WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
Witness Name: Amy Louise Prime
Statement No: WITN10760100
Dated: 13th November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF AMY LOUISE PRIME
I, Amy Louise Prime, of Oceana House, 39-49 Commercial Road,
Southampton SO15 1GA, will say as follows:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. 1 am a Solicitor in the Commercial Disputes and Regulatory team of
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP (“WBD” or the “Firm’”). I make this
statement to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the “Inquiry”) with
the matters set out in its Rule 9 Request dated 30 September 2024 (the
“Request’).
Page 1 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
2. The subject matter of the Request relates to work which I did on behalf of
Post Office Limited (“POL”) as a junior member of the WBD team in respect
of the civil litigation brought against POL by a group of sub-postmasters
and sub-postmistresses (“SPMs’) in the litigation known as Alan Bates &
Others v Post Office Limited (the ‘group litigation), which ultimately
settled in December 2019.
3. At the outset I would like to clarify a number of matters for the Inquiry. I was
in a pre-arranged training course when the Request was received by WBD.
This course took place on 30 September and 1 October 2024. I then went
on annual leave on 2 October 2024. The Request was provided to me by
the firm on the morning of 2 October 2024. I returned to the office on
Monday 14 October 2024. Upon my return to the office I had work
commitments in respect of work for clients on whose cases I am presently
engaged. I have, however, done all within my power to allocate that work
to others and to spend as much of my time as possible on this response to
the Inquiry, as I wish to give the fullest and most helpful evidence I can. I
need, however, to emphasise the reality that I have only had since 14
October 2024 to work on this response. I am aware that an extension of
time was requested but that due to the timetable of the Inquiry it has not
been possible to extend the deadline for this response beyond 7 November
2024.
4. \Ihave had assistance from WBD (in respect of the collation of documents)
and from external counsel retained to assist me, and I have done my very
Page 2 ot 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
best to answer the Request. I have set out in this statement everything
which appears relevant and which I can actually recall now about the events
in question. I have tried to indicate in this statement where a memory is
independent of any documents I have viewed recently, where my memory
has been triggered by reading a contemporaneous document, and where I
have no memory at all but am doing my best to reconstruct events and
thought processes from looking at contemporaneous documents.
5. The reality, however, is that it has not been possible within the available
time for me to identify anything like each and every relevant document I
saw or worked on at the material time, or to review each and every
document which might be relevant. I was engaged on tasks arising from the
group litigation for a period of more than four years, between 2016 and
2020, and the work was varied and intensive. I was working long hours,
billing more than 1,000 hours on the group litigation in 2017, more than
1,700 hours in 2018, and more than 1,400 hours in 2019. Between March
2016 and December 2019, I sent / received c.44,000 emails in relation to
the group litigation (being c.950 emails each month), and I believe that the
WBD team working on this case was at one point as high in number as 25
to 35 people working across the various different workstreams which
existed in respect of the group litigation. Much of it is a blur in my mind now,
and it is fair to say that my recall of the details is extremely limited. If more
time had been available to me, I would have wanted to look at each and
every relevant email and document and trace through precisely how my
Page 3 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
knowledge of each relevant matter was formed and evolved, and to set that
out in detail for the Inquiry. I have done my best to answer the Request in
the time and on the material which I have been able to identify and review.
6. As! will explain below, I was a very junior member of the team and this was
my first experience of litigation of this type. I was learning all the time. It
was a baptism of fire in the sense of the intensity of the work, scale of the
litigation and the complexities of the case.
7. Given my very junior position I was not responsible for making any strategic
decisions in the litigation and I did not formulate the strategy. I did take part
in meetings where strategic decisions were discussed and made, but these
were meetings involving Counsel and almost always under the supervision
of Andrew Parsons ("Andy").
8. I was kept abreast of the broader picture and how the litigation was
progressing through being copied into various documents and emails and
through conversations with (primarily) Andy, my supervising partner, as well
as other members of the WBD team. I believe that at most times I had a
decent mechanical knowledge of the various workstreams that were
ongoing, even if I was not aware of the underlying details of many of them.
I think Andy was generally quite good about keeping me informed about
strategic points which arose for decision within the litigation, but it would
not have been appropriate for me to make strategic decisions in the case
myself, given how junior I was. So far as I am aware, all strategic decisions
Page 4 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
in the litigation were made by a combination of Counsel, those partners at
WBD involved in the case, and those responsible for decision-making at
POL.
9. When I was working on the group litigation, I was focused only on carrying
out the tasks allocated to me as competently and efficiently as possible. I
of course had some appreciation of the wider social context of the case,
and I believe that I attended most of the hearings and strategic client
meetings (referred to as Steering Committee meetings). I was aware from
general discussions within the WBD team working on the group litigation
(primarily with Gavin Matthews and Andrew Parsons) and attending client
meetings that in broad terms there had been private criminal prosecutions,
and that the SPMs in the group litigation were adamant that they had been
treated badly, that they were not responsible for shortfalls in their branch
accounts, that problems with the Horizon system were or might be the
cause of the shortfalls and that they had suffered loss and damage as a
result.
10. I was also aware in broad terms that POL's position was that Horizon was
a robust system, was not responsible for the shortfalls in question and that
the claims by the SPMs did not have merit and were to be defended. I knew
that WBD was retained to represent POL in the group litigation and that my
role, as a junior member of the WBD team, was to carry out the tasks given
to me arising from the litigation. I do not recall thinking about the
Page 5 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
background to the case any more than was necessary to understand the
tasks I had to undertake.
1
a
. I was aware that a solicitor’s role is to advance the interests of their client
in litigation and that in doing so a solicitor must act in accordance with all
relevant court rules, as well as the SRA Code of Conduct and the highest
standards of ethics. I was never aware during my work on the group
litigation of there being any actual or perceived conflict between these
obligations and I never witnessed any discussions or conduct which caused
me to be concerned that anyone was acting in an unethical way or contrary
to any professional or ethical obligations.
12. As I set out below, I can now see that some mistakes were made, but
insofar as those were mistakes on my part, they were due to my
inexperience and poor drafting (in the case of the email of 5 October 2016).
It was not due to any improper intention, lack of effort on my part, or due to
any intention to do anything other than my best. To place the events
explained in my statement into an overall context, I would emphasise again
that the group litigation was a complex and extremely intensive case which,
at any time, had multiple overlapping Court deadlines and competing
demands (which naturally occurred due to the timetabling for the group
litigation). I was immersed in this case for nearly four years and throughout
this time sought to undertake the best work that I could in the
circumstances, in compliance with all of my professional obligations.
Page 6 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
13. 1 have learned a number of practical lessons (as I set out later in this
statement) as a result of my work on the group litigation, which have (I
hope) enabled me to become a better solicitor. The scrutiny which this
Inquiry has brought to the events of the group litigation has made me even
more acutely aware of the ethical obligations of the solicitors’ profession,
but I wish to emphasise that I was always aware of those obligations and I
believe that I always acted in accordance with them.
14. I do not think it is possible for anyone — with all the knowledge that is now
available — to look on what happened to the SPMs with anything other than
extreme sympathy, and to be sorry that any of them had to go through what
happened. I can see that part of the picture is the defence that was mounted
by POL to the group litigation. Although I was not a decision-maker in that
litigation, I was aware at the time of the broad rationale behind most of
those decisions, and that rationale always appeared to me to be rooted in
a logical approach. I was never aware of any course being adopted for any
reason which appeared to me to be illegitimate.
15. Nor was I ever aware of there being any attempt to prevent the SPMs
having access to documents which were relevant to the case and which
they were entitled to see. There were difficulties with documents because
of the sheer size of the disclosure task - given the size of POL’s operation
and the long spanning timeframe to which the group litigation related and
what appeared to me to be a less than perfectly organised approach to
document management on POL’s part. There were also difficulties with
Page 7 ot 96
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
technical documents because they were (broadly speaking) held by Fujitsu
rather than POL, and Fujitsu had difficulties (which became more apparent
over time) in providing explanations of their technical databases which were
complete and could be understood by those without a deep technical
understanding of precisely how their software worked.
16. At all times I did my best to understand what I was being told about
documents and to play my role in presenting an accurate picture about
documents to the SPMs. I regret any mistakes I made, did my best at the
time to put right any mistakes as soon as they came to light, and have
learned from them for the future.
Background
1. Please set out a brief professional background.
17.1 joined Bond Dickinson (as the Firm was then called) as a trainee in
September 2014. I qualified as a solicitor into the Commercial Disputes
team in September 2016 (at some point the team subsequently became
known as the Commercial Disputes and Regulatory team, but I cannot now
recall exactly when). I will refer to this as “the CDR team”.
18. I have worked at WBD since my qualification as a solicitor in September
2016. I remain part of the CDR team. I was promoted to the role of
Associate in May 2019, and then promoted to the role of Managing
Associate in November 2022.
Page 8 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
2. Please describe how you first became instructed by POL in relation to
the issues being addressed by this Inquiry.
19. As the Inquiry is probably aware, trainee solicitors have four training ‘seats’
of six months each, in different teams within a firm. My last training seat —
between March 2016 and September 2016 - was in the CDR team.
20. WBD was already instructed by POL in relation to a number of matters
before March 2016, and when the Letter of Claim in the group litigation was
sent by the SPMs on 28 April 2016, WBD was instructed to represent POL
in respect of that litigation. As a trainee in the CDR team I was asked to
assist with certain tasks in respect of the group litigation. I would be
allocated tasks by the partners - Gavin Matthews or Andy Parsons (who
become a partner in May 2016, midway through my seat with the CDR
team) — or by other solicitor members of the team. Upon my qualification as
a solicitor in September 2016 I continued to assist with tasks relating to the
group litigation which the more senior members of the CDR team asked me
to undertake, although for the most part I assisted in relation to disclosure.
2
. As a trainee, my formal line manager within the CDR team was Gavin
Matthews, but the partner I worked most closely with was Andy who has
already given evidence to the Inquiry. Andy was made up to partner in May
2016 (when I was a trainee in the team) and at this stage or upon my
qualification in September 2016 it is likely that he became my formal line
manager (although I cannot recall the exact timings for this change). The
Page 9 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
perception I formed of Andy was that he was a very successful lawyer within
the Firm. He worked very hard, had been promoted to become a partner
and, as I understood it was good at his job. I looked up to him and respected
him very much and still do. I viewed him as someone from whom I should
try to learn as much as I could.
22. In early 2017 (I believe around January or February), I moved desks in the
office so that I sat next to Andy, and this remained the arrangement
throughout the period in which this Inquiry is interested. I sat no more than
a few feet away from him and in those pre-Covid times we were both in the
office every day. We got on well and we spoke on numerous occasions
most days. We would discuss any issues which were relevant to my work
on the group litigation whenever they arose. I could ask him for guidance
more or less whenever I needed to, and I did that frequently.
23. The way I would work with Andy was almost always as follows: I would
discuss a task or issue with him, and between us we would form a view as
to how it should be approached or dealt with. I say ‘between us’ as he
always encouraged me to express myself, but I was so junior that he would
ultimately be the person forming the view as to what approach should be
adopted and explaining the reasons why to me. I felt free to speak though,
and if there was something I could add by reason of my knowledge of a
particular fact or matter through my working on the case — for example in
respect of the logistics of a particular disclosure search or exercise — I would
Page 10 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
speak up, and would tell him if ever I felt a course of action he was
contemplating would not be possible in practice.
24. After these conversations, Andy would then encourage me to have the first
attempt at producing the document which needed to be drafted, or in setting
up the tasks that arose, and he would then review my work. Most of the
time that would comprise me emailing him my work product so that he could
consider and amend it on his own screen, but there were rare occasions —
for example when working on documents which were in a separate
database and not easy to email over — when he would step over and look
at my screen and assist me by reviewing my work in that way.
25. My belief and understanding at all material times was that Andy was a good
supervisor. He would discuss things with me, give direction, then allow me
to have a first go at the work before reviewing it for himself and giving me
feedback on the amendments that he had made.
3. Please summarise the scope of the work you carried out for POL.
26. I worked on the group litigation from March 2016 until around the time of
the settlement in December 2019.
27. I also undertook some work post settlement relating to the implementation
of the settlement and judgments, but I understand that the waiver of
privilege by POL only runs up to 26 February 2020 which is not a great deal
of time after the settlement was achieved. As such there is only a very
Page 11 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
limited amount that I can say about any work I did post settlement. This is
dealt with briefly below in response to the Inquiry's question 20.
28. My role and responsibilities changed over the period of time that the group
litigation was ongoing. Initially, I was a trainee solicitor before qualifying into
the team, and over the course of the group litigation I developed to become
a more senior member of the team. I set out below an illustrative list of the
work which I carried out for POL; it is not exhaustive but I think it gives a
good illustration of the types of work that I did.
29. In relation to the pre-action stage, I was a trainee in the team from March
to September 2016 and the work which I undertook was typical of the tasks
that trainees are asked to undertake. For example, undertaking research
(see below on the Official Secrets Act), attending calls or meetings to take
attendance notes, collating bundles of documents, proof reading, and
producing initial drafts of emails, advice notes, court documents, and
correspondence, all under the supervision of more senior members of the
team.
30. I qualified as a solicitor on 15 September 2016 at which point I took on a
greater role in liaising with the client and seeking their instructions. At this
stage, I continued to be under the careful supervision of Andy, as is normal
for a newly qualified solicitor. He and the other more senior members of the
team, as well as Counsel and the decision-makers at POL, were
responsible for determining the strategy in the case. Further, Counsel and
Page 12 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
3
the senior members of the WBD team were responsible for the advice
tendered to POL. When I was tasked with liaising with POL, I dealt most
frequently with Rodric Williams (“Rod”). Rod would often telephone me to
provide instructions or information I had requested, and if there were any
matters arising from these calls on which I was unsure I would take these
away to discuss with Andy.
. There were some emails that I was permitted to send to the client without
or with minimal supervision but to the best of my recollection at this stage
these were limited to basic factual updates or emails chasing for
instructions, for example in the form of providing the relevant person at POL
with a "to do list" dealing with outstanding matters upon which we awaited
their instructions. Any emails which contained substantive advice would be
reviewed and amended as necessary / appropriate by Andy.
32. I also acted as a point of liaison between Counsel and POL in respect of
advice which Counsel was providing that concerned any issues that arose
in respect of Post Office branches run by SPMs who were Claimants in the
group litigation. Again, this work was supervised by Andy, and any advice
was given by Andy and Counsel, or approved by them before being sent to
POL.
33. After I qualified as a solicitor in 2016 I was predominantly involved in the
mapping / identification of documents to be preserved and then disclosed
Page 13 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
by POL in the course of the group litigation. I took on this work as another
member of the WBD team, Tom Porter, left the firm in September 2016.
34. This work involved holding "data mapping calls" with key individuals at POL.
I would generally have conducted such telephone meetings with the
assistance of a trainee who would take a note to record the call and the
discussions were often based on the proforma form that we had devised.
This form would have been completed by the POL employee prior to the
call and the purpose of the call would have been to discuss any questions
arising from their responses. I would then report back to Andy on the output
of these calls so that he could review the position and supervise the
approach that I and the team were taking to drafting the EDQ.
35. Further, I can recall that there would have been "data mapping calls" and
emails with Fujitsu. From memory Andy would have joined those calls and
supervised the contents of my draft emails before I sent them to Fujitsu.
Andy did not join all of the calls we had with the POL employees.
36. The purpose of this workstream was to identify people who might potentially
hold relevant documents and the repositories where potentially relevant
documents might be stored so that we could respond to the disclosure
requests being made by the SPMs, prepare for Case Management
Conference(s) ("CMCs") at which disclosure would be considered, produce
the Extended Disclosure Questionnaire (“EDQ”) for use in the group
Page 14 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
litigation in December 2017, and collect and host in an eDiscovery platform
the potentially relevant documents in preparation for disclosure.
37. There were also occasions upon which I attended the POL Steering
Committee meetings, usually with Andy, and often I assisted in the drafting
of briefing papers for these meetings. When I was first involved in the case
I would only ever have attended in my capacity as a very junior solicitor to
take a note of the meeting but later and towards the end of the group
litigation I believe that I may have attended one or two meetings on my own.
On these occasions, however, I believe that the subject matter of the
meeting related to an issue with which I was familiar, namely it would have
been a matter related to the disclosure process. Before every meeting I
believe that briefing, decision, or recommendation papers were circulated
(with any decisions or recommendations presented to the Steering
Committee ultimately having been made by Andy and/or Counsel), and so
my role would have only ever have been to talk to the paper and answer
any factual questions that POL had on the papers.
38. During the course of the group litigation, there were a number of procedural
matters to deal with, for example preparing for the CMCs before Mr Justice
Fraser (as he was then referred to) and hearings to resolve applications
made by the parties. I assisted the team whenever I was asked to in relation
to these matters, but, as I have mentioned above, I did not determine the
strategy to be deployed as I was still very recently qualified (or as the group
litigation progressed, a junior solicitor) and therefore not in a position to do
Page 15 ot 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
so. My role was therefore narrower and involved with more administrative
tasks, including liaising with Counsel to obtain advice. I would also produce
initial drafts of documents, for example sections of the procedural witness
statement to support POL's court applications, court orders and directions,
correspondence to the Claimants' solicitors (Freeths) and advice notes on
discrete issues arising, but this was always under the day-to-day
supervision of (predominantly) Andy.
39. During mid 2017 I also assisted with requesting and collating information
from POL and preparing briefing notes from that information which were
then passed onto Counsel for the purposes of drafting the Generic Defence
to the group litigation. Again, this was largely a document management
task.
40. Following each of the CMCs which dealt with disclosure (these took place
in October 2017, February 2018, June 2018 and February 2019) my focus
was very much on the various disclosure orders which had been made by
Mr Justice Fraser and in particular, following the October 2017 CMC, the
production of the EDQ. I was therefore involved in locating, collating and
reviewing the documents which POL had been ordered to disclose. I was
responsible for liaising with POL and Fujitsu to identify and collect relevant
documents and then ensuring that they were uploaded properly onto the
eDiscovery platform so that they could be reviewed for relevance and
disclosed.
Page 16 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
41. My recollection is that any emails of substance on these issues would have
been supervised by Andy. In relation to any of the complex POL storage
locations I believe we would also have brought in our eDiscovery provider
to assist and advise us on how best to approach the preservation and
collection of documents given that this was a very specialist area. Further,
in this time period I was involved in a number of discussions with Freeths
around the scope of disclosure to be given by POL and the Claimants (in
particular in the lead up to the February CMCs). My role in these
discussions would have been to provide Andy with information collated from
POL and Fujitsu so that he was aware of the issues that were arising in
respect of disclosure and could give advice about them.
42. From recollection I believe that we approached the disclosure reviews by
producing a briefing note for the document review paralegals so that they
knew how to approach the task. Typically, I would produce the first version
of these briefing notes, and then they would be reviewed and amended /
approved by Andy. The paralegals would then do the "first pass" through
the documents and I (along with a wider team) would undertake a second
review of the documents. Any questions arising on relevance or privilege
from this review would initially be referred to me so as I could be a central
point for these questions. My recollection is that I would respond to the
questions if I felt comfortable in doing so and if I was unsure of the approach
I would refer these questions to a more senior member of the team
(predominately Andy, but occasionally Counsel would be involved).
Page 17 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
43. By 2018 I was two years qualified and had gained enough experience that
44.
I was capable of having more input in relation to the direction of disclosure
as well as doing the "nuts and bolts" of the disclosure exercise to which I
have referred above. I had views for example on the criticisms which from
time to time the Claimants raised in respect of POL's disclosure and I could
assist in dealing with issues that arose. My work was still supervised, as I
believe would be expected in any law firm.
Between 7 November 2018 to 6 December 2018 I was in attendance at the
Common Issues Trial.
45. In 2019 (and in association with my promotion to associate in May 2019),
my responsibilities changed slightly as I grew in experience and because
Andy was by then working at full stretch on the Horizon Issues Trial. I
continued to work on disclosure for the Horizon Issues Trial. I discuss later
in this statement my involvement in the issue which arose in respect of
disclosure of the KEL database. I also moved to work with a different team
and to provide support in respect of the upcoming Further Issues Trial (Trial
3, which in the event did not actually take place). Important decisions
relating to disclosure would still have been approved by a partner.
Disclosure for the Further Issues Trial was ordered at the CMC on 12
February 2019 and following that hearing my work was based on working
towards the fulfilment of this order.
Page 18 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
46. In March 2019 I was also involved in the recusal application which I deal
with in more detail at paragraphs 208-224 of this statement, in which my
role was essentially to act as administrative liaison between POL and
Counsel.
Group Litigation Proceedings
4.Please summarise your work advising POL in the group litigation (“GLO
Proceedings”). In particular, please address the following issues,
including any changes to the same over time:
4.1 From whom did you receive instructions?
47. When I received instructions from POL they generally came from Rodric
Williams, Jane McLeod, Mark Underwood, or the Group Action Steering
Committee
4.2 Please summarise the advice you provided to POL in respect of its
general litigation strategy in defending the GLO Proceedings.
48. As I have explained above, I did not give advice to POL in respect of its
general litigation strategy in defending the GLO Proceedings. I was too
junior and inexperienced at the time to provide any such advice.
4.3 Please describe the nature of the relationship between:
4.3.1 You and your firm with Freeths and the claimants’ counsel
49. I had no relationship with the Claimants’ Counsel.
Page 19 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
50. I would speak from time to time with fee earners at Freeths, of whom I can
5
recall James Hartley and Imogen Randall. I regarded our relationship as
professional and respectful. I knew that they were obviously trying to put
their clients in the best position possible and achieve the best outcome for
them. My focus was, as I have described, on disclosure and I thought that
at times Freeths did not fully appreciate the mechanics of the enormous
disclosure exercise that POL was going to have to undertake. At times this
caused an element of "disconnect" between us when we were discussing
matters for example in advance of the CMCs. I had the impression that they
did not always appreciate the consequences of the orders which they were
seeking, in terms of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out the
disclosure requested, and even sometimes whether the requests that they
were making were feasible in terms of the timetable. All of these
discussions were conducted in a polite and respectful way so far as I was
aware and can recall.
. As for the relationship of the Firm generally with Freeths, I am not sure I
can comment fully upon that, save to say that as far as I understood the
relationship it was, as I have said, professional and respectful. Obviously
both firms were doing their best to promote their clients’ case and so
naturally there was not agreement on all areas of the management of the
claim. It was after all an enormous and significant piece of litigation. I did
not form the view that there was anything inappropriate or problematic in
the relationship between the two firms.
Page 20 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
4.3.2 You and your firm with counsel representing POL.
52. As a result of the level of my seniority, the vast majority of the work that I
did when interacting with Counsel representing POL can probably best be
described as administrative liaison, although in respect of issues relating to
disclosure in particular I was far more familiar with the factual position and
so my role would be to assist Counsel to understand the factual basis of
any issue which had arisen and, where appropriate, to provide a view of
what the factual ramifications would be of issues which had arisen in
respect of disclosure.
53. So I would say there was a range of interaction between me and Counsel,
from the purely administrative (for example my interactions with One Essex
Court when POL were considering an appeal and the application to recuse
Mr Justice Fraser, which I deal with in more detail at paragraphs 208-224
below), to the more substantive information I would provide to Counsel on
matters primarily related to disclosure.
54. I believe that I (and as far as I am aware the whole WBD team working on
the group litigation) had a good working relationship with Counsel. This was
a long running case (spanning from mid 2016 to the end of 2019) and during
that period I would speak to Counsel often. I would sometimes sit in on
meetings or calls where Andy would discuss general strategy matters with
Counsel but any decisions on strategic matters would be driven and taken
by others.
Page 21 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
55. I trusted Counsel and their judgment, as I believe the rest of the WBD team
working on the group litigation did. Although the group litigation was
unusual in its size, scope and duration, which meant that we all spoke to
the same Counsel team more often and spanning a longer period than I
now know to be usual in more run of the mill litigation, the relationship with
Counsel was no different to any other professional relationship: it was
courteous, functional and professional.
4.4 To what extent did you rely on advice from counsel in respect of
(a) general litigation strategy (b) POL’s approach to disclosure (c)
the preparation of witness evidence and (d) the recusal
application?
56. As to (a), I have explained above that I did not drive or make any decisions
on general litigation strategy. I did sometimes sit in on meetings where
general litigation strategy was discussed and decisions were taken. My
observation from those meetings was that Counsel played a major role in
the decisions that were taken, but the advice from Counsel always
appeared to be considered carefully by Andy and the relevant decision-
makers at POL. Ultimately decisions on the general litigation strategy were
made through a combination of Counsel, the partners from WBD involved
in the case (being primarily Andy), and those responsible for decision-
making at POL.
Page 22 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
57. As to (c), I was not, as I explain at paragraphs 200 and 228 involved in the
preparation of witness evidence.
58. As to (d), and as I also mention above and deal with in more detail later in
this statement, I assisted in obtaining details of Leading Counsel for the
recusal application but was not involved in any decisions that were made
in respect of that application. My impression was that the whole of the team
at WBD was very reliant on Leading Counsel to advise in respect of the
recusal application given the unusual nature of that application and the
importance of it to POL.
59. As to (b), and my reliance on Counsel so far as disclosure was concerned,
it is fair to say that Counsel was not involved in the "nuts and bolts" of the
disclosure exercise. The WBD team was responsible for the enormous task
of working out which documents were held by POL and Fujitsu, in which
document repositories, and how they could be mapped, examined for
relevance, and ultimately disclosed. WBD liaised with Freeths about the
different document repositories and categories and how the disclosure
exercise was to be carried out. Counsel would only generally be involved
where a CMC was approaching and there were issues remaining between
WBD and Freeths on disclosure matters and advice from Counsel was
requested as to how these issues should be addressed leading up to and
at the CMC.
Page 23 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
60. The two exceptions to this which I can recall are when an issue arose as to
redactions for privilege, when redactions were reviewed with the assistance
of Counsel as I set out below at paragraphs 190 to 199 and 225 to 227, and
also when it emerged in October 2019 that Fujitsu had previous versions of
KELs which had not been disclosed (as I also set out in detail later in this
statement).
Disclosure in the early phases
5. Please provide a detailed account of the nature and extent of your
involvement in decisions in relation to disclosure throughout the
GLO proceedings.
61. I refer the Inquiry to my general description of the tasks that I undertook in
the context of the GLO proceedings elsewhere in this statement.
62. Whilst I undertook a great volume of work in relation to disclosure
throughout the group litigation, due to my junior status I do not believe that
any of the final decisions on any issues which arose for decision rested with
me.
63. In answer to the Inquiry’s question in relation to the extent of my
involvement in decisions relating to disclosure - I did not make any strategic
decisions and the decisions that I would have been involved in related to
the practicalities of approaching such an enormous disclosure exercise,
including how to map the data, preserve and collect the data so that it could
be reviewed for relevance and disclosed in the group litigation. I explain
Page 24 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
elsewhere in this statement my involvement in the redaction of documents
during the disclosure process.
64. The typical approach followed was that strategic decisions (including those
6.
concerning disclosure) were brought to a POL Steering Committee which
had been formed for the purposes of the group litigation. My recollection is
that I had some input into the Steering Committee papers (in particular
those relating to disclosure) — often producing a first draft of the relevant
paper having discussed the matter with Andy and with him amending and/or
approving the paper before it was finalised. I was also involved in assisting
with drafting correspondence to Freeths about disclosure related matters,
discussing with Counsel and Andy the scope of disclosure orders and I
assisted POL to comply with orders relating to disclosure. But this work too
was all under the supervision of Andy and, occasionally, after direct liaison
with Counsel.
Please consider POL00408630 (email from you to Paul Lorraine on
13 May 2016) and POL00408631 (Bond Dickinson note on Official
Secrets Act 1911 and 1989). Please provide a detailed account of
the background to this research, including who requested it and
why. Was any use made of this research during the GLO
proceedings?
65. The purpose of this research was to enable the firm to respond to the
matters raised by the Claimants in their Letter of Claim. I refer the Inquiry
Page 25 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
to paragraph 11.3, Section K and the Appendix of the Letter of Claim from
Freeths to Rodric Williams of the Post Office dated 28 April 2016
(POL00241140) in which the Claimants sought clarification as to POL's
position in relation to the application of the Official Secrets Act as this was
referred to in the SPM Contract.
66. I also refer to (WBON0001952) which is an email (and it's attachment titled
"Letter of Claim: Work Plan (WBON0001953) dated 1 May 2016 from Andy
to Gavin Matthews entitled "LOC Work Plan” setting out a proposed plan of
work for responding to the Letter of Claim. One element of that plan was
for "BD to research OSA requirements".
67. On 9 May 2016 (WBON0001954) I received an email from Paul Loraine
entitled "FW: Group Action against Post Office Limited" in which he
explained the need to research the Official Secrets Act but that he first
needed to understand why there was a reference to the Official Secrets Act
in the contract. The following day (10 May 2016) Paul Loraine asked me by
email entitled "FW: Official Secrets Act” (WBON0001955) to start to
research the Official Secrets Act issue which I did and on 13 May 2016 I
sent my research to Paul Loraine by email entitled “Re: Official Secrets Act”
(POL00408630) The attachment to this email is document referred to in the
Inquiry's question (POL00408631).
68. Between 20 to 23 May 2016 in an email chain between Paul Inwood of the
Post Office and Paul Loraine entitled “Re: Official Secrets Act.”
Page 26 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
(WBON0001956) further information was sought from POL and on 23 May
2016 the research note was sent in an email from Paul Loraine to Andy,
copying me in, entitled “Official Secrets Act - paras 175-185 LoC”
(POL00408626) so that it could be used to assist in the production of the
Letter of Response.
69. On 9 June 2016 the research note was provided in an email from Paul
70.
7.
Loraine to Tony Robinson QC instructed for POL entitled "POL Group
Action" (WBON0001957) and on 8 July 2016 in an email (WBON0001958)
the issue was referred to POL Steering Committee so that they could
decide whether POL agreed not to assert Official Secrets Act obligations
against Claimants. The Steering Committee Paper entitled "Decision 5" can
be located at (WBON0002006).
Paragraph 12.9 of the Letter of Response from WBD to Freeths dated 28
July 2016 (POL001 10507) deals with the issue of the Official Secrets Act.
Please consider POL00408626 (email from Paul Lorraine to Andy
on 23 May 2016, copied to you). What did you understand Paul
Lorraine to mean when he said “...I’m not convinced this is our best
option”?
71. I have reviewed this email and note that I was copied into it. I do not recall
considering the wording of the email in detail at the time. As I have said
elsewhere in this statement, I was still a trainee at the time in question (May
2016) and so I would have been copied into a number of emails for
Page 27 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
information and/or learning purposes rather than because I was being
expected to comment on the strategy in the case. I was not being asked to
assist with any decision making on the approach to the Official Secrets Act
issue or what approach should be taken in the Letter of Response. I also
did not know Paul that well (he was based in a different office to me) and I
do not know what he meant by this wording.
72. I have reconsidered this email, the wording and other documents on this
8.
topic in light of the Inquiry's question. In particular, I have reviewed the POL
Steering Committee paper at (WBON0002006) and my understanding of
this wording is that Paul's preferred approach was the second option set
out in the email. Option 1 would require POL to run a contractual
interpretation argument which might be difficult due to the issues with the
unclear drafting of the clause. Also, my understanding from the documents
is that POL had not previously enforced the Official Secrets Act clause and
as such resolving the contractual interpretation queries and seeking to
enforce the Official Secrets Act may not be required nor in the perceived
best interests of POL. I assume therefore that it was thought that Option 2
would be the better option for POL. I am, however, speculating after the
event and cannot know for sure what Paul had in his mind when he wrote
the email in question.
Please consider POL00038852 (email from you to Rodric Williams
on 5 October 2016), WBON0000465 (email from you to Andy on 5
Page 28 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
October 2016) and WBON0000467 (email from Andy to you on 5
October 2016).
8.1 Please consider the advice that “we would do what we can to
avoid disclosure of these guidelines and try to do so in a way
that looks legitimate. However, we are ultimately withholding
a key document and this may attract some criticism from
Freeths”. Please explain the basis for this advice.
73. I should make clear that I now have no actual recollection of drafting the
email of 5 October 2016, or of any part of the process of drafting it, or
reviewing any changes made to it by Andy.
74. I have therefore had to look at the contemporaneous documents and do my
best to assist the Inquiry with what I believe happened. My belief is that the
drafting of this email would have followed the same pattern that I have
described earlier in this statement, namely that first of all I would have had
a discussion with Andy during which we would have agreed on an approach
to be adopted (as guided and ultimately determined by Andy). At this time
I had only been qualified as a solicitor for about three weeks and I cannot
recall having any real intuition myself as to how wide-ranging requests for
pre-action disclosure should be dealt with as I had no experience of this.
75. I believe that I would have read the relevant CPR rules and guidance within
the White Book, done my best to understand the underlying principles and
would have understood that pre-action disclosure is not intended to be as
Page 29 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
wide-ranging as full disclosure within a set of proceedings. I cannot recall
at the time having any clear and developed views of my own as to where
the line should be drawn and what should be voluntarily disclosed at the
pre-action stage and what should not be. I believe that I would have
required guidance on this from Andy and I believe that he may have given
me such guidance either during a conversation before I made my first
attempt at drafting the email now under scrutiny, or otherwise during the
course of responding to the pre-action disclosure requests made by the
Claimants in the Letter of Claim.
76. In late September 2016, I had been provided with a copy of the 2016
guidelines by POL and I am aware that WBD was instructed by Jane
MacLeod (POL's General Counsel) that POL did not wish to disclose the
2016 Guidelines since they were not relevant to the claims being brought,
due to the fact that they postdated the events of the group litigation.
77. I subsequently reviewed the 2013 POL investigation guidelines and on 4
October 2016 in an email to Andy entitled “FW: Horizon Dispute —
Investigation guidelines” (WWBON0002007) it was flagged a few places
within them where Horizon was mentioned, including the passage which
was reproduced in my email of 5 October 2016. I believe that it was at this
point that Andy and I would have had a conversation about the approach
to be taken to disclosure of the 2016 guidelines (in light of the information
from Jane MacLeod) and the 2013 investigation guidelines, and what
advice WBD should be conveying to POL about the Claimants’ request for
Page 30 ot 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
pre-action disclosure of the guidelines. I do not recall this conversation and
this account is based on my recollection of the typical working practices
between Andy and myself.
78. I can see from my drafting, and also from Andy's witness statement to this
Inquiry, that his view (and that of Jane McLeod in respect of the 2016
guidelines) was that the 2016 and 2013 investigation guidelines which POL
had so far been able to locate and provide to WBD were guidelines which
post-dated the events in issue in the group litigation, and were not therefore
relevant to those issues. As such, they did not fall to be disclosed at the
pre-action stage.
79. I would have taken that information on board to the best of my ability and
then attempted to convey it in an email to Rodric Williams, which I believe
I had been asked to draft by Andy. I sent my draft email to Andy at 10.30am
on 5 October 2016 entitled "Re: Disclosure of Security Investigations
Guidelines” (WBON0000467) saying to him that I “...would appreciate your
thoughts/ comments on this.”
80. Looking now at my drafting — which did not include the extract reproduced
in this question - I can see what I was trying to say. Namely, that the 2016
and 2013 guidelines were not relevant due to them postdating the issues in
the group litigation, there was no strict requirement to disclose these
documents at this stage due to their irrelevance and/or the fact that this was
a pre-action disclosure request, and that to provide the disclosure sought
Page 31 of 96
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
81.
by the Claimants would require a full search to be undertaken which was
also not required at a pre-action stage. However, I am embarrassed and
disappointed at the way I went about trying to say it and some of the
language I used. I was very young and inexperienced and not yet used to
the formality of language which is required of a lawyer drafting an email
providing advice to a client. I hope and believe that I would not draft an
email now which was expressed so badly.
I do not have any embarrassment about the first two substantive
paragraphs. Based on my recollection of the working practices between
Andy and myself, I believe that we would have discussed the information
that the email should contain and any contents of the guidelines which
should specifically be brought to Rod's attention. The email flags that the
2013 guidelines contained guidance on how to respond to enquiries by
SPMs during interview about the Second Sight review and that the SPMs
might try to take a prejudicial point about that by pointing to it as an example
of POL giving ‘stock answers’ to enquiries by SPMs and as evidence that
POL had not addressed issues raised with it in the way that it should have
done. I believe that the inclusion of this in the email would have been
something which Andy conveyed to me in the discussion which I refer to
above.
82. As to the third paragraph which begins “Freeths will more than likely...” -—I
regret now that I used the word “spun” because it is a word which can be
viewed as having negative connotations. What I was trying to say was that
Page 32 ot 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
Freeths might try to use this recommended response in respect of the
Second Sight review in support of a general theme in their clients' case that
POL did not address the concerns of SPMs in an appropriate manner. I
should have put it in that straightforward way, instead of using the word
‘spun’.
83. It is the next paragraph with which I am particularly unhappy, as it does not
explain clearly what I was trying to convey, and it is worded extremely badly.
I start by saying "although we may face some criticism later on", without
explaining to the client whether the advice was that such criticism would be
justified. My understanding was that any criticism would not have been
justified, because the documents actually located so far were not in fact
directly relevant to any issue in the group litigation, and did not properly fall
to be disclosed at the pre-action stage, but that we wanted to advise the
client of any area where criticism might potentially be raised in the future.
This was because POL was a high-profile company and was (as I
understood it) keen to be aware of areas where criticism might be made in
the future.
84. I then say that WBD’s proposal was to try to “suppress” the guidelines for
as long as possible. With hindsight, I regard that as a terrible choice of
words and I deeply regret that I chose it. What I meant was that the
recommendation was not to disclose the guidelines which POL had located
now, because they were not relevant to the group litigation issues, and that
any disclosure exercise to track down the earlier guidelines should be
Page 33 ot 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
parked until a later date. I understood at the time, and still believe now, that
this was a legitimate approach. The use of the word "suppress", however,
could be read as being suggestive of something which is not legitimate, and
it was therefore a poor way of explaining our advice. I just did not appreciate
this at the time, and was not experienced enough to appreciate the care
which lawyers must take with the language of emails like this.
85. I also believe I must have taken some comfort from the safety blanket of
my work being checked by my supervising partner - someone whose
capability and judgment I trusted entirely. I am not seeking to blame Andy
by saying this. I realise that every solicitor, no matter how newly qualified,
has to apply their own judgment as best they can to their work. But I think I
did believe that any rough edges in my language would be rounded off with
the help and guidance of those more senior than me. I had no reason to
believe that Andy would not look at my email carefully and amend it to make
sure it did the right job in the right way.
86. I am conscious that this present witness statement, which I have drafted as
a much more mature and experienced lawyer, after consultation with an
independent legal team and in the knowledge of how important this
statement is, stands in stark contrast to the unsophisticated email I drafted
back in October 2016. I have learned a lot since then, and I want to really
emphasise how raw and inexperienced I was.
Page 34 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
87.
88.
89.
90.
. I cannot remember now whether I read Andy's amendments to my draft
email — which was just to add a final paragraph — or not. The learning point
he was making to me was in his covering email: “try to always spell out
exactly what is required from the client (even if that is nothing or a negative
statement like below)’, and I think it likely that it was the learning point I
would have focused on. If I read the extra paragraph at all it was probably
quickly and really only to check it for typographical errors and understand
the gist of it. I generally wanted to be efficient and move onto the next piece
of work — there was always work to do — and so I believe it likely that my
thought process was that the email was now in final form and I should send
it out to the client as soon as possible. I did this by sending it to the client
less than six minutes later, at 11.01am.
I did not believe then, and still do not believe now, that it was my job at that
level of seniority to critically analysis the work of my supervising partner. If
Andy had drafted a document then my job was not to second guess it or
presume to know better than him. My job, as a very junior solicitor who had
been qualified for only three weeks, was to send it out to the client quickly
and efficiently.
I am therefore as sure as I can be that I did not spend any time absorbing
or critiquing the paragraph which Andy had added.
Looking at the paragraph now, my view — without wishing any disrespect at
all to Andy, who I still hold in high regard - is that it is very badly expressed,
Page 35 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
9
and also incorrect in some important respects. I do not believe it was correct
to say that “we are ultimately withholding a key document”. POL had not at
that time located any ‘key document’ within the investigations guidelines. It
had located only versions of that document which post-dated the events of
the cases within the group litigation. It was possible that POL might in due
course locate earlier versions of the investigations guidelines, which might
be relevant in some way to the group litigation, but that was unknown at the
time. I therefore do not agree that resisting pre-action disclosure of the
investigations guidelines was something which merely “looks legitimate’. I
believed that it was legitimate. I am sure that I understood it at the time to
be legitimate. I am sure that I understood that it was also legitimate to resist
POL having to carry out wider searches at the pre-action stage in respect
of the investigations guidelines. Nobody ever suggested to me that it was
not legitimate and I would not have wanted to be a part of anything that was
improper or illegitimate. Accordingly, Andy$ phraseology here was
incorrect.
. I think what he may have meant when saying that the approach would be
reviewed if “we sense the criticism is becoming serious” was that the
carrying out of a further search for the investigations guidelines, namely for
the guidelines which were in place at the times relevant to the group
litigation, could be resisted unless and until there was real pressure to carry
out that disclosure exercise within the litigation. But again he also
expressed himself badly, whatever he meant.
Page 36 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
8.2. What concerns, if any, did (or do) you have about Mr
Parsons’ addition to your draft email in WBON0000467?
92. As I explain above, I did not have any concerns at the time about Andy's
addition to my draft email, because I am sure that I did not consider it in a
critical manner or believe that it was my job to critique it nor to question his
approach.
93. Looking at it now, I believe, as I set out above, that it was expressed in an
94.
extremely unfortunate way and, as drafted, was incorrect in certain respects
that I have identified above. I do not believe that the phraseology was
appropriate to convey the advice which was being given and could have
wrongly conveyed that something illegitimate was being recommended by
WBD.
8.3 On reflection, do you consider this advice to have been
appropriate?
I believe that the underlying advice was appropriate as the case was at the
pre-action stage and my understanding of the relevant law was and remains
that pre-action disclosure obligations are much more limited than those
which arise once proceedings have been issued. No document which was
actually relevant to the issues in the group litigation had been located by
POL under the Investigations Guidelines category, and it was therefore
legitimate for POL not to disclose the 2016 and 2013 guidelines or
Page 37 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
voluntarily carry out a disclosure exercise at a pre-action stage in respect
of a document request of this nature.
95. My understanding that this was correct advice is supported by the fact that,
as I recall and understand it, POL was never ordered in the group litigation
to disclose the 2013 or 2016 investigation guidelines..
96. I have made clear above, however, that I feel that my language in the part
of the email that I drafted left a lot to be desired and I have also made clear
above that the paragraph which Andy added was badly drafted and
incorrect in certain respects. I do not believe that it was appropriate for the
advice to be couched in the terms which I have criticised above and I am
sorry that I made mistakes in this respect which I feel that I did. I was very
young and inexperienced and I have learned a lot since then. I am much
more careful now in how I formulate my thoughts and express myself when
communicating with clients.
Disclosure of KELs
9. Please describe any advice you gave to POL in respect of
disclosing the KEL database.
10. Before you gave such advice, please set out what investigations
you were aware of, including any communication with Fujitsu, in
respect of the content of the KEL database.
Page 38 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
12. Please consider FUJ00219841 (Matthew Lenton’s email to Steve
Parker and Pete Newsome on 6 February 2018). Did Fujitsu ever
inform you of the option of printing KELs to PDF?
97. I believe it is convenient to take questions 9, 10 and 12 together, and then
question 14 immediately thereafter, as these questions are best answered
by explaining the chronology of my involvement in respect of the disclosure
of the KEL database. I have a broad independent recollection of some of
the events set out below, but I have refreshed my memory by reading as
many of the contemporaneous documents as I have been able to locate
and consider in the time available, and those documents have triggered
recollections about some of the other events which occurred.
98. I therefore set out below in detail my involvement in respect of disclosure
issues which arose in respect of the KEL database. In summary, however
I was not involved in the advice which was given to POL as to whether the
KEL database should be disclosed, and I was not involved in drafting the
relevant section of the EDQ which explained, for disclosure purposes, what
the KEL database was. I became involved subsequently, as the case
progressed, when questions arose relating to the KEL database.
99. I am aware that the SPMs raised the question of disclosure of a ‘Known
Error Log’ in their Letter of Claim (of 29 April 2016), and that there were
discussions between WBD and Fujitsu as to whether such a log existed,
what it was, and how it should be dealt with in the Letter of Response (in
Page 39 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
July 2016). Subsequently there was correspondence with Freeths, and
then the Generic Defence (July 2017), which concerned the relevance of
the KEL and whether and when it should be disclosed to the SPMs. I have
limited recollection of my involvement in these matters, however from a
review of emails from this time I understand that my involvement in these
matters to be:
a.
I was not involved in the matters concerning the KEL database
until around September 2016.
During September 2016, I was involved in assisting with
considering the correspondence from Freeths concerning
disclosure (of which one element was the KEL database). In
respect of the KEL database, my involvement was to provide the
first draft of a list of questions for Fujitsu that were designed to
establish whether the KEL database existed and, if so, what it
comprised, where it was held, and whether and how it could be
extracted and provided to WBD. Answers to these queries were
provided by Fujitsu and were used for the purpose of drafting a
response to Freeths' request for disclosure of the KEL database.
I was not involved in the provision of advice about whether the
KEL database should be disclosed.
In the lead up to the service of the Generic Defence, I acted
effectively as a post box to pass on to Counsel some information
Page 40 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
sourced from Fujitsu concerning the KEL database, so that the
information could be used as Counsel saw fit for the purposes of
drafting the Generic Defence (served on 18 July 2017).
100. Following the service of the Generic Defence, there was
correspondence between Freeths and WBD concerning disclosure /
inspection of the KEL database. My recollection is that I had some
involvement in these matters, which involved attending calls with Counsel
to discuss the approach to be adopted, and producing initial drafts of the
letters to Freeths responding to their requests (under the supervision of
Andy). This also involved liaising with Rodric Williams to obtain instructions
from POL that the Claimants' expert could inspect the KEL at Fujitsu's
offices in Bracknell, and liaising with Fujitsu to organise a date for the
meeting (WBON0001959).
101. The position in respect of the KELs was reflected in Andy’s 4" witness
statement at paragraphs 33 to 41, which was dated 9 October 2017
(WBON0002008) and was served for the purpose of updating the court at
the CMC of 19 October 2017. I would draw the Inquiry’s attention to a
particular paragraph of this document, as it answers in part the Inquiry’s
question 12. At paragraph 38 Andy says:
"I understand from Fujitsu that the Known Error Log cannot be easily
downloaded as it comprises data that is stored on a database, rather
than being a document in a conventional form. Unless one has the
Page 41 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
necessary database software, reading the data in the Known Error Log
is very difficult. The alternative is to manually copy or print each entry,
but this would produce poorly formatted material and would take
significant time and work. Fujitsu believe that the best solution is for a
person with appropriate expertise to read the Known Error Log on a
screen at its offices where the information can be presented in a user-
friendly format."
102. It can therefore be seen from this paragraph that Fujitsu had told WBD
that each entry from the KEL database could be printed, and that WBD had
informed Freeths of this fact.
103. A CMC was held on 19 October 2017. I can remember that in advance
of this CMC there was a debate between the parties about how inspection
of the KEL database should be provided. I believe that there had already
been agreement about the principle that the KEL database would be
disclosed; the difference of opinion was about inspection, with POLS
position being (as set out in the part of Andy’s witness statement that I have
reproduced above) that the best way of providing inspection was for the
SPMs' expert witness to attend Fujitsu's offices and inspect the database
for himself. My recollection is that in the end there was agreement about
this approach and the issue did not arise for argument at the CMC.
104. Following the October CMC my recollection is that inspection of the KEL
database took place on 29 November 2017 by the SPMs' expert witness,
Page 42 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
Mr Coyne, visiting Fujitsu (after some back and forth about the terms of an
NDA which Fujitsu wanted him to sign first), and then by Fujitsu exporting
the KEL database electronically, in HTML format. This was provided to
WBD, uploaded to an eDisclosure platform and disclosed to Freeths.
105. Iwas not present at the 29 November 2017 meeting but Fujitsu’s note of
it in an email from Pete Newsome to Andy and me of 30 November 2017
entitled “Re: Post Office Group Litigation — Known Error Log —
Confidentiality Agreement — legally privileged” (WBON0001960) records
that there was a demonstration to Mr Coyne of how the KEL system worked,
that some keyword searches were applied to the KEL database, and a
number of entries were printed and provided to Mr Coyne.
106. I do not recall at the time seeing any need to engage closely with
precisely what was held in the KEL database, because my understanding
was that Mr Coyne was to be granted access by Fujitsu to the entirety of
that database and that he would look at whatever was within it he wished
to. I did not have the impression that Fujitsu was trying to hide anything. I
therefore had no concerns about the disclosure position in respect of the
KEL database.
107. I have an actual independent recollection of the sequence of events set
out above, although my recollection of the details has been greatly assisted
by reviewing the documents I have located. I also have an actual
recollection of the bombshell that was dropped by Fujitsu in October 2019
Page 43 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
about there being a category of KELs that had not been disclosed (which I
deal with in detail below). I did not have an independent recollection of the
other parts of the sequence of events and have relied on the
contemporaneous documents to trigger my memory of those events.
108. I have checked what the extent of my involvement was in respect of the
drafting of the section of the EDQ which described the KEL database,
because I have no independent recollection of the exact details of this. The
position is that on 28 November 2017 I emailed Fujitsu to set-up a call to
discuss their document repositories. The call was then set up for the
morning of 30 November 2017.
109. On29 November 2017 I sent an email entitled “FW: Legally Privileged —
Fujitsu documents” to Andy and Michael Wharton (a junior solicitor
assisting with disclosure) (WBON0001961) to ask them both to attend the
call with Fujitsu the next day as I might not be able to. I also asked Michael
to liaise with Fujitsu going forward to produce the Fujitsu schedule for the
EDQ. I can see from this email that I was aware at this time of the existence
of a ‘Known Error Log’ but said that I "do not know what database / software
hosts this".I do not recall knowing anything beyond this about the KEL
database at this time.
110. The call with Fujitsu then took place on 30 November 2017 at 10:30am. I
do not think that I joined this call. I have no recollection of doing so, and at
the same time I had calls with Kendra Dickinson (POL) at 10am and
Page 44 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
Michelle Stevens (POL) at 11am to discuss disclosure and document
preservation / collecting other information for the EDQ. I am aware from
follow up emails that I did attend both of these calls, so I do not believe that
I could have been on the Fujitsu call at 10.30am. I have seen nothing to
suggest that I did join that call.
111. The part of the EDQ dealing with the KEL database was then drafted by
the people who attended the meeting with Fujitsu on 30 November 2017,
and I assume that they must have done so on the basis of their
understanding of what they were told in that meeting by Fujitsu. On 1
December 2017, I was sent a first draft of the Fujitsu section of the EDQ by
email from Michael Wharton entitled “FW: Legally Privileged — Fujitsu
documents” (WBON0001962). The copy of the EDQ attached to this email
was a link to the document stored in WBD's filing system and it has been
updated since the version sent to me on 1 December 2017. As such, I am
not able to view the version sent to me and the changes which I made to it.
112. In my email response to Michael (WBON0001962) I explained that I had
“made a couple of comments’. I am not able to now recall what these
‘comments’ were, but I do not believe that I would have changed anything
substantive within the document; I certainly would not have amended any
statement of fact which had been made about the KEL database, as I would
have had no basis to make such a change, having no direct knowledge
about that matter. I would have assumed that the relevant section was
Page 45 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
drafted on instructions received from Fujitsu and would not have amended
it.
113. Following this, the Fujitsu section of the EDQ was sent to Andy for
review. I am also aware that Fujitsu reviewed the EDQ before it was served
on 6 December 2017, and raised no query or objection to the description in
that document of the KEL database, which read as follows:
"The KEL only contains the current database entries and is constantly
updated and so the current version will not necessarily reflect the version
that was in place at the relevant time. The previous entries / versions of the
current entries are no longer available.
The KEL cannot be easily downloaded as it is stored on a database. Even
then, unless one has the necessary database software, reading the data in
the KEL is difficult. The alternative is to manually copy or print each entry,
but this would produce poorly formatted material and would take significant
effort."
114. I also note that again the possibility was raised here of printing the
entries from the KEL database.
115. On 22 December 2017, there was then a meeting with Freeths which I
attended with Andy concerning the approach to disclosure at which we
were asked to discuss with Fujitsu the issue of providing an index of entries
on the KEL database, and how documents requested from that index by Mr
Coyne could best be provided.
Page 46 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
116. On 28 December 2017 I sent an email to Fujitsu entitled “Re: Privileged
- KEL entries" (WBONO0001963) to report that:
“We had a meeting with Freeths last week and they mentioned that Jason
Coyne would like to be provided with some of the KEL entries. Please could
you let us know if you have any concerns with providing these to Jason
and, so as we can narrow the number of entries requested, is it possible to
provide us with an index of the KEL entries (both current and historic) so as
Jason can choose the ones which he believes to be relevant?
In relation to providing these entries to him, we explained to Freeths that
extracting the KEL entries is not a simple process and depending on how
many Jason requests it may be difficult to do so in a manner which keeps
the entries metadata intact. I think when you have previously provided us
with KEL entries these have been screenshots. Do you have a method for
extracting the entries in a way which maintains the metadata?”
117. I can see that I made clear to Fujitsu in this email that the index I was
asking for was all KEL entries ‘both current and historic’. I do not remember
having a clear idea as to what (if any) historic entries were available, but I
wanted to make clear to Fujitsu that they should provide an index of all KEL
entries they had.
118. Mr Newsome responded to me by email on 2 January 2018
(WBON0001963) to say that:
Page 47 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
“We gave printouts of the KELs requested by Jason on the day. We would
be happy to supply others if he has the details. However we did not cover
the KELs relating to the pre 2010 period of Horizon operation due to time
and technical issues explained to Jason at the time. We could issue
printouts of these requests as part of a repeat the (sic) face to face
exercise.”
119. Ireplied by email the same day to say:
Whilst I think Jason would like to be provided with some further KEL
entries, I am not sure that he knows which ones he would like to see. To
avoid Freeths requesting the entirety of the KEL, is there a way to generate
an index of the KEL from which Jason can the (sic) the entries he would
like to be provided with?
Also, is there any way to electronically provide KEL entries rather than a
printout?”
120. Mr Newsome then replied later by email on 2 January 2018
(WBON0001963) to say:
“We can send the printouts electronically by printing to pdf or file. I will check
if we can produce an index electronically but it can be misleading.”
121. On 3 January 2018 Fujitsu provided an index of the "Historic KELs" and
on 4 January 2018 Fujitsu provided an index of the "Active KELs". I sent
these indexes to Freeths on 5 January 2018. My understanding was that
Page 48 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
combined these indexes contained — as had been requested — all KEL
entries held by Fujitsu, whether current or historic.
122. Ican see from document FUJ00219841 that on 17 January 2018 I sent
an email to Fujitsu entitled "Re: Legally Privileged: Known Error Log” to
inform them that "Freeths have asked if it is possible to provide Jason
Coyne with all of the KEL entries (current and historic)." Pausing there, I
see that I made it clear to Fujitsu exactly what Freeths were asking to see,
setting out in express terms that they had asked for access to both current
and historic entries in the KEL database. Again I do not recall having a view
at this time about whether there were any historic entries available; I was
just passing on Freeths' request to Fujitsu. I did not think there was any
room for doubt about what Fujitsu should be making available to Mr Coyne,
i.e. the entirety of the KEL database, both present and historic.
123. I then in this email set out my understanding of the technical limitations
of extracting entries from the KEL database. I cannot now recall where that
understanding had come from, but suspect it was very likely from reading
the relevant part of the EDQ or from subsequent communications with
Fujitsu. In any event I was asking Fujitsu to clarify the position for me, and
to let me know if there was any way that Freeths or Mr Coyne could be
provided with a copy of the relevant software and thereby access the KEL
database for themselves. I hope the Inquiry can see from this that I was
trying to do all I could to facilitate access to the KEL database for the SPMs.
It was never part of my intention — indeed it never crossed my mind — to
Page 49 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
restrict the SPMs' access to the KEL database or put barriers in the way of
that access.
124. Pete Newsome then responded to my email on 30 January 2018 (still in
FUJ00219841) to detail the reasons why Fujitsu was resistant to the idea
of third parties being granted access to the proprietary software which was
necessary to read the KEL database, suggesting that Mr Coyne visits
Fujitsu a second time "to view KELs" (which I am sure I understood as being
a reference to the entire KEL database) and "print any that have some
relevance to the case". Mr Newsome also explained that the KELs would
be hard to understand by anyone outside of Fujitsu as they contained
acronyms and shorthand which was specific to that particular database;
and that ‘the KEL system was designed for individual usage via its web
based interface and not for the mass export of information, however there
is a print option within each KEL. A printed version may not necessarily
stand alone. Some of the additional context gained from following the
linkages to associated information is lost once the KEL is printed.”
125. Andy followed up for further clarification, and Mr Newsome replied (all
on 31 January 2018 — still FUJ00219841. This culminated, as I informed Mr
Newsome on 6 February 2018, with WBD relaying to Freeths the
information which Fujitsu had provided “and proposed due to the technical
nature of this that Jason Coyne and Elevate (who are the Claimants’ e-
disclosure provider and manage the extraction of documents from the
Claimants’ IT systems) discuss directly with Fujitsu a practical way to
Page 50 ot 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
access the KEL that works for all parties.” (still FUJ00219841). This
seemed to me to be the most sensible way of dealing with disclosure of the
KEL database, given the information provided to me by Fujitsu. I did not
have any concerns about this at the time.
126. There was then a further CMC in the group litigation on 22 February 2018,
and an order was made that POL provide disclosure of the KEL database,
subject to a suitable means of inspection being agreed. My recollection is
that this was not opposed by POL and was included in the order for
completeness.
127. On 1 March 2018 there was a call between Fujitsu and Mr Coyne, which I
also attended (along with Freeths, and the Claimants’ eDiscovery provider)
to take a note — my note of the meeting in an email to myself entitled “Notes
from call with FJ, Freeths, Elevate, WBD and Jason Coyne” is at
(WBON0001964). One of the matters discussed was access to the KEL
database. My note includes a record of Mr Coyne saying the following:
“viewed via web browser interfaces, hundreds if not thousands or (sic) KEL
records which can viewed (sic). Once click then displayed in browser with
problems comments. List of changes made to the document since first
raised which builds on knowledge build by FJ. Good thing is that because
in browser can press print and rather than paper print can print to PDF and
produce a PDF version of KEL record. When at FJ did searching and
printed approx. 100. Bit of a pain it is to (sic) unsurmountable process and
Page 51 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
would expect this to be done for a couple of thousand. PDF of KEL in couple
of days.”
128. I can therefore see from this note that Mr Coyne was aware of the
129.
130.
possibility of printing the KEL entries to PDF. It was agreed at this meeting
that Fujitsu would provide a print to PDF document containing the KEL
entries. It was however subsequently identified by Fujitsu that they could
provide the KEL entries electronically in HTML format to Freeths and Mr
Coyne, and this was perceived as a better option because the process
could be automated and therefore less prone to error and quicker. All of this
is recorded in WBD’s letter to Freeths of 19 March 2018 headed “Known
Error Log and Unfiltered Transaction and Event Data” (WBON0002016).
Freeths subsequently agreed that the KEL entries should be provided in
this format, and they were so provided by Fujitsu.
I also see from my note of the meeting in an email to myself of 1 March
2018 (WBON0001965) the following:
"JC — when withdrawn only a status indicator, they are archived so would
want archived ones. Not just one KEL, split between legacy and HNG-X,
would want both KELs.
Steve — 4,007 active and another lot on top of this which are archived. FJ
to look into this."
I can therefore see that Mr Coyne raised the issue of archived KEL entries,
made clear to Fujitsu that he wanted any archived entries, and Fujitsu took
Page 52 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
131.
132.
away an action point to look into this. So again I did not have any doubt that
Fujitsu was aware that they were supposed to provide all KEL entries to
POL for onward disclosure to Freeths/Mr Coyne.
An email was sent by Andy to Fujitsu on 5 March 2018 entitled “Re: Legally
Privileged — Access to Information” (WBON0001966) to follow-up on the
action points emerging from the meeting on 1 March 2018 (I see that the
email refers to a meeting on 4 March 2018 which would have been a
Sunday; I believe this to be a typo and that the email was intending to refer
to the call on 1 March 2018). Action point number 4 was “FJ to confirm the
number of historic KEL entries and provide time and costs estimates for
extracting all entries." So again my understanding was that Fujitsu
understood that their task was to identify and extract all KEL entries
(including historic ones). By 23 March 2018 the extracted KELs had been
provided to WBD and were subsequently uploaded to an eDiscovery
platform.
I then checked specifically with Fujitsu in an email exchange with Matthew
Lenton entitled “Re: Dimension Documents” (WBON0001967) that all KEL
entries had been provided to WBD. On 23 March 2018 I emailed Matthew
Lenton to say that a file named “KELComplete” had been uploaded to our
data room. I asked him “Please could you confirm if this contains all historic
and current KEL entries?” He responded the same day to say “Amy, yes,
that is correct’ (WBON0001967).
Page 53 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
133.
134.
I remember that before the KEL database entries were disclosed to
Freeths, there was a review of them for privileged material. To identify
potentially privileged documents, search terms were run across them and
any KELs responsive to the search terms were reviewed for privilege. My
recollection is that there were only a small number of responsive
documents and so I undertook this review myself. No redactions were in
fact made as no privileged material was identified and the KEL database
was disclosed without any redactions.
One further point which arose in respect of the KEL database was the
extraction of the metadata. On processing the KELs into the eDiscovery
platform I became aware from the eDiscovery provider that the metadata
(ie. date of the KEL, name of the KEL, etc) had not been extracted and
provided. As such, during the course of April 2018 I worked with POL (Mark
Underwood), Fujitsu and the eDiscovery provider to seek to resolve this
issue and refer to an email chain 3 April 2018 to 5 April 2018 with Mark
Underwood entitled “Re: Stage 2 Disclosure - KEL/Technical Documents”
(WBON0001968). This was primarily guided by Fujitsu and the eDiscovery
provider as to the options available given the specialist nature of the work.
A solution was found and disclosure and inspection of the KELs was then
provided to Freeths on 9 May 2018.
135. In the course of preparing this witness statement I have seen an internal
email exchange between Fujitsu personnel from October 2018. I see that
on 31 October 2018 Matthew Lenton emailed others at Fujitsu in an email
Page 54 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
entitled “FW: KEL request” (WBON0001969), under the email header ‘KEL
request’ to say:
“On that subject, I was about to pass on the request from WBD that we
supply them with all possible retrievable KELs that we havent previously
supplied.
Is it possible to provide clarity to them by retrieving all those that can be,
and then a categorical statement that all others really are deleted beyond
retrieval?”
136. This exchange was prompted by an enquiry from Lucy Bremner, an
associate at WBD working on the Horizon Issues Trial, which I was not
aware of at the time. As part of the Horizon Issues trial preparation, the
WBD team were producing summaries and document packs for Counsel
for a number of the Horizon bugs. As part of this work, on 11 September
2018 a request was made to Fujitsu to confirm whether KELs existed for
the Calendar Square bug. I refer to an email chain between 12 September
2018 and 11 October 2018 between Fujitsu and WBD entitled Re:
Calendar Square, Falkirk” (WBON0001970). The response from Fujitsu on
28 September 2018 to WBD confirmed that "The two related KELs were
deleted...so would not be included in the set of KELs which you have."
Copies of these KELs were provided to WBD, and subsequently to POL's
expert witness (Mr Worden). Mr Worden raised a number of queries about
Page 55 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
the deleted KELs, which were passed onto Fujitsu by WBD on 11 October
2018. This resulted in Matthew Lenton confirming that:
"4. Are all deleted KELs available in a searchable archive? I assume that
text could, in principle, be retrieved from other KELs.
[Matthew Lenton] They are not text searchable in their current location, but
all deleted KELs can potentially be retrieved, although this would require
additional time and effort to do, after which those retrieved would then be
searchable. It is believed that all deleted KELs are still in the archive table."
(WBON0001970)
137. This led to a request to Fujitsu on 29 October 2018 for all of the deleted
KELs to be provided to WBD, and Fujitsu provided a zip folder named
"KELDeleted" to WBD on 5 November 2018. I refer to the email chain
between 24 October and 29 October 2018 between Lucy Bremner and
various at Fujitsu entitled “Re: Deleted KELs” (WBON0001971).
138. As further explained below, my understanding is that as at late October
2018 WBD were not aware of there being any other categories of KELs in
addition to the deleted KELS that had been omitted from the documents
provided by Fujitsu. As such, it makes sense that the request to Fujitsu was
for all of the deleted KELs to be provided. However, from Matthew Lenton's
email of 31 October 2018 it appears he was aware — and made clear to
others at Fujitsu - that what WBD were asking for was all possible
retrievable KELs which had not previously been supplied. This accords with
Page 56 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
my understanding of what WBD had always required of Fujitsu in respect
of the KEL database.
139. There was then a query on 10 December 2018 from Freeths, who said that
140.
141.
they had identified 936 KELs disclosed on 9 May 2018 that were not
included in the indexes of the KELs provided to them on 5 January 2018,
which they thought was exhaustive. They asked POL to confirm the status
of those 936 KELs and why they were not included in the 5 January 2018
index.
I took up this query with Matthew Lenton by email on 12 December 2018
entitled “KEL Index” (WBON0001972):
"Back in January of this year you provided us with two indexes of the KEL,
an historic and active index (both attached). We have noticed that there
are a number of KEL entries which were in the KEL extraction, but not
contained within either of these indexes — a list of these KEL entries is also
attached.
From a brief review, the KEL entries which are not in either of these indexes
have a wide date range between 1999 and 2018 so I don't think the entries
were generated after the indexes were produced. Please could you have a
look into whether there is a reason that the extract contained more KEL
entries then were listed in the indexes?
He provided a short email response on the same day, which I found very
hard to understand and referred to a second extract of the KELs being
Page 57 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
provided on 5 November 2018 (WBON0001973). I raised a query within the
WBD team working on the Horizon Trial as to whether WBD had been
provided with an extract of KELs on 5 November 2018 and if so, whether
these had been disclosed. I recall that my concern was that WBD may have
available to it KELs which had not been disclosed to Freeths. It was
confirmed by Lucy Bremner that further KELs had been provided by Fujitsu
to WBD in a folder named "KELDeleted" and these had not been disclosed.
142. My memory of this incident has been refreshed by reading the documents,
and I can now recall that I was surprised and annoyed that this had
occurred. It was a function of there being a large team at WBD working on
different aspects of the group litigation, and the team which was involved in
drafting witness statements (which did not include me) having received
documents during that process which had not then been passed on to the
team dealing with disclosure (which did include me) to be checked for
disclosure purposes. I wanted to ensure that this did not ever happen again,
and so a process was put in place whereby any documents received from
POL or Fujitsu would be sent to the disclosure team following which they
were checked to confirm had been disclosed, and if not disclosed then they
were inserted into a disclosure tracker to ensure that they did not get
missed.
143. In order to try to understand the position better in respect of the KEL
database, I believe I read the witness statement of Mr Stephen Parker
Page 58 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
dated 16 November 2018 (WBON0001974), and in particular paragraph 61
of that document.
144. I followed up with an email to Mr Lenton on 19 December 2018 entitled “Re:
KEL Index” (WBONO0001975) to check that I was understanding his
response properly. I then had an email exchange with my colleague Lucy
Bremner who asked me (on 20 December 2018) for any comments I had
on the question of whether the deleted but retrievable KELs needed to be
disclosed. I replied on the same date by email entitled “Re KELs”
(WBONO0001976) to say that “My thought is that we need to disclose the
deleted KELs — the Cs case is that they are adverse documents so I dont
think we have an option.”
145. I sent a chaser to Mr Lenton on 4 January 2019 in an email entitled “Re:
KEL Index" (WBON0001977). After a further chaser Mr Lenton then
confirmed on 11 January 2019 that my understanding was correct, and a
letter was sent to Freeths on 17 January 2019 headed “Horizon Issues
Trial: Disclosure and Trial Bundle” (WBON0002009) answering their query
about the KEL indices, and explaining:
Deleted KELs
"10.1 The extraction of KELs which was provided by Fujitsu in March
2018 did not contain the deleted KELs and Fujitsu did not make us
aware at that time that some KELs had been deleted.
Page 59 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
146.
147.
148.
10.2 Fujitsu have now provided us with copies of the deleted KELs and
disclosure /inspection of these documents is now being provided. The
documents are contained within the enclosed KEL Disclosure List.
None of the deleted KELs have been redacted or withheld from
inspection on the basis of privilege."
It was clearly far from ideal that there was a category of KEL which had not
previously been disclosed, but my understanding was that this had now
been remedied. It did not occur to me that there was or could be another
category of KEL which had not been disclosed by Fujitsu. Disclosure of the
deleted KELs (along with KELs generated since the first export in March
2018) were provided to Freeths on 17 January 2019.
Mr Coyne served a supplemental expert report on behalf of the SPMs on 1
February 2019, which referred to a number of PEAKs and KELs that had
not been disclosed. This was obviously a concern and we had to try to get
to the bottom of this as quickly as we could. My colleague Lucy Bremner
sent an email to Mr Lenton on 6 February 2019 entitled ‘Re: Peaks/Kels
which have not been disclosed but referred to by Coyne” (WBON0002010)
asking for an explanation. He responded the same day, concluding by
saying that “The KELs listed below are all deleted rather than deprecated
or archived, and are therefore not retrievable.”
I then followed up with further questions on 13 February 2019, and Mr
Lenton answered them on the same day, copying in two of his colleagues
Page 60 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
at Fujitsu, as well as Andy, Lucy Bremner and Jonathan Gribben of WBD.
The email chain between 6 February and 19 February 2019 entitled Re:
Peaks/Kels which have not been disclosed but referred to by Coyne”
(WBONO0001430). I reproduce the email in full below because it is crucial
to understanding whether I or WBD should have been put on notice at this
time that Fujitsu had around 5,000 further KEL entries which they had not
disclosed to Freeths:
"Apologies, if you have explained these points before but please could
I clarify a couple of queries on the Known Error Log:
1. PinICL system — it is correct that the PinICL entries are stored on an
access database which is accessible?
[Matthew Lenton] There are two Access databases that contain some
details of archived PinICLs, but they were created some years ago by
someone who has been retired for several years, and our
understanding is that they appear to be incomplete both in terms of a)
not containing all of the original information that was stored against
those PinlCL details that they do contain, and b) not containing
between them all of the PinICLs that existed. We are not sure of the
criteria that was used for selecting the PinICLs to be archived. We
have provided details of some PinICLs, but for the reasons given
above, we don’t believe that it is necessarily reliable.
Page 61 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: 50BGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E13AD3CD
2. Deleted KELs - are not retrievable? Or were provided to us on 5
November 2018 (see attached email chain — email on 12 Dec @
16:30)?
[Matthew Lenton] There are two categories of Deleted:
a) Deleted KELs that are no longer retrievable due to being completely
deleted, before SSC started saving them into a “Deleted table”. These
cannot be provided, and if a KEL is referred to by us as not being
retrievable, and, I believe, all KELs that are referred to in Coyne’s
report as not having been disclosed, then they fall into this category.
b) Deleted KELs that are retrievable due to being deleted into a
“Deleted table”. These would no longer be included in any SSC
searches, even by changing the default search criteria as described in
3 below. We believe that the functionality to save a deleted KEL was
introduced in July 2008; however, the dates of KELs within the deleted
table are based on when the KEL was created, rather than when it was
deleted, so it is not completely clear when the change occurred (and
noting that there could be retrievable KELs in that table which we have
provided that are older than KELs that are not retrievable, due to when
they were deleted). This is the set we provided in November.
3. Deactivated KELs — these were provided to us in the extract in
March 2018, or on 5 November 2018?
[Matthew Lenton] These are KELs that have not been deleted into the
“Deleted table” but are excluded from SSC’s default searches, which
Page 62 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
focus on Live KELs, but can be included easily by changing search
criteria. These were provided in the original set in March.
4. Deprecated KEL - these were provided to us in the extract in March
2018, or on 5 November 2018?
[Matthew Lenton] When a KEL is updated, the old version of that same
KEL is deprecated, so these are superseded versions of live or
deactivated KELs. We have only provided the most recent versions, so
we have not separately provided these superseded versions. Note that
there are no deprecated versions of KELs in the category 2a) —i.e. ifa
KEL was deleted prior to the introduction of the Deleted table function
then all versions were deleted."
5. Live KELs — these were provided to us in March 18 and December
18.
[Matthew Lenton] These were provided in March, with those in
category 3 above.
6. Other KELs — are there are other types of KELs which do not fall
within the above catergories?
[Matthew Lenton] No, the above categories 2 to 5 cover all KELs."
149. My focus at this time was on understanding the documents referred to in
Jason Coyne's report which had not been disclosed and the two different
types of "Deleted KELs".
Page 63 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
150. From reviewing my emails from this time, I am aware that the existence of
the deleted irretrievable KELs was a new category of KELs which had not
previously been brought to the Claimants’ attention and there was a
question as to whether this made the information within Stephen Parker's
first witness statement materially incomplete. On 18 February 2019, I sent
an email entitled ‘Re: Letter to Freeths - KEL and PEAKs” to Simon
Henderson (Counsel for the Horizon Issues Trial) (WBONO0001978) with a
copy of the draft letter to Freeths for his review concerning the Peaks and
KELs referred to in Mr Coyne's second report which had not been
disclosed. This email brought to Simon's attention that there were two
categories of deleted KELs. Simon raised a concern that we would be
informing Freeths that a further category of KELs existed (the deleted,
irretrievable) and queried whether this was consistent with Stephen Parker
first witness statement (which dealt with the deleted KELs). Simon's view
set out in an email dated 18 February 2019 entitled "Re: Letter to Freeths
— KEL and PEAKs” (WBONO0001979) was that we should be clear with
Freeths that the irretrievable KELs were in addition to the deleted KELS
referred to in Mr Parker's statement and address this matter in Mr Parker's
third witness statement ("Parker 3"). I am now aware that this matter was
not in fact addressed in Parker 3, although I do not know the reason for this
as I was not involved in the production of the witness evidence for the
Horizon Issues trial.
Page 64 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
151.
152.
I followed up to Matthew Lenton by email on 18 February 2019 entitled “Re:
Peaks/Kels which have not been disclosed but referred to by Coyne”
(WBONO0002011) to ask: “Do you know how many KELs would fall within
the category “deleted but no longer retrievable”? Matthew then responded
to say that ‘There is no list of those KELs that were deleted beyond
retrieval, i.e. those in category 2.a) in the email below, therefore the
existence of such a KEL can only be surmised by it being referenced
elsewhere (that is, on the assumption that any such reference has been
typed correctly.)”
A letter was sent to Freeths on 18 February 2019 headed “Disclosure —
Peaks and KELs” (WBON0001429) which explained that "/n our letter of 17
January 2019, we provided disclosure of the "Deleted KELs" referred to in
Mr Parker's statement. The above KELs are thoughts to be KELs that have
been irretrievably deleted, a long time ago, from the Known Error Log."
153. I did not, at the time I received these emails from Mr Lenton in February
2019, understand him to be saying to me that there were any — let alone
anything amounting to a significant volume — of KEL entries which had not
been disclosed by Fujitsu. These emails were in the context, as Mr Lenton
was aware, of an assertion by Mr Coyne that certain KELs had not been
disclosed to him, and (as I have set out in detail above) it had been made
clear to Fujitsu on multiple occasions that they had to disclose every KEL
entry they were in possession of.
Page 65 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
154. At this stage, we were trying to understand the variety of terms or
14,
“language” which Fujitsu used to describe the KELs and why there were
Peaks and KELS referred to in Mr Coyne's report that it appeared had not
been disclosed, as well as the existence of a second type of deleted KEL.
The answer to that was — as Mr Lenton confirmed to me - that the KELs Mr
Coyne referenced had all been deleted and could not be retrieved. As such,
there did not appear to be a gap in the disclosure of the KELs. It did not
occur to me that it was possible, in this context, that Fujitsu had any KELs
that they had not disclosed. As I set out below, it came as a huge shock to
me when we discovered that this was the case.
Please consider POL00285493 (your email to Rodric Williams,
Catherine Emanuel and Alex Lerner on 1 October 2019) and
FUJ00215645 (Matthew Lenton’s email to Steve Parker and John
Simpkins on 15 October 2019).
14.1 Please provide your recollection of these discussions
155.1 do remember in general terms the events referred to in document
POL00285493 (POL00285493), because they were a real shock to me, and
to everyone else at WBD who was working on the group litigation, but given
the complexities of the KEL disclosure and the time that has passed, I do
not recall all of the specific details. In responding to this request, therefore,
I have looked at the documents referred to by the Inquiry and other
Page 66 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
documents that exist from this period to which I refer below to refresh my
memory.
156. In late September 2019, we had been corresponding with Freeths about
POL's ongoing disclosure obligations and the disclosure of KELs and
PEAKs which had recently been produced by Fujitsu (see Letter to Freeths
dated 25.09.19, “Horizon Issues Trial — Disclosure” (WBONO0001654),
Letter to Freeths dated 27.09.19, “Horizon Issues Trial — Disclosure”
(WBON0001655) and Letter from Freeths dated 27.09.2019, “Horizon
Issues Trial — Disclosure” (WBONO0001980). I should make it clear that
these were documents which had been created after the original disclosure
dates, so did not give rise to concern on WBDS part that historic KEL
entries had not been disclosed.
157. I refer to the bottom of page 4 of the letter dated 27 September 2019
(WBON0001655) in the section entitled "Previously disclosed KELs" from
Freeths where they stated:
“The KELs do not disclose, on their face, what has been added when,
merely when they were last updated. For example, GelderR1012Q was
created on 28 January 2016 and [check] was disclosed in January 2019;
it was last updated by Steve Parker on 19 September 2019. However,
the intervening dates of any changes to this KEL are not captured, nor are
any changes which have been made (or made and then subsequently
revised) readily identifiable on the face of the document."
Page 67 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
158. In responding to this section of Freeths' letter, I thought it was helpful to
159.
refer back to the information in POL's EDQ, as this was information that
had been given to Freeths back in December 2017, so I pointed out to Lucy
what had been said in the EDQ about previous versions of the KELs in an
email dated 30 September 2019 entitled “KEL preservation”
(WBONO0001980). A draft letter to Freeths was produced by Lucy Bremner
dated 30 September 2019 (WBON0001981) which was sent to Andy and
me for review. In my comments on the draft letter I suggested to Lucy that
we should confirm the accuracy of the statement in the EDQ concerning
the KELs with Fujitsu. As I have given a flavour of above in the previous
section of this statement, and as I recollect on a general level, there was a
concern that we had found it less than easy to get answers from Fujitsu
which were easy to follow and completely accurate. As such, I thought it
was prudent to double-check with Fujitsu the information that had
previously been provided to us.
I refer the Inquiry to the draft letter circulated to POL and Herbert Smith
Freehills (WBON0001982) which stated:
“2. Previously disclosed KELs
In respect of your point that any intervening dates of changes to KELs are
not captured, nor any changes which have been made (or made and then
subsequently revised) on the face of the documents, you have already been
made aware of this position in our client's Electronic Documents
Page 68 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
160.
161.
Questionnaire dated 6 December 2017 {C9/1/46}. In it, Post Office
explained that "[tjhe KEL only contains the current database entries and is
constantly updated and so the current version will not necessarily reflect
the version that was in place at the relevant time. The previous entries /
versions of the current entries are no longer available". Had you wanted to
take issue with this, you should have done so before now"
On 30 September 2019 Lucy Bremner contacted Fujitsu in an email to
Matthew Lenton entitled “KELs — query” (WBON0000325) to confirm that
the above statement was correct and I refer the Inquiry to. Matthew Lenton
responded by email on 1 October 2019 (WBON0002012) as follows:
“The second sentence is not correct: “The previous entries / versions of
the current entries are no longer available". You may recall that there are
three status categories of KEL: current, deprecated and deleted. For
those that are current or deprecated, they have been updated in such a
way that previous content is not permanently overwritten, but instead a
new version is created, with the previous versions being retained and
accessible. For those that have been deleted, only the last version at the
point of deletion has been retained."
On 1 October 2019 I spoke to Matthew Lenton by telephone. I do not now
recall this call or who else joined me on it. I think it may just have been me
on the call but I have reviewed the notes of the meeting which is in an email
to Andy and others at WBD entitled “FW: KELs — query” (WBON0000137)
Page 69 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
which record that prior versions of the KELs were available and could be
extracted. This was a real shock to me. It differed from the information
contained in POL's EDQ which had, as I have indicated already, been
produced on the basis of Fujitsu’s instructions and which the WBD team
had asked them to check. This also differed from my own understanding of
the position. I thought — for reasons which I have explained above — that
Fujitsu was well aware of the importance of disclosing all KEL entries which
they held. I had no idea that they had a category of KEL which they had
failed to disclose. I am aware from conversations at that time with my
colleagues at WBD that no one had appreciated that there was a category
of KEL which Fujitsu had not disclosed.
162. WBD sought advice from Counsel, Simon Henderson by email on 1
October 2019 entitled “Re: Horizon Issues Trial — KEL disclosure”
(WBON0001983), on how to deal with this matter. Despite the fact that this
was Clearly a significant issue, I do not now recall the details of this call but
from the documents it looks as though I spoke to Simon Henderson by
telephone as I then sent an email to myself on 1 October 2019 which is how
I tended to record call notes (WBON0001984) and I then prepared a formal
note of the call which can be seen in an email to Andy and others at WBD
entitled "Note of call with Simon Henderson” (WBONO0001985).
163. Following my call with Simon Henderson, I sent an email to Andy on 1
October 2019 entitled “Re: KEL progress” (WBON0001986) updating him
on the steps that I was taking.
Page 70 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
164. This resulted in my draft email to Andy on 1 October 2019 at 17:27 entitled
Re: Horizon disclosure” (WBON0001987) and the revised letter to Freeths
(WBON0001988) which includes tracked changes which show the
amendments to the original draft of the letter, which was approved by Andy
in an email of the same date (WBON0001989) and then sent to Herbert
Smith Freehills and POL by email on 1 October 2019 entitled “Re: Horizon
disclosure” (WBONO0001990). The approach that I had agreed with Andy
and the proposed email was approved by Herbert Smith Freehills in an
email of the same day (WBON0001991).
165. A call was arranged between Herbert Smith Freehills, the WBD team and
Counsel on 2 October 2019 and I refer to the documents at (see draft email
to Tony Robinson QC in the email chain of 1 and 2 October 2019 entitled
‘Re: Draft email to TRQC - KEL Disclosure” (WBON0001992) and the
email as sent at (WBON0001993) and the call notes entitled: “Notes from
Horizon Issues Disclosure — KEL — Conference call — 2019.10.02”
(WBON0001994). The note of the meeting with Counsel was produced by
Hannah Chalk who was a solicitor apprentice in the WBD team at the time.
I do not have any independent recollection of this meeting.
166. Following the call, a revised version of the letter to Freeths was circulated
to Counsel, Herbert Smith Freehills and POL by email on 2 October 2019
entitled , “Draft letter to Freeths — KEL Disclosure” (WBON0001995), and
there were then further revisions made by Tony Robinson KC in an email
on 3 October 2019 (WBONO0001996).
Page 71 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
167. This resulted in the letter to Freeths of the 3 October 2019 headed “Horizon
Issues Trial Disclosure” (WBON0002017) informing them of this matter.
We were keen to get the message across in this letter that this development
was as much of a surprise to WBD and POL as it was to Freeths, because
that was the truth of the position and in the WBD team we were shocked
that this position had occurred.
Document FUJ00215645
168. Before the Inquiry made their request of me, I had not seen the internal
emails between Fujitsu but I have now reviewed them for the purposes of
responding and providing this statement.
169. On 11 October 2019, we received a letter from Freeths headed "Horizon
170.
171.
Issues Trial: Undisclosed KELs” (WBON0001997) in which they responded
to WBD's letter dated 3 October 2019 to which I have referred above. I sent
this letter to Fujitsu on 15 October together with a list of questions which
were aimed at enabling WBD to draft a response to Freeths. Before sending
this email, however, I showed it to the internal team at WBD which included
Andy in an email chain between 14 and 15 October 2019 entitled “Re: Draft
Email to Freeths — KEL69Disclosure” (WBON0001998).
Matthew Lenton provided responses to those queries by email on 15
October 2019 at 17:07 entitled “Re: KEL Disclosure” (WBON0001999).
Document FUJ00215645 appears to me to be the internal Fujitsu
discussions which took place in response to the questions that I had raised.
Page 72 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
In summary, therefore, and in response to the Inquiry's question, as this
was an internal Fujitsu discussion I have no recollection of these
discussions myself as I was not involved in them.
14.2. To what extent do you agree with Mr Lenton's statement that
“it has been known to all parties for a long time that the
deprecated/superseded versions of non-deleted KELs area
(sic) available, but we were never asked for them until
recently”?
172. In reading document FUJ00215645, I see that the text reproduced in
question 14.2 is preceded by the words “/ think we might argue that the
original statement was wrong and based on a misunderstanding, and
that...” It therefore seems to me that what follows is an argument by Mr
Lenton, rather than a straightforward assertion of fact. This interpretation is
supported in my mind by what then appears later in the same email and
further down the chain, which looks to me like Mr Lenton trying to put
together an argument that Fujitsu had been transparent about the fact that
there was a category of KEL that had not been disclosed.
173. It should be apparent from all that I have said above that I do not agree with
Mr Lenton's argument. I believe — on the basis of the documents I have
referenced earlier in this statement - that it was always made clear to Fujitsu
that they were being asked to provide to POL every entry they had from the
KEL database, and it seems to me to be clear that Matthew Lenton had
Page 73 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
understood that himself as at 31 October 2018. I do not believe that Fujitsu
ever made it clear to WBD before 1 October 2019 that they had not done
so.
11. Please describe your/your firm’s relationship with Fujitsu, and in
particular whether you found Fujitsu to be transparent and willing
to provide the information POL/WBD needed for the purpose of the
group litigation. Please provide reasons for your answer.
174. As I have set out in detail above, there was one area in which I do not
believe Fujitsu was transparent in respect of the information it was
providing, namely in respect of the KEL database and its failure to tell WBD
that there was a category of KEL entry which it had not disclosed.
175. I am not able to say if this lack of transparency was deliberate. I can,
however, say that at the time I was involved with this case I did not form the
view that anyone who I dealt with at Fujitsu was ever deliberately difficult,
obtuse or obstructive.
176. It was my understanding that POL held very little information or
documents about the technical elements of the Horizon system. It was also
my understanding that POL did not have any internal knowledge or people
who, so far as I was aware, fully understood all of the technical workings of
the Horizon system. As a result, POL and consequently WBD, was reliant
on Fujitsu to provide the technical detail, factual information and documents
in relation to the Horizon system.
Page 74 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
177. This understanding came as a result of sharing an office "pod" with Andy
and discussing the Horizon system and Fujitsu throughout the group
litigation with him. This understanding also came from my work on
disclosure for the group litigation during which WBD faced difficulties in
locating documents concerning the technical elements of Horizon from
within POL.
178. Prior to October 2019 and the issues with the KELs I deal with above, I
did not believe I had any reason not to rely on the information provided by
Fujitsu. Fujitsu were a well-known, respected IT company who were
specialists in Horizon (having developed and built the system). Further my
recollection is that Matthew Lenton was introduced to WBD as a dedicated
archivist / document management personnel within Fujitsu who would be
well placed to provide WBD with information concerning documents about
the Horizon system. It was not until the issue arose in respect of disclosure
of previous versions of the KELs, to which I have referred earlier in this
statement, that it became apparent to me that there was a problem with the
information which Fujitsu had provided.
179. I suspect that one reason for the problem which emerged was that
Matthew Lenton did not have sufficient knowledge of the working practices
around Horizon (such as the practices which lead to the creation, revision
and replacement of KELs) to answer all of the questions put to him. This is
my interpretation of why he did not ensure that proper disclosure of all of
the entries on the KEL database was provided. This is only my
Page 75 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
13.
180.
181.
interpretation though and I cannot of course be sure about the reasons for
Fujitsu’s failings in respect of this aspect of disclosure. Fujitsu did not, as
far as I am aware, ever suggest that Matthew Lenton lacked adequate
knowledge to assist with disclosure, and did not suggest to me (again so
far as I recall) that queries in respect of the KEL database should be put to
someone else within their organisation.
Please consider FUJ00158227 (your email to Chris Jay, Steve
Parker, Torstein Godeseth and Pete Newsome).
13.1. Why did you advise Fujitsu staff not to “mention Deloitte or
the work they have undertaken”?
Again, I have no actual recollection of sending this email in March 2018. I
do, however, remember that Deloitte had been appointed to undertake work
on a privileged basis in connection with the group litigation. I am not sure
that I gave detailed consideration at the time to the exact scope of this
privilege, but given the circumstances would have been aware that litigation
privilege may be applicable and had a potentially wide application — I was
very junior and as explained below was asked by Andy to raise this with
Fujitsu.
My understanding is that Deloitte were instructed to advise as a non-CPR
expert, so that POL and WBD could obtain advice on certain technical
matters. Given that this retainer was on a legally privileged basis and any
advice provided by Deloitte was legally privileged, I understood that it was
Page 76 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
important that such privilege was not lost inadvertently by someone
mentioning this advice in an open forum when discussing matters with
those representing the SPMs.
182. The direct context of my email is that there was a telephone call scheduled
for 1 March 2018 between WBD, the Claimant's expert (Jason Coyne),
Freeths, the Claimants eDiscovery provider (Elevate) and Fujitsu to discuss
the logistics of Mr Coyne accessing the Horizon system for the purposes of
his work in the group litigation. Prior to the call I sent two draft emails to
Andy. The first contained an agenda for the call and the second contained
the scope of the call. I was asked by Andy in an email on 1 March 2018
timed at 09:54 entitled “Re: Draft Emails — Call with FJ” (WBON0002000)
to remind Fujitsu in my second draft email that on this call they should not
mention any work carried out by Deloitte. I am sure that my understanding
of the purpose of this instruction was to ensure that legal privilege in
Deloitte’s work was not inadvertently waived by Fujitsu as those attending
the call for Fujitsu were, as I understood it, technical IT people and not
lawyers and might well therefore not understand that Deloitte’s work was
legally privileged and the wider implications of referring to it
183. In short therefore I sent the email in question to Fujitsu because I was
instructed by my supervising partner Andy to do so. The purpose of the
email was to ensure there was no inadvertent waiver of privilege by Fujitsu
in respect of the work of Deloitte in the forthcoming call with Mr Coyne and
Freeths.
Page 77 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
13.2 What work were you referring to?
184. I do not believe that I had any particular work or workstream by Deloitte in
mind when I sent this email. Andy had not identified any particular work by
Deloitte when instructing me to send the email to Fujitsu. I believe I had
only a very general understanding at the material time that Deloitte had
undertaken a number of pieces of work for POL on a legally privileged
basis.
185. I had very limited interactions with Deloitte and can remember nothing
186.
specific about the work which they undertook. My limited recollection is that
Deloitte were involved in undertaking work relating to the operation of
POL's suspense account, remote access to Horizon and the robustness of
Horizon. I was not at all close to the details of any of that work. I believe
that the instruction of Deloitte was managed by Jonny Gribben of WBD. I
do not recall whether I was referring to any specific work in the email in
question but believe it likely that I was not, and that rather I was just
intending a generic reference to the work carried out by Deloitte on topics
covered by the group litigation (as all such work was, as I understood it, on
a legally privileged basis).
13.3. On reflection, do you consider that to have been appropriate
advice?
I was instructed to provide the advice in the email of 1 March 2018 by Andy
(WBON0002000).
Page 78 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
187.1 did not doubt at the time that this was appropriate advice, as my
understanding was that the work which Deloitte were undertaking which
related to the topics covered by the group litigation was covered by legal
professional privilege, which POL was entitled to protect and which it was
appropriate for WBD, as POL's legal advisors, to advise them to protect.
188. I am not close now to the details of the work Deloitte were carrying out, but
as far as I am aware, and having reflected on the position, I am not aware
of any reason why it would have been inappropriate to ensure the protection
of the legal privilege attaching to Deloitte's work.
189. On reflection therefore, I consider the advice given to have been
appropriate in circumstances where the work which Deloitte was instructed
by POL to undertake was covered by Legal Professional Privilege and was
not intended to be disclosed
Common Issues trial
15. Please summarise the nature and extent of your involvement in
preparing for the common issues trial, with particular reference to
the following issues:
15.1 The assertion of privilege in redacting documents
190. My recollection is that there were very few documents in respect of which
there were redactions for privilege. I have set out earlier in this statement
the approach to reviewing documents for the purposes of disclosure. I was
Page 79 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
191.
192.
193.
a second stage reviewer but any question in respect of privilege on which I
was not entirely sure or which was not straightforward would be sent to
Andy. I cannot recall anything specific arising in respect of privilege save
for the issues which arose in respect of (1) an Action Summary paper which
was prepared by POL as a result of work carried out by Deloitte, with the
codename of Project Zebra; and (2) the re-review of redactions by Counsel
in March 2019 (which is dealt with in response to the Inquiry's question 19).
As I have mentioned earlier in this statement, it was made clear to me that
Deloitte’s work was privileged. My recollection is that we set-up highlights
in Relativity (the online platform we were using for the disclosure exercise)
for words which would indicate to a reviewer that a document might be
privileged. I believe that “Zebra” and “Deloitte” were words in this category,
and that wherever they appeared in a document they would have been
highlighted so that a reviewer would realise that the document they were
reviewing might be privileged.
I believe that I first came across an issue arising from this on 24 July 2018,
when my colleague Michael Wharton sent me an email entitled “Doc
151077630” (WBONO0002001) to say that he had come across a document
which referred to Project Zebra and Deloitte.
I then had to familiarise myself in general terms with what Project Zebra
was and the document in question. I believe that I would have spoken to
Andy about the document and then I referred the issue on to Counsel,
Page 80 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
sending an email on 25 July 2018 to Tony Robinson KC and Simon
Henderson entitled Stage 3 Disclosure — Project Zebra” (WBONO0001264)
in the following terms:
"Linklaters recommended that Deloitte undertake a review of the
integrity of Horizon — this review is known as Project Zebra and a copy
of Deloitte's report is also attached.
Whilst Deloitte's report itself is covered by privilege and the Cs do not
know of the existence of this report, we have come across an ancillary
document which followed on from the report and discusses how to
implement the findings within the business. This document falls within
one of the Stage 3 Disclosure Classes and we are concerned that we
are not able to assert privilege over this document (or privilege would be
limited to those sections which refer to the Deloitte Report directly). I
have attached the email chain but the document of interest is the Zebra
Action Summary attached to the email.
We would welcome your thoughts on whether privilege can be asserted
over the Zebra Action Summary, if parts of the document can be
redacted for privilege or if the full document needs to be disclosed."
194. I then liaised with Counsel, passing on his queries to Rodric Williams at
POL, getting to the bottom of the factual issues which arose in respect of
how and why the Deloitte report was commissioned and to whom it was
addressed, and passing this information on to Counsel, who then advised
Page 81 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
195.
196.
about how the action summary document should be redacted. I then
applied the redactions to the document in Relativity.
I and WBD accordingly relied entirely on Counsel's advice in respect of
these redactions on the basis of privilege.
In October 2018 (in the lead up to the Common Issues Trial which took
place between 7 November and 6 December 2018) Freeths raised some
concerns about the redactions that had been made to a number of
documents, including the Zebra action summary report. On 23 October
2018 I explained to Counsel by email entitled "Freeths correspondence re
POL redacted documents” (David Cavender KC, Owain Draper and Gideon
Cohen) (WBON0002013) about the redactions that had been made and
told them that Freeths had asked for Mr Cavender KC to review the
redactions. I spoke to Owain Draper and Gideon Cohen on 23 October
2018, and after that call, and discussing it with Andy (who also looked again
at the redactions) I wrote a letter to Freeths later the same day
(WBON0002002):
"As per your requests, Mr Draper and Mr Cohen (junior trial Counsel)
have reviewed the redacted documents and confirmed that the
redactions have been correctly applied on the basis of legal advice and
litigation privilege. The redactions have also been reviewed by the
partner in charge of this litigation, Mr Parsons.
Page 82 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
As you will appreciate it is difficult for us to provide further information
on the redacted data without a waiver of privilege, but we trust that the
assurances of Counsel and the partner in charge of this litigation
address your concerns."
197. This letter was approved by Andy before it was sent, see the email chain
on 23 October 2018 entitled “Re: Post Office Group Litigation: Defendant's
Disclosure — Redacted Documents” (WBON0002003). I relied on Counsel
and Andy in respect of this matter and sent out the letter at their direction.
198. The issue of the redactions to the Zebra action summary then came up
again during the Common Issues Trial. I recall that during the cross
examination of Angela van den Bogerd there was a concern as to whether
a line of questioning in respect of the Zebra action summary went to
privileged matters. As such, there was some discussion in Court about the
extent of privilege, in particular whether the code name "Zebra" could be
privileged. This arose due to the word "Zebra" being unredacted in the
document metadata which then showed in the electronic trial bundle. I sent
a letter to Freeths on 14 November 2018 headed ‘Waiver of Privilege —
POL-0218577” about this inadvertent disclosure of the word “Zebra”, after
first getting Counsel's comments on and approval of the letter
(WBONO0001362).
Page 83 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
199. In summary therefore, I relied on Counsel, and also on Andy, in respect of
what redactions should be made to the Zebra action summary document
by reason of privilege, and in respect of all subsequent correspondence
about them.
15.2 The preparation of witness evidence
200. I had very limited involvement in the production of the witness statements
16.
201.
for the Common Issues trial. My involvement was limited to checking if
documents referred to by witnesses or provided to WBD during the course
of producing witness statements had been disclosed, providing the unique
reference numbers to be included in the witness statement, and arranging
for any undisclosed documents to be disclosed.
Please consider the judgment of Fraser J in Bates & Others v. Post
Office Limited [2018] EWHC 2698 (QB). What were your views on
the criticisms made by Fraser J on POL’s conduct of the litigation?
This is the judgment in which Mr Justice Fraser rejected POL’s application
to strike out various parts of the witness statements of fact served on behalf
of the SPMs in the group litigation (“the strike out judgment”). As I have
explained above, I was not involved in any of the strategic decisions in the
group litigation, and I was particularly far removed from questions involving
witness evidence because that was not a part of the case in which I played
any substantive role.
Page 84 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
202. I was aware that, at the time the relevant strike out application was made,
the perception within the POL team (and by that I mean the view of the
people making strategic decisions on the POL side of the litigation, so the
lawyers and decision makers at POL, Counsel, and Andy at WBD) was that
the SPMs had served evidence which was in many respects inadmissible
and irrelevant to the issues which were to be determined in the Common
Issues Trial. I was aware that this was a problem that had been anticipated
even before the SPMs’ evidence was served, and that there had been
considerations as to how to deal with it, both in respect of what evidence
POL should lead in respect of the Common Issues, and as to whether any
application should be made to remove the evidence which was viewed as
inadmissible and/or irrelevant from the SPMs.
203. My understanding was that the strike out application had been made after
detailed consideration, on the recommendation of Counsel and that POL
and Andy agreed that it was the correct course. I was not, however,
involved in any decision-making on this.
204. My recollection is that the reaction within the POL team to the strike out
judgment was one of surprise and disappointment. My impression was that
a judgment of this kind had not been anticipated. As to the criticisms which
the judge made as to the bringing of the application, and the conduct of the
group litigation generally by POL, the only one of these criticisms I
remember thinking about at the time was the statement by the Judge in
paragraph 6 that “the making of a GLO at all was opposed by the
Page 85 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
205.
17.
206.
defendant’. I knew that this was not accurate as I had attended the first
CMC in the group litigation - which was a memorable occasion for me as it
was in the Royal Courts of Justice and was one of the first court hearings I
had ever attended - and I knew that at that hearing the debate had been
about the scope of the GLO and how the case was to be pleaded, but that
there had never been opposition by POL to a GLO. I remember discussing
this inaccuracy with Andy when the judgment was handed down.
I do not recall considering any other criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser
in the strike out judgment. I did not feel that I was in a position to take a
view on them, as I had no prior experience of any litigation, had not been
involved in the detailed considerations of the witness statements served by
the Claimants, and had not been responsible for either the tone or
substantive content of the correspondence in the group litigation, or for any
decisions taken in the group litigation. I took the view that it was for those
responsible for these matters to consider the Judge’s criticisms and move
the litigation forward with them in mind, although I was conscious that I
would need to keep these in mind for the role which I was undertaking,
namely producing initial drafts of documents relating to disclosure.
Please set out to what extent, if at all, you reflected on Fraser J’s
criticisms. Please provide any reflections you have.
. I do not believe that I am really in a position to reflect on Mr Justice Fraser's
criticisms in the strike out judgment. As I explain above, I was not
Page 86 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
responsible for, nor involved in any meaningful way in any of the matters in
respect of which criticism was made. I do not have sufficient insight into the
thought processes and intentions of those who were involved in making the
decisions and drafting the correspondence which was criticised, although I
am able to say that I never witnessed anyone on the POL team discussing
or explaining a decision in terms that seemed to me to be inappropriate.
207. I of course always try, in any case for which I am responsible for the
substantive content of correspondence and for strategic decisions which
are made, to ensure that my approach is consistent with the Overriding
Objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is to deal with cases justly
and at proportionate cost.
Recusal application
18. Please consider POL00023930 (email from you to Lord Neuberger’s
clerk on 12 March 2019).
18.1 Please describe the background to instructing alternative
counsel to consider the applications for permission to
appeal and recusal.
208. The Common Issues Judgment was handed down formally on 15 March
2019.
209. I remember that my colleagues at WBD, and in particular, Andy, were very
concerned about some of the findings that had been made by the Judge
Page 87 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
following the Common Issues Trial. The feeling, as I understood it, was that
the Judge had made findings on issues which fell outside the 23 common
issues that were to be decided at the hearing. The concerns I heard
expressed was that this had deprived POL of the opportunity to provide
evidence on those issues, and meant that issues that were supposed to be
determined at later trials had effectively already been determined against
POL.
210. Whilst, as I have said, my memory is imperfect in respect of a great deal of
211.
the detail of what transpired in relation to the case given the complex nature
of the issues, the pace at which we were working at the time and the
passage of time, I can remember aspects of the recusal application
because the unusual nature of that matter and, further, because whilst I
usually worked with Andy as my supervising partner, as I have already
mentioned, in respect of the recusal application, I worked with another
Partner, Tom Beezer, who was the senior litigation partner in the team.
We went to Tom as the senior escalation point throughout this period as
Andy was involved in the Horizon Issues Trial. As part of my preparation
when preparing this statement, I have read the witness statement of Andy
and the transcript of his and Tom Beezer's evidence.
212. I can see that Andy refers to having prepared a summary note for POL
which set out what he regarded as the issues raised by the Judgment of Mr
Justice Fraser in the Common Issues Trial.
Page 88 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
213. I do not now recall whether I saw his briefing note to POL at the time nor
do I recall any of the initial strategy conversations with POL on the issue of
the recusal application which had initially, as I understand it, had been
raised by Leading Counsel, David Cavender QC.
214. As aresult of the advice of David Cavender QC, POL were, as I understand
it, being advised to consider whether an application should be made to
remove Mr Justice Fraser as the Managing Judge in the group litigation.
215. As further explained below, this led to the instruction of alternative Counsel
to consider the making of a recusal application.
18.2 Please explain the reason for seeking advice from Lord
Neuberger
216. Given the outcome of the Common Issues trial and the seriousness of
making a recusal application, my understanding is that POL wished to have
independent, very senior advice on whether to appeal and whether to make
arecusal application against Mr Justice Fraser.
217. I believe that I was asked to ensure that the papers for the so-called “Super
Silk” could be collated and I was also asked to make enquiries of the clerks
at One Essex Court as to who might be available and who was sufficiently
senior to advise on the issue of recusal and appeal.
218. I cannot now remember my conversation with the clerks at One Essex
Court, however, I can see that having spoken to them, I sent an email to
Page 89 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
219.
220.
221.
222.
Andy and Tom Beezer at 18:03 on 11 March 2019 entitled ‘Super Silk
Ideas” (WBON0002014) and reported that Lord Neuberger could review the
matter and advise on the merits of an appeal and on recusal, but would not
be able to represent POL in Court at an appeal.
The alternative was Lord Grabiner who, with the assistance of juniors, could
advise and who would be able to represent POL at any appeal.
My email concluded with my suggestion that Lord Neuberger be retained
to advise.
I think that I recall that Lord Neuberger’s appointment was preferred by POL
due to his previous role as a very senior Judge and the insights it was
believed he could bring as a result. I refer to the email chain of 11 and 12
March 2019 to Tom Beezer, Mark Underwood, Jane MacLeod entitled “Re:
Appeal Review” (WBON0002015).
Tom responded by email to say that his inclination was to go for the QC
who would be able to appear for POL at any appeal, which meant
instructing Lord Grabiner (WBON0000653). I then circulated a draft email
which inserted Tom's recommendation in this respect (WBON0002004).
This email was approved by Andy and then sent by email to POL on 11
March 2019 entitled Appeal Reviewfecommending Lord Grabiner
(WBON0000654). The final decision from POL, however, was to appoint
Lord Neuberger.
Page 90 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
223. My involvement in the decision making was therefore to call Leading
Counsel's chambers and check the hourly rates and availability of Leading
Counsel, to draft a recommendation email that Lord Neuberger be
appointed, which was then reviewed by Tom and then Andy who were
supervising me, who changed the recommendation to appointing Lord
Grabiner.
18.3 Please explain the reason for seeking Lord Grabiner’s
availability at this stage.
224. AsI mention above, Lord Neuberger would not have been able to undertake
advocacy on behalf of POL due to being a retired judge, so if POL did
decide to proceed with the recusal application and the appeal they would
need separate counsel to do so. I believe therefore that I must have
considered it sensible to ensure Lord Grabiner was also available so that
POL could appoint him to carry out the advocacy: there would be a need to
move quickly if POL decided to proceed with one or both of the potential
applications.
Preparation for the Horizon Issues trial
19.
Please summarise the nature and extent of your involvement in
preparing for the common issues trial [sic — this is understood to
be intended to be a reference to the Horizon Issues trial], with
particular reference to the following issues:
19.1 the assertion of privilege in redacting documents;
Page 91 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
225. My recollection is that there was a common pool of documents for the group
litigation, with sequential disclosure, so that documents which had been
disclosed for the Common Issues Trial were also disclosed for the purposes
of the Horizon Issues Trial (and indeed subsequent trials, although none in
fact took place).
226. In relation to the assertion of privilege on documents disclosed for the
purposes of the Horizon Issues Trial, my recollection is that there were very
limited redactions applied due to the technical nature of the documents
meaning they were unlikely to be of a nature which would attract privilege.
227. However, I do recall that on 3 March 2019 (in the lead up to the Horizon
Issues Trial) queries were raised by Freeths about the redactions applied
to documents. In light of the questions raised, I conducted an initial review
of each of the documents flagged by the Claimants and produced a draft
response letter to Freeths on 5 March 2019 headed "Redacted Documents”
(WBONO0002005). This letter and the decisions on whether to maintain /
remove redactions was sent to Owain Draper for consideration, and
subsequently reviewed by Jonny Gribben and Andy Parsons. This resulted
in a number of the redactions which had previously been applied to these
documents being removed.
19.2 the preparation of witness evidence
228. I had very limited involvement in the production of the Horizon Issue Trial
witness statements. My involvement was limited to checking if documents
Page 92 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
referred to by witnesses or provided to WBD in the course of producing
witness statements had been disclosed, providing the unique reference
numbers to be included in the witness statement, and arranging for any
undisclosed documents to be disclosed.
Post-GLO
20.
Please summarise what further work you have performed for POL
in relation to the Horizon IT System since Horizon Issues was
handed down (please note that POL has not waived legal
professional privilege in respect of matters after 26 February 2020,
as well as other matters as set out in the information available at
the link footnoted here).
229. After the settlement in December 2019, I continued to deal with the case by
supporting the team at WBD in respect of the implementation of the
settlement and Mr Justice Fraser Judgment. As the waiver by POL only
covers matters up to 26 February 2020, I do not believe that I can provide
any other information about any tasks that I was asked to perform following
the settlement.
General
21.
In hindsight, is there anything that you would have done differently
in respect of the matters raised in your statement?
Page 93 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
230. In following the evidence given to the Inquiry and in making this statement
231.
I have reflected carefully on my conduct and the part that I played in the
group litigation proceedings generally. Inevitably, there are things that I
would deal with differently now. In particular as I have mentioned at some
length above, I would now draft the email dated 5 October 2016 very
differently and ensure that the advice that I was giving to the client was
clear and expressed in well thought through and appropriate language. I
am embarrassed and mortified at the way the 5 October 2016 email reads,
especially because it is open to an interpretation that the advice being given
is to improperly delay disclosure of a relevant document. That was certainly
not my intention in drafting that email, or my understanding of what the
proposed course of action was.
The experience of what happened with Fujitsu and their failure to provide a
category of KELs has made me hyper-sensitive about disclosure issues
going forward, and I now tend, when conducting a disclosure exercise,
towards over-questioning parties who are holding documents, to ensure
that there is absolutely no room for confusion or any gaps in the disclosure
due to any misunderstanding about what needs to be disclosed. I do not
believe, looking back, that I was at fault in respect of what happened with
Fujitsu and the KELs —I have set out above in my statement what
happened. But I have still learned a lot from it, and I believe it has made me
a better solicitor.
Page 94 of 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
22.
232.
233.
Are there any other matters that you would like to bring to the
attention of the Chair?
I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me with this statement to
explain my role in events with which the Inquiry is interested. I have
explained above, when dealing with the email of 5 October 2016, that there
were things I would have done differently if I had my time again and could
bring the experience I have gained since then to bear on the tasks.
I worked so hard on this case and did my best to support my superiors,
who were also working very hard at the time. I worked almost exclusively
on this case between mid 2016 and the end of 2019. I believe that the
Inquiry has already heard from other witnesses that WBD held something
in the region of 20 million documents in the eDiscovery platform by the end
of the disclosure exercise. It is hard to put into words quite how difficult it
was to carry out a disclosure exercise of this scale and complexity. I was
dealing with disclosure to the exclusion of almost every other aspect of the
case and so a significant part of this gargantuan exercise fell to me. I was
working very long hours and trying my best to get everything right. I know
that at all times I was trying to do everything the right way, in accordance
with my duties to my client and to the court. The mistakes I made, which I
have mentioned above, were never intentional. At no stage did I ever
knowingly act in any improper way, or witness anyone else acting in a way
which I believed to be improper. I was a junior solicitor working as hard as
possible to do my job properly.
Page 95 ot 96
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
Docusign Envelope ID: SOBGE83E-C700-4F96-8939-CDA0E 13AD3CD
Statement of truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Page 96 of 96
Leal
Index to First Witness Statement of Amy Louise Prime
No URN Control Number Document Description
1 POL00241140 POL-BSFF- Letter of Claim dated 28.04.16
0079203
2 I WBONO0001952 I WBONO001952 I Email dated 01.05.2016 from
_0001 Andy Parsons to Gavin
Matthews, “LOC Work Plan”
3 I WBONO0001953 I WBONO001953_ I Document — “Letter of Claim:
0001 Work Plan “
4 I WBON0001954 I WBONO001954 I Email dated 09.05.2016 from
_0001 Paul Loraine to Amy Prime,
“FW: Group Action against
Post Office Limited”
5 I WBON0001955 I WBONO001955_ I Email dated 10.05.2016 from
_0001 Paul Loraine to Amy Prime,
“FW: Official Secrets Act”
6 I POLO0408630 I POL-BSFF- Email dated 13.05.2016 from
0233095 Amy Prime to Paul Loraine,
“Re: Official Secrets Act”.
7 WBON0001956 I WBONO001956 I Email chain 10.05.16 to
_0001 23.05.16 Paul Inwood and
Paul Loraine, “Re: Official
Secrets Act.”
8 IPOL00408626 I POL-BSFF- Email dated 23.05.2016 from
0233091 Paul Loraine to Andy Parsons
(cc Amy Prime), “Official
Secrets Act — paras 175-185
LoC”
9 WBON0001957 I WBON0001957 I Email dated 09.06.2016 from
_0001 Paul Loraine to Tony
Robinson, “POL Group Action”
10 I WBON0001958 I WBONO0001958 I Email dated 8.07.2016 from
_0001 Rodric Williams to various
recipients, “Postmaster
Litigation Steering Group —
Confidential and Subject to
Legal Privilege — Do Not
Forward”
11 I WBONO002006 I WBONO002006 I Steering Group Committee
0001 paper "Decision 5"
12 I POLO0110507 POL-0108242 Letter of Response dated
28.07.16 from Bond Dickinson
to Freeths
13 I WBON0002007 I WBONO0002007 I Email dated 04.10.16, Amy
0001 Prime to Andrew Parsons —
prrey
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
OFFICIAL,
“FW: Horizon Dispute —
Investigation guidelines”
14 I WBONO0000467 I WBD_000337.0 I Email chain 05.10.2016
00001 between Amy Prime and Andy
Parsons, “Re: Disclosure of
Security Investigations
Guidelines”
15 I WBON0001959 I WBONO001959 I Email dated 21.09.2017 from
_0001 Amy Prime to Rodric Williams
and Andy Parsons, “KEL”
16 I WBON0002008 I WBON0002008 I Andy Parsons 4" witness
0001 statement, dated 09.10.17
17 I WBONO0001960 I WBONO001960 I Email from Pete Newsome to
_0001 Andrew Parsons and Amy
Prime 30.11.17, “Re: Post
Office Group Litigation -—
Known Error Log —
Confidentiality Agreement —
legally privileged”
18 I WBONO0001961 I WBONO001961 I Email dated 29.11.2017 from
_0001 Amy Prime to Andy Parsons
and Michael Wharton, “FW:
Legally Privileged — Fujitsu
documents”
19 I WBONO0001962 I WBON0001962 I Email chain, Amy Prime and
_0001 Michael Wharton (and others),
28.11.17 to 01.12.17 — “FW:
Legally Privileged — Fujitsu
documents”
20 I WBON0001963 I WBONO001963 I Email chain 28.12.17 to
_0001 02.01.18 between Amy Prime
and various at Fujitsu, “Re:
Privileged - KEL entries”
21 =I FUJ00219841 POINQ0225566 I Email chain 17.01.18 to
F 08.02.18 between Amy Prime
and various at Fujitsu, “Re:
Legally Privileged: Known
Error Log”
22 I WBONO001964 I WBONO001964 I Email 01.03.18 Amy Prime to
_0001 self, “Notes from call with FJ,
Freeths, Elevate, WBD and
Jason Coyne”.
23 I- WBON0002016 I Letter to Freeths dated
WBONO0002016 I _0001 19.03.18, “Known Error Log
and Unfiltered Transaction and
Event Data”
24 I WBONO001965 I WBONO001965 I Email Amy Prime to self dated
0001 01.03.18
25 I WBON0001966 I WBONO001966 I Email chain 05.03.2018
0001 between Andy Parsons and
prrey
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
OFFICIAL,
Fujitsu (cc Amy Prime), “Re:
Legally Privileged — Access to
Information”
26 I WBONO001967 I WBONO001967 I Email 23.03.18 from Matthew
_0001 Lenton to Amy Prime, “Re:
Dimension Documents”
27 I WBONO0001968 I WBONO001968 I Email chain 03.04.18 to
_0001 05.04.18 between Amy Prime
and Mark Underwood, “Re:
Stage 2 Disclosure —
KEL/Technical Documents”
28 I WBONO001969 I WBONO0001969 I Email chain 31.10.18 to
_0001 05.11.18 between Matthew
Lenton and others at Fujitsu,
“FW: KEL request”
29 I WBONO001970 I WBONO001970 I Email chain 12.09.18 to
_0001 11.10.18 between Fujitsu and
WBD, “Re: Calendar Square,
Falkirk”
30 I WBONO0001971 I WBONO001971 I Email chain 24.10.18 to
_0001 29.10.18 between Lucy
Bremner and various at
Fujitsu, “Re: Deleted KELs”
31 I WBONO0001972 I WBONO001972 I Email 12.12.18 from Amy
_0001 Prime to Matthew Lenton, “KEL
Index”
32 I WBONO001973 I WBON0001973 I Email chain 12.12.18 to
_0001 17.12.18 between Matthew
Lenton, Amy Prime and Lucy
Bremner, “Re: KEL Index”
33 I WBON0001974 I WBONO001974 I Witness statement of Mr
0001 Stephen Parker dated 16.11.18
34 I WBONO001975 I WBON0001975 I Email dated 19.12.2018 from
_0001 Amy Prime to Matthew Lenton,
“Re: KEL Index”
35 I WBONO0001976 I WBONO001976 I Email chain 19.12.18 -
_0001 20.12.18 between Amy Prime,
Lucy Bremner and Matthew
Lenton, “Re KELs”
36 I WBON0001977 I WBONO001977 I Email from Amy Prime to
_0001 Matthew Lenton on 04.01.19,
“Re: KEL Index”
37 I WBONO002009 I WBONO002009_ I Letter to Freeths on 17.01.19,
_0001 “Horizon Issues Trial:
Disclosure and Trial Bundle”
38 I WBONO0002010 I WBON0002010 I Email chain 06.02.19 between
_0001 Matthew Lenton and Lucy
Bremner, “Re: Peaks/Kels
which have not been disclosed
but referred to by Coyne”
prrey
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
OFFICIAL,
39 I WBONO0001430 I WBD_001300.0 I Email chain 06.02.19 to
00001 19.02.19 Amy Prime and
Matthew Lenton, “Re: Peaks/
Kels which have not been
disclosed but referred to by
Coyne”
40 I WBON0001978 I WBONO001978 I Email chain 18.02.19 to
_0001 19.02.19 Simon Henderson
and Amy Prime, “Re: Letter to
Freeths — KEL and PEAKs”
41 I WBONO0001979 I WBONO001979 I Email chain, Amy Prime and
_0001 Simon Henderson, 18.02.19,
“Re: Letter to Freeths — KEL
and PEAKs”
42 I WBON0002011 I WBONO002011 I Email dated 18.02.19 Amy
_0001 Prime to Matthew Lenton, “Re:
Peaks/Kels which have not
been disclosed but referred to
by Coyne”
43 I WBON0001429 I WBD_001299.0 I Letter to Freeths dated
00001 18.02.19, “Disclosure — Peaks
and KELs”
44 I POL00285493 I POL-BSFF- Email chain 01.10.19 Rodric
0123556 Williams, Catherine Emanuel,
Amy Prime and Alex Lerner,
“Re: Horizon disclosure”
45 I WBONO001653 I WBD_001523.0 I Letter to Freeths dated
00001 25.09.19, “Horizon Issues Trial
— Disclosure”
46 I WBON0001654 I WBD_001524.0 I Letter to Freeths dated
00001 27.09.19, “Horizon Issues Trial
— Disclosure”
47 I WBONO0001655 I WBD_001525.0 I Letter from Freeths dated
00001 27.09.2019, “Horizon Issues
Trial — Disclosure”
48 I WBONO001980 I WBONO001980 I Email Amy Prime to Lucy
_0001 Bremner 30.09.19, “KEL
preservation”
49 I WBON0001981 I WBONO001981 I Draft letter to Freeths 30.09.19
0001
50 I WBONO0001982 I WBON0001982_ I Draft letter circulated to POL
_0001 and HSF dated 01.10.19,
“Horizon Issues Trial —
Disclosure”
51 I WBONO0000325 I WBD_000195.0 I Email 30.09.19 Lucy Bremner
00001 to Matthew Lenton, “KELs —
query”
52 I WBONO0002012 I WBON0002012 I Email 01.10.19 Matthew
_0001 Lenton to Lucy Bremner, “Re:
KELs — query”
prrey
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
OFFICIAL,
53 I WBONO0000137 I WBD_000007.0 I Email 01.10.19 Amy Prime to
00001 Andrew Parsons, Lucy
Bremner, Jonathan Gribben,
“FW: KELs — query”
54 I WBONO001983 I WBON0001983 I 01.10.19 email chain Simon
_0001 Henderson and Amy Prime,
“Re: Horizon Issues Trial —
KEL disclosure”
55 I WBONO001984 I WBON0001984 I 01.10.19 Amy Prime email to
_0001 self, Re: Horizon Issues Trial —
KEL disclosure”
56 I WBONO001985 I WBON0001985 I 01.10.19 email Amy Prime to
_0001 Andrew Parsons, Lucy
Bremner, Jonathan Gribben,
“Note of call with Simon
Henderson”
57 I WBONO0001986 I WBONO0001986 I Email chain 01.10.19 Andrew
_0001 Parsons and Amy Prime, “Re:
KEL progress”
58 I WBONO0001987 I WBON0001987 I 01.10.19 email Amy Prime to
_0001 Andrew Parsons, "Re: Horizon
disclosure”
59 I WBONO001988 I WBON0001988 I 01.10.19 Revised draft letter to
0001 Freeths (changes tracked)
60 I WBON0001989 I WBONO001989 I Email chain 01.10.19 Andrew
_0001 Parsons and Amy Prime, “Re:
Horizon Disclosure”
61 I WBON0001990 I WBONO001990 I 01.10.19 email Amy Prime to
_0001 Rodric Williams, Catherine
Emmanual and Alex Lerner,
“Re: Horizon disclosure”
62 I WBONO001991 I WBONO0001991 I 01.10.19 email Alex Lerner to
_0001 Amy Prime, “Re: Horizon
disclosure”
63 I WBONO001992 I WBONO001992 I Email chain 01.10.19 to
_0001 02.10.19 Amy Prime, Lucy
Bremner and Andrew Parsons,
“Re: Draft email to TRQC —
KEL Disclosure”
64 I WBON0001993 I WBONO001993 I 02.10.19 Email from Amy
0001 Prime to Tony Robinson QC
65 I WBONO0001994 I WBON0001994 I Document: “Notes from
_0001 Horizon Issues Disclosure —
KEL — Conference call —
2019.10.02”
66 I WBON0001995 I WBONO001995 I 02.10.19 — email Amy Prime to
_0001 Tony Robinson QC and Simon
Henderson, “Draft letter to
Freeths — KEL Disclosure”
prrey
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
OFFICIAL,
67 I WBONO001996 I WBONO001996 I Email chain 03.10.19 Amy
_0001 Prime and Tony Robinson QC,
“Re: Draft letter to Freeths —
KEL Disclosure”
68 I WBONO0002017 I WBONO002017 I Letter to Freeths dated
_0001 03.10.19, “Horizon Issues Trial
Disclosure”
69 I WBONO0001997 I WBONO001997 I Letter from Freeths dated
_0001 11.10.19, “Horizon Issues Trial:
Undisclosed KELs”
70 I WBONO0001998 I WBONO0001998 I Email chain 14.10.19 to
_0001 15.10.19 Amy Prime and
Andrew Parsons, “Re: Draft
Email to Freeths —
KEL69Disclosure”
71 I WBONO001999 I WBONO001999 I Email chain 15.10.19 Matthew
_0001 Lenton and Amy Prime, “Re:
KEL Disclosure”
72 I FUJ00215645 =I POINQ0221367 I Email chain 15.10.19 Steve
F Parker, John Simpkins, Mark
Wright, Matthew Lenton, “Re:
KEL Disclosure: Mark’s
comments on 7 and 8”
73 I FUJ00158227 I POINQ0164403_ I Email 01.03.18 Amy Prime to
F various recipients at Fujitsu,
"FW: 5pm call: Agenda”
74 I WBONO002000 I WBONO002000 I Email chain between Amy
_0001 Prime and Andrew Parsons
01.03.18, “Re: Draft Emails —
Call with FJ”
75 I WBONO002001 I WBON0002001 I Email dated 24.07.18 to Amy
_0001 Prime from Michael Wharton,
“Doc 151077630”
76 I WBONO001264 I WBD_001134.0 I Email 25.07.18 Amy Prime to
00001 Tony Robinson QC and Simon
Henderson, “Stage 3
Disclosure — Project Zebra”
77 I WBONO0002013 I WBON0002013 I Email Amy Prime to David
_0001 Cavender, Owain Draper and
Gideon Cohen 23.10.18,
“Freeths correspondence re
POL redacted documents”
78 I WBONO002002 I WBONO0002002 I Letter to Freeths 23.10.18
0001
79 I WBON0002003 I WBONO002003_ I Email chain Amy Prime and
_0001 Andrew Parsons 23.10.18,
“Re: Post Office Group
Litigation: Defendant's
Disclosure — Redacted
Documents”
prrey
WITN10760100
WITN10760100
OFFICIAL,
80 I WBON0001362 I WBD_001232.0 I Letter to Freeths dated
00001 14.11.18, “Waiver of Privilege —
POL-0218577”.
81 I WBONO0002014 I WBON0002014 I 11.03.19 email Amy Prime to
_0001 Andrew Parsons and Tom
Beezer, “Super Silk Ideas”
82 I WBONO0002015 I WBON0002015 I Email chain 11.03.19 to
_0001 12.03.19 Amy Prime, Tom
Beezer, Mark Underwood,
Jane MacLeod, “Re: Appeal
Review”
83 I WBONO0000653 I WBD_000523.0 I Email chain 11.03.19 Amy
00001 Prime, Tom Beezer, Andrew
Parsons, “Re: Super Silk
Ideas”
84 I WBONO0002004 I WBONO002004_ I 11.03.19 Amy Prime email to
_0001 Tom Beezer and Andrew
Parsons, “Re: Super Silk
Ideas”
85 I WBONO0000654 I WBD_000524.0 I 11.03.19 Amy Prime email to
00001 various at Post Office, “Appeal
Review”
86 I WBONO002005 I WBONO0002005 I Draft letter to Freeths dated
_0001 05.03.19, “Redacted
Documents”
prrey
WITN10760100
WITN10760100