WITN10500200
WITN10500200
Witness Name: Anthony John de Garr Robinson
Statement No: WITN10500200
Dated: 10 June 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF
ANTHONY JOHN DE GARR ROBINSON
I, Anthony John de Garr Robinson, will say as follows.
1. I wish to correct my statement dated 14 May 2024 (WITN10500100) in the
following ways.
2. Paragraph 29, last sentence: “of” should be replaced by “on”.
3. I Paragraph 31, last sentence: “tasking” should be replaced by “taking”.
4. Paragraph 32, second sentence: delete the rogue “)”.
5. Paragraph 42: at the end of the first sentence, insert “and drafting suggestions”.
6. Paragraph 88: having had a greater opportunity to read the documents which
were provided to me prior to 14 May 2024 and an opportunity to read the
additional documents which were provided to me on 31 May 2024 and 4 June
2024, I am reminded that POL’s case on remote access changed substantially
during the run up to the Horizon trial. In particular:
(1) When it served its first round of witness statements on 27 September
2018, POL’s case was that 1) Fujitsu had the ability to inject transactions
into branch accounts (called Balancing Transactions in Horizon Online),
and 2) although certain Fujitsu specialists had privileged user rights which
Page 1 of 5
WITN10500200
WITN10500200
they could in theory use to amend or delete transaction data in branch
accounts, POL had never consented to this being done and, to the best of
POL's information and belief, these rights had never been used for this
purpose.
By the time the Horizon trial started, POL’s case on what Fujitsu could and
did do with branch transaction data was more complicated than that. A
summary of POL’s ultimate case is given in paragraphs 54, 55, and 57 to
60 of POL’s closing submissions (POL00026925). In particular, POL stated
that there were rare occasions on which Fujitsu's privileged user rights had
been used to insert, amend and delete branch transaction data and, where
this happened, POL’s permission was obtained and these
matters were documented (in documents called OCRs and MSCs).
I can see from the documents that POL’s case changed in stages as the
trial approached. I do not have a clear recollection of each and every
change or when it happened, but I think that the changes were reactions to
discoveries that were made. Mr Roll’s witness statements had a part to
play in this process (in relation to Legacy Horizon) and various documents
identified by Mr Coyne and possibly others also had a part to play. These
things prompted further evidence from the two Fujitsu witnesses about
remote access. I have not had an opportunity to read Dr Worden’s expert
reports and so I cannot say how his analysis developed. Nor do I know
why these matters were not revealed by the investigations that Deloitte
made between 2016 and 2018 or why, during the same period, the
persons instructing me at POL were apparently unaware of the fact that
members of staff at POL would have authorised Fujitsu to use its
privileged user rights in these ways.
Page 20f 5
10.
12.
13.
WITN10500200
WITN10500200
Paragraph 89: as I say in that paragraph, Mr Roll’s witness statement was a
striking development. However, in the light of the other revelations described in
paragraph 5 above, I would say that these revelations were at least as striking.
Paragraph 94, last sentence: from POL00006357, I see that Simon Clarke was
a barrister.
Paragraph 123: at the end of the paragraph, add “or even accept that they were
admissible (see paragraph 819 of the Horizon Issues Judgment)”.
Paragraph 125: this paragraph does not take into account the forms of remote
access discussed in paragraph 5 above. I do not recall whether, in Worden 1,
Dr Worden also addressed these forms of remote access. What I recall is
thinking that his analysis of remote access was not as full as I would have liked.
11. Para 151, first sentence: “Paragraphs 616 and 617” should be replaced by
“Paragraphs 615 and 616”, and the second reference to “OCPs” should be to
“OCRs’.
Paragraph 162, third sentence: “WBT” should be replaced by “WBD”.
Paragraph 172, third sentence: this sentence does not take into account all the
forms of remote access described in paragraph 5 above. In the light of these
forms of remote access, the sentence should read: “And at the end of the
Horizon trial, I believed that the evidence showed that the Horizon system was
robust, and that there was no realistic possibility of Fujitsu privileged users
abusing their access rights so as to create false shortfalls in SPM accounts, and
that, where such users were not abusing their rights, the risk of their
erroneously creating false shortfalls in SPM accounts was extremely low”.
Page 30f 5
WITN10500200
WITN10500200
I believe the contents of this statement to be true.
10 June 2024
Page 4 of 5
WITN10500200
WITN10500200
Index to Second Witness Statement of Anthony John de Garr Robinson
No
URN
Document
description
Date
Control Number
WITN10500100
First witness
statement of Anthony
John de Garr
Robinson
14/05/2024
WITN10500100
POL00026925
Post Office's Written
Closing for Trial of
Horizon Issues in
Alan Bates & Others v
Post Office Limited
27/06/2019
POL-0023566
POL00006357
Advice on the use of
expert evidence
relating to the
integrity of the Fujitsu
Services Ltd Horizon
System
15/07/2013
POL-0017625
Page 5of5