WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
Witness Name: Mark Davies
Statement No: 1
Ref: WITN09860100
Dated: 10 April 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARK DAVIES
I, Mark Davies, will say as follows:
1. 1am providing this witness statement following receipt of a Request for
Information pursuant to Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 — Request number 1,
regarding my role as Director of Communications at Post Office Limited
(“POL”), dated 23 February 2024.
2. I can confirm that I have had the legal assistance of Ashfords LLP in
responding to this Rule 9 request.
3. Before I begin in answering the Inquiry’s Rule 9 questions, I want to say that
in doing so, I am acutely conscious of the pain and anger of those innocent
people who were wrongly accused and whose convictions have been found to
be unsafe. No words from someone in my position will provide comfort, but
my sorrow is sincere, and I extend my apologies to anyone who feels I played
a part in prolonging their anguish in any way.
Page 1 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
Much more is now known about the Horizon system and it is my profound
wish that I and others had more of the reality before us when making key
decisions. But we did not, and it is my firmly held view that we acted in good
faith based on what we knew at the time. I would never have stated Horizon to
be robust had I not believed it to have been.
BACKGROUND
I began my working career as a journalist at the Liverpool Daily Post and
Echo in 1990 where I qualified with a Certificate in Journalism. I worked for
the company for nine years in a variety of positions before joining the BBC as
a Broadcast Journalist working on online news in 1999. I subsequently
worked for CNN as a Duty Editor and then at the BBC again as a Senior
Broadcast Journalist. In 2004 I joined HM Government as a special adviser
working for the Leader of the House of Lords, moving to the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office in 2005 to work for the then Foreign and
Commonwealth Secretary. I moved with him to the office of the Leader of the
House of Commons in 2006 and then to the Ministry of Justice in 2007 when
he became Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.
In 2010 I joined Rethink Mental IlIness as Director of Communications,
Campaigns, Information and Research.
I joined Post Office Ltd (‘POL’) in July 2012 as Communications Director
reporting to the Chief Executive. This role sat on the Executive Committee of
the business until 2014 when I stepped down from the committee as part of a
Page 2 of 55
10.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
restructure, before being reappointed to the Group Executive in 2017 as
Group Communications and Corporate Affairs Director. The Executive
Committee was responsible for the day to day running of the business. My
role was primarily to input on communications, stakeholder and reputational
issues. The complaints around Horizon were regularly discussed. I believe
that at all times these issues were handled at this level appropriately and in
good faith.
After leaving POL in 2019 I have worked in communications for the World
Wide Web Foundation and am currently Head of Communications and
Campaigns for the Refugee Council.
I have a BA (Hons) in Psychology and Sociology from University of Lancaster
(through study at what was then Liverpool Polytechnic and is now Liverpool
John Moores University).
My role at POL covered internal and external communications, stakeholder
relations and operational communications. It was a complex and demanding
communications and stakeholder environment through the interplay between
commercial, political, governmental, franchise and consumer interests. I led
and managed a team of around 40 communication professionals across
media and PR, internal communications, design and delivery, social media,
franchise and Crown office communications, public affairs, policy and
stakeholder engagement.
Page 3 of 55
11.
12.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
The demands on all functions was intense as POL embarked on a new future
as an independent business. The range of issues which passed across my
desk was broad, from a major programme of network transformation to
regular industrial relations disputes and, of course, the Horizon issues. It is
important to set out this context to underline the scale of the task facing the
Executive and Board: in a nutshell it was to turn around an ailing and badly
neglected business and ready it for the challenges of a rapidly changing
commercial environment while maintaining its public purpose serving
communities in every part of the UK. It also had to manage the demands of its
Shareholder, much of which revolved around ensuring minimal branch
closures, even where they were economically unviable. This was motivated by
a political consideration, to ensure the number of branches did not fall below a
notional level, set in reality by comparison with the work of the previous
Government. This meant my team dealt with thousands of queries about the
prospects for individual branches, amid huge political pressure to ensure they
stayed open.
My approach to communications was to encourage the team to act as a check
on the business, not simply providing information to journalists based on what
we were told, but interrogating information and challenging it, and decisions,
when we felt it was in the public and customer interest to do so. We did this
on countless occasions and I am proud of the work the team did to stand up
for customers and postmasters, sometimes in really difficult circumstances. I
am happy of course to provide examples of this work.
Page 4 of 55
13.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
A key priority was to improve communications with postmasters and their
teams. In doing so we had to tackle a culture in some quarters, which wrongly
placed postmasters in a subordinate role. This was compounded by the way
post offices were dispersed across the UK, sometimes with very limited
access to communications channels.
14.We put in place a number of initiatives to seek to improve communications
15.
between POL corporate and the branches, increasing two-way communication
channels, visibility of senior leaders and improving digital channels of
communication. Whilst we made some progress, I acknowledge that
communications with postmasters could have been further improved. We had
a Culture in my team of continuous improvement and constantly seeking to
build on the initiatives and improvements we had introduced. While much has
been written and said about my POL colleagues, I wish to pay tribute to those
with whom I worked in communications, who were professional at all times. I
have no doubt we could have done more, but I am proud of the steps taken to
seek to change to a more open culture, a mission which was led by Paula
Vennells as CEO and supported by the Executive.
I became aware of complaints relating to the Horizon system in 2012 shortly
before I joined POL. As I recall, a colleague where I previously worked
highlighted the issues from a BBC article and following this I did some general
basic due diligence on POL’s reputation, including what was in the public
sphere around Horizon and other issues.
Page 5 of 55
16.
17.
18.
19.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
It was clear when I joined POL, that in contrast to previous approaches, it was
taking and continued to take the Horizon issues very seriously. From a
technical standpoint, we were being reassured internally and by Fujitsu that
Horizon was robust and it was my job to communicate this to postmasters,
stakeholders and the wider public to retain the confidence of consumers and
postmasters in the system as the allegations posed a very serious
reputational, commercial and operational risk to POL. Millions of pounds go
through post office branches every year and I believe that the organisation
was right to take anything which could damage confidence in what was at that
time a loss-making business, very seriously.
The decision to open up the business to external scrutiny, and subsequently
to seek to mediate cases, were the actions of a business which took its
responsibilities to its people very seriously. These initiatives, and others, were
led with, in my opinion, integrity and care by Ms Vennells and with the support
of the Board.
I attended the Board of POL on a regular basis to provide input on a range of
communications and stakeholder issues. The complaints about Horizon and
issues with the system were discussed regularly. I do not recall specific dates
in relation to my involvement with the Board, but I did provide regular updates
to Board members, including by email, on communication issues.
Issues relating to Horizon were addressed regularly at Board and Executive
level, not least through the establishment of the various committees with
Page 6 of 55
20.
21.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
which the Inquiry is familiar. My recollection is that issues were always
flagged appropriately at senior levels, though it is clear in hindsight that the
Board and Executive and many others in the business, including myself and
the communications team, were unaware of the range and extent of defects
within Horizon which emerged in the Group Litigation.
I did not have any serious concerns regarding the functioning of the Board
and Executive Committee. I had no specific concerns relating to any
individuals who served on the Board and the Executive Committee. I believe I
worked closely and effectively with the vast majority of Executive directors
and Board members.
I also worked very closely with Shareholder Executive (‘ShEx’) and UK
Government Investments (‘UKGI’) colleagues throughout the period covered
by my statement. They understandably took a very close interest in
communications and stakeholder issues. I had regular meetings with
colleagues from ShEx and UKGI. Relationships were strong and collegiate.
There was certainly concern from some in POL that their involvement in
business issues was sometimes too great, and frustration was expressed that
this could be time-consuming and resource intensive. My view was that ShEx
and UKGI were understandably keen to ensure they were sighted on key
issues in order to be able to address ministerial and other concerns,
particularly given the acute political interest in a range of Post Office issues.
Meetings with ministers and special advisers were regularly held on a range
of issues, with ShEx and UKGI always involved.
Page 7 of 55
22.
23.
24.
25.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
I have been asked about an email (POL00302459) in which Mr Tim McInnes
of ShEx is pushing me for a timeline for the publication of POL’s “public
purpose” statement, which was seen by ministers as a key step towards their
proposals to mutualise the Post Office business. My concerns related, as I
recall, around the timing of the announcement and a potential clash with
matters relating to the Horizon issues. It would not have been in the best
interests of securing media coverage for the public purpose statement if it was
released on the same day as coverage about the Horizon issues. This debate
was part of the ‘bread and butter’ of my role: debating and deciding when and
how to publish details of new products or initiatives, and considering the
external communications environment in doing so. Mr Mcinnes can speak for
himself but I am sure he would agree that his intent was to seek coverage for
the public purpose statement, as this was a key concern of ministers. I am
sure he will also agree that our discussions were at all times courteous and
collaborative.
Concerns around timings of communication were regular and are part and
parcel of any corporate communications or government communications
process.
I have been asked about my contacts with the National Federation of
Subpostmasters (‘NFSP’) and the trade unions representing employees at the
Post Office, the Communication Workers Union and Unite.
I had varying degrees of involvement with representatives of each, throughout
my time at the Post Office, although the business had specific teams which
Page 8 of 55
26.
27.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
had direct accountability for engaging with the NFSP and the trade unions. My
involvement, and that of the communications team, was primarily to engage
with communications teams at the NFSP and trade unions on relevant issues,
and to work with colleagues across the business on developing statements in
response to relevant issues for external and internal use. For example, the
Communication Workers Union (‘CWU’) regularly held strike action and my
team would be central in developing media statements and strategies in
relation to such action.
When I joined POL, it had just separated from Royal Mail Group and it was
clear to me that it was finding its feet as an independent business, still
developing many of its organisational structures and processes. The business
was under significant commercial pressure as a loss-making organisation and
under intense political pressure to keep branches open even where they were
loss-making but served a critical purpose in communities. Administrative and
governance processes could have slipped under the radar in this context but
instead, significant and important work was undertaken at pace to establish
the organisation as an independent business. The role of company secretary,
which in my view was performed outstandingly by Alwen Lyons, was crucial to
this.
In my view, the Board and Executive were diligent and effective in dealing
with the issues relating to Horizon. Faced with an intense and demanding
range of issues, it ensured that the business focussed on the complaints
regarding Horizon by: appointing Second Sight; creating appropriate
governance processes and structures; engaging with complainants and those
Page 9 of 55
28.
29.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
representing them; reviewing criminal cases; setting up the mediation
scheme; advertising for more complainants to come forward; and engaging in
detail with key stakeholders, particularly with ministers and the Shareholder.
Ministers in particular had regular meetings. Indeed, the business sought
more meetings than were ever granted, no doubt due to the pressure on
ministerial diaries. Meetings were held at Secretary of State level as well as
with Post Office Ministers..
These initiatives and steps were aimed at resolving the issues. Whilst there
was frustration that this was another issue on an already strained corporate
agenda, there was no desire to overlook it or try to avoid facing the important
questions it raised. On the contrary, the sincere desire of all with whom I
worked with was to try to find resolutions. In relation to my role specifically,
what we could not accept - in the context of what we knew at the time — was
inaccurate media coverage which damaged customer and postmaster
confidence in a key delivery system.
I have always taken pride as a journalist and communicator in placing the
truth above other considerations. I have never knowingly misled a journalist,
no matter what their declared agenda, and have never and would never agree
to issue information or comments which I knew to be untrue.
Page 10 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
MPS MEETING (JUNE 2012)
30. In answering the Inquiry’s questions about this meeting, I can confirm that I
have reviewed the following documents:
POL00096584, POL00096640, POL00295298, POL00295386,
POL00186944, POL00186945, POL00186952, POL00186953,
POL00186960, POL00186961, POL00186962, POL00296586,
POL00186969, POL00186970, POL00115877, POL00115879,
POL00296599.
31. [joined POL in July 2012 so did not attend this meeting. As mentioned above,
I had become aware of complaints around Horizon during my research in
advance of joining the business.
32. I have been asked about the reference to me in POL00295386 which is an
email between Paula Vennells and Alice Perkins. The reference to ‘NL’ in this
email is Norman Lamb, who was the then Post Office Minister. I imagine the
reference to me is in relation to his role as a Liberal Democrat MP and my
previous role with the Labour government of 2004-2010. I think the issue
being debated is whether he would be unhappy about my appointment.
Page 11 of 55
WITNO09860100
WITN09860100
SECOND SIGHT (2013)
33.
34.
35.
In answering the Inquiry’s questions around this subject-matter, I can confirm
that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00188908, POL00021515, POL00167883, POL00060603,
POL00167919, POL00296940, POL00296941, POL00189880,
POL00189881, POL00107951, POL00296993, POL00297032,
POL00029627, POL00190147, POL00190153, POL00190418,
POL00190419, POL00190423, POL00190424, POL00190546,
POL00190547, POL00297153, POL00297155, POL00297156,
POL00098997, POL00098998, POL00115946, POL00145205,
POL00145202, POL00191035, POL00191036, POL00099113,
POL00130409, POL00099117, POL00145267, POL00191689,
POL00191936, POL00161960, POL00108052.
POL had in 2012 announced the Second Sight (‘SS’) investigation in
response to the complaints. The complaints were not new, but the then
Executive and Board of this period were the first to engage with them and to
set out an intention to listen to complainants and investigate. The decision to
set up an investigation through SS was fundamental to this.
It was of utmost importance to POL leaders to ensure the complaints were
properly examined. This was based on a concern for those making the
complaints and the nature of Horizon itself. The system was integral to the
Post Office network and therefore critically important to the livelihoods of
Page 12 of 55
36.
37.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
thousands of postmasters and their staff, and to the millions of customers who
used the Post Office every day. At the time there were more than 11,000 Post
Offices and around 60,000 people registered and trained to use Horizon. I
think I am right in saying around 500,000 people had used the system since
its introduction. POL served a range of clients including Government, the
banking sector and others. Any concern that the system did not work properly
was taken extremely seriously for the very reason that it was so fundamental
to so many people.
I have been asked whether POL prioritised complaints depending on who
made the complaint. Although all questions and complaints were taken very
seriously, inevitably, and often unconsciously, you might prioritise
complainants over others depending on the seniority of the complainant. For
example, a complaint from a prominent MP might receive greater attention. It
is a common feature of stakeholder management strategies to consider an
individual's position and standing when such complaints or indeed any other
request is received.
In relation to SS, concerns were expressed about the quality of their work, as
reflected in POL00021515. There was a feeling in the business that it was not
as forensic and detailed as might have been expected. Nevertheless it was
also regarded as clear from the interim report that they had not found
evidence of systemic issues with the Horizon computer system. They did,
however, raise concerns about the wider support and training offered to
postmasters. I was asked at the Board meeting on 1% July 2013 to prepare
Page 13 of 55
38.
39.
40.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
our communications approach for publication of the report: this will have
included “Q&A” briefing for media queries, press release and stakeholder
engagement.
I have been asked about the role of the organisation Brunswick. Over the
course of my time at POL we would occasionally use public relations and
public affairs companies to support our teams on a variety of issues from
product launches to reputational issues such as this. I recall that we had
support on this issue at different times from Portland Communications,
Brunswick and Lexington. Teams from these companies would provide advice
on media and stakeholder handling. Their role was to provide another pair of
eyes on issues, to challenge us and to propose approaches to media and
stakeholder engagement issues. Such input could be extremely valuable in
terms of providing alternative views or proposals, and in assessing proposed
internal approaches to media and stakeholder handling.
Following the findings of the SS Interim Report, and in an attempt to resolve
the issues raised in that report, the Executive and Board created the
Mediation Scheme to address these issues and give those making complaints
the opportunity to set out their case.
I recall that on having read the Interim SS report, and in particular the
accounts of the way people were treated when accused of misconduct, I felt
very strongly that the business needed to find ways of addressing these
Page 14 of 55
41.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
issues and giving people the opportunity to make their case. Ms Vennells
shared my concerns and I recall that she called me when I was on a train
going home on the day the report was published. She had also been reading
the accounts of Postmasters who had been accused of theft and was appalled
by the way they appeared to have been treated by Royal Mail investigators
(POL at the time of most prosecutions, having been part of Royal Mail Group).
I have no doubt at all that her concern was genuine. I shared her concerns
and we had a discussion about ways in which to address this. Ms Vennells
suggested we needed to find a way of creating some kind of “truth and
reconciliation” process. I agreed and we discussed whether a mediation
scheme of some kind might be an option. I do not remember who first
suggested the mediation scheme, but POL00192329 outlines my thinking at
the time. I had been aware of mediation schemes in previous roles and so set
out my ideas for consideration by colleagues. Another idea was the creation
of an independent ombudsman.
Mediation seemed to me to be an appropriate and potentially effective way of
addressing concerns and giving people the opportunity to make their case. In
the event a number of cases were settled through this process, where training
and support had been inadequate. This idea was not universally supported
and of course it did not resolve issues as we had hoped. I am however
pleased that we took it forward with independent oversight as a genuine
attempt to resolve issues.
Page 15 of 55
42.
43.
44.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
In terms of how we publicised the interim SS report, from a communications
point of view, my primary goal was for the business to be open and
transparent about the SS report. While it was interim report, it had not found
systemic issues with the Horizon computer system, but was scathing about
POL operations in other ways and had set out details of two bugs which the
business had flagged to SS as part of the process. While these issues were
difficult from a presentational point of view, I felt the business had a duty,
especially as a publicly-owned business, to be open about this and to set out
its commitment as a newly independent business to improve. To ensure
complete transparency, we published the report in full on our website and
issued a press release which was widely covered, not least by the BBC.
I have been asked about meetings I attended with Members of Parliament. I
had dozens of meetings with MPs during my time at the Post Office but in
terms of specific meetings on these issues, I recall at least three such
meetings. One was with Paula Vennells, Alice Perkins, the now Lord
Arbuthnot and, I believe Oliver Letwin MP. Another was a large meeting with a
number of MPs and parliamentary researchers and finally, I also attended a
meeting with the then Post Office minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Mr Andrew
Bridgen MP and Mr Kevan Jones MP. My role at these meetings was to
support the meeting in whatever way was most appropriate, taking part as
appropriate, keeping notes and other duties.
I cannot recall what stage the SS investigation was at, but I think that the first
two of these meetings were quite held close together and concerned a review
of where we were with the SS investigation and attempts of the business to try
Page 16 of 55
45.
46.
47.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
to resolve the issues it was investigating and had uncovered. In respect of the
latter meeting, I recall that the minister had requested a meeting to try to
bottom out and resolve these same issues. I remember that this was quite a
difficult meeting.
I have been asked about discussions with colleagues from ShEx and later
UKGI. I had hundreds of discussions and meetings with them on a very
regular basis throughout my time at POL and cannot as a result recall specific
meetings. I took time as part of my role to ensure that communications
colleagues and others, including ministerial private offices, at the Business
Department (BIS as it was known at the time), were aware of developments
and had access to briefings. I also made contact with special advisers to
ministers to ensure that they too had an open line of communication. The
primary concern of colleagues from ShEx and UKGI was, as I recall, to ensure
that POL was taking appropriate actions in relation to this issue. Colleagues
from ShEx and UKGI had access to all briefings on these issues and prepared
briefings on a regular basis for ministers. No material was ever to my
knowledge withheld from them.
I have been asked about the role of external law firms such as Bond
Dickinson. Rather like public affairs agencies, the role of external law firms as
I understood it was to provide extra expertise, challenge and support.
POL’s draft statement on the SS report can be seen in the email chain at
POL00296993. Included in this statement it says “Second Sight have
Page 17 of 55
48.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
confirmed there are no systemic issues in the computer system based on their
initial review, but we will continue to work with them, and the JFSA, to
examine other cases put to us.” I have been asked how this statement was
formulated, including my view as to the accuracy of the statement that SS
“nas concluded there are no systemic issues inherent within the system”.
In answering this question I would like to set out how media statements were
generally prepared. A first step, usually by the press office team would be to
prepare a draft statement based on the report, and prepare draft quotes. This
would then be circulated to relevant colleagues across the business: in this
case that would mean colleagues working in Legal, Security, the network and
IT. Discussions over the business’ response to the SS interim report therefore
involved colleagues from across the business. The statement would then be
agreed by all involved, issues addressed and if necessary debated, before
being circulated to relevant Executive committee members for sign off. It may
also be circulated to the Board.
49.SS's interim report (POL00002240) set out its preliminary conclusion, that it
50.
had not found systemic issues with the Horizon system and therefore this was
what we put in our statement.
I have also been asked about POL’s role in formulating external responses,
such as that of the then MP and now Lord James Arbuthnot MP and Alan
Bates. I recall only that relations with Lord Arbuthnot were such at this stage
that we shared statements with his office and his office did the same with us.
Page 18 of 55
51.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
This is common practice. Where a document states “speaking note for JA”
this means a speaking note prepared for a POL colleague, usually the CEO,
ahead of a meeting with Lord Arthbuthnot.
I don’t recall any discussions with Mr Alan Bates. Again, a briefing note might
have been prepared for a POL colleague ahead of a meeting with Mr Bates. I
would have been part of the preparations around any briefing note but I
cannot recall any specific details or, indeed, if there was one prepared.
LESSONS LEARNED REVIEW (2013)
52.
53.
I can confirm that I have reviewed documents POL00040032 and
POL00099574. As I recall, the Lessons Learned Review was aimed at
reviewing the handling of the SS work and report in order to improve ways of
working and develop processes. This was standard practice.
I believe I was involved in the Lessons Learned Review as a member of the
Executive committee responsible for a key area of work. I don’t recall very
much else about the review other than such reviews took place regularly as
part of our governance approach and do not feel that I am able to add
anything beyond that which is contained in the documents.
Page 19 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
MEDIATION AND SPARROW GROUPS (2013/2014)
54. I can confirm that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00192329, POL00117034, POL00297858, POL00117036
POL00297860, POL00117038, POL00137340, POL00137330,
POL00137343, POL00137342, POL00145861, POL00137357,
POL00193377, POL00162003, POL00193515, POL00137388,
POL00145960, POL00298771, POL00138809, POL00158054,
POL00146314, POL00195309, POL00138735, POL00138741,
POL00116190, POL00196587, POL00137758, POL00300910,
POL00138112, POL00138147, POL00162134, POL00148075,
POL00006565, POL00025801, POL00148216, POL00304803,
POL00022128, POL00346789, POL00346790, POL00346791,
POL00346792, POL00021525, POL00006566, POL00027153,
POL00027369, POL00101478, POL00116744, POL0021274,
POL00101578, POL00308237, POL00308238.
55. I have been asked to set out my recollection of the matters raised in
POL00192329, including my level of involvement and influence in respect of
POL’s actions that followed the SS interim report.
56. This document is an email chain between myself and senior Board members
which discusses media coverage around Horizon issues and SS’s ‘Part Two’
Report. This email reflects a key point: we did not have evidence at this stage
that Horizon was the source of issues flagged by the complainants at the time
Page 20 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
(which was a much smaller number than now). Whatever our concerns over
the treatment of postmasters in each case, there was no basis upon which to
issue what I call in this email a “blanket apology”, but we did need to take
steps to underline that we took these issues very seriously and wished to find
ways of resolving the issue in a way which was fair to all parties.
57.The culture being developed in the business by Ms Vennells and Alice Perkins
58.
59.
was around three values - care, commitment and challenge - and there was
serious intent behind these words. This was a clear case where the newly
independent business wished to show, authentically, that it was a responsible
business which took issues raised by people within the business very
seriously, and in line with its values. Clearly the underlying culture challenge
was a significant one to overcome, and it is clear that we were not fully
successful in doing so.
I have been asked about my involvement in the Weekly Steering Groups (both
Subpostmaster Improvements and Mediations Steering Group and Sparrow
Weekly Steering Group), and to explain their purpose, differences, and my
views as to their effectiveness.
The Subpostmaster Improvements group was set up to co-ordinate and
oversee the work underway to improve our work with branches, including
communications but covering a range of issues such as the establishment of
the Branch User Forum. The Mediations Steering Group was to provide a
forum for senior colleagues to receive updates on progress with the scheme,
while the Sparrow group, I think, included Board members and was aimed at
Page 21 of 55
60.
61.
62.
63.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
covering all aspects relating to the complaints about Horizon, from legal
review to the Mediation scheme and more.
My role was to provide strategic and practical communications input (such as
providing an overview of ways we could use internal POL channels to
encourage postmasters to come forward with complaints or suggestions for
improvements in procedures and practices: there was a strong ethos (set by
Ms Vennells) within these meetings around lessons learned and service
improvement for postmasters. Angela Van Den Bogerd was key to this work
and an energetic advocate of delivering commitments to continuous
improvement, such as through the Branch User Forum, improvement
programme and the Post Office Advisory Council.
I have also been asked about my involvement in Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme Monthly Steering Group and the Sparrow Sub Committee,
its purpose and my views as to its effectiveness.
My recollection is that it was set up to provide a forum for colleagues involved
in the scheme to report back on developments, ensure focus on strategy and
act as a focus point for ensuring the executive and Board were kept informed
as appropriate. It is worth emphasising that work on this issue was carried out
in a highly collaborative manner.
I have been asked what I understand the reference to “scope creep” to mean
within POL00138112. There was a concern that SS was seeking to widen the
Page 22 of 55
64.
65.
66.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
scope of its work into broader territory than the Horizon computer system. My
reading of this reference is that it was a suggestion that I needed to be aware
of concerns in the Working Group about this alleged “scope creep” because of
the communications and reputational issues it might prompt.
I have been asked about my recollections of the principal issues or concerns
with the Working Group in late 2014 (if any).
My recollection is that the principal issue was around scope. There was
concern that the work was bogged down and that the level of differences of
view between the business and some postmasters, the Justice For
Subpostmasters Alliance (‘JFSA’) and Lord Arbuthnot were risking the
successful delivery of the approach. There was a concern that while the
scheme had been enthusiastically endorsed at the outset, it no longer had the
support of some of the postmasters, MPs and the JFSA. The business was
unhappy with the quality of work delivered by SS but was mindful of
ministerial commitments to keep them involved. There were concerns about
costs and an expectation gap in relation to compensation between those
raising cases and the business.
I have been asked to consider POL00021525 and to set out my recollection
as to the decision not to include details of Project Sparrow in the Annual
Report and my involvement in this matter and my views as to the
transparency of Project Sparrow more broadly. I vaguely recall a debate
around this decision and I can see that I was party to this meeting, although I
Page 23 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
cannot specifically remember it and so do not feel that I can add anything
further than what is in the document. However, in terms of my recollection of
the general approach to transparency of Project Sparrow, although I cannot
speak for others, my intent was always to be as transparent as possible in
respect of it. It was a ‘catch all’ for all of the issues around Horizon, as raised
by the campaign.
SECOND SIGHT (2014)
67.
68.
I can confirm that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00100200, POL00100322, POL00116357, POL00088977,
POL00105634, POL00116409, POL00116426, POL00116445,
POL00116663, POL00101296, POL00101313, POL00101316,
POL00101325, POL00101329, POL00101336, POL00101333,
POL00101349, POL00101409, POL00101390, POL00211873.
I have been asked to set out my recollection of issues concerning the
continued involvement of SS. The reality of internal discussions around SS is
that they focused primarily on the lack of progress the organisation was
making. I was not aware of any attempt to skew their findings, rather a
frustration with the quality of their work, the time it was taking and a concern
about cost. There were also cases where SS did not want to mediate a case
where Post Office felt it would be of merit to do so.
Page 24 of 55
69.
70.
71.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
The desire was to find ways to expedite their work in a way which achieved
multiple ends: to give each complainant the opportunity to set out their case
and have a report conducted independently by SS on their specific case,
reduce costs to the business and speed up the process. A number of
complainants had withdrawn from the scheme and were setting out their
intention to take their cases to the courts and the Criminal Cases Review
Commission (‘CCRC’), and it felt difficult in that context to continue the
process as intended. There were differences of view over whether to mediate
cases which had been through the Court system, through concern that
mediation couldn't do the work of the Court. It should be noted that we
eventually moved to offer mediation in all non-criminal cases with structured
discussions offered in criminal cases.
I have also been asked what, if any, concerns I had regarding unauthorised
disclosure (leaking) of SS’s report and to detail any conversations with SS in
this respect. We fully expected the report to be leaked and that was deeply
regrettable, but I don’t recall any conversations with SS about this.
Negative reporting of the SS report was frustrating but the business (rightly)
put the underlying aims - to find a way of resolving and addressing complaints
- before any presentational issues. My role was to do what I could with my
team to protect and enhance the reputation of the business. I was being told
that there was no reason to doubt the robustness of Horizon and therefore
from my point of view, media coverage which stated that Horizon was not
robust was not just bad from a reputational view, but was, I believed,
Page 25 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
inaccurate. It was my job to seek to stop what I thought was incorrect
reporting. To be clear, I would never allow anyone to say anything which I
knew to be untrue. I am sure that had I seen any evidence that Horizon was
not robust, I would have pressed the business and ensured that POL were
transparent around any issues. I was always very proud that we as a
communications team would not take what the business said at face value
and had I ever been told that there were issues but I was not to disclose them,
I would not have accepted that.
72. Coverage around these issues was at the time contained to some relatively
low profile outlets. Executives and Board members were naturally frustrated to
see the issue reported in a way which they felt was damaging to the business
and unfair in terms of balance and impartiality but did not seek to change
course because of this. The primary concern was the impact on the Post
Office network and customers.
73. I was responsible as Communications Director for lines to take and approach
of the media, albeit in collaboration with others across the business. I would
make recommendations, take input and seek agreement.
REVIEW OF POL’S PROSECUTION POLICY
74. Ican confirm that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00038679, POL00021522, POL00201355, POL00201356,
POL00030717, POL00100557.
Page 26 of 55
75.
76.
77.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
I have been asked about my recollections of the review of the prosecution
policy, including its background, purpose and my involvement.
The question of prosecution policy was raised regularly by stakeholders and
the Board agreed that it should be reviewed. Although I do not have a legal
background, I believe the key issues under review were the processes for
disclosure and expert evidence, because concerns had been raised in relation
to disclosure of bugs and whether Fujitsu's expert witness could be called in
any future prosecutions. I believe that I was asked by the CEO or General
Counsel to be involved to provide advice on communications issues. I would
have expected to have been involved, as I always was with major issues
facing the business.
I believe the approach to the policy was appropriate though I was concerned
that publicising a change in approach might have unintended consequences,
and I think this is primarily why we did not proactively advertise the change in
position. My role as ever was to provide communications and stakeholder
handling advice. My personal view was that the position of Post Office leading
prosecutions was unsustainable, but that it was important as guardians of
public money to have processes in place for those occasions when regrettably
criminal behaviour was suspected in branches. It was important therefore to
maintain a position where there would not be a blanket policy of not taking
forward prosecutions: to do so would mean some criminal behaviour not being
addressed.
Page 27 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
BBC INSIDE OUT SOUTH / THE ONE SHOW / NICK WALLIS / TODAY
PROGRAMME / REPORTING IN LATE 2014 AND EARLY 2015
78. Ican confirm that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00101851, POL00101626, POL00101629, POL00101655,
POL00101639, POL00101632, POL00101652, POL00101665,
POL00101668, POL00149925, POL00101671, POL00101675,
POL00101676, POL00101678, POL00149949, POL00101727,
POL00101750, POL00350207, POL00062342, POL00214317,
POL00214318, POL00101789, POL00101796, POL00308597,
POL00101851, POL00162239, POL00214744, POL00308640,
POL00308668, POL00308687, POL00150165, POL00101860,
POL00308728, POL00308735, POL00150216, POL00150228,
POL00150229, POL00308767, POL00150242, POL00350383,
POL00101884, POL00101892, POL00150292, POL00101897,
POL00308864, POL00101905, POL00101906, POL00101925,
POL00101926, POL00101931, POL00101505, POL00101519,
POL00101547, POL00101618, POL00101616, POL00101686,
POL00101698, POL00308413, POL00101984, POL00101987,
POL00109881, POL00029805, POL00102016, POL00102026,
POL00162252, POL00310902, POL00312123, POL00312322,
POL00351102.
79. I have been asked to detail my involvement in the above broadcasts / reports.
Due to the passage of time, I cannot recall any specific details beyond what is
Page 28 of 55
80.
81.
82.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
contained in these documents, however the below outlines the usual process
that my team would go through when involved in broadcasts / reports.
This topic covers a number of media enquiries, of which POL had hundreds
every week on a range of topics. On each, journalists would ring or email the
POL press office with questions and requests. These would be flagged
internally to relevant colleagues and responses would be prepared and
considered on each question, including whether to offer interviews. I don’t
recall the specifics of these cases beyond the evidence disclosed to me.
All of these media matters were flagged to me and I would flag them to the
Executive and usually the Board. This was to ensure colleagues were sighted
on the enquiry and its potential impact. This was a standard procedure for
many (though not all) media enquiries. On this issue I always alerted the
Executive because it was one of a number of core issues upon which I felt it
was important to keep colleagues informed.
I have been asked what POL’s position was in respect of allegations made
and how this position was formulated. The approach to any media enquiry
while I was at POL was the same: we sought to engage with journalists
constructively and to be as transparent as possible. We always sought to
provide information which was accurate and to meet media deadlines where
reasonable. This was as true of this issue as any. Media statements and
responses would be formulated through press officers engaging with relevant
colleagues across the business as well as Fujitsu when relevant. Intended
Page 29 of 55
83.
84.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
responses were always circulated for approval from whichever Press Officer
was leading on that particular issue.
We dealt with each interview request on its merits, taking into account a
number of factors. Although we started from the basis of always wishing to
take opportunities to set out the business’ position, it was more difficult in
respect of this issue, primarily because of our commitment of confidentiality to
those involved in the mediation scheme. As a result, this made it very difficult
to undertake media interviews. The decision for me to appear on the Today
programme was for the following reasons: it was a very high profile media
outlet, and we were conscious of its ability to set the news agenda; and we
had declined a previous invitation which had frustrated the then Post Office
minister who felt that our decision had led to her being called to answer an
Urgent Question in the House of Commons. When the Today programme
asked us to appear (and as ever such requests are made late in the day) we
had limited time to consider our approach.
I have been asked about the use of the phrase ‘robust’ in respect of the
Horizon system (in respect of the relevant matters/broadcasts/reports) and
key conversations regarding this term. I do not recall where the phrase
“robust” originated. I think it predated my arrival at Post Office. I do remember
discussing it with colleagues and we sought to be clear in setting out that we
recognised that Horizon, like all computer systems, was not perfect. This was
a long-standing position. Given its role processing millions of transactions
Page 30 of 55
85.
86.
87.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
each day, and more than 60,000 people using it, this felt eminently
reasonable in the context of what we knew at the time.
I have also been asked where the view that the SS review “found no evidence
at all of any systemic problems with the Horizon system” originated from. As
noted above, I believe this was based on SS’s statement in its interim report
which states at 8.2 “We have so far found no evidence of system wide
(systemic) problems with the Horizon software”, as well as SS’s ongoing work.
The organisation did not find systemic issues, no doubt because like POL it
did not at the time have access to all the facts.
I have also been asked where the view that people had “faced lifestyle
difficulties” originated from. This was a phrase I used in a live radio interview
on the BBC Today programme. I was trying to make the point that POL was
sorry - genuinely - that people had faced challenges in their lives, but that it
didn't necessarily follow that POL was responsible. This was a reasonable
sentiment given what we knew at the time. The word “lifestyle” was obviously
clumsy and unintended. For the avoidance of any doubt it was not scripted or
planned. It was certainly not meant to cause offence. It was literally a slip of
the tongue in a high pressure media interview and I am very sorry for any
offence caused.
I have been asked about the investigations and enquiries I made to reach the
conclusions as to the reliability of the Horizon system as communicated to the
relevant broadcaster/publisher/journalist.
Page 31 of 55
88.
89.
90.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
As noted above, POL had at the time a press office team which would lead on
all press inquiries, reporting to me. They were a high performing and high
quality team. They would ensure any query on this matter was flagged to me.
They would lead on dealing with specific questions and interview requests,
updating me as required. In doing so they would speak in detail to relevant
colleagues within the business — specifically legal, network, security and IT —
and Fujitsu as appropriate.
They would report back to me and we would discuss statements and
information to be passed on to the journalist(s). I would also on occasion talk
to Fujitsu and I spoke regularly on these matters to colleagues such as
Angela Van Den Bogerd, Rodric Willliams, various GCs and ClOs (General
Counsel and Chief Information Officers), and network colleagues at all levels
in the organisation.
In order to reach the conclusions as to the reliability of the Horizon system as
communicated to the relevant broadcaster/publisher/journalist, as with any
media enquiry, my team and I would interrogate relevant departments in the
business, and often challenge them around proposed responses to media
enquiries. As a publicly owned business POL, I believe, has a particular
responsibility to seek to engage with the media, balancing that with
commercial and other considerations such as confidentiality. On these issues,
we worked with colleagues in legal, the network and IT to understand issues
and prepare media responses, and also with Fujitsu through engagement with
its media team.
Page 32 of 55
91.
92.
93.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
As with many issues there were a range of views on how best to handle
media matters. I always sought to take views as appropriate and relevant from
a broad range of internal stakeholders. I do not recall any wild variances of
view and overall there was a healthy spirit of collaboration across the
organisation and while our public positions were carefully scrutinised I do not
recall any occasion where a colleague expressed a view that the approach we
were taking was flawed or inaccurate.
I have been asked about the involvement of POL’s criminal law team
(specifically) and wider legal team in formulating media responses. As I have
set out above, my team and I always sought to involve all relevant teams and
to consult with them in a collaborative fashion. This included the criminal law
team and wider legal team. My own dealings were largely with General
Counsel and Rodric Williams. If we got a media query, the Legal team would
have the opportunity to comment on what we planned to say and, where
appropriate, challenge or make suggestions. We took what they said
extremely seriously as they were so close to the issues. It was a very
collaborative approach and, importantly, we wanted to make sure that we did
not say anything that was legally inaccurate.
I have also been asked about any liaison with Fujitsu. Most of the liaison with
Fujitsu in relation to media enquiries was between POL press office and the
Fujitsu press team, though of course there were many other specialist to
Page 33 of 55
94.
95.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
specialist contacts. I spoke on occasion to Fujitsu communications colleagues
in order to share media strategies and to understand the company’s position.
Overall, POL sought to adopt an accurate and constructive position in respect
of each of the media engagements referred to above. Given the lack of
interest from the vast majority of journalists, and the apparent lack of
impartiality on the part of some of those covering the issue, we believed we
were acting in good faith and appropriately based on the context of what we
knew at the time. We never attempted to mislead or hide information.
I think the email at POL00351102 reflects the nature of the reputational and
communications challenge that we were facing in the context of what we
understood the position to be at the time, having taken numerous steps to
address the issues being raised. What it shows is that, contrary to allegations
made by the BBC and others, there was no attempt to restrict any information.
Our confidence in Horizon was clearly misplaced given what has
subsequently come to light but we were certainly not discussing ways of trying
to hide information as has been incorrectly alleged.
Page 34 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
WESTMINSTER HALL DEBATE, PARLIMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEE,
COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME, SPARROW AND SECOND
SIGHT’S SECOND REPORT (2015)
96.
97.
I can confirm that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00109860, POL00040799, POL00040794, POL00063281,
POL00063284, POL00310333, POL00310334, POL00310347,
POL00218759, POL00218760, POL00101989, POL00116983,
POL00147208, POL00310427, POL00101996, POL00102062,
POL00151227, POL00102596, POL00025832, POL00117178,
POL00117179, POL00117180, POL00117181, POL00117183,
POL00314907, POL00314908, POL00110005, POL00151770,
POL00314999, POL00315015, POL00151487, POL00352604,
POL00314388, POL00314398, POL00102395, POL00314682,
POL00314683, POL00314724, UKGI00000018, POL00314730,
POL00314748, POL00315133, POL00102594, POL00088977,
POL00222354, POL00040911, POL00102257, POL00222816,
POL00222817, POL00222819, POL00117054, POL00117056,
POL00114415.
I have been asked to set my recollection of POL’s response to the
Westminster Hall Debate, the Parliamentary Select Committee issues with the
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme in early to spring 2015 and SS’s
Second Report.
Page 35 of 55
98.
99.
100
101.
102.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
Like all colleagues at the time I took these events very seriously. There was a
degree of parliamentary interest in this issue and it was important to us all to
provide accurate and timely information to Parliament and its members.
I had responsibility for stakeholder relations and public affairs. Political
interest in POL was and is very significant, with particular focus on branch
issues. The relevant team in my directorate was responsible for relationships
with MPs and other elected representatives and for the information we shared
with them. In terms of the Mediation Scheme and the SS second report, my
role was to assess the external and internal communications implications of
developments and to develop handling strategies.
In relation to the Westminster Hall, the role of my team was to brief the
ministerial team as required and guided by SHEx/UKGI and ministerial private
offices, to provide briefings to MPs (both where requested but also proactively
to seek to balance the debate), to monitor the debate, report back on its
contents to the business (Executive and Board) and to follow up on specific
points raised, as guided by Shex/UKGI and our own initiative.
I was the senior manager responsible for communications and stakeholder
management. Co-ordinating and consulting with other senior managers, and
sharing information and approaches with the Board was a key part of my role.
I recall there was broad agreement in relation to the handling strategies we
had in place for these events.
Fujitsu were regularly consulted and questioned by senior managers in all
relevant departments at Post Office. In terms of my role this would involve
Page 36 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
discussions between the Post Office media team and their opposite numbers
at Fujitsu. These took place very regularly on all media and stakeholder
issues.
103. We always sought to provide accurate and timely information. We took our
role extremely seriously and this is reflected in the extensive briefing packs
and responses to Parliamentary debates and engagement with
parliamentarians. There was absolute determination on the part of all with
whom I worked, from the Board and CEO, to ensure we provided accurate
information in good faith
PANORAMA IN SUMMER 2015
104. I can confirm that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00117439, FUJ00175240, POL00106919, POL00021535,
POL00316007, POL00152061, POL00316847, POL00132958,
POL00316995, POL00316997, POL00152164, POL00152166,
POL00152173, POL0031737, POL00317144, POL00117417,
POL00174335, POL00117421, POL00317228, POL00152230,
POL00317296, POL00174337, POL00174338, POL00065367,
POL00065369, POL00317372, POL00317411, POL00229964,
POL00229965, POL00152318, POL00317528, POL00152320,
POL00152358, POL00139146, POL00317647, POL00168269,
POL00230093, POL00162505, POL00162506, POL00174353,
POL00152708, POL00174370, POL00152713, POL00168291,
Page 37 of 55
105.
106.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
POL00174381, POL00174382, POL00173383, POL00174384,
POL00162568, POL00158226, POL00231025, POL00231031,
POL0016773, POL00174393, POL00231094, POL00065517,
POL00065519, POL00162598, POL00174396, POL00152809,
POL00174408, POL00158231, POL00174414, POL00231542,
POL00162623, POL00174423, POL00162628, POL00140211,
POL00110162, POL00065595, POL00162672, POL00162675,
POL00029893, POL00321816, POL00110277, POL00238305,
POL00110185, POL00029876, POL00043549, POL00176631,
POL00176632, POL00317613.
We were contacted by Panorama about its intention to cover the complaints
around the Horizon system in the normal way, through contact to the press
office. The team alerted me and I will have made sure that the Executive and
Board were aware, particularly given the higher profile of the Panorama
programme than previous media enquiries.
My role was to set out strategy in relation to the Panorama programme. This
was by far the most high profile media outlet to focus on the Horizon issues,
with the potential to drive more media coverage through other BBC outlets. It
is a programme with a reputation for taking a strong and campaigning
approach to issues, meaning that getting a fair hearing for a position is more
challenging.
Page 38 of 55
107.
108.
109.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
I was therefore anxious to ensure that we considered all possible approaches
to engagement with Panorama. Having been a journalist, I genuinely wanted
to help them in producing a balanced and impartial report. This started from a
desire to help the journalists making the programme in the hope — perhaps
naively — that we might be able to reflect the Post Office’s sincere attempts to
resolve the issues. In doing so however I was also — as demonstrated in
evidence disclosed to the Inquiry — eager to be assertive in stating what I felt
to be the Post Office’s right to have adequate time to consider questions, to
make its points and to understand the motive for making the programme at a
time when we were seeking to deal with the issues through the Mediation
Scheme.
The confidentiality of the Mediation Scheme was a critical point and we were
unhappy that the BBC wished to cover the issue when that was underway. It
was also clear to us that Mr Nick Wallis was working with the Panorama
journalists. Mr Wallis is a journalist who has covered these issues for many
years and has been clear in his view that Post Office was in the wrong — that
is his right, of course, but it naturally influenced the way we engaged with him,
though we were always — I believe — helpful and courteous.
Regardless of all of the above factors, my team and I sought to engage
constructively and transparently with Panorama journalists at the outset and
we offered a meeting to answer their questions which went ahead. There was
never any intent by myself or my colleagues to mislead any journalist.
However, it is important to flag that at the time of this meeting I genuinely
believed and had been assured that Horizon was robust.
Page 39 of 55
110.
111.
112.
113.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
We also offered to provide access to the Horizon system so that they could
see how it worked — this was refused. We also suggested that the programme
speak to postmasters who had used Horizon without issue, and to the NFSP,
which represented 6000 postmasters at the time (and was never more than a
critical friend to POL). Again, these offers were not taken up, which to me,
further underlined the adversarial approach being taken by Panorama.
We were initially keen to ensure a Post Office leader appeared on the
programme. We debated whether this would be Paula Vennells or Angela Van
Den Bogerd. Eventually we concluded that due to the focus on individual
cases, and own commitment to confidentiality, this would not be in the best
interests of POL, so we issued a statement (POL00152835). This very full
statement sets out very clearly, in my opinion, the POL position on these
issues at the time and in the context of what we knew at the time. I do not
recall how much of the statement was reflected in the Panorama programme
but I do not believe it was very much.
I also persuaded the business to agree to propose to the BBC that we would
share information confidentially on a lawyer to lawyer basis. This was also
refused by Panorama. As a former journalist I understand why, but this was a
further disappointment to us.
At this stage I switched strategy. It was clear to me that the programme would
be very damaging to POL’s reputation because it would be extremely difficult
to ensure balance and impartiality. Working with the team, we then sought to
raise objections to the programme through editorial and legal avenues. The
Page 40 of 55
114.
115.
116.
117.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
aim was to persuade the BBC not to run the programme. My role was to
reduce reputational risk to POL and it follows therefore that I would take the
view that if we could avoid the programme being broadcast that would be the
best outcome. Again, this is with the backdrop that it was not just that I
thought the Panorama would be damaging, but I genuinely believed it to be
wrong.
All of the above actions were taken collaboratively as I worked closely with my
team, the Executive, the legal, network and IT teams.
As the senior manager responsible for communications I ensured that the
wider Executive and the Board were kept informed on developments and our
strategy in relation to the Panorama programme.
We also had a lot of dealings with Fujitsu over Panorama’s questions,
specifically in relation to remote access. It is hugely frustrating to me that it
now appears the information we were given was not accurate.
Every question relayed to us by the media was taken very seriously. Each and
every one was investigated internally by the relevant departments and put to
Fujitsu. While of course it is natural with hindsight to question myself as to
whether I pushed enough internally, it is self-evident that me and my team
could only rely on what we were told, and told in good faith. All criminal cases
had been reviewed by external legal teams, and every case raised with us
had been investigated by relevant Post Office teams.
Page 41 of 55
118.
119.
120.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
I have been asked about POL001174339. It was a fundamental element of our
internal communications approach that we sought to keep colleagues updated
on all major developments impacting the business. We therefore made
strenuous efforts on this and other major issues to keep colleagues informed.
The teleconferences were part of this approach: these were conference calls
where we updated senior leaders on the latest developments on an issue, in
this case Horizon but others would have included industrial action, new
partnerships and business performance updates.
I don’t recall who asked for a “short script” as referred to in respect of
POL00117439, but such requests were not unusual. Colleagues, and
particularly those working in customer or client facing roles, would like to have
a few speaking points to hand in case of questions about an issue seen in the
media or elsewhere.
The Blast films reference (POL00021535) refers to a “fly on the wall”
documentary called Signed, Sealed, Delivered, which was broadcast on the
BBC. I do not recall the nature of the inaccuracies I was seeking to address
but I do recall that following conversations with the documentary makers,
changes were made and that while the programme - for which I was an
enthusiastic advocate - was at times challenging for the business it was also a
powerful and compelling piece of television about a business going through
significant and sweeping change. The programme makers had wide, though
not unrestricted, access to the business.
Page 42 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
121. I have been asked about POL00117417 and any conversations or
communications that I had regarding its contents either with Rodric Williams
or with any other person. I believe Rodric Williams was simply alerting me to
the potential for emails such as this one to be subject to disclosure in the
future. I took this as good governance on his part. I cannot recall any other
conversations with him or others on this issue but it is worth noting that I
spoke to Rodric Williams very regularly and worked very closely with him.
122. I have been asked about POL00317411, POL00168269, POL00230093 and
POL00317613 and whether this type of divergence in views was typical. I
don’t really see these examples as particularly unusual. They appear to be
colleagues expressing frustration with their boss (me) and that's hardly
surprising. We had many debates and open communication in a pressured
environment. It is very normal in such circumstances to occasionally disagree,
but all such divergences of view were always resolved in a perfectly amicable
way, as far as I recall.
123. As with any high profile media-handling issue there are sometimes differences
of view over strategy and tactics and I have no doubt that my approach will
have not always been supported by some colleagues, and that colleagues
within my own team might have raised questions about my approach. This is
entirely unsurprising to me. What I do know is that I welcomed challenge and
listened to all views, and usually took them on board. I do not believe there
were any major disagreements in terms of handling this issue.
Page 43 of 55
124.
125.
126.
127.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
I have been asked about POL00162568, POL00231025, POL00231031 and
POL00174408 and why I understood Fujitsu were issuing “a short line on the
programme”.
Our media team liaised with Fujitsu regularly and it was from those
discussions we would have learned of the organisation’s plan to issue a “short
line” as a statement to the programme on its allegations. I sometimes felt
Fujitsu did not fully appreciate the seriousness of the allegations and I think I
felt Mr Carter's email was a little complacent.
I remember Elena's email (POL00174414) and I know that we discussed it at
a later point. I don’t recall the conversation in detail. I discussed these issues
and media coverage with many internal colleagues.
I have been asked about POL00174423 and POL00162628 and what I
understood the NFSP’s position to be on the matters raised in the broadcast
and my view of the same. The NFSP’s leadership at the time of the
programme were of the view that Horizon worked well and was robust. The
NFSP represented around 6,000 postmasters and while the leadership was
sometimes criticised (as all in such positions can be) their views were
important and relevant. It was a matter of regret and bemusement that
Panorama did not feel the NFSP had any relevance in these matters and did
not interview them, or indeed any other dissenting voice, of which there were
many, on the programme.
Page 44 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
THE COMPLAINT REVIEW AND MEDIATION SCHEME
128. I have been asked to set out my views as to the status of mediation as at the
summer/autumn of 2015 up until I ceased to be involved.
129. By this time the Mediation Scheme was in trouble. The Post Office was being
accused of bad faith, which did not seem reasonable, and a number of
complainants were refusing to take part. I think there was also speculation
about plans to take cases down legal routes (which was always my hope
given how little Post Office could do off its own bat in relation to criminal
cases) including the CCRC. We were concerned about costs and the lack of
agreement over which cases to mediate. In some cases POL was
recommending mediation in cases where SS was not. There were also
concerns about SS’s independence. A clean break approach seemed to have
merits. I supported the idea of moving all cases to mediation, with structured
discussions for criminal cases, and the continuing involvement of SS in
producing reports on individual cases.
THE JFSA AND GROUP LITIGATION
130. I can confirm that I have reviewed the following documents:
POL00162572, POL00248073, POL00110699, POL00162581,
POL00163214, POL00024326, POL00021563, POL00281725 ,
POL00023602, POL00023604, POL00037062, POL00023606,
POL00023607, POL00023608, POL00023609, POL00023610,
POL00023611, POL00023612, POL00023613, POL00023614,
Page 45 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
POL00023615, POL00023616, POL00023617, POL00023618,
POL00023619, POL00023620, POL00023621, POL00023622,
POL00023623, POL00023624, POL00023625, POL00023626,
POL00023627, POL00023628, POL00023629, POL00023630,
POL00023631, POL00023632, POL00025507, POL00025508,
POL00025509, POL00025510, POL00025511, POL00025512,
POL00025513, POL00025514, POL00025515, POL00024807,
POL00029994, POL00029998, POL00023491, POL00024893,
POL00024982, POL00025167, POL00024893, POL00245978,
POL00024991, POL00025027, POL00025167, POL00025027,
POL00030002, POL00025209, POL00025417, POL00162285,
POL00091420, POL00110482, POL00027182, POL00258205,
POL00176667, POL00330037, POL00269076, POL00266515,
POL00266327, POL00243479, POL00243480, POL00118028,
POL00118026, POL00112596, POL00112591, POL00103574,
POL00030873, POL00103473.
131. I have been asked to set out my involvement with matters relating to the
campaign by the Justice for Sub Postmasters Alliance and the Group
Litigation and the Postmaster Litigation Steering Group.
132. My role was to provide advice on handling communications and stakeholder
issues, including internally, and the delivery of agreed approaches to media
enquiries and, to some extent, stakeholder engagement. I felt that the
Page 46 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
Steering Group was an effective forum for ensuring collaborative working
across the business.
133. I have been asked about the handling of and reaction to the Common Issues
Judgment (‘Clu’) - including in respect of recusal, appeal and decision-making
from a communications and stakeholder perspective. A key issue for the
business in relation to the ClJ was to provide reassurance and information to
the branch network, and customers, in relation to the judgement. As with any
major announcement or development, the role of communications was to
ensure a structured and detailed strategy was in place. Such approaches
were discussed and debated in detail among senior leaders from across the
business. On recusal I was asked to provide a verbal brief on likely media and
stakeholder reaction to the recusal request.
134. I have also been asked about the handling of and reaction to the Horizon
Issues Judgment from a communications and stakeholder perspective. My
departure from the business had been announced by this point and I was
effectively on gardening leave. I made myself available to provide support and
advice, but was not called upon to a significant degree. A significant amount
of work had been done to prepare for the judgement.
135. I have also been asked about the handling of and reaction to the issue of
remote access. I was intensely frustrated that the positions we took on remote
access changed as new information came to light. No communicator wants to
be in the position of having issued a position finding it to be flawed. But I am
Page 47 of 55
136.
137.
138.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
as certain as I can be that when this happened we did the right thing in
ensuring discrepancies in earlier positions were put right. We could only say
what we believed to be the case at the time, on an issue which was complex
and not necessarily relevant to specific cases.
I have also been asked about the handling of and reaction to the disclosure of
the Known Error Log. In doing so I have referred to POL00112591 and
POL00112596, emails from Mr Ben Foat. This underlines that the extent of
the Known Error Log was not revealed to POL until 2019, a matter of deep
frustration to me because it means that I made misleading statements without
access to all the facts. I believe the emails from Mr Foat and Mr Alistair
Cameron accurately reflect both the substance of the disclosure and the
emotion that many in the business felt when this information emerged.
I have been asked for my view as to the role lawyers involved in the Group
Litigation had in respect of matters that involved communications, including
identifying any relevant individuals. As I explained above, I considered legal
involvement to be key. In my experience, I found the legal teams and
colleagues I worked with to have the highest standards of probity. The
lawyers I interacted with provided advice and guidance where it was relevant
to communications issues. I have no recollection of lawyers trying to “instruct”
communicators on content then dispersed to media or internally.
Conversely, I have been asked whether those involved in communications
were involved in providing instructions in respect of the conduct of the Group
Page 48 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
Litigation and for my views as to whether this was appropriate. I do not recall
myself or anyone in communications providing instructions in respect of the
conduct of the Group Litigation and I think it would have been inappropriate to
do so. Communications is a critical element of any organisation but should act
in service of the organisation, not as a decision maker on areas outside the
communications profession. I think I was asked to review statements in
relation to tone but nothing more.
139. I have been asked to set out the reasons for my departure from the business.
I left the business in 2019 shortly after the arrival of anew CEO. I did not have
a conversation with him about my leaving though I have read the email
(POL00103663) which seems to suggest that he was unhappy that we did not
secure more media coverage for announcements around the banking
framework with the High Street banks and a new agreement with the Bank of
Ireland. He did not discuss either of these issues with me directly. My
recollection is that he and I only had two conversations of any length. In the
second of these I told him about a personal issue, my diagnosis with blood
cancer, which occasionally led to me attending hospital appointments. Shortly
after this the then People and Engagement director set out the business’
desire for me to leave. My role in the matters before this Inquiry were never
mentioned beyond a request for me to provide support on the issue on a
consultancy basis. I was not in fact called upon to do so to any great degree. I
have the message which was sent by the then CEO to the business about my
departure and would be happy of course to share it with the inquiry.
Page 49 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
CONCLUSIONS
140.
141.
142.
143.
Thank you for the opportunity to make some general remarks.
I want to stress my belief that all of those with whom I worked most closely at
POL addressed these matters in good faith. I know I did. There was no
predetermined agenda and there was a desire to resolve these issues
appropriately, no matter how uncomfortable that might be for the Post Office
and its leadership. That we were not able to do so through the Second Sight
investigation and the Mediation Scheme is a matter of profound regret.
Context is critical, if unpalatable, and I believe any group of executives and
Board members would make the same decisions as those made during my
time at POL in the context of the information and evidence available at the
time.
As I have said, it is a source of huge personal frustration to me that
misleading public statements were unintentionally made due to an apparent
lack of transparency on the part of Fujitsu. In his judgement (Alan Bates and
Others v Post Office Limited [2019] EWHC 3408 (QB)), Lord Justice Fraser
(para 934) states “...Fujitsu sought to keep from the court, and may not even
have fully disclosed to the Post Office. Because the extent of these powers
was kept secret in this way, the Post Office finds itself now having made
misleading public statements previously.” For me, this is the crux of the issue
and appears to be the major failing: a lack of information flowing from parts of
Page 50 of 55
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
POL and/or Fujitsu to the Executive, and in some cases misleading
information.
It is clear that had we known more about Horizon much earlier, than these
matters could have been resolved much earlier. I for one would have sought
to ensure that appropriate actions were taken but I do believe that I did my
best in good faith based on the information I had to hand.
My belief is that the same could be said for Ms Vennells. The leader I knew
was one who has deep integrity and who was guided by deeply held personal
values. She seemed to me to place these values at the forefront of her
consideration of these issues. She was sincere in the efforts she led to try to
reach conclusions. It was her and Alice Perkins, as Chair, who insisted on the
business investigating in detail.
On a personal level, I will forever be grateful to Ms Vennells for the support
she showed for me when I learned I was facing serious illness and I know
many others, including postmasters, will say the same.
Alice Perkins as Chair of Post Office also, it seemed to me, wished only to
find a way to resolve these issues appropriately and sought to do so
tenaciously and with great care and an eye for detail.
I would also like to mention Angela Van Den Bogerd. I found her to be
incredibly committed to public service and to the Post Office. She was
detailed, thorough and empathetic. She was also, it seemed to me, committed
Page 51 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
to getting to the truth, hampered by lack of the information we now have to
hand
149. As for me, I am not a technical or legal expert and had to rely on what I (and
others) believed in good faith to be the case. I did not, as been alleged, seek
to “cover up” issues with Horizon - indeed quite the opposite. But because I
did not have access to all the facts, I clearly played a part in prolonging the
pain and injustice for those innocent people who were wrongly accused or
whose convictions were unsafe. I am deeply sorry for that.
Statement of truth
150. I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 10 April 2024
Page 52 of 55
WITNO09860100
WITN09860100
INDEX TO FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARK DAVIES
No
URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00302459
Email from Tim McInnes RE:
Public Purpose doc - 27/02/2014
POL-BSFF-0140509
POL00295386
Chain of emails RE: External
Review of SPM's cases and NL -
23/06/2012
POL-BSFF-0133436
POL00021515
Post Office Limited Board Minutes
of 01/07/2013
POL0000048
POL00192329
Email chain between Susan
Crichton and others — 19/07/2013
POL-BSFF-0030392
POL00296993
Email from Ruth Barker to Nina
Arnott, Lesley Sewell, Mark
Davies & Others RE amendments
to draft POL statement on Horizon
System in response to Second
Sight Report.
POL-BSFF-0135043
POL00002240
Second Sight Interim Report
VIS00003254
POL00040032
Post Office- Lessons Learned
Review of handling of alleged
issues/concerns about Horizon:
Terms of
Reference — 30/08/2013
POL-0036514
POL00099574
Terms of reference for review of
lessons learned from the handling
of the Second Sight
Investigation.-10/09/2013
POL-0099157
POL00138112
Initial Complaints Review & Case
Mediation Scheme
Chairs Briefing for Programme
Board — 04/02/2014
POL-BSFF-0000347
10.
POL00021525
Meeting Minutes: minutes for
Board meeting held on
21st May2014
POL0000058
11.
POL00351102
Email from Mark R Davies to
Paula Vennells Re:
Sparrow
POL-BSFF-0176823
12.
POL00152835
PO Statement for Panorama
POL-BSFF-0011947
13.
POL00117439
Email from Louise Chatfield to
Adam Williams, Alan
Lusher, Alison Bolsover and
others rein the loop - a
Message from Mark Davies
POL-0114652
Page 53 of 55
WITNO09860100
WITN09860100
14.
POL00021535
Meeting minutes: minutes of
Extraordinary Board
Meeting held on 15th July2015
POLO000068
15.
POL00117417
Email from Rodric Williams to
Mark Davies, Paul
Swanton, Jonathan Knox and
others re Panorama
Planning
POL-0114649
16.
POL00317411
Email from Patrick Bourke to
Melanie Corfield RE:
Panorama- update
POL-BSFF-0155461
17.
POL00168269
Email from Mark R Davis to
Melanie Corfield. RE:
Fwd: Possible Statement to
Panorama
POL-0163566
18.
POL00230093
Post Office Draft Statement for
Panorama
POL-BSFF-0068156
19.
POL00317613
Email chain between Mark
Davies/ Patrick Bourke/ Tom
Wechsler RE: Letter from PV
to minister.
Includes draft letter to be sent
from Paula to minister ahead
of Horizon debate.
POL-BSFF-0155663
20.
POL00162568
Email from Mark Davies to
Simon Carter, James
Millen and cc'ing Melanie
Corfield re: Panorama
POL-0150971
21.
POL00231025
Email from Mark R Davies To:
Melanie Corfield re
Panorama
POL-BSFF-0069088
22.
POL00231031
Email from Melanie Corfield
To: Mark R Davies re
Panorama
POL-BSFF-0069094
23.
POL00174408
Email from Mark R Davies To:
Neil Hayward Re: Panorama
POL-0168404
24.
POL00174414
Email from Elena R Nistor To:
Mark R Davies re FW: in the
loop — BBC Panorama
POL-0168410
25.
POL00174423
Email from Paula Vennells to
Mark R Davies, Nick
Beal CC'd Neil Hayward and
others RE; Panorama
POL-0168419
26.
POL00162628
Email chain from Angela Van-
Den-Bogerd to Mark
Davies RE: Panorama-
Trouble at the Post Office
POL-0151030
al.
POL00112591
Email chain from Alisdair
Cameron to Ben Foat cc
POL-0110061
Page 54 of 55
WITNO9860100
WITN09860100
Nick Read and Mark R Davies
Re: GLO-Disclosure Incident
re. KEL logs
28. I POLO0112596 I Email from Mark R Davies to POL-0110066
Ben Foat, Nick Read, Alisdair
Cameron, Re: GLO-
Disclosure Incident.
29. I POL00103663 I Email chain from Tim Parker to I POL-0103246
Nick Read re: RE: Mark Davies
Page 55 of 55