WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
Witness Name: Angela Van Den Bogerd
Statement No: WITN09900300
Dated: 17 January 2025
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
THIRD WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANGELA VAN DEN BOGERD
I, Angela Van Den Bogerd, will say as follows:
1. I make this statement in response to a Request for Information pursuant to
Rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 dated 11 December 2024. The Request
concerns the witness statement of Nichola Arch dated 25 November 2024
[WITN01220200] and asks me to address the points made by Ms Arch within
her statement.
2. In brief, Ms Arch states that I was the investigator in her case and gave
evidence in her trial. However, I have never met Ms Arch, I have never been
an investigator in hers or any other prosecution case and I have never given
evidence in hers or any other Sub Postmaster (‘SPMs’) trial. I have no
knowledge of the events she describes in her statement. For the reasons I
Page 1 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
set out below and based on the records which I will refer to, I believe this is a
case of mistaken identity.
3. Although I state that Ms Arch is mistaken in her memory of me, I wish to
make it clear that this statement in no way seeks to criticise Ms Arch. The
way that she has described individuals having treated her is appalling.
Investigation into Ms Arch’s case
4. Ms Arch describes in her statement how she reported shortfalls to the
helpline and in October / November 2000, 3 people attended her branch and
all introduced themselves as auditors. She states that one of these people
was me. This is not correct. I was not, at any time during my 35 years at Post
Office Limited (“POL”) a prosecution investigator as part of the Post Office
Network Security and Investigation Team (“NSIT”) or an auditor. At the time in
question, I was a Retail Network Manager and my responsibilities did not
involve investigations or auditing.
5. Ms Arch then goes on to describe how she was taken from her branch, to the
Stroud Crown Office so that more questions could be asked of her. She
describes how I sat in the back of the car with her and how, when we arrived,
I led her to a room in the back office and tapped in a code and then entered
the room. She says how I asked if she minded if I recorded the interview and
then proceeded to interview her in a threatening and intimidating manner.
Page 2 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
She goes on to say that she was questioned more times at later dates by the
same interviewers, being a man and myself at, a police station in Stroud.
6. The person who Ms Arch is describing was not me. I never carried out audits
or prosecution investigations, nor the associated interviews of Ms Arch or any
other SPM. These were all carried out by the NSIT which I was not a part of. I
was based in Bridgend, Wales during this time and have never worked in
Stroud Crown Office.
7. On receipt of the Inquiry’s Rule 9 Request, I requested disclosure of Ms
Arch’s case from POL and was told that her criminal file had been lost to the
passage of time. I understand that Ms Arch has similarly been told that her
interview tapes have been destroyed. Whilst this is disappointing both for Ms
Arch and myself, I was able to obtain her case summary [POL00460561] and
the transcripts from her January 2001 interview [POL00458671],
POL00458672] and [POL00458673]. At the time of the interview Ms Arch’s
name was Nichola Heaven. The transcript confirms that this was a further
interview, with a previous interview having taken place on 19 October 2000.
This aligns with what Ms Arch has said in her statement.
8. The transcript confirms that the individuals who conducted Ms Arch’s
interview were Elaine Davis and Paul Travers, both of the NSIT. At p.4 of
transcript [POL00458673], Ms Davis confirms that she and Mr Travers also
interviewed Ms Arch on 19 October 2000. It is therefore my understanding
that Ms Arch has confused me with Ms Davis. I can recall that Paul Travers
Page 3 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
was part of the NSIT but for the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I have
never worked with him or any other member of the NSIT on prosecution
investigations as that was never my role.
9. In Ms Arch’s statement she says about me:
“In her evidence she said she was never involved in prosecutions. This is
not true. She has interviewed others, not just me. It appears that her
evidence was an attempt to hide the level of her involvement because I
know she conducted Mark Kelly’s interview.”
10.What I said in my evidence is true. I know the importance of this Inquiry and I
have taken it extremely seriously, giving Sir Wyn Williams and the Core
Participants honest answers to the questions put to me.
11.The roles carried out by the NSIT were completely outside of my scope and I
was never involved in any SPM prosecution. I certainly never carried out any
interview under caution or any form of prosecution investigation interview as
this was always carried out by the NSIT. The type of interviews I did do
included SPM appointment interviews; interviews with SPMs in my role as
Appeals Manager, where I heard appeals against contract terminations; and
interviews with SPMs where liability for robbery/burglary was being
contested. From memory, I was on the panel of Appeal Managers from
around October 2002. As an Appeals Manager I had the authority to reinstate
SPM contracts where I felt the decision was too harsh and/or there were
sufficient mitigating circumstances. In addition, as Head of Area in Wales
(2001 — 2005) and in subsequent more senior roles I had the authority to
Page 4 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
reduce or write off payment for losses. So, on review of escalated cases to
me, I would review the details and if I felt the recommendation of the NSIT
was too harsh or there were mitigating reasons which meant that payment of
losses should be written off or reduced, I took the decision to do so.
12.1 have requested the criminal files for Mr Kelly and again, POL were unable to
provide these. However, they have provided me with his criminal case file
summary [POL00105718]. This confirms that his investigation interview took
place on 5 December 2006, with p.6 confirming that those present were Mike
Wilcox and Gary Thomas (interviewing officers) and Wendy Lewis
(Accredited Police Station Legal Representative). I am not named here or at
any point within his criminal case file summary. As confirmed in paragraph
9(e) of my first statement dated 20 March 2024 [WITN09900100], in
December 2006, I was General Manager for the Community Network of
branches and not involved in prosecution investigations or interviews as this
was not part of my role.
13.Mr Kelly’s criminal case file summary also provides the names of every
person who conducted his interview and investigation and I am not listed. I
have also read Mr Kelly's witness statement dated 21 January 2022
[WITN02650100] and I am not mentioned. The only female name that he
mentions is Fiona from Post Office head office. I recall a Fiona Griffiths who
worked as part of the area team at the time and so I think it is possible that
he is referring to her but, of course, only Mr Kelly would be able to confirm
this.
Page 5 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
14.I have read Mr Kelly's transcript from the evidence he gave as part of the
Human Impact Hearing on 1 March 2022 [INQ00001034]. As shown below,
Mr Kelly references me once, in respect of having written off his loss as Head
of Area but neither in his written or oral evidence does he refer to me having
interviewed him as part of a prosecution investigation.
15.Mr Kelly describes how, in November 2003, his branch experienced an
armed robbery. During the robbery, a rock was thrown at the counter, and Mr
Kelly had to move his head, meaning that he didn’t press the panic button.
He says that around £45,000 was stolen and the Post Office wrote a couple
of days later saying that he was liable for the whole amount because he did
not press the panic button. Mr Kelly says:
“I wrote a letter to my head of area, Ruth — that’s her surname, I don’t know
her first name — and I wrote and said, “If you come to my office, stay behind
the counter. Don’t move 1 centimetre, I'll throw a brick at you. I'll gladly pay
the £45,000.”
After that letter, I went to see Angela, the head of area, and afterwards it was
then dropped, that request for that £45,000 for the loss.”
16. Due to the passage of time and no documentary evidence disclosed around
this point, I cannot recall the specifics, but I was Head of Area at the time
and, as referenced above, I did have the authority to overturn the NSIT’s
decisions in respect of the level of loss a SPM was deemed liable for and
Page 6 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
therefore it is feasible that I would have written Mr Kelly's loss off although I
cannot remember his case. I should add that there was only one Head of
Area role in Wales, and I am not aware of anyone with a surname of Ruth
ever working within Wales. Although there was a Ruth Hazell who did an area
manager type of role and so I think that Mr Kelly might be mixing up roles and
names and referring to her. Other than this reference, I cannot see that Mr
Kelly refers to me at all in his evidence or written human impact statement.
This accords with my recollection that I was not involved in the prosecution
interviews of Mr Kelly.
Ms Arch’s trial
17.Ms Arch’s trial took place on 14 April 2002, and she states that I gave
evidence at her trial. This is not correct. I did not give evidence at hers or any
other SPMs trial. At the time of Ms Arch’s trial, I was on maternity leave,
therefore not working at all at the time of Ms Arch’s trial. POL have reviewed
my personnel records and confirmed that this is correct. [WITN09900301].
18.1 think that Ms Arch has confused me again with Ms Davis, the individual who
carried out her interviews and investigation. I requested a copy of the witness
list and any relevant documents to Ms Arch’s trial and the Post Office were
unable to provide this, so I cannot be sure that it was Ms Davis who gave
evidence at Ms Arch’s trial, but it certainly was not me.
Page 7 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
Additional matters covered in Ms Arch’s statement
19.In addition to the above, I would like to address a few points made by Ms
Arch in her statement.
20.At paragraph 3 of her statement, Ms Arch states that she went to see my
second day of evidence for the Inquiry on 26 April 2024 to verify whether I
was the person who gave evidence at her trial. She says:
“I sat very close to her. I knew it was her straight away. She looked straight
at me and looked at me like she recognised me. She knew exactly who I
was.
21.As stated above, I have never met Ms Arch. I do recall glancing at those in
the Inquiry room when I took my seat to give evidence, but I cannot recall
recognising or making eye contact with anyone.
22.At paragraph 7 of Ms Arch’s statement she describes me as being “quite
stony-faced and business-like...” when interviewing her in October 2000.
Although, for the reasons set out above, Ms Arch, has mistaken me for
someone else, I know that this has been a common description of me
throughout the Inquiry, a description which was compounded through the
portrayal of me in the ITV drama which aired in January 2024. I would like to
take this opportunity to say that whilst I am not an openly emotional person
and accept that I was typically business-like for the roles I undertook
throughout my time at the Post Office, I genuinely tried to help SPMs and
Page 8 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
believed that I had good working relationships with those that I met. I have
had to try to maintain a strong exterior throughout the Inquiry as my way of
coping with what has been an enormously stressful situation.
23.1 would never be “threatening and intimidating” as Ms Arch says that her
interviewers were. Throughout my time at the Post Office my approach was
always professional, and I am horrified by the nature of the questioning she
describes having endured at paragraphs 11 and 12.
Statement of truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Signed: R I
Dated: 17 January 2025
Page 9 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL
WITNO9900300
WITNO9900300
OFFICIAL
INDEX TO THE THIRD WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANGELA VAN DEN BOGERD
No URN Document Description Control
Number
1. WITNO1220200 Witness Statement of WITNO1220200
Nichola Arch dated 25
November 2024
2. POL00460561 CLI Review of R v Nichola I POL-0213061
Arch - Case Summary
dated 26 May 2022
(updated 20 August 2024)
3. POL00458671 Transcript of Nichola Arch I POL-0213058
(nee Heaven) interview
dated 30 January 2001
part 1 of 3
4. POL00458672 Transcript of Nichola Arch I POL-0213059
(nee Heaven) interview
dated 30 January 2001
part 2 of 3
5. POL00458673 Transcript of Nichola Arch I POL-0213060
(nee Heaven) interview
dated 30 January 2001
part 3 of 3
6. POL00105718 Case Review: Quick POL-0104830
Shortfall Analysis —- Mark
Kelly dated 9 February
2018
7. WITN09900100 First Witness Statement of I WITN09900100
Angela Van Den Bogerd
dated 20 March 2025
8. WITNO2650100 First Witness Statement of I WITN02650100
Mark Kelly dated 21
January 2022
9. INQ00001034 Transcript of Mark Kelly’s I INQ00001034
oral evidence on 1 March
2022
10. WITNO09900301 Letter from POL WITNO09900301
confirming dates of Angela
Van Den Bogerd’s
maternity leave dated 6
January 2025
Page 10 of 10
42818745.2
OFFICIAL