WITNO00430100
WITNO00430100
Witness Name: The Right Honourable Sir Anthony Hooper
Statement No: WITN00430100
Dated: 8 March 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR ANTHONY HOOPER
I, The Right Honourable Sir Anthony Hooper, will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. 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 26 September 2023
(the “Request”).
BACKGROUND
2. Prior to my appointment as Chairman of the Working Group for the Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme (“the Mediation Scheme”), I taught law at various
universities in England and Canada, practiced at the Bar of England and Wales
Page 1 of 6
WITNO00430100
WITNO00430100
primarily in crime, became a High Court judge in 1995 and a Court of Appeal judge
in 2004, retiring in 2012.
. I understand that my appointment as Chairman was initiated by the JFSA and MPs
and approved by POL. The Terms of Reference [POL00022307] set out the
objectives of the Working Group and its rules of procedure. I believed, as apparently
did the representatives of POL and the JFSA, that the objectives were achievable.
. Inthe event of a disagreement between POL and JFSA, the two members of the
Group, I had a casting vote. The principal disagreement between POL and JFSA
related to the issue of mediation. The position of JFSA was that all or substantially all
applicants accepted to the scheme should be entitled to have their cases sent for
mediation so that the SPMs could explain their claims to and discuss their claims
with POL. POL’s view was that a case should not be sent to mediation unless there
was a realistic prospect that mediation would lead to a claim being settled. At first I
agreed with POL but after representations from JFSA about the history of the
scheme, I believe that I largely cast my vote in favour of mediation.
. It became clear to me before POL in March 2015 terminated the Working Group that
the objectives of the Working Group were unlikely to be achieved, a view shared by
JFSA and various MPs.
. As I made clear to Paula Vennells and I believe Alice Perkins, it was in my view
unlikely that the cause of the losses suffered by was, as POL alleged, theft by SPMs
from POL. Most if not all the SPMs were of excellent character. The fact of a loss
would be known to POL within days or weeks. No sensible person would steal from
POL, knowing that POL would identify the loss so quickly leading to the SPM being
prosecuted/dismissed. Whilst I was probably unaware of the true magnitude of the
Page 2 of 6
WITNO00430100
WITNO00430100
complaints by SPMs about Horizon causing the losses, it seemed unlikely that all or
most of the complaints were unfounded. Whilst, as POL alleged, some losses could
be due to errors made in entering transactions, the many high value losses made
that unlikely. Some losses could be due to employee theft, but again that was an
unlikely cause of so many high value losses. As the work of the Group proceeded, it
became clear to me that POL had not properly investigated losses, preferring instead
prosecution/civil action/dismissal. Whilst in my first meeting with Paula Vennells, I
had suggested that convicted SPMs not be included in the scheme, I changed my
mind afterwards. The Minutes show that convicted applicants were accepted and
see also [POL00109982]. My concerns about POL were heightened by the seeming
unwillingness of POL (as the Minutes show) to provide the Working Group and
particularly SS with explanations about surpluses, other than an acceptance that
after 3 years, surpluses were taken into the general accounts. Given the value of the
losses sustained by SPMs and on the assumption that the losses were not caused
by theft, where had the money gone? My concerns increased when I learnt that
SPMs did not have to disclose explained gains.
. The achievement of the objectives of the Working Group became effectively
impossible when POL refused to accept that losses could be caused by Horizon and
the apparent unwillingness of POL to accept any responsibility for the losses. One
case stands out in my memory. An SPM had been invited, if not persuaded, to take
over a branch which had been suspended. He was not told that the reason for the
suspension was a big loss (some £60,000, I recollect). Within a very short time the
branch suffered a further large loss and was, as I remember, suspended again and
the SPO lost a large sum of money. To me it was clear that whatever the contract
between the SPO and the PO said, the SPO deserved to be compensated not
Page 3 of 6
WITNO00430100
WITNO00430100
having been told of the reasons why the branch had earlier been suspended. I learnt,
probably from Alan Bates or Second Sight, that the mediation had failed. Towards
the end of the life of the Working Group some mediations took place. It was decided,
probably by POL, that the Working Group was not to be told about the results of the
mediations until about 25 mediations had concluded and then the Working Group
would only be told about the results in general terms. At about that time I
understood, informally, that none of the mediations had been successful.
. The subsequent refusal by POL to accept that Horizon could be the cause of losses
continued for many years. By the time POL found itself as a respondent before the
Court of Appeal Criminal Division, it had changed its position. As the Court said
((2021] EWCA Crim 577):
70. In its Respondent’s Notice, POL accepted Fraser J’s findings that there
were about 30 bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system, which did
not operate simultaneously and which affected both Legacy Horizon and
Horizon Online, and that there was a significant and material risk on
occasions of branch accounts being affected in the way alleged by the
claimants by bugs, errors and defects. It also accepted that POL failed
to disclose to SPMs and to the courts the full and accurate position in
relation to the reliability of Horizon. In relation to its duties as a private
prosecutor, POL accepted that in cases where the reliability of the ARQ
data was essential to the prosecution case, it had a duty to assess that
data; and that in view of the limitations on the extent to which SPMs could
investigate discrepancies in Horizon, POL had a duty to investigate to
ensure that the evidence was accurate and to pursue reasonable lines
of enquiry raised by the SPM. It was further accepted that Fujitsu had
the ability to insert, inject, edit or delete transaction data or data in branch
accounts; had the ability to implement fixes in Horizon that had the
potential to affect transaction data or data in branch accounts; and had
the ability to rebuild branch data. All of this could be done by Fujitsu
without the knowledge or consent of the SPM.
Page 4 of 6
WITNO00430100
WITNO00430100
9. The Court earlier explained what ARQ data was:
15. Fujitsu held audit data (“ARQ data”), which contained a complete and
accurate record of all keystrokes made by an SPM or an assistant when
using Horizon. It was therefore possible to refer to the audit data to track
every transaction recorded on Horizon.
10. The failure of the Working Group was not due to any structural weakness in its
organisation or work. Its failure to achieve its objectives was solely due to the failure
of POL to accept what it was later to accept before the CACD. I am not in a position
to say whether the management of POL knew or suspected at the time that the
Horizon system was unreliable. The evidence from the subsequent litigation, civil
and criminal, would suggest to me that the management over many years
deliberately failed fully and properly to investigate the cause of the losses
notwithstanding the obvious unlikelihood that SPMs were stealing from POL. That
failure ruined the lives of countless SPMs and must never be forgotten or forgiven.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 8/03/24.
Page 5 of 6
WITNO00430100
WITNO00430100
Index to First Witness Statement of THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR ANTHONY
HOOPER
No. I URN Document Description Control Number
4. POL00022307 I Initial Complaint Review and POL-0018786
Mediation Scheme - Terms of
Reference for the Working Group
2s POL00109982 I Letter from Paula Vennells to POL-0111131
Anthony Hooper regarding Post
Office's approach to mediation
Page 6 of 6