WITN00020100
Witness Name: James Arbuthnot
Statement No.: WITN00020100
Dated: 12'" March 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF JAMES ARBUTHNOT
I, James Norwich Arbuthnot of Edrom, will say as follows...
INTRODUCTION
1. 1am the former Member of Parliament for North East Hampshire and currently
a Member of the House of Lords and of the Horizon Compensation Advisory
Board.
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 13'" December
2023 (the “Request”).
Page 1 of 193
WITN00020100
BACKGROUND
3. I have been asked to set out my involvement with the matters being
investigated by the Inquiry, and in particular, a detailed account of my
involvement and / or my views on:
a. _ the efforts of sub-postmasters, subpostmistresses, managers and
assistants (“SPMs’”) in seeking to expose the failings of the Horizon IT
System and to obtain redress for the wrongs they suffered as a result of
those failings;
b. the support and representation that was available to those SPMs in
pursuing those efforts;
c. the extent of any procedures available to SPMs to raise concerns and
grievances with POL [Post Office Ltd] and the adequacy of the same;
d. the appointment of Second Sight, the ambit of its investigation, the extent
of its access to relevant information and documentation and the
termination of its involvement;
e. _ the creation of the Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme, its
termination and the reason for the same;
f. the response of POL [Post Office Ltd] to the above, including any policies
or strategies it adopted in relation to the same;
g. to what extent, if at all, Post Office Limited (“POL”) or Fujitsu Services
Limited (“Fujitsu”) assisted or obstructed the efforts of SPMs to expose
Page 2 of 193
WITN00020100
the failings of the Horizon IT System and to obtain redress for the wrongs
which they suffered as a result of those failings;
h. POL’s conduct of the Group Litigation; and
i. the mechanism(s) in place to enable government oversight of the above
issues and whether they were adequate.
4. First a bit about my professional career and my roles in Parliament.
a. In 1975 I was called to the Bar in the Inner Temple, and in 1976 began to
practise as a Chancery Barrister at 10 Old Square in Lincoln's Inn.
b. From 1987 to 1997 I was the Conservative Member of Parliament for
Wanstead and Woodford and served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary
in the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry. In
1992 I was appointed an Assistant Government Whip and stopped
practising as a barrister. In 1994 I became the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Pensions in the Department of Social Security and
in 1995 the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.
c. In the 1997 General Election, the constituency of Wanstead and Woodford
having been abolished by the Boundary Commission, I was elected as MP
for North East Hampshire. The Conservatives lost that election, and I
became Opposition Chief Whip from 1997 until 2001. From 2001 until
Page 3 of 193
WITN00020100
2005 I served on the Intelligence and Security Committee and from 2003
to 2005 I was Shadow Secretary of State for Trade.
d. In 2005 I became Chair of the Defence Select Committee, a position I
held until 2014.
e. In 20151 stood down from the House of Commons and in October of that
year I was appointed a Life Peer. In the House of Lords I chaired the
Special Select Committee on Risk Assessment and Risk Planning
between October 2020 and December 2021.
I should start by saying that the issues with which I have been involved relate to
more than an IT system — they relate to the behaviour of people in the Post
Office, Fujitsu, the Government and the legal system, with the Horizon IT
system being the backdrop of that behaviour.
What follows has been reconstructed as to detail not only from the documents
helpfully provided by the Inquiry team but also from the entries in my electronic
diary and in my document folders. The facts set out below are within my own
knowledge or are derived from the documents I have seen, and I believe them
to be true. The process of reconstruction has involved my going through my
electronic entries and looking at the notes attached thereto. Sometimes those
notes contain documents such as letters, sometimes threads of emails and
sometimes both. For the purposes of this Statement I copied them from those
diary entries into a Microsoft Word document. I no longer have access to the
Page 4 of 193
WITN00020100
original emails because I left the House of Commons on 30 March 2015, but I
believe the documents I have copied to be accurate copies of the original
documents. Some of the documents to which I refer were stored on the
computer of my former Chief of Staff, Janet Walker, and she sent me copies of
those documents but I cannot now remember how or when she did that. All of
those documents I believe to be true copies of the original documents. It has
not always been possible with the email threads to be certain about the dates
on which those emails were sent; I have simply done my best to be accurate.
One further important caveat is that the fact that something was in my diary
means that it was likely, though not certain, to have taken place as envisaged in
my diary; it is possible that meetings, telephone calls or events either did not
take place or were slightly different from what was envisaged, but, again, the
narrative below fully accords with my own memory of what happened.
Page 5 of 193
WITN00020100
2009 — 2011: INITIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH POL & HORIZON
7. On Friday 3% April 2009 I went to a coffee morning in Long Sutton in my
constituency, and a local councillor from South Warnborough, Cllr John
Kennett, told me about the case of Jo Hamilton. He told me that Rebecca
Thompson of Computer Weekly was writing an article about it, and that she
hoped it would be published that month or the following month. I already had a
high regard for Computer Weekly as a result of their investigations into the
Chinook crash of 1994 (which had led to a campaign which I and others had
pursued to exonerate from the accusation of negligence the deceased pilots).
Cllr Kennett sent me an email of 4" April 20091 confirming our conversation but
it is not clear what, if anything, I did as a result of that conversation and email. I
should think I probably decided to wait until the article came out and then, when
I heard nothing more, I got on with other things,
8. On8" October 2009 David Bristow, the former subpostmaster of Odiham, sent
me an email?. He had just been removed from his position by the Post Office
who were demanding he pay them more than £42,000. He referred to the case
of Jo Hamilton, and also to one in the constituency of David Jones MP, that of
Alan Bates. I probably then had an informal conversation in the House of
Commons with David Jones MP because I replied on 224 October 20095 to
say that I had not previously been aware of his predicament and that I had
1 [POL00114298).
? [JARBOO0002].
3 [JARB0000003).
Page 6 of 193
WITN00020100
been in contact with David Jones MP and would help in any way I could. It
appears from my email that I did not remember the conversation I had
previously had with Cllr John Kennett about Jo Hamilton but I cannot now say
why that might have been.
9. On 27th October 2009 Mr Bristow wrote to me‘ to say that he had had another
threatening letter from the Post Office, that he had found out that the problem
arose from Horizon and that Brooks Newmark MP had asked a written question
about Post Office miscarriages of justice.
10. It appears that I then wrote to David Jones MP and also raised the matter with
Cllr John Kennett, because by this time I had connected in my own mind Mr
Bristow’s case with that of Jo Hamilton. I wrote my first letter to Lord
Mandelson, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, on 3rd
November 2009. In my email of 19th November 20095 I wrote to Mr Bristow to
say that I had raised the issue with these people and that I was asking Cllr
Kennett's permission to pass on the contents of his email of 4" April 2009°.
11. On 26 November 2009 I wrote’ to Mr Bristow, setting out the email dated 4""
April 2009 that I had received from Cllr Kennett and asked Mr Bristow if he
recognised any commonalities with his case.
* [JARBO000004).
5 [JARBO000005).
® [POL00114298}.
7 [JARBOO00006).
Page 7 of 193
WITN00020100
12. On 29" November 2009 Mr Bristow wrote to me® to say that there were indeed
commonalities and to ask for a meeting. He drew my attention to another MP,
David Heathcoat-Amory MP, who had had a constituent with a similar problem.
13. Atsome stage, and I do not remember the timing and I have no record in my
diary of it, I also spoke to Nippy Singh, a Borough Councillor in my
constituency, who was a senior figure in the National Federation of
SubPostmasters, about the matter. His response was that the Horizon system
worked well, and that the subpostmasters’ problems were of their own making.
14. On5' December 2009 Pat McFadden MP, Minister of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills, replied? to my letter of 37 November 2009 saying that the
Government had assumed an arms’ length role in Post Office Ltd and that the
issues I had raised were operational and contractual matters for POL and not
for Government. This letter crossed in the post with my chasing letter of 10"
December 2009"°.
15. While I was frustrated on receiving the Minister's letter, it did not then occur to
me quite how troubling it was. In the years since then I have come to believe
that in effect it left the British public with no redress against a Government-
owned organisation which the Government was deliberately refusing to
oversee. The only shareholder was repudiating the responsibilities of
ownership. It may be that the Government considered such an arms’ length
8 [POL00114298}.
° [UKGI00011506].
29 [POL00114298}.
Page 8 of 193
WITN00020100
relationship to be a necessary pre-cursor to the sale of Royal Mail or the Post
Office to the private sector which, as I believe was widely thought at the time,
the Government was hoping eventually to achieve. Or it may be that the
Government considered that private sector disciplines would be easier to bring
in to the Post Office if there were minimal Government interference in its day to
day running. It might have been a mixture of both, but I do not know.
16. Also on 10th December 2009 there was a meeting between two or three Post
Office personnel, David Jones MP and myself in a room off Westminster Hall in
the House of Commons. I would expect the Post Office to have taken notes of
that meeting. The briefing notes" written by James Marshall, my then Chief of
Staff, in the diary entry say that we were to discuss general issues and the
background. We were not to raise constituent-specific issues but it would be
useful background for the meeting in my constituency with Mr Bristow that was
to happen the following day. I could not stay for long, because I had a meeting
at the same time of the Liaison Committee, but I remember that the Post Office
personnel there were adamant that the Horizon system was “robust” (a word
which struck me as unusual at the time, but one we have heard so many times
since that it had clearly been fixed as the Post Office’s line to take).
17. The following day, on 11th December 2009 I went to South Warnborough to
meet David Bristow and Jo Hamilton as Mr Bristow had asked. Also present
was Issy Hogg of Shoosmiths, the Basingstoke solicitors. I have not found a
record of that meeting, but I came away thinking that the subpostmasters’ case
22 [JARB0000007).
Page 9 of 193
WITN00020100
was a convincing one. Both of them struck me as truthful people. I shall not
repeat here Jo Hamilton’s account of what had happened to her, but will only
say that it has not changed in any respect since I first met her at that meeting in
2009; I continue to keep in touch with her. I believed from what she told me
that she probably had committed the offence of false accounting, but equally
that she might have had no choice in the matter if she was (as she was
contractually bound to do) to open the Post Office the following day. But even
by then my legal experience (in chancery law rather than criminal law) was out
of date, and I am no longer at all sure that she did, in fact and in all the
circumstances, commit that offence. That, however, is not a matter for me to
decide.
18. I think itis likely that at the meeting somebody showed me the article in
Computer Weekly of 11th May 2009". For the reason set out above that
strengthened in my eyes the credibility of the two subpostmasters and I
distinctly remember that it and my meeting with the subpostmasters reduced
the credence I would otherwise normally have given to the view of Cllr Nippy
Singh, a man I respect. I should think that the meeting was the first time I had
mentioned to me the name of Alan Bates, who formed the Justice for
SubPostmasters Alliance that year.
19. On 15'" December 2009 I sent David Jones MP a message” to set up a
meeting to see where we could take the matter. As I said in the message, I felt
2? [PoLo0041564).
+3 (JARBO000008).
Page 10 of 193
20.
21.
WITN00020100
a campaign coming on. But nothing then appears to have come of that meeting
or campaign. It may be (I cannot remember) that we could think of no way to
take it further. Jo Hamilton had pleaded guilty, so could obviously not appeal.
The Government was refusing to get involved. The Post Office was insistent
that the Horizon system was “robust”, and there was not sufficient evidence
available to us to call that robustness into question.
However, I remained uncomfortable about the impasse we seemed to have
reached. On 7th February 2011 there was aired on television a programme
presented by Nick Wallis, Inside Out South'*, which addressed the problem of
the subpostmasters accused of fraud. Seema Misra, Jo Hamilton, David
Bristow and I appeared on it. I said that there were a lot of cases that seemed
to be cropping up all round the country and that I was very concerned about it.
Amanda Glover of Shoosmiths, the solicitors, also appeared, and said that the
55 people that had come forward to Shoosmiths were the tip of the iceberg.
On 9" February 2011 Cllr Nippy Singh telephoned me and asked me to set up
an urgent meeting with Ed Davey MP, the Minister with responsibility for the
Post Office. The issues on which Cllr Singh, who was expecting soon to
become President of the NFSP, wanted to brief me to raise with the Minister did
not include Horizon but were about the new Government proposals for the Post
Office relating to Green Giros, Paypoint, and the structure of sub-post offices'5.
I believe that the meeting between Ed Davey MP and myself did take place,
+ [POLO0058000).
35 [¥ARBOOO0009).
Page 11 of 193
22.
23.
24.
WITN00020100
and I must have raised with him the issues of Horizon that I had raised in the
Inside Out South interview two days earlier, because it was not the sort of thing
I would have passed over; I subsequently referred to such a discussion in a
letter I wrote to Ed Davey on 15" December 2011'°.
On 16'" February 2011 I wrote to Amanda Glover'” at Shoosmiths to say that I
would be grateful if she would update Janet Walker, who worked in my office,
about the subpostmaster matter. I am sure she did so.
At some stage during 2011, probably at a defence conference at Ditchley Park
of 224 and 23" September 2011, I had a conversation with Alice Perkins. I
knew her because she had been a senior and respected civil servant,
seconded by the Treasury to the Ministry of Defence, at a time between 1995
and 1997 when I had been Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I
discovered during that conversation that she might soon be involved with the
Post Office, and I raised with her my concerns about the events described
above. She expressed a wish to help sort it out but was not at that stage in a
position to do so.
In December 2011 the event that really exacerbated my concerns took place:
Mr Bristow having been removed as subpostmaster from the Odiham Post
Office, his successor, Mr Paul Kemp, was also removed and the Odiham Post
Office was closed. Some of my Odiham constituents (though not Mr Kemp)
26 [UKG100001395).
17 (JARBO000010).
Page 12 of 193
25.
26.
27.
WITN00020100
wrote to me to express their concern about the closure of the Post Office on the
grounds, my constituents said, of “irregularities”.
I immediately took the view that this could not be a coincidence. It confirmed to
me that what Shoosmiths had been saying about their cases being
representative of a widespread problem required serious investigation.
On 15'" December 2011 I wrote to Ms Moya Greene’®, the then Chief Executive
of Royal Mail, and to the Minister, Ed Davey MP", to express my concerns that
there were apparently 34 cases of such unexplained problems and I asked for
the matter to be looked into as a matter of urgency. I told Ms Greene and the
Minister that I was planning on meeting the 34 individuals to discuss what
action they planned on taking.
At some stage I suggested to Shoosmiths that I should write to all MPs to ask if
they had experienced similar issues, and that then the MPs and Shoosmiths,
possibly with subpostmasters as well, should meet in the House of Commons
to discuss possible ways forward. On 3rd January 2012 my new Chief of Staff,
Janet Walker, wrote to ask Shoosmiths about a date of such a meeting, which
would probably be around the end of February 2012. On 11th January 2012
Mr Channer of Shoosmiths replied to say he was keen to have such a meeting.
28 [POLO0105483).
18 [UKGI00001395}.
Page 13 of 193
28.
29.
WITN00020100
I have seen two replies from the Post Office to my letter to them, one or both of
which I probably received. Paula Vennells, then Managing Director of POL,
wrote an unsigned letter of 9° January 2012”, referring to the JFSA and
allegations about financial discrepancies being due in some way to the system;
she said there was no evidence to support those allegations and she was
confident that the system was robust (that word again) and fit for purpose. The
other was written on behalf of Moya Greene by Kevin Gilliland, Network and
Sales Director, who wrote an unsigned letter of 12" January 20122" in similar
terms but not referring to the JFSA, saying that POL did not accept the
allegations and that they were fully confident in the integrity and robustness of
the system. I do not remember receiving a reply from the Minister. I drafted a
template reply? to send to my constituents saying that I was suspicious of what
the Post Office said about the software it was using.
At this stage I did not know the truth of the matter but it was clear that a
detailed investigation was needed. I thought it was conceivable but unlikely
that all of these allegations were wrong — there were too many for it to be a
coincidence, and by this time I had come across three in my own constituency.
(From my vague memory I later came across a fourth.) The subpostmasters I
had met seemed to me to be transparently honest. I do not remember anyone
suggesting to me that the introduction of a new computerised accounting
system had uncovered previously hidden fraudsters. If they did I would have
given it little credence, both because of the self-evident honesty of the
20 [POL00107698).
21 [POL00105483].
22 [¥ARBO000011]
Page 14 of 193
WITN00020100
subpostmasters I had met and because of the sudden rash of similar
allegations appearing shortly after the installation of a new computer system,
an exercise which inevitably will have teething problems. I was therefore not
satisfied with the brush off I was getting by way of reply to my letters of 15"
December 2011.
Page 15 of 193
WITN00020100
THE APPOINTMENT OF SECOND SIGHT
30. On 12" January 2012 Janet Walker wrote to Mr Channer to suggest the
meeting take place on 20" or 27" February 2012, and on 17th January 2012 Mr
Channer replied to choose 27" February 2012. On or about 31% January 2012
Janet Walker wrote to Mr Channer’?® to say:
“I would like to pencil in a pre-meeting meeting with James, here at
Westminster, on 20 February at 11am. This will be to go over what
Shoosmiths are doing with regard to the post office cases. James will
be interested to learn what it is you think MPs can do to help. You will
know that once solicitors are involved, unless they expressly give
permission to MPs to become involved in their constituent’s case, and
have a role to play in helping, MPs must stand aside. This is one
reason both meetings are important.
The larger meeting on 27 February at 2pm is for Shoosmiths,
interested individuals affected by this matter, and constituency MPs, to
discuss what is happening. In order to entice MPs along, it is important
for the individuals you have listed on your spreadsheet to write to their
MPs, giving details about the meeting, stating that they (the individual)
will attend and asking their MP to do so as well. Could you possibly let
23 [JARBO000012).
Page 16 of 193
WITN00020100
me have a draft of this proposed letter, as I would like to use some of
your wording in an email invitation we will send to MPs, which will
come from James.”
31. After the pre-meeting, on 22nd February 2012, I telephoned a friend of mine,
Orna Ni Chionna, who was on the board of the Post Office/Royal Mail. She
said that her responsibilities were limited to Royal Mail, but that she suggested I
write to the incoming chair of the Post Office, Alice Perkins, whom, as set out
above, I had met at Ditchley Park
32. I wrote to Alice Perkins on 23 February 20124, saying:
“You may remember that when we last met at, I think, Ditchley Park I
mentioned the issue of the Horizon computer system in use in Sub
Post Offices throughout the country, and said I had a real concern
about the way some of the sub-Post Masters in and outside my
constituency had been treated. I have spoken to Orna Ni Chionna as
well about this, and she may mention it to you.
“May I please come and see you about it? I know it is the position of
the Post Office (supported by the National Federation of Sub Post
Masters, though not by the Communications Workers Union) that there
is nothing wrong with Horizon. I am deeply sceptical about this, and
24 [POLO0105470).
Page 17 of 193
WITN00020100
hope I can persuade you to look afresh at the matter, rather than
accepting that there should be a closing of ranks round the computer.
“I look forward to hearing from you.”
33. Alice Perkins replied the same day’, offering a meeting either at the House of
Commons or the Post Office.
34. Atsome stage, perhaps as a result of the premeeting with Mr Channer on 20"
February 2012, perhaps in preparation for the substantive meeting with the
subpostmasters on 27" February 2012, somebody, and I think it was probably
Mr Channer rather than Janet Walker, prepared a two page summary” of the
issues. The points made included:
“Access Legal from Shoosmiths, a national law firm, have been
contacted by almost 100 SPM’s who have suffered losses they cannot
explain, and have been subjected to disciplinary measures by POL. All
are adamant that they or their staff have not stolen any money.“
“They claim there has been no real investigation by POL as to the
cause of the losses that have appeared — and SPMs are expected to
pay it back regardless of how it was caused."
25 [POL00105470].
26 [JARBO000013}.
Page 18 of 193
35.
36.
37.
38.
WITN00020100
Many of the issues raised in the summary of the issues were later to be found
by Mr Justice Fraser to have occurred.
On 24" February 2012 I emailed Alice Perkins to ask her to come to meet me,
and said that my office would arrange it.
On 27" February 2012 between 2:00 and 3:00pm the meeting between the
subpostmasters, Shoosmiths and MPs took place in the Wilson Room of
Portcullis House of the House of Commons. Janet Walker took notes of the
meeting?’ which refer to the summary of issues. It was attended by six
Members of Parliament including myself and by the representatives of two
others, by Tadge Channer and Rose Donoghue from Shoosmiths and also by
some subpostmasters and some of their partners (the spreadsheet”® provided
by Shoosmiths beforehand suggested that 23 subpostmasters attended).
I chaired the meeting and told the subpostmasters that I did not believe that
they were anything other than honest, and that the allegations about the Post
Office gave rise to a series of concerns. Mr Channer said that just under 100
individuals had come to Shoosmiths with similar cases. Rose Donaghue said
that the Post Office had a moral if not legal obligation to sort the matter out.
Andrew Tyrie MP recommended commissioning a report to look into the matter.
Mr Channer said that there would be two problems with that, the first being the
27 [smiiso000247).
25 [JARBO000014).
Page 19 of 193
WITN00020100
cost and the second access to the Horizon system. I told the meeting that I
was organising a meeting with the Chairman Designate of the Post Office, Alice
Perkins. I asked everyone present to get more people who were in the same
situation to write to their MPs to ask them to contact me. I said (and believed)
that the Post Office’s line, which was always that there was nothing wrong with
Horizon, was wholly implausible, because so many people would not have
come to the House of Commons simply to say that they were not criminals, that
those attending were there to ensure something was done to prove that they
were not, and that loss of reputation was a very hurtful thing.
39. On 13th March 2012 there took place in my office in the House of Commons a
meeting between Alice Perkins and Alwen Lyons of the Post Office and myself;
this had been arranged following my writing to Alice Perkins on 23rd February
2012. According to the Post Office minutes”? of that meeting it seems that I
was the only MP present. While it seems likely that Janet Walker would have
been there taking notes, I cannot find a record of it. I accept the truth of the
Post Office minutes, presumably taken by Alwen Lyons. In the meeting I raised
concerns about the training of the subpostmasters, about the support and
helpline and about the contract between the subpostmasters and the Post
Office. Alice Perkins invited me to see Horizon in action, and I suggested that I
should be accompanied by a computer expert from Computer Weekly. I
explained my belief in Computer Weekly arising out of the Chinook crash
referred to above.
29 [POLO0105481}.
Page 20 of 193
40.
41.
42.
43.
WITN00020100
I wrote to Alice Perkins on 26" March 2012° to thank her for coming to the
meeting but also to thank her for lending a willing ear. It was my belief then,
and it remains my belief now, that at that stage at any rate she genuinely did
wish to sort the matter out.
On 28'" March 2012 Oliver Letwin MP wrote to Janet Walker arranging to meet
me on 16" April 2012 (after the Easter Recess) to talk about Post Office issues.
In a letter of 2nd April 20125" Alice Perkins invited me to visit the Post Office
HQ. Our respective offices agreed that this meeting should take place on 17"
May 2012. Oliver Letwin and I met on 16" April 2012, which presumably led to
my inviting him to the meeting at the Post Office.
On 17th May 2012 from 10:30 to 12:00 a meeting took place between Alice
Perkins and Paula Vennells of Post Office Ltd and Oliver Letwin and myself at
1st floor, 148 Old Street, London EC1V 9HQ. I have seen the Post Office
pack*? dealing with the meeting and I have no reason to question it. My own
memory of the meeting is that Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells were clear that
they believed their systems worked well, but they were equally clear that they
too wanted to clear up a matter that was growing in importance for them, and
they both wanted and needed to find a way through that would solve the
problem to the satisfaction of everyone. I believed then and I believe now that
3° [JARBOO00015).
3 [JARBOO00016).
3? [POL00033825).
Page 21 of 193
WITN00020100
they did both genuinely want and expect to sort the matter out and that their
belief in the integrity of Horizon was real.
44. It may or may not be relevant, but Alice Perkins particularly made the point that
when as Chair designate she began her introductory visits to sub-Post Offices,
she was struck by — or there was brought to her attention - the huge amounts of
cash that were lying around in unexpected places, and she said the Post Office
and the subpostmasters needed to have efficient ways of accounting for and
dealing with that cash. I believe that she or Paula Vennells or both mentioned
the temptation that this put in the way of subpostmasters. I do not know
whether that point — which Alice Perkins made strongly — affected her approach
towards the honesty or otherwise of subpostmasters.
45. Towards the end of the meeting Paula Vennells said that the Post Office
believed that what we (and the Post Office) needed, to get to the bottom of the
allegations being made by the subpostmasters, was an investigation by
forensic accountants, to be paid for by the Post Office. This amounted to an
offer by the Post Office to provide exactly what had been suggested by Andrew
Tyrie MP in the meeting of 27" February 2012, but overcoming the two
objections of cost and access to the Horizon system that had been raised by Mr
Channer®. Oliver Letwin and I accepted with enthusiasm and relief. I believe
we pointed out at that stage the suspicion that some MPs would have about the
independence of any such investigation being funded by the Post Office, and
either Alice Perkins or Paula Vennells or both agreed that the MPs should meet
33 [sm1so000247]
Page 22 of 193
46.
47.
48.
49.
WITN00020100
the accountants to be recommended by the Post Office, to satisfy ourselves
that they would indeed be independent.
Oliver Letwin and I came away from the meeting feeling that it had gone better
than we had hoped. We were content that things were on the right track.
It seems that one of the matters that must have been agreed at the meeting on
17'" May 2012 was that Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells would come to a
meeting of MPs in the House of Commons to lay before the MPs the agreement
we had reached. On or about 26"" May 2012 inter-office negotiations on the
date of that meeting with MPs concluded that it would take place at 6pm on
Tuesday 18'" June 2012 in Portcullis House with, attending from the Post
Office, Alice Perkins (Chairman), Paula Vennells (Chief Executive), Angela Van
Den Bogerd (Head of Network Services) and Alwen Lyons (Company
Secretary).
A list dated 28" May 2012%4 entitled “List of MPs who have a constituent
affected by the Horizon/Post Office case” drawn up by Janet Walker suggests
that at that stage she was aware of 38 MPs including myself who had
constituents affected.
On 8" June 2012°5 Janet Walker emailed Glenda at the Post Office to suggest
a short 15 minute premeeting to take place between the Post Office personnel
3* [JARBOO00145).
35 [JARBO000146).
Page 23 of 193
WITN00020100
and myself before the full meeting with MPs on 18" June 2012. It appears that
on 11th June 2012 there was a telephone call®* between Paula Vennells and
myself to discuss and agree an agenda (which appears to have been drafted by
the Post Office) for the meeting to take place on 18" June 2012. It may be that
it was in this conversation that she told me about Second Sight. At some stage
I believe she told me that Susan Crichton, Post Office’s General Counsel, had
worked with Second Sight before and had been impressed by them. And at
some stage Paula Vennells told me that she would send me the proposed
Terms of Reference for their appointment.
50. On 12th or 13" June 2012 I wrote*’ to Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells to
thank them for sending me the proposed Terms of Reference*®. Those terms
included:
“Reviewing all company-held documentation focussing on why
shortfalls occurred.
Interviewing company investigators to gain insights and to verify their
findings,
Reviewing defence submissions and
Studying relevant evidence with regard to the ‘Horizon’ system.”
3° [JARBO000147).
37 [JARBOO00018).
38 [JARBO000017].
Page 24 of 193
WITN00020100
51. The review would “reach conclusions on each case and identify any systemic
issues/concerns, including training and support processes.”
52. In my email I also made the points, first, that the subpostmasters should also
be present at the meetings with MPs and, second, that the coming summer
recess would cause difficulties with timing. I attached a draft Press release of
which I do not have a copy.
53. On 13th June 2012 Paula Vennells wrote to me*? to advise against the press
release and to set out her approach. She said,
“Dear James, thank you for your care and attention to this. It is critical
we resolve it properly and I am grateful to you.
“Firstly, let me reassure you that Altice [sic] and I intend total
transparency - as I'm sure you sensed from the meeting we arranged
for you and Oliver.
“Secondly, the queries you raise are entirely valid: the reason I had
wanted to meet face to face on Monday was to talk this through. Each
case as you saw with your own and with Oliver's, is different. We are
dealing with particularly sensitive and personal situations, as well as
with a combination of fact and misunderstandings. (And in some cases,
as we explained, fiction and /or fraud.)
39 [JARBO000019).
Page 25 of 193
WITN00020100
“Rather than a blanket approach, we would take each case separately -
we are dealing with individuals’ lives and livelihoods. But, the guarantee
for each one is complete transparency and handled in the most
appropriate and sensitive way. Therefore in some, we may need to go
further than the draft TOR suggests, with SubPostmasters in joint
meetings; in others, that might be difficult and/or embarrassing for them
and their MPs. We would however, start with each MP in order to
explain/explore the background.
“Thank you for reminding me about summer Recess - of course, we will
work to a timetable that suits.
“As regards, your draft release, my view is that it would not be without
risk both in terms of human sensitivities and reputational distortions.
There are reasons for this which I am happy to share.“
And she added, “Ps. Alice is away on holiday this week, hence I am
replying for both of us. (We discussed the issue of transparency before
she left. As you would expect, Alice is committed to the primacy of this.
She is also very aware of the risks and sensitivities of how we handle
the individual cases.)”
54. It appears that the premeeting in fact took place on 14" June 2012 between
Paula Vennells and Alwen Lyons and myself. It is possible that Oliver Letwin
Page 26 of 193
WITN00020100
MP also attended. I cannot remember what was said or done at that
premeeting.
55. The meeting with MPs took place on 18" June 2012, with six MPs Including
myself) attending and representatives of three more, as well as the
representatives from the Post Office. Janet Walker took notes*° which reflected
the discussion. I concluded the meeting by saying that the terms of reference
would be circulated, the investigations begun shortly and concluded by the end
of the year. A draft press release was agreed.
56. On the following day, 19 June 2012, I said in an email to Shoosmiths*! that we
had had the meeting with the Post Office and that we had found a very positive
way to resolve the problem. It seems that Janet Walker in my office sent the
Post Office a copy of the email. I also issued a press release‘? on 19" June
2012 which is entitled “Resolution to Post Office/Horizon system problems
proposed”.
57. On 22" June 2012 Christopher Hine of RSM Tenon wrote to me, perhaps
following up an email from one of his colleagues, Paul Burchett, to offer his
firm’s services as the forensic accountants who would investigate Horizon. It
seems likely that RSM Tenon had previously advised a subpostmaster,
because I replied to him*? on 28" June 2012 to say,
*© [JARBO000001).
“' [POL00096666).
* [P01L00144705).
#3 [JARBO000021).
Page 27 of 193
WITN00020100
“whoever takes on the investigations into each case must be genuinely
independent. The Post Office is insisting on this as well, therefore we
have decided that anyone with prior connection to the cases involved
really cannot take part.”
He responded on 4" July 20124 accepting the need for independence.
58. The next task was for the MPs to interview Second Sight. It had been agreed
on all sides at the MPs’ meeting that such an appointment would work only if
the MPs who were concerned could vet them before they were appointed; there
was a natural suspicion that accountants chosen and paid for by the Post Office
would have their tune called by the Post Office rather than by the interests of
justice. On 26th June 2012 Janet Walker telephoned Ron Warmington of
Second Sight and agreed a meeting date of 4th July 2012. Second Sight sent
their biographical details*®. The meeting took place, with Andrew Bridgen MP,
Mary Glindon MP, Tessa Munt MP and Mike Wood MP, with Edward Garnier MP
sending a representative. Janet Walker, having put forward a list of suggested
questions“® for MPs to ask Second Sight, took notes*”. Those notes are similar
in content to those in Ron Warmington’s email*® to Susan Crichton of 4" July
2012. The MPs were convinced of Second Sight’s expertise and determination
to be independent, and endorsed the appointment of Second Sight, but also
wanted the agreement (without giving him a veto) of Alan Bates, who was a
“4 (JARBO000025).
45 [JARB0000024).
“6 (JARBO000023).
47 (JARBO000022].
#8 [POLOO107174].
Page 28 of 193
WITN00020100
person of increasing importance and influence in the representation of
subpostmasters.
59. Shortly after the meeting with Second Sight, and probably the same day and as
a consequence, I telephoned Alan Bates of the Justice For Subpostmasters
Alliance, because at some stage, according to his email of 5th July 201249, I
suggested that he and I needed to meet Second Sight. He told Janet Walker
he would be bringing Kay Linnell as the JFSA's expert forensic accountant.
60. Alwen Lyons asked Janet Walker how we thought the meeting with Second
Sight had gone, and in my email of 5" July 2012°° I confirmed that it had gone
well.
61. The meeting between Alan Bates, Kay Linnell, Ron Warmington, lan
Henderson and myself took place on 12'" July 2012 in my office in Portcullis
House. Kay Linnell was particularly challenging of Second Sight, but the
overall result was that Alan and Kay too, with a caveat, agreed with the
appointment of Second Sight. The caveat was that they wanted to enable Kay
Linnell, at the Post Office’s expense, to double check that Second Sight were
doing a proper independent job. After the meeting I wrote an email®’ to Alwen
Lyons asking the Post Office to set aside £5000 towards Kay Linnell’s doing a
review of Second Sight's initial investigations.
*° [¥ARBO000026).
5° [POL00096767].
51 [POL00096816].
Page 29 of 193
WITN00020100
62. On 13" July 2012 Alan Bates wrote to me®? to set out his understanding of what
we had agreed as the way forward even though, he said, I had not at the end of
the meeting sought his agreement. He said that the scope of the initial
investigation would include, but would not be restricted to:
“1. Review of area manager complaints.
2. A description of the Horizon system operations, in theory, in practice
including training and level and access and authority.
3. Review of the second level queries of system problems especially
those involving Fujitsu.
4. Preparation of a forensic analysis of the system errors to be used in
point 5.
5. Selection of a sample of cases together with the historic cases put
forward by MPs.
6. Live data testing on system parameters.
7. Report on the “cradle to grave” of the transactions that are flagged
up in the cases reviewed.
8. Report on the integrity of the Post Office Horizon system.”
If the terms set out in his letter were agreed then he would, on behalf of the
members of JFSA, be prepared to offer his full support and cooperation with
the investigation, as proposed.
52 [4ARBO000027).
Page 30 of 193
63.
64.
65.
66.
WITN00020100
On 16" July 2012 Mia Porter on behalf of Paula Vennells emailed me*? to
agree the proposal for setting aside £5,000, which was later confirmed in a
letter to me from Alwen Lyons of 28" August 20125.
On 17" July 2012 I emailed Paula Vennells®> to ask what to do with cases
forwarded to me by MPs, and she replied that I should send them on to the
office of the Company Secretary, Alwen Lyons. It appears from an email sent
on 18'" July 2012 from Alwen Lyons to Paula Vennells that a slightly different
arrangement was going to happen with Alan Bates and the JFSA, in that Alan
Bates was going to forward cases to Second Sight. In any event, things were
underway.
I replied to Alan Bates’s letter on 18th July 2012; in my files I have two different
drafts of that reply®®, one containing an apology for my apparent failure to ask
for his explicit agreement, but both setting out the way forward that we
envisaged, with Second Sight doing their initial investigations, the result of
which would determine the later ones, including whether an investigation was
needed of the entire system.
I received a letter dated 6'" August 201257 from Mr Hogan of Messrs Hogan
Brown, a firm of solicitors acting for a client who had been charged with false
53 [POLO0096816).
54 [JARBO000031].
55 [POL00096816).
5 [JARBO000028); [JARBO000029).
57 [JARBO000030).
Page 31 of 193
WITN00020100
accounting. He asked me about the progress of steps looking into the working
of the computer system. I do not have a copy of my response.
Page 32 of 193
67.
WITN00020100
THE INTERIM REPORT AND THE MEDIATION SCHEME
On 315 August 2012 Alan Bates sent an email to Janet Walker in my office
expressing concerns about several matters. I do not have a copy of that email
but the tenor of what he said can be gleaned from my draft reply of 3"
September 201258, which I expect I sent in the words drafted and which it is.
worth setting out in full:
“Thank you for your email to Janet Walker of 31 August 2012, bringing
me up to date with your concerns about this matter. Please be assured
that I am well aware of the difficulty individual SubPostmasters and
mistresses have had, and continue to have, with regard to this entire
matter. Do not underestimate my determination to see that they are
dealt with fairly.
“Lam slightly at a loss as to your message, however, as I did not think
that you believed investigations ought not to proceed until we had your
agreement. Investigations are indeed already underway. 2nd Sight
have a number of these that have been passed from individuals to their
MPs, and thence to my office. In every case, my office has ensured
that the individual concerned, as well as his or her MP. is fully aware
that his or her details will be passed to the Post Office, who require this
detail in order to pass on relevant data to 2nd Sight in order for them to
conduct their investigation. We will continue to proceed along these
58 [JARBO000032).
Page 33 of 193
WITN00020100
lines with any individual SubPostmaster or mistress that approaches us
via their MP.
“l understand that you have been sent a copy of the letter the Post
Office sent to me, confirming that they have set aside £5000 for the
review of 2nd Sight’s initial investigations, which we discussed at our
last meeting. Do you agree that this should be done by Miss Kay
Linnell.
“The Post Office has, in addition, drafted a form of words which I
understand you have also seen, but not commented on, as follows, and
I draw your attention in particular to paragraphs 2 and 3, and ask that
you might let me have your thoughts on their points. They seem to me
to be reasonable:
“Post Office Limited (“POL”) has agreed that the Office of the Rt
Hon James Arbuthnot should contact Alan Bates and the Justice
for Sub Postmasters Alliance (“JFSA”) and request that the
JFSA submit approximately 5 of their best cases for independent
review by Second Sight Support Services Ltd (“2nd Sight”).
Ideally, cases for review should be less than 5 years old, but it
may be possible to accept older cases in certain circumstances.
2nd Sight is the body appointed by POL to conduct an
independent review of a number of cases that have previously
been subject to formal investigation by POL.
Page 34 of 193
WITN00020100
“POL recognises that the JFSA may have concerns about
submitting detailed information about possible cases to POL and
agrees that the JFSA may submit this information directly to 2nd
Sight, via the Office of the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot. JFSA must
recognise that minimum basic information about each case such
as branch details, identity of the sub-postmaster and relevant
dates must be notified to POL by 2nd Sight in order that the
appropriate records and correspondence may be provided to
2nd Sight.
“POL also recognises that some members of JFSA may have
concerns about submitting cases for independent review by 2nd
Sight where even basic case information is communicated to
POL. Whilst POL cannot provide any form of immunity from
prosecution in respect of information held by POL, in recognition
of the concerns expressed by the JSFA, POL agrees not to take
any prosecution action relating to information provided by JFSA
without the agreement of the Executive Committee of POL and
to deal which each case submitted in a sensitive manner. The
Executive Committee of POL comprises 9 senior members of
staff including the POL Chief Executive and the POL Lead
Counsel.
Page 35 of 193
WITN00020100
“Finally, I do not think it is wise or indeed feasible to dictate to 2nd
Sight how their conduct their investigations. Neither you nor I are
experts in this field. They are, and Miss Linnell is being offered the
opportunity to bring her expertise to bear in her review. I do not think
we can do more than this and would suggest we left those with the
requisite skills to do their job independently. They outlined how they
would conduct their investigation when we met, and Miss Linnell was
content, as was I, and as I thought were you. I had no expectation that
anyone anticipated signing an agreement to this effect.
“I think you and I, and the Post Office as well, want the right result from
this undertaking — a fair and independent examination of a number of
cases, from which results can be extrapolated to see what next steps
may be required. It would be a shame if you felt unable to lend this
your support, as I believe it is the best chance the Alliance is going to
be offered to help your membership get the justice they seek. I hope
you might give this some thought.”
68. Alan Bates replied on 6'" September 2012°° to point out that in my letter to him
of 18" July 2012 I had said,
“Your point about obtaining cases where current errors are occurring
was and is a very good one. I shall write to the Post Office and suggest
59 [JARBO000033).
Page 36 of 193
69.
70.
71.
WITN00020100
this, asking firstly that individuals might be prompted to come forward
via the Post Office's Subspace magazine, and secondly, for some
assurances with regard to immunity. I take your point that this immunity
ought to be extended to all personnel involved. Thank you for making
it.”
It had clearly slipped through the net, and on 13'" September 2012 I wrote to
Paula Vennells® enclosing Alan Bates’s letter and asking her to address the
points about immunity and mentioning the investigation in the Post Office’s
Subspace magazine.
On 18th September 2012 there was a catch-up meeting between Alice Perkins
and myself. The negotiations to set this up had been going on since the end of
July 2012, and it seems likely that amongst the matters we discussed were the
points raised in Alan Bates’s correspondence.
On 4" October 2012 there was a meeting between Alan Bates, Paula Vennells,
her Chief of Staff and myself. It seems from a letter’ I wrote to Alan Bates
after that meeting that the main purpose of the meeting was to put him together
with Paula Vennells so that they could deal directly with each other, rather than
through me. But from that letter, and from a letter I also wrote to Paula
Vennells on the same day®, it is clear that I at any rate thought the meeting
had gone well (to Alan Bates, I said, “very well indeed” and to Paula Vennells I
60 [JARBO000034).
61 [JARBO000035).
8 [POL00105487].
Page 37 of 193
WITN00020100
said, “I was extremely pleased”). I would have expected Janet Walker also to
have been present at that meeting, but I cannot find any evidence that she was
or that she took notes.
72. I received a letter of 5° October 2012 from Albert Owen MP about one of his
constituents, to which I replied on 23 October 2012®°. From my reply can be
seen the view that I then had about the entire negotiations with the Post Office.
I said:
“Thank you for your letter of 5 October, and I am sorry it has taken me
a while to respond. This is with regard to your constituent, [___], about
the Horizon system and the issue to do with SubPostmasters.
“I recently hosted a meeting between Mr Alan Bates, who chairs the
Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, and the Chief Executive of the
Post Office, Paula Vennells, and her chief of staff. It appears that there
has been some disconnect between the two parties as to the exact
terms of investigations that will be brought to the forensic accountants
directly from the JSFA. This has to do with a blanket guarantee of
immunity, which the Post Office as a statutory body cannot offer, and
the currency of cases that ought to be investigated. The result of this
meeting is that the two parties are going to talk directly and come to an
agreement, rather than having to deal with each other via my office.
3 [ARBO000036).
Page 38 of 193
WITN00020100
“l ought to let you know that I continue to pass on details — at the
request of their constituency MP — of individuals who are happy for me
to do so, to the forensic accountants. There are just over a dozen who
have done so thus far in the full knowledge that their details will be
passed first of all to the Post Office who are collating relevant data,
who then pass details and data on to the accountants. No offer of
immunity has been made to these people, and so if your constituent is
concerned about this, he ought to stay in touch with the JSFA and
await their negotiations with the Post Office before deciding whether or
not to proceed. The JSFA will be best placed to advise him about this.
“Finally, I should like to add that there is nothing sinister about the
investigations that are underway. My constituent, clearly those others
who have been content for their details to be made known, the Post
Office, and I are all extremely keen for this entire matter to be resolved.
What I expect is that, beyond the results of individual investigations,
the accountants will be able to extrapolate some general points from
the investigations undertaken, which will point the way for further work
to be done. I am awaiting the results with real interest.
“Do come back to me if you need more detail as I am happy to help.”
73. I received a letter dated 234 November 2012 from John Woodcock MP about
one of his constituents, from which it appeared that the Post Office was
4 [JARBOO00037).
Page 39 of 193
WITN00020100
redirecting complaints about the Horizon system to me, so that I could vet
whether the case should then be included in the tranche of cases being
investigated by Second Sight. John Woodcock understandably found this
strange and had written to the Minister, Jo Swinson MP. In my lengthy reply of
4 December 2012° I set out the history of the matter.
74. I received a similar request from Damian Hinds MP dated 16" January 2013 in
relation to a constituent of his, and another from Sir Alan Meale MP in relation
to two of his constituents. I should think I or my office probably replied to them
in similar terms to the way I had replied to John Woodcock MP.
75. On 19" February 2013 Janet Walker emailed Ron Warmington and lan
Henderson, starting her email® with,
“lam so relieved to hear that things are beginning to run smoothly. Well
done! It really is your persistence and patience that has driven this, and
James will be really pleased.”
She also passed on details of two further MPs, Mark Lazarowicz MP and Priti
Patel MP, who had constituents who had cases which needed investigation.
But it seems that I had also begun to receive questions from MPs about
Second Sight’s methodology and how they were getting along, so Janet asked
if Second Sight could contact the MPs and let them know.
85 [JARBO000038}.
86 [JARB0000020).
Page 40 of 193
76.
77.
78.
WITN00020100
lan Henderson told Janet Walker in his first email®” the following day, 20"
February 2013, that they were moving towards thematic issues rather than
case by case investigations. Janet Walker replied® that she would need to
discuss that with me, and in his second email® he said that their current
thinking was that they would issue a single report that dealt with all the thematic
issues that were identified, but that in addition, each sub-postmaster and MP
would be issued with an appendix dealing with the specific issues they had
raised.
A telephone call was set up for Thursday 28" February 2013 between lan
Henderson and myself and Janet Walker to discuss how in practice to deal with
the queries I would receive from MPs, and to set up a meeting on 25" March
2013 between Second Sight, the Post Office and MPs.
On 7" March 2013”° I wrote an email to MP colleagues to invite them to the
meeting to take place on 25'" March 2013 and I also wrote to Alan Bates to
suggest that Second Sight were keen on Post Office representatives being at
the meeting and wondering whether he would be content with this. Rather
oddly I also (without waiting for a response from Alan Bates) wrote to Alice
Perkins”! to invite her to the meeting. I made to her various points about how
the meeting might go, including the following:
87 [JARBO000040).
68 [JARBO000041].
6° [¥ARBO000042].
70 [4ARBO000043}.
7 [POLO0097588}.
Page 41 of 193
WITN00020100
“In my discussions with Ron and lan, I gather that questions have been
raised over the absolute integrity of Horizon, though without their being
so fundamental as to say that the system is not fit for purpose. Since it
is a system that remains in current use, there is the risk that existing
SubPostmasters and mistresses may find themselves in exactly the
same position as those whose cases are being investigated. I know
that definitive results are not yet available, but I hope the Post Office
would be ready to address this issue.”
79. I concluded the letter as follows:
“I would like to say in conclusion that I am impressed beyond my
expectations with not only how the investigations are proceeding, but of
your continuing support. I cannot recall a more important campaign,
nor one where the end result has been so consistently supported by all
parties involved. You have my gratitude and admiration for how the
Post Office is handling this.”
80. My letter caused strong push back from the Post Office, and on 19" March
2013 there was a meeting between myself and Alice Perkins. It appears from a
speaking note”? Janet Walker wrote for me for a telephone call on 20th March
2013 between myself and lan Henderson that at the meeting on 19th March
72 [¥ARBO000045).
Page 42 of 193
81.
82.
WITN00020100
2013 Alice Perkins said amongst other things: that the Post Office didn’t believe
anything was wrong with Horizon; that they were very concerned that any
opinion being formed by Second Sight at this stage was being communicated;
that Second Sight should not be expressing an opinion, not least as PO hadn't
had right of reply; that there was a limit to the Post Office’s willingness to
continue funding investigations; that it seemed there would be some sort of
deadline for cases of the end of February (though it is unclear from the note
what this meant); and that the Post Office would not attend the meeting of 25th
March 2013 but there would be an open letter from the Post Office available for
distribution at that meeting; and that the Post Office would expect to be ready to
attend a meeting with MPs in perhaps June.
It appears from that speaking note that after the meeting on 19th March 2013
lan Henderson had his own meeting with the Post Office, probably Susan
Crichton, General Counsel (though the note refers to Susan Leyton(?), head of
legal), and Alwen Lyons, company secretary.
On 20" March 2013 lan Henderson and I and probably Janet Walker and
possibly other MPs had the telephone call. Apart from the fact that I believe I
would have passed on what Alice Perkins had said the day before, I cannot
remember exactly what was said in that telephone call. Looking back on it now,
it may have been the first time that Second Sight had said that there might be
issues with Horizon, and the first time that the Post Office had tried to restrict
things that could be said openly by Second Sight about Horizon.
Page 43 of 193
83.
84.
85.
WITN00020100
On 25th March 2013 there was a meeting in Room N of Portcullis House for
Second Sight to update the MPs. I had an agenda which was:
“17:00 Welcome — James Arbuthnot
17.05 Second Sight — lan Henderson, Ron Warmington
Update on investigations — process followed, rationale for procedure,
preliminary findings
17.35 MPs Q&A
18.0 Close“
For the meeting, attended by 11 MPs, Second Sight, JFSA and Shoosmiths,
Janet Walker had done me speaking notes”’. I thanked Alice Perkins and the
Post Office, Shoosmiths, JFSA, Kay Linnell and Second Sight. I made the
point that the Post Office were saying that it had not been given the opportunity
to comment on what had been found thus far, thus we should not pre-judge
matters before this had occurred and that it would not be helpful to issue press
releases now, but this time would come. I then turned over to Second Sight.
lan Henderson had provided me with a draft’4 of what he was going to say.
Janet Walker kept a note of the meeting” which so far as I recall accurately
reflected what was said.
Alan Bates sent me a long letter dated 1° April 2013”°. After reflecting on the
meeting with Second Sight he expressed his frustration that there seemed to be
3 [JARBOO00048).
74 [ARBO000047).
75 [¥ARBO000046).
76 [¥ARBO000049).
Page 44 of 193
86.
87.
WITN00020100
less appetite than he would have liked for the Post Office to be confronted with
Horizon’s systemic failures (of which Second Sight appeared to be finding
some evidence), their bullying and abusive use of their powers that he and
JFSA had been talking about for years. I was on holiday when the letter came
in, and I replied on 16" April 201377 saying I would raise the matters with
Second Sight.
It appears (from an email’? of “High” importance that Janet Walker wrote to
Second Sight on 9th May 2013) that we were chasing them and the Post Office
for their comments on Alan Bates'’s letter, which it seems I had sent to Second
Sight on 16" April 2013.
On 23rd May 2013 there was a telephone call between myself and Paula
Vennells. Janet Walker prepared speaking notes’? for that conversation. In
those speaking notes I see the first reference in my files to the Rudkin events at
Bracknell, because it would appear that Ron Warmington had emailed Alan
Bates to say:
‘You have mentioned "numerous miscarriages of justice" and it's pretty
clear that James has also focussed on that.... as has POL's top
management. You, Kay, lan and I all know how much reliance has
been placed by the courts (Criminal and Civil) on POL's assurances
(such as that "there is no remote access to the system or to individual
77 [JARBOOOO0SO).
78 [4ARBO000051].
79 [JARBO000052].
Page 45 of 193
WITN00020100
branch terminals which would allow accounting records to be
manipulated in any way"). As you also know, Alan, several of the Spot
Reviews have presented what appears to be evidence that completely
undermines and disproves statements like that. I am pretty certain
that, in the event that even one of those Spot Reviews (for example
SR005 the Bracknell Basement/Rudkin one) turns out to be irrefutable,
then James will completely understand the implications, as I'm sure will
POL's senior management.’
I believe the conversation went much as Janet Walker's speaking notes
suggested it should.
88. I cannot remember exactly when Ron Warmington and I discussed the rumours
about the Michael Rudkin visit to Fujitsu but he told me that Second Sight could
not put anything in their Interim Report about it until they had discovered what
had actually happened. He and I agreed that it was at best odd, and potentially
sinister, that Michael Rudkin’s account of his visit to Fujitsu was being flatly
denied by the Post Office on the basis that it never took place.
89. Itseems from an email of 11" June 2013°° from Alan Bates to Janet Walker
that I had just sent him a letter or email in which I asked for a chat with him. At
the same time I probably emailed Ron Warmington, probably to ask for an
update and to propose a meeting with MPs before the summer recess. Ron
80 {JARBOOO0054).
Page 46 of 193
WITN00020100
Warmington responded to my email in one of his own in the early hours of 12'"
June 20138", in which he said:
‘I'll send a proper response to your latest email later today but the idea
of a 2nd July meeting is certainly a good one so we'll agree to that.
Also, I don't think we'll need your help in getting POL to respond to the
Spot Reviews. They are RESPONDING... but not yet in a form that will
really WORK in our Interim Report or in the 8th July Meeting. They are
still - understandably I suppose - incredibly defensive and nobody - at
the levels producing the responses - is ready to give aninch. They
probably fear it will be career death to concede any failings
whatsoever. We have consistently and clearly asked for short, easy-
to-understand, honest and complete answers to the assertions that we
have put forward. What we are getting are highly technical, multi-page,
responses that will appear to many to have been crafted so as to avoid
actually giving any answers to those assertions and allegations at all.
Without wishing to burden you with detail, the attached is a pretty good
example of the POL/2nd Sight dialogue... and shows my exasperation
in trying to get them to ANSWER THE BLASTED QUESTIONS.“
90. On 13 June 2013 I had a telephone conversation with Alan Bates. Janet
Walker reported that conversation to Alwen Lyons in an email®? in which she
says:
51 [JARBO000053].
®2[POL00095435].
Page 47 of 193
WITN00020100
“1. Alan Bates
Interim report - James had an extremely good telephone conversation
with Alan Bates today. He has asked me to let you know that Alan was
content with the proposed content of the interim report. Alan was more
concerned with what happens after this has been delivered (which is
due at a meeting to take place at Westminster on 8 July, with lan and
Ron presenting). James touched on the point Paula has made about
potentially bringing the investigation of further cases in-house within
the Post Office. Alan said he was not entirely comfortable with this, but
James persuaded him to put this matter into abeyance for the time
being, and Alan agreed. We can return to this after the interim report
when we have all seen what it has to say.
“Media — James also discussed media with him. We are beginning to
be approached and are putting people on hold — Private Eye,
Computer Weekly, BBC Shropshire local radio. Alan said he was not
responsible for the article in this week’s Private Eye, and James
believes him. Alan said he was happy not to go public on anything
while the investigation process was underway.
“2. Meeting 8 July
lan and Ron have agreed to present an interim report based on 3
cases to MPs, here at Westminster on 8 July. James has said to both
them and Alan that at the moment, he is not minded to invite
Page 48 of 193
91.
WITN00020100
representatives of the Post Office to attend, given that you will
presumably only have just seen the report yourselves. Do you have a
view on this? James needs to think through this a little more, so it
would be helpful if he knew your thoughts.
“lam going to email Ron and lan with all this as well, but wanted to let
you know the view from this end is good. Might you let Paula know
please?”
Despite what Janet Walker says in that email, it is not clear in my mind whether
at that stage I or Alan Bates actually knew the contents of the interim report or
whether what was being discussed was the method of handling the report. This
is because on 17th June 2013 Janet emailed Alwen Lyons® to say that I was
“about to ask lan and Ron for a meeting on 2 July as a heads-up n the interim
report to be delivered on 8 July. I don’t know if and when Paul is expecting
news from them about their findings, but it makes sense for James and Paul to
talk AFTER James has been given some warning about what the interim report
will contain.” I believe “Paul” meant Paula Vennells. The email also began
negotiations for a conversation between Paula Vennells and myself, and told
Alwen Lyons that: “Furthermore, James is starting to talk to the media. He has
scheduled phone calls with Private Eye and Computer Weekly which will simply
be to let them know about the interim report and its presentation on 8 July.
Media will not be invited to the meeting.”
83 [POLO0188344].
Page 49 of 193
92.
WITN00020100
On 18th June 2013 I telephoned Private Eye about the Interim Report and also
spoke to Karl Flinders of Computer Weekly. On 25th June 2013 I telephoned
Matt Prodger of the BBC. According to a speaking note®™ prepared for me by
Janet Walker for the conversation with Private Eye I told them:
Update = 47 cases under current investigation by Second Sight.
1. Interim report - to be presented by Second Sight to MPs on
evening of 8 July, at Westminster.
2. The report will concentrate on a few (two? three?) strongest
complaints against the Post Office.
3. The report should consider whether there are:
a. any flaws in Horizon,
b. any flaws in processes currently followed by the Post Office,
or training offered to staff.
4. The report should be absolutely clear as to whether there are
problems with Horizon or not.
5. Final report — details yet to be finalised, but want something by end
of year.
93. On 27th June 2013 I went to see the Speaker. It seems likely that I wanted to
give him the background to the whole story in case I wanted to ask an Urgent
Question about the Interim Report when it came out, because I did indeed a
fortnight later put in for such a question.
4 [JARBOO00057].
Page 50 of 193
WITN00020100
94. On 2nd July 2013 I had a conference call with Second Sight at 09:00. At 10:00
that day there is an entry in my diary to say that I was to speak on the
telephone to Jo Swinson, the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office; I do
not know whether that call took place nor, if it did, what was said, because there
is an entry for the following day for a similar call.
95. On 3rd July 2013 I had a meeting at 08:45 in the House of Commons with
Paula Vennells and Alwen Lyons. At 14:17 that day Ron Warmington wrote®s to
Janet Walker to say,
“lan and I have been "summoned" to a 16:00 hrs meeting with Paula
Vennells. We are hearing that Paula and James have agreed to a
substantial change to the scope either of the (virtually finalised) Interim
Report or even of the entire Investigation (I'm pre-advised that we are
to cut the report back to only "bottomed-out SOFTWARE-related
issues"). Either way, managing the non-POL stakeholders’ and the
media's disappointment (even anger) would be a huge challenge.
Maybe James didn't agree to that? I'll find out from Paula in 2 hrs time
I suppose. It might be a resignation matter.”
96. Janet Walker replied at 14:37° to say,
85 [JARBO000039).
85 [JARBO000039].
Page 51 of 193
WITN00020100
“Just spoken to lan and explained that what you have written is not
quite what the meeting discussed or concluded this morning.
“No difference in scope for the interim report. No conclusion on exactly
what the entire investigation process does or where it goes from now
on - this will be something that, at least in part, comes out of Monday's
meeting.
“1. Post Office and James very keen to ensure that because of the
scope of the investigations, the definition of 'Horizon' that is used in the
report is made explicit and very very clear that it is not just the software
program, but includes interface with other programs, and the processes
and systems (help desk, training, etc.) around it. There is
understandable anxiety that when existing SubPostMasters and media
hear the word ‘Horizon' (and assume it refers solely and strictly to the
computer software program only), they will immediately leap to the
conclusion that there if faults have been found and can be proved, this
is tantamount to admitting that there is a ‘ghost in the machine' which
will cause enormous panic.
“2. Post Office and James very keen that what is presented in the
report is totally accurate and evidence-based.
“James will call lan at 3.45pm on his mobile for a brief chat.”
Page 52 of 193
WITN00020100
97. In fact it seems that I made that telephone call at 3:15pm (on 3% July 2013). I
then spoke to Jo Swinson on the telephone for 10 minutes at 3:45pm and Alan
Bates for 15 minutes at 6:00pm.
98. On 4" July 2013 Paula Vennells wrote me a letter®” in which she referred to the
distinction between systemic issues with the Horizon system — of which she
understood none had been found — and the wider support systems, and the
importance of making that distinction clear.
99. On 5th July 2013 there was a further meeting between myself (as often,
perhaps with other MPs present), Paula Vennells and Alwyn Lyons. I cannot
remember how the discussion went.
100. 8th July 2013 was Interim Report Day. I put out an early holding Press
Statement®®, referring to a further statement which I would put out at 6pm,
when I would be chairing a closed meeting with MPs at which Second Sight
would release its Interim Report. At 11:00 there was a 15 minute telephone call
between Jo Swinson and myself.
101. At some stage I received a briefing from Second Sight about the Interim Report,
but I do not know when. They provided me with preliminary conclusions® and I
wrote some handwritten notes®° for my own use about my reaction to the
Interim Report. I wrote, “It seems at the moment that the Horizon software itself
87 [POL00029649].
88 [JARBOOOO0S8}.
8° [JARBO000064).
50 [JARBO000059].
Page 53 of 193
WITN00020100
has worked as it was meant to”, but I underlined “at the moment”, which
suggests that I believed that there was more work to be done. Basing my
comments on those notes, at 11:15 I rang Private Eye, and at 11:30 Computer
Weekly. At 12:00 I rang Paula Vennells at her request for a “catchup”.
102. At 4pm on 8th July 2013 I went to see the Speaker; he was in the chair, so I
could not have taken long about it; I was confirming what I had already
probably warned him about on 27th June 2013, namely that I would be asking
for an Urgent Question the following day. I probably gave him the question now
in my files®’ which set out the background of the matter and why I felt an urgent
question was needed. In that question I said:
“Essentially the Report finds that the Horizon software itself seems not
to be at fault, but the combination of defects in the way the Post Office
dealt with concerns, sometimes inadequate training, sometimes
unreliable hardware, an exceptionally complex system and other
concerns all led to Sub Postmasters not having the support they should
have had.”
This was not completely accurate, because the Interim Report had included
the following sentence:
“It has become clear that whereas the Horizon system appears to
achieve its intended purpose almost all of the time and operates
°1 {JARBO000062).
Page 54 of 193
WITN00020100
smoothly for most SPMRs and their staff, some combinations of events
can trigger situations where problems occur.”
It also said:
“We are aware of 2 incidents where defects or ‘bugs’ in the Horizon
software gave rise to 76 branches being affected by incorrect balances
or transactions, which took some time to identify and correct’.
103. At 6pm that day, 8'" July 2013, we held a meeting in the House of Commons to
launch the Second Sight Interim Report®”. Janet Walker’s note of attendance®*
said that as well as MPs there were present Second Sight, Shoosmiths, Alan
Bates, Kay Linnell and observers from the Minister's Office and the Post Office.
104. According to my own agenda™ I said that the Report was a good one — but only
a step along the way. I thanked the Post Office for supporting and funding the
investigation thus far, in particular Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells. I
mentioned that I had concerns regarding the solutions that the Post Office had
proposed (the creation of a working party, the involvement of an independent
person and a new branch user forum) but that we’d discuss those during the
meeting. There was then a presentation by Second Sight, 40 minutes of
questions and the meeting closed at 7pm. I told the meeting that I envisaged a
further meeting in the autumn to which MPs would be invited.
°2 (PoL00002228).
°3 [JARBO000060).
94 [JARBO000061].
Page 55 of 193
105.
106.
107.
WITN00020100
In the press statement®® I put out that evening, more detailed than the one put
out earlier that day, I welcomed the report, saying that it did highlight some real
issues of concern, some of which the Post Office had already addressed, some
of which they were putting forward proposals to address, and some which
remained unresolved. After the meeting I did media interviews on the Report.
With Alan Bates I did the BBC at around 7pm, and I did Radio 5 Live at
10:40pm. On 9th July 2013 at 07:02 I did Radio Surrey and at 8:08 BBC.
Shropshire.
On 9" July 2013 the Minister, Jo Swinson, in the event decided to make a
statement. I expect that she knew that the Speaker would have been likely to
have granted my urgent question if she had not. In that Statement she
emphasised the arms’ length nature of the relationship between the Post Office
and its owner, the Government.
My own question, which shows what was uppermost in my mind about the
Interim Report, was as follows:
“I thank my hon. Friend for making this valuable statement to the
House. Does she accept that the Post Office, which has acted highly
commendably in commissioning this independent review, has a conflict
of interest—or, rather, a conflict of duty—in both looking after its sub-
55 [JARBO000063}.
96 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/201307-09/debates/13070952000004/PostOffice HorizonSystem
Page 56 of 193
WITN00020100
postmasters and protecting public money, and that the review has
shown that it has fallen too far on the asset recovery side of that
conflict? Does she agree that it is essential that the work that needs to
be done is not only independent, but seen to be independent of the
Post Office? Does she also agree that some sub-postmasters would
never have been prosecuted, sued or disciplined had the new
procedures now in place or proposed been in effect earlier, and that we
must look after them and try to provide them with redress, perhaps
through the Criminal Cases Review Commission?”
108. The Minister replied, saying amongst other things,
“It is important that any further work is not only independent, but seen
to be independent, and clearly the role of Second Sight in that is
important, as is the role of the JFSA. I would not go as far as my right
hon. Friend, however; there is no evidence to suggest that any
convictions would have been different had these processes and
training systems been in place, particularly given that in most of the
prosecutions dealt with in the report—not all 47 cases in the report
resulted in a prosecution—the sub-postmaster pleaded guilty in the first
place. It is difficult to second guess when somebody has entered a
guilty plea.”
109. The questions which were asked during the Statement were in some respects
prescient of what was later to be found by Mr Justice Fraser, and showed a
Page 57 of 193
WITN00020100
concern about the Post Office’s behaviour that the Interim Report had not
dispelled. 1! would particularly draw attention to the question by Andrew
Bridgen MP, Michael Rudkin’s MP, in which he said:
“Having been involved in this issue for some time and having initially
been told by Post Office representatives that the Horizon software
system was perfect and could not be infiltrated, I am pleased that the
Post Office is co-operating with the independent investigation”...
He was to return to that theme in a debate the following year.
110. On the morning of Thursday 11" July 2013 at 09:15 there was a wash-up
meeting at the Post Office headquarters at Old Street between Paula Vennells,
Alwen Lyons, Janet Walker and me with Alan Bates joining by telephone. To
prepare for that meeting Janet Walker emailed me some notes®%, which I will
have followed. Those notes said:
“To raise / discuss
“Second Sight continuing involvement
“4. It is worth your raising, if not fully resolving, the fact that Second
Sight really ought to continue to be involved. Whilst the terms of their
97 (JARBO000065).
Page 58 of 193
WITN00020100
involvement are not our concern, the fact that they continue to be
involved and in what capacity, is. lan Henderson has called to express
some anxiety that neither he nor Ron have heard from the PO since
just before the meeting on 8 July. Not entirely surprising. But he did say
that given the Ministerial agreement with MP’s comments in the
statement that Second Sight’s continued involvement is necessary, it is
a bit unnerving. Second Sight appears to be on some kind of rolling
‘agreement’ based on an hourly rate rather than having a contract. Not
our problem, but worth knowing the agreement seems tenuous rather
than formal.
“2. lan also mentioned that he rather expects PO full cooperation to
drop off, given the hammering it has taken. I pointed out that this would
not be in the interests of PO, and that they would probably see this.
However, he did ask what escalation point might he be able to use over
summer if his requests for data / documents / cooperation were not
met. I said, come to me. I did not say, James is available if absolutely
necessary — they should be able to sort this out themselves. But it’s
worth you just bearing in mind. lan, Ron, and Alan know recess dates,
my holiday dates, and I have said that you are pretty much unavailable
during summer.
“3. Said has never heard from Ministerial office, should he expect to?
I said probably not now, but would check your view on this.
Page 59 of 193
WITN00020100
“October meeting
“Shall we mull over what might comprise an October meeting (14? 21?
28?), and get that in the diary now, with forewarning to Second Sight
and PO? You've said that at this meeting, the PO ought to be ina
position to respond to investigation findings and speak directly to the
MPs. I'd suggest a date for the meeting, then let PO and Second Sight
work out between themselves what needs to be done to get them
there. Good pressure to keep things moving.
“New cases
“What would PO like me to do with these?
“They need to be acknowledged and held, pending decision on how to
proceed. Should they be acknowledged by and held at this office or
PO?”
111. It appears that we contemplated a further meeting on 22nd or 23rd July 2013,
because Janet Walker sent Alwen Lyons an email® to that effect that day (11%
July 2013). That afternoon Alan Bates sent Janet Walker an email®? proposing
a set of steps to deal with the historic cases. Janet forwarded it to Alwen Lyons
with a comment from me that I thought Alan Bates’s ideas were quite
outstanding.
°8 [POL00167943}.
°° [POL00095441]
Page 60 of 193
112.
113.
WITN00020100
It is worth noting here that the Clarke advice about Dr Gareth Jenkins was
dated 15th July 2013, and so presumably had been commissioned some time
beforehand. I was aware neither of the commissioning nor of the receipt of the
Clarke advice.
On 17th July 2013 I met Simon Blagden, the non-executive Chairman of
Fujitsu. The reason for the meeting'™ was that he wanted to talk to me as
Chairman of the Defence Select Committee about the recent MoD White Paper
which outlined the next stages in the move to transform DE&S (Defence
Equipment and Support). I had had several meetings with Mr Blagden to talk
about defence; but I also raised with him at that meeting the issue of Horizon.
On 18th July 2013 he wrote to me" to agree to a visit to the Fujitsu offices (I
accepted on 9th August 2013). In his email he said,
“With regards to The Post Office, as discussed, I really do think that a
continued open and inclusive engagement with Paula Vennells would
be the best way forward. I hold her in very high regard and she is
without doubt the most morally and socially aware CEO that I deal with.
I always think with these kind of sensitive situations that agreeing a
common approach on the issues is often best for the people who are
affected. Do let me know if you think I can help in any way.”
100 [JARBO000067].
101 [JARBOOO00ES}.
Page 61 of 193
WITN00020100
114. On 22" July 2013 there was a meeting at the Post Office between Paula
Vennells, lan Henderson and myself. The Post Office notes"? sent on 23rd
July 2013 say that there were also present Ron Warmington, Susan Crichton,
Mark Davies and Alwen Lyons. The preparatory notes’ I have for that
meeting read as follows:
“1._What is going to be delivered in October?
2. Will it answer the question MPs will want answered regarding their
constituent?
3. Ifany cases are to be dropped from this batch, we MUST know
who they are, who the relevant MP is, and why they are being dropped,
so / can write to the MPs and explain
4. How are we going defining the process by which new cases will be
investigated?
I am now holding 6 new cases, one of which goes to court next week”
115. At the meeting we were given a flow chart’ prepared by the Post Office to set
out how cases would be dealt with. I believe that the meeting went as set out in
the email from Alwen Lyons. From what I can now remember, I firmly believed
that the Post Office were dealing in good faith with the matter, and that
everyone was working towards a full resolution of all the outstanding cases.
There were probably at the back of my mind niggling doubts arising from the
legalistic approach to Second Sight’s investigations, and their failure to answer
202 [POLO0099354).
193 [JARBO000070).
104 [JARBO000069).
Page 62 of 193
116.
117.
WITN00020100
the questions Second Sight were putting to them, and their over-confident
backing of the Horizon system in their response to the Interim Report, but I
believed I was dealing with people who were able to work through any
problems and get to the right result.
On 29 July 2013 Susan Crichton emailed me'® to tell me about the first
meeting of the Working Party and the details of the mediation process which
the Post Office were proposing.
From 20th to 24th August 2013 I was in Scotland on holiday. Susan Crichton
and Alwen Lyons met Janet Walker’ to discuss “the mediation process which
has been agreed with the JFSA and SS”. As a result of that meeting Janet
emailed me the documentation for my comments, and I returned some pretty
detailed comments as set out in Janet Walker's email'®” to Susan Crichton and
Alwen Lyons of 218 August 2013. I had suggested to Janet that the eventual
announcement should include the words from me,
“lam very pleased indeed with the working group’s proposed process.
To my mind it represents the very best chance all parties — individual
subPost Masters and Mistresses, and the Post Office — have of
ensuring the best outcome for everyone. It is fair, thorough and
independent.”
205 [POLO0027849].
205 [POL00099447).
107 [POLO0099493).
Page 63 of 193
118.
119.
120.
121.
WITN00020100
I was proposing Sir Stephen Sedley, a retired Court of Appeal Judge, to chair
the mediation process, and Janet Walker was sending on a further list of new
cases that had come into my office.
There was a telephone call between Paula Vennells and myself while I was on
a fishing boat near Oban; the purpose of the call was to iron out some details
about the Mediation Scheme that had been agreed at earlier meetings. The
call was amicable and constructive, and I certainly believed at the time that
matters were on the right track and indeed going well.
In the event it seems that the Post Office gave to the NFSP the task of
announcing the mediation scheme, which they did on 27" August 20131,
including the quote from me. On that day I did an interview with BBC South
about Jo Hamilton and the mediation process. I did it outside Jo Hamilton's
shop in South Warnborough’”, and she will have been there too. The thought
that the Post Office might eventually exclude Jo Hamilton from the mediation
scheme did not cross my mind for a moment.
Also on 27" August 2013 I responded to a blogpost by Nick Wallis, and said‘"°:
“Good stuff, and I know you will keep your eye on this extremely
important issue. But one thing I would challenge you on, namely the
payment by the Post Office for the investigation by Second Sight. The
208 [NFSP00000263].
109 [JARBOO00071].
110 [POL00061352].
Page 64 of 193
WITN00020100
very fact that they were prepared to do that suggested to me that they
did want, perhaps against their own apparent interest, to resolve the
matter for the good of everyone, themselves included. I thought that
was creditable.
“And someone had to pay for it. I wasn’t going to, the Government
wouldn't have forked out money from somewhere else to do so, and
the Post Office offered to do so despite the risk to their reputation.
That does contrast (well, IMHO) with the cover ups we’ve seen
elsewhere in the public sector.”
122. Apparently Angela Van Den Bogerd wrote"’! on the same day to Alan (Bates, I
presume) about the Mediation Scheme.
123. On 11" September 2013 there was a meeting in the House of Commons
between Alice Perkins, Alwen Lyons and myself. The questions which Janet
Walker suggested in the notes"? to that meeting were:
“““ has a decision been made re chairman of new working party (JNA
suggested Sir Stephen Sedley)
* October meeting with MPs - we had promised this.”
11 (POL00146048}.
112 (JARBO000072].
Page 65 of 193
124.
125.
WITN00020100
I understand that during September 2013 Susan Crichton left the Post Office. I
do not know why she left, but it may be important, because it was (I now see,
looking back on it) around about this time that the Post Office’s approach
changed. Their change of attitude may have been because they had been
expecting Second Sight (whom Susan Crichton had recommended) to give
Horizon a clean bill of health, which Second Sight had not done. The Post
Office clearly did not like that.
Alternatively or additionally it may have been partly because Susan Crichton’s
replacement, Chris Aujard, brought a different tone to the Post Office’s
dealings. I cannot exactly put my finger on it. I felt uncomfortable with him and
thought him uncommitted to the process we were going through. I cannot at
this remove in time give details of what he said or did or in which meetings to
give rise to that feeling, but I do remember thinking that things were somehow
different — less open, more combative - because of him.
Page 66 of 193
WITN00020100
MEDIATION SCHEME GETS UNDERWAY
126. Some time before the end of September 2013 Janet Walker on my behalf sent
an email''? to MPs who had been involved in the Horizon matter. She set out
the details of the mediation scheme, and said that while the results of the
continuing investigations had been hoped for by October 2013, I was now
delaying the meeting until January in order to hear how investigations were
going, how the internal review of processes at the Post Office was going, and
perhaps to hear from the chairman of the Working Party.
127. On 1% October 2013 I did a TV interview with BBC Wales. In the emails
setting up the interview, of which the subject was “Interview with James
Arbuthnot MP, 3pm, 1 Oct, at Tory Party Conf, re Post office”, I was asked:
“I also understand he received an email the day before yesterday from
the JFSA about an attempted suicide by one of the posymasters [sic] —
the second one to try to kill themselves over discrepancies between
them and the PO. Is he happy to respond to that email from the JFSA
in our programme?”
I have no information in my files about what I said.
113 [POLO0099656).
224 [JARBO000073).
Page 67 of 193
WITN00020100
128. Also that day, 1St October 2013, I had a meeting with executives from Fujitsu;
the diary notes concern only defence, but it is possible that at that meeting I
also raised the issue of Horizon. Both of the attempts of my office to arrange a
Fujitsu visit failed by 11th October 2013, so we tried to organise another day.
129. On 28'" October 2013 Alwen Lyons emailed Janet Walker and me’ to say that
the Post Office were just about to announce the appointment of Sir Anthony
Hooper as chairman of the Mediation Scheme. Sir Anthony had been proposed
by Kay Linnell and was supported by Alan Bates.
130. From 1* to 3 November 2013 I attended a British-Turkish conference in
Edinburgh. Alice Perkins also attended and it seems that at some stage during
that conference she and I spoke about the Horizon issue. I cannot remember
the conversation.
131. On 4"" November 2013 it seems that Paula Vennells emailed Chris Aujard and
Alice Perkins‘'® to say that I had spoken to her (Paula Vennells) about Sparrow.
I do not know what had caused me to do that — clearly I had raised the matter
with her rather than the other way round - nor whether this was the first time I
had heard of Sparrow, nor what if anything I knew about Sparrow, nor what she
told me.
115 [POL00099828).
436 [POL00099875].
Page 68 of 193
WITN00020100
132. It seems I also described Sir Anthony Hooper as “quirky” but I cannot
remember that. I am not sure whether I have ever met him. I do remember
being perfectly content with his appointment, not least because he was
supported by Alan Bates. I see from a note?” of a meeting in January 2014,
the following year, that I said I had received feedback that he was a really good
man doing a really good job.
133. On 26'" November 2013 Alice Perkins sent me a letter'’® referring to the
conversation she and I had had in Edinburgh. She said that she and I had
agreed to arrange a date to discuss the progress being made on the Post
Office’s commitments. She said that the mediation scheme was taking longer
than at first envisaged, so that it would be better for us to meet in the New Year
rather than earlier.
134. On 10th December 2013 Alan Bates emailed Janet Walker''® to ask for a
telephone conversation with me which took place the following day. He wanted
“a short conversation in the near future to discuss a concern that may arise in
the future, before we arrive at that point”. Janet Walker wrote to Alan Bates on
11th December 2013'° to tell him about the meeting it was proposed I was to
have with Alice Perkins and Paula Vennells on 28" January 2014, suggesting
that my conversation with Alan should take place shortly before that, and also
to say:
117 [POL00026743).
118 [POLO0102598).
119 [JARBO000074).
120 [JARBO000075}.
Page 69 of 193
WITN00020100
“what he will need [that is to say, I believe, what I would need] is
evidence. If, as you suggest, current practice is not changing despite
processes being reviewed and cases investigated, he will need very
clear description (no names are required) about what is going wrong,
when, and why this indicates that processes are in fact not being
changed as the mediation process proceeds. I am sure you are
keeping a log of what you are hearing, and this would be useful to refer
to.“
135. On or about Wednesday 8th January 2014 Alan Bates called Janet Walker'?"
and asked for a confidential chat with me. He told her that the mediation
scheme was running, but that the Post Office were putting some pressure on
Second Sight — he was vague about quite what — and that Ron Warmington
was getting to the stage where he was thinking of walking out. Alan Bates
wanted to talk to me and brief me on the background. It appears that that
telephone conversation between Alan Bates and me took place the following
day, 9"" January 2014. I do not have a note of what was said.
136. A note’? of a telephone conversation on 10 January 2014 between Janet
Walker and lan Henderson reads as follows:
“JKW spoke to lan H, and there are problems with PO/Second Sight
relationship. IH has written to new head of legal about contract, and
121 [JARB0000076).
22 [JARBO000078}.
Page 70 of 193
WITN00020100
waiting for response. Will contact JKW when he receives answer, and
take it from there. JKW mentioned JNA meeting with Alice and Paula
on 28 Jan, and asked for telephone call to be pencilled in, in case JNA
needs to raise anything with Alice / Paula regarding this. Suggested to
IH that if problems are not resolved, he ought to raise them with
working group chairman BEFORE speaking to JNA.”
Things were starting to go slightly (at that stage) wrong.
137. On 20th January 2014 Janet Walker wrote to Second Sight'?° about the
telephone call to take place before my meeting with the Post Office to take
place on 28th January. She asked whether there was a satisfactory agreement
in place with the Post Office and also said,
‘it is clear that a January update meeting for MPs is not going to
happen, but I think something ought to be done to let them know how
the mediation process is going, at what stage the investigations are at,
and when the cases will be moved on to the next stage. Two MPs in
particular are beginning to ask questions: Andrew Bridgen has raised
the matter of compensation (Alan and Kay are looking into this); and
Mike Wood is asking how things are going with his constituent. Would
a report from Second Sight be a good idea, I wonder? Perhaps ahead
of a February meeting with MPs? I think it is be important to keep MPs
23 [JARBO000079).
Page 71 of 193
WITN00020100
up-to-date with what is going on, and it might be helpful to Second
Sight and the JSFA in keeping pressure on the Post Office.“
138. On 27th January 2014 at 2:45 pm the telephone call with Second Sight took
place. And at 5pm there was a telephone call with Alan Bates. I do not have
notes of what was said in either of those calls, but whatever it was will have
been reflected in the speaking notes that Janet Walker prepared for my
subsequent meeting with the Post Office.
139. At 09:30 on 28th January 2014 there was a meeting with the Post Office in my
room in the House of Commons. The agenda’ (from the looks of its
formatting it appears to have been provided by Janet Walker) covered the
following subjects:
“1. The mediation scheme — how it is going; what will be reported to
MPs, how, and when; matters surrounding compensation; external
review of past cases that went to court
2. Second Sight - relationship with them including agreement as to
what they are doing and for whom
3. JFSA — relationship between POL and the Association
4. Successor to the mediation scheme
5. Business Improvement Programme
6. Next steps“
224 [JARBO000080).
Page 72 of 193
WITN00020100
140. Janet Walker didspeaking notes'?° for me for the meeting. These will have
been partly based on the telephone conversations I had had with Second Sight
and Alan Bates. The notes read as follows:
Mediation Scheme
1. How is this going?
a. 147 cases have applied
b. How many have reached mediation?
c. Only half a day or one day allocated for mediation — is this
enough?
d. Understand that results are not binding — on either SubPM or
Post Office. Is this true? What are consequences of this?
e. Chairman — how long is he contracted for?
2. Reporting progress to MPs — when and how and in what detail?
a. Do confidentiality terms mean that constituents will not be able
to talk to their MPs?
3. Reporting results to MPs — individual cases, cases in total, when
and how
a. Second Sight producing a Thematic Report (previously called
Mediators Briefing Document) — sounds ideal for circulation
25 [JARBO000081].
Page 73 of 193
a
b.
WITN00020100
Are there any exclusions on what can be made public?
Reporting problems with Horizon — should they be found
Compensation
Is there contingency for this?
Is there someone of sufficient authority on the working group
that will be empowered to make offers from POL without having to
revert to senior management?
6. External review of past and current litigation — what were the
results?
7. Any future plans for second tranche of mediation for new cases
that come to light?
141. It seems from the Post Office notes '?° of the meeting that there were present
Alice Perkins, Paula Vennells, Janet Walker, David Oliver (the programme
manager of the mediation scheme) and myself. I raised a number of points. I
wondered how MPs would be kept in touch with the scheme. I asked about the
turnover of the staff on the scheme, and about Second Sight'’s employment. I
asked about a final report, and said that Second Sight were being prevented
from talking to MPs about their own constituents. It seems from the note that
Paula Vennells told me Second Sight’s engagement letter was not designed to
restrict in any way Second Sight's ability to investigate issues with Horizon.
226 (POLO0026743}.
Page 74 of 193
142.
143.
WITN00020100
This was not the first time that she had promised access for Second Sight to
any document or file that was relevant to their investigations.
But she then said that Second Sight would not be advising Post Office on
criminal cases or prosecution policy as they were forensic accountants and not
lawyers. I believe that at the time this struck me as wrong. It was at odds with
what she had just said about not restricting Second Sight's ability to investigate
the issues with Horizon. Accountants in their training and work have a great
deal to do with criminal cases and prosecution. The Post Office notes do not
record that made this point at the time, but since I accepted her offer of a
meeting to discuss it (itself a strange proposal, given that we were already
having a meeting) it seems probable that I was sceptical. Looking back on it
now, I believe she was following the recommendations of Chris Aujard and
Angela Van Den Bogerd.
On 4" February 2014 I sent an email'?” to MP colleagues including the
following words:
“I would like to mention a couple of matters in advance of the meeting.
The mediation scheme is running, and we must take care both to
respect the privacy of individual applicants and to avoid skewing the
mediation process. Individual cases will not be up for discussion, but I
am sure that if any colleague wanted to seek a separate meeting with
227 [poLo0100445}.
Page 75 of 193
WITN00020100
Post Office to discuss an individual case, Post Office would be happy
to arrange this separately.”
This, according to Janet Walker, was an offer made by the Post Office.
144. At close of play on Friday 7" February 2014 David Oliver sent Janet Walker an
email'?® containing the draft minutes of the meeting. Janet Walker, having
spoken to me, replied to him on 11" February 2014 to raise three points. First,
I wanted Paula Vennells to confirm that Second Sight were at liberty to discuss
matters with me, as the JFSA was. Second I wanted her to confirm that, if
problems arose with Horizon, Second Sight were at liberty to investigate — in
other words, there were no “no-go” areas in the investigations. Third I wanted
her to meet Second Sight to iron out a letter of agreement. These were issues
on which clearly I had reservations about the Post Office’s approach, and which
were reminding me of the concerns I felt the previous summer about Post
Office defensiveness and legalism. I also proposed an agenda for the meeting
with MPs that was eventually to take place. I would have expected there to be
some response to that email of 11° February 2014, but do not have a copy in
my files.
145. Oliver Heald MP wrote to me on 19" February 2014 about one of his
constituents; I do not have a copy of his letter. On 5'" March 2014 I wrote a
letter to him to say that the mediation scheme had now closed but that he
228 (POLO0100222].
Page 76 of 193
146.
WITN00020100
would be welcome to attend a meeting I would be chairing on Monday 24
March 2014, at 5.45pm in Room T, Portcullis House.
On 14" March 2014 Janet Walker emailed me to say that Paula Vennells
wanted to speak to me on the telephone, a call eventually agreed to take place
on 18" March 2014. She emailed David Oliver at the Post Office on 17"" March
2014129 to say:
“One thing that has come up which he would like to cover is the
agenda for the meeting next week. What has been proposed is as
follows:
1. Welcome and into — JNA for 5 mins
2. Update on progress with mediation scheme and business
improvement programme — PV for 15 mins
3. Second Sight update — 10 mins
4. JFSA update — 10 mins
5. Q&A - 20 mins
ls Paula content with this? Second Sight have expressed some
concern in that they feel they cannot, and should not, speak on behalf
of the Working Group. However, they can offer their perspective on the
investigations. I have spoken to lan just now and he understands that it
would be inappropriate to go into details given that the investigations
228 [JARBO000082).
Page 77 of 193
WITN00020100
are still works in progress, and that gesturing towards any conclusions
at this stage would not be wise. This would be something it would be
very good for Paula and James to cover.”
147. On 20" March 2014 David Oliver wrote an email'®° to Janet Walker beginning,
“Following on from the call Paula undertook to provide James with a draft email
he could send to interested colleagues about the restrictions around what we
can and can't say.” He also asked whether Janet and I were happy with
amendments he had made to the minutes — presumably of the meeting of 28"
January 2014. Janet replied immediately that on 4" February 2014 I had sent
an email to MP colleagues telling them something slightly different from what
David Oliver was now proposing, and also saying that she had sent an email
some time before agreeing the amendments. However I do not have a copy
either of the amendments proposed by David Oliver nor of Janet Walker's
approval of those amendments. It seems that David Oliver tried to speak on
the telephone to Janet Walker following receipt of her email of 20" March 2014.
148. I do not have notes of the meeting that took place on 24" March 2014 but I
have seen the Post Office notes"*’. I do not question the accuracy of the Post
Office notes. They include the comment,
130 [POLO0100445).
351 [POLO0105634].
Page 78 of 193
WITN00020100
“In the short term the Second Sight reference to the thematic report
and it somehow being shared with MPs is a concern and we are
prepared for the potential leaking of the report.”
149. This comment appears to be at odds with the Post Office’s professed intention
to be open and transparent. Perhaps the meeting of 24'" March 2014 — which
the Post Office describes as “difficult” - was the time that I truly began to sense
a changed attitude from the Post Office. The reluctance by Chris Aujard and
Paula Vennells to discuss compensation, combined with my own determination
to return to the issue, will have suggested to me that we might be on divergent
tracks.
150. On 26'" March 2014 I wrote’®? to Paula Vennells to try to get a date for a
meeting in July in our diaries but also to say:
“I know you sensed that MPs are beginning to want to hear something
more than that the cases are going through mediation. There was
some dismay, I thought, at the prospect mentioned that even when the
mediation process is complete, MPs are not going to get a chance to
hear the result of investigations. I am fairly certain this will not wash
and that something is going to have to be offered by way of reported
results, even if only on a generic basis.
232 [POLO0100474].
Page 79 of 193
WITN00020100
“Everyone understands the point about the integrity and independence
of the working group being respected, but the reason this entire
process has been instigated is that MPs agitated on behalf of their
constituents for it. Given that Second Sight are producing a report
within days, I think it is quite justifiable that MPs believe that results of
some description are being arrived at, and we are getting hungry to
know what they are. Might a report be made available soon, or can
results be made known at this July meeting? Perhaps you can let me
know your thoughts about this?”
I was — and MPs were — beginning to feel frustrated at the Post Office’s
secretiveness.
151. On 1% April 2014 I emailed MPs*®? and said (amongst other things) that Alan
Bates was expressing frustration and:
“I remain concerned that the process is taking much longer than
anyone wants and also that we were not given any indication of when
any investigation might yield results, and what exactly we might be told
about those results. Given that investigators were on the verge of
producing a report on 26" March about their work and handing this to
the working group, I have also asked when MPs might be offered some
more substantial news.
133 [POL00100491].
Page 80 of 193
WITN00020100
“I have therefore written to Paula Vennells, the CEO who attended the
meeting, expressing these points and requested another meeting
which I hope could take place in July. ...
“I have said to the Post Office that I remain confident that the mediation
process remains the best possible opportunity for this matter to be
resolved, but that we need to see some results, and soon. I ask you to
be patient a while longer.”
152. On 11" April 2014 Paula Vennells replied’ to my letter of 26'" March 2014 to
say that she was not supportive of a further interim report because it would
have the potential to damage the integrity of the scheme, and that a meeting in
July 2014 would serve no purpose because there would be no more to discuss
then; it should wait until September 2014.
153. On 18 May 2014 I replied’:
“May I make two points in response to your letter? The first is that
whilst I appreciate that an interim report is slightly disruptive of the
Mediation Scheme’s progress, I am not so sure that preliminary
findings cannot be shared in a manner that respects the Scheme’s
integrity. Given that the investigators were issuing the Post Office with
a report in late March, surely by now they have been able to draw
134 [POLO0100671].
35 [POLOO105466).
Page 81 of 193
WITN00020100
some conclusions about the cases before them. Doing so would not
intrude on the confidentiality of any individual case. And would it not be
fair to share these, given that the group of MPs whose constituents
have been affected have been partially (with the Post Office and the
JSFA) responsible for getting these investigations underway? Second,
if a July meeting is unimaginable, can you offer me a date when a
further meeting will be considered, please?
“l understand all the points that you make and have some sympathy
with the position you adopt. However, I am anxious that the longer the
silence, the more concerned MPs will get. This relates not just to their
own constituency cases but to the processes which had been followed
at the Post Office which led to so many individuals coming forward.
This entire matter has the potential to run away from our control,
something neither you nor I want to see happen. In short, I am slightly
worried.
“I wonder if you might let me have your thoughts please? In order to
dampen expectations about a July meeting, I would like to circulate
your letter of 11 April to those MPs involved, but I feel I should give you
an opportunity to think these points through before I do so.”
By my standards I was irritated.
Page 82 of 193
WITN00020100
154. On 6th May 2014 I had a meeting with Clark Vasey of Fujitsu. In the emails
organising that meeting my diary secretary reminded Fujitsu that I was hoping
for a visit to see their operations in my constituency. On 13th June 2014 that
visit took place, and there is no evidence of any discussion of Horizon — it
appears to have been an entirely defence orientated visit.
155. On 14'" May 2014 Paula Vennells wrote to me’ in reply to my letter of 1** May
2014. She said that the scheme was making progress, but that every stage
was taking longer than originally envisaged. She said that Second Sight had
only just submitted their first case review, and that given the slow process of
their case reviews, a thematic report should not be the focus of their efforts.
She also made a complaint that Alan Bates had written to Jenny Willott MP, and
she said that this was in breach of the confidential nature of the Working Group,
that the Working Group Chair had written to the Minister about it and that Alan
Bates's letter had contained various inaccuracies.
156. On 20" May 2014 I replied'®” to say that I was taken aback by the fact that only
one review had been completed thus far, and to ask what she suggested I
should tell MPs about why things were taking so long. As for her complaint
about Alan Bates, I was inclined to forgive him and asked why it might have
been that he had not felt able to approach either Sir Anthony Hooper or her with
his concerns. But I also wrote to Alan Bates to say that he probably should
have raised the issues with Sir Anthony Hooper or Paula Vennells rather than
236 [POLO0100696).
37 [POLO0100695).
238 [JARBO000083}.
Page 83 of 193
WITN00020100
the Minister. I probably felt that the prediction in my letter of 18 May 2014 that
things might run away from our control was beginning to come true. I
suggested to both Paula Vennells and Alan Bates a meeting between the three
of us to clear the air.
157. It appears that on 224 May 2014 Second Sight produced Part 1 of a Mediation
Briefing Report'®®. I cannot say when I saw this. It is linked to Part 2 which
contains the conclusions of Second Sight’s continuing investigations, and in
view of the absence of those conclusions I would probably have waited until
seeing them before forming a view.
158. On 12" June 2014 Paula Vennells replied"4° to my letter of 20" May 2014. She
wanted to discuss with Sir Anthony Hooper an update — which she thought
would be helpful - to be provided to MPs. She did not think a “clear the air”
discussion with Alan Bates was needed but she would keep the offer in mind.
159. On 2" July 2014 Paula Vennells wrote to me‘41 enclosing an annex from Sir
Anthony Hooper giving a brief update on the mediation scheme. I was
disappointed with it. I replied on 8" July 2014"2, as follows:
“I understand your reticence about reporting anything further to MPs
than is covered by the Annex to your letter. I will circulate this to the
239 [POLO0035280).
¥40 [POLO0100695).
141 [POLO0102600).
142 [POLO0026747].
Page 84 of 193
WITN00020100
group who will, I suspect, be disappointed that no further news can be
offered.
“What I propose to write to them via email is as follows:
“I had hoped that we could schedule a meeting before summer
during which the Post Office might offer us an update on how
the mediation scheme is progressing. To this end I have been in
correspondence with Paul Vennells, the Chief Executive. I attach
an update from her office, which I have just received.
It appears that not a great deal can be added to what was said
in our last meeting. I see no point in trying to push for a meeting
which offers no further detail than we heard at the last.
“I understand and am concerned that the investigations and
reviews are taking longer than any of us anticipated. It is
possible (though I have not been told so) that the Post Office
considers that nothing can be said about any individual case
until something can be said about all of them. Perhaps there is a
risk in the mind of Sir Anthony Hooper that to release the result
of one case might create pressure on another.
Page 85 of 193
WITN00020100
“I intend to press the Post Office on this point, to reconfirm the
need to give us all some substantial information, and to come
back to you with a further update in September
“I hope you might be content with this approach.”
“I plan on sending this at the end of this week. If you would like to
suggest any amendments, could you do so by close of play Thursday
10 July please?”
160. Paula Vennells emailed me on 10" July 2014"? to put a slightly better gloss on
things.
161. On 11" July 2014 Alan Bates telephoned Janet Walker. Her note’ to me of
that conversation reads as follows:
“Alan spoke to JKW. Working Group meeting this week has ended
rather badly. Alan feels that Second Sight's role is being changed as
independent arbiters of whether cases ought to proceed to mediation is
being changed [sic]. Has spoken to Tony Hooper who has given Alan 2
weeks to make a case that Second Sight should be the decision maker
as to whether or not cases proceed to mediation. Alan wants to know
JNA's views on what he and other MPs believe Second Sight's role is.
143 [POLO0101018).
4 [JARB0000084).
Page 86 of 193
WITN00020100
“At the moment, Second Sight investigates. At the end of the
investigation, they make a recommendation as to whether a case goes
to mediation or not. This is then debated at Working Group, where
there are two votes, Post Office and JSFA. If the vote is split, then Tony
Hooper makes a decision.
“Alan's point is that surely Second Sight's recommendation should be
regarded as final, and that not allowing this to be the case interferes
with the independence of the process.“
162. On 15" July 2014 two things happened. I had a telephone call with Alan Bates
arising out of his previous conversation with Janet Walker. I do not have notes
of my conversation with him. And second Janet Walker sent Paula Vennells a
redraft of the email'*S I was going to send MPs that was a little less downbeat
than my first draft and asking for a telephone call between her and me to
discuss that redraft. That telephone call was due to take place and probably
did on 17" July 2014.
163. Probably on 17" July 2014 — after my conversation with Paula Vennells - I
emailed MPs"° as follows:
+45 [JARBO000085).
+46 [POL00101053}.
Page 87 of 193
WITN00020100
“I had hoped that we might schedule a meeting before summer during
which the Post Office might offer us an update on how the mediation
scheme is progressing. To this end I have been in correspondence with
Paula Vennells, the Chief Executive, to see what might be arranged.
It appears that not a great deal can be added to what was said in our
last meeting. The mediation scheme is progressing, but at a slower
pace than any of us would have liked. Rather than hold a meeting just
before Recess that will not reveal more than we already know, I would
rather wait until autumn, but I do want to get a date in the diary fora
meeting then.
I attach a note that Paula has sent which sets out the progress made
since our last meeting. She has reiterated to me that the integrity of the
mediation scheme requires that confidentiality of cases be respected.
In her letter to me she has also said that individual case details may
not be shared with us at any point, including at the end of the Scheme.
! would like to believe that at the end of the Scheme we will be
presented with a report which shows why and how we got to the stage
where hundreds of individuals were (and still are) coming forward with
their concerns and their often harrowing stories. I do believe that the
mediation scheme has a good chance of righting things, but we shall all
need clarity as to what happened and why, and how it is being put
right.“
Page 88 of 193
WITN00020100
164. On 4" August 2014 Janet Walker forwarded on my behalf an email from the
office of Steve Webb MP about a constituent of his.
Page 89 of 193
WITN00020100
THE BREAKDOWN OF RELATIONS
165. On 21% August 2014 Second Sight produced Part 2 of its Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme Briefing Report'4”. In my files I also have a
document called “Post Office - Second Sight Report — Part 2”'48 which is also
from August 2014. I believe it must have been provided to me by Second
Sight, and it is a useful summary of the conclusions of the full report and I
would have read them together. I do not, however, know when I saw it.
166. The report contains many points that were damning. Whether at the time I saw
it I recognised quite how damning they were is less clear in my mind. There is
no reference, for example, to the Post Office or Fujitsu being able to access
Horizon remotely, something I remember being concerned about. But the
question, “Is Horizon fit for purpose”, is answered by Second Sight’s conclusion
—no. Uppermost in my own mind was always the question, have the actions
taken against these subpostmasters, whether disciplinary, litigious or
prosecutory, been fair, and are the results safe? The conclusion I would have
drawn from the summary whenever I did see it was, “Almost certainly not, and
certainly not in every case”.
167. By this stage I had come to trust Ron Warmington and lan Henderson. My
feeling about their approach was that they were straightforward, open,
147 [POL00030160).
+48 [JARBOOO0086).
Page 90 of 193
WITN00020100
competent, and experienced in the issues with which we were all dealing. I had
completely abandoned my initial suspicion of their (or at least Ron
Warmington’s) past friendship with Susan Crichton and the fact that they were
being funded by the Post Office. At the same time the Post Office personnel
with whom I was dealing had become defensive, legalistic and determined to
keep from MPs information about which they had previously promised to be
open. Where there was a dispute between Second Sight and the Post Office I
therefore felt more inclined to favour Second Sight’s version.
168. On 28" August 2014 Priti Patel MP wrote to me about a constituent of hers. I
do not have a copy of her letter, but my reply to her‘? of 4°" September 2014
said,
“I know he is not alone in finding the length of time that is being taken
to investigate his case frustrating.
“lam afraid there is nothing I can do to increase the pace of
investigation. I too would like to see these cases resolved more swiftly
than is currently happening. The investigators are being extremely
diligent in gathering and then wading through a great deal of
information in each of the 150 cases they are investigating and so I
would counsel patience, not least as I remain convinced that this
process offers Mr Ward the very best chance of seeing his complaint
resolved.
+49 [JARBO000088).
Page 91 of 193
169.
170.
171.
WITN00020100
“lam glad you have written to the Chief Executive. Your letter will help
her to see how very keen constituency MPs are to see this matter
resolved, and it will have applied just the right pressure required to
ensure she knows this is true in [ ]'s case.”
On 4" September 2014 I wrote to Paula Vennells‘®° asking for a meeting with
her and Jimmy Hood MP about a constituent of his.
On 5" September 2014 Angela Van Den Bogerd wrote to Second Sight's'
asking Second Sight to reconsider their recommendation that a particular case
was suitable for mediation. The reason she gave boiled down to the fact that
the applicant had pleaded guilty in court to false accounting and theft, so that
there was no basis left for mediation. I do not know how I have the letter of 5"
September 2014 in my files. While it looks as though it came from Second
Sight, I cannot be sure of that. Nor do I know when I first saw it. But whenever
I did see it, if the same logic were applied to all of the cases where there had
been guilty pleas, then the basis of the mediation scheme would have been
fundamentally changed.
It had always been obvious that the mediation scheme would not have been
able to alter convictions in courts. In the question I had asked in the statement
250[JARB0000087].
51 [JARBO000089).
Page 92 of 193
WITN00020100
on the floor of the House of Commons on 9" July 2013 after the production of
Second Sight’s Interim Review I had said
“we must look after them and try to provide them with redress, perhaps
through the Criminal Cases Review Commission”.
172. The MPs had always regarded the mediation scheme as being one step on the
way to, rather than the entire process of, the potential exoneration of those who
had been found or who had pleaded guilty. It would be fair to say that we had
not worked out a process of what to do should someone’s conviction (whether
through a finding of a court or a plea of guilty) turn out to be based on evidence
that was wrong, untrue or unfair, but I believed that the first step was to
establish the validity of the evidence, which was what Second Sight and the
mediation scheme were doing. The Post Office now seemed to be treating its
own lack of power to overturn court decisions as being a reason not even to
admit applicants into the mediation scheme to work out whether those court
decisions had been based on evidence that was true and fair. This was not
what MPs had agreed to.
173. I have in my files a letter'S? dated 9" September 2014 from Steve McCabe MP,
about a constituent of his (see paragraph 175 below).
252 [JARBO000148).
Page 93 of 193
WITN00020100
174. On 13" September 2014 I went to see Kay Linnell who, like Jo Hamilton, was a
constituent of mine. The briefing note’? in my papers prepared for me by
Janet Walker shows that the meeting was about the details of the case of Jo
Hamilton, whom Kay Linnell was advising.
175. Janet Walker replied to Steve McCabe MP's letter on 15th September 2014 to
say that I was forwarding such out of time cases to the Post Office, and she
wrote to Paula Vennells doing so. Also on 15° September 2014 Janet Walker
forwarded to Steve Webb MP the brief reply she had had from the Post Office
about his constituent. On 16'" September 2014 the Post Office acknowledged
receipt of the letter from Steve McCabe MP about his constituent.
176. On 17" September 2014 I wrote’® to Paula Vennells (copying it to Sir Anthony
Hooper and Alan Bates) as follows:
“Alan Bates telephoned my office today following the Working Group
meeting which I believe was held earlier this week. He expressed
concern about how the meetings were proceeding and mentioned that
three solicitors were present during the last one, all from the Post
Office’s side. I wonder whether this has the effect of interfering with
what is meant to be an independent group? Might you think about
making these meetings a little less ‘lawyerly’?
53 [JARBO000090).
154 [POLO0105465).
Page 94 of 193
177.
178.
179.
180.
WITN00020100
Also, might you let me have an answer to my letter of 4 September
2014 to you please about meeting with my colleague Jim Hood MP and
myself?”
On 22™ September 2012 the Post Office wrote to me saying they would look
into the constituent’s case raised by Steve Webb MP.
In the Post Office’s reply'®> to Second Sight'’s Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme Briefing Report dated 22nd September 2014 the Post Office
said it was unable to endorse the Report. I cannot remember precisely when or
how I saw this Reply.
I accept that much of the Second Sight Report and of the Post Office Reply is
outside my own area (such as it is) of expertise. I have no understanding of the
Activation of Scratchcards, and I never mastered the details of Transaction
Reversals. But when I did see the Reply, which I assumed from its tone had
been drafted mainly by Chris Aujard, it struck me as unconvincing, defensive,
offhand and designed to be obstructive.
The Reply said, for example, that “Matters such as the Subpostmaster contract
and other legal matters are not within the scope of the Scheme and are outside
Second Sight’s professional expertise.” (Paragraph 1.9). I had expressly said
to the Post Office that Second Sight should have no no-go areas and believed
that they had accepted that, so 1.9 was a breach of the understanding that MPs
155 (POLO0002415].
Page 95 of 193
181.
182.
183.
WITN00020100
had with them. And Second Sight’s professional expertise was more than
capable of dealing with contracts and legal matters. Accountants have to deal
with law much as lawyers have to deal with accounts.
Another example was the Post Office’s treatment of the contract with
subpostmasters (paragraphs 4.1-4.16). My experience of dealing with Jo
Hamilton was that she was a trustworthy, sensible woman dealing with an
overbearing organisation that refused to listen to what she said. The Post
Office Reply about the fairness of the contract, I thought, was callous and
wrong, and bore out what I had heard from Jo Hamilton.
Another example was the Post Office’s Reply about Training, Support and
Supervision (Section 8). The complaints from the subpostmasters about the
inadequacy of these things are dismissed as “based entirely on the anecdotal
information provided by Applicants in their CQRs. As noted in the introduction
to this Reply, that information remains largely untested.” But what else could
such a report be based on? Since the Post Office was insisting that Second
Sight restrict itself to dealing with the applications to the mediation scheme
rather than doing the investigations that such allegations cried out for, it came
poorly from the Post Office to complain about the anecdotal nature of what
Second Sight was finding.
Another example was the Post Office’s arrogant dismissal of Second Sight’s
concerns expressed in Section 22 about the behaviour of Post Office
investigators. It merely rejected the section as being outside the scope of
Page 96 of 193
WITN00020100
Second Sight's expertise. But when Second Sight had produced its Interim
Report in July 2013, in my Press Release’*® issued on the day of the release of
that report I had included the following words:
“However, the problems investigators have discovered point to the
need for further work. These problems involve:
. The way the Post Office has investigated concerns”
184. So my preference (referred to above) for Second Sight’s view of events over
that of the Post Office where their views differed encouraged me to reject the
Post Office’s Reply in those areas — virtually all - where they disagreed with
Second Sight.
185. On 1% October 2014 Paula Vennells wrote to me*®” in response to my letter to
her of 17'" September 2014 about Alan Bates’ concerns about the Post Office
being lawyered up as follows:
“Thank you for your letter of 17 September regarding the concerns
Alan has expressed about how the Working Group meetings are
proceeding and attendance at those meetings. For your information,
Post Office General Counsel is the lead PO representative at the
meeting and from time to time takes along members of his team who
are involved in the case work, as do Second Sight.
56 [JARBO000063}.
157 [POLO0109204].
Page 97 of 193
WITN00020100
“As you note, the Working Group is independent, and it would be
inappropriate for me to intervene as its proceedings, including who
attends, are matters for the Group and the Chair. It is of course open
to Alan to raise any concerns relating to Working Group meetings with
the Chair.”
There is no record in my files as to what I did with this dismissive letter.
Neither is there any record of a response from Sir Anthony Hooper, to whom I
had copied my letter of 17'" September 2014.
186. In view of rising concerns about the progress of the mediation scheme I believe
that there were then several telephone calls and probably meetings between
Alan Bates, Second Sight, other MPs and myself — though not necessarily
together - to discuss how we should best take things forward. Journalists were
beginning to get wind (though not through me) that things were not going well.
187. On 17" October 2014 I wrote'®® to Paula Vennells as follows:
“I would be pleased if you would accept a request to come to a meeting
with myself, Oliver Letwin, Mike Wood, and Andrew Bridgen to discuss
progress on the mediation process. I am not alone in becoming
increasingly worried about the tone that is emerging from proceedings
158[POL00105464].
Page 98 of 193
WITN00020100
and I am beginning to fear its disintegration. I would like to discuss this
with you as soon as possible.
“The following times suit me. Might you be able to make one of them? I
am very keen to meet as soon as possible.
5 pm Monday 27 October
5 pm Monday 3 November
5pm Monday 10 November
6pm Monday 17 November
“If none of these suit, please would your office call mine to discuss
times that might be available? I shall ask Janet to call your office next
week to check.
“Also, might you let me have an answer to my letter of 4 September
2014 to you please about meeting with my colleague Jim Hood MP and
myself? I did write to remind you about this a month ago but am yet to
have a response.”
I was losing — had in fact lost — patience and trust.
188. Then things began to go bad quite quickly. On 22nd October 2014 Janet
Walker wrote to Avene O'Farrell'®? at the Post Office to say,
259 [JARBO000091].
Page 99 of 193
WITN00020100
“Last Friday [ie 17th October 2014] James sent a letter to Paula
requesting a meeting. Could you please give me a call at the earliest
possible opportunity to arrange. I must let you know that we are now
receiving calls from numerous journalists about the mediation scheme
and so this meeting is a matter of considerable urgency.”
189. On 23 October 2014 Janet Walker emailed Ron Warmington’® to say that
things were starting to speed up and she wondered whether he had yet heard
from Paula. We were getting calls from journalists and I would have to say
something soon. Ron Warmington replied:
“Left a message today. Paula is out on holiday this week. They're
going to see whether she can fit in a call with me some time next week
(!). The Defence Team Representative (Belinda Crowe) wanted to
know what I wanted to speak to Paula about (the weather maybe?). I
gave her a broad outline but obviously I want to have a person-to-
person quick call with Paula not to have some intermediary
intercept/interpret/dilute/delay. Will persevere.”
190. Also on 23rd October 2014'® I emailed Alice Perkins as follows:
160 (POLO0101479].
161 [POLO0101477].
Page 100 of 193
WITN00020100
“lam becoming increasingly worried about how the sub-Postmasters
mediation process is working. The Post Office is treating the decision
as to whether individual cases should go through to mediation as a
legal battlefield, to the extent that I am getting close to asking another
Urgent Question in the House of Commons about it. I have requested
a meeting with Paula, who I know is on leave this week. My office is
receiving requests for me to talk to the media, and I intend to do so, but
I want to discuss matters with Paula first, if possible. I, the
subpostmasters and Second Sight agreed to this process in the
expectation that it would be carried through in good faith. I would hate
to be in a position of having to call that into question.
“Lam sorry to write in these terms, but I felt you needed to know how
serious the matter was becoming.”
191. On the same day (23 October 2014) there was a telephone call between Alan
Bates and me. He wanted to talk to me about “potential developments”. I do
not have a note of that conversation but it helped to inform me for the telephone
conversation I would subsequently have with Paula Vennells. And Janet
Walker wrote again to Avene O’Farrell'® to say,
“James is being contacted by the media and will need to speak to them
soon. He wants to speak to Paula before he talks to them. Can you
please let Paula know this as a matter of urgency? In addition, we
282 [JARBO000093).
Page 101 of 193
WITN00020100
know that Ron from Second Sight is trying to reach her. He would like
to tell her how things are going from his perspective and James is very
keen for her to hear what he has to say.”
192. On 28" October 2014 there was a telephone call between Paula Vennells and
me. In setting it up with Avene O'Farrell Janet Walker said'®,
“James is content to have a word but he would prefer to meet Paula
face to face and wants other MPs to join him, namely Oliver Letwin,
Andrew Bridgen, and Mike Wood. So, a preliminary and brief word
tomorrow would work well but he does want a meeting subsequently.”
193. Janet Walker had prepared speaking notes'™ for me, and I accept the accuracy
of the Post Office notes '® of the conversation. In essence I told Paula Vennells
that the mediation scheme was breaking down, that the Post Office was trying
to prevent people from entering it, that JFSA were likely to take legal action
before the end of the year and that I was minded to advise them to do so and
that while I did not want to be seen as abandoning the process I felt I could not
currently really support it.
194. Paula Vennells replied that the Post Office had invested a lot of time and
money in the scheme and could not be accused of bad faith, that the Post
Office could not accept responsibility for matters for which it was not
163 [JARBO000093).
164 [JARBO000092].
265 [POLO0117030].
Page 102 of 193
WITN00020100
responsible, that the mediation scheme was not a compensation scheme and
that over 90 cases had now been investigated and no evidence had been
identified which suggested there was a problem with Horizon.
195. I raised the case of Jo Hamilton, and was concerned she had been told the
Post Office was not willing to consider the case until all other cases had been
completed. It does not appear that this point received a reply from Paula
Vennells at this stage.
196. On 4"" November 2014 Janet Walker forwarded to Steve McCabe MP
correspondence from the Post Office about his constituent.
197. On 5"" November 2014 Paula Vennells wrote to me’ to repeat what she had
said in our telephone conversation.
198. The meeting between the Post Office and MPs took place in my office in
Portcullis House on Monday 17" November 2014 at 4:30pm. In the pre-
meeting emails'®”? — Avene O'Farrell had said that Pauline Vennells had no
objection to Alan Bates attending as well, so the attendees were Paula
Vennells, Mark Davies, Chris Aujard and Angela Van Den Bogerd from the Post
Office, Alan Bates from JFSA and Andrew Bridgen MP, Oliver Letwin MP, Mike
Wood MP and myself. I held a pre-meeting with the MPs alone — and perhaps
165 [POLO0101571].
167 [POLO0101573).
Page 103 of 193
199.
200.
WITN00020100
Alan Bates - at 4pm. Janet Walker had prepared speaking notes'® for the
meeting.
What I remember of the meeting is that I felt that it was controlled, on the Post
Office side, by Angela Van Den Bogerd and Chris Aujard. They said that the
Post Office should exclude altogether from the mediation scheme people who
had pleaded guilty — a different proposition from their being put to the back of
the queue. I asked them how they thought I would have supported a scheme
which excluded my constituent, Jo Hamilton, to which they had no answer.
This, for me, was the final straw. Paula Vennells seemed almost cowed by their
stronger personalities and said little. I told her she was breaking her word. I
sensed, rightly or wrongly, that she felt ashamed. The meeting broke up in
acrimony.
While I do not have notes of the meeting as such, my letter’® to interested
MPs, which I probably sent on 20" November 2014 and which Janet Walker
forwarded to the Post Office on 26" November 2014, sets out my view of how it
had gone. In that letter I said:
“On Monday afternoon Oliver Letwin, Andrew Bridgen, Mike Wood and
I met Paula Vennells, the CEO of Post Office Ltd, and some of her staff
to discuss progress of the mediation scheme. Also present at the
meeting was Alan Bates of the Justice for Sub-Postmasters
168 [JARBO000095).
69 [POLO0101586].
Page 104 of 193
WITN00020100
Association. I think it would be fair to say that it was not an easy
meeting from anyone’s point of view.
“The MPs expressed concerns about the Post Office’s challenging too
many issues before cases even went to mediation, and we suggested
that where the independent investigators, Second Sight, recommended
that a case should go to mediation, there should be a presumption that
that would then happen.
“The Post Office said that they had done exactly what they had said
they would do, and that in challenging cases within the Working Party
they were doing what had always been set down as the process of the
Working Party (though this point was questioned by Alan Bates).
“In relation to our suggestion about a presumption in favour of Second
Sight’s recommendation, Paula Vennells said she would consider it and
would take the matter to the Post Office Board. I believe we should
give her the opportunity to do that. The media are wanting to talk, but I
intend at the moment not myself to give interviews until the Post Office
has had a reasonable time — not open-ended - to consider it.
“lam sorry to relay this disappointing news, but I do believe that there
still is a chance to bring this very unhappy saga to a conclusion which
will not satisfy everybody but which will be better for most than before
we embarked on it.
Page 105 of 193
WITN00020100
“On a different point, it does seem unlikely that resolution will have
been reached by the General Election, at which, as you may know, I
shall not be standing. I have (with the agreement of the MPs
mentioned in this letter) discussed the matter with Kevan Jones, who
would in due course be happy to take over from me the leadership of
the matter. I am sure he will have your full support, as he will mine.
“As soon as I have more news I will be in touch.”
201. On 28" November 2014 Paula Vennells wrote to me’”°, having consulted the
Post Office Board, rejecting my proposition that there should be a presumption
in favour of Second Sight’s recommendation as to who should go forward for
mediation.
202. From 28" to 30" November 2014 I was in Istanbul for a British-Turkish
conference, as was Alice Perkins. She and I spoke on the evening of 29"
November 2014, and she reported our conversation to Paula Vennells in her
email of 18‘ December 2014'7'. I accept the accuracy of her report. I would be
surprised if this were the only Post Office report referring to the meeting of 17"
November 2014, but it is the only one disclosed to me. It seems that I told Alice
Perkins that I had had a sleepless night on receiving Paula Vennells’ letter of
170 [POL00101699).
17 [POL00101607).
Page 106 of 193
203.
204.
205.
206.
WITN00020100
28'" November 2014. Alice Perkins says she was rather surprised at this. I
took this matter as seriously then as I take it now.
She then asked me how I thought my colleagues had behaved at the meeting,
and I said (correctly) that they had been much more restrained than I had
expected. She said that it had not sounded very restrained to her, and it would
be right to say that the MPs had been, and showed that we were, extremely
angry.
She and I then apparently went through the arguments first rehearsed in the
telephone conversation of 28" October 2014. It seems I said that the MPs
wanted to meet Sir Anthony Hooper.
I told her that I thought that she and Paula Vennells genuinely believed what
they were saying. Looking back on it now, I think I was wrong to believe that, at
least as regards Paula Vennells, but I did believe it at the time — I thought at the
time that much of the changed approach to the mediation scheme was down to
Chris Aujard and Angela Van Den Bogerd.
Alice Perkins concluded that my position was exactly the same as it had been
two and a half years previously. About that she was wrong. My position two
and a half years previously had been that with hard work and good faith a
public organisation like the Post Office could and would work with MPs to right
wrongs for their constituents. But by the time of the conversation she was
reporting I had lost trust in the Post Office. And I also found myself in full
Page 107 of 193
WITN00020100
alignment with the forensic accountants that the Post Office themselves had
appointed to investigate the matter.
207. On 1%* December 2014 Paula Vennells forwarded Alice Perkins’s report to
Gavin Lambert'”2. I believe he was a civil servant at the Department of
Business, Innovation and Skills. I do not know his role. In her email Paula
Vennells said:
“FYI.
“To be discussed with the team if you can please Gavin, as Alice will
undoubtedly want to cover off on Wed. Probably best to see below
before you read on.
“I hope AH decides to keep to his position of independence, I have
suggested a couple of times in the past few months, to Belinda, that
Alice might meet AH just in terms of keeping the relationship going, or
even me (tho’ I now think Chairman is better as is more removed from
the process). Alice had requested to do so as well. But B was reticent
(she thought it would raise the profile too much; I also think that she felt
personally better in control if we didn’t).
172 [POLO0101607].
Page 108 of 193
WITN00020100
“This may be the time — now. Or ... it may be too late and be seen as
the PO trying to influence, which would be wrong. (Tho’ if we find AH
agrees to meet the MPs, we'd have to see him as well.)
“All rather difficult. Sounds as though Alice did a good job though.”
I presume AH is Sir Anthony Hooper but I do not know who Belinda or B are. I
see that there is a reference in an email from Ron Warmington of 23" October
2014175 to a Belinda Crowe whom Ron Warmington describes as “the Defence
Team Representative” and perhaps ‘B’ might be Angela Van Den Bogerd. But I
do not know.
208. Whoever ‘B’ was, I note that the reason she (B) apparently gave for there being
no meeting with AH was not that this might damage the integrity and
independence of the scheme — the reason Paula Vennells implies that she
herself would surely have given for his not meeting MPs - but that “she [B]
thought it would raise the profile too much; I also think that she felt personally
better in control if we didn't.”
209. On 3rd December 2014 there was a meeting between Kevan Jones, Andrew
Bridgen, Mike Wood and myself from the core group of MPs. I do not have a
note of that meeting but what followed was presumably the outcome.
173 (POL00101479].
Page 109 of 193
WITN00020100
210. On 4th December 2014 I went to see the Speaker to ask for a debate in
Westminster Hall. Thereafter, in an email contained in the diary entry for 17th
December apparently dated 4th December 2014 but which must in reality have
been dated 8th December, I wrote to Kevan Jones MP an email'”4 to say that
the debate could be either in his, Kevan Jones’s, name or mine and the
Speaker did not seem to mind about that. And I wrote to Tim Robinson’” at the
BBC as follows:
“We need to talk. Specifically I shall be writing to Paula Vennells today,
but releasing my letter to the press. In order to maximise its impact, I
rather think my letter needs to be discussed on the Today Programme
tomorrow morning. But I'd like to discuss that with you before making
any decisions, please.”
We probably did have such a conversation, but I did not go on the Today
programme until 9°" December 2014.
211. On 8" December 2014 I had a note in my diary entitled “Post Office letter
actions” which read as follows:
“1 Collate Press Release with words from other MPs
2 Print letter to Paula Vennells on HoC paper, sign
3 Scan signed letter
174 [4ARBO000077].
175 [4ARBO000097}.
Page 110 of 193
WITN00020100
4 Email all the cc people including (not listed on the letter as it should
be) with (a) the letter from PV and (b) my reply and (c) the completed
press release
5 In the email to MPs include the following words:
"On 25th November I wrote to you to say that all was not well with the
Post Office Mediation Scheme. I am extremely sad to have to tell you
that since then things have taken a turn for the worse. The CEO of
Post Office Ltd, Paula Vennells, wrote to me to say that her Board had
considered but rejected the proposal that there should be a
presumption in favour of the recommendations made by Second Sight.
I have replied that in several different respects Post Office Ltd were
neither allowing the Mediation Scheme to proceed as it was designed
to nor doing what they said they would do. I attach hereto a copy of
the letter from Paula Vennells to me, a copy of my reply to her and of
the accompanying press release.
In the circumstances I have lost faith in the Post Office Board’s
commitment to a fair resolution of the issue and have handed over the
leadership of the informal group of MPs to Kevan Jones with immediate
effect. I hope we shall shortly have an opportunity to discuss the issue
in an adjournment debate.
Many thanks for your encouraging support on this issue. I shall not
myself be abandoning the fight — merely carrying it on in other ways."
Page 111 of 193
WITN00020100
212. And on the same day, 8" December 2014, I wrote a long letter'”® to Paula
Vennells setting out our position. The conclusions of that letter were as follows:
“Conclusions
“13 Despite the points raised in paragraph 5 above about
investigations and contracts, the Post Office response of 22 September
2014 states, among other things, that contracts and Post Office
investigations are outside Second Sight’s remit.
“14 Despite your agreement that the Mediation Scheme was to be
available to all SPMRs whose cases had been identified by Second
Sight as giving rise to concern (see paragraph 6 above), in recent
months the Post Office has been objecting to around 90% of cases
going forward to mediation. This is contrary to the envisaged process
whereby exclusion from mediation would be the exception (see
paragraph 8 above), as well as being contrary to the entire purpose of
the Mediation Scheme.
“15 Despite your agreement to fund the engagement of professional
advisers to support SPMRs “in all relevant stages of the process” (see
paragraph 7), the Post Office is attempting, in the absence of
176 [POL00101700).
Page 112 of 193
WITN00020100
representation by those professional advisers of the SPMR under
consideration, to have 90% of cases excluded from mediation.
“16 Despite your agreement that those who had pleaded guilty
would be able to take advantage of the Mediation Scheme (see
paragraph 6 above), the Post Office has objected to cases going to
mediation on the ground that the SPMR had pleaded guilty.
“17 Despite your knowing that I and other MPs agreed to the
Mediation Scheme only on the basis that it would be available to those
who had pleaded guilty (see paragraph 6 above), you did not tell me,
nor so far as I am aware any other MP, that the Post Office was
arguing that a plea of guilty should debar the SPMR from mediation.
“18 Clearly the Post Office is aware of the Limitation Act point set
out in paragraph 13 above — it has enough lawyers. The Post Office
could allay any suspicion that this was a factor in the way that it has
been behaving by agreeing that Post Office Ltd will not take any time
barred limitation point in resisting legal claims arising out of the
introduction of Horizon and its support arrangements. Will you agree to
this? And will you agree not to destroy any data relevant to these
cases?
“19 Will you agree to MPs meeting Second Sight to discuss our
concerns and to hear their take on the matter?
Page 113 of 193
WITN00020100
“20 I shall not be standing at the next General Election. It is clear
that this will not have been resolved by then, and so the group of MPs
who met you have agreed that Kevan Jones MP should take over my
role in the group of MPs. This has been accepted without demur by the
almost 150 other MPs who have constituents in this plight. In any event
I could not continue negotiating with you because I have lost faith in the
Post Office Board’s commitment to a fair resolution of this issue. I shall
be pursuing the need for justice for Sub Postmasters in other ways.”
213. Also on December 8" 2014 I issued a Press Release’”’ the body of which read
as follows:
“MPs lose faith in Post Office mediation scheme
“Today a group of MPs campaigning for justice for SubPostmasters
announced that they have lost faith in the mediation scheme run by
Post Office Ltd. James Arbuthnot, leader of the group of over 140 MPs,
said:
“The scheme was set up to help our constituents seek redress
and to maintain the Post Office’s good reputation. It is doing
neither. It has ended up mired in legal wrangling, with the Post
Office objecting to most of the cases even going into the
177 [POL00101690].
Page 114 of 193
WITN00020100
mediation that the scheme was designed to provide. I can no
longer give it my support. I shall now be pursuing justice for
SubPostmasters in other ways.”
“Following a meeting between the Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd,
Paula Vennells, and a small group of MPs to discuss the MPs’
concerns, the Chief Executive wrote a letter setting out the Post
Office’s position. That letter and James Arbuthnot'’s reply are attached
hereto.
“Andrew Bridgen MP said:
’MPs have been working with the Post Office for two years now
in the belief that they would work towards a solution to this
issue. It would appear that this belief is increasingly looking
misplaced.”
“Mike Wood MP said:
“Either the Post Office is awash with criminals who open Sub
Post Offices for personal gain or something has gone terribly
wrong. MPs are inclined to believe the latter and we are all
shocked that the Post Office seems not to want to get to the
bottom of all this.”
Page 115 of 193
WITN00020100
“Kevan Jones MP said:
“My constituent has lost everything — his livelihood, his house,
his good name, and he is not the only person who faced ruin.”
“Huw Irranca-Davies MP said:
"The mediation process has failed even those sub-postmasters
who were originally included. But there are also many who fell
outside the scheme, and have had no chance to be heard. They
all deserve fair play, they all deserve justice, so the fight goes
on.
Page 116 of 193
WITN00020100
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE AND 2015 SELECT COMMITTEE
214. On the same day (8"" December 2014) I wrote a letter'”® to Adrian Bailey MP,
Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee. I said:
"Please may I put before you for consideration the possibility of your
Committee's doing an inquiry into the Mediation Scheme run by Post
Office Ltd in relation to the subpostmasters and the Horizon accounting
system?
It is a saga which has been running for years, but recent developments
mean that I have decided that I should no longer lead the group of MPs
who have been campaigning to have some form of redress for the
subpostmasters. I took this decision because I shall not be standing at
the next election, but it has been brought forward by some months by
my loss of faith in the Post Office Board's commitment to a fair result. It
would not be overstating it to say that I believe the Post Office is doing
its best to sabotage its own Mediation Scheme. I attach two letters, one
from the CEO of the Post Office to me, and my reply to her, which give
you an idea of the issues involved. My place will be taken by Kevan
Jones, to whom I am copying this letter.
I appreciate that this is not brilliant timing for your committee. But a
subpostmaster who is having a house repossessed, or who is in
278 [JARBO000098).
Page 117 of 193
WITN00020100
danger of losing the right to sue the Post Office through lapse of time,
cannot worry about our election timetable.“
215. That evening in the division lobby I spoke to Adrian Bailey in the Central Lobby
to reinforce my letter. He seemed to like my proposal and told me he would
discuss it with his committee.
216. The following morning, 9th December 2014, I and others did media interviews
to follow up the press release. I did the Today Programme with John
Humphreys'”’, Radio 5 Live at 10:4518°, and BBC Surrey at 5:15pm.
217. I also wrote to Jimmy Hood MP"*' to explain what had happened to his
correspondence. I said:
“Further to our conversation today I am writing to let you know that I
sent a letter to Paula Vennells, CEO, Post Office Ltd (copied in) in
September 2014, and followed it up in October 2014 asking when I
should be expectng a reply.
In a telephone call in November, Paula Vennells said she was very
sony [sic] for the delay andexplained [sic] that it had somehow slipped
through the net. She assured me that this matter was now in hand and
179 ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b04tjdlg, about 1 hour and 32 minutes from the start
18° http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b04tcfw6, about 1 hour 10 minutes from the start
381 [JARBO000099].
Page 118 of 193
WITN00020100
that a reply would be forthcoming shortly. It is now December and still
we have heard nothing.
As I am standing down from the leadership of the group of MPs
campaigning to have some form of redress for the Subpostmasters, it
is clear that I am no longer the person to try to persuade the Post
Office to respond.
lam extremely sorry to let you down - I really hate doing this but in
view of the circumstances, can only hope that you understand my
predicament.”
218. I was granted the Adjournment Debate for which I had asked, and on the
evening of 9th December 2014 I wrote to all MPs‘®? and said:
“Dear Colleague,
“At 2:30pm on Wednesday 17th December (next week) there will be a
90 minute Adjournment Debate in Westminster Hall on the Post Office
Mediation Scheme. The background to this, as contained in the
attached letters and Press Release, is as follows.
“A decade or so ago the Post Office introduced a new computer
accounting system, Horizon, for its sub Post Offices. Shortly thereafter
282 [JARBO000100).
Page 119 of 193
WITN00020100
subPostmasters began to find discrepancies appearing in their
accounts (which they were required to balance at the end of each day
in order to trade the following day). Eventually these discrepancies led
to subPostmasters being prosecuted by the Post Office for false
accounting and theft, some of them going to prison. If you would like to
listen to accounts of how this happened, they are to be found on Radio
5 Live at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b04tcfw6 , about 1 hour 10
minutes from the start, and on the Today Programme,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b04tidig , about 1 hour and 32
minutes from the start.
“Growing concern was felt about the dependability of the Horizon
system, and MPs approached the Post Office asking for a resolution of
these concerns. Following an independent interim report by forensic
accountants Second Sight the Post Office set up a Mediation Scheme
to deal with those cases which have given rise to concern.
“In recent months MPs have discovered that the Post Office was using
the procedures of that Mediation Scheme to argue that most of the
cases giving rise to concern should not, despite what was agreed with
MPs, be permitted to go through mediation. This was done without the
Post Office’s telling MPs they were doing it. I therefore have written to
the Post Office to say that I no longer have faith in the Post Office
Board’s commitment to a fair resolution of this issue.
Page 120 of 193
WITN00020100
“If you felt able to take part in the Adjournment Debate, I and the other
MPs who have been pursuing this matter would be most appreciative.”
219. I see that the Post Office held a Drop-in Session in the House of Commons on
10" December 2014185. I believe I did not go.
220. On Monday 15th December 2014 there is an item‘® in my diary entitled
“Postponed — phone call with Simon Blagden, Fujitsu”. It seems that I had tried
to telephone him — and it can only have been about Horizon since I was no
longer Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. Mr Blagden had gone
overseas.
221. On 17th December 2014 the Adjournment Debate took place"®, from 2:30pm to
4:00pm, with the Minister Jo Swinson answering on behalf of the Government.
The House of Commons Library had issued briefing for the debate which
despite its being the day before the Christmas Recess was very well attended
both by MPs and subpostmasters.
222. There is no need for me to rehearse here the speeches made but I shall pick
out two matters. First, Andrew Bridgen MP raised the extraordinary case of
Michael Rudkin and remote access — followed by an investigator's visit to his
post office the following day, about which there had been simmering suspicion
for well over a year. And second, Kevan Jones MP said to the Minister, “You're
283 [POLO0130757).
284 [JARBOO00101).
285 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/201412-
17/debates/14121741000002/PostOfficeMediationScheme
Page 121 of 193
WITN00020100
the Minister, do something” to which the Minister in replying said, “In order to do
something, what is required is independent investigation that is done thoroughly
and forensically”. She seemed to be unaware that the independent
investigation done by Second Sight had just been rejected by the Post Office.
223. The following day, on 18th December 2014, I did an interview with BBC Radio
Shropshire.
224. By January 2015 I had a list of 123 MPs representing 144 subpostmaster
applicants within the mediation scheme and 19 other MPs with subpostmasters
outside the scheme.
225. On 12th January 2015 I wrote a letter to the CCRC"®, in which I said,
“Could I ask for your help please, over a matter I have been pursuing
for a number of years? This concerns the Post Office and the
convictions, sometimes after pleas of guilty, of sub-postmasters and
sub-postmistresses for offences usually of false accounting, but also (I
understand) theft and fraud. The accused tended to blame the Post
Office’s Horizon computer system for the money that had gone
missing.
“After discussion with many concerned Members of Parliament, the
Post Office set up a scheme to consider these cases, with the
186 [JARBO000102].
Page 122 of 193
WITN00020100
availability of independent mediation if agreement between those
accused and the Post Office could not be reached. I was hopeful that
justice might be achieved via this scheme, but have now given up as
the Post Office is doing everything in its powers to stop cases
proceeding to any mediation at all. I am extremely disappointed that
this is the result of much hard work and negotiation by myself and over
140 other MPs.
“The result of this is that there is a strong likelihood that miscarriages of
justice have occurred but that those who have suffered from them will
now have no means for redress of their conviction via the Post Office’s
mediation scheme. Whilst we understand that some of these
individuals may be guilty we cannot believe that all are and we would
very much like to see what we can do to help our constituents, many of
whose lives, finances, and reputations have been utterly ruined. I
enclose herewith a copy of the debate in Parliament last month, which
may be found at:
hittp:/Awww. publications. parliament.uk/pa/com201415/cmhansrd/om1412
17/halltext/141217h0001 htm#14121741000002
“Are you able to offer me any thoughts as to whether or not the CCRB
[sic] would look into these cases please? I do not know the procedure
of bringing this to the Board's attention, and so thought it best to begin
with a direct approach to you.
Page 123 of 193
WITN00020100
“I should be most grateful for your consideration of this matter.”
226. On 13" January 2015 I wrote to Paula Vennells'®” asking for a reply to my letter
of 8" December 2014. On 14" January 2015 Mark Davies said'®* he had been
asked to reply to my letter of 8" December 201418. He offered me a meeting
to talk about Jo Hamilton. He said he enclosed a fact sheet, but that is not with
the papers disclosed to me and I may not have retained it.
227. The CCRC’s reply to me of 14th January 2015'® said that they had been in
contact with the Post Office for some time seeking information and clarification
on a number of points, and that they had the power under s.17 of the Criminal
Appeals Act 1995 to require public bodies to preserve and make available to
them documentation, and that they had made a s.17 request to the Post Office.
228. On 22™ January 2015 I wrote again to Paula Vennells'' to say:
“Please would you offer me an answer to the questions I posed in my
letter to you of 8 December 2014? These are:
“4. Will you agree to retaining any and all data held by the Post
Office which is relevant to all cases under consideration?
187 [POLO0109874].
188 [POLO0101989].
189 (POLO0101700).
190 [JARBO000103).
191 [POLO0026741].
Page 124 of 193
WITN00020100
“2. Will you agree not to take any time barred limitation point in
resisting legal claims arising out of the introduction of Horizon and its
support arrangements?
3. Will you agree to MPs meeting Second Sight to discuss our
concerns and to hear their take on the matter?
“Whilst you may prefer an answer to come from either one of your
lawyers or your public affairs spokesman might you do me the courtesy
of responding to this yourself, please?”
229. At some stage the BIS Select Committee decided to hold an inquiry on Tuesday
3° February 2015 into the Post Office Mediation Scheme, because on 21*
January 2015 Karl Flinders of Computer Weekly emailed’ Janet Walker to
say:
“Great news about the inquiry. I have written a story this morning about
it but I am interested in doing a more in depth follow-up about what this
could mean.
“It seems that there are more and more people supporting the
subpostmasters’ cause, which is great.
282 [JARBO000105).
Page 125 of 193
230.
231.
232.
233.
WITN00020100
“I will attend the meeting on 03 February, but would like to do an article
in preparation for this.
“If James can call me on GRO Mater for a chat that would be
good. No hurry as the news is done. This will be more on an analysis.”
I do not know when I spoke to Karl Flinders nor what article came of it, but I
would have spoken to him and he would have written an article.
On 28" January 2015 I wrote to Adrian Bailey MP'1%°, the Chair of the Select
Committee, to send him some of the evidence he might find useful.
On 29th January 2015 I spoke to lan Henderson of Second Sight; he wanted
tips on how to give evidence to the committee; he had been told it seems that
his evidence might last only 45 minutes.
On 2nd February 2015 Janet Walker (and this would have been after
discussion with me) wrote to Alan Bates and Kay Linnell'®4 (copied to Ron
Warmington) about their evidence, making the following suggestions about
what they should ask the Select Committee to recommend:
“1, Initiate inquiry independent of Post Office — perhaps a public
inquiry
193 [JARBO000104).
194 [POLO0102087).
Page 126 of 193
WITN00020100
°2. Post Office to make available prosecution records relating to all
cases being considered under the Mediation Scheme to the
investigators
3. Post Office to make available all data regarding suspense
accounts for those years during which an investigation is relevant
“4, Ask the Ministry of Justice to consider how to deal with cases
where a miscarriage of justice has been found but where defendant
has pleaded guilty and make available its recommendations to this
Committee
5. Ensure that the Post Office preserves and makes available to
the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) any documentation
the CCRC thinks relevant to enquiries it wishes to make on behalf of
applicants who claim to be victims of a miscarriage of justice (Alan,
Kay, please use these exact words — James has written to the
Chairman of the CCRC and is meeting with him and Kevan Jones soon
to discuss Post office cases)
“6. Ask the Ministry of Justice to make available a suitable
legislative vehicle as soon as possible, extending the CCRC’s Section
17 powers to cover the private sector (as above, please use these
exact words)“.
Page 127 of 193
WITN00020100
234. I went to the hearing of the Select Committee on 3rd February 2015! to sit in
the public gallery. I shall confine myself to picking up one or two matters from
the hearing.
235. At Questions 73 and 74 lan Henderson was asked whether he asked for the
emails from 2008 and was given those from 2009 instead. He said,
“... we were provided with 2009. We were told at the time that with the
first batch there were some technology issues relating to the provision
of the 2008 e-mails. Two years down the line, we still don’t have
those.”
236. In answer to Question 76, lan Henderson said,
“we unsurprisingly asked for full access to those legal files. Responses
were to the effect, “Under no circumstances are we going to give you
access to those files. You are entitled to the public documents that
would normally be available to the defendant if the case had gone to
trial.”
237. Although Angela Van Den Bogerd tried to dispute both points (saying in answer
to Question 81, “I do not recall that conversation”), this was another example of
195 https://www.jfsa.org.uk/uploads/5/4/3/1/54312921/17926_1.pdf
Page 128 of 193
WITN00020100
my preferring Second Sight’s version of events to that of the Post Office. But
then in answer to Question 112 lan Henderson clarified things as follows:
“Chairman, may I add something by way of clarification? It is the
general counsel of Post Office [Chris Aujard], to whom I have spoken,
who said that he is not prepared to disclose to us the full legal files. I do
not know to what extent he gave the same answer and advice to the
chief executive of the Post Office.”
238. In answer to Question 147 Paula Vennells said:
“If there had been any miscarriages of justice, it would have been really
important to me and the Post Office that we surfaced those. As the
investigations have gone through, so far we have no evidence of that.”
239. As set out above I had formed a different opinion from hers, and thought she
was probably simply wrong and blinding herself to the Second Sight evidence
that I thought was so compelling. I did not dismiss entirely the thought that she
might be lying, but lying to Parliament is a big step. At the time I was listening
to her saying it, I was unaware of the Clarke Advice of 15" July 2013 and of the
considerations, investigations and discussions that must have gone into its
commissioning and the fallout after its receipt. If I had been aware of the
existence of the Clarke Advice I would have thought she was lying, because it
would have been inconceivable to me that so important a matter would have
been kept from the CEO. If she had not been aware of it, it could only in my
Page 129 of 193
WITN00020100
view be because she had decided, despite all the concerns raised directly with
her over a period of years about possible miscarriages of justice, deliberately to
remain in ignorance of what was going on in the organisation of which she was
CEO.
240. On 11th February 2015 I had a telephone call with Alan Bates. There are no
notes in my diary entry about it, but that may have been the date on which he
told me he was pressing ahead with group litigation.
241. On 11" February 2015 I spoke to Sir Alan Beith MP, the Chair of the Justice
Select Committee, and on the following day wrote to him‘ as follows:
“We spoke briefly last night on a matter in connection with the
Committee's current inquiry into the Criminal Cases Review
Commission. My interest is with regard to cases connected with the
Post Office where an individual has pleaded guilty to a charge and the
case later turns out to be a miscarriage of justice. I have corresponded
with the Chair, Richard Foster, about this and attach a copy of his
response to me.
“We discussed whether the CCRC might review such a case. You said
that your understanding was that it was possible but only if the Appeals
Court was prepared to accept the argument that a miscarriage of
296 [JARBO000107].
Page 130 of 193
WITN00020100
justice had in fact occurred. My question is: how would such a case get
to the Appeals Court unless it had first been reviewed by the CCRC?
“Second, we discussed the lack of clarity surrounding whether or not
the CCRC can deal with private prosecutions. It would be good to see
what the Inquiry findings are on this.”
242. On 12" February 2015 I wrote to Daniel Kawczynski MP1” as follows:
“Thank you for your letter of 9 February regarding your constituent and
involvement in the Post Office Horizon issues. You ask a very pertinent
question — how to maintain a coordinated approach to this very thorny
problem. As I am standing down at the next election Kevan Jones MP
has kindly offered to lead on this and so your office ought to get in
touch with his office and register your interest.
“I have lost faith with the Mediation Scheme and indeed the Post Office
who seem to me to be running in almost exactly the opposite direction
to that intended at the outset of this process. My own constituent
remains in the Scheme — which in her case has ground to a shuddering
halt — but she is in close contact with the Justice for SubPostmasters
Alliance run by the splendid Alan Bates, and I could think of no better
place to send your constituent than there: http://www.jfsa.org.uk/. I
understand that they are considering a class action lawsuit.
27 [JARBO000106).
Page 131 of 193
WITN00020100
“If I think of anything else I will let you know but I hope you will continue
to campaign on behalf of your constituent. The Post Office has acted
abominably and seems not to comprehend this in the slightest.”
243. On 18th February 2015 I went to see Kay Linnell and Jo Hamilton — both being
my constituents.
244. It seems that on 19th February 2015 lan Henderson wrote a confidential
memo’ to the BIS Select Committee (I don’t know how or exactly when I got
hold of this memo, whether from Second Sight or one of the members of the
Select Committee or otherwise, but I remember seeing it shortly after its receipt
by the Select Committee). That note said, amongst other things:
“2.1. In my evidence to the Committee I referred to the need for
Second Sight to have access to the complete, i.e. not redacted, legal
files held by Post Office. Ms. Vennells also referred to Post Office’s
commitment to identifying “Miscarriages of Justice”.
“2.2. However, Post Office’s true position on this point was set out in a
letter from Post Office to Second Sight, dated 21 January 2015:
“Post Office does not accept that an analysis of the evidence in
the Applicant's criminal case, whether served during the course
28 [JARBO000108).
Page 132 of 193
WITN00020100
of that case or not, is either within the scope of the mediation
scheme or something which is within Second Sight’s remit.”
2.3. It would appear that concern about Second Sight investigating
previous prosecutions by Post Office, is the real reason behind Post
Office’s continuing refusal to provide us with access to the complete
legal files.
2.4. When Second Sight was first appointed by Post Office and
Members of Parliament in July 2012, a number of undertakings were
given by Post Office in order to satisfy MPs that Second Sight would be
able to conduct a truly independent investigation into the matters of
concern.
2.5. Those undertakings included the following:
- Unrestricted access to documents held by Post Office
(including documents subject to confidentiality and legal
professional privilege);
- No limitation in the scope of work determined necessary by
Second Sight.
2.6. Those undertakings were reflected in the “Raising Concerns with
Horizon” document signed by Post Office on 17 Dec 2012 and sent to
the JFSA and Mediation Scheme Applicants. A key paragraph was:
Page 133 of 193
WITN00020100
“In order to carry out the Inquiry, Second Sight will be entitled to
request information related to a concern from Post Office
Limited, and if Post Office Limited holds that information, Post
Office Limited will provide it to Second Sight.”
2.8. It would appear that many Subpostmasters and Applicants to the
Mediation Scheme will have relied on that paragraph, when reporting
matters to Second Sight. Post Office is clearly no longer meeting its
commitment to provide Second Sight with the documents requested.“
245. In relation to one of the rare cases where Second Sight was given access to
the full file (and I believe it was Jo Hamilton's), the memo said in its conclusion,
“4.1. The new facts that have come to light as a result of examining a
single complete legal file, have identified a number of issues that
indicate:
a) Possible misconduct by a Prosecutor on behalf of Post Office; and
b) A possible miscarriage of justice.“
246. On 24" February 2015 Paula Vennells wrote to me’ in reply to my letters of
8' December 2014 and 13" and 22"4 January 2015. She refused my request
not to rely on the Statute of Limitations. This contributed to an impression I had
that one of her motivations was to string the subpostmasters and MPs along
199 [POLOO102596].
Page 134 of 193
WITN00020100
until the subpostmasters were time-barred. She said (without mentioning the
Post Office’s general policies on retention of documents),
“Post Office has gone to great lengths to trace information relating to
cases in the Scheme, even those that are very old and we have no
plans to destroy that information, all of which is being provided to
Second Sight and applicants as part of the process of the Scheme.
“You asked if I would agree to Second Sight meeting with MPs. I am
content for Post Office to organise a briefing on the Scheme for MPs,
perhaps via the All Party Parliamentary Post Office Group, that Second
Sight could attend. I have asked my team to pick this up.”
She did not say that in under a month she would be sacking Second Sight.
247. On 4" March 2015 Kevan Jones MP and I held a meeting in my office in the
House of Commons with Richard Foster of the Criminal Cases Review
Commission. On 5" March 2015 I wrote to Richard Foster?°° as follows:
“Thank you very much for coming to London yesterday for our meeting.
Both Kevan Jones and I came away from it feeling encouraged. As I
mentioned, the SubPostmasters we both know are not criminals, are
finding that the mediation Scheme currently run by the Post Office is
offering them no redress and they are at a loss as to where to go next.
200 [J ARBOO00109).
Page 135 of 193
WITN00020100
You have given us a most valuable suggestion as to what they ought to
do next.
“I may not have mentioned to you and Sally but there are over 140
MPs who have at least one constituent involved in the Mediation
Scheme. There are plenty more individuals who could not apply within
the timescale allowed to join the Scheme so this should give you some
idea of the scale of the problem. There have been bankruptcies and
family breakdowns, of course, but there have also been suicides. Some
of the stories we hear are utterly ghastly.
“I have asked Alan Bates, an extremely good man who runs the Justice
for SubPostmasters Alliance (JFSA), to prompt those affected to apply
to the CCRC to have their cases investigated. I hope many do apply.
My own constituent, Jo Hamilton, most certainly will.
“As to the favour you asked in return, within the next week I shall be
sending an update on the matter to all 140+ colleagues here at the
House of Commons and I shall ask them to look on your request to
make Section 17 applicable to private bodies with favour. You might
care to talk to Kevan Jones about this after the election, if he is
returned. I hope we can deliver this for you.”
Page 136 of 193
WITN00020100
248. On 9" March 2015 Richard Foster wrote me a long and helpful letter?°' about
the powers of the CCRC, and told me that they would be setting up a dedicated
unit to handle the Post Office cases.
249. On 10" March 2015 I heard via a Post Office Press Release? that the Post
Office had sacked Second Sight and disbanded Sir Anthony Hooper’s
independent Working Group. I thought there was a strong risk that the Post
Office would try to suppress Second Sight’s updated Briefing Report Part 2, so I
immediately wrote a letter?°> to Paula Vennells making a Freedom of
Information request for the updated report. The Post Office sent me a holding
reply2% the following day.
250. And on 11" March 2015 I emailed MPs?° quoting the Post Office’s Press
Release and saying,
“The independent investigators, Second Sight, have now been put on
30 days’ notice. They have been denied the documents they consider
they need to determine whether a miscarriage of justice has taken
place. As I understand it, this action by the Post Office denies to MPs
the possibility of seeing Second Sight’s Part 2 Report, which is now to
be restricted to Post Office eyes only.
201 [JARBOO00110).
202 [JARBOOO0111).
203 [POLO0109979].
204 [JARBOOO0112).
205 [POLO0102373].
Page 137 of 193
WITN00020100
“The Working Group is to be closed, presumably with immediate effect.
The Post Office has said in their Press Releease, of which I attach a
copy, “Nothing has been found in any of the cases to suggest Horizon
has not worked as it should.” While I do not accept that to be true, the
refusal to give Second Sight access to the documents they considered
they needed has made it impossible to satisfy our constituents that
potential miscarriages of justice have been or will be put right. ...
“I hope to have an early opportunity to bring this deeply worrying matter
to the attention of the House, and should be grateful for your support.”
251. In one sense it did not matter, to me or to anybody else, that Second Sight’s
role had been terminated. Their work had been so confined, restricted and
frustrated by the Post Office that they were hardly able to continue to perform
any useful role. They were being denied sight of the documents they needed in
order to establish whether the Horizon IT and all the processes that went with it
had any integrity. They were not being permitted to do the job that the Post
Office had employed them to do, so in that sense there was no point in their
struggling on.
252. This meant that the truth (or lack of it) of the evidence leading to convictions or
pleas of guilty could not be tested. The mediation scheme had failed at the first
step. Subsequent steps — including determining whether there had been
miscarriages of justice, and if so what should flow from that in terms of
Page 138 of 193
WITN00020100
compensation or overturning convictions or holding to account those who had
been responsible for miscarriages of justice — never arose.
253. But in another sense I was infuriated, though not surprised. The Post Office
had comprehensively abandoned its commitment to get to the bottom of the
complaints as first agreed with me and Oliver Letwin in the meeting of 17" May
2012. I believed, and still believe, that the reason the Post Office acted in such
a way was because Second Sight were doing too good a job, that they were
bringing to light failings in an accounting and auditing system, and the
investigation and support services that went with it, in a way that amounted to
an existential threat not only to Horizon but to the Post Office itself. Second
Sight saw one legal folder — that of Jo Hamilton — and identified a case of
misconduct in a public office. Although they may have seen a few others, my
understanding (right or wrong, but Second Sight will be able to answer that) is
that the result of their identifying the misconduct in Jo Hamilton’s case was that
thereafter they saw no more. The desire to cover it all up was more important
to the Post Office than the requirements of truth, fairness and justice for the
individual subpostmasters. I did believe then that justice would eventually be
done, and I still believe that now, but I believed it would take much longer and
would cost much more than needed. It has.
254. In that sense, therefore, the Post Office’s sabotaging of its own mediation
scheme, culminating in its sacking of Second Sight, was one of many tragically
missed opportunities. But there were more to come.
Page 139 of 193
WITN00020100
255. Also on 11" March 2015 I asked a question?® in Prime Minister's Questions as
follows:
“Is my right hon. Friend aware that in connection with the Post Office
mediation scheme, the Post Office has just sacked the independent
investigator, Second Sight, and told it to destroy all its papers? Does he
agree that it is essential that Second Sight’s second report should not
be suppressed, but should be supplied to sub-postmasters and MPs,
starting with the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and
the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee?”
256. The Prime Minister replied:
“My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that he has
consistently raised the concerns of some sub-postmasters about the
operation of the Post Office IT system and the matter of the Post Office
mediation scheme. The Business Committee is currently taking
evidence on this issue, and it should be given all the relevant
information. The Government should not interfere with the independent
mediation process, but I will ask the Business Secretary to write to my
right hon. Friend about his concern and to ensure that the Business
Committee can do its job properly.”
206 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/201503-11/debates/15031163000022/Engagements
Page 140 of 193
WITN00020100
257. So I wrote a letter2°” dated 11'" March 2015 to the Secretary of State saying,
“In Prime Mister's Questions today the Prime Minister told me that he
would ask you to write to me about the Post Office Mediation Scheme.
While there are many things that are very worrying about it, what
particularly concerns me is that the Post Office has recently been
refusing to give to Second Sight the documents and information that
Second Sight feel they need in order to determine whether a
miscarriage of justice has occurred. I believe that the only legal folder,
for example, that Second Sight has seen is that relating to my
constituent Jo Hamilton - but that folder did show that there was no
evidence (as the Post Office knew at the time) of theft. Yet the Post
Office charged her with theft. And as a result she then pleaded guilty
to false accounting, having untruthfully been told that she was the only
person going through these difficulties.
“That suggests to me that there is more disclosure of documents that
need to take place, and that our constituents will never believe that the
truth has been reached without that disclosure. Equally, that disclosure
needs to be made to Second Sight, who have now built up the
expertise to deal with it.”
258. On 12" March 2015 I wrote?°® again to Richard Foster at the CCRC and said:
2°7 [UKG100003781].
208 [JARBOO00113}.
Page 141 of 193
WITN00020100
“When we met on 4 March you said that the CCRC would welcome
applications from SubPostmasters who had been found guilty or who
had pleaded guilty to a criminal conviction. I now enclose an
application from my constituent, Jo Hamilton, whom I mentioned to you
and Sally when we met.
“The reason for my approaching you directly is that I am concerned
that the Post Office are about to begin destroying documents pertinent
not just to Jo’s case but to all the others that come under the same
rubrick. I wonder if there is anything the CCRC can do to forestall this?
“With no notice given, on Tuesday 10 March 2015 the Post Office
closed the mediation scheme that was set up with the express purpose
of offering individuals like Jo some kind of redress. The independent
investigators, Second Sight, who were appointed by the Post Office,
have been put on 30 days’ notice on Tuesday which was not
coincidentally, I suspect, the day before they were due to issue their
final report (formally called the Second Sight Briefing Report — Part 2)
into all cases they investigated to the working group administering the
mediation scheme. This of course means that the report will only be
seen by Post Office. I have requested a copy under Freedom of
Information but fully expect to receive a negative response. I have
asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Questions in the House of
Commons this week to ensure the Report is made available to the BIS
Page 142 of 193
WITN00020100
Select Committee who conducted a formal inquiry into the mediation
scheme very recently. Would it be helpful for the CCRC to request a
copy of this report, under your own investigative powers, I wonder? It
would certainly be pertinent to any future investigations your
Commission might wish to undertake.
“The investigators have also been told that they must destroy all
relevant communications and return all relevant documents to the Post
Office, on 17 April 2015. My fear is that this signals the beginning of
relevant documents disappearing. Is there any action the CCRC can
take to stop this happening?
“You will read from the enclosed Briefing Note to BIS Select
Committee, which is from lan Henderson of Second Sight, the
difficulties he and his team have faced in gaining access to documents
they deem indispensable for thorough investigation to occur. Now Post
Office has rescinded Second Sight’s permission to speak to me and all
other MPs, thus our avenues for discovering the facts about our
constituents’ cases and therefore helping them are now closed.
“If there is anything the Commission can do at this stage to stop the
destruction of potentially relevant documents and to gain access to the
Second Sight Part 2 Report, I would be most grateful.”
Page 143 of 193
259.
260.
261.
262.
WITN00020100
On 17' March 2015 the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, wrote?°? to me in
response to my letter of 11'" March 2015?1°. In essence he reiterates “that the
mediation scheme is independent of Government”, goes on to put the Post
Office’s case and says, “The Government is not privy to information about this
[the business of the Working Group]”. To all intents and purposes his letter was
pointless.
Also on 17" March 2015 I had a telephone conversation with Oliver Letwin
about the Post Office at his request, but I do not know what was said in that
conversation.
On 18th March 2015 I wrote to Paula Vennells2'' rejecting Mark Davies's offer
of a meeting to talk about Jo Hamilton. I seemed to be unaware in writing that
letter of Paula Vennells’ letter?'? of 24th February 2015.
On 24th March 2015, the CCRC wrote to me?" to say that they were in active
discussion with the Post Office over Jo Hamilton and the retention of the
relevant documents, and on 25" March 2015 I wrote?'4 to the CCRC (probably
not by then having received their letter of 24° March 2015) enclosing a copy of
Second Sight’s briefing note to the BIS Committee drafted in advance of lan
Henderson's appearance before the Committee on 3 February 2015. It is not
clear to me which briefing note this was.
202 [UKG100003910].
210 [UKG100003781].
211 [POLO0117275).
22 [POLO0102596].
213 [JARBOOO0114).
214 [¥ARB0000096).
Page 144 of 193
WITN00020100
263. On 26th March 2015 Paula Vennells wrote to me?'S in reply to my letter of 18"
March 2015?'®, and she correctly pointed out to me her earlier response of 24"
February 2015?'7. She confirmed that the Post Office would not destroy
documents relating to Jo Hamilton.
215 [POLO0102594].
216 [POLO0117275).
217 [POLO0102596].
Page 145 of 193
WITN00020100
FOLLOWING THE SCHEME
264. On 30th March 2015 Parliament was dissolved and I stopped being an MP.
265. On 9th April 2015 there is a note?'® in my diary — probably written by Janet
Walker - about my Freedom of Information Request to see Second Sight’s Final
Report. The note states that the response was due on that day, and:
“If Post Office refuse to send you copy of the Second Sight Part 2
Report, you need to write back to the post Office asking them to state
reasons why they have refused. Once you receive this, if you disagree
or wish to challenge their decision, you need to follow instructions on
the Information Commissioner's website. httos://ico.org.uk/for-the-
public/official-information/
On 10" April 20152'° the Post Office replied to my Freedom of Information
Request saying that the Report was exempt from disclosure (not something
which I remember accepting) but that they would send it to me ona
discretionary basis.
266. I do not know exactly when I therefore received the Second Sight updated
report dated 9" April 201522 but I should think it was shortly after it was
218 [JARBOO00115).
219 [POLO0117337].
220 [POLO0029849].
Page 146 of 193
267.
268.
WITN00020100
produced. In that document Second Sight set out that they had experienced
significant difficulty in obtaining access to a number of documents that they
believed were necessary for the purposes of their investigation, notwithstanding
Post Office’s commitment to make requested documents available to them.
They set out (in paragraphs 2.9-2.13) part of the Michael Rudkin story and state
that they believed that Fujitsu / Post Office did have, and might still have, the
ability to directly alter branch records without the knowledge of the relevant
Subpostmaster, an allegation which the Post Office was at the time denying.
They set out a number of other issues including (paragraph 4.10) that Post
Office did not appear — at least for a time - to operate a “litigation hold” process
whereby documents that might later be needed to support a complaint or
investigation would be retained — and so, on and on. The updated report was
more damning even than the Part 2 Report of the previous year. Its
conclusions cast doubt (to put it at its most favourable to the Post Office) on the
Post Office’s commitment to seek the truth. Second Sight were unable to
complete their independent investigation in the way they considered necessary
but they were able to say that “we remain concerned that in some
circumstances Horizon can be systemically flawed from a user's perspective
and Post Office has not necessarily provided an appropriate level of support.“
At this stage I was out of Parliament, and so far as I was concerned my political
efforts had now to be subsumed to the legal case that Alan Bates was trying to
get off the ground, but I had not given up my own part in the fight.
Page 147 of 193
WITN00020100
269. I have in my files an email sent to me by Ron Warmington of 28'" July 2015221
in which he is trying to get through both to George Freeman MP and to the then
Prime Minister, David Cameron MP, the inaccuracy of their summary of the
Second Sight reports. He says in the email to George Freeman,
“even if there had never been any systemic flaws in either version of
the system (that being a contention with which we do not agree), that
would not mean that the operational platform as a whole was always fit
for purpose for all of the tens of thousands of users. As we have stated
in our Report, it was not.”
I considered he was right about both the flaws in the system and about the
inaccurate portrayal of the Second Sight reports. I probably left to the
continuing MPs the task of ensuring that George Freeman and the Prime
Minister took the points on board.
270. On 4" August 2015 the office of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville-Rolfe wrote to me?”? at the request of
Andrew Bridgen MP to set up a meeting to talk about the Post Office, and it
was agreed that it should take place on 17'" September 2015.
221 [JARBOOO0116].
222 [JARBOOO0117].
Page 148 of 193
WITN00020100
271. On 17" August 2015 the Panorama programme, “Trouble at the Post Office”,
was aired. I was interviewed, and said that Jo Hamilton’s conviction needed to
be overturned despite her plea of guilty and Paula Vennells should go.
272. In the Dissolution Honours List issued on 27" August 2015 it was announced
that I would become a Life Peer.
273. I have in my papers a copy of a letter dated 10'" September 2015729 from
Baroness Neville-Rolfe, to the incoming Chairman of the Post Office, Tim
Parker. I do not know how that letter came to me, but I may have downloaded
it from the internet. In that letter she says,
“Lam writing to you ahead of your taking up the role of Post Office
Limited Chairman to confirm our conversation last month regarding the
Post Office Horizon system. The issues surrounding the Horizon IT
system have not been resolved. Indeed, some of the MPs concerned
have written to me again following the Panorama programme pressing
the case for an independent investigation.”
274. On 16 September 2015 Alan Bates emailed me?%4 to ask about Tim Parker
and also to keep me up to speed about how things were going from his point of
view.
223 [JARBOOO0118}.
224 [ARBOO00119].
Page 149 of 193
WITN00020100
275. I think it was in the hope, arising out of Andrew Bridgen’s request and the
Panorama programme, of keeping the issue alive with the incoming
Government that I went to see Baroness Neville-Rolfe, on 17th September
2015. Janet Walker (even though she was now working for someone else) had
made a few suggestions2”° as to what I should raise, including:
“Give her hell!
Worth telling her that Post Office is dragging its heels in getting
documents to the CCRC in Jo’s case.
Would she be willing to see lan Henderson, do you think?
Journalists still interested — campaigners still v active — won't go away.
Worth saying that in the end, the entire matter will need to be sorted
and the longer it is left, the more expensive to the Government (money
and reputation) it will be.”
I cannot remember much about the meeting except that I talked Baroness
Neville-Rolfe through the saga and asked her to see what she could do to
help. I think her reaction was positive. On 13" October 2015 she wrote to
me?26 to say that she would, as I had asked, meet Second Sight.
276. In my files there is a briefing note which I believe Ron Warmington sent me on
19" October 20152’. I cannot remember whether this was because he was
meeting Baroness Neville-Rolfe and knew I would be interested, or whether it
225 [JARBOO00120).
226 [JARBO000121]
227 [JARBO000122], [JARBOO00136]
Page 150 of 193
WITN00020100
was because he and I were both expecting to meet Tim Parker to discuss his
new role and we thought it would be helpful to compare notes.
Page 151 of 193
WITN00020100
THE SWIFT REVIEW
277. On 10" December 2015 I had a meeting in my office in Gray’s Inn with Tim
Parker and Jonathan Swift QC at Tim Parker's request. I accept the accuracy
of their notes?28. I took the meeting as an opportunity to revisit an issue that the
Post Office had been very keen to bury. I cannot remember being particularly
optimistic about the outcome — I had had too many dealings with the Post
Office to believe that a new person in the chair would be likely to change the
culture of an organisation that was so deeply defensive and unwilling to hear or
act upon the truth.
278. I do not remember hearing back from Tim Parker or Jonathan Swift. Apart from
the meeting on 10" December 2015 I was not involved in the Swift Review?°. I
believe I first became aware of its existence on or around 11" August 2022
when Eleanor Shaikh’s Freedom of Information request bore fruit, when I was
able to obtain a copy from the internet - and as far as I remember I read about it
on Nick Wallis’s blog or in Karl Flinders’ Computer Weekly article.
279. It is hard to say what steps I would have taken in response to the Swift Review,
since I would have given the Review entirely different terms of reference — I
would not have started from here. On the assumption, which we now know to
be true, that Gareth Jenkins had told lan Henderson on 13 September 2012
228 [POLO0103002].
229 [POLO0006355].
Page 152 of 193
WITN00020100
that remote access was a given, and also that the Post Office had in 2013
informed its insurers that there might be miscarriages of justice, there would
have needed to have been serious and immediate action. It should have
started with a clear out of that part of the management and legal team that had
been covering it all up and lying about it. There would then have needed to be
open disclosure of the lack of safety of most if not all previous Post Office
convictions and a serious discussion with Fujitsu about the future of Horizon
and the consequences of Fujitsu’s own behaviour.
Page 153 of 193
280.
281.
282.
WITN00020100
THE GROUP LITIGATION
Neither was I involved, except in one respect, in the Group Litigation. However,
much as I wanted to, I could not except on narrowly defined terms ask
questions or lead debates in the House of Lords because of the sub judice rule.
I was delighted when Alan Bates told me (I cannot remember when) that he had
managed to secure litigation funding. And I had a discussion on 14th July
201625° with Kevan Jones for us to brief each other on how things were going.
But on 26" January 2017 I heard the news — through Nick Wallis — that the Post
Office had accepted that the subpostmasters’ accounts could be remotely
accessed without the permission or knowledge of the subpostmasters. I
thought at the time, as I think now, that this point went to the heart of the cases
against the Post Office. It was an admission so fundamental, and so at odds
with everything the Post Office had told subpostmasters, the courts, MPs and
the media, that I thought the right thing for the Post Office then to have done
would have been to concede and settle the cases. It threw into question, to put
it at its lowest, the safety of the convictions against many, and perhaps all, of
the subpostmasters, as well as those cases where subpostmasters had been
sued rather than prosecuted, or coerced into paying money into the system
before they were taken to court.
230 [JARBOO00123].
Page 154 of 193
WITN00020100
283. I was not surprised by the admission, because I now believed — rather than
keeping an open mind about - both Michael Rudkin’s story and the assertions in
private conversations with Second Sight to the effect that all complicated
accounting systems require some form of remote access. What did surprise
me was the continuing aggression of the Post Office in defending the litigation.
This was another missed opportunity to save money for the taxpayer and do
right by the subpostmasters and even by the Post Office. Alan Bates told me
that the Post Office was trying to spend so much (taxpayers’) money on the
litigation that the subpostmasters would run out of money first. I agreed.
284. Lucy Allen MP was later (27'" April 2021)?" to describe the Post Office’s
behaviour in the following way:
“Will the Minister ask his officials whether his Department authorised
the Post Office to use millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to fight
the sub-postmasters in that litigation, waging a war of attrition on them,
purely to disguise the Horizon failings? Will he ask whether his
predecessor, the Minister responsible for post offices in 2018-19, was
aware of that, and if not, why not?”
285. On 31% August 2018 the Criminal Cases Review Commission wrote to Jo
Hamilton to say:
231 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/202104-27/debates/9D8DDC1D-379C-4C48-BSE7-
218D24CC8DA3/PostOfficeCourtOfAppealJudgment
Page 155 of 193
WITN00020100
“the investigation phase of the CCRC’s review is complete. We are now
in a position to move into the decision-making phase of the cases this
autumn”.
286. When Nick Wallis heard about the CCRC letter, he wrote to the CCRC on 21*
November 2018 and said,
“I really really don’t see how the CCRC can make an announcement on
whether it is minded to refer these Postmaster cases to the Court of
Appeal without waiting to see the transcripts in this trial and the
forthcoming Horizon trial.”
287. Nick Wallis forwarded a copy of his email to me and I believe he may well have
rung me as well, to express his concern that the CCRC might be just about to
reject the cases of subpostmasters even though important evidence against the
Post Office was coming out in court on an almost daily basis. I wrote to the
CCRC on the same day” to say,
“Mr Wallis has sent me a copy of the email he sent to you which is
below. I have to say that he makes a very strong point. I would worry
that any decision not to reopen these criminal cases, before the
allegations have been examined in the cases that are currently before
the court, might be subject to judicial review — and certainly would be if
the current cases went against the Post Office.”
232 [JARBOO00124}, [JARBO000137], [JARBOO00138]
Page 156 of 193
288.
289.
290.
WITN00020100
I do not know whether or not there was indeed a risk that the CCRC might
have made premature decisions. In any event, they did not.
On 15'" March 2019 the subpostmasters won their first of potentially five cases
in a judgement by Mr Justice Fraser (as he then was) that I should not attempt
to summarise. This was the turning point of the battle. I responded to the
decision in various media interviews including one in Computer Weekly,?°%.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s ministerial successor, Kelly Tolhurst MP, wrote to all
MPs and Peers on 18th March 20192° about the group litigation, saying that it
was a matter for the courts to resolve but that she would be remaining in close
contact with the Post Office over the coming weeks and months as they
delivered on their “commitments to improve”.
Their “commitments to improve” apparently began, on 21% March 2019, with
the application, later described as “absurd” by the Court of Appeal, to recuse Mr
Justice Fraser, an application served on the final day of evidence of the second
trial. On 29th April 2019 I went to see Kelly Tolhurst in her office in the House
of Commons. At that meeting I expressed strong disapproval of the way that
the litigation between the subpostmasters and the Post Office was going. I was
particularly concerned about the recusal application and the possibility that the
Post Office might even appeal Mr Justice Fraser’s decision not to recuse
233 https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252459863/Post Office-lacked-humanity-in-the-treatment-of-
subpostmasters-says-peer
234 [JARBOO00125]
Page 157 of 193
WITN00020100
himself (they did). She told me that it had been made very clear to her that she
was to keep out of the matter. She did not say who had made this clear, but I
had the impression that it might have been the Permanent Secretary, because
it would have to have been someone senior enough to tell a Minister what to
do. But! did not ask, and I do not know.
291. The application for the recusal of the judge on 21%t March 2019 was part of the
Post Office’s aggressive, expensive and delaying litigation tactics. Mr Justice
Fraser had formed a judgment of the Post Office based on the evidence and
had applied it accordingly, which it was his job to do. The Post Office did not
like that, in much the same way as they had not liked the outcome of Second
Sight’s investigations, and therefore in much the same way tried to denigrate
Mr Justice Fraser as they had tried to denigrate Second Sight.
292. By applying for his recusal, the Post Office ran up further costs for the
subpostmasters, which contributed to forcing the subpostmasters towards
settlement at the end of the second trial, even though there was envisaged to
be a total of potentially five trials. It was an abuse of the legal system, a waste
of a large amount of taxpayers’ money and a further cruelty to subpostmasters
who had been so badly treated already. I gather that the Post Office believed
that it had no choice in applying for recusal. It was wrong.
293. Over the course of the period from my leaving the House of Commons to the
date of this Witness Statement I have done numerous interviews and
responded to numerous questions from journalists from all types of media, of
Page 158 of 193
WITN00020100
which I have not kept a record. On 26'" November 2019 I called, in Computer
Weekly, for the removal of the Board of the Post Office®. I felt that the culture
of the Board and the awful quality of its decisions were such that only its
removal would allow the Post Office to improve. I took part in the Panorama
programme of 2020, “Scandal at the Post Office” and BBC’s Great Post Office
Trial radio series, both going out in June and July 2020. On 25" April 2022 I
took part in the Panorama programme — “The Post Office Scandal”. On 2"¢
November 2023 I took part in an ITV programme about Wendy Cousins. The
airing of the ITV drama, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, caused me to do many
more interviews.
294. When the litigation settled, on 11th December 2019, many people (including
myself) were dismayed at the low level of payment made by the Post Office to
the subpostmasters, and even more so when it later transpired that the vast
bulk of that payment was to go in the costs of lawyers and litigation funding.
But I was not prepared to criticise Alan Bates, because I was not in the
negotiations, I did not have the pressure of trying to fund any further litigation,
nor the responsibility for the litigants that he did. But calls for a public inquiry
began to grow.
295. I also believed that Fujitsu should bear its share of the blame and of the costs,
and on 8" January 2020 an article by Karl Flinders in Computer Weekly
contains the following quotation from me,
235 https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252474583/Peersuggests-clear-out-of-Post-Office-board-after-
Court-of-Appeal-confirms-major-defeat-in-court
Page 159 of 193
296.
297.
WITN00020100
“Peer James Arbuthnot, a staunch critic of the Post Office over the
Horizon scandal, said: “It may well be that the Post Office may feel let
down by Fujitsu, but it is certain that the subpostmasters will. Might
they have a cause of action against Fujitsu for a breach of Fujitsu’s
duty of care?”
The settlement of the Group Litigation meant that Parliament was largely
released from the restrictions of the sub judice rule (except in relation to those
many cases that were still going through the process of convictions being
overturned). Therefore I was able, as I did several times a year, to pursue
different aspects of the matter (such as the need to reconsider the Post Office
acting as prosecutor, the need for the Inquiry to be properly independent, the
need to overturn the Group Litigation settlement, the need to hold Fujitsu to
account and so on) in questions and debates in the House of Lords.
The next battle, carried out in different ways by different people, became to
force the Government to accept its own share of the responsibility for the
behaviour of the Post Office. As many people began to say, the Post Office
was owned by the Government, funded by the Government and directed by the
Government, and the Permanent Secretary of the BEIS Department (now DBT)
was (and remains) the Accounting Officer. The Government's defence that it
was an arms’ length organisation was becoming less effective every day.
Page 160 of 193
WITN00020100
298. At around this point the Government abandoned the line that this was all a
matter for the Post Office and moved on to the line that it had been misled by
the Post Office. On 25' February 2020 Lord Callanan, the Minister in the
House of Lords responsible for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
matters, said?*6,
“The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy relied on
Post Office management to investigate the issues with the Horizon
system and the government was assured that the system was robust
and the issues being raised by the postmasters were being handled
appropriately. BEIS pressed management on these issues and was
given consistent advice from the company’s experts that appeared to
verify these claims at that time.”
“In hindsight, of course, facts have come to light through the litigation
that has revealed that advice given during that period was flawed.”
299. On 18th November 2020 some of the cases referred by the CCRC came before
the Court of Appeal for procedural directions. I was not in court but read Nick
Wallis’ Twitter feed. I heard for the first time of the 2013 Clarke advice.
300. On 20" November 2020 I wrote to Lord Callanan2*” as follows:
236 https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-02-25/debates/4F BDOBEE-B7F2-4D9B-AC1D-
5CD00C489248/PostOfficeHorizonAccountingSystem
237 [JARBO000126]
Page 161 of 193
WITN00020100
“On Wednesday 18 November the Court of Appeal considered a piece
of advice written by a barrister, Simon Clarke, in 2013 for the Post
Office. According to Brian Altman QC, acting for the Post Office, this
advice - which was apparently to the effect that the evidence of Gareth
Jenkins (a former senior Fujitsu Horizon engineer) was wrong - was
disclosed to Aria Grace solicitors (acting for three appellants) by Peters
and Peters solicitors (acting for the Post Office) last week. As you
know, the judge in the Horizon litigation referred Mr Jenkins’ evidence
to the DPP.
In 2013 I and other MPs were in full flow of the discussion with Paula
Vennells and Alice Perkins about the unsafe nature of the Horizon
convictions. We should have been told about this document, but I have
not yet seen it. Please will you immediately send me a copy, and place
it in the library of both Houses?”
301. On Saturday 21st November 2020%8, I wrote to Mel Craig in Lord Callanan’s
office, copying it to the Post Office Minister Paul Scully MP, Speaker of the
House of Commons and the Lord Speaker, as follows:
“On 3rd February 2015 the BIS Select Committee took evidence in
their inquiry into the Post Office Mediation scheme. Part of that
evidence was a written submission from the Post Office, although they
also received oral evidence from amongst others the Chief Executive of
238 [JARBO000127]
Page 162 of 193
WITN00020100
the Post Office. Paragraph 11 of that written evidence
(hitp://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evid
encedocument/business-innovation-and-skills-committee/post-office-
mediation/written/17827.pdf ) reads as follows:
“At the start of the Scheme, both Post Office and the Justice for
Subpostmasters Alliance made clear that mediation cannot
overturn a conviction. This can only be done through established
Court procedures. Post Office is under an absolute duty to
disclose any evidence that might undermine a prosecution case
or support the case of a defendant. It takes its responsibilities in
this regard very seriously and Post Office’s investigations have
been carried out with this important duty firmly in mind. Post
Office writes to everyone who has suggested they have or have
seen evidence that a conviction is unsafe and asked them to
disclose this so that it can be acted on. To date no such
evidence has been provided.”
“I suggest that the contemptibly late disclosure of the advice of Mr
Clarke — something that should have been in the public domain in 2013
— establishes that the Post Office lied to, and was in contempt of,
Parliament. The above quoted paragraph of the Post Office’s written
advice was only one of many instances of this. I should be grateful if
you would consider my request for the immediate publication of the
advice in the light of this.”
Page 163 of 193
WITN00020100
302. On 30" November 2020 Lord Callanan replied?*? to say his department did not
have a copy of the Clarke Advice and that it was for the Court of Appeal to
decide the extent to which it should be disclosed.
303. I wrote back the same day*°, saying that his department owned the Post
Office, and pointing out that he had not commented on the Post Office’s having
lied.
304. On 7" December 2020 Lord Callanan said?4' that his department had checked
their files and really did not seem to have the Clarke Advice, that it was still a
matter for the Court of Appeal, and that I should stop writing to him and write
instead to the responsible minister, Paul Scully MP.
305. On 14'" December 2020 I wrote to Paul Scully MP242, the Commons Minister
with responsibility for the Post Office, and said,
“It is now more than three weeks since I drew to your attention that the
Post Office, which your department owns and for which you are
responsible, lied to Parliament on 3rd February 2015. The lie went to
the heart of the BIS Committee’s inquiry, and the effect of it must have
been to deny to the subpostmasters evidence and an argument about
239 [JARBO000139].
240 [JARBOO00140).
241 [JARBOO00129).
242 [JARBO000130).
Page 164 of 193
WITN00020100
a lack of safety of their convictions which might have helped them in
their defence. The Post Office then went on to perpetuate the lie in the
evidence they adduced and the arguments they made in the High
Court, costing the taxpayer well over £100 million.
“lam disappointed that, despite the importance of the matter and the
fact that you are responsible for the Post Office, you have given me no
response whatever. I am therefore writing to the Chair of the BEIS
Select Committee to see what the Committee might be able to do in the
matter.“
306. On the same day, 14" December 2020 I did write to the Chair of the BEIS
Committee, but on 16th December 2020 the BEIS Committee Clerk wrote43 to
say they would not be considering the issue until after the Inquiry had reported.
On that day I wrote a briefing note*4 for Chi Onwurah MP (so far as I can
remember at her request) to help her with her front bench responsibility for the
Post Office on behalf of the Labour Party.
307. Paul Scully MP wrote to me on 18'" December 2020245 making two points. The
first, about the disclosure of the Clarke Advice, was as follows:
“As you know from the Court of Appeal hearing on 3 December, the
court has decided not to disclose the Clarke Advice. The Clarke Advice
243 [JARBO000141], [JARBO000142}.
244 [JARBOO00133}).
245 [JARBOO00143}, [POLO0104183}.
Page 165 of 193
WITN00020100
is a privileged document disclosed for a specific purpose in the
proceedings. It also has the potential to impact a live police
investigation. Post Office is respecting the court’s decision to not
disclose the advice at this time and we must do the same.”
308. The second point was about whether the Post Office lied to the Select
Committee. On that matter he relied on a Post Office Ltd statement which he
attached to his letter. That statement concluded with the words,
“Although Post Office cannot comment on the oral evidence provided
to the Committee by its former Chief Executive, as only she can do
that, the summary above suggests that the evidence was given in the
context of the Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme and the steps
taken to investigate cases through that scheme.”
I found his letter unpersuasive.
Page 166 of 193
WITN00020100
GOVERNMENT ACCEPTS OVERTURNING OF GLO SETTLEMENT
309. On 29" April 2021 I wrote a series of answers to questions from Karl Flinders of
Computer Weekly, stating, amongst other things, that the Government's refusal
to compensate the Group Litigants was shameful.
310. I co-wrote, with Lord Falconer of Thoroton, an article for the Sunday Times of
16" May 202146, in which we called for the Government to give full
compensation to all the victims of the scandal, and to hold to account Fujitsu,
the Accounting Officers, the Post Office Board including the Government's
representatives on it, the court system and the lawyers involved, so many of
which had failed the subpostmasters so badly.
311. In June 2021 I wrote what I now consider to be a thoroughly bad-tempered
email?4” to the House Magazine (the Parliamentary in-house magazine) about
their failure to cover the Horizon issue — it was a failure common to all too much
of the media. They invited me to write an article, which came out in July 2021.
312. In late 2021 Kevan Jones MP at my request organised a meeting between the
chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy select committee, Darren
Jones MP, Kevan Jones and myself to see where the matter could be taken. I
suggested that since compensation had been expressly excluded from the
remit of the Inquiry there was still scope for the Select Committee to conduct a
hearing on it. Darren Jones was receptive to the suggestion, and on 14"
246 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whyisnt-fujitsu-paying-a-penny-in-compensation-over-post-office-
scandal-7dgmtlz0r
247 [JARBOOO0135).
Page 167 of 193
WITN00020100
December 2021 his committee held the first of two hearings on the matter, the
second being on 11" January 2022248 in which the Minister Paul Scully MP
made it plain (without quite saying so) that he wanted to include the Group
Litigants in the compensation schemes available to other subpostmasters. This
lead to a most helpful report on 17'" February 2022 which contributed to
persuading the Government to reopen the Group Litigation settlement and to
compensate the Group Litigants.
248 https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/3283/pdf,
Page 168 of 193
313.
314.
315.
WITN00020100
GOVERNANCE
I turn next to the mechanism(s) in place to enable government oversight of the
above issues and whether they were adequate. First perhaps I should give my
- perhaps faulty - understanding of those mechanisms.
The Post Office is classified as a Public Non-Financial Corporation and is an
organisation wholly owned by the Secretary of State of the relevant
Department, the name of which has changed over the years. The Department
is currently the Department of Business and Trade but during the time I was
most involved, from 2012 to 2015, it was the Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills.
Departments have Accounting Officers who are responsible for managing the
public money the departments spend, and in the case of the Post Office the
Accounting Officer is the Permanent Secretary. For much departmental
spending the Accounting Officer takes personal responsibility for ensuring that
the organisation they manage delivers the standards set out in paragraph 3.3 of
“Managing Public Money””4? - standards which currently include requirements
such that the organisation should:
e “have trustworthy internal controls to safeguard, channel and record
resources as intended
249 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/managingpublic-mone
Page 169 of 193
WITN00020100
e “treat its customers and business counterparties fairly, honestly and
with integrity”
¢ and other matters.
In my view it hardly needs to be said that the Post Office failed such
standards. But it is a Public Non-Financial Corporation, or Arms’ Length Body,
so perhaps different standards apply to it.
316. Arms’ Length Bodies are meant to have Framework Agreements. The Post
Office's Framework Agreement?®? is dated 25"" March 2020. Prior to that, as I
understand it, there was no such agreement between the Government and the
Post Office governing how the relationship worked. I do not know if the
absence of a Framework Agreement means that the standards to be applied to
the Accounting Officer's role are those set out in paragraph 3.3 of “Managing
Public Money”.
317. Let us suppose, however, for want of anything better, that the standards set out
in the current Framework Agreement are to be applied retrospectively to the
Post Office’s behaviour. According to Appendix 1 of that Agreement,
“The organisation should:
governance
259 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/postoffice-limited-shareholder-relationship-framework-
document
Page 170 of 193
WITN00020100
+ have a governance structure which transmits, delegates, implements
and enforces decisions
+ have trustworthy internal controls to safeguard, channel and record
resources as intended
+ work cooperatively with partners in the public interest
* operate with propriety and regularity in all its transactions
+ treat its customers and business counterparties fairly, honestly and
with integrity
+ offer appropriate redress for failure to meet agreed customer
standards
* give timely, transparent and realistic accounts of its business and
decisions, underpinning public confidence”
Again, in my view it hardly needs to be said that the Post Office failed such
standards.
318. However, it is not clear to me, in the case of an arms’ length body, who is
responsible for enforcing those standards. The House of Commons Public
Accounts Committee, in its 18" Report of the 2021-22 session, Government's
Delivery Through Arm’s-Length Bodies?5", said that in 2016 it
“called for the Cabinet Office to use its unique position at the centre of
government “to ensure that departments improve the way they manage
251 https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7431/documents/77735/default,
Page 171 of 193
WITN00020100
their business through arm’s-length bodies”. Progress since then
however has been limited.”
The Government agreed with the Committee’s conclusions”®?. This is a
subject on which there is urgent need for reform.
319. I have set out earlier in this Witness Statement my concerns about the
Government's refusal to take the responsibility that naturally goes with
ownership. Ministers asserted that they did not know and could not or would
not find out what was going on in the Post Office. This is not oversight.
320. There is the additional issue of democratic control. If an organisation as central
to the lives of so many people in our communities is not subject (through
Parliament and MPs) to the control of those communities, then over time things
will go seriously wrong, as has happened in this case.
321. On Wednesday 7" February 2024 I asked?5° in the House of Lords,
“In an arm’s-length organisation, to whom in practice is the chief
executive accountable? Is it the department's Permanent Secretary?”
I received the answer,
252 https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8226/documents/84184/default,
253 https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/202402-07/debates/12E9AAC1-A904-47C2-8215-
€5006DE50824/PostOfficeAppointmentsMinisterialResponsibilit
Page 172 of 193
WITN00020100
“4 thank my noble friend for his question and for all his efforts on behalf
of the postmasters. We have to realise that this is a limited company
owned entirely by the Government, with one share owned by the
Secretary of State. It separated from Royal Mail Group when that went
private, but the Post Office is actually classified as a public non-
financial corporation. Public corporations include, for example,
Ordnance Survey, Royal Mint and British International Investment.
They are typically owned by the appropriate Secretary of State in that
department, the reason being that they are hybrid: the Post Office has
commercial activity, it makes revenue through the post offices, but it
also receives public money to support the network. As a result, the
governance is such that the chief executive reports to the chair, the
chair reports to the Secretary of State, and the chief executive also
reports to the Permanent Secretary when it comes to public money.”
322. The Permanent Secretaries involved with Horizon since I first became involved
have been Sir Simon Fraser (2009-2010), Sir Martin Donnelly (2010-2016, the
period when the Horizon shortcomings should have been properly addressed)
and Sir Alex Chisholm (2016-2020, the period when the litigation should have
been properly addressed). In view of the lack of clarity in the oversight
arrangements for the Post Office, it is not clear to me what personal
responsibility each of these accounting officers has for the costs the country
now faces. Neither do I know what they actually did in their roles and it might
be helpful to discover that.
Page 173 of 193
WITN00020100
323. Paragraph 11.1 of the Framework Agreement Articles of Association? states
that,
“POL requires the prior written consent of the Shareholder for any
undertaking to incur any expenditure in excess of £50,000,000.”
I asked a question about this and received the following answer**> on 8th
February 2024:
“Under its Articles of Association, the Post Office is required to gain
prior written consent from the Shareholder before entering into a
transaction which involves the incurrence of a commitment, liability or
payment of a sum in excess of £50 million. Officials have checked our
records and have seen no evidence of any such written consent.”
324. Itis, therefore, my current view that at least Sir Martin Donnelly and Sir Alex
Chisholm — neither of whom is yet on the Inquiry’s list of potential witnesses to
give oral evidence — might wish to explain whether they could or should have
stepped forward to stop the Post Office from incurring potential liabilities for (in
Sir Martin’s case) compensation such as we now see materialising at perhaps
£1 billion and (in Sir Alex's case) litigation costing over £100 million.
254 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/postoffice-limited-shareholder-relationship-framework-
document
255 https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/HL1555/horizonit-system
Page 174 of 193
325.
326.
327.
WITN00020100
As regards the Ministers involved, I have set out above the responses I got.
Some were a little more helpful than others. Lord Mandelson referred me to his
junior minister, Pat McFadden MP — which is fair enough, junior ministers have
their role. Pat McFadden passed on the departmental mantra that this was an
arms’ length body and a matter for the Post Office. Ed Davey MP did likewise.
Jo Swinson MP showed a lack of curiosity surprising in a minister, given the
strength of feeling that was on display during both the statement on the Interim
Report and the Adjournment debate in December 2014. David Cameron, as
Prime Minister, simply passed me on to Vince Cable MP, the Secretary of State
— again, fair enough, Secretaries of State have their role - who wrote me a letter
that I have said above was to all intents and purposes pointless. Kelly Tolhurst
MP was warned off getting involved, and accepted the warning. Perhaps it
would be unfair to expect a junior minister to step away from the boundaries so
rigorously set by many more senior who had gone before. Baroness Neville-
Rolfe did try to take action in speaking to the incoming chairman of the Post
Office, but then (we later learnt) seems not to have received a copy of the
review she caused to be produced.
As a catalogue of failure of oversight, all this seems hard to beat.
It was only when on 26th February 2020 Boris Johnson, the new Prime
Minister, answered a question from Kate Osborne MP and promised (no doubt
much to the surprise of his officials and of the Post Office) a public inquiry that
the logjam broke. This was the second turning point in the story, but it is hardly
an example of good governance. And thereafter Paul Scully MP and Kevin
Page 175 of 193
328.
WITN00020100
Hollinrake MP have tried hard to ensure that justice is done and compensation
paid, but the sclerosis of government has hindered them both.
The final point I have to make about governance (in which I profess no
expertise) is that the Chairman and Board of Directors — all appointed by and
therefore removable by and answerable to the Government - had an important
part to play in the oversight of the Post Office. I recognise that the following
points are made with the benefit of hindsight, but one of the purposes of a
board of directors is to exercise foresight. Some of the areas (and I suspect
this may be a small sample) where they might have asked important questions,
but either did not do so or allowed themselves to be satisfied with answers that
may have been unsatisfactory, include the following:
a. When introducing a new computer system, how likely is it that it will be so
free of error that you can base prosecutions upon it?
b. Docomplicated new computer systems routinely — or perhaps always —
come with remote access to them?
c. Have any reports to the Board included reference to remote access?
d. In 1997, before the introduction of Horizon, the number of prosecutions
was 10. In 2001, after the introduction of Horizon, the number was 80.
Should this have rung warning bells?
Page 176 of 193
e.
WITN00020100
If we accept as a fact that the Post Office suspected, before the
introduction of Horizon, that there was a large amount of undiscovered
fraud going on, what weight should have been given to the possibility that
that suspicion might have been wrong, and that it was the new system
that might be to blame for any increase in prosecutions?
In contracting for the maintenance of a new computer system, is it
appropriate to permit the contractor to charge for disclosure of details of
whether there are errors in that equipment or software?
What was the role of suspense accounts?
In devising bonus schemes, is it appropriate to:
i incentivise the recovery of money in priority to the interests of truth
or justice?
ii Incentivise compliance with a public inquiry into the failures of your
own organisation?
What legal advice is the Board receiving about multiple allegations of
miscarriages of justice, and what is the Board doing about it?
Is the culture of the organisation one which encourages or discourages
whistle-blowing?
Page 177 of 193
WITN00020100
k. How, both as a board and as an organisation, do we fight against
groupthink?
I. In rejecting the proposition put forward by a substantial group of MPs (that
there should be a presumption that the Mediation Scheme should accept
the recommendation of the forensic accountants chosen and appointed by
the Post Office), do we need to consider the interests of justice as well as
the apparent immediate interests of the Post Office?
329. There is one further point I should make which is not precisely related to
governance, and it is about the role of auditors. I am aware that the Inquiry
Chair has decided not to include within the scope of the Inquiry a consideration
of what auditors knew or did not know, because it would have added
disproportionately to the length of the Inquiry. Of course I do not question that
decision. The point I do nevertheless wish to make is that it is the duty of
auditors to determine whether the accounts present a true and fair view of a
company’s financial state. If auditors fail to establish the existence of a
potential liability of over £1 billion, then their reports are of less value than we
might wish. And their failure to identify this potential (and now actual) liability
was yet another missed opportunity to put things right.
Page 178 of 193
330.
331.
332.
WITN00020100
REDRESS
The drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office — the third turning point in the scandal
(the first being the Fraser judgement and the second being Kate Osborne MP’s
question to the Prime Minister) - has galvanised the nation. This was what I
said needed to happen in the Today Programme interview on 9'" December
2014. One of the many terrible facets of this story is that it has taken so long.
I do believe that the Government, with all political parties much aligned on this,
is now focusing on the need for overturning wrongful convictions, paying
redress to subpostmasters and holding to account those responsible for the
actions, failures and human consequences outlined in the drama. And because
of all the missed opportunities it has taken longer than it should and cost more
than it should. And there are many loose ends to tidy — including, for example,
the employees of subpostmasters who have suffered, those who were
employed not by the Post Office but by partner organisations such as McColls
or the Co-op, and the subpostmasters’ families who themselves have been put
through ghastly experiences yet have not been included in the compensation
schemes.
But sitting as I do on the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board I am seeing at
first hand the day to day struggles of the Government to speed up the payment
of money to the subpostmaster victims, and to pass unprecedented legislation
to overturn hundreds of convictions. We are doing what we can to cut out as
Page 179 of 193
WITNO0020100
much as possible of the unthinking bureaucracy that inevitably goes with the
spending of public money.
333. The drama has nevertheless brought home to us that too many people have
died before we reached this point. I find it difficult to stop thinking of them.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: _12'" March 2024
Page 180 of 193
Index to First Witness Statement of James Arbuthnot
WITN00020100
No. ] URN
Document Description
Control
Number
POL00114298
Letter from the rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP to Rt
Hon Lord Peter Mandelson
POL-0113225
JARB0OO00002
Email from David Bristow to James Arbuthnot
RE: Post Office threats at the Odiham Post
Office - POL taking contracts away and
demanding payments
JARBO000002
JARB0000003
Email from James Arbuthnot to David Bristow
RE: Post Office threats
JARBO000003
JARB0000004
Email from David Bristow to James Arbuthnot
RE: Post Office threats - problems with
transactions and the Horizon system
JARB0000004
JARB0000005
Email from Virginia Heffernan, on behalf of
James Arbuthnot to David Bristow RE: Post
Office threats - written to MP expressing
concerns
JARBO000005
JARB0000006
Email from James Arbuthnot to David Bristow,
Cc'd Jones Di RE: FW: Post Office threats
JARB0000006
UKGI00011506
Letter from Pat McFadden to The Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot MP re: letter to Peter Mandelson -
constituent David Bristow - Odiham PO branch
UKGI022314-
001
JARB0000007
Email from Jade Appleton to James Arbuthnot
RE: Post Office Horizon Issue - meeting with the
representatives from the Post Office/David
Jones
JARB0000007
POL00041564
Bankruptcy, prosecution and disrupted
livelihoods - Postmasters tell their story;
reported by Rebecca Thomson - Article
POL-0038046
10
JARB0000008
Email from David Jones to James Arbuthnot RE:
Horizon and the Post Office - defence statement
JARB0000008
11
POL00058000
Breakfast Show Blog on BBC Surrey, re:
Davinder Misra; Jo Hamilton, and David Bristow.
POL-0054479
12
JARB0000009
Meeting notes for Ed Davey from Janet RE:
Vote to talk about the issue of sub-postmasters -
sub-postmasters coming out against the
Government's proposals
JARBO000009
13
UKGI00001395
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Edward Davey
MP re looking into closures of Post Offices and
‘irregularities’
UKGI012209-
001
Page 181 of 193
14
JARB0000010
Document from Amanda Glover - Shoosmiths
Solicitors RE: Inside Out South programme
which addresses the problem of the Sub
Postmasters accused of fraud
WITN00020100
JARB0000010
15
POL00105483
Letter from Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (JA) to
Ms Moya Greene & response letter re: Odiham
Hampshire Post Office Closure
POL-0104663
16
POL00107698
Letter from Paula Vennells to Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot MP RE: Mr Paul Kemp at Odiham
Post Office (unsigned)
POL-0110801
17
JARBOO000011
Draft Letter to constituents for JNA re events at
Odiham Post Office
JARBO000011
18
JARB0000012
Draft Letter from Janet to Tadge re pre-meeting
meeting with James
JARBO0000012
19
POL00105470
Email chain between Alice Perkins and James
Arbuthnot, sent to Paula Vennells, Susan
Crichton and Glenda C Hansen re: Fw:
Subpostmasters and the Post Office
POL-0104650
20
JARB0000013
Summary of Issues affecting Sub-Postmasters
report
JARBO000013
21
SMIS0000247
Seema Misra Case Study - Letter from Jonathan
Lord MP to Mrs. Seema Misra RE: Shoosmiths
event 27/02/2012 - Summary of Issues affecting
Sub-postmasters
VIS00010192
22
JARBO000014
Subpostmaster MP Attendance Spreadsheet
JARBO000014
23
POL00105481
Notes of the Meeting with James Arbuthnot,
Alice Perkins and Alwen Lyons.
POL-0104661
24
JARB0000015
Letter to Alice Perkins re thank you note for
agreeing to meet earlier this month to talk about
the problems subpostmasters and mistresses
had with Horizon system
JARB0000015
25
JARB0000016
Letter from Alice Perkins to Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot MP re meeting to explain relevant
procedures
JARBO0000016
26
POL00033825
Meeting Pack for James Arbuthnot and Oliver
Letwin for 17th May 2012
POL-0030760
27
JARB0000018
Draft email from Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, MP to
Post Office re proposed terms of reference
JARB0000018
28
JARB0000017
Horizon TOR Version 7 Post Office Ltd —
proposal for an independent review of the
Company's systems relating to the occurrence
of apparent shortfalls in individual PO branch
accounts
JARB0000017
Page 182 of 193
WITN00020100
29 I JARBOO00019 I Email from Paula Vennells to Rt Hon James JARBO0000019
Arbuthnot MP re Fwd: Message from James
Arbuthnot to Alice Perkins and Paul Vennells
30 I JARBOO00001 I Email RE: Meeting minutes between MPs and JARBO000001
the Post Office Ltd re Subpostmasters and
Horizon
31 I POLOOO96666 I Email from Paula Vennells to Alice Perkins RE: I POL-0096249
Fwd: Message from James Arbuthnot to Tadge
Channer at Shoosmiths - Post Office / Horizon
32 I POL00144705 I Press Release from James Arbuthnot: POL-BSFF-
Resolution to Post Office / Horizon system 0003832
problems proposed
33 I JARBO000021 I Letter to Christopher Hine RE: Post Office JARBO000021
Horizon System
34 I JARBO000025 I Letter from Christopher Hine to Rt Hon James JARB0000025
Arbuthnot MP RE: Post Office Horizon System
RM Tenon reply
35 I JARBO000024 I 2nd Sight Resources - Ron Warmington JARBO000024
Director, London, United Kingdom
36 I JARBO000023 I Questions for 2nd Sight JARB0000023
37 I JARBO000022 I Meeting between MPs and 2nd Sight Forensic JARBO000022
Accountants 4th July 2012
38 I POL00107174 I Email from Simon Baker to Rod Ismay and POL-0105482
others, RE: feedback on meeting with MPs on
05/07/2012.
39 I JARBO000026 I Email chain from Alan Bates to Janet Walker JARBO000026
RE: Meeting arrangements
40 I POLO0096767 I Email from Alwen Lyons to Susan Crichton POL-0096350
regarding James' meeting with Ron. Includes
James Arbuthnot's comments on Alan Bates’
involvement
41 I POLO0096816 I Email from Alwen Lyons to Paula Vennells, re POL-0096399
printed SubPostmasters and 2nd Sight
42 I JARBO000027 I Letter from Alan Bates to Mr James Arbuthnot JARBO000027
MP RE: Post Office Horizon errors and system
faults
43 I JARBO000031 I PO Letter from Alwen Lyons to Rt Hon James JARB0000031
Arbuthnot MP - Re: second sight investigations
44 I JARBOO00028 I Draft Letter to Alan Bates re Westminster JARBO000028
meeting
45 I JARBOO00029 I Letter re Westminster meeting JARBO000029
46 I JARBOO00030 I Letter from Michael Hogan to Mr James JARBO000030
Arbuthnot MP RE: My Client: Angela Sefton
47 I JARBO000032 I Letter from unknown sender to Alan Bates - Re: I JARB0000032
email to Janet Walker
Page 183 of 193
WITN00020100
48 I JARBO000033 I Letter from Alan Bates JFSA to James JARB0000033
Arbuthnot MP - Re: second sight investigations
49 I JARBO000034 I Letter from unknown sender to Paula Vennells -_ I JARBO000034
Re: second sight passing on individual cases
and draft being passed to JFSA
50 I JARBO000035 I Letter from unknown sender to Alan Bates - Re: I JARBO000035
hearing postmasters/JFSA complaints through
MP offices
51 I POLO0105487 I Letter from The Rt. Hon James Arbuthnot to POL-0104667
Paula Vennells regarding Second Sight meeting.
52 I JARBOO00036 I Letter from James Arbuthnot to Albert Owen MP I JARBOO00036
- Re: Hugh Noel Thomas and hosting meetings
with Alan Bates
53 I JARBO000037 I Bundle of letters concerning Isabella Wall of JARB0000037
Bowness Road Post Office - Letters from
various members of parliament, Jo Swinson,
James Arbuthnot and John Woodcock
54 I JARBO000038 I Letter from unknown sender to John Woodock - I JARBO000038
Re: constituents accused of false accounting by
PO
55 I JARBO000020 I Email from Janet Walker to Ron Warmington; JARBO000020
‘lan Henderson’ re Updates for individual MPs
56 I JARBO000040 I Email from lan Henderson to Janet Walker JARB0000040
and cc'd Ron Warmington - Re: Updates for
individual MPs
57 I JARBO000041 I Email from Janet Walker to lan Henderson and I JARBOO00041
CC'd Ron Warmington re Updates for individual
MPs
58 I JARBO000042 I Email from lan Henderson to Janet Walker and I JARBO000042
CC'd Ron Warmington re Updates for individual
MPs
59 I JARBO000043 I 3 Letters to Alice Perkins, Alan Bates and all JARBO000043
Post Office MPs from James Arbuthnot
60 I POLO0097588 I Letter from The Rt. Hon. James Arbuthnot, M.P. I POL-0097171
to Alice Perkins re Meeting with Second Sight
61 I JARBOO00045 I JNA to Alice Perkins meeting minutes JARBO000045
62 I JARBO000048 I Post Office cases meeting- speaking notes JARBO000048
63 I JARBO000047 I lan Henderson - Meeting with MPs — Second JARBO000047
Sight Briefing Document
64 I JARBO000046 I Agenda for meeting re Post Office cases JARBO000046
65 I JARBO000049 I Letter from Alan Bates to James Arbuthnot re JARBO000049
JFSA
66 I JARBOO00050 I Letter response to Alan Bates regarding Second I JARBO000050
sight
Page 184 of 193
WITN00020100
67 I JARBO000051 I Email from Janet Walker to lan Henderson and I JARBOO00051
Ron Warmington RE comments on Letter from
James Arbuthnot
68 I JARBO000052 I Briefing note from 21 May 2021 RE telephone JARBO000052
call to Paula Vennells
69 I JARBOO00054 I Email from Alan Bates to Janet Walker RE July I JARBOO00054
meeting and telephone call
70 I JARBOO00053 I Email from Ron Warmington to James Arbuthnot I JARBO000053
and CC'ing lan Henderson RE Spot Review
response
71 I POLO0095435 I Email from Janet Walker to Alwen Lyons re: POL-0095018
Update from James
72 I POLO0188344 I Email from Janet Walker to Alwen Lyons RE: POL-BSFF-
Update from James 0026407
73 I JARBOO00057 I Telephone call from James Arbuthnot to Richard I JARBOO00057
Brooks
74 I JARBOO00039 I Email chain from Janet Walker to Ron JARBO0000039
Warmington and cc'd lan Henderson - Re:
Scope for Interim Report
75 I POLO0029649 I Letter from Paula Vennells to James Arbuthnot, I POL-0026131
MP re key points discussed in the meeting on 3
July 2013 with Paula Vennells, James Arbuthnot
and Alice.
76 I JARBOO00058 I Statement from James Arbuthnot RE Post office I JARBOO00058
statement
77 I JARBO000064 I Second sight Preliminary conclusions of JARB0000064
problems with Horizon system.
78 I JARBO000059 I Notes from James Arbuthnot RE Reasons for JARBO0000059
Government involvement and Press release
79 I JARBOO00062 I Letter from James Arbuthnot to government JARBO000062
requesting a response from the Government re
the scandal
80 I POL00002228 I Interim Report into alleged problems with the VIS00003242
Horizon system
81 I JARBOOO006N I List of attendees at meeting JARBOO00060
82 I JARBOO00061 I Agenda for Meeting about Post Office Cases - JARBO000061
interim report
83 I JARBOO00063 I Press release Statement of James Arbuthnot JARB0000063
MP welcoming Interim Report
84 I JARBOOO0065 I Email from Janet Walker to James Arbuthnot. JARBOO00065
RE: second sight continuing
involvement
Page 185 of 193
85
POL00167943
Email from Janet Walker (UK Parliament); to
Alwen Lyons (POL); Theresa Iles (POL) &
Charlett Susanne Re: Potential meeting
following board and Parliamentary recess dates
WITN00020100
POL-0163240
86
POL00095441
Email from Janet Walker to Alwen Lyons re:
Thoughts from Alan Bates
POL-0095024
87
JARBO000067
Email from joe Moor to Susanne Charlett RE:
meeting at Westminster between Mr Arbuthnot
and Mr Blagden
JARBO000067
88
JARBO000068
Email from Simon Blagden to James Arbuthnot
RE: follow up from their meeting on 17 July
2013
JARB0000068
89
POL00099354
Email from Alwen Lyons to Ron Warmington,
lan Henderson, Susan Crichton and others, Re:
Notes of the meeting on the 22nd July
POL-0098937
90
JARB0000070
i "I to Janet Walker;
I Alwen Lyons & Ors RE: Meeting with
James Arbuthnot and Second sight
9I JARBO000070
91
JARB0000069
Horizon resolution Flowchart showing process
for looking at PO cases.
JARBO000069
92
POL00027849
Email from Susan Crichton to Paula Vennells,
Alwen Lyons and Simon Baker Re: Copy of
email to JA and draft to go to subpostmasters
POL-0024490
93
POL00099447
Email from Janet Walker to Susan Crichton and
Alwen Lyons. Re: TORK and mediation pack
POL-0099030
94
POL00099493
Email chain between Susan Crichton, Janet
Walker, Alwen Lyons and others Re: Reply from
James Arbuthnot.
POL-0099076
95
NFSP00000263
Letter (Branch Secretaries Circular) from
George Thomson to unnamed colleague re
Horizon Mediation Scheme
VIS000087 11
96
JARBO000071
Email from Frankie Peck to Recipient RE: BBC
South Interview in relation to Mediation
JARBO000071
97
POL00061352
Blog post by Nick Wallisat titled 'Post Office 2nd
Sight report into Horizon' dated 14 August 2013.
POL-0057831
98
POL00146048
Letter from Angela Van Den Bogerd to Alan re:
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
(to be known as the Scheme)
POL-BSFF-
0005175
99
JARB0000072
Letter from ; GRO ito Janet Walker Re:
Meeting with Alice Perkins and James Arbuthnot
JARB0000072
100
POLO0099656
Email chain from James Arbuthnot to Andy Holt,
Jack Hands and Alwen Lyons re: Post Office
investigations.
POL-0099239
Page 186 of 193
101
JARB0000073
Email from Janet Walker to James Arbuthnot cc
Susanne Charlett RE: BBC Wales interview,
Tuesday 1 October, 3pm at conf
WITN00020100
JARB0000073
102
POL00099828
Email chain from Janet Walker to Alwen Lyons
re: Press release for the appointment of Sir
Anthony Hooper
POL-0099411
103
POL00099875
Email from Paula Vennells to Chris Aujard cc:
Alwen Lyons, Belinda Crowe and Jorja Preston
re: James Arbuthnot
POL-0099458
104
POL00026743
Final Note by David Oliver of Meeting held on
28/01/2014 between Post Office and James
Arbuthnot MP
POL-0023384
105
POL00102598
Letter from Alice Perkins to James Arbuthnot re:
Progress made on Commitments
POL-0102181
106
JARB0000074
Email from Alan Bates to Janet Walker RE:
Conversation with James - raising issues
JARB0000074
107
JARB0000075
Email from Janet Walker to Alan Bates RE:
January meeting with Alice Perkins
JARBO0000075
108
JARB0000076
Email from Janet Walker to Alan Bates Re:
Phone call with James tomorrow - mentions
mediation scheme, pressure on Second Sight
and potential Ron Warmington resignation
JARBO0000076
109
JARB0000078
Janet Walker's note RE: Second Sight -
mentions problems with PO/Second Sight
relationship, contract queries, upcoming meeting
with James Arburthnot and more
JARBO0000078
110
JARB0000079
Email from Janet Walker to Ron Warmington,
IRH RE: Checking in - organising meeting with
James Arbuthnot, queries on new proposed
agreement, update on mediation process and
more
JARB0000079
111
JARBO000080
Meeting agenda with James Arbuthnot.
Attendees: Alice Perkins, Paula Vennells and
David Oliver RE: Mediation scheme, Second
Sight and more
JARB0000080
112
JARBO0000081
Meeting with Alice Perkins, Paula Vennells, and
David Oliver - JNA Notes - re: Mediation
Scheme
JARB0000081
113
POL00100445
Email from David Oliver to Janet Walker re. draft
email and prep for 24th
POL-0100028
114
POL00100222
Email from Janet Walker to David Oliver, RE:
Draft Meeting note and letter
POL-0099805
115
JARBO0000082
Email from Janet Walker to David Oliver1 Re:
Room for the meeting on the 24th
JARB0000082
Page 187 of 193
WITN00020100
116
POL00105634
‘Meeting with MPs - Mediation Scheme and
Branch Improvement Programme’ Minutes,
undated.
POL-0104622
117
POL00100474
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Paula Vennells
re: meeting follow up
POL-0100057
118
POL00100491
Email Crowe to Sophie Bialaszewski and other
re. Fwd: Update from Post Office meeting, 24
March 2014
POL-0100074
119
POL00100671
Letter from Paula Vennells to RT Hon James
Arbuthnot MP, Final report on the Mediation
Scheme.
POL-0100254
120
POL00105466
Letter from the Rt. Hon. James Arbuthnot MP to
Paula Vennells dated 01/05/2014.
POL-0104646
121
POL00100696
Letter from Paula Vennells to James Arbuthnot
MP re: Mediation Scheme
POL-0100279
122
POL00100695
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Paula Vennells,
Mediation process case review
POL-0100278
123
JARBO000083
Letter to Alan Bates Re: concerns about Initial
Case Review and Mediation Scheme
JARB0000083
124
POL00035280
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme,
Mediation Briefing Report prepared by Second
Sight
POL-0032215
125
POL00102600
Letter from Paula Vennells to James Arbuthnot
re: Progress of the Mediation Scheme
POL-0102183
126
POL00026747
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Paula Vennells
re meeting update
POL-0023388
127
POL00101018
Email from Martin Edwards on behalf of Paula
Vennells to James Arbuthnot re: Note to MPs
POL-0100601
128
JARBO000084
Telephone Call regarding Alan Bates
JARB0000084
129
JARBO000085
Email from James Arbuthnot to Sarah Paddison
and Janet Walker Re: Draft email from James
Arbuthnot to MP's
JARB0000085
130
POL00101053
Email from Belinda Crowe to Sophie
Bialaszewski, Mark R Davis, Chris Arnold and
others re: FW Post Office - proposed July
meeting
POL-0100636
131
POL00030160
Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
Briefing Report - Part Two prepared by Second
Sight
POL-0026642
132
JARBO000086
Post Office Second Sight Report Part 2
JARBO000086
133
JARBO000088
Letter to Priti Patel MP Re: Constituent Graham
Ward - about case with Post Office
JARB0000088
134
JARBO0000087
Letter to Paula Vennells Re: discussing
constituent, William Doran
JARB0000087
135
JARBO0000089
Letter from Post Office to Second Sight Re: Post
Office’s Response to Second Sight’s Case
Review Report on case M030
JARB0000089
136
JARBO000090
Briefing regarding Jo Hamilton
JARBO000090
Page 188 of 193
WITN00020100
137
POL00105465
Letter from The Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, MP to
Paula Vennells re: Working Group meetings
POL-0104645
138
POL00002415
Post Office, Initial Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme, PO Reply to Second Sight's
Briefing Report —Part Two
VIS00003429
139
POL00109204
Letter from Paula Vennells to Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot MP re: Working Group Meetings.
POL-0111032
140
POL00105464
Letters between James Arbuthnot and Paula
Vennels, RE: request to meet MPs to discuss
mediation process.
POL-0104644
144
JARBO000091
Email from Janet Walker to Avene O'Farrell re
Requested meeting with James Arbuthnot MP
JARB0000091
142
POL00101479
Email from Ron Warmington to Janet Walker,
cc'd lan Henderson and Chris Holyoak re: Call
with Paula.
POL-0101062
143
POL00101477
Email from Avene O'Farrell to Belinda Crowe,
Tom Wechsler, Chris Aujard re: FW: Post Office
mediation process
POL-0101060
144
JARBO000093
Email from Janet Walker to Avene O'Farrrell re
Requested meeting with James Arbuthnot MP
JARB0000093
145
JARBO000092
List of possible items that will arise in
anticipation of the Post Office telephone
conversation
JARBO0000092
146
POL00117030
Note of call between Paula Vennells and James
Arbuthnot MP - 15:30, 28 October 2014
POL-0117865
147
POL00101571
Letter from Paula Vennells to James Arbuthnot
MP re Complaint and Mediation Scheme
POL-0101154
148
POL00101573
Email from Janet Walker to Avene O'Farrell; re:
Meeting with James Arbuthnot MP
POL-0101156
149
JARBO000095
Post Office meeting minutes on Monday 17
November 2014 re the status of the mediation
scheme
JARBO000095
150
POL00101586
Email from Ron Warmington to Mediation re:
Post Office cases - update
POL-0101169
151
POL00101699
Letter from Paula Vennells Chief Executive, Post
Office Ltd to The Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP
re: Complaint and Mediation Scheme.
POL-0101282
152
POL00101607
Email from Gavin Lambert to Paula Vennells re:
JA
POL-0101190
153
JARBO0000077
Email from James Arbuthnot to Kevan Jones cc
Janet Walker, Susanne Charlett RE: FW: Post
Office and media advice
JARB0000077
154
JARBO0000097
Email from James Arbuthnot to Tim Robinson
and cc Susanne Charlett re Post Office and
media advice
JARB0000097
155
POL00101700
Letter from The Rt Hon James Arbuthnot to
Paula Vennells re: Compliants and Mediation
Scheme.
POL-0101283
Page 189 of 193
WITN00020100
156
POL00101690
Post Office Press Release from the office of The
Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, MP re: MPs lose faith
in Post Office mediation scheme
POL-0101273
157
JARBO000098
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Adrian Bailey
MP re request for Adrian Bailey's committee to
do an inquiry into the Mediation Scheme run by
the Post Office in relation to the Horizon
accounting system
JARB0000098
158
JARBO0000099
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Jim Hood MP
and cc Paula Vennells re his resignation from
leadership of the MPs campaigning on behalf of
subpostmasters
JARB0000099
159
JARBO000100
Letter from James (Arbuthnot) to Colleague Re:
Post Office Mediation Scheme Adjournment
Debate, 2:30, Wed 17th Dec, Westminster Hall
JARB0000100
160
POL00130757
MP Drop-in Session - Wednesday 10 Dec,
16:00-18:00 - Discussing - Horizon: Details of
business improvements, Constituency issues
raised by MPs on acceptance list
POL-0120698
161
JARBO000101
Email from Joe Moor to Janet Walker RE: Phone
call between James Arbuthnot and Simon
Blagden
JARBO000101
162
JARBO000102
Letter to Richard Foster RE: Post Office and the
convictions
JARB0000102
163
POL00109874
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Paula Vennells
re: response to letter of 8 December 2014
POL-0111098
164
POL00101989
Letter from Mark Davies to RT Hon James
Arbuthnot MP, re the Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme.
POL-0101572
165
JARBO000103
Letter from Richard Foster to Mr James
Arbuthnot MP RE: Horizon Computer System
JARB0000103
166
POL00026741
Letter from The Rt. Hon. James Arbuthnot M.P.
to Paula Vennells re: Request for answers to
questions from letter dated 8/12/2014 about
Second Sight
POL-0023382
167
JARBO000105
Email from Karl Flinders to James Arbuthnot RE:
Select Committee announces inquiry into Post
office mediation scheme
JARB0000105
168
JARBO000104
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Adrian Bailey
RE: Post Office Mediation Scheme
JARB0000104
169
POL00102087
Email from Ron Warmington to Janet Walker
and lan Henderson re: Ask for the following - re
govt
POL-0101670
170
JARBO000107
Letter to Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP RE:
Committee’s current inquiry into the Criminal
Cases Review Commission
JARB0000107
171
JARBO000106
Letter Daniel Kawczynski MP RE: Involvement
in the Post Office Horizon issues
JARB0000106
Page 190 of 193
WITN00020100
172
JARBO000108
Briefing Note to BIS Select Committee from lan
R Henderson CCE, CISA, FCA
JARBO0000108
173
POL00102596
Letter from Paula Vennells to The Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot MP re: response to letters dated 8
December 2014, 13 January 2015 and 22
January 2015 concerning criminal investigations
POL-0102179
174
JARBO000109
Letter from the Rt Hon Hon James Arbuthnot
MP to Richard Foster CBE RE: Failure of Post
Office Mediation Scheme and referral to the
CCRC
JARB0000109
175
JARBO000110
Letter from Richard Foster CBE to the Rt Hon
James Arbuthnot MP cc Kevan Jones MP RE:
Failure of Post Office Mediation Scheme and
referral to the CCRC
JARB0000110
176
JARBOO000111
Press Statement issued by Post Office Press
Office RE: Post Office Mediation Scheme
Update
JARBO000111
177
POL00109979
Letter from The Rt. Hon. James Arbuthnot. M.P.
to Paula Vennells re: Request under Freedom of
Information Act
POL-0111129
178
JARBO000112
Letter from Martin Humphreys (Post Office) to
the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP RE: Freedom
of Information Request - FOI201503101334
JARBO0000112
179
POL00102373
Email from Ron Warmington to Mediation. FW:
Urgent - Post Office
POL-0101956
180
UKGI00003781
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Vince Cable MP,
re Post Office Mediation Scheme
UKGI014595-
001
181
JARBO000113
Letter from Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP to
Richard Foster CBE RE: Application to CCRC
from my constituent, Jo Hamilton
JARBO0000113
182
UKG1I00003910
Letter from Vince Cable to James Arbuhtnot MP
re Post Office Mediation Scheme
UKGI014724-
001
183
POL00117275
Letter from The Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP to
Paula Vennells re Jo Hamilton case
POL-0118092
184
JARBO000114
Letter from Richard Foster CBE to the Rt Hon
James Arbuthnot MP RE: Mrs Josephine
Hamilton
JARBO000114
185
JARBO0000096
Letter from James Arbuthnot to Richard Foster
CBE of the CCRC re Briefing note to add to
CCRC application for my constituent, Jo
Hamilton
JARB0000096
186
POL00102594
Letter from Paula Vennells to The Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot MP re: reply to letter dated 18 March
2015 discussing disclosure of second sight
documents in reinvestigations
POL-0102177
187
JARBO000115
FOI Request of Second Sight Part 2 Report
process
JARBO000115
Page 191 of 193
WITN00020100
188
POL00117337
Letter from Tom Wechsler to James Arbuthnot re
Freedom of Information Request for a copy of
Second Sight's Briefing Report - Part 2.
POL-0118152
189
POL00029849
Initial Complaint Review Mediation Scheme:
Second Sight Briefing Report - Part Two
POL-0026331
190
JARBO000116
Email from Rt Hon James Arbuthnot to Janet
Walker RE: Fwd: Second Sight's Briefing Report
- Part Two
JARB0000116
191
JARBO000117
Email from Barbara Williams (Baroness Neville
Neville Rolfe's Private Office) to Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot RE: Meeting with Baroness Neville-
Rolfe
JARB0000117
192
JARB0000118
Letter from Baroness Neville-Rolfe to Tim Parker
re: issues surrounding Horizon IT system
JARB0000118
193
JARBO000119
Email from Alan Bates to James Arbuthnot re:
Assorted information
JARB0000119
194
JARBO000120
Email from Janet Walker to James Arbuthnot re:
RE: Post Office - letter to Minister
JARB0000120
195
JARBO000121
Letter from Baronness Neville-Rolfe to James
Arbuthnot re: request to meet with Second Sight
JARBO0000121
196
JARBO000122
Email from Ron Warmington to James Arbuthnot
re: Speaking notes 19 October Post
Office_ONE_PAGER.docx
JARBO0000122
197
JARBO000136
Ron Warmington speaking notes for meeting at
House of Lords
JARB0000136
198
POL00103002
Email from Jonathan Swift to Tim Parker cc:
Christopher Knight re: meeting with Lord
Arbuthnot
POL-0102585
199
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
200
JARBO000123
Handwritten Note re: Meeting Notes JNA Kevan
Jones
JARB0000123
201
JARBO000124
Email from Nick Wallis to James Arbuthnot re:
From my book re the CCRC referrals - hope this
helps
JARB0000124
202
JARBO000137
Email correspondence between Nick Wallis and
Justin Hawkins of the CCRC
JARBO0000137
203
JARBO000138
Email from Lord Arbuthnot to Justin Hawkins
(CCRC)
JARB0000138
204
JARBO000125
Letter from Kelly Tolhurst MP to Members of the
House of Commons re: Post Office Ltd Litigation
JARB0000125
205
JARBO000126
Email from James Arbuthnot to Minister
Callanan re: The Clarke Advice to the Post
Office
JARB0000126
206
JARBO000127
Email from James Arbuthnot to Lord Arbuthnot
of Edrom re: The Clarke Advice to the Post
Office
JARB0000127
Page 192 of 193
WITN00020100
207
JARBO000139
Email to Lord Arbuthnot from Lord Callanan's
Private Secretary dated 30 November 2020
JARB0000139
208
JARBO000140
Email to Lord Arbuthnot from Lord Callanan's
Private Secretary dated 2 December 2020
JARB0000140
209
JARB0000129
Email from Lord Callanan to James Arbuthnot,
Minister Callanan, CC Minister Scully and others
re: The Clarke Advice to the Post Office - Lord
Callanan confirming they do not have the Clarke
Advice
JARB0000129
210
JARBO000130
Email from James Arbuthnot to Minister Scully,
CC Nick Read and The Rt Hon The Lord
Charles Falconer QC and others re: The Clarke
Advice to the Post Office - concerning the BEIS
Select Committee
JARB0000130
211
JARBO0000141
Email to Lord Arbuthnot from Matthew of
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Committee
JARB0000141
212
JARBO000142
Letter to Lord Arbuthnot from Darren Jones MP
JARB0000142
213
JARBO000133
Report re: Where the Post Office Horizon issue
stands - by James Arbuthnot
JARB0000133
214
JARBO000143
Email to Lord Arbuthnot from Paul Scully MP's
Private Secretary
JARB0000143
215
POL00104183
Letter from Paul Scully MP to Lord Arbuthnot re:
The Clarke Advice to the Post Office
POL-0103766
216
JARBO000135
Email from James Arbuthnot to Rosa Prince re:
The House coverage - concerning coverage on
the Post Office Horizon scandal
JARB0000135
217
JARBO000145
List of MPs who have a constituent affected by
the Horizon/Post Office case
JARB0000145
218
JARBO000146
Email from Glenda at Post Office from Janet
Walker (James Arbuthnot's Chief of Staff)
JARBO0000146
219
JARBO000147
Email from Janet Walker to Theresa Iles
regarding call between James Arbuthnot and
Paul Vennells
JARB0000147
220
JARBO000148
Letter from Steve McCabe MP to James
Arbuthnot MP regarding the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme dated 9
September 2014
JARBO0000148
Page 193 of 193