Witness Name: Joanne Swinson
Statement No.: WITN10190200
Dated: 5 September 2025
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNE SWINSON
I, Joanne Swinson, will say as follows.
1.
I make this witness statement in response to the Inquiry's request for
evidence dated 8 August 2025 ("the second Rule 9 request"). I have
previously provided a written statement to the Inquiry dated 19 June
2024 [WITN10190100] (“my first witness statement”) and gave oral
evidence to the Inquiry on 19 July 2024 [INQ00001178]. This statement
should be read together with the evidence I have previously given.
The second Rule 9 request refers to paragraph 23(b) of my first witness
statement and asks me to clarify and confirm my understanding, as at
around 8 July 2013, about the scope of a case review that I was informed
Page 1 of 8
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
Post Office Limited (“POL”) had commissioned external lawyers to conduct.
At paragraph 23(b), which forms part of a more detailed chronological
account of my knowledge relating to Horizon, I refer to a note prepared by
the Shareholder Executive (“ShEx”) officials which, amongst other things,
set out “POL’s proposed next steps” following receipt of the draft Second
Sight report [UKGI00001695] (an attachment to [UKGI00001693]). The
note was emailed to my private office on 5 July 2013 though, as explained
at paragraph 23 of my first witness statement, I believe I first received and
read it on 8 July 2013.
In paragraph 23(b) of my first witness statement, I refer to paragraph 2.6 of
the ShEx note, which reads “POL has commissioned external lawyers to
review all cases where legal action against a SPM has been initiated by
POL since separation or may be pending) in the light of the interim report
findings.” and comment “/t was not explained what part of the report made
it necessary to review past prosecutions, and I do not think I asked,
though it seemed a proactive and responsible step for POL to take.
Overall, the note was reassuring.”
For the avoidance of any confusion, I should explain that when I stated in
my first witness statement “/t was not explained what part of the report
made it necessary to review past prosecutions”, this was a direct
response to question 21.2 in the Rule 9 request dated 14 May 2024, in
Page 2 of 8
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
which I was asked to consider the words in the note “POL has
commissioned external lawyers to review all cases where legal action
against a SPM has been initiated by POL since separation or may be
pending) in the light of the interim report findings” and then asked “What, if
anything, were you told regarding the perceived need to commission
external lawyers to review past convictions?” IIn answering that question, I
was not suggesting that at the time I received and read the ShEx note I
understood or believed that there was a perceived need to commission
external lawyers to review past convictions. Indeed, I was briefed
repeatedly, including in the documents I reviewed in preparation for making
the statement in Parliament on 9 July 2013, “There is nothing to suggest
any convictions are unsafe, and the report is clear that there are no
systemic issues with Horizon.”
5. The second Rule 9 request asks me, specifically:
a. To confirm that I understood the information that “POL has
commissioned external lawyers to review all cases where legal action
against a SPM has been initiated by POL since separation or may be
pending” to mean or include the prosecution of SPMs by POL.
b. To confirm what I was referring to when I said “it seemed a proactive
and responsible step for POL to take”, and in particular whether this
was a reference to a review of cases that included past prosecutions
Page 3 of 8
6.
of SPMs by POL.
c. If this was a reference to a review of cases that included past
prosecutions of SPMs by POL, that the reference to “it seemed” is a
reference by me to a thought process that occurred when I read the
ShEx note on (probably) 8 July 2013.
In attempting to answer these questions, I should begin by explaining that
I received and read the ShEx note over 12 years ago and, whilst I can
remember the generalities, my memory of the detailed specifics concerning
my understanding and precise thought processes at the time I read it is far
from perfect.
Dealing with the questions in turn, I do not have a specific recollection of
reading the statement that “POL has commissioned external lawyers to
review all cases where legal action against a SPM has been initiated by
POL since separation or may be pending’. Looking at the documents now,
I do not think it would have stood out to me as it reads as broadly helpful
albeit relating to a narrow and small set of current cases only. In the short
time available, my attention would have been focused on what I needed to
know to be able to answer questions from MPs following the publication of
the Second Sight interim report, which considered a group of past cases.
The content of the report was unfamiliar to me, and the summary note
contained various technical references so I would have wanted to get my
Page 4 of 8
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
head around the details to the extent possible in the time I had. The three
lines of paragraph 2.6 in dozens of pages of documents were not
highlighted as particularly significant: the legal review was not included in
the Lines to Take section, nor in the draft statement for me to say in
Parliament, nor in the 6 page document of advice on answers to likely
questions in Parliament, which had 3 pages on Next Steps and
Prosecutions ([UKGI00001818], an attachment to [UKGI00001817]). I do
not remember whether I assumed the legal review to mean or include,
specifically, a review of prosecutions of SPMs by POL and, looking back, I
doubt that I would have assumed this. Reflecting on the language of the
note now, the words “initiated” and “pending” in the context of post-
separation time period of April 2012 onwards suggest to me that this was
a review of current cases in the pipeline and not yet completed, that would
be considered afresh in light of the Second Sight report. Briefings from my
officials and POL had emphasised to me that only a tiny proportion of SPMs
were the subject of legal action, so I would not have envisaged that there
would be many cases at all in this time period. I do not think I had a clear
view of how long it would take from initiating legal action to prosecution,
though from general impressions of investigations and legal processes I
imagine that it would be many months, so it would not have been obvious
to me that cases in this post-separation category would include any
prosecutions. Indeed it is still not clear to me, looking at this now, whether
this legal review did or did not include any actual prosecutions. Either way,
Page 5 of 8
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
I would have expected a ministerial note of this kind to clearly summarise
everything I needed to know, including stating directly if a review of criminal
prosecutions was to take place, its scope and anticipated timeline, and how
to answer MPs’ questions about it as it related to their constituents. I do
not have any recollection of spending time in July 2013 analysing exactly
what was meant by this part of the ShEx note, and am very doubtful that I
would have done so then, given I was under pressure to absorb large
quantities of information in a short time. In an attempt to shed some light
on this question, I have gone back to the other documents I received
around this time (all of which are exhibited to my first witness statement
and have been disclosed to the Inquiry), and none refer to a review of
criminal prosecutions.
Putting this together, I have seen no documents from that time informing
me in terms that there was to be a review of criminal prosecutions. While I
do not recall (one way or the other) whether I understood that there was to
be such a review, I think if I had understood that to be the case that I would
have sought further briefing on it: the lack of such briefing documents
suggests that this was not my understanding. I do recall forming the
general impression at the time, from what I was being told, that POL and
its leadership were taking the issues seriously; I am sure that I would have
seen the legal review of recently initiated and pending cases as part of this,
but I think the likelihood is that I did not give further thought to the precise
Page 6 of 8
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
scope of the legal review at the time.
Turning to the reference in my first witness statement to “it” seeming “a
proactive and responsible step for POL to take”, as I have stated above
(and previously) I recall having the general impression at around the
time of the ShEx note that POL was taking the Horizon problems
seriously and generally behaving responsibly. I have no doubt that the
information that POL had commissioned an external legal review would
have contributed to that impression. The "it’ is a reference to that
review. And, whilst I have no specific memory of what went through my
mind in relation to the legal review at the time I read the ShEx note, I
would certainly have seen the decision to commission it as a proactive
and responsible step for POL to take, and am sure I would have formed
that view at the time.
Statement of truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Page 7 of 8
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
Index to Second Witness Statement of Joanne Swinson
WITN10190200
WITN10190200
INo.
URN
[Document Description
(Control Number
ITN10190100
First Witness Statement of Jo
Swinson
TTN10190100
INQO0001178
[Transcript (19/07/2024): Post
\Office Horizon IT Inquiry - Jo
Swinson [WITN1019] and Dame
Moya Greene [WITN1031]
INQ00001178
IUKG100001695
Narrative and summary of the
Second Sight report
IUKGI012509-001
IUKGI00001693
Email from Peter Batten to
Swinson MPST cc Will Gibson,
[Mike Whitehead and others RE
Draft Second Sight report into
POL Horizons system
IUKG1012507-001
IUKGI00001818
NFSA Q&A Document regarding
Horizon
IUKGI012632-001
IUKG100001817
Email from Peter Batten to Will
(Gibson, Mike Whitehead and
[Swinson MPST re: JFSA Q&A
IUKGI012631-001
Page 8 of 8