WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
Witness Name: Jason Coyne
Statement No.: WITN00210100
Dated: _16 May 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF JASON PETER COYNE
I, JASON COYNE, will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. lama currently a Partner at Evolution Project Consulting Limited. Evolution
Project Consulting is a company that assists parties to resolve disputes
involving technology.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(the “Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request dated 3" April
2023 (the “Request’).
BACKGROUND
3. I have been asked to set out a summary of my professional background.
4. Since 1981 I have been involved in the programming computers, initially using
the language, “BASIC” on Sinclair ZX81 and Spectrum computers, before
Page 1 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
moving to Commodore Vic 20 & 64 computers whilst at School and later
during college.
. In 1986 I attended Cardinal Newman College, at Preston where I studied
Computer Science and statistical mathematics and achieved A levels in both.
. On leaving college, I started to look at universities to study computing at
degree level but was disappointed to find that all courses were focused at
looking back at legacy 1960,1970’s computing rather than the emerging
technologies of modern networked computing that was rapidly accelerating in
industry in the time (1989). It was on that basis that I took the decision to go
straight into an industrial placement and secured a position as a computer
programmer with a company called Exact Abacus which at the time created
‘full business control’ systems for small to medium sized companies.
. During my six years at Exact Abacus, I assisted in the design and
development of systems in Business Book-Keeping, Accountancy, Stock
Control, Warehouse Management, Electronic Point of Sale, Credit Card
Processing, Manufacturing Requirements Planning, Mail Order and
Distribution.
. During this time, as well as computer programming, I undertook both
technology hardware and operating systems implementations.
. These aspects involved the custom-building of computer servers from
hardware components (Motherboards, Memory, Disk Controllers, Network
cards etc) and wide area networking communication architecture such as
leased and PSTN telephone lines.
Page 2 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
10.My role then, involved the installation and configuring of multiuser operating
systems such as SCO Xenix, Unix, Novel, CDOS from ‘bare metal’ hardware
into ‘green field’ sites often with hundreds of networked users and devices.
11.My computer programming skills and experience widened into programming
languages such as Dataflex and PowerFlex.
12.During my tenure at Exact Abacus, I went on to manage the on-site support
function for the UK commercial users of the Exact Abacus systems, which
involved interfacing with the telephone helpdesk operatives and I was also
part of the on-site engineering team who covered the country to ensure that
installations continued to operate optimally.
13.Around 1996 I wanted to gain exposure to larger computing systems and took
a position with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) who had recently won
the contract to manage the outsourced support function for British Aerospace,
which became BAE Systems.
14.The role in CSC took me from previously looking at hundreds of users to an
estate of 15,000 users and hundreds of disparate Computer Aided Design
(CAD), Manufacturing Control, and Testing systems as well as several ‘flight
critical’ systems.
15.Part of my role at CSC was looking at the rationalisation of inter-departmental
systems, seeking to make cost and efficiency savings by looking across the
departments to help understand where computer systems and processes may
have been duplicated, and convergence technologies could be employed to
make cost and support efficiency savings.
16.During my time at CSC, I used many different operating system technologies
such as: Solaris, AIX, VMS and WindowsNT. I also used many different
Page 3 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
communication technologies such as; Ethernet, Token Ring, SNA, CAT5 and
various Fibre Optic configurations and programming languages such as;
Oracle Forms, Delphi (Pascal), Visual Basic, Foxpro. I deployed several
databases such as Informix and Progress, Oracle, Sybase, SQL and Dbase.
17.\1n 2000 I had the opportunity to be a shareholder in my own company, Best
Practice Group PLC (“BPG”) which I founded with three other shareholders.
The purpose of BPG was to guide buyers of technology systems through the
design specification and procurement process of new business technology
systems and to assist with disputes that may arise during the implementation
and operation of such systems.
18. The rationale for starting BPG was that we had discovered that many
technology implementations were seen as being failures due to ‘misaligned
expectations’ as to what the parties (buyers and suppliers) actually desired.
There was also, typically, a misunderstanding of the respective roles and
responsibilities of the parties in the overall technology implementation
process.
19.BPG assisted buyers to specify, carefully what they desired from a new
system and more importantly how as buyers they would judge the success of
the system once it was delivered.
20.BPG also assisted technology companies to communicate what was expected
from the customers during the implementation process, such as responsibility
for training, data transformation and the communication of changing
requirements. It was during these early years at BPG that we started to be
approached by law firms and parties involved in technical implementations to
assist in the resolution of ongoing disputes with failing implementations.
Page 4 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
21.Whilst I do not recall the initial approach from Weightman Vizards regarding
Post Office Limited -v- Mrs J Wolstenholme, it is likely that this was around
the end of 2003 (I will return to this further detail later this statement).
22.1 can see from my CV attached to the 21 January 2004 document (the “Initial
Opinion”) (WITN00210101) that I was already a Law Society accredited
Expert Witness. In the early 2000’s the Law society provided an accreditation
scheme for Expert Witnesses (my number 229 suggested that I was an ‘early
adopter’ of the scheme). The Law Society has more recently stopped
providing this accreditation service.
23.As part of the Law Society accreditation scheme, experts were required to
have formal vetting.
24.In December 2008 I obtained the Expert Witness Diploma from Cardiff
University Law School and still to this day feel that I benefited from its
teachings regarding the roles and responsibilities of an Expert Witness and
the Civil and Criminal Procedure rules of England and Scotland.
25.In 2009 I sold my shareholding in BPG and shortly afterwards became a
shareholder in IT Group UK limited (“ITG”). ITG focused exclusively on
dispute resolution, typically by way of Expert Witness instructions from Law
Firms and around 2010 (if I recall the date correctly) TG was approached by
Lee Castleton's family and held one informal meeting with his father but was
unable to assist him with his matter as, at the time, TG would only accept
Expert Witness instructions from a Law Firm and Mr Castleton was
unrepresented.
26.In 2016 ITG was instructed by James Hartley of Freeth's to provide Expert
Witness services in the Bates —v- Post Office matter.
Page 5 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
27.ITG was acquired by Blackrock Expert Services in 2018. Blackrock Expert
Services was then acquired by Kroll Associates in 2020. I continued to be
employed in largely the same role by these organisations until April 2023.
28.From 2000, as part of BPG and after 2009 for ITG, to the present day, I have
investigated hundreds of failed or failing computer system implementations
and have provided written opinions and oral testimony on several occasions in
civil, criminal, and international arbitration matters. The instructions are
broadly balanced between technology implementors (including many of the
technology companies) and technology purchasers (including large UK
governmental agencies including the MOD and many Local authorities).
29.1 am a member of the Academy of Experts, the British Computer Society and
the Society for Computers and Law.
Post Office Limited -v- Mrs J Wolstenholme
30. Regarding Post Office Limited -v- Mrs J Wolstenholme, I have been asked
how I first became involved in these proceedings.
31.1 no longer have any access to any emails or have a copy of the instructions
from Weightmans Vizards but from speaking to BPG I have been able to
obtain a copy of my Initial Opinion dated 21 January 2004, (WITN00210101)
exhibited to this witness statement as well as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
(WITN00210102) that I created to assist me in the analysis of the helpdesk
call logs provided to me. I have been unable to locate the copies of the
helpdesk call logs provided to me that would have been with the instructions.
32.1 estimate that it was towards the end of 2003 when I was approached by
Susanne Helliwell of Weightman Vizards. It is likely (but I can't be sure) that
by 2003 I had already undertaken other unrelated instructions from
Page 6 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
Weightmans Vizards, I have certainly been instructed by that firm on
unrelated matters since.
33.1 have been asked what my knowledge of the Horizon System was (including
from any press reporting) prior to my involvement in this matter. I do not recall
any prior knowledge of the Horizon System at the time of the instruction.
34.Whilst I do not have a copy of the actual instruction provided at the time, I can
see from the Initial Opinion that the matter concerned Blackpool County
Court, Claim number CR101947.
35.1 can see that in the covering email to the Initial Opinion I said, “Please find
enclosed my brief note after reviewing the papers in the above matter’ and in
the introduction section; “! do not consider that I am required at this stage to
produce a full expert witness report as such, and have therefore set out my
initial opinions in the format below’. This statement, and the way that the
document is presented is consistent with my understanding that this Initial
Opinion was a draft opinion and that my instructions from the parties may
have been expected to develop over time as more relevant material was
disclosed and as my understanding developed over time as a result.
36. The Initial Opinion states that it was a joint instruction (i.e. whilst I was
communicating with Ms Helliwell, the instruction was from both Post Office
Limited & Mrs J Wolstenholme). I was expressly requested to “make initial
observations that would be of value to the court’ and I can see that my
communications also were carbon copied to Mrs Wolstenholme.
37.1 can see from WITN04600203 that it was suggested that “A Court Order was
made on 19th February 2003 that a computer expert examine the equipment’.
Until this document was provided to me by the Inquiry, I don’t believe that I
Page 7 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
was aware of this Court Order. I can see from WITN04600203 that Post Office
was taking steps to overturn this Court Order.
38. It appears from the documents that I have been provided with that Post Office
did not want the Horizon Terminal to be examined and I don’t recall any
equipment being provided to me, nor do I recall visiting the Post Office branch
to examine the equipment. The document WITN04600203 states that as of
14th February “The equipment was not examined as part of the Expert’s
review”.
39.In January 2004 I would have been familiar with the Joint Expert Instruction
process and the need to ensure that both parties got the opportunity to
provide me with information (as the Joint Expert) which each party felt was
relevant to the proceedings. I was also aware of the need to ensure that both
parties were copied in my communications with the other party.
40.1 recall having a telephone conversation with Mrs Wolstenholme about her
experience of using the Horizon System and having telephone discussions
with Ms Helliwell of Weightman Vizards. I do not believe that I had any
discussions with either Post Office or Fujitsu directly and I did not have sight
of documents WITN04600203 and WITN04600206 until these were provided
by the Inquiry.
41.From the observations that I made in the Initial Opinion I can see that I was
asked to opine if Mrs Wolstenholme's use of the helpdesk was ‘reasonable’. I
concluded that to answer this question fully that I would need comparative
documents from other Post Office branches, but I can see that I was told that
this was not possible due to; “...such logs not being available”.
Page 8 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
42. FUJ00121535 (my document) and WITN04600203 (which I had not seen at
the time) show that comparative help desk calls were extracted from other
Post Office branches and whilst I had requested these, they were not
provided to me.
43.1 can see I was provided with the following documents:
1.
8.
9.
Claim form dated 19 April 2001 and amended Particulars of Claim
dated 17 February 2003;
Amended Defence and Counterclaim dated 14 April 2003;
Reply and Defence to Counterclaim;
Order dated 6 October 2003;
Claimant's List of Documents;
Defendant's List of Documents;
Claimant's witness statement;
Defendant's witness statement; and
Additional set of call logs disclosed by the Claimant to the Defendant.
44.1 recall that the ‘additional set of call logs disclosed by the Claimant’
(document 9 above) was a folder of several printouts from the Post Office
Horizon Helpdesk System regarding circa 90 calls to the helpdesk which I
reviewed and from which I created an Excel spreadsheet which I called
‘Analysis of the PO logs’. I have exhibited this at (WITN00210102) to this
witness statement.
45.The analysis that I conducted on the additional set of call logs considered
whether the purpose of Mrs Wolstenholme’s call to the Post Office helpdesk
was to seek training or alternatively to report a suspected Horizon System
Page 9 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
fault and, in addition, if the remedial action prescribed by the Post Office was
to ‘reboot’ the Horizon Terminal.
46.From my Initial Opinion I can see that I disagreed with the statement of Ms
Elaine Tagg, the retail network manager of the Post Office, where she stated :
“Mrs Wolstenholme persisted in telephoning the Horizon System Help Desk in
relation to any problems which she had with the system generally, these
problems related to the use and general operation of the system and were not
technical problems relating to the system.” I said that in my opinion this was
not a true representation on the evidence that I had seen.
47.In support of the above statement, I said that 63 of the calls “...are without
doubt system related failures.” And; “Only 13 could be considered as Mrs
Wolstenholme calling the wrong support help desk” I went on to report; “The
majority of the system issues were screen locks, freezes, and blue screen
errors which are clearly not a fault of Mrs Wolstenholme’s making, but most
probably due to faulty computer hardware software, interfaces or power’.
48.1 concluded that; “From a computer system installation perspective it is my
opinion that the technology installed at the Cleveleys sub-post office was
clearly defective in elements of its hardware, software or interfaces. The
majority of the errors as noted in the fault logs could not be attributed to being
of Mrs Wolstenholme’s making or operation of the system.”
49.1 made the following additional observation; “The helpdesk operated by the
Post Office would seem to be more focused on ‘closing calls than attempting
to get to the bottom of the continual recurrence. The instruction to ‘re-boot’
would allow a call to be closed as the postmaster could continue to work once
the system had powered back up.”. I note that within the document
Page 10 of 17
50.
51.
52.
53.
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
WITN04600203 is a comment from Fujitsu that “Blue screens and system
freezes have always been a problem and the stock HSH reply has always
been to re-boot.”. This was consistent with my findings at the time.
I also reported; “From the 31% of October (starting at call log number
10253234) there seems to be a number of logs which talk of ‘large
discrepancies’ in stock figures, trial balances with “all sorts of figures showing
minus figures” [Call Log 10311359]”. At the time, I did not realise the
significance of such discrepancies.
Following my sending of the Initial Opinion (WITN00210101) Weightman
Vizards sent me the response from Fujitsu (FUJ00121512) and telephoned
me to discuss its contents. Whilst I can’t recall the detail of that conversation,
the thrust (from my response at FUJ00121535) appears to have been a
request to see if I was satisfied by the answers provided by Fujitsu and
whether the contents of the Fujitsu document led me to change my opinion.
I sent a follow up email on 27 February 2004 (FUJ00121535) stating; “...No
my opinion, currently, remains as stated in my original note” which was
followed with my detailed responses to the Fujitsu comments.
In addition to the explanation as to why my opinion remained unchanged, I
suggested where additional investigations may be conducted that could have
assisted.
1. With regard to “Transaction handling on rebooting of the Horizon
Terminal’, Fujitsu suggested that the audit data had since been
deleted. I offered to examine further data if any were to come to light.
None was ever provided.
Page 11 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
2. With regard to the “reasonableness of helpdesk calls”, whilst I was
originally instructed that data had been destroyed, some ‘unregulated
records’ had now been discovered but only Fujitsu had reviewed these
and had presented findings in overview. I requested the “raw data” to
opine myself, but none was provided.
3. With regard to operators being told to ‘reboot’, I offered to review the
findings from the ‘crashdumps’ which should have been available, but
these were not provided, and I can see in WITN04600206 that Fujitsu
stated to Post Office that; “/t will not be possible to provide the
‘crashdumps’ that the Expert refers to since these will have destroyed.”
54. After my email of 27th February 2004, I can’t recall having any further
communications with the parties and to this day I’m not sure if my opinions
were used by the parties.
Post Office Conduct
55.1 have been asked my view on how Post Office conducted the proceedings.
My only contact with Post Office was via Weightmans Vizard.
56.Whilst I had no direct contact with Post Office, I can see from the documents
provided that Post Office appeared reluctant to examine or accept my
findings, instead seeking to look to Fujitsu to assist in the creation of an
alternative position. I note from WITN04600203 that; “POL are concerned that
the Expert's opinions (that the system was at fault) might set a precedent
against future POL prosecutions” and; “Their primary objective is to get the
equipment returned.”
57.Post Office also appears to have a confused view of what is important in this
particular dispute when it stated; “They want anything! that might indicate that
Page 12 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
Cleverleys was no better or worse than any other 6 Counter Oulets” [sic]. This
appears to me to suggest Post Office perceived that if a sample of 6 others
Post Office branches suggest that they are all operating poorly this may assist
in this dispute.
58.Post Office appeared to have had knowledge that was not disclosed to me as
part of my instruction, but would have been relevant, for example; “Blue
screens and system freezes have always been a problem...”
(WITN04600203).
59. Additionally, it appears that a Known Error Log (“KEL”) was raised because of
Mrs Wolstenholme’s calls to the helpdesk (WITN04600206). This KEL was a
document likely relevant to my investigation. I opined that; “...worrying
‘discrepancies’ in audits. This may, or may not be to do with an ‘upgrade’ of
some of the counters...”. WITN04600206 explains that; “One of the calls that
he has specifically referenced was closed using a Known Error Log. The
presence of a KEL clearly indicates that the problems are investigated and
workarounds provided pending a permanent fix through a system upgrade”.
The KEL was not disclosed to me.
60. Once Post Office (and perhaps Fujitsu) became aware that my Initial Opinion
was adverse to Post Office’s case a suggested course of action was to
“influence the Expert’s opinion by inviting him to Post Office account locations
and provide him with access to data, records and people who can deal with
his observations directly” (WITN04600206). Such data and records had been
requested by me from the outset but were not provided. It appears to me that
Post Office was only considering disclosure of such material when seeking to
redress views expressed in the Initial Opinion.
Page 13 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
Fujitsu Conduct
61.1 have been asked to provide my view of how Fujitsu conducted the
proceedings. Whilst I did not have any direct contact with Fujitsu, it is quite
clear that Fujitsu’s view of the performance of the Post Office Horizon
Helpdesk System is through the lens of its commercial contract with Post
Office, not the view of the Sub Post Masters. This appears to be illustrated by
a comment in FUJ00121512. The Helpdesk; “...operates under strict
contractual Service Level Agreements (SLA) covering aspects such as pick-
up time, first time fix, and time to close. These measures designed to ensure
that Post Masters receive a quick response to their call and, to the extent
possible over the ‘phone, a timely return to normal business operations”. This
appears to reflect a desire by both Post Office and Fujitsu for branches to
continue trading as quickly as possible which, in itself was not unreasonable
but was likely to be detrimental to the Sub Postmasters knowledge of the
ongoing diagnosis of reported Horizon System faults.
62. Fujitsu’s responses to my Initial Opinion could be characterised by me as
claiming; “we disagree with the experts’ opinions because we have fulfilled
our obligation to Post Office”. This was not the primary concern of the current
proceedings nor my Expert Instruction which was to look in isolation at Mrs
Wolstenholme’s Horizon System experience.
63. In the Fujitsu report provided to me at the time, (FUJ00121512) there is the
statement; “/t is worth noting that Fujitsu Services is not aware of similar
complaints or claims being made from the other Outlets in the above list,
Page 14 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
some of which have higher call profiles than Cleveleys’. From my knowledge
of the Bates litigation and the more recent press coverage, I am concerned
that the statement (which may well be factually correct) could be seeking to
direct focus away from complaints or claims that plainly did exist from Post
Office branches but which were perhaps not on the specific list of outlets that
Fujitsu selected for analysis in this table.
64.1 am not aware of the result of these proceedings. I do not recall either party
reported back to me with regard to the outcome, nor can I locate any
judgement via any open-source information.
65.1 have been asked whether anyone at the Post Office or Fujitsu expressed
any concerns with bugs, errors, or defects in the Horizon System? I do not
believe that any bugs, errors, or defects were brought to my attention, other
than what I could see within the narrative from the 90 help desk logs.
66.Looking back today at the table of the 13 branches displayed
(FUJ00121512), there are many reports of problems with “Hardware”,
“Reference data”, “Network”, “Cash Account” and “Software”. In my
experience, such reports typically refer to bugs, errors, or defects rather than
“Advice and Guidance”, “Training” and “Operational” which are very different
categories and are shown in different columns in the Fujitsu table. I do not
know the date range used for the table but as this table is intended to be
representative of the wider Horizon System estate, it suggests to me that all
Sub Postmasters were suffering a high degree of exposure to Horizon System
issues in aspects of the system that Judge Fraser ruled were likely to have
had a lasting impact on branch accounts.
Page 15 of 17
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
GRO-
Dated: 16" May 2023
Page 16 of 17
Index to First Witness Statement of Jason Coyne
WITNO0210100
WITNO0210100
No. I URN Document Description Control Number
1 WITNO00210101 I Initial Opinion dated 21 January 2004 I WITN00210101
2 WITNO00210102 _I Microsoft Excel spreadsheet WITNO0210102
3 WITN04600203 I Post Office Account Review of WITN04600203
Expert Witness Report: Claim
CR101947, author Jan Holmes
4 FUJ00121512 Letter Colin Lenton-Smith, Fujitsu POINQ0127726F
Director Commercial and Finance, to
Keith Baines, Contract Manager (FS)
POL re POCL v Mrs Julie Wolstenholme
5 FUJ00121535 ‘I Email Jason Coyne Best Practice Group I POINQ0127749F
Pic to Weightman Vizards re POL v Mrs
J Wolstenholme
6 WITN04600206 ‘I Fujitsu Services Post Office Account, WITN04600206
Response to the The Expert's Reply to
Fujitsu Services' Submission, author Jan
Holmes
Page 17 of 17