WITN11620100
WITN11620100
Witness Name: Marianne Tutin
Statement No.: WITN11620100
Dated: 28 September 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARIANNE TUTIN
I, Marianne Tutin, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. Iama barrister at Devereux Chambers, Devereux Court, London, WC2R 3JH.
In October 2023, I was instructed to carry out an external investigation by Pinsent
Masons LLP (“Pinsent Masons”) on behalf of Post Office Limited (“POL”) into
allegations of potential wrongdoing, bullying and sexist behaviour by POL and
named individuals.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the
“Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request dated 15 August 2024
(the “Request’). I have been assisted in making this statement by my legal
representative, DAC Beachcroft LLP.
Professional background
3. I was called to the bar in 2013. After completing pupillage, I became a member
of Devereux Chambers in 2015. I was appointed to the Attorney-General’s Panel
of Counsel (C Panel) in 2019 and re-appointed (B Panel) in 2023.
Page 1 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
4. My principal area of practice is employment law. Part of my practice includes
conducting external investigations on behalf of employers into grievances,
whistleblowing claims and disciplinary matters. I have conducted numerous
confidential investigations for various large and multinational employers.
5. Since July 2024, I have been taking a career break and living in Sydney,
Australia. I remain a member of Devereux Chambers and intend to return to
practice in London next year.
Speak Up investigation
6. As indicated above, I was instructed by Pinsent Masons on behalf of POL to
investigate allegations of potential wrongdoing, bullying and sexist behaviour by
POL and named individuals in October 2023. The allegations were made by Jane
Davies, former Chief People Officer (“CPO”), by way of a Speak Up report to Ben
Foat, General Counsel, dated 4 September 2023 (the “Speak Up complaint’).
I will refer to my investigation as the “Speak Up investigation’.
7. Aslam sure the Inquiry is aware, ‘Speak Up’ is POL’s whistleblowing service.
POL has in place a Speak Up policy which explains, amongst other matters, what
constitutes a Speak Up report and how employees can make such a report.
There is no exhaustive list of what amounts to a Speak Up report, but the
definition in the Speak Up policy is largely based on the statutory definition of
qualifying protected disclosures under s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996,
albeit with some expansion.
8. The Commissioning Executive for the Speak Up investigation was Karen
McEwan, Ms Davies’ successor as CPO. The original Commissioning Executive
was Mr Foat; however, he stepped down from this role once I identified a need
to speak to him as a potential witness to events. My point of contact at POL for
assistance with matters such as obtaining internal documents or information was
John Bartlett, Head of Central Investigations Unit, although I generally liaised
with one of his colleagues on a day-to-day basis.
Page 2 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
9. My investigation report and a summary of the report (POL00448641) was
delivered to an Investigation Steering Group (“ISG”), comprised of Amanda
Burton, Non-Executive Director (“NED”) and Chair of the Remuneration
Committee (“RemCo’), and Lorna Gratton, NED and UK Government
Investments Ltd (“UKGI”) representative, on 8 April 2024.
10. I believe my investigation report was considered by the Board of POL, but I am
not aware of whether it was circulated more widely and if so, to whom. That said,
I understand the summary of my report was provided to the House of Commons
Business and Trade Committee (“BTC”), as I explain below. Furthermore, certain
elements of my report were reported in various media outlets.
Terms of Reference
11. My instructions were made pursuant to Terms of Reference dated 6 October
2023, which were updated throughout the course of the Speak Up investigation,
as I explain below. Broadly, the allegations set out in the Terms of Reference
that I investigated were divided into concerns that Ms Davies raised about: (i)
processes not being followed, and the extent to which this was known by Nick
Read, Chief Executive Officer, and/or others, and reported where necessary; and
(ii) the conduct of Mr Read primarily and Henry Staunton, then Chair, to a lesser
extent (the “Allegations”.
12. Not all of the matters raised by Ms Davies within her Speak Up complaint fell
within the remit of the Speak Up investigation. I was instructed in the Terms of
Reference that: (i) certain matters Ms Davies raised were already being
considered via separate POL processes; and (ii) the matters she complained of
in respect of the termination of her employment with POL were not to be
considered as part of my investigation.
13. My role under the Terms of Reference was to investigate and establish the facts
in relation to the Allegations, which included identifying whether there were any
Page 3 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
breaches of POL’s policies and procedures, and making any recommendations.
The Speak Up investigation involved establishing specific facts surrounding the
Allegations, rather than conducting an inquiry into general matters, such as
POL’s workplace or leadership culture. Ultimately, it was a matter for the ISG to
determine what, if any, further action based upon my findings and
recommendations needed to be taken within POL.
Confidentiality
14. I sought to conduct the Speak Up investigation on a confidential basis, as
required by the Terms of Reference. This was a central principle of the
investigation as I wanted to ensure no-one was deterred from participating in the
process and others are not deterred from making any Speak Up reports in the
future. Confidentiality regarding the fact and content of the Speak Up
investigation was a requirement of all participants.
15. However, as I explain below, matters moved into the public eye when Mr
Staunton was removed as Chair by the then Secretary of State for Business and
Trade, the Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (the “Secretary of State”), on around 27
January 2024.
16. For the avoidance of doubt, POL’s legal representatives, Burges Salmon LLP
and Fieldfisher LLP, have agreed that POL will not seek to enforce against me
any obligations of confidentiality, insofar as I provide information that falls within
the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference (WITN11620101).
17. The exception to this position is in respect of any matters which are covered by
privilege, unless POL has already waived privilege by way of its letters to the
Inquiry dated 15 November 2021 and 16 August 2024 (the “waiver of privilege
letters”), with which I have been provided and I refer to below.
Page 4 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
Investigation process
18. Under the Request, I have been asked to set out in detail any concerns I had in
respect of the way in which I was able to carry out the Speak Up investigation,
with particular reference to Board level or Executive involvement in the process.
In order to answer that question, I will set out certain details about the
methodology that I adopted and events that occurred during the Speak Up
investigation.
Commencement of investigation
19. At the outset of the Speak Up investigation, I received Ms Davies’ Speak Up
complaint and POL’s Speak Up policy, along with the Terms of Reference. A list
of suggested participants was set out in the Terms of Reference, which I took
into account, although I considered for myself who should be interviewed.
20. During October 2023, I made requests for documents or information based upon
a preliminary analysis of the Allegations and invited Ms Davies to an interview,
which took some time to arrange for various reasons. I also sent letters of
introduction to Mr Read and Mr Staunton, so that they were aware of the
allegations about which I wished to speak to them. I did this because I was
conscious that it was likely to take some time for me to be in a position to speak
to both of them, as I wanted to undertake initial interviews and review certain key
documents before doing so.
21. Atthis stage, Ms Davies had not raised any concerns in her Speak Up complaint
about Mr Staunton explicitly, but I wished to speak to him about the Allegations
which involved Mr Read and the Board generally.
Witness interviews
22. I set out below details relating to certain witness interviews, insofar as they are
relevant to the question put to me in the Request.
Page 5 of 22
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
linterviewed Ms Davies in person on 10 November 2023. Amongst other matters,
she informed me that an allegation in the Terms of Reference which concerned
a potentially discriminatory comment made by an unnamed Board member was
in fact made by Mr Staunton at a meeting with external recruiters in January 2023
(‘Allegation 2.7”). She provided me with more detail about the allegation than
she had set out in her Speak Up complaint.
After the interview, I advised Pinsent Masons that Allegation 2.7 should be
expanded to reflect what I had been told by Ms Davies at interview. This was
later agreed by POL and a revised Terms of Reference was produced on 5
December 2023 to reflect Ms Davies’ account given at interview (“Expanded
Allegation 2.7”).
I was informed by Pinsent Masons that Expanded Allegation 2.7 would be shared
with Mr Staunton by Ben Tidswell, then Senior Independent Director (“SID”). In
other words, Mr Staunton would become aware that I was now investigating an
allegation about his conduct specifically, in addition to those involving Mr Read
and the Board generally.
Once I had spoken to Ms Davies, I sought to arrange interviews with participants
at POL. On 8 December 2023, I interviewed Mr Tidswell by video. He was aware
of Expanded Allegation 2.7 against Mr Staunton, but it appeared he had not yet
shared it with Mr Staunton. As I explain below, I came to understand that Mr
Tidswell shared Expanded Allegation 2.7 with Mr Staunton later on in December.
On 10 January 2024, I sent formal letters of invitation to Mr Read and Mr
Staunton, setting out again the allegations about which I wished to speak to them
(which included Expanded Allegation 2.7).
Page 6 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
Development of concerns about potential interference
28. I began to develop concerns about potential interference by Mr Staunton with the
Speak Up investigation when I interviewed Mr Foatin person on 16 January 2024
(WITN11620102). In investigating Expanded Allegation 2.7, I had asked certain
witnesses whether they had witnessed Mr Staunton behaving in a potentially
discriminatory manner. When I put that question to Mr Foat, he was hesitant to
answer and enquired whether Mr Staunton would see my investigation report. I
explained that he would not necessarily see the report as it would be delivered
to the ISG. At this point, Mr Foat became distressed so we took a break. In my
judgement, Mr Foat appeared intimidated by Mr Staunton.
29. When we resumed the interview, Mr Foat answered my question about Mr
Staunton’s behaviour, noting that “people have raised the issue of behaviour with
him”. When I asked for further detail, he explained that Ms McEwan, Ms Burton
and Ms Gratton had all raised concerns about his behaviour. Mr Foat explained
that those concerns related to “how investigations ought to be conducted”, “the
appropriateness of following due process’, and “behavioural issues [such as] the
manner in which he communicates his frustrations with certain people’.
30. Mr Foat also said that Mr Staunton’s behaviour could be “very aggressive” and
he had raised concerns about his behaviour formally as General Counsel. He
said he had raised Mr Staunton’s “inappropriate views on technical areas that in
[his] view [was] not consistent with what normally a Chairman should espouse”.
Mr Foat said that he would “never dare communicate in the manner in which [Mr
Staunton] thinks it is appropriate to talk to people.” Mr Foat showed some
discomfort in telling me this, although I felt he was trying to help me. I was left
with the impression that the professional relationship between Mr Staunton and
Mr Foat was, at the very least, strained.
31. I was later informed by Mr Tidswell during our second interview on 31 January
2024 (WITN11620103), which I discuss below, that Mr Staunton had sent a “very
unflattering and unpleasant’ email in part about Mr Foat to Saf Ismail and Elliot
Page 7 of 22
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
Jacobs, Postmaster NEDs, on 14 January 2024 (the so-called “Project
Pineapple” email).
The email apparently recorded a conversation they had earlier that day. Mr
Staunton made strong remarks (or recorded Mr Ismail and/or Mr Jacobs as
having made strong remarks which he endorsed) that called into question Mr
Foat’s leadership and role within POL. The email was forwarded to certain
members of the Board and Mr Tidswell informed me at our second interview that
it was then inadvertently sent to a wider group of people (which included Mr Foat)
by Mr Read.
Mr Foat later told me at our second interview on 7 February 2024
(WITN11620104), which I discuss below, that he did not learn of Mr Staunton’s
remarks in his email to Mr Ismail and Mr Jacobs until 18 January 2024. In other
words, he expressed his concerns about Mr Staunton’s behaviour to me at our
first interview before he was aware of Mr Staunton’s email of 14 January 2024.
I considered whether Mr Staunton’s remarks about Mr Foat’s capabilities may
have been influenced, at least in part, by the fact they appeared to have had
disagreements, including in respect of his view of investigations. However: (i) I
did not know if Mr Staunton was aware of Mr Foat’s concerns about his behaviour
at the stage at which he spoke to Mr Ismail and Mr Jacobs on 14 January 2024;
and (ii) I did not raise this issue with Mr Staunton, for reasons I discuss below.
Following Mr Foat’s interview, I was concerned about the risk of Mr Staunton
seeking to interfere with the Speak Up investigation because of his reported
attitude towards investigations more generally. In particular, I was worried about
whether he might have applied or seek to apply undue pressure to participants
in the investigation process to prevent them or others from speaking to me openly
about Expanded Allegation 2.7 (or indeed any other allegations).
I raised my concerns with Pinsent Masons and the ISG during telephone and/or
video calls shortly after Mr Foat's interview. I cannot recall all the details of those
Page 8 of 22
37.
38.
39.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
conversations but my shorthand handwritten notes, which I took at the time as
an aide-mémoire and my clerk has subsequently sent to me electronically
(WITN11620105), suggest that we discussed the fact that there were no specific
allegations of impropriety to raise with Mr Staunton at that stage, although I recall
we agreed the matter would be kept under review. We also agreed that I would
not enclose notes of the interviews with my investigation report as a means of
encouraging witnesses to feel able to speak openly to me. I later shared that
decision with witnesses that I interviewed.
I interviewed Mr Staunton on 22 January 2024 (WITN11620106). Amongst other
matters, we discussed Expanded Allegation 2.7, which he denied vehemently. I
recall he said in quite a forceful manner that he would sue if I upheld the
allegation against him. He also denied that Ms McEwan, Ms Burton or Ms Gratton
had raised any concerns with him about his language or behaviour more
generally.
Whilst I considered Mr Staunton was, on the whole, candid and open with me at
interview, I did not accept his evidence in respect of Expanded Allegation 2.7 or
the subsequent accounts that he provided me or others for reasons that I set out
in my investigation report (POL00448641).
During our interview, Mr Staunton made various remarks which increased my
concern about his approach to the Speak Up investigation. In particular:
(1) In the context of discussing an informal complaint Ms Davies had made
prior to her Speak Up complaint, Mr Staunton noted that he was trying to
change POL’s governance including its purported “investigations culture”.
He said POL investigated “absolutely everything” and Ms Davies’ complaint
had “nothing to do with whistleblowing, which is what [he] often [said]’. My
impression was that Mr Staunton was dismissive of the Speak Up process
within POL and he did not appear to have a clear understanding of what
might amount to a Speak Up report. I also noted that some of the concerns
Page 9 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
that Mr Foat had expressed to me at our first interview were consistent with
the remarks made to me by Mr Staunton.
(2) I Mr Staunton told me he informed Mr Ismail, Mr Jacobs and Andrew Darfoor
at a recent NED update meeting that he was being investigated. In the
context of that discussion, Mr Staunton said that investigations were a
“cancer” in POL and “nothing gets changed’. On 13 March 2024, by way of
amendments he made to the notes of our interview (many of which I did not
agree with), Mr Staunton sought to suggest that it was in fact Mr Ismail, Mr
Jacobs and/or Mr Darfoor who made those comments (WITN11620107).
That does not accord with my recollection of our interview. Indeed, I
conveyed Mr Staunton’s remarks mentioned above to Pinsent Masons
immediately after the interview. However, even if Mr Staunton is correct,
which I do not believe he is, it suggested a worrying approach at Board level
to internal investigations, which could include whistleblowing complaints.
40. Overall, I considered that Mr Staunton’s views on whistleblowing and internal
investigations were outdated. I was concerned about the impact such views
could have on workplace culture, such as whether they could have a stifling effect
upon employees that wished to disclose any Speak Up reports, which was deeply
troubling in an organisation that is grappling with the most serious of institutional
failings. I addressed this point when making recommendations in my
investigation report, which I discuss below.
41. Following our interview, I reflected on how best to mitigate the potential risk to
the Speak Up investigation presented by Mr Staunton’s views and/or reported
behaviour; however, this was overtaken by the events that I set out below.
Mr Staunton’s removal as Chair
42. Shortly after I interviewed Mr Staunton, the media reported on 27 January 2024
that he had been removed as Chair by the Secretary of State, with immediate
effect. In light of the concerns that I had developed about Mr Staunton, I wished
Page 10 of 22
43.
44.
45.
46.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
to investigate the reasons for his removal in further detail, in case they were
relevant to the Speak Up investigation.
On 31 January 2024, I interviewed Mr Tidswell again (WITN11620103), who was
now chairing Board meetings until an interim Chair was appointed. Mr Tidswell
informed me that Mr Staunton had been very keen for me to avoid reaching
conclusions in my investigation. In particular, he indicated that Mr Staunton had
failed to recognise that the Speak Up investigation involved potential
whistleblowing and conduct issues, which required examination. Mr Tidswell said
Mr Staunton had also failed to recognise that there was a conflict of interest, in
light of Expanded Allegation 2.7 which now concerned his alleged conduct.
Mr Tidswell also informed me that, “ancillary to his desire to disrupt the
investigation”, Mr Staunton had “behaved quite disgracefully’ towards colleagues
involved in the Speak Up investigation, particularly towards Mr Foat. It was at
this stage Mr Tidswell informed me about the correspondence to Mr Ismail and
Mr Jacobs concerning Mr Foat that I mention above. Mr Tidswell said he had
spoken to Ms McEwan and Ms Burton about Mr Staunton’s behaviour at length.
Mr Tidswell also informed me that Mr Staunton had placed Ms Burton and Ms
Gratton “under pressure to change the scope of or stop the investigation”. Mr
Tidswell believed that Mr Staunton: (i) had suggested to Mr Foat that the
investigation “should be stopped’; (ii) was “abusive and tough” towards Mr Foat;
and (iii) considered that Mr Foat’s purported behaviour towards him (i.e. in
wanting the Speak Up investigation to proceed) was a “witch-hunt’. Mr Tidswell
also believed that Mr Staunton had asked Ms McEwan and Kathryn Sherratt,
Interim Chief Financial Officer, to stop the Speak Up investigation.
Mr Tidswell further told me that he had a “stormy conversation” with Mr Staunton
a few weeks earlier, after he had informed Mr Staunton about Expanded
Allegation 2.7. Mr Tidswell said that Mr Staunton tried to reduce the scope of the
Speak Up investigation, particularly insofar as it concerned Mr Read, which Mr
Tidswell said he may have done in the hope that it would stop the investigation
Page 11 of 22
47.
48.
49.
50.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
into his own alleged conduct. Mr Tidswell said he pointed out to Mr Staunton that
there was a conflict of interest and he needed to exercise caution, at which stage
Mr Staunton became “very cross” with him. Mr Tidswell said Mr Staunton “made
it plain to [him] he was trying to avoid the investigation going ahead”.
Mr Tidswell indicated that he had raised Mr Staunton’s behaviour with the
Department of Business and Trade (“DBT”) and it was likely included in the
information placed before the Secretary of State when she reached the decision
to remove Mr Staunton as Chair. For the avoidance of doubt, I did not see any
direct evidence of Mr Staunton’s behaviour, as reported to me by Mr Tidswell, at
the time. As set out above, my concerns did not begin to develop until I
interviewed Mr Foat on 16 January 2024.
On 7 February 2024, I interviewed Mr Foat again by video (WITN11620104). He
told me that he had been placed under pressure by Mr Staunton to stop the
Speak Up investigation. He said Mr Staunton had accused him of not being a
“commercial enough [General Counsel]. He said they had a call in December
2023 during which Mr Staunton was “offensive” and he told Mr Staunton that “it
was not appropriate to speak to [him] in that manner’. Mr Foat also told me Mr
Staunton had applied pressure to Ms Burton to stop or limit the investigation. Ms
Burton had then spoken to Mr Foat and Ms Gratton about her conversation with
Mr Staunton, who was said to be “quite upset’.
I asked Mr Foat if Mr Read was aware of Mr Staunton’s attempts to disrupt or
prevent the Speak Up investigation from proceeding. He said Mr Read had been
aware of Mr Staunton’s behaviour throughout. Mr Foat also said that Mr Read
understood the importance of an investigation being conducted in respect of Ms
Davies’ Speak Up complaint and had not tried to prevent the Speak Up
investigation from going ahead.
On 8 February 2024, I interviewed Mr Read in person (WITN11620108).
Amongst other matters, we discussed Mr Staunton’s behaviour and recent
removal as Chair. He told me that he understood Mr Staunton had behaved
Page 12 of 22
51.
52.
53.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
aggressively towards Ms Burton and there was an “inappropriate attempt to
circumvent this [Speak Up investigation]’. Mr Read said that he was aware that
Mr Foat had raised his concerns about Mr Staunton’s approach to the Speak Up
investigation with Mr Tidswell. My impression was that Mr Read did not wish to
be involved in respect of Mr Staunton’s behaviour because he felt it would be
inappropriate to do so, as the principal subject of the Speak Up investigation.
On 9 February 2024, I had an update call with Pinsent Masons, the ISG and Ms
McEwan. I cannot recall all the details of the conversation but I do recall that I
asked Ms Burton, Ms Gratton and Ms McEwan if they felt that Mr Staunton had
sought to disrupt or stop the Speak Up investigation, or applied any undue
pressure upon them in order to do so, and if he had done so, whether they
considered it was because he did not want me to investigate Expanded
Allegation 2.7 against him.
My shorthand handwritten notes that I took at the time (WITN11620105) indicate
that either Ms Burton or Ms Gratton (I cannot recall who and the notes do not
record this) informed me that Mr Staunton told them that he wanted to stop the
Speak Up investigation purportedly because of the strain which Mr Read was
under at the time. They said that Mr Staunton did not appear to understand that
the Speak Up investigation was a different process from related Employment
Tribunal proceedings brought by Ms Davies.
I recall that they confirmed that Mr Staunton had behaved aggressively towards
them, but they were uncertain whether Mr Staunton wanted to stop the Speak
Up investigation from proceeding in order to prevent me from investigating
Expanded Allegation 2.7. They said he had not been as “blunt” as that with them
but he did want to stop the accusations. They said they had told Mr Staunton that
it was not possible to stop the Speak Up investigation because POL had
committed to the DBT that an investigation into Ms Davies’ Speak Up complaint
would be conducted.
Page 13 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
54. Ms McEwan told me that she considered the conversation she had with Mr
Staunton was “geared” to stopping the investigation against him personally. She
may have said that Mr Read had been “very worried’ about a conversation he
had with Mr Staunton, but my notes are unclear. I do recall Ms McEwan said that
she had told Mr Staunton that the investigation had to proceed, he had been
aggressive towards her, accusing her of being “uncommercial and not helping
management’, and she had told him he could not speak to her in that way. I noted
these remarks were similar to those of Mr Foat that he had conveyed to me
during our second interview.
55. Overall, I was left with the impression that: (i) Mr Staunton had applied improper
pressure to Mr Foat, Ms McEwan, Ms Burton and Ms Gratton to stop the Speak
Up investigation from proceeding or reduce its scope; and (ii) it was possible
(although not certain) that this was motivated by his desire to prevent the
investigation into his own alleged conduct by way of Expanded Allegation 2.7. I
explain below my consideration of this matter when I came to make findings of
fact when producing my investigation report.
Breaches of confidentiality
56. At around this time, a dispute had arisen between the Secretary of State and Mr
Staunton regarding the reasons for his removal as Chair and other matters
relevant to this Inquiry (of which I have no knowledge other than as set out in this
witness statement).
57. In particular, Mr Staunton had publicly disputed the reasons for which he was
removed and spoke to the Sunday Times and other media outlets about his time
as Chair and the circumstances of his removal. This was of strong public interest,
following the increased scrutiny of POL in the wake of the broadcast of ‘Mr Bates
vs The Post Office’ in early January 2024 and by this Inquiry.
58. Mr Staunton also publicly commented upon his involvement in the Speak Up
investigation, including to the media, after the Secretary of State said Mr
Page 14 of 22
59.
60.
61.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
Staunton was subject to an investigation concerning allegations of bullying
(which was not quite correct; I was investigating alleged discriminatory remarks
that he was said to have made). I reminded Mr Staunton and his solicitor of the
need for confidentiality in respect of the Speak Up investigation (albeit I
appreciated that he had by now been called to give evidence to the BTC and was
under a duty not to mislead them). I wanted to preserve confidentiality in the
process as far as I reasonably could, for the reasons I set out above.
A BTC hearing took place on 27 February 2024 in respect of POL and the
Horizon IT scandal, at which (amongst others) Mr Staunton gave evidence.
Notwithstanding the warning I had given him, Mr Staunton disclosed to the BTC
that Mr Read was the principal subject of the Speak Up investigation. Mr
Staunton also appeared at the evidence session with a redacted copy of the
Terms of Reference (in respect of the Speak Up investigation) that I understand
had been provided to him by POL upon his request. Following Mr Staunton’s
disclosure, I am aware that Mr Tidswell committed, at the BTC’s request, to
provide them with a summary of my investigation report.
Mr Staunton continued to make public remarks about the Speak Up complaint.
In a letter to the Chair of the BTC dated 4 March 2024, Mr Staunton: (i) provided
further details regarding Expanded Allegation 2.7; (ii) provided a purported
summary of Ms Davies’ evidence to me during our interview and her apparent
intentions in raising the Speak Up complaint; and (iii) referred to the Speak Up
investigation as a “sham” and “a stitch up”.
I raised the latter comments with Mr Staunton directly (WITN11620109), who told
me that he considered the scope of the Speak Up investigation was “cynically
widened” by POL to include him to “provide cover’ for Mr Read. For the
avoidance of doubt, when I advised POL in November 2023 that Allegation 2.7
should be expanded, I did not do so to “provide cover’ for Mr Read. I did so
because Ms Davies had provided greater detail about the allegation at interview
than in her Speak Up complaint which, in my judgement, warranted further
Page 15 of 22
62.
63.
64.
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
investigation. I cannot comment on why POL agreed to the expansion of
Allegation 2.7, however.
At around this time, it also came to my attention that Ms Davies, or someone
acting on her behalf, had spoken to the Sunday Times and other media outlets
about the Speak Up investigation. As I explained in my investigation report
(POL00448641), it appeared that Mr Staunton and Ms Davies had been in
communication with each other regarding the Speak Up investigation and sought
to align their accounts, particularly in respect of Expanded Allegation 2.7.
The various breaches of confidentiality by Mr Staunton and/or Ms Davies were
troubling. As I indicated above, I had concerns about whether individuals may
have been deterred from participating in the Speak Up investigation, or if in the
future others would avoid making Speak Up reports, as a consequence.
Ultimately, these were matters (along with the revised accounts they gave me
concerning Expanded Allegation 2.7) that I took into account in assessing the
reliability and integrity of their evidence.
Therefore, for the reasons I set out above, I did have concerns about Mr
Staunton’s interference with the Speak Up investigation and in particular:
(1) His attempts to stop the investigation from proceeding or reduce its scope,
which may have been motivated by his desire to prevent the investigation
into Expanded Allegation 2.7. However, my concerns were overtaken by
events, namely his removal as Chair by the Secretary of State. Where
appropriate, I revisited certain areas of evidence with witnesses in case
they felt able to speak more openly with me following Mr Staunton’s
departure from POL.
(2) His breaches of confidentiality following his removal of Chair. I therefore
took into account that participants may have been reluctant to speak to me
following the various media reports relating to the investigation, so it was of
Page 16 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
critical importance that I conducted a thorough review and examination of
the documents, as best as I was able to do so.
Any other concerns
65. Other than as set out above, I was not aware of any interference in the Speak
Up investigation at Board or Executive level. I would like to add some final
comments about my ability to conduct the Speak Up investigation, however, in
case it is relevant to the Inquiry.
66. The investigation was conducted on a consensual basis, which meant that I had
no powers to compel the attendance of a witness or production of documents,
unlike this Inquiry. Except for one or two individuals who no longer worked for or
sat on the Board of POL, I was able to interview every person I wished.
Documents were produced on request by Mr Bartlett’s team and, where relevant,
by individuals directly. That said, I was not provided with all the documents or
information that I requested from the DBT or POL, as set out below.
67. Firstly, I had asked the DBT, via Ms Gratton, to provide certain documents,
namely readouts or minutes of meetings involving (i) Lisa Harrington, then Chair
of RemCo and NED, and Sarah Munby, then Permanent Secretary, and (ii) Mr
Staunton and the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, then Secretary of State for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy, which were relevant to two of the Allegations, but
the request was refused by the DBT (as to which I did not receive any
explanation). This meant that I did not have a complete picture of those meetings,
which were part of the potentially relevant background to those Allegations.
68. Secondly, certain documents or information could not be located by POL,
particularly concerning the recruitment process carried out in respect of historic
vacancies at Executive level, which was relevant to one of the Allegations. The
individuals involved in arranging the recruitment processes, insofar as such
processes existed, had left POL; they did not appear to have saved copies of the
relevant documents centrally. In the absence of any relevant documents or
Page 17 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
information, I could not reach any findings of fact about certain aspects of the
allegation, as to which I made recommendations to the ISG.
Findings and recommendations
69. After I had carried out what I considered to be all reasonable lines of enquiry
(subject to the limitations set out above), I commenced the work necessary to
make findings of fact and produced my investigation report. The investigation
report and its summary were my own work; any errors or omissions were mine
alone. I was not at any stage put under any pressure as to what to investigate or
not to investigate, or as to what findings of fact or recommendations should or
should not be made.
70. Iunderstand that the Inquiry has been provided with a copy of my investigation
report and the summary (POL00448641), so it is aware of my findings (except
for those in respect of which I understand POL wishes to maintain privilege) and
the recommendations that I made to ISG.
Expanded Allegation 2.7
71. Given my evidence above about the investigation process, particularly in respect
of Expanded Allegation 2.7, I would like to set out further details concerning my
decision-making process and recommendations in respect of this allegation.
72. In making findings of fact, I considered whether I should draw an adverse
inference from the fact that Mr Staunton appeared to take steps to prevent the
Speak Up investigation from proceeding or reduce its scope following the
expansion of Allegation 2.7 (and, as I explained in the investigation report, had
sought to downplay the nature of the allegation when commenting upon it in
public or speaking to the media about it).
73. Ultimately, I did draw such an inference in my investigation report, but I did not
attach significant weight to it because I had not raised my concerns with Mr
Page 18 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
Staunton about his interference with the Speak Up investigation following his
removal. The reason I chose not to do so was because it was unnecessary: I
upheld the allegation because of the weight of the other evidence before me.
However, I wish to make clear to the Inquiry that I have not heard Mr Staunton’s
comments (if any) about my concerns.
74. Having upheld Expanded Allegation 2.7, I made various recommendations to the
ISG. In light of Mr Staunton’s remarks about the Speak Up process and
investigations, I recommended that, in looking for a new Chair, it should be a key
consideration for POL and the DBT to assess whether prospective candidates
have good experience of helping to foster a workplace culture in which any
concerns relating to e.g. discrimination or whistleblowing can be raised openly
without fear of intimidation or retribution. That may allow those that work at POL,
including senior management and NEDs, to feel able to challenge any
inappropriate behaviour that may be witnessed.
Other relevant matters
75. Under the Request, I have also been asked to set out any other matters of which
I consider the Chair of the Inquiry should be aware. My attention has been drawn
to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and List of Issues.
76. It is difficult to address this request, however, because the Inquiry’s Terms of
Reference and List of Issues are set out at a high-level in some respects.
Furthermore, whilst I am generally aware of the issues and have followed some
of the evidence given to the Inquiry, I do not have detailed knowledge of the
Horizon IT scandal to have a deep understanding of the points of interest for the
Inquiry.
77. \tis feasible that the Speak Up investigation report, along with legally privileged
oral advice that I provided to the ISG and Pinsent Masons following the
production of my report, may be relevant in respect of the following matters that
the Inquiry is considering, namely: (i) whether POL has delivered or made good
Page 19 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
progress on the organisational/cultural changes necessary to ensure the Horizon
IT scandal does not happen again; and (ii) historic and current governance and
whistleblowing controls in place at POL, any relevant failings and whether current
controls are now sufficient to ensure such failings do not happen again.
78. However, I am mindful that the Request says there is no need for me to set out
in detail the Speak Up complaint or any advice I gave (unless necessary to
address any concerns I had about my ability to conduct the Speak Up
investigation). I will therefore be guided by the Inquiry whether it requires any
further information from me in respect of the Speak Up investigation or the legally
privileged oral advice that I provided.
79. If the Inquiry wishes me to provide any information in respect of the latter, I can
only do so if POL waives privilege. In that regard, I have taken into consideration
the waiver of privilege letters, which I mention above. The terms of paragraph
6c)vi of the letter dated 16 August 2024 indicate that no waiver of POL's privilege
is being provided in the circumstances. Accordingly, I do not consider I am ina
position to comment further on those matters at the present time.
80. I am not aware of anything else which I think the Chair of the Inquiry ought to be
aware of and hope that the evidence I have set out above is helpful.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Page 20 of 22
Index to First Witness Statement of Marianne Tutin
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
No.
URN
Document description
Control number
POL00448641
Investigation Report into concerns
raised under Post Office Limited’s
Speak Up Policy dated 8 April 2024
POL-BSFF-
WITN-010-
0000046
WITN11620101
Letter from POL, ‘Post Office Horizon
IT Inquiry (“the Inquiry”): Release
from _ confidentiality
dated 24 September 2024
obligations’,
WITN11620101
WITN11620102
Approved notes of interview of Ben
Foat, General Counsel, on 16
January 2024
WITN11620102
WITN11620103
Approved notes of interview of Ben
Tidswell, Senior Independent
Director, on 31 January 2024
WITN11620103
WITN11620104
Approved notes of interview of Ben
Foat on 7 February 2024
WITN11620104
WITN11620105
Extracts of handwritten notes in
counsel notebook, various dates in
January/February 2024
WITN11620105
WITN11620106
Unapproved notes of interview of
Henry Staunton, Chair, on 22
January 2024
WITN11620106
WITN11620107
Henry — Staunton’s unapproved
amendments to notes of interview,
dated 13 March 2024
WITN11620107
WITN11620108
Approved notes of interview of Nick
Read, Chief Executive Officer, on 8
February 2024
WITN11620108
10
WITN11620109
Email correspondence with Henry
Staunton and Michael Burd, Partner
WITN11620109
Page 21 of 22
WITN11620100
WITN11620100
at Lewis Silkin LLP, between 23
February and 16 March 2024
Page 22 of 22