. Clarke. I also have a recollection that following the
commencement of the review process, the parameters were changed slightly so
that they covered any case with a hearing after 1° January 2010.
17.I have been provided with a copy of the Advice of Simon Clarke of 15'" July 2013
(POL00006357). I have been asked to describe the extent to which I was
involved in preparing the advice or discussing the issues discussed therein with
Mr. Clarke. As I have noted previously, I provided Mr. Clarke with a number of
Mr Jenkins’ reports. I believe that I also discussed with him the conversations
which had taken place with lawyers from Post Office Ltd during the afternoon of
27" June 2013.
18.1 am asked about the extent to which I agreed with Mr. Clarke’s advice. Due to
Mr. Clarke’s seniority and substantial experience his advice was generally taken
as being correct and I did not disagree with it. Mr. Clarke’s advice frequently
contributed to my professional development.
19.In paragraph 5 of his advice, Mr. Clarke explained that were a defendant to
assert, rightly or wrongly, that the Horizon system was at fault, it would be for
the prosecution to demonstrate the integrity to the system and the evidential
audit trail derived from Horizon. He went onto set out the detail which an expert
would usually give in such circumstances and noted that the expert should state,
in clear terms, that (a) where a defence has raised merely a general and
unspecified criticism of Horizon, it is not only generally free from error but that it
is protected by such systems and security as to prevent error and (b) where the
defence has raised specific criticisms, he has considered those matters and has
concluded that there is no proper foundation for them.
Page 6 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
20.Mr. Clarke went on to outline the duties of an expert witness and further to the
provisions of Part 33 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, the duty of an expert
witness instructed by the prosecution. He explained in paragraph 7 of his advice
that an expert witness possessed of material which cast doubt upon his opinion
was under a duty to disclose it to the solicitor instructing him who in turn had a
duty to disclose that material to the defence. Mr. Clarke also explained that the
duty existed irrespective of any requests for disclosure by the defence and that
an expert should not omit material facts which detracted from his opinion.
21.It follows that Mr. Jenkins should have been given detailed written instructions
in relation to each individual case which enclosed a full set of papers, asked
specific questions, and set out the duties of an expert instructed by the
prosecution. Mr. Jenkins had not been so instructed.
22.Furthermore, it was also evident from Mr. Clarke’s advice that he appeared to
be of the view that a report should have been sought in any case in which there
was an express or implied criticism of the Horizon system. I believe the approach
taken by Cartwright King had been to request a report if a defendant entered a
not guilty plea to the offence charged.
23.The general form of statement which Mr Jenkins produced was initially prepared
following advice provided to Jarnail Singh by Mr. Harry Bowyer, a senior in-
house barrister at Cartwright King. Furthermore, the director of the Derby Office
with significant prosecution experience, Mr Andy Cash, had confirmed his
agreement with the advice of Mr. Bowyer. It was in those circumstances that
Jarnail Singh had sought a report from Mr. Jenkins.
24.In his email of 18t October 2012 to Gareth Jenkins (FUJ00226331) Mr. Singh
informed Mr. Jenkins that, “Post Office Limited have appointed one of their
Page 7 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
investigators, Helen Rose, as disclosure officer dealing with Horizon challenges.
She has prepared a document/spreadsheet detailing all such cases, past and
present, approximately 20 in total, although none thus far successfully argued
in court...Post Office maintain the system is robust.”
25.1 do not recall realising at the time that there were, in fact, two documents
attached to Mr. Singh’s email and given Mr. Singh’s comments with regards to
the robustness of the system, I did not consider it necessary to review the
information provided by Helen Rose.
26.Simon Clarke advised that a different expert be sought. He also noted that there
were a number of convicted defendants to whom the existence of bugs should
have been disclosed and that a review was underway. It was also noted that
there were a number of current cases where the existence of bugs should be
disclosed where the test for disclosure was met.
27.I do not recall any conversations with Mr Clarke about the extent to which Post
Office Limited was obliged to inform convicted Subpostmasters in cases which
had relied in whole or in part on Horizon data that Mr. Jenkins’ credibility had
been ‘fatally undermined’.
28.1 have been asked to set out my recollection of the telephone call with Mr.
Jenkins on 28 June 2013 and to describe any other oral or written
communications I had with him. I believe that the transcript (POL00142322) is
accurate and relates to the call of 28" June 2013. I am unable to recall whether
I had any other conversations or written communications with Mr. Jenkins at or
around this time.
Page 8 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
The Horizon Weekly Call
29.As I have previously explained, Simon Clarke advised during a conference at
Post Office’s Head Office in London there should be a central hub to record all
Horizon-related issues. It was proposed that lawyers from Messrs. Bond
Dickinson and Cartwright King should attend. It was generally myself who
attended on behalf of Cartwright King. If I was unavailable, a colleague would
generally attend. I would generally make notes of any issues arising in counsel’s
notebooks. On occasions I would request further information.
30.1 have previously referred to the first conference call which took place on 19"
July 2013 in my first statement to the Inquiry. I have been asked to comment on
the extent to which the Note at POL00083932 is accurate. It is not accurate.
31.Although I do not have access to the notes which I made at the time of the call,
there is no reference to the explanation provided by Mr. Parsons at the outset
of the call after Rob King had spoken. Mr. Parsons expressed concern with
regards to the difficulties which could arise following the circulation of minutes.
He was particularly concerned that they could be further disseminated and
attract opinion which might well be incorrect and also result in information being
stored elsewhere without it being relayed back to the call. He explained that he
had previous experience of such issues. It was evident that he was concerned
about pre-action discovery in civil cases.
32.My view from a criminal law perspective was that the information was to be
reported to a single central hub in accordance with Mr. Clarke’s advice — that
was the very purpose of the call. I could also understand Mr. Parson’s concerns
that incorrect information could possibly be generated or that information might
not be relayed back to the central hub.
Page 9 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
33.1 believe that I spoke towards the end of the call and not shortly after the
commencement of the call as this note suggests. I advised from a criminal-law
perspective that anything produced should be accurate and be available for
disclosure. I can recall that immediately after I had explained the position and
whilst I was putting myself back on mute due to background noise in the office,
Mr. Parsons made a further comment with regard to disclosure. Having little
knowledge of the rules relating to the disclosure of documents in civil cases, I
was careful not to pass comment. I took the view that Post Office Ltd had already
been advised from a criminal-law perspective and the advice had been accepted
— the Wednesday call had been set up and a central record was to be kept of
Horizon-related information.
34.The second Wednesday Horizon call took place on 24" July 2013. I have been
asked to consider to what extent the Note at POL00139731 is accurate. In order
to answer this question, I have considered Mr. Bowyer’s advice entitled
“Response to the Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current Process by Brian
Altman QC” (POL00066807). In this document Mr. Bowyer listed at point vi.
examples of issues which had been reported to the Wednesday conference
calls. I would have provided Mr. Bowyer with this information taking it from the
notes which I had made at the times of those calls.
35.Mr. Bowyer referred to “Concerns that Post Office Card Account transactions
have been “lost in flight”. (Meeting of 24/7/13 — Prestbury’s).” The note records
that Gayle Peacock mentioned “Prestbury — Current agent settle debt for £700
for Santander transaction, now blaming Horizon”.
36.Mr. Bowyer made reference to the “Mention of undefined bugs at Horden (sic) —
Not sure if they are being investigated.” The note records that Gayle Peacock
Page 10 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
mentioned “Howden — concerned over alleged bugs in Horizon System but does
not know specifically what the issue is, asked for extra training which is being
arranged.”
37.Mr. Bowyer noted a “Possible case of Horizon receipt printing incorrectly — 4
instead of a 1 (Meeting 24/7/13).” Mr Rod Ismay is noted to have “Reported an
issue relating to a Business Banking customer — this is a dispute between the
amount processed on the Horizon System against what the customer says he
banked. Customer has provided a receipt to support his claim however there are
concerns over the validity of this receipt. The customer will not provide the
original copy. Entered on Horizon £180 — Says he banked £480.”
38.1 was not unduly worried that minutes would not be circulated given the concerns
voiced by Mr. Parsons from a civil litigation perspective during the first call. I had
been taking notes and I assumed that the Security Team within Post Office Ltd
would also be starting to put a database together of the issues being raised on
the calls. I can recall that a concern was raised at some point that care should
be taken if making any notes on public transport or in public places — I am not
able to recall, however, whether it was during this particular call that the concern
was raised.
39.The third call took place on 31% July 2013 and I have been asked to say to what
extent the note of the call (POL00139732) is accurate. As I have previously
indicated, I do not have access to my notes which I took during these calls. In
order to answer this question, I have again considered Mr. Bowyer’s advice
entitled “Response to the Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current Process
by Brian Altman QC”.
Page 11 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
40.I note that Mr. Bowyer referred to an “Issue where if the cashier presses buyback
when selling Euros the loss won't be found. Will not generate transaction
correction. It will be a hard loss that the SPMR will not be able to explain when
audited. (Meeting of 31/7/13)”.
41.Mr Bowyer also referred to “Errors in the Bureau de Change when remmed in
as a quantity not a value. (Meeting of 31/7/13).”
42.The only reference to Bureau de Change in the note appears to be by Gayle
Peacock who “Highlighted Bureau buy back problems. Discussion with Rodric
Williams offline, though appears non Horizon related in so far as the ‘buy’ icon
was pressed instead of the ‘sell’ icon.”
43.I do not recall there being any reference to the report of Helen Rose. I do believe,
however, that it was during this call that there was a suggestion by Rodric
Williams of a change of approach. I cannot recall what Mr. Williams said but I
can recall informing him that a central record had to be kept. That was the very
purpose of the call and there is no reference to this in the note.
44.I have been provided with a copy of a time entry which I made whilst I was in my
office on 15' August 2013 (POL00139745). The note records “TC JS at 6 p.m.
31/7/13: Discussing disclosure issues: JScott has instructed that typed minutes
be scrapped.”
45.This note relates to a telephone conversation which had taken place the
previous evening with Jarnail Singh. According to my note, I had been engaged
on the call for approximately 24 minutes. I am unable to recall the entirety of the
conversation. My recollection at the present time is that Mr. Singh alleged that
John Scott had indicated an intention to ‘shred’ the minutes and to explain, if
asked, that they had been destroyed on the advice of Cartwright King.
Page 12 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
46.1 am also able to recall that I complained to Mr. Singh that Bond Dickinson
appeared to be exercising too much control over Post Office Ltd. I commented
that the civil disclosure regime was clearly different to that in criminal law and I
complained about the way in which the approach being taken by Post Office Ltd
to the Wednesday morning calls appeared to be changing — it was essential that
a central record be created and maintained. I explained that I would ask Mr.
Clarke to prepare a written advice for Post Office Ltd so that the position was
clear.
47. Towards the end of the call I used another telephone held in close proximity to
try to record some of the conversation as I was concerned about the comments
which had been made with regard to the destruction of the minutes.
48.I have been shown a copy of an email which Jarnail Singh sent to myself and
Rodric Williams during the morning of 1° August 2013 (POL00325474). This
was received following my conversation with Mr. Singh the previous evening
during which I had expressed a number of concerns. As Mr. Singh had copied
Rodric Williams into the email I believe that I concluded at the time that he was
seeking to appear in control given his position within Post Office Ltd.
49.1 believe that I would have informed Andy Cash in the Derby Office of Cartwright
King of the concerns raised by Jarnail Singh during the telephone conversation
of 31% July 2013 and of my concerns too. I do not recall having any
conversations about the telephone call with Steve Gelsthorpe or Rupert Hawke.
50.1 believe that I subsequently had a conversation with Simon Clarke in Cartwright
King’s Nottingham Office. I relayed the conversation which had taken place with
Mr. Singh and played the recording of part of the telephone call which, from
memory, was not that easy to hear. I believe that I also explained the concerns
Page 13 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
which Mr. Singh had expressed and my concerns arising out of that conversation
and with regard to the Wednesday morning conference calls. I believe that I
travelled back to my office in Derby and Mr. Clarke prepared an Advice on the
Duty to Record and Retain Material (POLO0006799).
51.1 have been asked to consider an email from Steven Gelsthorpe, one of the
Senior Directors of Cartwright King at the time, to Simon Clarke, Rupert Hawke,
Andy Cash and myself of 2"? August 2013. (POL00139747). Mr. Gelsthorpe was
considering how to impart the advice to Post Office Ltd that, “if there are factions
within it who are running around trying to lay off blame for their own
shortcomings by lying about the advice they have received then they lose
privilege.”
52.Whilst I do not recall having had any conversations in relation to this email, it
was my belief at the time, based on information provided by Jarnail Singh, that
Mr. John Scott, who was Head of Security at Post Office Ltd, had apparently
indicated an intention to ‘shred’ the central record of Horizon-related issues
reported on the Wednesday morning calls and to explain, if asked, that he had
followed Cartwright King’s advice.
53.Mr. Clarke stated in his Advice at paragraph three that “POL accepted that
advice and according (sic) a weekly conference-call meeting was established
so as to meet the requirements of the central hub. Participants were informed
that they should bring all Horizon-related issues they had encountered to the
meeting; minutes were to be taken, centrally retained and disseminated to those
who required the information, this list to include POL’s Horizon expert witness.”
54.1 am asked to state to what extent I believed the assertion in the second
sentence. It was my understanding at the time that Jarnail Singh had spoken to
Page 14 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
the proposed participants from the various departments within Post Office Ltd
individually prior to the first Wednesday morning call to explain the importance
and purpose of the call.
55.I have been asked to consider paragraph 5 of Mr. Clarke’s Advice and to set out
the extent to which I agreed with the factual assertions therein. I am unable to
recall fully my conversation with Mr. Singh of 31% July 2013 but recall that I
relayed the conversation which had taken place to Mr. Clarke, outlining Mr.
Singh’s concerns and those which I had too.
56.I have been asked to describe the attendance which caused me to make my
note of 14" August 2013 (POL00139748). This note relates to a telephone call
which I received from Jarnail Singh on that date. Mr. Singh indicated that John
Scott would be on that morning’s Wednesday conference call and I took the view
that his attendance would not be appropriate given the allegations which had
been made. I believe that I also expressed my concern to Simon Clarke who
was in my office at the time.
57.1 have been provided with a copy of a Note of the Regular Call of 14" August
2013 (POL00083930). I do not have any recollection of the conversations which
took place during the call and do not have access to the notes which I took. I do
recall being somewhat surprised that John Scott was actually in attendance. I
had expected that Jarnail Singh would have escalated my concern within the
Legal Department of Post Office Ltd prior to the call. I did not feel that it would
have been appropriate to make any reference to my concerns during the call.
After the conference call had concluded, Mr. Clarke asked me whether Mr. Scott
had been in attendance and I confirmed that he had been present. I believe that
Page 15 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
it was around this time that Simon Clarke advised that John Scott should not be
permitted to attend any conference calls held between lawyers.
58.Due to the length of time which has since elapsed I am unable to recall the
communication process in respect of prosecutions discontinued or withdrawn. It
is my belief, however, that Post Office asked to be informed when Simon Clarke
proposed to attend Court to terminate a prosecution.
59.1 have been provided with a copy of the letter of Susan Crichton of 16" August
2013 addressed to Andy Cash (POL00006797). I note that the letter
acknowledged receipt of Mr. Cash’s letter of 2" August which had enclosed
Simon Clarke’s Advice on “Disclosure — the Duty to Record and Retain Material.”
It also referred to an email of 14" August. Due to the length of time which has
since elapsed I am unable to recall that email. I am also unable to set out any
conversations with representatives of Post Office Ltd or Cartwright King
concerning Simon Clarke’s advice or the issues discussed therein prior to the
receipt of this letter. I can recall, however, that surprise was being expressed
within Cartwright King that there had not been a prompt response.
60.1 am unable to recall whether I read Susan Crichton’s letter of 16" August 2013
at the time when it was received. I note, however, that Ms. Crichton indicated
that she was deeply concerned at the suggestion in Mr. Clarke’s note that there
‘may have been an attempt to destroy...minutes of the calls.” Mr. Clarke had,
however, recorded in his Advice that it had been relayed to him that, “An
instruction was then given that those emails and minutes should be, and have
been, destroyed: the word “shredded” was conveyed to me.”
61.1 also note that Ms Crichton letter also suggested that Post Office Ltd was
committed to conducting its business in an open, transparent and lawful manner.
Page 16 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
It was evident, however, that civil lawyers within Post Office Ltd and acting for
Post Office Ltd sought to use legal professional privilege which, it could be
suggested, is contrary to the suggestion that Post Office Ltd was committed to
openness and transparency.
The Review of Convictions
62.1 have been asked to summarise the nature and extent of the review of past
convictions undertaken by Cartwright King and my involvement with that
process. It is difficult to recall the precise process due to the length of time which
has since elapsed. I believe that the process was set out in a Protocol. Cases
were to be ‘sifted’ and designated as either ‘Type A’ or ‘Type B’ by answering a
series of questions. I am unable to recall the questions but the outcome of the
‘sift’ review would dictate whether or not the case was put forward to a full review
by counsel.
63.1 was one of a number of members of staff at Cartwright King who undertook the
sift reviews. The review process took place at the office of Cartwright King in
Derby and members of staff from other offices were temporarily seconded to the
Derby Office to assist with the sift reviews.
64.I have a vague recollection that some of those members of staff may not have
been available for one reason or another throughout the entire ‘sifting’ process
resulting in changes of personnel. Furthermore, if more members of staff had
been available, the process could have been completed in a shorter period. With
hindsight, this would have been beneficial given the frequent requests for
progress reports.
65.The review of cases dating back to 1%t January 2010 included prosecutions
commenced by Post Office Ltd prior to its separation from the Royal Mail Group
Page 17 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
in addition to those conducted by Cartwright King on behalf of Post Office Ltd. I
believe that there were in some cases missing documents and I can recall that
there may also have been some missing files too. The same sift criteria were
applied to all cases and in the circumstances I do not think that it would have
been apparent to any fee-earner involved in the process that they were
assessing the quality of work carried out by Cartwright King.
66.1 am asked to consider to what extent, if at all, a Subpostmaster raising integrity
issues with Horizon at trial was a necessary or sufficient factor in whether to
disclose the Helen Rose report. I regret that I am unable to recall the Protocol,
the briefing or the questions to be asked by those who conducted sift reviews.
67.1 have been provided with copies of my email to Susan Crichton of 16" July
2013 (POL00039998) which enclosed two documents prepared by Simon
Clarke. The first of these documents set out a brief discussion of the CCRC’s
criteria (POLO0039993) and the second was a draft response (POL00039995)
which Mr. Clarke thought might assist Post Office Ltd. Due to the length of time
which has since elapsed, I am unable to provide any details with regards to the
nature or extent of any involvement which I may have had in connection with the
response of Post Office to the CCRC or with any advice provided to Post Office
in this respect. I do not think that I considered whether a convicted
Subpostmaster who did not raise the integrity of the Horizon system as an issue
at trial could fall into the first of the criteria set out by Mr. Clarke. I have no
recollection of considering whether the CCRC should be informed of the
concerns which had been discussed regarding Gareth Jenkins.
68.1 have considered the advice provided by Simon Clarke in the cases of R v.
Lynette Hutchings dated 19" July 2013 (POL00060715), R v. Samra dated 224
Page 18 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
July 2013 (POL00040022), R v. Wylie dated 23"4 July 2013 (POL00133633), R
v. Grech dated 23 July 2013 (POL00108042) and R v. Cleife dated 19"
November 2013 (POL00112905).
69.1 am able to recall discussing the case of R v. Samra with Mr. Clarke. I believe
that I also attended the Crown Court at Birmingham with him whilst he made an
application to a Judge in chambers there. I believe that Mr. Clarke informed the
Court of the existence of a draft report. I am unable to state whether we were,
at the time, simply aware of its existence or whether we had been provided with
a copy of the draft Second Sight Interim Report. In any event, I believe that it
had yet to be published and Mr. Clarke explained that Post Office Ltd could not
fully comply with its duties of disclosure at that point in time.
70.Due to the length of time which has since elapsed, I am unable to set out the
nature and extent of any involvement which I may have had in advising or
assisting Mr. Clarke to advise in connection with these cases or, with the
exception of the case of R v. Samra, the nature and extent of any discussions
which I had with Mr. Clarke. As I have previously indicated, Mr. Clarke was
highly experienced and his advice was generally accepted as being correct.
71.I have been provided with copies of a note prepared by Messrs. Bond Dickinson
entitled ‘Civil Claims by SPMR’s’ (POL00040095) and of Mr. Clarke’s Note of
12k September 2013 (POL00114253). I believe that Post Office Ltd expressed
concern about the possibility that civil claims may be commenced by
Subpostmasters and asked for advice in connection with the Note prepared by
Messrs. Bond Dickinson. I passed the request onto Simon Clarke. Due to the
length of time which has since elapsed I am unable to say to what extent, if any,
I may have contributed to or assisted with its preparation.
Page 19 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
72.In his Note of 12% September 2013, Mr. Clarke commented that, “whilst a
number of criminal prosecutions against SPMR’s and clerks have been
terminated since the publication of the Second Sight Interim report, none was
stopped because of errors found in the Horizon system.” Mr. Clarke also
commented that, “In all cases the prosecution was stopped because it was
considered that the continued prosecution of a particular SPMR/clerk no longer
remained in the Public Interest.” I do not recall either agreeing or disagreeing
with these assertions. I do not believe that I attended any hearings with Mr.
Clarke at which proceedings were terminated.
73.1 am asked to consider to what extent, if at all, there was a difference in the
frequency of terminations following the publication of the Second Sight Interim
report or in the reasons for termination in comparison to periods prior to its
release. There was an increase in the frequency of terminations — the Second
Sight Interim Report had become available and Post Office Ltd had yet to obtain
a statement from a new independent expert witness.
Brian Altman KC’s Review of the Cartwright King Process
74.I have been asked to consider Brian Altman KC’s Interim Review of Cartwright
King’s Current Process (POL00006583) and Harry Bowyer’s advice - Response
to the Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current Process by Brian Altman QC
(POL00066807).
75.In paragraph 6 of his Interim Review Mr. Altman KC spoke of the important
elements of independence and objectivity indicating a preference that any
solicitor involved in a case should not be involved with the sift review. I do not
believe that I had been concerned that some of the cases had initially been sifted
by the solicitor responsible for the prosecution of the case given that, if the case
Page 20 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
had been put forward for a full review, it would have been reviewed by in-house
counsel. I note that Mr. Bowyer had suggested that the cases could be re-sifted
if Mr. Altman KC thought it appropriate.
76.In paragraph 12 of his Interim Review Mr. Altman KC questioned whether the
sole issue of non-disclosure was too restrictive an approach to take considering
the list of issues reported to Second Sight. He commented that one such
concern was “POL investigation and audit teams that have asset-recovery or
prosecution bias and fail to seek the root cause of reported problems.”
77.Mr. Bowyer noted in his response that the issues of training and support were
already included in the scope of the review and agreed that the sift criteria might
be too narrow given the information derived from the “Wednesday Hub
Conferences”. Mr. Bowyer indicated that it would be highly desirable for a
conference to be held with Mr. Altman KC in order that the review process could
be as watertight as possible. I am unable to recall Mr. Altman KC’s concern that
Post Office Ltd failed to seek the root cause of reported problems being
considered during the review process.
78.\In paragraph 14 of Mr. Altman’s Interim Review he stated that he was “interested
to discover also what material, in addition to Second Sight’s report and any
Helen Rose report CK was sending to potential applicants.” I do not recall that
any further consideration was given to disclosing any other documents at the
time.
79.In paragraph 15 of the Interim Review Mr. Altman KC asked whether the three-
year temporal limit for the review was sufficient. He asked whether the reason
for the cut-off date was supportable. Mr. Bowyer in paragraph 15 of his response
explained the reason for taking the starting point as 1t January 2010. I am
Page 21 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
unable to recall whether the start date was reconsidered prior to the conference
which took place with Mr. Altman KC on 9'" September 2013.
80.1 have been asked what if anything was done to identify suitable cases for review
where a defendant had pleaded guilty and there would, in those circumstances,
not be the type or breadth of information available as in the case of a contested
trial. Mr. Bowyer responded to this concern in paragraph 19 of his response —
he explained that the same sift criteria applied to guilty pleas as to any other
cases. I am unable to recall any change in the approach taken by Cartwright
King.
81.In paragraph 24d of his Interim Review Mr. Altman KC observed that the sift
sheet was attempting standardisation by focussing the sifter’s attention on a
series of questions. He was concerned that the process might potentially be too
narrow. Mr Bowyer agreed given the information being derived from the
Wednesday morning calls. I anticipate that it was expected that this would be
further considered during the conference.
82.1 can recall asking within Carwright King whether the material being generated
by the Wednesday calls required disclosure. I was informed at that the Second
Sight Interim Report and the Helen Rose Report put people on notice that there
had been issues with the system.
83.1 have been asked to consider a Note of Conference with Brian Altman KC on
9" September 2013 (POL00006485) and Notes of a Meeting of 9" September
2013 (POL00139866). The latter document was typed by myself, following the
conference, based on handwritten notes which I took during the conference with
Brian Altman KC and from memory. It is not a transcript of the conference. I did
not write down any comments which I made and there were also times when I
Page 22 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
was looking at documentation rather than making notes. On occasions the
speed of conversation was also too fast to properly note and I believe that
people spoke over each other too.
84.Due to the length of time which has elapsed, I am unable to set out the
background to this meeting —I believe it had been arranged following the receipt
of Mr. Bowyer’s ‘Response to the Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current
Process’. I am able to recall a suggested being made that the role of Brian
Altman KC would be one of ‘critical oversight’.
85.Whilst I cannot recall the entirety of the meeting, I am reminded by reading my
typed note that Susan Crichton explained that there had been ‘rumbles’ to the
effect the Horizon system did not work and that during the conference, Rodric
Williams suggested that he believed the phrase used by Helen Rose to the effect
that she knew Mr. Jenkins was ‘aware of all of the Horizon integrity issues’ was
unfortunate. I regarded Mr. Williams comment as a suggestion that there were
not, in fact, numerous integrity issues.
86.1 do not believe that Cartwright King were provided with a copy of the Instructions
which had been sent to Brian Altman KC and so in those circumstances, would
not have been aware of the issues referred to therein by Post Office Ltd or Bond
Dickinson. I do not recall the allegations relating to the failure to record minutes
or the shredding of minutes being discussed.
87.In the note of the conference prepared by Bond Dickinson, it was recorded that
Simon Clarke had said that there had been some cultural issues at the start
which had now been overcome — he thought it was necessary to put duties on
individuals.
Page 23 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
88.My note stated “We discussed last Friday: main problem is cultural. People in
different departments. Needs to be a proper coming together.”
89.Mr. Clarke’s reference to the word ‘cultural’ could have been a reference to the
view held within Cartwright King that some departments within Post Office Ltd
may have become aware of information which had not been shared more widely.
I anticipate it could also have been Mr Clarke alluding, in a polite way, to the
report I had received from Jarnail Singh relating to the typed minutes of the
Wednesday morning calls. I believe that there was also a discussion about the
possibility that staff at Post Office Ltd may attend some of the Wednesday
morning calls and then ask others to attend on their behalf. It is possible that
this is what Susan Crichton may have been referring to when she said, ‘People
then dump...’. I do not have access to my notes but suspect that I did not note
the entirety of her comment.
90.There are references in both documents to the phrase ‘bandwagon’. I did not
regard this as derogatory, but recognition that more subpostmasters may come
forward following the publicity generated by the Second Sight Draft Report.
91.1 note that in the record of the conference prepared by Bond Dickinson, it was
recorded that I made a comment to the effect that I thought that ‘there was a lot
of Horizon information which had not been getting to Gareth Jenkins.’ I believe
that I may have been concerned that Mr. Jenkins had not referred to the bugs
during the case of R v. Ishaq and was therefore considering when he might have
become aware of them. It would appear from my note that Mr. Clarke
commented that either Mr. Jenkins was not aware of the information or Fujitsu
were in an ‘ivory tower’.
Page 24 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
92.In Messrs. Bond Dickinson's Note there is reference to a cut-off date of 1%
January 2010. The Note also stated that prior to the HOL rollout there was a
cash audit done so that all POL branches balanced. Brian Altman KC advised
that there was no positive duty to seek out individuals pre 1 January 2010 but if
POL was approached it would need to make case-specific decisions on
disclosure.
93.My typed note reads as follows: “Susan: That’s when the system rolled out —
knowing that branches balanced — so thought justifiable date.”
94.1 believe that there would have been some discussion as to why Cartwright King
had proposed a start date of 1°' January 2010 although I am unable to recall it
due to the length of time which has since elapsed. The auditing procedures prior
to branches migrating to Horizon Online would, however, have had no relevance
to Subpostmasters convicted of offences prior to the start date of 1°* January
2010. I am unable to recall any discussion with regard to the Callendar Square
Bug.
95.From Bond Dickinson’s Note of the conference, it can be seen that Mr. Altman
KC advised considerable caution in relation to mediation cases involving
previously convicted individuals. “The concern is that lawyers acting for those
individuals may be using the scheme to obtain information which they would not
normally be entitled to in order to pursue an appeal.” I can recall it being
suggested within Cartwright King that reports which referred to methods of
investigation and opinions about witnesses or the merits of a case should not be
disclosed.
96.1 am asked to say whether I agreed with Mr. Altman’s advice — I would not have
thought to disagree. I can recall that Mr. Altman KC advised that the disclosure
Page 25 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
duties of a prosecutor arose at the point of charge which was not something I
had appreciated. I also note that no disagreement was voiced, for example, in
connection with Mr. Altman KC’s view that there should be post-conviction
disclosure in the case of R v. Hutchings.
97.A conference took place on 4" October 2013 with Brian Altman KC in which
representatives from Post Office Ltd, Bond Dickinson and Cartwright King
participated. Due to the passage of time, I am unable to recall the discussions
which took place during that conference.
98.Paragraph 129 of the General Review of Brian Altman KC dated 15" October
2013 (POL00006581) explains that the main topic of discussion was ‘the extent
to which Cartwright King should be involved in exercising a supervisor function
over the criminal cases going into mediation. There is understandable concern
that offenders might use the mediation scheme to gain information as a platform
from which to launch a fresh or new appeal, and so CK wish to exercise a
measure of control over the dissemination of information and material during the
process.’
99.In Mr. Altman KC’s ‘Review of Post Office Ltd Prosecution Role’ dated 19"
December 2013 (POL00112937), reference is again made to the telephone
conference on 4' October 2013 - in this document it refers to ‘issues
surrounding the scope of CK’s review.’
100. I have been asked to consider the Advice of Mr. Altman KC entitled
‘General Review’ dated 15'" October 2013. I am unable to recall when I first read
it and if so, whether I read it in its entirety. I am unable to recall whether I had
any views in relation to it and whether it had any effect on the approach taken
by Cartwright King to the review of cases. Upon reading it now, I note that Mr.
Page 26 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
Altman KC advised in paragraph 145 that it was not for the prosecutor to make
qualitative judgements about the utility...of information to be disclosed. With the
benefit of hindsight, I considered the issue of utility with regard to information
provided by Mr. Jenkins in the case of R v. Ishaq and whether the issue relating
to freezing screens during the pilot scheme might reasonably assist with his
defence.
101. In paragraph 64 Mr. Altman KC reported that, “When I queried the
rationale behind the cut-off date, I was told, and entirely accept, that, prior to
each branch rollout, a cash audit was done so that each branch balanced.” I
understand that prior to each branch being migrated to Horizon online, someone
would attend on behalf of Post Office Ltd to check the requisite amount of cash
was physically on the premises. Whilst I am unable to recall the conversation at
this particular conference, I note that there is also a reference to ‘balancing’ in
my typed note of the meeting on 9'" September 2013.
102. Mr. Altman KC referred to ‘the Falkirk event raised in the Misra case’. I
believe that I referred Mr. Clarke to another statement provided by Mr. Jenkins
at about the time the draft Second Sight Report became available. I am,
however, unable to recall any other discussions regarding this bug prior to this
advice or set out my understanding of it. Similarly, I am not able to say whether
I agreed it was “an isolated instance”. I am also unable to recall formulating a
view on whether Post Office Ltd should examine cases pre-dating the 2006 fix.
103. In paragraph 129 Brian Altman KC noted that, “There is understandable
concern that offenders might use the mediation scheme to gain information as
a platform from which to launch a fresh or new appeal, and so CK wish to
exercise a measure of control over the dissemination of information and material
Page 27 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
during the process.” It is my belief that Post Office Ltd had initially raised this
as a concern prior to the commencement of the mediation scheme and that
internally with Cartwright King, concern was being expressed that reports which
contained opinions about the merits of a case i.e. the strengths or weaknesses
of it, should not be disclosed. I am unable to describe any steps which may have
been taken by Cartwright King, myself or Post Office Ltd in response to this
advice.
104. Cartwright King responded to this advice with a note entitled
“Observations and Analysis of the Cartwright King Prosecution Review Process”
(POL00040194) dated 5 December 2013. I believe that I assisted with the
preparation of this advice by providing statistics and information such as details
of missing files and documents.
105. In the response it was noted that, “Until the publication of the Second
Sight Interim Review the Prosecutors for Post Office had adopted a firm
approach to requests for disclosure in relation to the Horizon system which was
treated as being robust and reliable.” I am asked to state how the “firm approach”
differed from the approach taken following the publication of the Second Sight
Interim Report. A general moratorium had been imposed by Post Office Ltd on
the commencement of any new prosecutions following the publication of the
Second Sight Interim Report, and so the response dealt with the position up to
the publication of the Second Sight Interim Report. I believe that there were,
from memory, only two new prosecutions following the publication of the interim
report and the Horizon system was not relevant to either.
106. I have been asked to consider paragraph 17. This paragraph refers to
‘Second Sight and other material.’ It is my recollection that the test to be applied
Page 28 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
related to the Second Sight Interim Report and the Helen Rose Report. Due to
the length of time which has since elapsed, I am unable to recall precisely what
Counsel was required to consider during a Full Review.
107. I have been shown a copy of Mr. Clarke’s Advice in relation to the case
of R v. Hosi dated 18 May 2014 (POL00133638). Due to the length of time which
has elapsed I am unable to set out the nature and extent of any discussions
which I may have had with Mr. Clarke or the nature and extent of any
involvement I may have had in advising or assisting to advise in connection with
this case. It is unlikely that I would have disagreed with Mr. Clarke’s advice and
am unable to say whether Post Office followed his advice.
Fujitsu Prosecution Support and Finding New Expert.
108. Cartwright King was asked by Post Office Ltd to identify suitable potential
experts to provide an opinion with regard to the Horizon system. I believe that
Cartwright King prepared a shortlist of a number of potential experts. I am able
to recall that Simon Clarke and I attended Imperial College London (ICL) to
speak to two potential experts, Professor Jeffrey Kramer and Dr. Naranker
Dulay.
109. Cartwright King were also asked to advise with regard to the contractual
position with Fujitsu in terms of ensuring that data would remain available
following transfer to new servers.
110. I have been asked to consider an email from Richard Boyce to Hugh
Flemington of 11" July 2013 (POL00145361) into which Simon Clarke, myself
and others were copied. Due to the length of time which has elapsed, I am
unable to set out the nature and extent of any involvement which I may have
had in advising in connection with the Transitional Support Service Change
Page 29 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
Control Note. I believe that Post Office Ltd were concerned that data might
become lost.
111. I can recall attending a meeting at Fujitsu’s offices in Baker Street in
London on 29" November 2013. From memory, I think that the invitation had
been extended to only Simon Clarke at Cartwright King. Mr. Clarke had,
however, asked that I attend with him in order to take notes. I can recall that
diagrams were drawn on a white-board by members of staff from Fujitsu whilst
they provided an explanation as to how the Horizon system securely locked and
stored transactional data in a digital vault. I cannot recall the precise words used
or the full explanation given due to the passage of time and I do not have access
to my notes. I was, however, left with the impression that Fujitsu had confidence
in the integrity of the Horizon IT system and that the transactional data from
branches was securely locked away. I unable to recall any conversation about
complaints by Subpostmasters.
112. I have been asked to consider Simon Clarke’s Note of 2" July 2014
entitled "Securing Data for Future Prosecutions” (POL00113135) and the
Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (POL00113136). Due to the length of
time which has elapsed I am unable to set out the nature and extent, if any, of
the involvement I had in advising or assisting to advise in connection with these
documents or discussing them with Simon Clarke.
113. As with any documents which Mr. Clarke prepared, it is quite possible
that I may have been asked to look at them prior to finalisation or forwarding to
Post Office Ltd. As noted previously, I would generally accept Mr. Clarke’s
advice as being correct.
Page 30 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
114. Due to the passage of time I am unable to recall the view of Fujitsu’s
commercial and legal team referred to in Paragraph 4 and similarly I am unable
to say whether the contract referred to by Mr. Clarke was HNG-X v9.0
(FUJ00000069)
115. I have been asked to consider to what extent, if at all, I understood POL
to have a contractual right to obtain documents held by Fujitsu that held
information on bugs, errors or defects within the Horizon IT system such as
Known Error Logs (KEL’s), PinICL’s, PEAK’s etc. I do not recall when I first may
have heard of some these terms and whether I understood the contractual
position in relation to such records.
116. I have been provided with copies of an email from Jarnail Singh to Chris
Aujard, General Counsel, dated 23 July 2014 (POL00148748) and the
attachment, namely a document prepared by Simon Clarke of 23 July 2014
entitled “Advice — Expert Report — Imperial College, London” (POL00148749).
The email chain contains an email from Andy Holt to Chris Aujard of 18" July in
which Mr. Holt appears to have identified the need to “agree how we steer this
or define the requirement correctly so the scope doesn’t get out of control and
we allow Imperial College to produce independent report.”
117. I was concerned that Post Office Ltd were seeking to ‘steer’ the process
so that ICL did not produce an independent report. I believe that I forwarded the
email to Simon Clarke so that he could prepare a written advice. Due to the
length of time which has since elapsed I am unable to set out precisely how Post
Office Ltd responded to Mr. Clarke’s Advice.
118. It is evident, however, from the documents which accompanied the
Request that Simon Clarke prepared a ‘Draft Scope for computer experts’ on
Page 31 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
17" September 2013 (POL00040040). The Draft Scope required the experts to
consider the Horizon Online computer system and prepare a definitive report.
119. I note from my email to Jarnail Singh of 1%! October 2013
(POL00146545), which I copied to Rodric Williams and Andrew Parsons, that I
had attached an email from Professor Kramer which contained his CV. I suspect
that Professor Dulay’s CV had already been provided given that Jarnail Singh
appears to have forwarded my email and both CV's to Hugh Flemington later
that afternoon.
120. I have been provided with a copy of an Agreement to Appoint an Expert
(POL00210444). The agreement was between Post Office Ltd and IC
Consultants Ltd and was made on 28" April 2014.
121. Professor Jeff Kramer and Dr. Naranker Dulay prepared an Initial
Review: Proposal for investigation into the integrity of the Post Office Horizon
Online accounting system on 26" June 2014 (POL00125569). This document
set out a proposal for work described as ‘Phase 2’ and sought clarification from
Post Office Ltd as to which version(s) of the Horizon system should form the
basis of the report. I was provided with a quotation for the cost of the Phase 2
work on 8" July 2014 (POL00325919). The quotation was in the sum of
£116,250 plus VAT plus expenses and described the work in Phase 2 as “Report
preliminary results and recommendations on Horizon and, if necessary, define
work for final phase.”
122. It would appear to be the case that Jarnail Singh forwarded a copy of the
Initial Review to Andrew Parsons and a number of people at Post Office Ltd on
4" July 2014 (POL00148714). I was copied into that email.
Page 32 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
123. On 9" July 2014 Andrew Parsons of Messrs Bond Dickinson sent an
email to Jarnail Singh and numerous other people (POL00148714). He
questioned whether ICL should ‘look at old Horizon as well as Horizon Online.
He observed that it was unlikely that Post Office Ltd would be looking to
prosecute ‘any old Horizon cases’. He also made the suggestion that Cartwright
King or Post Office Ltd might ‘wish to vet any material before sending it to ICL’.
124. I responded to Mr. Parsons later that morning pointing out that Cartwright
King would not wish to vet any information prior to it being sent to ICL. I also
said that, “I would not advise that the experts be instructed to look at the old
Horizon system. If the experts were to consider the old system, depending on
their findings, disclosure issues could well arise in historic cases. In any event
cases now being investigated and considered for prosecution will involve
Horizon on Line (sic), which was rolled out during 2010.”
125. At the time when I sent the email to Mr. Parsons I believe that I had been
informed that the previous version of the Horizon system was not available for
examination and that important documentation relating to its design was also no
longer available. In those circumstances I suspect that I would have been
concerned that it would not have been possible for the experts to properly
assess the previous system and that it would have been problematical if they
sought to caveat their findings due to the absence of documentation. I was also
aware that Simon Clarke had advised that the experts consider Horizon Online
and that Brian Altman KC had advised that there was no requirement for Post
Office Ltd to seek out cases prior to 2010.
126. It would appear from the documentation which I have had sight of that
Cartwright King provided draft instructions for ICL and that Andrew Pheasant of
Page 33 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
Messrs. Bond Dickinson advised Jarnail Singh by email on 16"" September 2014
(POL00325918) that further Non-Disclosure Agreements should be entered into
by Professor Kramer, Dr. Dulay and any others who might work with the data
provided. On 1%t October 2014 Andrew Pheasant advised with regards to the
amendment of the draft instructions.
127. It is evident from the documentation provided with the Request, that ICL
did not receive the material which they had expected to receive from Post Office
and/or Fujitsu in a timely fashion. In my email to Paul Cray at ICL of 29"" January
2015 (POL00325994), I indicated that I hoped to hold a conference call with
Post Office Ltd the following week. I am unable to recall whether that call took
place.
128. I also note that in my email of 2"? February 2015 within the same chain,
I referred to a face-to-face meeting with Post Office Ltd on 10" February 2015.
Due to the passage of time, I am unable to recall whether the meeting took
place.
129. I have been provided with a copy of an email which I sent to Rodric
Williams on 8" July 2015 (POL00318211) and into which I copied Simon Clarke
and Harry Bowyer. In the email I commented that I had been attempting to set
up a meeting with the experts for some time and I referred to a meeting which
had been arranged for 29" July 2015. I can recall attending Post Office Ltd for
a meeting and anticipate that it may have been on this occasion, but I cannot
recall the conversation. I believe that I would have taken notes but have not
been provided with a copy of them.
130. I am unable to recall whether either Professor Kramer or Dr. Dulay
provided any opinion orally or in writing on either a provisional or final basis. I
Page 34 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
do not think that Post Office Ltd proceeded with the Phase 2 instruction — I have
a recollection of being informed at some point that Post Office Ltd was
considering the procurement of a different IT system.
Dealing with the Procurator Fiscal
131. Following the publication of the draft Second Sight Interim Report, Simon
Clarke and I attended the Offices of the Procurator Fiscal on two occasions on
behalf of Post Office Ltd. According to the Meeting Report prepared by Simon
Clarke (POL00139879), the first meeting took place on 5'" September 2013, the
day after Simon Clarke and I met with lawyers from BTO — the agents instructed
by Post Office Ltd in Scotland. During the meeting with BTO there was a
discussion about Scottish criminal law and procedures. The file review process
was also discussed.
132. Whilst I do not recall having received any written instructions prior to this
meeting from Post Office Ltd, it was my understanding that Post Office Ltd had
expressed concern that the Procurator Fiscal was intending to terminate cases
on the basis that the Horizon system was allegedly unreliable. It was in those
circumstances that Simon Clarke and I had been asked to travel to Scotland to
meet with the Procurator Fiscal.
133. I took notes during the meeting on 5" September 2013 but do not have
copies of them. Jarnail Singh was also present at the meeting. It is evident from
the Meeting Report that Mr. Clarke provided ‘a broad overview of the HOL
difficulties (absent any direct or indirect reference to the role of GJ or Fujitsu)’.
During the meeting it was explained that Post Office Ltd proposed to obtain
expert evidence and I believe that Mr. Clarke also explained that Cartwright King
had been reviewing the case files relating to a number of prosecutions.
Page 35 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
134. I have been asked to consider my email of 24" September 2015 to Laura
Irvine (POL00104198) which refers to a meeting with the Procurator Fiscal which
was to take place on 6" October 2015. I can recall that Simon Clarke and I were
in attendance at the meeting. Rodric Williams attended too. Unfortunately, I
cannot at the present time recall the meeting itself. I do not have access to my
notes of the meeting.
The Mediation Scheme
135. I have been asked to set out the nature and extent of my involvement
with the Mediation Scheme and/or Working Group. The Mediation Scheme had
been set up by Post Office Ltd. During the conference which took place with
Brian Altman KC on 9" September 2013 concern was expressed with regards
to permitting convicted applicants into the scheme. I believe that Mr. Altman KC
advised that Cartwright King would need to be made aware of the material being
sent to Second Sight — it would need to be shared, audited and properly
recorded.
136. From memory, it was subsequently determined that there should be a
single point of contact at Cartwright King and at Bond Dickinson and I was the
main point of contact at Cartwright King. It is difficult to recall the process in
detail due to the length of time which has since elapsed. I believe that I would,
however, receive Post Office Investigation Reports (POIR’s), underlying
material and proposed responses. In relation to convicted applicants to the
Mediation Scheme, it is my recollection that I would generally forward such
requests for consideration to either Simon Clarke or Harry Bowyer.
137. I have been asked to consider my email to Andrew Parsons of 8" May
2014 (POL00168949). I noted that Cartwright King had advised that, as a matter
Page 36 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
of principle, investigation and offender-type reports should not be disclosed. I
believe it was the view within Cartwright King that such reports should not be
disclosed if they contained details of investigative methods or weaknesses
identified in Post Office Ltd’s processes (which might be exploited should that
information become more widely known) or opinions of investigating officers with
regards to the evidence or the merits of the case. On the basis that such reports
would not ordinarily be disclosed during the course of a prosecution, it was
suggested that if they were to be disclosed, they should be redacted accordingly.
138. Itis evident that Harry Bowyer had previously looked at material provided
in relation to the case of Mr. Hughie Thomas and I suspect that I referred to his
earlier work in order to make suggestions with regard to redaction. I have been
asked to comment on the suggested redactions, although I am unable to recall
this case due to the passage of time.
139. I anticipate that the suggested redaction of the sentence “If Mr. Thomas
has paid out funds in respect of the above transactions and a loss occurred,
then this is down to incompetence and not the failings of the Horizon IT system”
may have been on the basis that it was the investigating officer's opinion.
140. The paragraph starting with the words, “Mr. Thomas was adamant when
questioned....” Contained details of investigative methods. Similarly, the “In
conclusion” section contains opinion and details of investigative methods.
141. I have been asked to consider my suggested redaction of the sentence
“lam currently awaiting the results of the tests by Fujisu (sic) on the Horizon
system.” This sentence relates to a method of investigation. In my email to
Andrew Parsons of 8" May 2014 I indicated my concern that if the test results
could not be found, that sentence could lead to a request for disclosure or result
Page 37 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
in a suggestion that the investigation which had been carried out almost 10 years
previously had been inadequate or incomplete (irrespective of whether that had
actually been the case).
142. I have been provided with a copy of the Advice of Simon Clarke of 15"
July 2014 (POL00148720). This document considered the appropriateness of
mediating claims made by persons who stood convicted of criminal offences
committed against Post Office Ltd and an alternative approach to such
applications. Due to the length of time which has since elapsed I am unable to
say to what extent, if any, I may have discussed or contributed to this Advice.
143. I have been asked what my view was of the decision of Post Office Ltd
to mediate the cases of people who had not been convicted of a criminal offence.
I am unable to recall my view of Post Office Ltd’s decision to launch a mediation
scheme. I can recall thinking, however, that Post Office Ltd could potentially run
into difficulties as a result of the non-availability of information due to data-
retention policies.
144. I have also been asked to what extent, if at all, I believed that the fact
that someone who had been convicted of a criminal offence relating to a
discrepancy in branch accounts was a reason not to investigate and/or mediate
their case because it may doubt the safety of the conviction. I was aware that
Mr. Altman KC had advised that convicted applicants should not be permitted to
enter the mediation scheme and as was usually the case, it is unlikely that I
would have disagreed with Mr. Clarke’s advice. With hindsight, I can understand
the argument that the potential to identify grounds to doubt the safety of a
conviction may well be a proper reason to allow applicants into the Mediation
Scheme.
Page 38 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
145. I have been asked to consider Simon Clarke's Advice of 19" December
2014 (POL00150390). Due to the length of time which has since elapsed I am
unable to say to what extent I contributed to this advice or discussed the issues
therein with Simon Clarke.
146. With the benefit of hindsight I now understand the argument that in a
prosecution for false accounting, evidence which might suggest a lack of
integrity in the Horizon system could be relevant to the issue of whether a
Subpostmaster acted ‘dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or
with intent to cause a loss to another’ in circumstances where the
Subpostmaster stated they believed the discrepancy was not a real loss but
unexplained.
147. I have been provided with a copy of Simon Clarke’s Advice of 16"
February 2015 (POL00023832). Due to the length of time which has since
elapsed, I am unable to say to what extent I may have contributed to this advice
or discussed it with Simon Clarke.
148. Mr. Clarke advised that the offences of theft and false accounting were
“both equal in law: both are offences of dishonesty and both carry the same
maximum sentence.” I do not believe that I would have disagreed with Mr.
Clarke's advice. It would have been open to a Court on sentencing on a charge
of false accounting to reach the conclusion that a defendant had been covering
his or her own tracks.
Deloitte’s Project Zebra and Remote Access
149. I am asked to describe the extent of my knowledge on Fujitsu's ability
remotely to write, edit or delete entries in branch accounts and to set out any
material changes to my knowledge during the relevant period.
Page 39 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
150. It is important that I first make reference to a document disclosed to me
along with the Rule 9 request for my first statement. I was provided with a copy
of an email of 27" November 2012 from Gareth Jenkins to Rachael Panter
(POL00141471) in which he proposed an amendment to his statement in the
case of R v. Wylie.
151. It is evident from this email that in relation to the issue of remote access,
Mr. Jenkins had suggested adding “...It is true that such access is possible;
however in an analysis of data audited by the system, it is possible to identify
any data that has not been input directly by staff in the Branch. Any such change
to data is very rare and would be authorised by Post Office Ltd. As I have not
had an opportunity to examine data related to this Branch, I cannot categorically
say that this has not happened in this case but would suggest it is highly
unlikely.”
152. Mr. Jenkins had set out his proposed amendment in a small font and I
do not believe that I fully read the email. Miss Panter had responded to Mr.
Jenkins on Mr Bowyer’s behalf and referred to remote access in her emails, I
had neither recognised nor understood the potential importance or significance
of the phrase in terms of its relevance to other cases. I was not able to recall
this email exchange when Mr. Clarke prepared his Advice of 27 March 2015
entitled “Deloitte Report — questions for POL” (POL00021774).
153. I have been asked to consider the Deloitte Horizon Desktop Review of
Assurance Sources and Key Control Features, Draft for Discussion
(POL00028062) dated 23" May 2014 and Mr. Clarke’s Advice of 27" March
2015 “Deloitte Report — Questions for POL” (POL00021774).
Page 40 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
154. I regret that I am unable to recall the telephone conversation with Rodric
Williams and Andrew Parsons referred to in paragraph 6 of Mr. Clarke’s Advice
of 27" March 2015. In that paragraph Mr. Clarke noted that it was possible to
‘inject’ a transaction unilaterally into the accounting records of a branch without
the consent, approval or indeed the knowledge of the Subpostmaster and that
an ‘injected’ transaction could be a negative-value transaction.
155. Mr. Clarke went on to note that it was not clear as to whether the
‘injected’ transaction would be visible to the Subpostmaster or a defence expert
witness. There was one recorded occasion upon which Fujitsu had used the
procedure and there was no facility or capability to ‘edit’ any existing transaction.
156. In Paragraph 4 of his Note, Mr. Clarke explained that the material was
potentially disclosable in cases where a convicted defendant had raised as part
of his defence, either expressly or by implication, the suggestion that:
e Post Office Ltd or some other third-party had manipulated, interfered with or
otherwise compromised Horizon;
e Horizon had created or was the victim of a system generated but inexplicable
loss/entry/transaction; or
e The defendant simply had no idea as to how the loss had arisen.
157. It was Mr. Clarke’s advice that it could not be determined whether the
material was to be disclosed without further information. In Paragraph 8 he listed
numerous questions in respect of which he sought answers in order to property
advise. I had not previously considered the potential relevance of remote access
to convicted Subpostmasters and given Mr. Clarke’s seniority and experience
did not disagree with his approach.
Page 41 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
158. I have been asked to consider an email of 5% May 2015 from Andrew
Parsons to Simon Clarke and myself (POL00021781) to which a number of
documents were attached. I am unable to recall reading this email and so it
follows that I am unable to set out what my views were of the responses provided
by Mr. Parsons. Similarly, I am unable to recall discussing this email with Mr.
Clarke. I am therefore unable to say whether I felt that this impacted on the
review of criminal cases which had been undertaken, whether it required
disclosure or whether it was considered that more information was required.
159. I have also been shown a further email from Mr. Parsons of 11% May
2015 (POL00151917) which was addressed to Simon Clarke and myself. It was
entitled ‘Meeting with Cartwright King.’ The body of the email reads “Meeting to
discuss Balancing Transactions/Remote Access.”
160. I regret that I do not have any recollection of this proposed meeting. I
am unable to recall having any further involvement in understanding the nature
and scope of remote access or with Project Zebra.
Ongoing Involvement
161. I have been asked to consider an email sent by Rodric Williams to myself
on 30% June 2015 (POL00065434) which is part of a chain. One of the emails
in the chain was sent by Rodric Williams to myself and Patrick Bourke on 26%
May 2015. This particular email makes reference to Mr. Williams’ understanding
that ‘Simon’ would be pulling together a list of cases in which disclosure would
be required. This would have been a reference to Simon Clarke. Due to the
length of time which has elapsed, am unable to describe any work which was
carried out in relation to this email. It would appear from the chain that I was
Page 42 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
awaiting a Disclosure Note from Simon Clarke. I am unable to recall the
conference with Brian Altman KC referred to.
162. I have been provided with a copy of an email from Mr. Parsons of 15"
July 2015 to myself and Simon Clarke (POL00029867). A document entitled ‘Old
Horizon’ (POL00029868) appears to have been attached. I am unable to recall
this email or the attachment. It follows that I am unable to describe any views
which I had of the document, explain whether I gave any consideration to the
disclosure of the document to convicted Subpostmasters or set out any advice
provided by either myself or Simon Clarke.
163. I have been asked to consider my email to Harry Bowyer of 21% August
2015 (POL00092640). I note that Simon Clarke was also copied into this email.
I indicated in my email that I would be unavailable for the weekly Horizon call
scheduled to take place on 26" August 2015 and attached the notes of the
previous call.
164. lam unable to recall writing this email but note that I suggested that there
were numerous issues raised on the previous call which were of concern. It
would appear that I informed Mr. Bowyer that Andy Winn was still receiving
requests to authorise FJ to correct problems - I used the initials ‘FJ’ to refer to
Fujitsu. I also explained that I did not know whether Post Office Ltd had full
visibility of the actions of Fujitsu and the ways in which they could correct branch
data. I am unable to recall the internal view within Cartwright King of remote
access at this point in time.
165. I note that I sent an email to Andrew Winn on 30" March 2016
(POL00140004) and referred to the ‘bi-weekly conference call’ on 23' March
2016. Upon reading this email I was reminded that at some point the Wednesday
Page 43 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
weekly conference call became a fortnightly call. In my email, into which I copied
Rodric Williams, Simon Clarke and Harry Bowyer, I made reference to the
suggestion which had been made that a Transaction Correction which had been
issued had been “undone” and the risk that Transaction Corrections may have
similarly been issued to other branches which may have caused losses, possibly
going back as far as 2005. I asked Mr. Winn to provide further information. Due
to the length of time which has since elapsed I am unable to recall this email or
whether I received a response. I am unable to recall whether I had any further
involvement with the issue of potentially erroneous transaction corrections.
166. I have been provided with a copy of an email of 25" April 2016 from
Rodric Williams to Gavin Matthews and Andrew Parsons of 25" April 2016
(POL00241079). I am unable to recall seeing this email. Similarly, I am unable
to recall seeing the “Receipts/Payments Mismatch issue notes” (POL00241080)
or the document “Correcting Accounts for “lost” Discrepancies” (POL00241081)
which had been attached to it. I note that another document attached by Rodric
Williams to his email was a note of Simon Clarke of 7° December 2015 relating
to the case of disclosure in the case of Seema Misra (POL00241084). I can
recall being informed that ‘disclosure was now a matter for the CCRC’.
167. I have been asked to consider the email sent by Rodric Williams to
Simon Clarke and myself on 7" September 2018 (POL00042015). I have also
been asked to set out my recollection of the conference with Tony Robinson,
Simon Henderson, Rodric Williams and Andrew Parsons. I can recall being in
attendance at the conference with Simon Clarke but do not have access to any
notes which I may have taken. I can recall that Simon Clarke explained his
concerns about Mr. Jenkins’ failure to refer to bugs in prosecution cases. I regret
Page 44 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
that I cannot recall any more detail about the conference itself. I do not recall
reviewing the attachments to the email or reviewing any other documents in the
GLO proceedings.
168. I have been provided with copies of a number of documents and have
been asked to say whether I have previously seen and/or read them:
e Report by Detica dated 1° October 2013 “Fraud and Non-conformance in the
Post Office; Challenges and Recommendations” (POL00029677). I do not
recognise this report.
e Report by Deloitte “Project Zebra — Phase 1 Report” marked as ‘Draft — for
validation in advance of Board discussion on Wednesday 30" April’
(POL00105635). I do not recognise this report.
e Report by Deloitte “HNG-X: Review of Assurance Sources — Discussion Areas
re: Phase 2 — Draft for discussion only.” (POL00031384). I do not recognise this
document.
e Report by Deloitte “HNG-X: Review of Assurance Sources — Phase 1 — Board
Update 13/5/14 — Subject to completion and delivery of our final report on 16"
May 2014” (POL00031391). I do not recognise this document.
e Report by Deloitte “HNG-X: Review of Assurance Sources — Board Update as
at 16/5/14” (POL00029726). I do not recognise this document.
¢ Deloitte Board Briefing Document 4" June 2014 (POL00028069). I do not
recognise this document.
¢ Second Sight Briefing Report — Part One dated 25" July 2014 (POL00004439).
I do not recognise this document.
¢ Second Sight Briefing Document — Part Two dated 9 April 2015
(POL00021791). I do not recognise this document.
Page 45 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
e “A Review on behalf of the Chairman of Post Office Limited Concerning the
Steps Taken in Response to Various Complaints Made by Sub-Postmasters”
dated 8" February 2016 (POL00006355). I do not recognise this document.
e Sparrow - Interim Report — Draft for Discussion (POL00029984). I do not
recognise this document.
e¢ Bramble — Interim Report — Draft for Discussion — 27" July 2016
(POL00030009). I do not recognise this document.
e Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for Discussion — 31% October 2016
(POL00031502). I do not recognise this document.
e Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for Discussion — 18 September 2017
(POL00041491). I do not recognise this document.
e¢ Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for Discussion -— 3 October 2017
(POL00028070). I do not recognise this document.
e Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for Discussion — 15 December 2017
(POL00029097). I do not recognise this document.
e Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for Discussion — 19" January 2018
(POL00028928). I do not recognise this document.
169. I have been asked with hindsight whether there is anything that I would
have done differently in respect of the matters raised in my statement. Prior to
advising Post Office Ltd in connection with cases being considered for
prosecution, I had little relevant experience of prosecution work. I had not
appreciated at the time that I had insufficient knowledge or experience to
properly discharge my role. With hindsight I should have requested training,
particularly with regard to disclosure. Similarly, with hindsight, I should have
Page 46 of 57
WITN09680200
WITNO9680200
realised that my work was not being adequately supervised — I am unable to
recall any file reviews being undertaken in respect of this work.
170. One of the questions attached to the Request asked whether I thought
that the file review process was adequately resourced. With hindsight, I do not
consider that Cartwright King adequately resourced the work undertaken prior
to the publication of the Second Sight Interim Report either. I believe that some
files were transferred to Cartwright King’s office in Nottingham in anticipation
that the case would be prepared there, in a timely fashion under the supervision
of in-house counsel, but external counsel were then instructed. I also take the
view, again with the benefit of hindsight, that having multiple people working on
acase file from different locations was unhelpful and made it more difficult, if not
impossible, to maintain a proper overview. It would have been better for
Cartwright King to have ‘ring-fenced’ a dedicated team working from one
location with supervision by a sufficiently experienced and competent director.
This would undoubtedly have resulted in more appropriate requests being made
for expert witness statements, the better identification of issues and the sharing
of information.
Statement of Truth
I believe the contents of this statement to be true.
Bhai ah dled Ml Ls a aaa
Page 47 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
Index to Second Witness Statement of Martin John Smith
No. I URN Document Description Control Number
1 WITNO09680100 I Witness statement of Martin Smith I WITN09680100
of 218t November 2023
2 POL00099063 The Second Sight Interim Report POL-0098646
3 FUJ00086811 Report of Helen Rose of 12" June I POINQ0092982F
2013
4 POL00062162 Email of 5'" July from Rodric POL-0058641
Williams to myself and Simon
Clarke
5 POL00006365 Advice of Simon Clarke of 8" July I POL-0017633
2013
6 FUJ00084852 Peak Incident Management POINQ0091023F
System Report
7 POL00006357 Advice of Simon Clarke of 15" July I POL-0017625
2013
8 FUJ00226331 Email of 15' October 2012 from POINQ0232448F
Jarnail Singh to Gareth Jenkins
9 POL00142322 Transcript of telephone call with POL-0143576
Gareth Jenkins on 28" June 2013
10 POL00083932 Note of Wednesday Horizon Call of I POL-0080863
19" July 2013
Page 48 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
1
POL00139731
Note of Wednesday Horizon Call of
24" July 2013
POL-0141432
12
POL00066807
Advice of Harry Bowyer “Response
to the Interim Review of Cartwright
King’s Current Process by Brian
Altman QC”
POL-0063286
13
POL00139732
Note of Wednesday Horizon Call of
315 July 2013
POL-0141433
14
POL00139745
Time Recording Note of 1°' August
2013
POL-0141446
15
POL00325474
Email of 15t August 2013 from
Jarnail Singh sent to myself and
Rodric Williams
POL-0172680
16
POL00006799
Advice of Simon Clarke of 2"
August 2013 on the Duty to Record
and Retain Material
POL-0017591
17
POL00139747
Email of Steven Gelsthorpe of 2"4
August 2013
POL-0141448
18
POL00139748
Attendance Note of 14" August
2013
POL-0141449
19
POL00083930
Note of Regular Call of 14" August
2013.
POL-0080861
Page 49 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
20 POL00006797 Letter of Susan Crichton of 16" POL-0017615
August 2013 addressed to Andy
Cash
21 POL00039998 Email to Susan Crichton of 16" POL-0036480
July 2013
22 POL00039993 Brief discussion of the CCRC’s POL-0036475
criteria
23 POL00039995 Draft response to CCRC POL-0036477
24 POL00060715 Advice of Simon Clarke in the case I POL-0057194
of R v. Lynette Hutchings dated
19! July 2013
25 POL00040022 Advice of Simon Clarke in the case I POL-0036504
of R v. Samra dated 22™ July 2013
26 POL00133633 Advice of Simon Clarke in the case I POL-0138086
of R v. Wylie dated 23 July 2013
27 POL00108042 Advice of Simon Clarke in the case I POL-0106209
of R v. Grech dated 23" July 2013
28 POL00112905 Advice of Simon Clarke in the case I POL-0110310
of R v. Cleife dated 19" November
2013
29 POL00040095 Note prepared by Messrs. Bond POL-0036577
Dickinson ‘Civil Claims by SPMR’s’
30 POL00114253 Note of Advice of Mr. Clark of 12 I POL-0113180
September 2013
Page 50 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
31
POL00006583
Brian Altman KC’s Interim Review
of Cartwright King’s Current
Process
POL-0017668
32
POLO00066807
Response to the Interim Review of
Cartwright King’s Current Process
by Brian Altman QC by Harry
Bowyer
POL-0063286
33
POL00006485
Note of a conference with Brian
Altman KC on 9" September 2013
POL-0017790
34
POL00139866
Note of a meeting on 9"
September 2013
POL-0141042
35
POL00006581
General Review of Brian Altman
KC dated 15" October 2013
POL-0017666
36
POL00112937
Brian Altman KC’s ‘Review of Post
Office Ltd Prosecution Role’ dated
19'" December 2013
POL0110333
37
POL00040194
Carwright King Note “Observations
and Analysis of the Cartwright King
Prosecution Review Process”
dated 5'" December 2013
POL-0036676
38
POL00133638
Advice of Simon Clarke in the case
of R v. Hosi dated 1st May 2014
POL-0138091
39
POL00145361
Email from Richard Boyce to Hugh
Flemington of 11" July 2013
POL-BSFF-
0004488
Page 51 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
40 POL00113135 Advice Note of Simon Clarke dated I POL-0110519
2”4 July 2014 "Securing Data for
Future Prosecutions”
41 POL00113136 Proposed Memorandum of POL-0110520
Understanding
42 FUJ00000069 Contract HNG-X v9.0 POINQ0006240F
43 POL00148748 Email from Jarnail Singh to Chris POL-BSFF-
Aujard, General Counsel, dated 0007869
234 July 2014
44 POL00148749 Advice of Simon Clarke — “Expert POL-BSFF-
Report — Imperial College, London” I 0007870
45 POL00040040 Draft Scope for computer experts POL-0036522
dated 17 September 2013
46 POL00146545 Email to Jarnail Singh of 15 POL-BSFF-
October 2013 0005672
47 POL00210444 Agreement to Appoint an Expert POL-BSFF-
0048507
48 POL00125569 Initial Review: Proposal for POL-0130687
investigation into the integrity of
the Post Office Horizon Online
accounting system on 26" June
2014
49 POL00325919 Quotation for the cost of the Phase I POL-0173054
2 work of 8" July 2014
Page 52 of 57
WITN09680200
WITNO9680200
50 POL00148714 Email of Jarnail Singh to Andrew POL-BSFF-
Parsons and others of 4"" July 0007835
2014
51 POL00325918 Email on 16"" September 2014 POL-0173053
from Andrew Pheasant to Jarnail
Singh
52 POL00325994 Email to Paul Cray at ICL of 29" POL-0173105
January 2015
53 POL00318211 Email to Rodric Williams of 8" July I POL-BSFF-
2015 0156261
54 POL00139879 Meeting Report prepared by Simon I POL-0141055
Clarke
55 POL00104198 Email of 24" September 2015 to POL-0103781
Laura Irvine
56 POL00168949 email to Andrew Parsons of 8" POL-BSFF-
May 2014 0132540
57 POL00148720 Advice of Simon Clarke of 15" July I POL-BSFF-
2014 0007841
58 POL00150390 Advice of Simon Clarke of 19" POL-BSFF-
December 2014 0009502
59 POL00023832 Advice of Simon Clarke of 16" POL-0020311
February 2015
60 POL00141471 Email from Gareth Jenkins to POL-0142856
Rachael Panter of 27" November
2012
Page 53 of 57
WITN09680200
WITNO9680200
61 POL00021774 Advice of Simon Clarke of 27" POL-0018253
March 2015 entitled “Deloitte
Report — questions for POL”
62 POL00028062 Deloitte Horizon Desktop Review POL-0023065
of Assurance Sources and Key
Control Features, Draft for
Discussion dated 23" May 2014
63 POL00021781 Email of Andrew Parsons to Simon I POL-0018260
Clarke of 5" May 2015
64 POL00151917 Email of Andrew Parsons to Simon I POL-BSFF-
Clarke of 11'" May 2015 0011029
65 POL00065434 Email of Rodric Willimas of 30" POL-0061913
June 2015
66 POL00029867 Email of Andrew Parsons to Simon I POL-0026349
Clarke of 15" July 2015
67 POL00029868 Document - ‘Old Horizon’ POL-0026350
68 POL00092640 Email to Harry Bowyer of 21° POL-0092218
August 2015
69 POL00140004 Email to Andrew Winn of 30" POL-0141180
March 2016
70 POL00241079 Email of Rodric Williams to Gavin POL-BSFF-
Matthews and Andrew Parsons of I 0079142
25" April 2016
71 POL00241080 Document — “Receipts/Payments POL-BSFF-
Mismatch issue notes” 0079143
Page 54 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
72
POL00241081
Document - “Correcting Accounts
for “lost” Discrepancies”
POL-BSFF-
0079144
73
POL00241084
Note of Simon Clarke of 7"
December 2015 relating to the
case of disclosure in the case of
Seema Misra
POL-BSFF-
0079147
74
POL00042015
Email of Rodric Williams to Simon
Clarke and myself of 7"
September 2018
POL-0038497
75
POL00029677
Report by Detica dated 1t October
2013 “Fraud and Non-conformance
in the Post Office; Challenges and
Recommendations”
POL-0026159
76
POL00105635
Report by Deloitte “Project Zebra —
Phase 1 Report” marked as ‘Draft
— for validation in advance of
Board discussion on Wednesday
30" April’
POL-0104595
77
POL00031384
Report by Deloitte “HNG-X:
Review of Assurance Sources —
Discussion Areas re: Phase 2 —
Draft for discussion only.”
POL-0028286
78
POL00031391
Report by Deloitte “HNG-X:
Review of Assurance Sources —
Phase 1 — Board Update 13/5/14 —
POL-0028293
Page 55 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
Subject to completion and delivery
of our final report on 16" May
2014”
79
POL00029726
Report by Deloitte “HNG-X:
Review of Assurance Sources —
Board Update as at 16/5/14”
POL-0026208
80
POL00028069
Deloitte Board Briefing Document
4 June 2014
POL-0023072
81
POL00004439
Second Sight Briefing Report —
Part One dated 25" July 2014
VISO0005507
82
POL00021791
Second Sight Briefing Document —
Part Two dated 9" April 2015
POL-0018270
83
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” dated
8'" February 2016
POL-0017623
84
POL00029984
Sparrow - Interim Report — Draft
for Discussion
POL-0026466
85
POL00030009
Bramble — Interim Report — Draft
for Discussion — 27" July 2016
POL-0026491
86
POL00031502
Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for
Discussion — 31% October 2016
POL-0028404
Page 56 of 57
WITNO09680200
WITNO9680200
87 POL00041491 Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for I POL-0037973
Discussion — 1°! September 2017
88 POL00028070 Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for I POL0023073
Discussion — 34 October 2017
89 POL00029097 Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for I POL-0025579
Discussion — 15" December 2017
90 POL00028928 Bramble — Draft Report — Draft for I POL-0025410
Discussion — 19" January 2018
Page 57 of 57