WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
Witness Name: ANGUS CRAWFORD
Statement No.: WITN11770100
Dated: 25 November 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANGUS CRAWFORD
1, Angus Crawford, will say as follows...
INTRODUCTION
1. I am employed as a Procurator Fiscal Depute with the Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service (“COPFS’).
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 3 October
2024.
3. I have been asked to provide information pursuant to Rule 9 of the Inquiry
Rules 2006.
Page 1 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
I qualified as a solicitor in 2002. I hold a current practising certificate with the
Law Society of Scotland. I hold an LLB in Scots Law, an LLM in Advanced
Advocacy and a Diploma in Legal Practice.
I began working as a Procurator Fiscal Depute in 2002. Around 2011/ 2012,
I was appointed as a Senior Procurator Fiscal Depute in the Economic
Crime Unit at Glasgow's Procurator Fiscals Office. The Economic Crime Unit
was responsible for the investigation and precognition of all economic
crimes, including fraud and embezzlement, which merited proceedings by
way of Indictment (a jury trial). At this time, all allegations of economic crimes
exceeding £25000 loss, were allocated to the Economic Crime Unit. The
Economic Crime Unit was part of the Glasgow Sheriff and Jury Unit.
GLOSSARY
6.
I use several terms within the body of this statement unique to Scotland.
These are:
Precognition.
A precognition is a generic term used to describe the process in which a
Procurator Fiscal Depute investigates a case and thereafter prepares a
document, ‘the precognition.’ This document refers to all of the available
evidence in the case. It is sent to Crown Counsel with recommendations on
whether or not to prosecute a case. Crown Counsel makes the final decision
Page 2 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
on whether a case is indicted or not. Not all cases are sent for Crown
Counsels instructions. Often a Procurator Fiscal Depute can mark a case for
no proceedings without Crown Counsels approval.
b. Mark or marking.
This term refers to the process where a Procurator Fiscal considers the
evidence in a case report. It involves deciding whether the report discloses
a crime and whether there is corroborated evidence (from two sources) to
prove that the accused person committed the crime. This process is called
‘marking the case.”
POST OFFICE CASES
7. I have been asked to provide details of my involvement in the six cases
affected by the Post Office Horizon system which were referred to the High
Court of Justiciary by the SCCRC (namely, the cases involving William
Quarm, Susan Sinclair, Colin Smith, Judith Smith, Robert Thomson, and
Aleid Kloosterhuis). I can confirm that I was not involved in these six cases.
8. I have been asked to provide details of my involvement in any other cases
which I learnt at the time may have been affected by possible issues with
the Post Office Horizon system. I can confirm that I was involved in the
following cases.
(i) Case against Rosemary Stewart (COPFS case reference
GG13010308)(Gorbals Post Office, Glasgow). The report was
Page 3 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
received from the Post Office investigator Mr Robert Daily on
21.05.2013 (COPF0000195). The case was allocated to me by my line
manager Mrs Allison McKenna (See file note in case papers dated
23.07.2014 at COPF0000200). In the note from Mrs McKenna, she
states “ Kenny has asked that ECT now considers this case to
establish whether or not we can raise proceedings. You were aware of
it from previous discussions with Andrew Lazzarin. Can you now take
over from where he left off and if sufficient fill in the template for Kenny
to authorise petition proceedings.” \t was marked by me for no
proceedings on 04.09.2014, due to concerns I had with the reliability
of the Horizon IT system, as well as the failure of the Post Office to
disclose documentation with respect to the original audit in 2009 at
COPF0000093 and COPF0000094. I can also recall a conversation
with Mr Daily, on or around 30.09.2014, where he stated that the
original audit figures from 2009 had been lost. (See file note in case
papers dated 30.09.2014 at COPF0000198)
I was aware of this case prior to it being allocated to me as I recall I
had discussions with PF depute Mr Andrew Lazzarin who had
previously marked the case for proceedings against Rosemary
Stewart, (see Initial Report Template in a Serious Fraud dated
30.05.2014 contained within case papers at COPF0000197). Mr
Lazzarin marked this case for proceedings on the basis of Mrs
Rosemary Stewart’s admissions. He does, however, acknowledge that
“there are well publicised concerns about the reliability of the Horizon
Page 4 of 23
OFFICIAL
(i)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
system.” I cannot recall the exact dates when I had the discussion
with Mr Lazzarin. There is a case note in the file dated 10.10.2013 from
Mr Lazzarin, at COPF0000161 referring to instructions from Crown
Office Policy Unit with respect to cases impacted by the Horizon IT
system. In this file note Mr Lazzarin states “ Until the review is
complete, Policy have agreed that the Post Office push things on
looking for corroboration without using Horizon.” (See file note by
Andrew Lazzarin dated 10.10.2013 in case papers at COPF0000161).
My interpretation from Mr Lazzarin’s file note was that this was the
Crown Office policy, at that time, with respect to cases impacted by
Horizon evidence. It may have been around this period that I had
discussed the case against Rosemary Stewart with Mr Lazzarin, prior
to it being allocated to me, and possibly the first time that I was alerted
to the issues with the Horizon IT System.
There was no mention of Horizon IT System issues within the case
report from Mr Daily with respect to the case against Rosemary
Stewart.
Case against Rauf Akhtar Bashir (COPFS case reference
GG14024535). (Toryglen Post Office, Glasgow). The report was
received from Post Office (Mr Daily) on 24.12.2014 (COPF0000176).
The case was allocated to me by my line manager, Mr Joseph
McKenna on 05.03.2015 (see file note in case papers at
COPF0000185). I prepared a Pre-Petition Report for Crown Counsel
Page 5 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
on 02.08.2016, recommending no proceedings due to issues with the
Horizon IT System. (See Pre-Petition Report in papers dated
02.08.2016 at COPF0000177)). Within the pre-petition case report, I
have copied and pasted an email from Laura Irvine, Brechin Tindal
and Oats (BTO solicitors) dated 30.08.2016. This email outlines the
Post Office position with respect to live cases and explains that the
Post Office will not be able to support “external matters where
Horizon is challenged.” It also confirms that Post Office would not be
able to provide an expert on Horizon to “support a prosecution
brought by a public prosecution service.” (See email from Ms Irvine,
BTO, within the Pre-Petition report in the case papers).
Confirmation was received from Crown Counsel on 06.02.2017
agreeing with my recommendation of no proceedings, (see email from
my line manager Mrs Anne Sweeney dated 06.02.2017 in case papers
at COPF0000184).
There was no mention of Horizon IT System issues within the report
received from Mr Daily. I had, however, knowledge of the issues from
dealing with the case against Rosemary Stewart. My email to Mr Daily
on 03.08.2016 (POL00333559) sought once again, information about
the reliability of the Horizon system and other evidential matters. (See
also same email in case papers dated 03.08.2016 at COPF0000180).
Page 6 of 23
OFFICIAL
(iii)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
Case against Murtaza Rasul (COPFS case reference GE13008494)
(Carmyle Post Office, Glasgow). The report was received from the
Post Office (Mr Daily) on 10.04.2013 (COPF0000118). I do not recall
who allocated this case to me or when it was allocated. The case was
previously marked by PF Depute Mr Andrew Lazzarin on 25.07.2014.
Mr Lazzarin recommended proceeding against Mr Rasul. He does
however acknowledge the potential issues with the Horizon IT system.
(See Initial Report Template in Serious Fraud Case in papers dated
25.07.2014 at COPF0000147). In this report Mr Lazzarin states “The
investigation was paused for a number of months while the Post Office
carried out a review of cases where their Horizon computer system
was involved. Paul Miele at Policy was aware of the position. The Post
Office have reached the conclusion that the system is reliable in
relation to this case but have yet to make a report available confirming
this is the case. The problems concerning the system were widely
reported at the time so will probably be something that the defence
focus on for benefit of the jury.” The report was marked by me on
24.09.2014 for no proceedings, due to issues with the Horizon IT
system and the reliability of civilian witnesses, who were elderly and
suffering from dementia at the time they provided their statements to
Mr Daily. (See my file note in case papers dated 24.09.2014 at
COPF0000156). There was no mention of any issues relating to the
Horizon IT system within the report.
Page 7 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
In a case note dated 12.12.13, Mr Andrew Lazzarin states that he had
a meeting with Mr Daily, Susan Winters of the Post Office and Ms Irvine
of BTO regarding the possible issues with the Horizon system. In this
file note Mr Lazzarin states that “They think that Horizon is not as bad
as it is made out to be and may be in a position to give us a statement
in due course to say that the relevant bits of the system worked
properly.” (See file note in case papers from Mr Andrew Lazzarin at
COPF0000159). In a file note raised by Mr Lazzarin dated 23.07.2013
(COPF0000201) he has copied an email sent from Mr Daily who states
“Following Second Sight review on the Horizon System used by Post
Office Ltd our solicitors are reviewing all cases submitted for a decision
on prosecution” There was no mention of Horizon IT System issues
within the original case report from Mr Daily with respect to the case
against Murtaza Rasul.
Case against Khalid Hussain (COPFS case reference
GG14010600) (Pollokshields Post Office, Glasgow). The report
was received from Mr Daily on 16.05.2014 (COPF0000187). I marked
this case for no proceedings on or around 12.11.2014 due to issues
with Horizon IT system. (See file note in papers dated 12.11.2014 at
COPF0000191) I have no recollection of who allocated this case to
me, or when it was allocated. The case papers indicate that I was
repeatedly requesting information from Mr Daily regarding this case. A
file noted dated 21.10.2014 mentions an email I sent to Mr Daily
requesting information including documentary evidence and also
Page 8 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
making further enquiries with respect to the reliability of the Horizon IT
system (See file note in case papers at COPF0000189). On
12.11.2014 my case file (COPF0000191) mentions that I had
requested documentary evidence of the quarterly audit mentioned in
the case report, and also mentions that Mr Daily had stated that the
documents would be difficult to obtain as they were kept by an
independent company who charged a lot of money to provide them. I
also mention the criticism of the Horizon system and noted that Mr
Daily stated that he would be unable to defend the system if this case
was to go to court. This refers to his disclosure to me with respect to
the Rosemary Stewart case. (See file note in Rosemary Stewart case
papers at COPF0000191). I raised a further file note on 18.05.2015
mentioning my contact with Mr Daily and noting he still had to provide
details of an expert witness who could provide assurances that the
Horizon accounting system was accurate. (See file note in case papers
at COPF0000190). There was no mention of Horizon IT System issues
within the original case report from Mr Daily with respect to the case
against Khalid Hussain.
I have been asked to explain the extent of my involvement in the cases at
paragraphs 8 above. I was allocated the cases for investigation and
precognition. This involved examining all of the available evidence and
deciding on whether to prosecute or not. I required to consider each report
from Post Office on a case-by-case basis to establish if there was
corroborative evidence. Having already considered the potential issues with
Page 9 of 23
OFFICIAL
10.
11.
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
the Horizon IT system I required to establish if any of the corroborative
evidence was reliant upon the Horizon IT System.
I have been asked to explain whether any Horizon data was requested from
Fujitsu in the cases at paragraph 8 above. I have no knowledge of any
Horizon data request from Fujitsu in the cases referred to at 8 above. The
Fujitsu issue was not something I was aware of at this time as it was never
brought to my attention by Mr Daily that Fujitsu provided data to the Post
Office regarding Horizon IT System matters.
I have been asked to consider the following documents.
POL00333517 refers to a meeting I had with Mr Daily with respect to
the case against Rosemary Stewart and the case against Murtaza
Rasul. This is a chain of emails initiated by PF Depute Andrew
Lazzarin dated 24.07.2014 with respect to the case against Murtaza
Rasul (See 8(iii) above). In this chain of emails Mr Lazzarin enquires
about the reliability of the Horizon System. This email was sent prior
to the case being allocated to me. Mr Daily in his email dated
29.08.2014 confirms that the Rasul case has been passed to me (see
email in case papers at POL00333517. I do not recall the exact
discussion I had with Mr Daily at this time, but it is clear from the
import of his email to Craig Paterson of Greater Glasgow CID that I
was asking about the Horizon System. (See email to Craig Paterson
from Mr Daily in the case papers). I ultimately marked no proceedings
Page 10 of 23
OFFICIAL
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
in the Rosemary Stewart case on 04.09.14 (COPF0000093) and the
Murtaza Rasul case on 24.09.14 (COPF0000156), citing issues with
the Horizon IT System.
POL00139869 is an email chain initiated by Jarnail Singh dated 03
09 2014 and refers to a meeting I had with Mr Daily and Ms Irvine
regarding concerns with the case against Rosemary Stewart. At this
meeting I recall raising issues surrounding the reliability of Horizon. I
also recall asking them about the provision of an expert report and
also a request to provide me with other documentary evidence,
including the 2009 audit report in the case against Mrs Rosemary
Stewart.
COPF0000093 is a case note I raised in the case file with respect to
the case against Rosemary Stewart and refers to a face-to-face
meeting with Mr Daily and Ms Irvine (see 8(i) above).
COPF0000094 is a case note I raised after the meeting mentioned at
8(i) above. My recollection is that I had several telephone
conversations with Mr Daily with respect to information I had
requested. This case note was in reference to these conversations.
POL00333559 This document refers to an email I sent to Mr Daily
with respect to the case against Rauf Akhtar Bashir (see 8(ii) above).
Page 11 of 23
OFFICIAL
12.
(vi)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
POL00165581 appears to be a document generated by the Post
Office. I am referred to in this report at page 2. It succinctly describes
my position with respect to my refusal to prosecute Rosemary
Stewart due my concerns with the reliability of the Horizon system.
This report is dated 09.10.2014 after I had informed Mr Daily that I
would not be proceeding with the case against Rosemary Stewart
(See 8(i) above)
I have been asked to provide a full account of my knowledge of the Horizon
IT system, the role Horizon data played in prosecutions of Post Office cases
in Scotland and my knowledge of Horizon system bugs, errors and defects,
or other issues with the Horizon system. My response is as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
My knowledge of the Horizon system issues at the time I was dealing
with Post Office cases was limited to the information contained within
the Rosemary Stewart papers.
I am not aware of any other cases, other than those listed at 8 above,
where reliance was placed on Horizon data in support of the
prosecution.
I cannot recall when I first learned that there may have been issues
with the reliability of Horizon data produced by the system. It may
have been, as previously explained, when I was allocated the case
against Rosemary Stewart (see 8(i) above) or earlier discussions with
Page 12 of 23
OFFICIAL
(iv)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
Mr Andrew Lazzarin. As previously explained, there is a reference to
the Horizon System issues in the case file from Mr Lazzarin who had
previously been dealing with this case prior to it being allocated to me
for precognition. (See file notes by Andrew Lazzarin in case papers
dated 10.10.2013 at COPF0000208 and COPF0000210.
I understood that the Horizon system may have defects which could
affect the accuracy of financial information recorded on the system.
As stated at 8 above, the evidence submitted by the Post Office
Investigator Mr Daily, in the cases I dealt with, was reliant upon
Horizon data. It was therefore my duty to consider all the evidence
provided within the case reports received from the Post Office to
establish if there was a sufficiency of evidence to support a
prosecution. I also had to be satisfied that the evidence would stand
up to scrutiny. I can recall, at this time, that the internet was awash
with information concerning the issues with the Horizon IT System.
For example, as late as 03.08.16, I was requesting disclosure of the
Second Sight report (POL00333559) to allow me to make an
informed decision in the case of Rauf Akhtar Bashir (COPFS case
reference GG14024535). The report was never forthcoming.
When discovering the issues raised during my research, I was
concerned that these issues may have an impact on the cases I was
dealing with.
Page 13 of 23
OFFICIAL
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
I understood that the Horizon system may have defects, which could
cause inaccurate information being recorded on the system.
I had regular contact with Mr Daily, Post Office Investigator, with
relation to the cases he had reported to COPFS which had been
allocated to me for precognition.
My input involved a request to Mr Daily for further evidential
information, in the cases allocated to me. For example, my email to
Mr Daily dated 03.08.2016 (COPF0000180) indicates the type of
enquiries I made in the case against Rauf Akhtar Bashir (COPFS
case reference GG14024535) and (POL00333559).
I did not agree to prosecute any cases allocated to me that were
dependent on the Horizon IT system evidence. I considered the
reports allocated to me on a case-by-case basis. I established that all
were dependent upon Horizon evidence. I decided not to prosecute
these cases owing to my concerns over the possible Horizon system
defects and Mr Daily’s disclosure to me at our meeting on or around
04.09.2014 (COPF0000093) with respect to the case against
Rosemary Stewart. At that meeting I advised him that he would be
called as a crown witness and if cross examined in court regarding
the Horizon IT system could he defend the accuracy of the Horizon
IT System? His answers was ‘no’ .
Page 14 of 23
OFFICIAL
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
In POL00139869 Jarnail Singh alludes to these issues in his email to
Ms Irvine dated 3.9.2014 when he states, “However concerns
appears to relate in part to the position with regards to the Horizon
System (in the absence of expert evidence) and what might be said
in evidence should POL’s security manager be cross examined.” This
disclosure from Mr Daily surprised me, as it was the first time, after
repeated requests for an expert report, that Mr Daily ever indicated
that there may be issues with the Horizon system that would impact
on the evidence in the case.
After I had a meeting with Mr Daily and Ms Irvine from BTO on or
around 04.09.2014 (COPF0000093) and Mr Daily's disclosure to me
(See 12 (ix) above) I considered each report from Post Office on a
case-by-case basis and decided that, given that they were all reliant
on Horizon evidence, they would not stand up to scrutiny at trial.
I would not ever allow a reporting agency to pressurise me to conduct
a prosecution in a particular way.
I was not aware of any other Horizon cases, however, any other
cases reliant on Horizon evidence which I was aware of would have
been treated with the same circumspection, as the cases previously
allocated to me.
Page 15 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
13. My reflections now are as follows.
No mention of potential Horizon IT issues within the reports
received from the Post Office. It is essential that a Reporting Agency
is completely transparent with a prosecuting authority. Within the four
reports I received from Mr Mr Daily there is no mention of the issues
that were being raised by Postmasters in England. Mr Mr Daily had to
have been aware of these issues at the time he was submitting his
reports. The criticism of the Horizon system should have been
highlighted within the report to allow the prosecutor to consider the
potential evidential impact on a case and make an informed decision.
A reporting agency must be trusted to provide all information to the
prosecutor, even information which would undermine the Crown case.
Within COPFS each individual office marks their own cases which
merit proceedings by way of indictment ( a jury trial) . For example, a
Procurator Fiscal Depute in Aberdeen could be marking a Post Office
case similar to the cases I marked in Glasgow. If the PF Depute
marking the Aberdeen case was not aware of any potential Horizon IT
issues, and these issues had not been highlighted in the report, the
marking depute would accept the Horizon evidence as being accurate.
Assuming there was a corroborated case, usually the Horizon
evidence and the accused admissions, that case would likely be
prosecuted.
Page 16 of 23
OFFICIAL
(ii)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
Underlying evidence not available at report stage. In the Rosemary
Stewart case, the Reporting Officer failed to provide evidence of
money being transferred from the Post Office to the suspect’s bank
account or any bank account associated with her. In the transcript of
Rosemary Stewart's interview, she denies taking any money, albeit she
accepts she attempted to cover up losses. She gave her consent for
the Post Office to have access to her bank account. This was not to
have been followed up by Mr Daily prior to submitting the report. Or if
it had been followed up Mr Daily failed to provide me with the results
of his investigations. If Mr Daily had found nothing in Rosemary
Stewarts bank account indicating that she had transferred funds from
the Post Office to her account that should have mentioned in the initial
case report.
Full enquiries not carried out prior to reporting. In my dealings with
Mr Daily, either in face-to-face meetings, telephone calls or emails, it
is evident that I was repeatedly requesting additional documentary
evidence which he either failed to disclose or was not aware that he
had to disclose. For example, in the Rosemary Stewart and the Khalid
Hussain case, I requested a copy of the audit reports. This was
essential evidence and should have been disclosed at the initial report
case. These reports were never forthcoming. I recall being concerned
when Mr Daily failed to provide this information when I requested it.
The original audit reports were an essential piece of evidence to prove
the crime. As previously stated, Mr Daily's explanation for the failure to
Page 17 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
provide the original audit reports in the Rosemary Stewart case was,
(i) The information is kept by another organisation, and it is expensive
for the Post Office to retrieve the information and (ii) The original audit
report had been lost. Even if the Horizon IT system proved to be
reliable the absence of the original audit reports would have
undermined the crown case.
(iii) There was no mention of Fujitsu’s role in the supply of data
supporting the information contained in the Horizon System. It is likely
that if I had been aware of Fujitsu’s involvement, I would have
requested sight of the data to consider whether I required a witness
from Fujitsu to speak to that data.
COPES Institutional knowledge of Horizon issues.
14. I have been asked to provide an account of any information I have provided
to Senior other COPFS colleagues about Horizon system bugs, errors and
defects, or other issues with the Horizon system, specifically in relation to
the potential to affect the reliability of Horizon data used in support of
prosecutions. My response is as follows.
(i) I reported to my line managers in relation to Post Office cases in which
Horizon data was being relied upon. I worked in the Economic Crime
Unit for around three years. The Economic Crime Unit was part of the
Page 18 of 23
OFFICIAL
(ii)
(iii)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
Glasgow Sheriff and Jury Unit. The Sheriff and Jury Unit was
responsible for precognosing all cases which could potentially be
indicted ( For a jury trial). The line management structure within the
Economic Crime Unit included a Principal Depute, to whom I reported,
an Assistant PF and a District PF. Cases would be allocated to me from
my line manager. I was allocated the Rosemary Stewart case from my
line manager Allison McKenna. Instructions came from Mr Kenneth
Donnelly, then Head of the Glasgow Sheriff and Jury Unit. (See case
note by Allison McKenna in Rosemary Stewart file dated 23 07 2014
at COPF0000200). The other line managers to whom I reported to
during my time in the Economic Crime Unit were Mr Joseph McKenna
(See file note from Mr Joseph McKenna dated 05.03.2015
COPF0000185 in the case of Rauf Akhtar Bashir, reference
GG14024535) and Mrs Anne Sweeney (See file note in papers dated
06.02.2017 in the case of Rauf Akhtar Bashir, reference GG14024535,
at COPF0000184).
I had discussions with Mr Paul Miele at Crown Office Policy Unit with
respect to issues with the Horizon IT system. (see 14(iii) below)
I had contact with Mr Paul Miele at Crown Office Policy Unit during the
period I was investigating the Post Office cases allocated to me. I
cannot recall the date or dates of these discussions; however, I think it
was after Mr Daily had made the admission on or around 04.09.2014
concerning his inability to defend the integrity of the Horizon IT system.
Page 19 of 23
OFFICIAL
(iv)
(vi)
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
The nature of my discussion with Mr Miele was around the issues with
the Horizon IT system and my concerns over its accuracy. My
recollection is that Mr Miele was on a fact-finding exercise at this time.
My understanding during this period, was that Crown Office Policy Unit
was aware of the issues being raised about the possible unreliability of
the Horizon IT system.
I am not aware when Crown Office was notified by Post Office that
allegations relating to the integrity of the Horizon system were being
made by subpostmasters. In the case of Rosemary Stewart, there is a
file note from Andrew Lazzarin dated 10.10.2013 referring to Horizon
issues, (See 8(i) above). I also note that Mr Paul Miele printed the
summary of evidence in the Rosemary Stewart case on 21.05.2013
(See case directory in the Rosemary Stewart papers at
COPF0000247).
I have no recollection of receiving any instructions in relation to Post
Office Horizon cases from within my local office or from COPFS.
I have no knowledge of when COPFS ceased prosecutions against
subpostmasters in relation to Post Office Horizon cases. The last live
case that I had any involvement with was against Rauf Akhtar Bashir
(GG14024535), when I received Crown Counsel’s instructions on
16.02.17 agreeing with my recommendation not to prosecute owing to
issues with the Horizon IT system. (See file note in papers dated
Page 20 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
06.02.2017 in the case of Rauf Akhtar Bashir, reference GG14024535
at COPF0000184).
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 25.11.24
Page 21 of 23
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
OFFICIAL
Index to First Witness Statement of Angus Crawford
No. I URN Document Description Control
Number
1 COPF0000118 I Standard Prosecution Report - COPF0000118
GE13008494
2 I COPF0000147 I Witness statement of Murtaza Rasul COPF0000147
3 I COPF0000156 I Angus Crawford Workstation report - I COPF0000156
GLASGOW2-144
4 I COPF0000159 I FOS User - Andrew Lazzarin — Note COPF0000159
5 I COPF0000201 I Report re: postponing the submission I COPF0000201
of the requested statement and
productions - FOS User: Andrew
Lazzarin
6 I COPF0000187 I Standard Prosecution Report for COPF0000187
accused fraud of Subpostmaster -
Khalid Hussain
7 I COPFO000189 I Update notes from Angus Crawford COPF0000189
RE: Email sent to RO on Horizon
accounting system
8 I COPF0000191 I Angus Crawford message COPF0000191
9 I COPF0000190 I Message regarding a request for COPF0000190
expert witness on Horizon IT system
10 I COPF0000195 I Standard Prosecution Report of COPF0000195
Rosemary Stewart and Jaqueline El
Kasaby
11 I COPF0000200 I Note from Alison McKenna to Angus COPF0000200
Crawford re filling in the template to
authorise petition proceedings
12 I COPF0000198 I Message by Angus Crawford COPF0000198
regarding the defensibility of Horizon's
accuracy in court
13 I COPF0000197 I Request to Sheriff and Jury Functional I COPF0000197
Lead for authority to place accused on
petition for Fraud case - Rosemary
Stewart
14 I COPF0000161 I Email to Andrew Lazzarin RE: PO and I COPF0000161
Horizon
15 I COPF0000176 I Standard Prosecution Report - COPF0000176
Strathclyde (GG14024535)
16 I COPF0000177 I Pre Petition Report - Rauf Akhtar- COPF0000177
Bashir
17 I COPF0000184 I Message from Mairi to Angus re COPF0000184
Prosecution
Page 22 of 23
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
WITN11770100
WITN11770100
18
COPF0000180
Email from Angus Crawford to Robert
Daily re: Case v Bashir. GG14024535
COPF0000180
19
COPF0000093
Email from Angus Crawford to
Unknown RE; Angus stating that
evidence in relation to the accusation
of fraud on a post office branch is
unavailable, nor does post office have
results an audit referred to as 'the
audit in 2009' nor can RO and 'solicitor
‘defend’ the Horizon accounting
system '/ Record of meeting between
Angus Crawford and RO
COPF0000093
20
COPF0000094
Angus Crawford note of
communication with RO
COPF0000094
21
COPF0000185
Email from Joe McKenna RE:
Deposits, ATM use
COPF0000185
22
COPF0000208
File note re Robert Dailly re Review of
Horizon System
COPF0000208
23
COPF0000210
Note recorded by Andrew Lazzarin re
Robert Daily statements
COPF0000210
24
COPF0000247
Screenshot of case file documents
relating to GG13010308
COPF0000247
25
POL00333559
Post Office and COPFS emails re
case v Bashir [GG14024535 -
Toryglen PO] (Scotland) with
questions for PO including seeking
assurances re Horizon and a copy of
the Second Sight report.
POL00333559
26
POL00333517
Email from Craig Paterson to Robert
Daily re: Rasul - concerning case
which has been passed to Angus
Crawford
POL00333517
27
POL00139869
Email chain from Jarnail Singh to
Laura Irvine, cc Martin Smith, Andrew
Parsons and others re Scotland /
Gorbals Post Office
POL00139869
28
POL00165581
Email from Robert Daily to Denise
Reid, Brian Trotter, John Breeden and
others re: Case closure -
POLTD/1213/0164 - Gorbals
POL00165581
Page 23 of 23
OFFICIAL