WITN11750100
WITN11750100
Witness name: Jonathan Mark Swift
Statement No: WITN 11750100
Dated: 14 November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SWIFT
I, JONATHAN MARK SWIFT, will say as follows:
A. Introduction
1. I make this statement at the request of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (“the
Inquiry”) to address the points listed in the Inquiry’s letter to me dated 2 October
2024. In the following sections of this statement I shall set out each of those
points (in italics, for ease of reference) and respond to each in turn. I have had
assistance from solicitors to prepare this statement but I am not legally
represented for the purposes of the Inquiry.
2. I have been asked, briefly, to summarise my professional career prior to
October 2015 when I received the instructions from Post Office Limited (“POL”)
to which the Inquiry’s questions relate. I was called to the Bar in 1989. In my
early years as a barrister, the bulk of my work concerned employment law.
Gradually, my practice expanded to include public law and, over time, this
became my primary area of practice. From 2007 to 2014 I was First Treasury
Counsel, one of two barristers retained by the government to provide legal
Page 1 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
advice, and representation at court hearings. I was appointed Queen's Counsel
in 2010. By October 2015, when I was instructed by POL, I had stepped down
as First Treasury Counsel and returned to general practice at the Bar.
In October 2015, together with junior counsel (Christopher Knight), I was
instructed by POL to assist Tim Parker (who had been appointed Chairman of
POL earlier the same month), to consider what further steps POL should take
to respond to concerns raised by sub-postmasters about the Horizon IT system.
My Instructions stated that Mr Parker had been asked to consider that matter
by Baroness Neville-Rolfe (see the letter reference POL 00168379). Baroness
Neville-Rolfe was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills, the government department with oversight of
POL.
The result of the instructions from POL was the document dated 8 February
2016, titled “A Review on behalf of the Chairman of Post Office Limited
concerning the steps taken in response to various complaints made by sub-
postmasters” (“the Review’, document POL 00006355). The scope of the
Review was explained at paragraphs 4 — 7 of the Review. As explained in those
paragraphs, the Review addressed two questions: (1) what had POL already
done between 2010 and 2015; and (2) whether there was further action that
could reasonably be taken. Further, the Review considered those questions by
reference to four areas (a) criminal prosecutions; (b) the Horizon system, i.e.,
the software; (c) the support provided to sub-postmasters in terms of training
Page 2 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
and helplines; and (d) the investigations that had been undertaken into specific
cases, where a complaint had been made.
I worked on the Review almost 9 years ago. The Instructions from POL would
have been one of a number of sets of Instructions I worked on between October
2015 and February 2016. Given the passage of time, I do not have any specific
recollection of the work I did for POL on the Review, day to day. To prepare this
witness statement, I have carefully considered the documents the Inquiry has
provided to me: i.e., emails from the period, attachments to those emails, and
other contemporaneous documents. So far as I have been able to respond to
the questions the Inquiry has put to me, I have relied on the information in those
documents. On some points, reading the documents has refreshed my
memory; but on most matters the information in the documents is all that I have
been able to rely on.
Preparation of the Review
3. Please provide a chronological summary of your work in
preparing the report dated 8 February 2016. In so doing, please
address the following:
3.1 Please describe your working relationship with those at
POL.
3.2 Please describe what you considered POL’s purpose to
be in commissioning the review.
3.3. Please describe any material oral instructions you
received from POL or any of its agents.
3.4 Please describe any impression you had of how POL
Staff viewed the complaints brought by SPMs (including Tim
Parker, Jane MacLeod, Rodric Williams, Patrick Bourke and
Mark Underwood).
3.5 Please describe your views at the time of the adequacy
or your instructions and / or access to documents.
Page 3 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
By reference to the documents provided, the sequence of events between
October 2015 and February 2016 appears to have been as follows.
The written Instructions from POL were sent to my clerk on 6 October 2015
(POL 00168377 and POL 00168378). They would have been passed to me the
same day. An email dated 8 October 2015 (POL 00233630) provided further
documents that it appears I had requested. The Instructions were in connection
with a review of how POL had handled complaints made by sub-postmasters
concerning flaws in the Horizon IT system (see the Instructions at paragraph
3). I was instructed to advise Mr Parker on the scope of the review, how the
review should be conducted and the nature of the report he would give to
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (see the Instructions at paragraph 4). The Instructions
stated (at paragraph 5) that the review needed to be completed by Christmas
2015.
A consultation took place on 8 October 2015. So far as I can see there is no
note of the consultation. The emails and attachments sent following the
consultation (POL 00233682, POL 00233683, POL 00102588, POL 00104216,
POL 00102604, POL 00162692, and POL 00162693) indicate that those
present at the consultation were Jane MacLeod (Post Office General Counsel),
Rodric Williams (one of the solicitors employed by POL) and Patrick Bourke;
that during the consultation there was discussion of the possible terms of
reference for the Review; and that I asked for certain further information to be
provided.
Page 4 of 33
10.
11.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
After the consultation I sent a document headed “A starting point for the terms
of reference” (POL 00233683) which listed matters that might be considered in
the course of the work. In a covering email (POL 00233682) I described this list
as a “draft, for discussion”.
On 20 October 2015 I had a further consultation, this time with Mr Parker and
Ms MacLeod. I have no specific recollection of what happened at this meeting.
However, Ms MacLeod summarised the meeting in an email she sent to me on
22 October 2015 (POL 00102617). The note set out four points under the
heading “focus of the investigation” which are similar to the four “areas” later
identified at paragraph 6 of the Review document. It is also apparent from the
email that junior counsel (Christopher Knight) was due to start work on the
review. A later email (dated 28 October 2015 from Mr Bourke to Mr Knight, POL
00162716, at page 2) describes the four areas to be covered by the Review —
see under the heading “Scope of Enquiries’.
As is apparent from the emails the Inquiry has provided, work on the review
started in late October, and continued throughout November and December
2015. The emails from this period were largely between Mr Knight and Mr
Bourke, but I was copied in. The emails show Mr Knight doing much of the work
so far as concerns requesting information from POL and receiving that
information. Most of the emails from this period comprise requests for
information and the responses to those requests, in particular the email from
Mr Knight on 12 November 2015 requesting information (POL 00102706, in
addition to information requested at the meeting on 10 November 2015), and
Page 5 of 33
12.
13.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
the emails in response on 26 November 2015 (POL 00102816, POL 00102826,
POL 00102834, POL 00102842, POL 00102850, POL 00102858, POL 00102
887, and POL 00102890). This is the sort of work that would usually be done
by junior counsel. However, at all times Mr Knight was working under my
supervision and I am responsible for all the work that was done and for any
errors or omissions. Although I cannot now recall the detail, Mr Knight and I will
have discussed the information provided, and discussed our thoughts on the
information, as it became available.
By reference to the emails, it is clear that on 10 November 2015, POL staff gave
a demonstration to me and Mr Knight of how the Horizon system terminal was
used in a sub-post office. The emails also indicate that on that occasion there
was also some discussion of further matters that needed to be considered (see
document POL 00102706, at pages 2 - 3).
Further, in the course of the work done for the review, the following meetings
took place:
(1) on 10 December 2015, attended by Mr Parker, Lord Arbuthnot,
me and Mr Knight (POL 00103002);
(2) on 14 December 2015, attended by Mr Parker, Ron Warmington
and lan Henderson, both of Second Sight, me and Mr Knight (see POL
00022623 and POL 00022624); and
Page 6 of 33
14.
15.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
(3) also, on 14 December 2015, a series of meetings with me and Mr
Knight, attended by: (a) Fujitsu employees; (b) employees in the POL
Investigations Team; and (c) employees from Deloitte (see POL
00103010).
On 2 December 2015 Mr Parker, Mr Knight and I spoke on the phone, in
anticipation of the meetings with Lord Arbuthnot and Second Sight that had
been arranged for 10 December 2015 (see POL 00158278, POL 00158279,
and POL 00102921).
The Instructions from POL had anticipated that the review report would be
completed by Christmas 2015. In fact, the work took a little longer; the Review
document was sent on 11 January 2016 to Mr Parker for his consideration (see
POL 00022625, and POL 00022626). The Review was sent for Mr Parker's
consideration because, as I have already said, my Instructions were to the
effect that I was to assist Mr Parker in preparation of the Review. Mr Knight and
I had undertaken the bulk of the work, but Mr Parker had also been involved in
the meetings with Lord Arbuthnot and with Mr Warmington and Mr Henderson
of Second Sight. Formally, the Review document was Mr Parker's document,
prepared in response to the letter sent to him by Baroness Neville-Rolfe. You
will note that when comments were sent on 4 February 2016 (POL 00162966
and POL 00162967), the Review was referred to as “the Chairman's Report”.
This was what the document was understood to be at the time.
Page 7 of 33
16.
17.
18.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
By reference to the emails that have been provided, I can see that Mr Knight
{RAL..ansn90.
and I spoke to Ms MacLeod by phone on 21 January 2016 "BOL 001031
and, that in anticipation of that call she had sent us a table setting out proposed
actions in response to each of the recommendations in the Review document
(POL 00103106). A further version of that table was sent through after the
phone call (POL 00238707 and POL 00238708). This document has track-
changes. I do not recall the phone conversation, but I assume that the track-
changes reflect what I said during the phone call so far as concerns the work
that should be undertaken in response to the recommendations in the Review
document.
There is an email from Ms MacLeod dated 22 January 2016, the next day (POL
00103108). It appears from that email that I spoke to her and to Mr Parker that
day and discussed: (a) the work to be done in response to the
recommendations in the report (that work being the work set out in the track-
changed version of the table prepared after the call the previous day); and (b)
the matters Mr Parker should cover when he met Baroness Neville-Rolfe since
the Review was his response to the request in her letter to him of 10 September
2015 (POL 00168379).
On 4 February 2016 Mark Underwood sent an email to me (POL 00162966)
that attached: (a) a list picking up a number of typographical and other minor
errors (or possible errors) in the Review document (POL 00162967); (b) a
document setting out further information from Fujitsu (POL 00162968); and (c)
a letter POL had sent to Deloitte concerning the use by the POL of reports
Page 8 of 33
19.
20.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
Deloitte had provided. I replied on 8 February 2016 (POL 00104104) and
enclosed a further version of the Review, dated 8 February 2016 (POL
00006355). As my email explained, this version of the Review took account of
the typographical and other minor errors, and included a new footnote to refer
to the further information from Fujitsu.
On 19 February 2016 Mr Underwood sent a draft of the letter Mr Parker
intended to send to Baroness Neville-Rolfe to brief her on the Review, the
conclusions in the Review, and the recommendations it contained. Mr
Underwood asked me to review the draft letter. I sent back a track-changed
version of the letter on 24 February 2016. The track-changes were my
suggestions on the draft. I left it to Mr Parker to decide whether to accept any
or all of them.
My answers to the specific questions at 3.1 — 3.5 above are as follows.
(1) Most if not all of my dealings were with the solicitors working for the POL
who instructed me. After the Instructions and initial consultations in October
2015, most contact with them was by email. I also met with or spoke to Mr
Parker on various occasions. So far as I recall these working relationships were
all entirely professional. The emails and other documents I have seen that cover
the period all point to the same conclusion. I cannot recall anything unusual so
far as concerns my working relationships with any of them.
Page 9 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
(2) I considered that the Instructions I received were prompted by the request
made by Baroness Neville-Rolfe in her letter of 10 September 2015 to Mr Parker
(POL 00168379). This was the explanation given in the Instructions and I had
no reason to doubt that.
(3) My Instructions were set out in the document dated 6 October 2015 (POL
00168378). From the documents provided I think that the scope of the work to
be undertaken was discussed during the consultations on 8 October 2015 and
20 October 2015. As I have said above, the points in Ms MacLeod’s email dated
22 October 2015 (sent after the consultation with Mr Parker, POL 00102617)
about the “focus of the investigation” is very similar to paragraph 6 of the Review
document (POL 00006355). So far as I can recall, the scope of the review —
which in practice was also the scope of my Instructions — was set from that time
— i.e. by late October 2015. I do not recall that any further instructions were
given orally. From late October onwards, information was requested and
provided, and this is evidenced by the emails throughout that part of October,
and November and December 2015. Further, and in the usual course, the
information that had been provided would have been discussed from time to
time. But all that would have taken place for the purpose of undertaking the
review in accordance with the terms that had been set by the end of October
2015.
(4) I do not now have any specific impression of how those I dealt with at POL
viewed the complaints made by the sub-postmasters. I cannot recall anything
being said that suggested anything other than that the complaints were taken
Page 10 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
seriously. The fact that those complaints had been made was one of the
premises for the work that I was asked to do.
(5) By reference to the documents I have seen (including the final version of the
Review document), there is nothing to suggest that the Instructions given were
inadequate. By the end of October 2015, the scope of the review had been set.
So far as I can see from the emails from the period to early January 2016 when
the work on the Review was in progress, POL provided appropriate responses
to the requests for information Mr Knight and I made. I note that at paragraph 3
of the Review document (POL 00006355, at page 3) we said that no information
we had asked for had been withheld.
4. Please describe your recollection of your conversation with
Jane MacLeod on or around 8 October 2015 prior to the
conference on 8 October 2015 (see POL00233630).
I do not have any recollection of what I said to Ms MacLeod or what she said to
me on this occasion save that as is clear from the email, I asked her to provide
additional documents. This conversation took place shortly after I had received
the Instructions from POL. I suspect I had looked at the information provided
with the Instructions, and identified these further documents as ones that might
contain information relevant to the history of the complaints made by sub-
postmasters about the Horizon IT system.
Page 11 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
5. Please describe your recollection of the conference on 8
October 2015.
22. As explained above, so far as I can see there is no note of this consultation. I
do not now have any specific recollection of what was said at this meeting. For
sake of completeness I should add that it was not my practice to make a note
of consultations also attended by solicitors. I would usually be leading the
discussion at the meeting, and would not have the opportunity to take a note at
the same time. I would expect the note of the consultation to be made by the
solicitor.
6. Please describe your recollection of the conference with Tim
Parker and Jane MacLeod on 20 October 2015.
23. Independent of Ms MacLeod’s email dated 22 October 2015 (POL 00102617),
I do not now have any recollection of this consultation.
7. Please describe your recollection of the conference on 2
December 2015.
24. The phone call that took place on 2 December 2015 is referred to in documents
POL 00158278, POL 00158279 and POL 00102921. I do not now have any
recollection of what was discussed. I assume that the discussion followed the
points on the agenda (POL 00158279).
Page 12 of 33
25.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
8. To what extent do you consider the note of meetings at
POL00103010 to be reasonably accurate and / or complete?
Given the time that has passed I do not have any specific recollection of these
meetings, which all took place on 14 December 2015. The note reads as a
summary of the meetings rather than an attempt to record specific questions
and answers. The note also includes the writer's impressions of what happened
in the meetings (I cannot see from the note who wrote it). The emails provided
by the Inquiry do not suggest that this note was sent to me or Mr Knight at the
time for review and comment. There is one email sent following the 14
December 2015 meetings (dated 18 December 2015 POL 00162880), but that
only sets out the action points arising from the meetings; it does not appear that
the note was attached to that email. If that is right, this is the first time I have
seen the note. Nevertheless, I have no reason to think that the summary in the
note is not a good faith summary of the meetings. I do, however, think that
some of the language used is incorrect. For example, at one point (on POL
"00103010 I at page 6) the note refers to me “arguing” for a proposition. I would
not have argued for or against anything in these meetings, which were part of
an information-gathering process. I may well have put points to people to test a
particular point or draw out their response, but I did not put such points because
I was advancing any particular position. To this extent some passages in the
note may give a slightly incorrect impression. However, in the round, this is a
relatively small point.
Page 13 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
9. To what extent, if at all, did you have any contact with Brian
Altman KC or other lawyers instructed to advise POL on matters
of criminal law prior to drafting your report?
26. I did not have any contact either with Brian Altman KC or with any of the other
lawyers who advised POL on the criminal prosecutions or matters of criminal
law. The purpose of the Review I undertook, so far as it concerned
consideration of the conduct of the criminal prosecutions, was to consider
whether there was further work that ought reasonably to be done, taking
account of steps POL had already taken. See in this regard, paragraph 91 of
the Review document where the matters to be addressed in this part of the
Review were summarised (POL 00006355, at page 31). To this end, the Review
considered the documents that evidenced the advice given (for example, Mr
Altman’s various review documents) and steps POL had taken in response.
10. To what extent, if at all, did you ask questions of Gareth
Jenkins relating to (a) whether he had previously appeared in
criminal proceedings as an expert witness (b) what, if anything, he
was told about the obligations of an expert witness (c) the
allegation that he had failed to disclose material information when
providing evidence in criminal proceedings and / or (d) his
evidence in the Misra trial?
27. I donot recall asking Mr Jenkins questions on any of these matters when I met
him on 14 December 2015. Rather, the questions at that meeting for Mr Jenkins
and the other Fujitsu employees concerned (a) faults/errors which had occurred
in the Horizon system (referred to as “bugs”), (b) whether any of those errors
were evidence of any systemic problem with Horizon, and (c) the suggestion
that it was possible for the records in a POL branch to be altered remotely.
Page 14 of 33
28.
29.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
So far as I was concerned, matters relating to Mr Jenkins’ evidence in the
criminal trials had been and were being addressed in work Mr Altman either
had done or was doing: see, for example, in his “General Review’ dated 15
October 2013 (POL 00006581 and POL 00040042). The purpose of the Review
that I undertook did not include revisiting work already done or in progress. That
would not have been feasible in the time available (see above, the Review was
to be completed by Christmas 2015).
11. Please explain the reasons for providing a draft report to Tim
Parker for comment.
As I have said above, POL considered the report to be the Chairman's report.
My role as counsel was to assist in preparing it, albeit that in practice that meant
the bulk of the work was done by me and Mr. Knight. This was why the
document was provided to Mr Parker for his consideration in January 2016
(document POL 00022626). I did not expect there would be any material
changes to the document, and that turned out to be so. Only very minor
suggestions were made, almost all concerned typographical or other drafting
errors: see the email dated 4 February 2016 and the attached document, POL
00162966 and POL00162967.
12. Please describe any discussions you had with Tim Parker or
others at Post Office regarding the draft report, including on the
calls arranged with Jane MacLeod (see POL00110361,
POL00238707, POL00238708 and POL00103108).
Page 15 of 33
30.
31.
32.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
I can see from the documents that on 22 January 2016 Mr Knight and I spoke
on the phone with Mr Parker and Ms MacLeod. The documents suggest that
others may have been on the call as well. I do not have any recollection of that
phone call independent of the documents. The call took place in anticipation of
a meeting between Mr Parker and Baroness Neville-Rolfe that was due to take
place on 26 January 2016. Based on the documents, the purpose of the call
was to discuss steps that POL would take to give effect to the recommendations
in the Review. POL had prepared a table (POL 00103106). The
recommendations in the Review were set out in the first column of the table; in
the third column, POL had set out the work it proposed to do and, in some
instances the third column also included matters for discussion.
The email sent shortly after the phone call (POL 00238707) attached a track-
changed version of the table (POL 00238708) and I assume that the track-
changes reflect matters that had been discussed.
The email sent later on 22 January 2016 from Ms MacLeod to Mr Parker (POL
00103108) also refers to matters discussed on the call. This email was not sent
to me, so I did not have the opportunity to comment on it. The email suggests
that the discussion on the phone call also covered the meeting Mr Parker was
to have with Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and it seems entirely plausible that this
was part of what was discussed with me. The relevant part of this email is the
first paragraph under the heading “Briefing to the Minister’ (the paragraphs that
Page 16 of 33
33.
34.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
follow seem to be Ms MacLeod’s further recommendations and advice to Mr
Parker). The relevant paragraph is to the effect that I said that Mr Parker could
discuss all parts of the Review document with Baroness Neville-Rolfe.
There is also reference to the possibility of “/oss of legal privilege” if a copy of
the Review was provided to Baroness Neville-Rolfe and a consequent risk that
this would mean the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating
to information covered by legal privilege could be lost. I cannot now remember
this conversation or the advice I gave on this occasion. I can only assume that
the advice was to the effect that providing a copy of the Review to Baroness
Neville-Rolfe would risk losing the ability to contend that the document was
covered by legal advice privilege. This part of the email suggests that the main
concern may have been the possibility of a request for a copy of the Review
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and whether, if such a request was
made, POL would be able to rely on any exemption from the obligation of
disclosure under that Act. The Freedom of Information Act provides that
information that is subject to legal professional privilege is exempt information.
Other than the phone call on 22 January 2016 that these documents refer to, I
cannot recall any other discussions concerning the Review at or around that
time.
The report and steps thereafter
13. At the time you drafted your final report, please describe your
knowledge of Gareth Jenkins’ role in criminal proceedings and the
allegations that he had failed to comply with his duties as an expert
Page 17 of 33
35.
36.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
witness. In particular, to what extent, if at all, did your knowledge
exceed the points set out in POL00022619 and POL00040042?
I do not now have any independent recollection of this point. However, the
documents provided for the purpose of the Review I undertook included both
the documents referred to in the question (Mr Altman’s Interim Review and
General Review), and the Second Sight Interim Report dated 8 July 2013 which
had prompted those documents to be prepared. From those documents (for
example, Mr Altman’s General Review at paragraphs 136 - 1148, POL
00006581, at pages 44 — 47), I can see that Mr Jenkins’ evidence in the criminal
prosecutions came under scrutiny once it became apparent that he was the
source of the information at paragraph 6 of the Second Sight Interim Review to
the effect that there were faults in the Horizon system which, as reported by
Second Sight, had affected 76 branches. That was inconsistent with the
evidence Mr Jenkins had given in witness statements made for criminal
prosecutions which, as described in Mr Altman’s General Review, had spoken
to “the general integrity of the system”.
I do not recall having any information on this matter beyond that contained in
these documents.
14. Please consider the following remark at paragraph 98 of your
review: “We are accordingly content that POL has acted
reasonably in its handling of disclosure issues arising in relation to
past criminal prosecutions”. To what extent, if at all, did you have
any concerns about how the following matters had been handled
in respect of disclosure:
Page 18 of 33
37.
38.
39.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
14.1. the allegation that Gareth Jenkins had breached his duties
as an expert;
14.2. the notes regarding the Receipts/Payments mismatch issue
(see POL00236458); and
14.3. other documentation you had seen, or been made aware of,
on bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon IT system.
Paragraph 98 of the Review should be read together with paragraphs 96 and
97, which include references to the work already undertaken by Mr Altman KC
and Cartwright King.
So far as concerns steps required by reason of Mr Jenkins’ evidence in the
criminal cases, Mr Altman’s reviews had considered the scope and nature of
the work done by Cartwright King (led by Simon Clarke of that firm) to ensure
appropriate disclosure was made in all criminal cases: see the Interim Review
dated 2 August 2013, POL 00006583, and the General Review dated 15
October 2013, POL 00006581. It was apparent from Mr Altman’s reviews that
copies of the Second Sight Interim Report and Helen Rose Report had been
disclosed.
As I have said above, the purpose of the Review was, taking account of work
that had already been done, to identify what further steps POL should consider.
Neither I nor Mr Knight were experts in criminal law. It would not have been
practical (nor in the time available feasible) for us to revisit the matters Mr
Altman had covered in his reviews. It appeared to me that POL had taken
reasonable steps in response to the criticisms of Mr Jenkins’ evidence that
became apparent following the July 2013 Second Sight Interim Report. POL
Page 19 of 33
40.
41,
42.
43.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
had instructed Cartwright King to review the criminal cases with a view to
determining what further disclosure was required, and it had instructed Mr
Altman KC to consider (among other matters) the sufficiency of that review
exercise.
The “receipts and payments mismatch issue” was one of the faults/errors in the
Horizon system identified in the Second Sight Interim Report. Details of this
matter were set out in the Second Sight Interim Report (see that report at
paragraph 6.5). It was apparent from Mr Altman's General Review that the
Second Sight Interim Report had been disclosed. The impact of this matter on
Mr Jenkins’ evidence and on the criminal proceedings had therefore, been
considered by Mr Altman in the course of his work.
The “receipts and payments mismatch” issue was also considered in the
Review document I prepared, (Part VI at paragraphs 117 -— 120, POL
00006355, at pages 39 —- 42), in the context of considering faults/errors
identified in the Horizon system. I think this would have been the context for Mr
Knight's request to see document POL 00236458 (see his email dated 7
December 2015, POL 00236454, at page 2, the fourth bullet point in the email).
In total, the Review referred to 6 faults/errors (see at paragraph 118, in Part VI
of the Review, which concerned the operation of the Horizon system).
Two of the faults/errors, the “Calendar Square, Falkirk problem” and the
“Winford Post Office non-polling event’ (items (1) and (4) in paragraph 118 of
Page 20 of 33
44,
45.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
the Review) had been identified in Mr Jenkins’ evidence in criminal
proceedings.
Two of the faults/errors (items (2) and (3) in paragraph 118 of the Review) had
been identified in the Second Sight Interim Report, i.e. the “receipts and
payments mismatch problem” that had affected 62 branches, and the “/oca/
suspense account problem” that had affected 14 branches (see the Interim
Report at paragraphs 6.4 — 6.9). Disclosure of these faults had been considered
by Mr Altman in his reviews (see above at paragraph 39).
The remaining two faults/errors were item (5) at paragraph 118 of the Review
and the one explained in the footnote at the end of the paragraph, footnote 6.
These had not been apparent at the time the Second Sight reports had been
produced.
(1) The “branch outreach issue” had been referred to in articles in Computer
Weekly in November 2015. There appeared to have been four occasions when
this defect, which resulted in duplicate transactions, had not been spotted and
corrected.
(2) IThe “TC anomaly’ had, we were told, been reported by seven branches,
and had occurred in the period June to September 2015. It appears from the
documents that this fault was first drawn to my attention (and Mr Knight's
attention) on 4 February 2016.
Page 21 of 33
46.
47.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
Both these faults/errors are also described in POL 00162968, the document
prepared by POL which was one of the attachments to the email dated 4
February 2016 sent by Mark Underwood to me and Mr Knight (POL 00162966).
The Review I prepared looked at the significance of the “branch outreach issue”
and the “TC anomaly’ faults/errors only for the purposes of considering whether
further steps should be taken to investigate whether they had caused wider loss
to sub-postmasters. However, the Review did not include a recommendation
that Mr Altman be asked to advise on the implications of these last two faults
so far as concerns whether knowledge of them could affect disclosure in the
criminal cases.
I see now that this was an omission, and I apologise for it. The recommendation
that was made in the Review to seek further advice from Mr Altman in respect
of the disclosure obligations only concerned matters arising from reports
prepared by Deloitte (which also had not been considered by Second Sight):
see the Review at paragraph 147, and recommendation (6), POLO0006355, at
pages 52 — 53. The recommendations ought to have included (whether within
recommendation (6) or separately) a recommendation that the advice taken in
respect of disclosure in the criminal cases should also include consideration of
these two defects.
15. Please consider expand on the following at paragraph 99 of
your review:
Page 22 of 33
48.
49.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
“We are also content that it would be inappropriate for POL to
conduct a wider review of the safety of any particular conviction
when that work is being independently carried out by the CCRC”
(emphasis added).
Please explain the basis on which you considered it inappropriate
for POL to conduct a wider review of the safety of a particular
conviction.
Paragraph 99 of the Review should be read together with paragraphs 65 — 66,
and 92 — 94. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the CCRC”) had first
contacted POL in 2013. By the end of 2015 it was considering the convictions
in 23 cases. I was told that POL had and continued to co-operate fully with the
CCRC. My view was that this was the course POL should continue to take. In
each of the cases under consideration by the CCRC there had been a
conviction. In those cases, the only way for those convictions to be
reconsidered and where appropriate overturned, would be by the Court of
Appeal Criminal Division after referral by the CCRC. As stated in the Review
(at paragraph 93), it was not in the gift of POL to overturn any of the convictions.
Therefore, the appropriate course for the POL was to continue to co-operate
with the CCRC. The point being made at paragraph 99 of the Review was that
no purpose would be served by duplicating the work that the CCRC was doing;
rather, POL should continue to work with the CCRC.
For sake of completeness, please also note recommendation (6), at paragraph
149 of the Review (POL 00006355 at pages 53 — 54) which, in part, concerned
disclosure that ought to be made to the CCRC.
Page 23 of 33
50.
51.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
16. Please explain the basis for the changes you suggested to the
letter to Baroness Neville Rolfe (see POL00103134 and
POL00131715).
I suggested changes to the letter (as per the track-changes on document POL
00131715) because I considered those changes made the letter clearer to read
and ensured the contents of the letter better reflected points made in the Review
document. I do not recall ever seeing the final version of the letter, as sent by
Mr Parker to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, so I am unable to say whether any or all
of my suggestions were accepted.
17. Please describe the advice you gave to Mr Parker on (a) who
to share your report with, including the board and / or government
and (b) whether to rely on legal professional privilege. Please set
out the reasons for giving that advice.
I have explained above (at paragraph 33) the reference to “loss of legal
privilege” in the email that refers to the phone conversation I had with Mr Parker
on 22 January 2016 (POL 00103108). The email that preceded that call (POL
00110361, at page 2) does not refer to any issue of privilege. I cannot now
remember whether the privilege issue was raised by me or raised by Ms
MacLeod or Mr Parker. I have set out above (at paragraph 33) the advice I
assume was given during that call. Whatever advice was given on that
occasion, it only concerned the position in the event that Mr Parker provided a
copy of the Review document to Baroness Neville-Rolfe. Further, what is
recorded in the email (POL 00103108) does not suggest that I was asked to
advise whether or not POL should assert or waive legal privilege over the
Review document. It only suggests that I advised that providing a copy of the
Page 24 of 33
52.
53.
54.
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
Review report to Baroness Neville-Rolfe might result “in the loss of legal
privilege” and give rise to the risk that, in the event of a request under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, POL would not be able to rely on the
exemption in that Act for information that is subject to legal professional
privilege.
I do not recall being asked to advise (either before 22 January 2016, on 22
January 2016, or after) on whether or not Mr Parker should provide a copy of
the Review report to the POL board, or whether if he did that might result in a
loss of privilege, or whether POL should “rely on legal professional privilege”.
Nor do I recall ever giving advice on any of these matters. It never crossed my
mind that the Review would not be shown to the POL board.
18. Please describe your recollection of the conference call on 27
May 2016 (see POL00241911).
I can see from POL 00241911 that Rodric Williams, a solicitor employed by
POL, sent an email on 24 May 2016 asking for advice, and that a phone call
was arranged. I assume that the call went ahead as arranged. I do not,
however, have any recollection of the call or what was said. The papers
provided to me do not include any attendance note of the call, so I assume that
none was made.
Mr Williams’ email referred to the High Court claim commenced by the sub-
postmasters and asked
Page 25 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
“Now that POL has been sued, is it reasonable for POL to address
any further steps it might reasonably take in respect of the SPMR
cases through the proceedings, rather than in response to your
report and recommendations?”
There is a later email from Mr Williams dated 26 July 2016 (POL 00025758).
The second paragraph of that email suggests that the advice given in the phone
call in May 2016 was to the effect that the question would be best answered by
the lawyers instructed by POL in the High Court claims. I suspect that the advice
I gave was to that effect. The Review report had set out recommendations.
Whether and in what way POL went about giving effect to those
recommendations was a matter for POL. In January 2016 I had advised on steps
that could be taken to give effect to the recommendations (see above, at
paragraphs 30 — 31) but, having received that advice, it was for POL to decide
what to do.
19. Please describe any further advice you gave to POL on these
matters.
I can see from POL 00025758 that on 26 July 2016 Mr Williams wrote to me
explaining that following “strong” advice from leading counsel acting in the High
Court claims, Mr Parker had decided that work in response to the
recommendations in the Review should cease and that instead the
recommendations would be addressed by “equivalent work taken forward in the
Group Litigation”. Mr Williams asked “if this raises any issue for [me]’. I replied
Page 26 of 33
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
later the same day saying that counsel instructed in the litigation was better-
placed to make a judgement on that.
56. This was the last contact I had with POL on this or any other matter.
20. With hindsight, would you have done anything differently in
relation to your involvement with POL?
57. I refer to paragraphs 46 — 47 above. I can now see that the Review ought to
have included a further recommendation to the effect explained in those
paragraphs.
21. Is there anything further relevant to the terms of reference of
which you think the Chair should be aware?
58. I do not think there are any further matters to draw to the Inquiry’s attention.
Statement of truth
I believe the contents of this statement to be true.
Signed:
Dated: 14 November 2024
Page 27 of 33
OFFICIAL
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
No.
Inquiry URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00168379
Letter from Baroness Neville-Rolfe to
Tim Parker re issues surrounding the
Horizon IT System
POL-0163676
POL00006355
Review on behalf of the Chairman of
Post Office Ltd concerning the steps
taken in response to various complaints
made by sub-postmasters
POL-0017623
POL00168377
Email from Mark Underwood to John
Davitt cc Jane MacLeod, Patrick Bourke,
Rodric Williams re: Instructions to Leading
Counsel Jonathan Swift QC to advise in
consultation at 16:30 on 8 October 2015:
The Post Office Limited Complaint Review
and Mediation Scheme
POL-0163674
POL00168378
In the matter of The Post Office Limited
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
- Instructions to Leading Counsel Jonathan
Swift QC to advice in consultation at
4.30pm on 8 October 2015
POL-0163675
POL00233630
Email chain from Mark Underwood to John
Davitt cc Jane MacLeod Patrick Bourke
Rodric Williams re: Instructions to Leading
Counsel Jonathan Swift QC to advise in
consultation at 16:30 on 8 October 2015:
The Post Office Limited Complaint Review
and Mediation Scheme
POL-BSFF-0071693
POL00233682
Email from Jonathan Swift to Jane
MacLeod, Rodric Williams re: draft terms
of reference
POL-BSFF-0071745
Page 28 of 33
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
No.
Inquiry URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00233683
A Starting Point for the Terms of Reference
POL-BSFF-0071746
POL00102588
Email from Jane MacLeod to Jonathan
Swift re: draft terms of reference
POL-0102171
POL00104216
Email chain Jonathan Swift to Jane
MacLeod re: Draft terms of reference
POL-0103799
10,
POL00102604
Email from Jane MacLeod to Jonathan
Swift, Mark Underwood and others re: Post
Office: note to accompany the updated and
attached chronology
POL-0102187
11
POL00162692
Email from Jane MacLeod to Jonathan
Swift, cc'ing Rodric Williams, Patrick
Bourke and another re: Post Office -
response to questions 6 & 7 of TOR
POL-0151082
12.
POL00162693
POL answers to JSQC Questions 6 and 7
POL-0151083
13.
POL00102617
Email from Jane MacLeod to Jonathan
Swift, re: Post Office - meeting with
Tim Parker
POL-0102200
14.
POL00162716
Email chain from Patrick Bourke to
Christopher Knight, Jonathan Swift cc:
Jane MacLeod and others re: Post
Office Matter - scope of enquires
POL-0151105
15.
POL00102706
Email chain from Patrick Bourke to
Christopher Knight cc Jonathan Swift and
others re: Post Office Matter
POL-0102289
16.
POL00102816
Email from Rodric Williams to Christopher
Knight Cc'ing Jonathan Swift, Mark
Underwood and others re: Chairman's
Review - Further Information - Subject to
Legal Privilege
POL-0102399
17]
POL00102826
Email from Rodric Williams to Christopher
Knight re. Chairman's Review - Further
POL-0102409
Page 29 of 33
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
No.
Inquiry URN
Document Description
Control Number
Information - SUBJECT TO LEGAL
PRIVILEGE
18.
POL00102834
Email trail from Rodric Williams to
Christopher Knight cc: Jonathan Swift re:
Chairman's Review - Further Information
- SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE with
attachments
POL-0102417
9.
POL00102842
Email trail from Rodric Williams to
Christopher Knight cc: Jonathan Swift re:
Chairman's Review - Further Information
- SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE with
attachments
POL-0102425
20.
POL00102850
Email from Rodric Williams to Christopher
Knight, Jonathan Swift, Mark Underwood
and others re Chairman's Review - Further
Information - Subject to Legal Privilege
POL-0102433
21.
POL00102858
Email trail from Rodric Williams to
Christopher Knight cc: Jonathan Swift,
Mark Underwood re: Chairman's Review -
Further Information - SUBJECT TO
LEGAL PRIVILEGE with attachments
POL-0102441
22.
POL00102887
Email trail from Rodric Williams to
Christopher Knight cc: Jonathan Swift,
Mark Underwood and Patrick Bourne re:
Chairman's Review - Further Information
- SUBJECT TO LEGAL PRIVILEGE with
attachments
POL-0102470
23.
POL00102890
Email from Rodric Williams to Christopher
Knight, re: Chairman's Review - Further
Information - SUBJECT TO LEGAL
PRIVILEGE with attachments
POL-0102473
Page 30 of 33
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
No.
Inquiry URN
Document Description
Control Number
24.
POL00103002
Email from Jonathan Swift to Tim Parker
cc: Christopher Knight re: meeting with
Lord Arbuthnot
POL-0102585
25.
POL00022623
Email from Mark Underwood to Jonathan
Swift, Christopher Knight, Jane MacLeod
and others, re meeting with second sight
- briefing paper
POL-0019102
26.
POL00022624
Chairman's Meeting with Second
Sight: Horizon Complaints — Briefing
POL-0019103
27.
POL00103010
Strictly Private and Confidential: Subject
to Legal Privilege, Jonathan Swift QC and
Christopher Knight: Meetings on
14/12/2015 at Finsbury Dials
POL-0102593
28.
POL00158278
Email from Patrick Bourke to
Christopher Knight, Jonathan Swift and
cc’d Jane MacLeod and others re: Post
Office - Telephone Conference
POL-0146569
29.
POL00102921
Email from Steve Allchom to John Davitt
cc: Jonathan Swift, Christopher Knight,
Patrick Bourke and others re: Requested
Meetings - Wednesday 9 December
POL-0102504
30.
POL00022625
Email from Tim Parker to Jane MacLeod
and Diane Blanchard in relation to
Horizon review
POL-0019104
31.
POL00022626
Review on behalf of the Chairman of
Post Office, Concerning the steps taken
in response to various complaints made
by sub-postmasters
POL-0019105
32.
POL00162966
Email from Mark Underwood to Jonathan
Swift, Christopher Knight, Jane MacLeod
and others - Re Action points from the
call held on 22 January 2016
POL-0151325
Page 31 of 33
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
No. Inquiry URN Document Description Control Number
33. POL00162967 I POL comments on the Chairman’s Report POL-0151326
34. POL00103015 Email from Mark Underwood to POL-0102598
Christopher Knight, Jonathan Swift and
others re: Outstanding 'Bureau Veritas
1S027001' & ‘Payment Card Industry Data
Security Standards’ (PCI DSS) reports
35. POL00103106 Recommendations and Proposals POL-0102689
36. POL00238707 I Email from Mark Underwood To: Rodric POL-BSFF-0076770
Williams and Patrick Bourke re
Updated recommendations grid
37. POL00238708 I Table detailing Recommendations and POL-BSFF-0076771
their respective Status and Proposals
as agreed by Jonathan Swift QC
38. POL00103108 I Email from Jane MacLeod to Tim Parker POL-0102691
re: Chairman's review
39. POL00162968 Report of the TC anomaly POL-0151327
0. POL00104104 I Email from Jonathan Swift to Mark POL-0103687
Underwood and Christopher Knight
re: Post Office Review
41. POL00158279 Agenda re: Tim Parker Review - POL-0146570
Telephone Conference 2 December 2015
2. POL00162880 Email chain from Mark Underwood to POL-0151254
Christopher Knight, Jonathan Swift, cc'd
Jane MacLeod, Patrick Bourke and others
re Minutes for the Sparrow Sub-Committee
Meetings and the Extracts from other
Board Meetings Relevant to Sparrow.
43. POL00006581 Review of PO prosecutions by POL-0017666
Brian Altman QC
44. POL00040042 Post Office Ltd, General Review POL-0036524
45. POL00006583 POL-0017668
Interim Review of CK Processes by
Brian Altman QC
Page 32 of 33
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
WITN11750100
WITN11750100
No.
Inquiry URN
Document Description
Control Number
A6.
POL00022619
Interim Review of Cartwright King's
Current Process
POL-0019098
A7.
POL00236458
Receipts-Payments Mismatch Issue Notes
POL-BSFF-0074521
A8.
POL00236454
Email chain including Mark Underwood
(POL); Christopher Knight (11KBW);
Jane MacLeod (POL) & Others Re:
Telephone call held on 2 December 2015
and the requested information and files
following the call
POL-BSFF-0074517
Ag.
POL00131715
Draft Letter from Tim Parker to Baroness
Neville Rolfe
POL-0121501
pO.
POL00103134
Email from Jonathan Swift to Mark
Underwood, Christopher Knight, Jane
MacLeod and others; re: A letter drafted for
Tim Parker to send to the Minister, briefing
her on the outcome of your enquiry to date
POL-0102717
p1.
POL00110361
Email chain between Amanda Brown and
Jonathan Swift and others
Re: Post Office - Chairman’s Review
POL-0111296
p2.
POL00241911
Email from Rodric Williams to John
Davitt RE: advice on 8 recommendations
in January 2016’s POL Chairman report
on SPMR cases
POL-BSFF-0079974
p3.
POL00025758
Email from Jonathan Swift to Rodric
Williams cc Christopher Knight re
Update and Request for Further Advice
POL-0022237
p4.
POL00103105
Email from Mark Underwood to Jonathan
Swift, Christopher Knight and others re:
Information to Inform this Afternoon's Call
@ 13:30
POL-0102688
Page 33 of 33
OFFICIAL