WITN11760200
WITN11760200
Witness name: Dan O'Mahoney
Statement No: WITN11760200
Dated: 9 October 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAN O'MAHONEY
ON BEHALF OF POST OFFICE LIMITED IN THE POST OFFICE
HORIZON IT INQUIRY
I, DAN O'MAHONEY, of 100 Wood Street, London, EC2V 7ER, will say as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1 I am the Inquiry Director within Post Office Limited (“Post Office”). This is
my second witness statement to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (the
“Inquiry”). I am giving this witness statement in a corporate capacity on
behalf of Post Office.
2 This witness statement has been prepared in response to a request by
email from the Inquiry sent to Burges Salmon LLP and Fieldfisher LLP
(‘BSFf’) at 15:37 on 4 October 2024, that Post Office provide the Inquiry
with a statement from an appropriate individual to speak to the contents of
a letter sent to the Inquiry on behalf of Post Office dated 2 October 2024,
which provided further information in relation to the Inquiry’s Rule 9
WORK\54247480W.3 1 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
Request 57 (“R9(57)”) Question 4 (“Question 4”) (exhibited as
POL00460624).
3 The facts in this witness statement are true, complete and accurate to the
best of my knowledge and belief. Where my knowledge and belief, as set
out in this witness statement, has been informed by another person or by
documents, I acknowledge that it has been informed in that manner. I have
been assisted in preparing this witness statement by BSFf. BSFf is
assisting Post Office in relation to the Inquiry.
4 I have been asked by BSFf to state that I am not authorised by Post Office
to waive any legal professional privilege that belongs to Post Office.
FURTHER INFORMATION RELEVANT TO QUESTION 4
5 My colleague, Melanie Park (Central Operations Director within Post
Office), provided a witness statement dated 22 August 2024
(WITN11600100) to the Inquiry to assist it with, amongst other things,
matters set out in R9(57). Ms Park's witness statement responded to
Question 4 in paragraphs 24-28. In that response Ms Park explained that
Post Office had incomplete records and institutional knowledge relating to
historic civil claims, summarised what those records indicated, and
explained that, to try obtain additional records, Post Office had contacted
its former external advisers understood to have acted for Post Office in civil
claims potentially within the scope of Question 4°.
‘The number of civil claims pursued by POL based on Horizon data since the Rule 9 start date, the quantum and the
outcome of those claims including payments of legal costs by parties’
WORKI54247480W.3 2 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
6 Post Office made enquiries seeking further information potentially relevant
to responding to Question 4 with Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, DAC
Beachcroft LLP, Pinsent Masons LLP, Hugh James LLP and AWH
Acquisition Corp Ltd (t/a Cartwright King) with a view to providing the
Inquiry with an updated response to Question 4 based on more complete
data sources than Post Office's legacy data. BSFf's letter to the Inquiry
dated 2 October 2024 reflects the information collected from those law
firms for this purpose and, in turn, I speak to my understanding of those
findings.
7 Neither I nor Ms Park were involved in making those enquiries. Further,
neither of us were involved in the historical civil enforcement activity to
which the enquiries related, which I understand from paragraph 32 of Ms
Park’s statement had ceased by 2019, before Ms Park and I joined Post
Office. However, the enquiries were undertaken principally by BSFf under
instruction from Post Office’s Inquiry Team, which I lead. Accordingly, I am
the appropriate person to provide this witness statement.
8 Having engaged with BSFf in detail to understand the enquiries that were
made, I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts and
matters set out in BSFf's letter sent to the Inquiry on behalf of Post Office
dated 2 October 2024 [POL00460624] are true and accurate.
9 In particular, in making those enquiries, Post Office took a broad view of
what was meant by “civil claims pursued” and asked its former external
advisers to adopt the same approach. Effectively, any matters where a
formal letter before action was issued and/or any subsequent or other
WORKI54247480W.3 3 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
10
11
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
formal procedural steps were taken was to be treated as a “civil claim
pursued”. This would not include matters where only a request for payment
that was not a formal letter before action was issued, but inclusion was not
limited, for example, only to those matters where civil proceedings were
issued. This would, therefore, include matters that were not pursued
beyond initial stages, that were settled before or after a substantive hearing
and that proceeded to trial and enforcement. Post Office, or BSFf on its
behalf, asked Post Office's former legal advisers to search for broader
records than just those identified by Post Office's legacy data (which were
shared just as a starting point for enquiries).
Further, Post Office also took a broad view temporally, including any
matters that continued to be pursued after the “Rule 9 start date” (i.e., 8
July 2013 — see paragraph 12(h) of Ms Park’s witness statement and
paragraphs 83-85 of the second witness statement of John Barlett
(statement number WITN11190200)), even if most of the work was done
before that date.
I set out below the positions provided by Post Office’s former external
advisers which were presented in paragraphs 2.4-2.9 of BSFfs letter sent
to the Inquiry on behalf of Post Office dated 2 October 2024
[POL00460624]. I understand from BSFf that BSFf engaged with Post
Office’s former external advisers before sending their letter specifically to
ensure that Post Office’s former external advisers did not have concerns
2 For Cartwright King only a slightly different approach was taken Post Office instructed Cartwright King on prosecutions
rather than civil claims. Accordingly, Cartwright King was asked to confirm whether it had been involved in any civil claims
at all (in light of the identification of a single historical example of it having assisted Post Office in instructing another firm
to enforce a civil remedy obtained through criminal proceedings on which it was acting for Post Officg
WORKI54247480W.3 4 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
about the accuracy of those statements before BSFf provided them to the
Inquiry on behalf of Post Office.
HUGH JAMES LLP
12 Hugh James confirmed to BSFf that it had not identified indications that it
acted for Post Office in relation to any matters relevant to Question 4 on or
after 8 July 2013:
"I understand that we do not hold any physical files anymore, as the
destruction date has long since passed. We do have some limited
electronic data but the files are, I am told, quite sparse. We did
advise the Post Office on postmaster civil debt recovery. Those files
were all opened between 2004 and 2008. Only one file was opened
after 2008. That one file was opened in 2013 and does not appear
to be a postmaster debt recovery file. The civil debt recovery matters
were undertaken under two file prefixes — ROY24 and ROY28.
These matters were completed by 2009. It doesn’t appear that we
did “pursue” sub postmasters post 2013. If you have our file
reference which should be prefixed as ROY24 or ROY28 we can do
a specific search for you to see if that throws anything up."
CARTWRIGHT KING
13 Cartwright King confirmed to BSFf that it had not identified indications it
acted for Post Office in relation to any matters relevant to Question 4 on or
after 8 July 2013:
"From the searches that I have been able to conduct in a relatively
short time frame, I have been unable to identify any further
WORKI54247480W.3 5 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
examples: of CKL involvement in civil claims on behalf of POL. This
cannot however be taken to be a definitive position. I could not say
categorically whether CKL were involved in any other civil cases or
not, without first conducting a manual search of every POL
prosecution case file on CKLs legacy case management system. As
you are no doubt aware, copies of these case files have already
been provided to POL. In the circumstances I suspect that you will
have the resources available to review the material in question far
more expeditiously and effectively than I could."
DAC BEACHCROFT
14 DAC Beachcroft was instructed by Post Office to act on a large portfolio of
civil recoveries. However, DAC Beachcroft confirmed to BSFf that it does
not consider any of those claims to be within the scope of Question 4. DAC
Beachcroft’s position is:
“the debt recovery instructions that were received followed audits by
POL and an audit pack was received. No advice was sought on the
merits of recovery and no substantive review of the pack was carried
out. The debt figure and the debtor's details were simply extracted.
If there was, and we cannot confirm after this time if there in fact
was, any ‘Horizon’ data within the pack, it was not used in evidence
or even considered by those conducting the recoveries. If the debtor
referenced Horizon when responding to correspondence, the matter
would be returned.
3 Footnote 2 above describes the example referenced here.
WORKI54247480W.3 6 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
15
16
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
The recoveries were very simple and were an administrative
process performed for POL, as evidenced by the low level of fixed
fees charged.
In light of the above we do remain firmly of the view that DACB did
not assist POL with claims falling within the question. We cannot
confirm that no Horizon data was relied upon in any underlying claim
preceding DACB's debt recovery support, because that did not form
any part of DACB's instructions.”
From management information shared with Post Office by DAC Beachcroft
pertaining to the 378 matters where DAC Beachcroft carried out at least
some work on or after 8 July 2013, BSFf informed me that it understands
that only 77 incurred total fees and disbursements greater than £1,000
(exc. VAT) and 263 incurred total fees and disbursements less than £250.
It is Post Office's view that this appears to correlate with the case load
comprising relatively few civil claims that were pursued materially through
procedural stages (without prejudice to DAC Beachcroft’s position, as set
out above, that these were not claims within the scope of Question 4).
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
From the information Post Office has received (taking the steps described
at paragraph 6 above), it appears to Post Office that most instructions Post
Office sent externally relating to matters within the scope of Question 4
were provided to Womble Bond Dickinson. I am informed by BSFf that,
based on the information provided by Womble Bond Dickinson, BSFf
understands the following:
WORKI54247480W.3 7 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
(a) I Womble Bond Dickinson acted on 48 “civil claims pursued’ based
on Horizon data since 8 July 2013 or continuing past 8 July 2013.
(b) I The claimed quantum of those claims ranged from £3,480.62 to
£205,427.45. The mean claimed quantum of those claims was
£43,239.71.
(c) 45 of those claims (94%) resulted in Post Office obtaining a
substantive remedy, either through a judgment, peremptory order or
settlement. Remedies obtained included 25 judgments in favour of
the Post Office (52%); 5 bankruptcy orders against postmasters
(10%) (3 bankruptcy orders were obtained following judgment and
2 relate to matters for which we do not have a record of Post Office
having obtained judgment); 20 matters (41%) resulted in Post Office
obtaining a charge against the postmasters' property; 23 matters
(48%) resulted in a negotiated settlement, including 2 participants
(4%) in Post Office's Initial Complaint and Review Mediation
Scheme, 13 participants (27%) in the Bates & Others v Post Office
Group Litigation Order, and 8 other forms of settlement (17%).
(d) One of those claims (2%) resulted in an order that Post Office could
recover its legal costs from the postmaster, with a further 16 claims
(i.e., a total of 17 claims (35%)) resulting in Post Office obtaining
default judgment against the postmaster and, it may reasonably be
inferred, an order for costs. In respect of the remainder, we are
unclear as to whether there was any order for recovery of legal
costs. Post Office is not aware of any claims having resulted in an
WORKI54247480W.3 8 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
order that the postmasters could recover legal costs from Post
Office.
PINSENT MASONS
17
Pinsent Masons has a longstanding relationship with Post Office, which
has included but is not limited to debt recovery work. Based on information
Pinsent Masons provided to BSFf prior to BSFf sending the letter of
2 October 2024, I understand that in the time available Pinsent Masons
had been unable to confirm whether some of their historic instructions (and,
if so, how many) fall within the scope of Question 4. Post Office was
informed that the limited management information available to Pinsent
Masons from its document management system indicates that it may have
been instructed on a handful of potentially relevant civil recovery cases in
Scotland. However, Pinsent Masons' corresponding client files are hard
copies stored in archives in Scotland so the retrieval, transport and review
of them would be required in order to clarify the position and extract any
relevant data. BSFf's letter dated 2 October 2024 noted Post Office's
understanding that Pinsent Masons' Scottish office's relationship was
primarily through the firm McGrigors, which merged with Pinsent Masons
before the Rule 9 Start Date in early 2012. More broadly, Post Office was
informed that it would be a substantial exercise for Pinsent Masons to
conduct a manual review of the client files pertaining to its voluminous, past
Post Office instructions to ascertain if any other past debt recovery work
was also potentially relevant to Question 4 (again noting that some such
files may only be available as hard copies in archives).
WORKI54247480W.3 9 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
Statement of Truth
I believe the contents of this witness statement to be true.
Dated: 09 October 2024
WORK\54247480W.3 10 65113.3
Classification: Confidential
Index to Second Witness Statement of Dan O'Mahoney
WITN11760200
WITN11760200
Exhibit
No.
URN
Document Description
Control No.
POL00460624
BSFf's letter to the Inquiry on
Post Office's behalf dated 2
October 2024 regarding R9(57)
Question 4.
POL-BSFF-150-
0000002
WORKI54247480W.3
65113.3
Classification: Confidential