WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF
RODRIC DAVID ALUN WILLIAMS
1, RODRIC DAVID ALUN WILLIAMS, will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. I am an employee of Post Office Limited (“POL”), where I am currently a Head
of Legal in POL’s Remediation Unit. I have been in this role since around
August 2020 when POL established the “Historical Matters” (now called
“Remediation”) Unit to address Postmasters’ ("PMRs”) complaints about
Horizon following the conclusion of the Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd Group
Litigation (the “Group Litigation’). I describe the previous roles I have held at
POL in the ‘Background’ section of this witness statement below.
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 sent to me dated 5
December 2023 (the “Request’). I instructed a firm of solicitors to support me
in my preparation of this witness statement. Most of this statement is within my
own knowledge and I believe that the facts stated are true. Where I have
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
derived information from other sources, I say so, and that information is true to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
3. I take this opportunity to personally acknowledge and express my deep regret
for the significant harm caused to so many individuals by the events the Inquiry
was established to review. I recognise that everyone who has played a role in
those events has a responsibility to assist this process. I hope that by giving my
evidence and answering the Inquiry's questions to the best of my recollection,
I can help the Inquiry to deliver on its Terms of Reference, to establish how
these events happened, and to help those affected find closure.
4. In a number of parts of the Request, the Inquiry has asked me to explain the
steps POL took in relation to particular issues. This statement is my evidence
as an individual, based on my own awareness, and I am not speaking for POL
or its corporate position. Nothing in this statement is intended to waive POL’s
legal professional privilege, and I am not authorised to do so. I understand from
my solicitors that any legal professional privilege that attached to documents
provided to me in connection with this witness statement has been waived, and
although I am not party to the precise details of that waiver, I have sought to
proceed on the basis that privilege has been waived in accordance with the
POL 15 November 2021 response to the Inquiry's request to waive privilege.‘
5. I have been given a bundle of documents that were provided to my solicitors by
the Inquiry, marked with unique reference numbers. I will refer to documents in
that bundle below. I have had some opportunity to refresh my recollection from
other documentation, such as material held by my employer POL that is
1 See Response on behalf of Post Office Limited ‘Legal Professional Privilege’ dated 15 November 2021
2
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
relevant to these events. As a current POL employee, I have also had access
to my POL email inbox to assist me in contextualising that documentation. I
have mainly relied on what has been provided by the Inquiry as I have not had
the opportunity to undertake a detailed or comprehensive review of other
material available to me.
6. The focus of this statement covers a lengthy period going back to 2012, with
significant emphasis on matters which took place not long after I joined POL in
August 2012. Certain issues raised by the Inquiry came up more than once and
at different times during this period, and my understanding of many of them
evolved over that time. I have found it difficult to distinguish the state of my
knowledge at any given time from what I may have learned later. The
documents I have seen have helped to remind me of some things, but there is
much that I cannot remember with certainty. I have also had a relatively limited
time to prepare this statement bearing in mind the number of topics and length
of time covered. If further relevant documents are identified in due course I may
need to clarify or expand upon some matters.
Structure of statement
7. Given that the issues and topics raised by the Inquiry often arise more than
once and at different times during the period, as well as the overlap between a
number of topics and questions asked by the Inquiry, I have structured my
statement broadly chronologically and by topic in answering the Request:
(a) Part 1: Background (paragraphs [8]-[28]);
(b) Part 2: Engagement with Second Sight Prior to their Interim Report
(paragraphs [29]-[41]);
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
10)
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Part 3: Second Sight Interim Report (paragraphs [42]-[63]);
Part 4: Actions arising from Second Sight’s Interim Report (paragraphs
[64}-[123});
(i) Part 4.1: Prosecution and review of criminal cases following the
Second Sight Interim report (paragraphs [72]-[93]);
(ii) Part 4.2: Mediation Scheme and related matters (paragraphs
[94]-[123}),
Part 5: Second Sight’s Part 2 Report and Mediation Scheme thereafter
(paragraphs [124]-[139]);
Part 6: Knowledge of remote access prior to the Group Litigation
(paragraphs [140]-[151]);
Part 7: POL work in respect of criminal’ prosecutions 2014-2016
(paragraphs [152]-[166]);
Part 8: POL communications with external parties 2014-2016
(paragraphs [167]-[175]);
Part 9: The Swift Review and follow up actions (paragraphs [176]-[184]);
Part 10: the Group Litigation (paragraphs [185]-(252]);
(i) Part 10.1: POL's overall strategy during the Group Litigation
(paragraphs [202]-[209]);
(ii) Part 10.2: Information sharing (paragraphs [210]-[214]);
(iii) I Part 10.3: Early work in the Group Litigation proceedings
(paragraphs [215]-[220]);
(iv) _ Part 10.4: Disclosure (paragraphs [221]-[228]);
(v) Part 10.5: Preparation for the Common Issues Trial (paragraphs
[229}-[236}),
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
(vi) Part 10.6: Preparation for Horizon Issues trial (paragraphs [237]-
[246]);
(vii) Part 10.7: Recusal application (paragraph [247]);
(viii) Part 10.8: Engagement with CCRC during the Group Litigation
(paragraphs [248]-[252});
(k) Part 11: Following the Group Litigation (paragraph [253));
(I) Part 12: General (paragraph [255]).
PART 1: BACKGROUND
Career history
8. I have been asked to set out a summary of my career and qualifications until
joining POL.
9. I graduated with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of Otago,
Dunedin New Zealand in 1994, and was admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of
the High Court of New Zealand in 1995. I practised as a “barrister sole” in
Wellington, New Zealand working on a variety of civil law related matters
between 1995 and 1998, when I left New Zealand to travel to the
United Kingdom. I first started working on legal matters in England and Wales
in 1999 when I joined as an associate a small civil litigation practice in London
called Ralph Hume and Garry, before moving to the London office of U.S. firm
Duane Morris as an associate in 2000. I was admitted as a solicitor in England
and Wales in 2002.
10. Between mid-2003 and 2005 I worked for Duane Morris in New York on financial
services litigation matters. I was admitted to the New York bar as an attorney in
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
2006. I returned to England in 2006 where I continued to work for Duane
Morris, before joining Manches LLP as a litigation associate in 2007, where I
worked until joining POL in August 2012.
POL Legal
11. — I joined POL shortly after it formally separated from Royal Mail Group, where I
believe the in-house legal team had been a centralised ‘group function’
supporting the entire Royal Mail business. On separation, members of that
team whose work focused on POL moved over to POL to form a dedicated POL
in-house legal team. That process created the vacancy for an in-house civil
“Litigation Lawyer’, which I filled.
12. When I joined POL, the team was headed by a General Counsel, who I believe
sat on the ‘ExCo’ or ‘Group Exec’/‘GE’ committee of POL’s most senior
executives reporting to POL’s Board. The General Counsel was supported by
a Head of Legal (to whom I reported) and a further approximately 10 lawyers
with various areas of specialism, including commercial contracts, procurement,
IT, telecommunications, property, criminal law, and my litigation role. The in-
house legal team was also supplemented with secondees from external legal
firms from time to time.
13. I Throughout my time at POL, the shape of POL’s in-house legal team has
changed, generally expanding to meet the demand for legal support from the
business. Following Chris Aujard’s appointment as Interim General Counsel in
2013, second and then third ‘Head of Legal’ roles were created, each of whom
reported to the General Counsel. I continued to be line-managed by a Head of
14.
15.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Legal, and around this time I started line-managing junior colleagues. A
Legal Director role was created in 2016 following Jane MacLeod’s appointment
as General Counsel, with initially five Heads of Legal reporting to the Legal
Director, who in turn reported to the General Counsel. I was promoted to “Head
of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand” in 2017 as part of this expansion,
continuing to line-manage junior colleagues as well as taking on more functional
management activities (e.g. around the in-house legal team’s operating models
and budgets).
In 2020, 1 moved out of POL’s ‘business as usual’ legal team to support the
Historical Matters/Remediation Unit established to manage the steps being
taken following the settlement of the Group Litigation. Prior to that unit being
established, I believe I was the only POL-employed lawyer with dispute
resolution experience, acting as the first point of internal contact within the
business for contentious matters. I was, however, frequently supported by
secondees from external law firms.
The Historical Matters/Remediation Unit was established in mid-2020. POL
employees with the skills and experience required to help POL resolve PMR
Horizon complaints following the Group Litigation were transferred to this
dedicated business unit, and I was transferred as part of this internal
reorganisation given my experience in dealing with these matters, in particular
through the Group Litigation. As far as I could tell, the transfer was a human
resources process, which changed my reporting line. I initially reported to the
unit director, and then from April 2022 to the unit's legal director once that role
had been created. Since that time, I have transferred my responsibilities to
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
other lawyers within the unit’s legal team so that I would have the capacity to
respond to a Rule 9 Request.
My Role at POL
16. At the outset I would like to outline some overarching points about my time
working at POL, namely:
(a) My role as an in-house lawyer;
(b) The types of tasks that I would typically be asked to assist with;
(c) I The approach taken to external lawyers; and
(d) — Myrole in relation to criminal law matters.
My role as an in-house lawyer
17. As anin-house lawyer at POL my primary role has been to help POL manage
its legal risks and the provision of legal support and advice to the POL business.
As set out above, I was initially hired as “Litigation Lawyer’, and I was promoted
to “Head of Legal - Dispute Resolution & Brand” in April 2017. I note that many
of the matters referred to in this statement relate to the period before this
promotion. Colleagues within POL would contact me when they had a particular
matter they thought required legal support, and I would look to ensure that
appropriate support was provided having regard to the nature and timing of the
request and the capabilities and capacity of the available resources. In my role
I was contacted to assist with a wide range of matters, reflecting POL’s diverse
business. The diversity of the issues raised with me, and the limits of my own
capacity, meant that throughout my time at POL I routinely referred matters to
POL's external legal advisers in order to ensure POL received the required legal
18.
19.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
support. I would do so especially if the matter was outside of my areas of
expertise, or was complex or likely to take time to conclude. I believe this
reflects the general practice of the POL in-house legal team throughout the time
period covered in this statement.
I have often been brought in to assist with a specific part of a project or to get
involved in a large piece of work already underway. I would not necessarily
know all that has come before, and am not expected to remain engaged with
every project or piece of work unless specifically required. On certain projects I
may be included in email chains not specifically related to my contribution, and
being copied into an email does not necessarily mean I am engaged on a
particular issue or required to focus on it, especially if someone else on the
chain is better placed to do so. If a question is directed at me that I am not best
placed to answer or do not have capacity, then I generally refer it to someone
better placed to deal with it. This approach is necessary to make my workload
manageable and, again, I believe it is consistent with the approach taken by
others within the POL in-house legal team.
The circumstances in which legal professional privilege might apply to
communications to or from me in the course of my work would be determined
by the specific communication. Typically, I would seek to ensure POL could
make a claim for legal professional privilege over any communication to or from
me concerning the provision of legal advice (either from me or an external
adviser), and/or if its dominant purpose was contemplated or actual litigation. I
would often mark (or ask to be marked) as ‘privileged’ communications in
relation to which POL might later wish to make a claim for legal professional
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024.
privilege, recognising that this would not be determinative given that privilege
is a question of substance not form.? I cannot speak for how other members of
the POL legal team approached privilege, but I tried to keep updated on
developments in the law of privilege, and would seek external legal support on
questions of privilege if circumstances required.
Tasks that I would typically be asked to assist with
20. As 1 mentioned at paragraph [17] above, my primary role at POL has been to
manage its legal risks and facilitate the provision of appropriate legal support
and advice to the business. If a matter requiring such support is something I
feel able to comment on then I may give my views. If it relates to a subject I am
not familiar with or falls outside my areas of expertise, then I will either go to a
subject-matter specialist myself, or direct the colleague who has raised the
matter towards one. If detailed advice or sustained support is needed for an
issue then, regardless of the subject matter, I engage POL's external legal
advisers to deliver that support, often putting the external lawyers in direct
contact with POL colleagues or embedding them in the POL team.
21. Over the period covered by this statement, I have liaised with a number of
different legal specialists, both in-house and external. I may have co-ordinated
obtaining instructions or delivering advice within POL, or I may have served as
an escalation point for the external advisers or others within POL who were
working with them.
21 was also aware that as an in-house lawyer privilege might not apply to some of my communications
in the context of EU competition investigations, but in practice that was not a situation I was involved
with.
10
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
22. I have often been asked to distil or synthesise information provided from various
parts of the business for other audiences within the business, particularly if the
information concerns legal issues with which I have some familiarity.
Sometimes I would be specifically told who the information was for. On other
occasions I would provide it to those I thought best placed to receive and act
upon it. My focus when carrying out such tasks is usually on the form of the
information, making sure it is focused and comprehensible for its intended
audience. I generally rely on others for the accuracy of the content, especially
if it concerns areas outside my expertise, with my role being to ‘sense check’ it.
Approach to external lawyers
23. External lawyers would be engaged in the way which best supported the
specific matter on which they were being instructed. Very broadly, the process
could involve the member of the POL legal team directly engaging the external
lawyer for discrete pieces of support or advice, or the external lawyers working
directly with POL non-lawyer colleagues, with the POL lawyer acting as an
escalation point or providing input on specific issues. The latter was often the
case for large or long running projects, or for established business activities.
For example, when I first joined POL the Agent Debt team would liaise directly
with external lawyers at DAC Beachcroft and Womble Bond Dickinson
(‘WBD")? and would not routinely involve a member of the POL legal team.
24. External lawyers would be chosen based on their expertise and understanding
of POL’s business and operations. As an in-house lawyer, I would rely on them
3 Bond Pearce became Bond Dickinson on 1 May 2013 following the completion of a merger. The firm
later merged with a US firm to become Womble Bond Dickinson. In this statement, I always refer to the
firm as WBD.
1
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
to provide the appropriate advice and support as, unless the matter concerned
something I was familiar with and I had capacity, I would not be able to look
behind it.
Role in relation to criminal prosecutions
25. I have been asked by the Inquiry to comment on aspects of criminal
prosecutions. Prior to joining POL, I had no real experience of criminal law
issues, and, although I have developed some understanding of them through
my employment at POL, I still do not believe I have a properly informed basis
to express views on them now and would rely on specialist advice in this area.
I did not prosecute PMRs on behalf of POL, or have first-hand knowledge of
how Horizon was used in prosecutions. Prior to joining POL, I do not recall ever
encountering the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”). As noted
above, I have through my employment by POL developed some understanding
of criminal law processes, which I have obtained from criminal lawyers advising
POL. If I ever sought advice in relation to aspects of criminal law I would rely
on that, especially given I did not have any personal experience to test it
against. For the same reason, if a matter I was involved in raised issues relevant
to criminal prosecutions, I might not identify them. For much of the time covered
by this statement, the criminal law advice POL received was managed within
the POL in-house legal team by my colleague Jarnail Singh (POL Criminal
Lawyer), with my role being to help collate or distil material connected to POL’s
prosecution activities.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Knowledge of Horizon following joining POL
26. Prior to joining POL, I had no knowledge of the Horizon IT System. I was not
briefed or trained in connection with Horizon as part of my induction, and do not
recall it being discussed when I was interviewed for my role in 2012. I later
received basic training on how to operate a Horizon terminal, but my limited
understanding of Horizon as a system has really come from assisting with the
legal issues I describe later in this statement. I have always relied on those with
the appropriate technical or operational knowledge to provide instructions in
relation to Horizon.
27. The Inquiry has drawn my attention to some documents that predate my joining
POL, and asked me to comment on my awareness of them when I joined. I did
not read the Computer Weekly article dated May 20094 prior to joining POL,
and I cannot recall there being any discussion within POL’s legal department,
or more widely within POL, about Computer Weekly's reporting on Horizon
around the time I joined. I do not recall reading the report by Rod Ismay (the
POL Head of Finance Service Centre) of 2 August 2010° when I joined POL
and believe I first saw it sometime in 2020. Nor do I recall seeing the Ernst
&Young LLP (“EY”) Report of 27 March 2011 when I joined POL. Although it is
possible I was sent this, I do not recall if or when I first saw it.©
4 Computer Weekly article "Bankruptcy, prosecution and disrupted livelihoods - Postmasters tell their
story" dated 11 May 2009 (POL00041564)
5 Report of Rod Ismay “Horizon — Response to Challenges Regarding Systems Integrity” dated 2 August
2010 (POL00026572)
6 EY Report “Post Office Limited - Management letter for year ended 27 March 2011" dated 27 March
2011 (POL00030217)
13
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
28. I do not recall being involved in responding to questions raised by PMRs, the
Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance ("JFSA”), MPs or journalists about the
reliability of Horizon when I joined POL, nor being aware of complaints about
Horizon. As I will refer to later, this did change over time.
PART 2: ENGAGEMENT WITH SECOND SIGHT PRIOR TO THEIR INTERIM
REPORT
29. I was first exposed to the controversy around Horizon in September 2012, not
long after I joined POL. The context for this was that I was asked by my line
manager Hugh Flemington (Head of Legal), to assist a project team within POL
led by Simon Baker (Head of Business Change and Assurance) with providing
documents to Second Sight Support Services Limited (“Second Sight’). I
understood this related to work Second Sight were undertaking, exploring
whether Horizon could be the source of unresolved accounting shortages in
Post Office branches.
30. Second Sight had been appointed before I joined POL and I did not have any
direct knowledge of that process or how the scope of Second Sight’s original
retainer was determined. As noted above, my first involvement was assisting
the project team at POL with providing documents to Second Sight to support
their ongoing work. Those documents included legal files, and, as a new lawyer
joining POL, I felt I needed to raise the risks around disclosing legally privileged
documents to a third party without putting a clear framework in place to govern
their use. It was made clear to me by those within POL however that POL
wanted to ensure Second Sight were able to see the privileged documents as
part of their review. I therefore worked with POL’s external lawyers, WBD, to
14
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
put a framework in place to allow that. This was agreed with Second Sight in
mid-October 2012.
31. Also in October 2012, Hugh Flemington asked me to look at a document,
drafted by the JFSA,’” which aimed to encourage PMRs to come forward with
any concerns they had about Horizon being responsible for accounting
shortages in their Post Office branches. I therefore worked with Stephen
Hocking, a public law partner at DAC Beachcroft, to agree with Second Sight
and the JFSA a document entitled ‘Raising Concerns with Horizon’ (“Raising
Concerns’). Raising Concerns set out a process by which concerns regarding
Horizon could be raised, and also clarified the remit, conduct and output of the
work that Second Sight was undertaking (because a retainer for this had
seemingly not been agreed at the time of Second Sight’s appointment). Raising
Concerns was agreed for publication in late December 2012.8
32. While these tasks gave me some awareness of the controversy around
Horizon, I did not get into the detail of Second Sight’s work or the underlying
complaints, and I was not involved in considering the merits of any of the
concerns being examined by Second Sight.
Second Sight Spot Reviews
My role in the ‘Spot Review’ process
33. 1 do not now recall when or how I first became aware that ‘Spot Reviews’ were
being carried out in connection with Second Sight’s work. I do recall that these
7 This is the first time I recall dealing with the JFSA, although it is likely that they had been mentioned
to me beforehand, for example when I was arranging for documents to be provided to Second Sight.
8 Signed ‘Raising Concerns with Horizon’ document (undated) (POL00060374)
15
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
were a mechanism developed by POL and Second Sight to understand better
some of the specific complaints PMRs had raised, by looking into them closely
to try to draw out and address key themes, questions and issues. This work
was undertaken by the POL project team working with Second Sight, which did
not include me, supported by external lawyers WBD.
34, I remember reviewing drafts of a number of Spot Reviews to get a sense of
what they looked like, and sharing some thoughts with WBD. I do not now recall
my comments, although it is likely that they related to whether the Spot Reviews
were comprehensible and would serve the purpose for which they were
prepared. I recall that POL sought to organise the preparation and drafting of
the Spot Reviews in a way that would maximise the potential for POL to claim
legal professional privilege over them and any exchanges with Fujitsu relating
to them as they were being developed. I believe the basis for this was broadly
that they concerned contentious issues, which WBD as POL’s solicitors (with
recent experience of responding to Horizon related claims advanced by the law
firm Shoosmiths) would investigate, draft and advise on as appropriate, before
finalised, non-privileged, Spot Reviews would be released.° I do not sufficiently
recall the details of Spot Reviews to comment now on the points raised by Kay
Linnell in her email of 14 May 2013.'° I do believe, however, that the Spot
Reviews were prepared for Second Sight as forensic accountants to take
forward through their investigation.
° See for example Email of Rodric Williams to Simon Baker dated 12 May 2013 at 23.56 (POL00296484)
*° Email from Kay Linnell to Ron Warmington and others dated 14 May 2013 at 10.41 (POL00098294)
16
35.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
I have been asked to consider draft Spot Review SRO01."" I do not recall having
any meaningful input on this document during the Spot Review process, and,
as noted above, I would not have been able to comment on the technical
aspects of it.
Digesting information relating to the Spot Review process
36.
The Inquiry has asked me to comment on a draft email addressed to John Scott
(the POL Head of Security) and Rob King (the POL Senior Security Manager
and his deputy), which was sent to me and Simon Baker on 13 May 2013 by
Dave Posnett (an Accredited Financial Investigator).12 The draft contains a
series of bullet point updates on the Spot Review process. It appears from the
email that I had asked for draft updates to be sent to me for forward
transmission to John Scott and Rob King. I believe I requested this for two
reasons. First, part of my role was sometimes to review and/or distil information
provided by one part of the business comprehensibly for other parts of the
business so that there was a consistent ‘joined up’ position. Second, if the
emails contained legal advice or concerned matters on which legal advice
would be required then POL would be better placed to claim legal professional
privilege over the material if it had been sent to or received by a legal adviser. I
would not have been able to, or expected to, verify the factual statements Dave
Posnett made in his draft email to me that ‘{njone of the Spot Reviews to date
have found specific faults with Horizon”, and Dave Posnett did not seek my
"' Draft Horizon Spot Review SRO01 dated 4 October 2012 (POL00040888)
12 Email from Dave Posnett to Rodric Williams dated 13 May 2013 at 19.34 (POL00107912)
17
37.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
input on that point. When I forwarded the email to John Scott and Rob King on
22 May 2014, this phrase was unchanged.‘3
An email I sent to Paula Vennells (the POL Chief Executive) on 27 June 2013'4
is anexample of me co-ordinating and distilling input from different parts of the
business. The content would have come from various sources. I cannot
remember who else was present at the meeting referred to in the email, but I
copied my line manager Hugh Flemington and Alwyn Lyons (the POL Company
Secretary) and the email was forwarded to Susan Crichton (HR & Corporate
Services Director’). In terms of the contents of the email, my general
understanding is that POL did not believe there were systemic issues with
Horizon at the time because the system was being used in a large number of
branches by a large number of users to process a very large number of
transactions every day. If there had been systemic issues, POL therefore
expected that there would have been complaints and business disruption from
a much greater number of system users than it seemed to be experiencing. The
Inquiry has drawn my attention to two specific passages in the email relating to
criminal prosecutions and convictions:
“Second Sight seem to be saying that because Horizon has “bugs”, it is
not safe for Post Office to rely upon the data it produces, e.g. in a criminal
case to show branch shortfalls”
“No cases since at least separation have seen convictions secured on
Horizon-based evidence alone, e.g. there has also been a paper trail,
money in bank account, and/or lies at interview exposed”.
‘3 Email from Dave Posnett to Rodric Williams dated 22 May 2013 at 09.59 (POL00107919)
‘4 Email from Rodric Williams to Paula Vennells dated 27 June 2013 at 15.02 (POL00098774)
1® This was Susan Crichton’s title, but functionally her role was one of General Counsel.
18
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
For the reasons set out at paragraph [25] I believe these passages will have
been provided by or derived from POL’s criminal lawyers.
38. The Inquiry has also asked me to comment on an email of 2 April 2013 sent
from Simon Baker to Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu, who was providing technical
input on the Spot Reviews, and Andy Winn, who was a Relationship Manager
in Rod Ismay’s team at POL’s Finance Service Centre.‘ I was copied into this
email along with a number of others but have no specific recollection of it now,
and do not remember attending the workshop Simon Baker mentions. I have,
however, found an email showing that Simon asked me to help find a room for
the workshop on 10 April 2013 at WBD, who presumably were the “legal
adviser” referred to in the email. The meeting appears to have proceeded at
POL's offices and been attended by Gavin Matthews and Andrew (Andy)
Parsons from WBD. The Inquiry has drawn my attention to the following specific
passage in the email:
“our responses don't...drive home our message in a compelling way —
that would persuade MPs or the media or members of the public that
there are no issues [with Horizon.]”
I did not write this but, given that POL did not believe there were systemic issues
with Horizon at the time, it seems to me that if there was a credible response to
an issue raised in a Spot Review, then POL would have wanted that to be
clearly articulated for others to see.
16 Email from Simon Baker to Gareth Jenkins and others dated 2 April 2013 at 20.09 (POL00097917)
19
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Civil recovery and the Spot Review process
39. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on the extent to which POL continued
seeking civil recovery of alleged debt from PMRs during the Second Sight
investigation. I have been reminded by emails from the time that the Agent Debt
team sought advice on the approach they should take to civil recovery when a
Spot Review was pending. In response, I wrote to Alison Bolsover (Debt
Recovery Senior Manager) to say that POL could not start taking civil action
against any individual who had submitted an issue to Second Sight (in line with
Raising Concerns referred to in paragraph [31] above). I asked Simon Baker to
get a list of everyone who had done this, so it could be supplied to the Agent
Debt team.'” I understand that the Agent Debt team did intend to halt all
standard debt recovery processes for such cases, and that they were provided
with updated lists as further cases came forward.
40. In January 2013 the Agent Debt team had their own processes for discussing
and seeking to resolve or recover branch shortfalls, with some cases eventually
escalating to legal proceedings.'* As I mentioned at paragraph [23] above, the
in-house legal team at POL did not typically get involved in this process.
Instead, the Agent Debt team would deal directly with POL’s external lawyers
(in this case, DAC Beachcroft) who would contact POL legal if they wanted to
raise a particular issue on a specific case.
41. The Inquiry has also asked me to comment on an email of April 2013 from
Michelle Stevens (Missing Cheques & Former Agents Accounts Manager)
7 Email from Rodric Williams to Alison Bolsover and others dated 20 May 2013 at 14.32
(POL00086707)
‘8 Email from Sarah Gomes to Rodric Williams dated 3 January 2013 at 15.58 (POL00107854)
20
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
aaa Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
relating to debt recovery following the criminal conviction of Lynette Hutchings
in August 2012." I have no recollection of this email or the matter to which it
relates, but it indicates that the basis for seeking recovery was that the amount
alleged to have been gained was the proceeds of crime. I can see that I raised
the need to consider carefully what steps, if any, should be taken whilst the
Second Sight investigation was still ongoing, and that I added Andy Pheasant
of WBD to the chain so he could provide his input directly to the Agent Debt
team. The email chain suggests that the Agent Debt team may have put their
processes on hold, but, if this was not a case being considered by Second
Sight, then my understanding is that there was an opportunity for the PMR to
dispute recovery through the standard recovery process.
PART 3: SECOND SIGHT INTERIM REPORT
42. I described my initial involvement with Second Sight’s work in 2013 at
paragraphs [29] to [32] above. Through this I gained some awareness of the
controversy around Horizon. I did not, however, get into detail about Second
Sight's work or the complaints about Horizon until later, when Second Sight
came to publish an update on their findings in the Second Sight ‘Interim Report
into alleged problems with the Horizon system’ (“Interim Report’) in mid-2013.
At that point, POL received a draft of the Interim Report, and its impending
publication generated significant activity within POL. As part of that, I was asked
to assist senior management in relation to the draft Interim Report and POL’s
response to it. This involved collating and synthesising information from various
sources on matters which the Interim Report might raise. I set out below at
18 Email from Rodric Williams to Michelle Stevens and others dated 17 April 2013 at 18.29
(POL00114617)
21
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
a Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
paragraphs [43] to [57] the issues that I was asked to look into as part of this
work, and then set out at paragraphs [58] to [60] my work assisting with liaison
with senior management.
Knowledge of BEDs
43. twas the imminent publication of the Second Sight Interim Report that focused
attention on bugs, errors and defects (“BEDs”) in Horizon and through this, I
learned that POL was aware of two ‘bugs’, which had been raised with Second
Sight and would be discussed in their Interim Report. The information I saw
indicated that these bugs had all been identified and resolved, and relevant
affected parties had been, or were now being, informed. I discuss this further in
paragraphs [44] to [54] below. It was also through the Second Sight process
that I recall first becoming aware of issues relating to criminal prosecutions and
duties of disclosure relating to BEDs. I discuss this further at paragraphs [72]
to [75] below.
The Callendar Square bug and Horizon issues in litigation
44. I have been asked to comment on some 1 July 2013 emails concerning the
‘Callendar Square bug’ (sometimes called the ‘Falkirk’ bug).2° These events
happened over 10 years ago, so I do not now have a firm recollection of how
they unfolded. As far as I recall, I was asked by Simon Baker to find out whether
Horizon bugs had been referred to in any previous court actions, in anticipation
20 Email from Jarnail Singh to Hugh Flemington and others dated 1 July 2013 at 16.47 (POL00062368);
Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams dated 1 July 2013 at 14.49 (POL00060590); Bond Pearce
document ‘Horizon is free from defects’ (POL00060591); Bond Pearce Memo ‘Misra transcript’ dated
October 2011 (POL00060592), Bond Pearce document ‘POL Training Adequate’ (POL00060593); and
Bond Pearce document titled ‘POL Helpline Adequate’ (POL00060594)
22
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric- David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
of the publication of the Second Sight Interim Report. This led me to put this
question to WBD and DAC Beachcroft, given that to the best of my knowledge
they were the POL external lawyers most likely to have supported POL in any
civil action.
45. This activity made clear to me that Horizon bugs had been discussed in two
court cases, namely the 2007 civil case of Post Office Limited v Castleton
[2007] EWHC 5 (QB) and the 2010 criminal prosecution of Seema Misra. In the
context that I was looking at them in mid-2013 however, there was no reason
for me to look into this further. That was because the cases had concluded quite
some time earlier and there were no indications from those I was supplying the
information to that anything further was required.
The local suspense and receipts and payments mismatch bugs
46. I have been asked to comment on my knowledge in mid-2043 of the ‘local
suspense bug’ (sometimes called the ‘14 Branch bug’ or ‘B14’, reflecting the
number of branches believed to have been affected). I have been referred by
the Inquiry to some emails mentioning it from around the same time as those
relating to the ‘Callendar Square bug’, referred to above.' I believe that POL
had brought the ‘local suspense bug’, along with the ‘receipts payments
mismatch bug’ (sometimes referred to as the ‘64 Branch Bug’, again reflecting
the number of affected branches) to Second Sight’s attention. The context in
21 Email from Rodric Williams to Lesley Sewell and others dated 27 June 2013 at 18.54 (POL00144855);
Draft letter to J Mistry ‘Re Branch Discrepancies’ (POL00144856); Draft letter to D Cheape ‘Re Branch
Discrepancies at Dundas Post Office’ (POL00144857); Email from Rod Ismay to Rodric Williams and
others dated 28 June 2013 at 14.01 (POL00029622); ‘Branch Accounting Incidents’ (POL00029623);
Draft letter to J Mistry v2 ‘Re Branch Discrepancies’ (POL00141543); and Email from Hugh Flemington
to Susan Crichton dated 4 July 2013 at 07.51 (POL00098969)
23
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
which I came to deal with these bugs was the same as I have described above
in respect of the Callendar Square bug, and my role was again to collate and
distil information for use by others considering POL's response to the Interim
Report. I was also involved in instructing WBD to help POL write to notify the
affected (non-POL operated?*) branches about these bugs,?3 with the WBD
draft letters appearing to have been finalised by others within POL.2+
47. Although I cannot now remember precisely what took place at this time, from
re-reading the documents provided to me by the Inquiry it appears that Lesley
Sewell (Chief Information Officer) wanted to see a timeline of the steps taken
with respect to the ‘local suspense bug’. I discussed the matter with the relevant
subject matter expert within POL, Andy Winn. I then recorded that discussion
in an email which I circulated to the appropriate people within POL, copying
Andy Winn to make sure I had fairly reflected what he had told me. Hugh
Flemington then forwarded this to Susan Crichton and Jarnail Singh, to ensure
that the different parts of the POL legal team (who might be fielding enquiries
from different parts of the business) remained up to date with developments.
The letters were also shared with POL’s external criminal lawyers Cartwright
King for their input. Like the Callendar Square bug, the ‘local suspense bug’
seems to have been known to those responsible for managing Horizon, and
Fujitsu seems to have confirmed that the issue had been resolved. As far as I
was aware therefore, the focus in mid-2013 was on making sure the PMRs
22 ‘Crown’ branches were branches directly managed by POL.
23 Email from Rodric Williams to Lesley Sewell and others dated 27 June 2013 at 18.51 (POL00144855);
Draft letter to J Mistry ‘Re Branch Discrepancies’ (POL00144856); and Draft letter to D Cheape ‘Re
Branch Discrepancies at Dundas Post Office (POL00144857)
24 Email from Rod Ismay to Rodric Williams and others dated 28 June 2013 at 14.01 (POL00029622);
and ‘Branch Accounting Incidents’ (POL00029623)
24
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
whose branches had been affected were all made aware of the issue through
these letters.
48. The Inquiry has asked me specifically about my comment in POL00144855 that
“Legal need to do a final cross check of the intended recipients to make sure
they are not the subject of any prosecutions/investigations”. This links to a
second comment I made in POL00029622 (“reminder that no correspondence
is to be sent on this issue until authorised by Post Office Legal’). As I explained
at paragraph [22] above, at times part of my job would be to help manage the
consistent movement of information within POL. In this case, where the legal
team was ‘holding the pen’ on the letters, that meant making sure the letters
were not sent out until they had been approved by any other parts of the
business which could be affected by them. In this case, that included POL’s
criminal law team, who were considering the bugs for disclosure purposes. As
it transpired, one of the affected Post Office branches (operated by the chain
Costcutter) was the subject of a prosecution being conducted by the Crown
Prosecution Service (“CPS”), so advice was taken from POL's external criminal
lawyers Cartwright King, who ultimately advised that POL could send the letters
to the affected branches and that Cartwright King would address disclosure with
the CPS (see paragraphs [49] to [50] below).”5 Legal professional privilege was
being asserted over this email because POL was taking legal advice on the
form and content of the draft letters from its external civil and criminal lawyers.
The final ‘as sent’ versions of the letters were not legally privileged.
25 Email from Simon Clarke to Rodric Williams dated 4 July 2013 at 14.14 (POL00006540)
25
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
49. I have been referred by the Inquiry to an email exchange with Simon Clarke of
Cartwright King on 3 and 4 July 2013, following a meeting I attended with him.26
I do not recall that meeting but it seems my email attempted to summarise it
and the actions arising from it. My email refers to the Costcutter prosecution
that had been affected by the ‘local suspense bug’. The Inquiry has also shown
me an email chain from 4 July 2013, which includes information provided by
Gareth Jenkins at Fujitsu about when the ‘local suspense bug’ was raised.2” My
role in this was again I believe concerned with ensuring that relevant
information was shared with those who might need to act upon it. In this case,
that seemed to be providing to Cartwright King the information collated on the
‘local suspense bug’ to enable them to provide their advice to POL.
50. I have also been asked to comment on an email sent by Hugh Flemington to
Cartwright King, copying me, at 08:01 on 4 July 2013.28 I believe this shows
Hugh undertaking the same role as I described above, namely ensuring that
they had the relevant information (in this case, Andy Winn’s update to the ‘local
suspense bug’ timeline I had sent to them earlier). I do not know but suspect
that Susan Crichton forwarded the email chain to Simon Baker so that he was
similarly “joined up” on what was being said about the ‘local suspense bug’.
51. The Inquiry has also asked me to comment on any concerns I had, arising from
what I knew about the ‘local suspense bug’, about the overall reliability of the
Horizon IT system. From my involvement, my understanding was that Horizon
had some errors, but these were few, affected a small number of branches, and
26 Email from Rodric Williams to Martin Smith and others on 3 July 2013 at 19.50 (POL001451 30); and
Email from Simon Clarke to Rodric Williams dated 4 July 2013 at 11.03 (POL00145145)
27 Email from Susan Crichton to Simon Baker dated 4 July 2013 at 12.49 (POL00029648)
28 Email from Hugh Flemington to Simon Clarke dated 4 July 2013 at 08.01 (POL00145142)
26
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
were being identified, and that there were processes in place for identifying and
resolving the issues.?
Other BEDs
52. The Inquiry has also asked me about any other BEDs I was aware of by July
2013. At the end of July 2013, I was made aware of an issue by John Scott,
after Dave Posnett had reported observing an anomaly at a particular Post
Office branch during a security visit.2° I was copied into emails about this and
asked to provide legal support as appropriate. Further emails that I was copied
into confirmed that Steve Beddoe (Senior IT Services Manager) was looking
into the matter, and would be passing information about it on to Fujitsu. As far
as I was concerned given my newness to the issues, those who needed to be
aware of the issue in order to resolve it were therefore involved.3"
Michael Rudkin/Bracknell allegations
53. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on two further emails from mid-2013,
sent around the same time as those mentioned above.*? I believe the first
relates to an issue which arose out of Spot Review SR005, and involved an
allegation made by Michael Rudkin that he had observed an individual at the
Fujitsu office in Bracknell demonstrating an ability to alter remotely transactions
in the Horizon system. As far as I can recall, this was the first time I encountered
29 For example, this was the information conveyed to me in Email from Hugh Flemington to Rodric
Williams dated 27 June 2013 at 18.21 (POL00296729)
3° Email from John Scott to Rodric Williams dated 31 July 2013 at 11.37 (POL00298046)
31 By this stage, as I discuss below, the weekly Horizon call had been established. My role was to
ensure, in line with the objective of the weekly Horizon call, that issues like this with Horizon were
collated in one place. See details of the weekly calls at paragraph [69] to [71] below.
2 Email from Simon Baker to Rodric Williams dated 1 July 2013 at 10.31 (POL00060580); and Email
from Simon Baker to Andrew Winn and others dated 22 July 2013 at 15.33 (POL00099340)
27
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the allegation that it was possible for Fujitsu or POL to gain ‘remote access’ to
Horizon and alter individual Post Office branch accounts. I now know this to be
a recurring theme (albeit at times expressed differently) in PMRs’ complaints
about Horizon.
54. As reflected in POL00060580, Simon Baker asked me to help produce a
witness statement from someone suitable at Fujitsu to respond to the allegation,
which was being considered by Second Sight and which they wanted to
address. I therefore put WBD in touch with Martin Rolfe, who had been
identified as the appropriate person to respond to the allegation, and WBD duly
prepared and agreed a statement with him.3
55. The email chain at POL00099340 concerns stock adjustments relating to
stamps. I do not recall playing any role. The chain was forwarded to me on 16
July 2013, but I was on holiday. I assume that is why I then dropped off
subsequent emails. Those involved included Simon Baker, Craig Tuthill (Head
of Network Services), Lin Norbury (Agents Contracts Deployment Manager
South), Angela van den Bogerd (People Services Director) and Rod Ismay,
who, based on my limited experience at that time, were senior individuals within
the POL business well placed to address Post Office branch processes and
procedures being investigated by Second Sight.
38 Email from Andy Pheasant to Martin Rolfe dated 3 July 2013 at 12.04 (POL00190358)
28
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
The Helen Rose report
56. The Helen Rose report is a document I was asked to look at by Susan
Crichton in July 2013. My email to her summarising the background to the issue
explains that Second Sight had approached Angela van den Bogerd in 2012,
prior to the Spot Review process being established, about a potential issue
relating to a transaction reversal at the Lepton Post Office Branch.35 Angela van
den Bogerd asked Helen Rose (POL Security Manager - Fraud Analyst) to look
into the transaction data to see if she could identify any anomalies around the
transaction reversal, and Helen Rose made enquiries of Gareth Jenkins at
Fujitsu about it. Although it appears that the Spot Review process went into this
type of transaction issue in greater detail, superseding Helen Rose's work, it
appeared Helen Rose nevertheless packaged the work into a report, which
Dave Posnett sent to me on 14 June 2013.36
57. — I understand that Helen Rose marked her report as legally privileged because
she intended to send it to POL Legal for review. Although Dave Posnett noted
in his email to me that the Lepton Post Office Branch did not feature as part of
the Second Sight Spot Reviews, he asked me to consider it and provide any
comments, particularly in terms of using the data for evidence/prosecution
purposes. I then forwarded the email and report on to Andy Parsons at WBD
so he could consider the issue and give me an overview.?” Andy noted that
(contrary to Dave Posnett’s understanding) the reported transaction reversal at
* Draft report ‘Horizon data Lepton SPSO 191320’ (“Helen Rose report”) dated 12 June 2013
(POL00022598)
% Email from Rodric Williams to Susan Crichton dated 13 July 2013 at 00.48 (POL00191994)
3° Email from Dave Posnett to Rodric Williams dated 14 June 2013 at 09.23 (POL00188312)
37 Email from Rodric Williams to Andy Parsons dated 3 July 2013 at 08.53 (POL00190324)
29
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
me Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITNO8420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the Lepton Post Office Branch did relate to the Spot Reviews, but that the Helen
Rose report did not undermine the Spot Review response. The advice was that
the proposed solution in the report regarding the availability of data was a
sensible one, but would probably need the support of Fujitsu.2® I then sent the
report on to Martin Smith and Simon Clarke at Cartwright King on 8 July 2013
and asked them to ensure that the issue was considered as part of their review
of the historic prosecution files and also in connection with existing cases.*9 I
will return to this below at paragraphs [73] to [79] as part of the discussion on
criminal prosecutions.
Liaison with senior management in connection with draft and final Second Sight
Interim Report
58. . On 2 July 2013, I was asked by Hugh Flemington and Susan Crichton to
coordinate revisions to a draft briefing note he had prepared for Paula
Vennells, to provide a consolidated overview of the background to and issues
arising out of the draft Second Sight Interim Report. I do not recall the origins
of this draft briefing note, but at some point in the process I became the one
‘holding the pen’.
59. I have been asked specifically to explain the background to paragraph 25 of the
briefing note concerning a Costcutter branch and any further work I carried out
in relation to it. I set this out at paragraphs [46] to [51] above.
36 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric William dated 3 July 2013 at 10.43 (POL00145108)
3° Email from Rodric Williams to Martin Smith and others dated 8 July 2013 at 14.19 (POL00145261)
40 Email from Rodric Williams to Lesley Sewell and others dated 2 July 2013 at 14.19 (POL00115918);
and ‘Internal Briefing Note to Paula Vennells: Second Sight review into Horizon — Implications of Interim
Report’ dated 2 July 2013 (POL00115919)
30
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
60. The Inquiry has shown me an email dated 5 July 2013 from Paula Vennells.4
This refers to a meeting I did not attend where the issue of charging PMRs with
more than one offence was apparently discussed. I later became aware of
allegations that POL prosecutors had been improperly charging defendants
with theft and false accounting so that they would plead guilty to the ‘lesser
charge’ of false accounting. I comment further on this subject at paragraph [200]
below.
Circulation of finalised Second Sight Interim Report
61. I understand that Second Sight finalised their Interim Report on 7 July 2013.
When the final Second Sight Interim Report was first shared with POL, it went
to people at a senior level. Having looked at my emails it appears it was then
forwarded on to me late the same evening.*2 Having reviewed the final Interim
Report as part of the preparation of this statement, it seems broadly consistent
with the draft I had previously seen.
62. I have been asked specifically to comment on Second Sight's use of the word
‘systemic’ in the report, which I assume refers to paragraph 8.2(a), where
Second Sight wrote that: ‘we have so far found no evidence of system wide
(systemic) problems with the Horizon software”. As far as I can recall, I
understood this to mean that although Second Sight's Interim Report discussed
some specific issues with Horizon and user support, they had not identified any
fundamental flaw with the system which called into question its reliability
“' Email from Paula Vennells to Alwen Lyons dated 5 July 2013 at 17.33 (POL00115958)
#2 Email from Simon Baker to Paula Vennells and others dated 7 duly 2013 at 16.30 (POL00115985);
and Second Sight ‘Interim Report into alleged problems with the Horizon system’ (POL00099063)
31
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
generally. This was regarded within POL as a positive outcome, as reflected in
Simon Baker's email at POL00115985.
63. I amalso referred to my email to Paula Vennells of 8 July 2013, which provides
commentary on the Interim Report. Reviewing the position now, it seems that
on the evening of Sunday 7 July 2013 Paula Vennells asked for a summary of
the comments made within POL about the Interim Report for use on a call she
would be having with Alan Bates from the JFSA the next morning. I prepared
that summary the same night (with some direction from Susan Crichton) and
sent it early in the morning of Monday 8 July 2013.7 I cannot speak for POL as
to whether this summary fully reflected all points of disagreement with the
Interim Report. It did, however, reflect the general concern amongst those in
POL who were considering the Interim Report that the document often failed to
set out clear reasoning and evidenced basis for their findings which were
required if POL was to understand properly and start addressing the issues
Second Sight had identified. POL had tried to encourage Second Sight to set
out the clear reasoning and evidential basis for their findings both when Raising
Concerns was agreed and also I recall on a call I attended before the draft
Interim Report was finalised.
PART 4: ACTIONS ARISING FROM SECOND SIGHT’S INTERIM REPORT
64. POL's strategic response to the Second Sight Interim Report was a matter for
senior management and the Board and POL Legal was asked for input as
required. For example, in a draft board update on 22 July 2023, I set out the
48 Email from Rodric Williams to Paula Vennells and others on 8 July 2013 at 01.42 (POL00099107)
32
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
headline legal issues, as far as I understood them, that POL Legal had been
asked to consider following the publication of the Interim Report.4+
65. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on this draft board update as well as the
cover email attaching it that I sent to Susan Crichton on 22 July 2013.5 I do not
now recall how the request for the update came about. Having reviewed emails
from around this time, it seems that I sent my email to Susan on the only day I
worked during a period of annual leave between 13 and 25 July 2013. I was not
across all the workstreams mentioned in the draft board update so it must have
been created by collating, distilling and checking information from other
sources.*® There are placeholders and queries in the draft, including asking
Jarnail Singh to confirm who the disclosure officer was when POL prosecuted
criminal cases. I have been asked to comment on why there was a section on
directors’ personal liabilities. I believe this was included in response to a specific
request from the Board. The information for this part of the update came from
WBD who sent me a summary of director's duties and actions that could give
tise to personal liability.4”
66. I have been asked a number of questions by the Inquiry that broadly relate to
two of the legal issues that arose from the Second Sight Interim Report: (a) the
approach to criminal prosecutions and past convictions, and (b) the approach
to resolving cases that Second Sight had been investigating. I was not leading
on either of these issues but had varying degrees of awareness of them. These
44 Draft update to the Board regarding Horizon Legal Issues dated 22 July 2013 (POL00040002)
45 Email from Susan Crichton to Andy Parsons dated 23 July 2013 at 21.51 (POL00040001); and Draft
update to the Board regarding Horizon Legal Issues dated 22 July 2013 (POL00040002)
46 See for example Email from Martin Smith to Rodric Williams dated 10 July 2013 at 14.18
(POL00297588)
47 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams dated 22 July 2013 at 14.02 (POL00297873)
33
67.
68.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
issues were being dealt with at the same time and there was overlap between
the two, as POL was trying to ensure a joined up approach. It may be most
helpful to the Inquiry, however, if I deal with questions relating to each issue in
turn. I will first briefly introduce each issue, and then address it in greater detail
under its own heading below.
In short, after the Second Sight Interim Report the main change to the approach
to criminal prosecutions and past convictions was that prosecutorial work was
paused while POL’s external criminal lawyers, Cartwright King, carried out a
review of past convictions in order to ensure that POL complied with its duties
of disclosure as a prosecutor (referred to as the “Sift Review”). I discuss my
involvement in that process in Part 4.1 below (paragraphs [73] to [75]). POL’s
prosecution policy was also redrafted with the advice of external counsel (see
Part 4.1, paragraph [93] below).
Similarly, after the Second Sight Interim Report the approach taken to resolving
cases that Second Sight had been investigating, along with similar complaints,
shifted to the ‘Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme’ (the “Scheme’),
which had been developed by POL, Second Sight and the JFSA. The idea
behind the Scheme was that PMRs would submit their complaints to the
Scheme through written applications articulating their concerns, which POL
would then review and report on through a Post Office Investigation Report
(‘POIR’). This material would then be passed to Second Sight, who would make
their own assessment of the complaint and POL’s report and recommend
whether they thought the issues were capable of resolution through
34
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITNO8420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
mediation.** I deal with the Scheme, along with issues that arose in connection
with it, in Part 4.2 below (paragraphs [94] to [101] and [115] to [123]). Part 4.2
will also deal with the decision to instruct Linklaters for legal advice in
connection with POL’s contract with PMRs and the subsequent instruction of
Deloitte (paragraphs [102] to [114] below).
Regular Conference Call
69. The Inquiry has shown me an email concerning a regular Horizon conference
call which was set up between POL and its external lawyers in response to the
Interim Report.*9 My recollection is that the purpose behind the calls was for
issues with Horizon to be raised and recorded so there would be visibility of
them across the business and to avoid operating in silos. I also recall that POL’s
external criminal lawyers were keen to have these calls so as to create a record
of Horizon issues which they could consider for disclosure in prosecutions. I
believe this position is reflected in an email I sent on 12 July 2013 to John Scott,
POL’s Head of Security, who would be leading the calls.® Below at [81] I
address the concerns raised by Simon Clarke regarding allegations that
material relating to these calls was destroyed. As I note there, my
understanding was that these meetings were intended to be and were minuted
so as to ensure there was visibility amongst the business of any Horizon issues.
70. I have no reason to believe the minutes taken of these weekly calls did not fairly
reflect the discussions that took place. The Inquiry has asked me if there were
“8 I believe details of this are more fully described in Post Office Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme (“End of Term Report”) (POL00040935)
4° Email from John Scott to Susan Crichton dated 14 August 2013 at 07.39 (POL.00139690)
®° Email from Rodric Williams to John Scott dated 12 July 2013 at 17.34 (POL00191968)
35
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
~ Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
discussions regarding whether notes should be taken and, if so, in what format.
As I mentioned above, my understanding is that the very purpose of these
meetings was to ensure that issues with Horizon were raised and recorded, so
keeping a record in minutes was always seen as important.
71. I do not recall contributing much to the calls, which largely seemed to focus on
operational issues. I do not recall attending the first two calls the Inquiry has
asked about as I was on annual leave.5' The Inquiry has asked me to comment
on the minutes taken of the call held on 31 July 2013.52 I do not now recall that
call, but have no reason to believe that the minutes would not fairly reflect its
content.
PART 4.1: PROSECUTION AND REVIEW OF CRIMINAL CASES FOLLOWING THE
SECOND SIGHT INTERIM REPORT
Cartwright King advice and the Second Sight Interim Report
72. The Inquiry has asked me about a number of pieces of advice that were given
to POL by Cartwright King immediately before, and then following, the
publication of the Second Sight Interim Report. As I set out at paragraph [25]
above, I had no background in criminal law and was therefore relied on
specialist legal advice in respect of matters relating to criminal prosecutions.
Cartwright King ‘Sift Review’
73. Shortly before Second Sight published their Interim Report I became aware
from activity taking place in the in-house legal team that the Interim Report, and
5! Note of Regular Call regarding Horizon issues dated 19 July 2013 (POL00083932); and Note of
Regular Call regarding Horizon issues dated 24 July 2013 (POL00083933)
52 Note of Regular Call regarding Horizon issues dated 31 July 2013 (POL00083934)
36
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
in particular its discussion of two bugs in Horizon, had raised a significant issue
for POL's prosecution activities which needed to be addressed, as those
conducting the prosecution did not seem to be aware of the bugs.
74. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email I sent to Simon Clarke and
Martin Smith of Cartwright King on 5 July 2013, shortly before the publication
of the Second Sight Interim Report. This refers to a summary of all Spot
Reviews and the underlying source documents. I recall that WBD had created
a “Spot Review Bible” to collate information on Spot Reviews in one place. Spot
Reviews were provided to Cartwright King so that they could consider this
material when advising POL, in the same way and for the same reasons as the
‘local suspense bug’ information referred to in paragraph [49] above.
75. — Cartwright King advised that in light of the Interim Report it was necessary for
POL to carry out a review of past convictions (i.e. the Sift Review referred to at
paragraph [67] above) in order for POL to comply with its duties of disclosure
as a prosecutor. Cartwright King then proceeded to carry this out. I was aware
of the process the Sift Review would follow having been sent the protocol for it
on 13 July 2013, and I recall reading one or two reports on particular
prosecutions to get a feel for Cartwright King’s work. I could not and did not
express a view on the substance however, and I do not recall having any direct
involvement in the Sift Review beyond seeking updates on it from time to time.
Brian Altman KC subsequently carried out his own review of the Sift Review,
which I discuss at paragraphs [83] to [84] and [87] to [88] below.
5° Email from Rodric Williams to Martin Smith and others dated 5 July 2013 at 11.22 (POL00062162)
37
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
76. The Inquiry has asked for my views on a specific piece of advice provided by
Simon Clarke of Cartwright King, which appears to be a product of the Sift
Review, albeit from May 2014. The advice concerns disclosure in light of the
case of R v Hosi.54 I do not think I have seen this advice previously, and could
not find a record of having been sent it. However, it appears to show that
Cartwright King were considering whether the Helen Rose report or
Second Sight Interim Report ought to be disclosed to convicted PMRs. As I
cannot recall seeing this advice previously, and was not involved in the detail
of the Sift Review process, I cannot say whether disclosure was made as
advised by Cartwright King. My recollection generally, however, is that POL
acted consistently with the disclosure advice given by Cartwright King.
8 July 2013 Advice from Simon Clarke
77. I have been referred to another piece of advice from Simon Clarke dated 8 July
2013.55 I can see from my emails that the 8 July 2013 advice was provided in
response to an email Hugh Flemington sent to Simon Clarke and Martin Smith
at Cartwright King that day, to which I (among others) was copied. Although I
cannot specifically recall reading it, it is very likely that I did. I do not now recall
having any views on it, and note that the issues discussed would have been for
POL'’s criminal lawyers to take forward.
54 Simon Clarke Case Review of R v. Hosi dated 1 May 2014 (POL00133638)
58 Simon Clarke ‘General Advice’ dated 8 July 2013 (POL00006365)
38
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
10 and 11 July 2013 Advice on the Helen Rose report
78. I have been asked to comment on an email chain of 10 and 11 July 2013. This
followed on from my sending to Cartwright King the Helen Rose report referred
to above at [56] to [57], which I understood she had prepared in that form so
she could take legal advice on the implications of her findings. I asked
Cartwright King whether the Helen Rose report attracted privilege and what
information needed to be disclosed. Cartwright King’s advice as specialist
criminal lawyers was that the information in the Helen Rose report was
disclosable in criminal proceedings. My response was to accept this and
request that they disclose all the information required, which they were best
placed to take forward. In this context, I was seeking clarification from
Cartwright King about how legal professional privilege might operate in criminal
proceedings, with which I was not familiar. I was not seeking to withhold
information in the Helen Rose report from inspection and specifically asked for
it to be disclosed.
79. I had no informed basis then, and still have none now, on which to express a
view on the criminal law advice received from Cartwright King®’ about whether
the Helen Rose report undermined Gareth Jenkins as an expert witness in
criminal proceedings.
56 Email from Rodric Williams to Martin Smith and others dated 11 July 2013 at 14.19 (POL00066789)
87 Simon Clarke ‘Advice on the use of expert evidence relating to the integrity of the Fujitsu Services
Ltd Horizon System’ dated 15 July 2013 (POL00040000)
39
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
15 and 19 July 2013 Simon Clarke advice
80. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on two further pieces of advice provided
by Simon Clarke on 15 and 19 July 2013.5? I was away on annual leave at the
time these pieces of advice were received but was, I believe, sent them on or
around the time they were prepared. I do not now recall anything specific about
the 19 July 2013 advice, but I am likely to have found it useful information. I do
however recall the 15 July 2013 advice raised Cartwright King’s serious
concerns about evidence which Gareth Jenkins had provided in prosecutions.
I believe however that those concerns would have been taken forward as
appropriate by POL’s criminal lawyers and recall there being a general
consensus following this advice that Gareth Jenkins could no longer be used
as a witness in criminal proceedings.
2 August 2013 Simon Clarke advice
81. On 2 August 2013, Simon Clarke provided further advice on document
retention.®? As far as I can recall this was the first time I became aware of any
suggestions about the “shredding” of notes from weekly conference calls. I do
not know who made that suggestion. It certainly was not me and I was deeply
concerned by it. I assisted Susan Crichton in drafting a response to the Simon
Clarke advice. This expressed POL’s concern about the suggestion that an
attempt had been made to destroy material associated with the Horizon weekly
58 Simon Clarke ‘Advice on the use of expert evidence relating to the integrity of the Fujitsu Services
Ltd Horizon System dated 15 July 2013 (POL00040000); and Simon Clarke ‘Compensation for
Miscarriages of Justice’ dated 19 July 2013 (POL00006800)
89 Simon Clarke ‘Disclosure: The Duty to Record and Retain Material’ dated 2 August 2013
(POL00006799)
© Email from Rodric Williams to Susan Crichton dated 16 August 2013 at 11.38 (POL00193605)
40
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
calls (discussed further in paragraphs [69] to [71] above) and confirmed that
minutes would continue to be taken and stored.
Initial CCRC Engagement
82. The CCRC first contacted POL on 12 July 2013, after the publication of the
Second Sight Interim Report.*' I have been asked to comment on an email sent
by Susan Crichton to Andy Parsons on 16 July 2013 regarding advice that
Cartwright King had given to POL on its response to the CCRC’s initial letter. I
was on leave at that time so did not get involved, but I am aware that the
outcome was that POL decided to take further advice on how to respond, which
led to Brian Altman KC being approached (discussed at paragraph [83] below).
As far as I can recall, the action POL took following the CCRC letter of 12 July
2013 is reflected in the correspondence between POL and the CCRC that has
been provided to me by the Inquiry.®? I discuss the engagement I later had with
the CCRC at paragraphs [154] to [155] and [158] to [166] below.
Brian Altman KC Advice
83. As mentioned above, Brian Altman KC was initially approached following POL’s
receipt of the 12 July 2013 initial letter from the CCRC and, as well as advising
POL on the CCRC, was asked to provide an interim review of the “Sift
Review’.® As I do not recall contributing to the terms of reference to which Brian
6 Letter from Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) to Paula Vennells dated 12 July 2013
(POL00039994)
®2 Correspondence bundle between CCRC and POL dated between 15 July 2013 and 5 June 2014
(POL00040813); and Letter from Chris Aujard on behalf of POL to CCRC dated 5 June 2014
(POL00124350)
®3 Email from Gavin Matthews to Susan Crichton and others dated 9 August 2013 at 15.36
(POL00021980); Brian Altman KC Observations on Terms of Reference dated 2 August 2013
(POL00021981); and Draft Terms of Reference for the Appointment of Brian Altman QC
(POL00021982)
41
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Altman KC’s advice responded, I cannot comment on why POL decided to ask
him to advise on the ‘efficacy’ rather than the ‘safety’ of convictions, or what the
distinction between those words may be. I also cannot comment on how the
time period covered by Brian Altman KC’s review came to be set, although I
believe from subsequent discussions that the 2010 cut-off related to the timing
of the upgrade from Horizon Legacy to Horizon Next Generation or HNG:X,
when as part of the upgrade each Post Office branch underwent a physical cash
and stock check which balanced each branch's account, effectively resetting it
on the new system.
Brian Altman KC’s Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current Process
84. Brian Altman KC provided his ‘Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current
Process’ on 2 August 2013. That review was provided to Cartwright King, who
produced a response on 13 August 2013. Cartwright King addressed some of
the concerns that Brian Altman KC had raised, and suggested that a joint
conference would be useful to ensure that the Sift Review of criminal
convictions was effective. The Cartwright King response was sent to Susan
Crichton, with a request that it be sent to Brian Altman KC along with the Sift
Review Protocol that Cartwright King had created®* and Simon Clarke’s advice
of 2 August 2013 on disclosure (referred to at paragraph [81] above).°”
64 Brian Altman KC ‘Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current Process dated 2 August 2013
(POL00006583)
65 Cartwright King ‘Response to the Interim Review of Cartwright King’s Current Process by Brian
Altman QC’ dated 13 August 2013 (POL00066807); and Email from Susan Crichton to Rodric
Williams dated 16 August 2013 at 09.15 (POL00006578)
6 Cartwright King ‘Initial Sift Protocol’ (POL0012945 2)
87 Simon Clarke ‘Disclosure: The Duty to Record and Retain Material’ dated 2 August 2013
(POL00006799)
42
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Conference of 9 September 2013 with Brian Altman KC
85. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on two notes of the conference with
Brian Altman KC that took place on 9 September 2013.° I do not recall these
notes, but it is possible that they were sent to me at or around the time they
were made. The first note was clearly taken by WBD. Although I recall attending
Brian Altman KC’s chambers on several occasions, I do not have any
recollection of this conference specifically. Given the other attendees, I am likely
to have attended to continue to make sure the actions being taken were ‘joined
up” within POL, and that I could take forward any that might apply to me. I have
no reason to think that the notes of the conference do not reflect what happened
or omitted any material matter discussed. Since I have no clear recollection of
the conference, I cannot add anything regarding what was said about any of
the specific points mentioned in the two notes.
Conference of 4 October 2013 with Brian Altman KC
86. I have been asked by the Inquiry for my recollection of a conference held with
Brian Altman KC on 4 October 2013. I do not now have any specific recollection
of this conference either, and, although I can see it in my diary, my emails from
around the time suggest I may have been occupied with another matter and
asked someone else to step in. In any event, it seems that this was a telephone
conference call to assist Brian Altman KC complete his advice, by giving him
an opportunity to discuss a number of the actions identified at the 9 September
2013 conference with Cartwright King and WBD.
88 Bond Dickinson ‘Notes of Conference with Brian Altman QC’ datéd 9 September 2013
(POL00006485); and ‘Note of Meeting with BAQC’ dated 9 September 2013 (POL00139866)
43
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Brian Altman KC’s backward-looking Review of Prosecutions
87. 1 have been referred to the ‘Review of Prosecutions’ that Brian Altman KC
completed on 15 October 2013, which was emailed to me by Gavin Matthews
that day.® This was a “backwards-looking” review (as opposed to the “forward-
looking” review Brian Altman KC later produced, which focused on what any
future POL prosecutions might look like). The 15 October 2013 review
commented on the Sift Review, and also proposed measures to control the
collation and future dissemination of information about Horizon issues.
Recognising the importance of this advice, I will have read it on or shortly after
receiving it. Like others, I will have taken comfort from it that the approach POL
was taking was sound, and that the appropriate people in and advising POL
had access to the advice to take its actions forward.
88. My attention has been drawn by the Inquiry to paragraph [64], [70], and [71] of
the advice. These appear to relate to the time period covered by Brian Altman
KC’s review. I cannot add anything to what I have said at paragraph [83] above.
In relation to paragraph [130] of the advice, I only add to what I have already
said above at paragraphs [44] to [45] above in relation to the Callendar Square
bug that the advice suggested it was no longer an issue having been fixed but
might still need to be considered if the issue surfaced through the Scheme.
Paragraph [129] of the advice accords with what I recall about Brian Altman
KC’s advice at paragraph [120] below. Consistent with this advice, and the
approach we were generally trying to take at POL of ‘joining up’ the legal experts
® Brian Altman KC ‘Post Office Ltd: General Review’ dated 15 October 2013 (POL00006581); and
Email from Gavin Matthews to Hugh Flemington and others on 15 October 2013 at 17.45
(POL00040041)
44
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
a Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
with the work being undertaken to understand PMRs' complaints about Horizon,
Cartwright King was involved in reviewing every application and POIR produced
for the Scheme.
Board update of October 2013 in Respect of Brian Altman KC’s advice
89. I can see from documents provided by the Inquiry that in October 2043 I was
approached by Martin Edwards (POL Chief of Staff) to comment on some text
relating to Brian Altman KC's review that he intended to include in a report he
was preparing. I duly did this, explaining the basis for the amendments I
suggested be made.
90. I have been asked when the Board was made aware of the Helen Rose report.
I do not know what the Board had been told about this report before October
2013.’ Board papers were not generally shared with me in those days and I
did not attend Board or Executive Committee meetings.”! I have been asked to
comment on why I said in an email to Martin Edwards on 24 October 2013 that
“it is sensible to keep references to the Helen Rose Report [to] a minimum as it
may not be a live issue going forward”.’2 The email chain shows that I worked
with Martin Edwards to provide the information he needed for his purposes,
which I understood to be a short summary that he was intending to include ina
larger report also addressing other issues. In that context, I felt that the
references to the Helen Rose Report (which ! appear to have introduced in my
first round of comments on the draft summary) could be kept to a minimum,
70 Email from Rodric Williams to Martin Edwards dated 24 October 2013 at 10.30 (POL00108163); and
Email from Martin Edwards to Belinda Crowe dated 28 October 2013 at 15.47 (POL00108161)
71 I do not believe I saw the document ‘Chief Executive's Report’ on Project Sparrow dated 24 October
2013 (POL00108162) contemporaneously.
72 Email from Rodric Williams to Martin Edwards dated 24 October 2013 at 10.30 (POL00108163)
45
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
particularly in light of the external criminal law advice received around it, which
I also noted in the email.
Brian Altman KC’s forward-looking Review of Post Office Ltd Prosecution Role
91. Brian Altman KC provided his ‘Review of Post Office Ltd Prosecution Role’ on
19 December 2013,” finalising a draft he had shared in October 2013.74 As
with his “backward-looking” advice, I am likely to have read this at the time I
received the draft, or shortly afterwards. This was “forward-looking advice”,
considering the future of POL’s prosecution role and revisions to its prosecution
policy.
92. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on Brian Altman-KC’s statement that
‘{t]he Horizon data integrity issue was an exceptional instance of Post Office
Ltd prosecutorial failure of serial non-disclosure in breach of Post Office Ltd’s
disclosure obligations”. I understood this to refer to disclosure failures identified
by Simon Clarke in his 15 July 2013 advice note, referred to at [80] above.” I
understood from paragraph, 5(iv) of document POL00112937 that Brian Altman
KC's view was that POL had, since the failings he identified, taken appropriate
steps to remedy the situation, and had (or would) put in place processes to
ensure that such failures were not repeated if any future prosecutions took
place. I had no informed basis then, and still have no informed basis now, for
expressing a view on whether POL should continue to act as a prosecutor in
73 Brian Altman KC ‘Post Office Ltd: Review of Post Office Ltd Prosecution Role’ dated 19 December
2013 (POL00112937)
74 Brian Altman KC draft ‘Post Office Ltd: Review of Post Office Ltd Prosecution Role' dated 21 October
2013 (POL00038592)
75 Simon Clarke ‘Advice on the use of expert evidence relating to the integrity of the Fujitsu Services
Ltd Horizon System’ dated 15 July 2013 (POL00040000)
46
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
private prosecutions, and I do not recall ever being formally asked for my views
on this.
93. I was later asked to assist in coordinating, with the help of external lawyers,
material for POL senior management about what a new prosecution policy
could look like. This was done in conjunction with external lawyers and internal
POL Legal colleagues, on the premise that POL would resume undertaking
prosecutions. However, as far as I am aware, POL did not resume routine
prosecutions.’6
PART 4.2 MEDIATION SCHEME AND RELATED MATTERS
Setting up of the Scheme and Process
94. Although paragraph 8.2(a) of Second Sight’s Interim Report stated that: “we
have so far found no evidence of system wide (systemic) problems with the
Horizon software”, (see paragraph [62] above), their work did not resolve the
individual complaints from PMRs which they had been considering, or other
similar complaints that could come forward. POL therefore sought to address
and resolve the complaints through the introduction of the Scheme. People with
a range of skills were asked to be involved in the Scheme, including with respect
to operational matters around how Post Office branches work. Initially, there
was significant optimism that the Scheme, which had been developed with
Second Sight and the JFSA, could help to resolve the PMRs’ complaints, albeit
that many of these had not yet been articulated to, or looked into by, POL.
78 I understand a few prosecutions took place where the evidence of criminal offending was completely
independent of Horizon.
47
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
me Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
95. I do not recall having a specific role within the team managing the overall
conduct of the Scheme, but I was available to them, as a member of POL legal,
to provide such support as they or the external lawyers supporting them might
require. I would also occasionally review specific pieces of work (e.g. POIRs or
Second Sight reviews relating to particular complaints) to get a feel for what
they looked like and how they were being dealt with to make sure they would
support the Scheme’s aims.
96. The Scheme was supervised by a “Working Group”, chaired by a retired
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) judge, Sir Anthony Hooper. The Working
Group was composed of representatives from Second Sight, the JFSA and
POL. The POL contingent was led by POL’s then interim General Counsel,
Chris Aujard, and its secretariat was provided by Belinda Crowe (who was, I
understood, essentially POL’s Scheme director). Although I believe I attended
several early Working Group meetings by telephone conference when the
Scheme was being established, I only recall attending one in-person Working
Group meeting once the Scheme was up-and-running.””
97. WBD were instructed to provide the main legal support for the Scheme,
consistent with the general approach referred to at paragraphs [23] and [24]
above of POL using external legal support for large, long-running and/or
complex matters. As noted at paragraph [88] above, Cartwright King were
involved in reviewing every application and POIR produced for the Scheme so
7 Notes of call of Working Group for Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme (‘Notes of
Working Group call”) dated 31 October 2013 (POL00043641); Notes of Working Group call dated 14
November 2013 (POL00043623), Notes of Working Group call dated 28 November 2013
(POL00043624); Notes of Working Group call dated 5 December 2013 (POL00043625); and Notes of
Working Group call dated 12 December 2013 (POL00026666)
48
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
they could identify any criminal law issues that might arise and were engaged
to provide specific criminal law input when this was required.
Legal Support for PMRs
98. The Inquiry has asked me to explain how POL decided to offer Scheme
applicants £1,500 excluding VAT to pay for professional advisers in relation to
the Scheme.’8 I do not recall how this decision was reached or who ultimately
signed it off. I assume it was a commercial decision, having regard to
considerations such as a range of possible adviser hourly rates. Financial
support was also available for preparing for and attending a mediation (at £750
plus VAT for a half day or £1,250 plus VAT for a full day). POL did recognise
that a Scheme applicant might incur further costs and, as far as I am aware,
POL always intended to keep an open mind about such costs as they might
need to be addressed in order to resolve individual cases. It also appears from
the Working Group document referred to me by the Inquiry entitled ‘Key points
and actions from the conference call at 1pm on 5 December 2013’ that the
Working Group agreed that additional funding could be applied for in
exceptional circumstances.’? Although I am recorded as having attended that
call, I have no specific recollection of it.
Second Sight Reports for the Mediation Scheme
99. As I explained at paragraph [68] above, as part of the Scheme Second Sight
would make their own assessment of the complaint and POL’s POIR report into
it. The Inquiry has asked me to consider an email chain from March 2014 which
78 Notes of Working Group call dated 5 December 2013 (POL00043625)
79 Notes of Working Group call dated 5 December 2013 (POL00043625)
49
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
I believe relates to the report Second Sight prepared for the Scheme about the
Castleton case. I had limited direct engagement with Second Sight, but to the
best of my recollection the concerns expressed in this email reflect the concerns
of those within the Scheme team about Second Sight’s work, namely that
Second Sight would make statements without setting out the reasoning or the
evidence on which they were based (which was similar to POL’s concerns about
the Interim Report). They would also comment, sometimes quite stridently, on
matters outside their areas of expertise, such as criminal law, and did not seem
to reflect POL’s position as explained in the POIR so as to present a balanced
account. Ultimately though, there was little that POL could do about these
concerns beyond raising them with Second Sight, given that Second Sight were
acting independently of POL.
Issue of Remote Access in the context of the Mediation Scheme
100. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on some emails showing that advice
was taken on whether, and in what form, to disclose the Helen Rose report to
applicants to the Scheme.*' As far as I can tell, the position adopted by POL
was to follow the advice and disclose the report.
101. The Inquiry has also asked me to comment on an email sent to Andy Parsons
on 22 April 2014 concerning an internal POL email from 2008.® As far as I can
tell, I first saw the 2008 internal POL email when I was sent it on 14 April 2014
6° Email from Andy Parsons to Chris Aujard and others dated 6 March 2014 at 18.19 (POL00074462)
8! Email from Andy Parsons to Belinda Crowe and others dated 8 April 2014 at 20.42 (POL00029707);
Email from Pete Newsome to James Davidson and others dated 19 May 2014 at 18.05 (FUJ000871 19);
and Email from Andy Parsons to Belinda Crowe and others dated 14 April 2014 at 14.00
(POL00108424)
82 Email from Andrew Winn to Alan Lusher dated 23 October 2008 at 12.46 (POL00023432); and Email
from Rodric Williams to Andy Parsons dated 22 April 2014 at 12.04 (FUJ00087119)
50
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
in the context of a Scheme claim. The email raised the issue of remote access
(albeit in a different manner from the way remote access was raised by Michael
Rudkin, mentioned at paragraphs [53] to [54] above). I discussed this with Andy
Parsons, who drew out for me the questions it raised for POL but which Fujitsu
would need to answer.® These questions were then sent to Fujitsu, whose
responses were provided to me on 17 April 2014 and, I believe it was relayed
to Second Sight. I believe that the question of how, and to what extent, Fujitsu
had the ability to alter Post Office branch data remotely continued be explored
with Fujitsu, but I do not now recall the details of what was done at this particular
time. I assisted in providing an interim answer to this question in May 2014,
based on what I had been told by Fujitsu’s subject matter experts,°4 and a more
detailed explanation was completed by Andy Parsons in late 2014 for
confirmation by Fujitsu. I do not recall considering at that time whether
criminal law advice should be taken around whether this information needed to
be disclosed, but I believe that such advice was sought from Cartwright King
and Brian Altman KC when the issue arose again in mid-2015 in connection
with the “Part Two” Report Second Sight was preparing as part of the Scheme.
This is addressed further below at [148] to [149].
85 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams dated 14 April 2014 at 13.22 (POL00303716)
&4 Email from Andy Parsons to Angela van den Bogerd dated 9 May 2014 at 15.01 (POL00304478
85 Email from Andy Parsons to Belinda Crowe and others dated 10 November 2014 at 16.44
(POL00212048)
51
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- ~ Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Instruction of Linklaters And Deloitte
My involvement with the instruction of Linklaters in April 2014
102.
103.
I do not know precisely when or how POL decided to seek advice about the
Scheme from Linklaters, but in March 2014 POL’s Scheme team and Chris
Aujard asked me to assist in getting Linklaters to provide advice to POL’s Board
on the legal claims and potential financial exposures raised by the claims made
under the Scheme. My role in this was to help provide information to Linklaters
to enable them to provide that advice, and work with them to produce a report
which would be comprehensible and useful for the Board.
I am sure I reviewed and commented on the Linklaters report into the legal
issues with the Scheme when it was received.*® I believe that POL00107317
was the final version of the Linklaters report, but I cannot be sure, as I was not
responsible for sharing the final advice with the Board, and further amendments
may have been made before it was sent to them. For completeness I have seen
an email in which I forwarded POL00107317 to two colleagues in the POL legal
team for their information as it may have been relevant to their work. I do not
know who else received the Linklaters report at this time, and I did not attend
the Board meeting at which it was discussed.”
8 Linklaters ‘Report into Initial Complaint. Review and Mediation Scheme: Legal Issues’ dated 20 March
2014 (POL00107317)
®7 At this time, I did not attend Board meetings or receive the document packs prepared for them, and
would typically only see extracts from the minutes of the meetings if I specifically asked for them.
52
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
mee Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
104. I do not recall having any substantive input into the papers produced by
Linklaters around the future of the Scheme, which the Inquiry has shared with
me.88
My involvement with the instruction of Deloitte
105. As with the instruction of Linklaters, I do not recall precisely when or how POL
decided to instruct IT specialists at Deloitte. I became aware of the decision
when, around early April 2014, I was asked to help agree the terms of Deloitte’s
engagement. I understood that the aim was for Deloitte to provide an objective
report into the reliability of Horizon along the lines recommended by Linklaters
in their recent advice. This could enable Linklaters to advise further, and assist
the Board in considering Scheme-related legal risks and financial liabilities.°9
Although I could assist in documenting Deloitte’s engagement, I would not have
engaged in detail with the substance of their work because I did not and do not
have the technical expertise to do so.
106. 1 do not recall who or how the scope of the instruction to Deloitte was
determined but, given the potential scale of the task it was likely to be an
iterative process undertaken in stages, the first of which was a ‘desktop’ review
of the available documentation dealing with the operational controls around
Horizon that should ensure it was processing transactions reliably. That is my
understanding of why POL initially did not require Deloitte to “comment on or
test the quality of the assurance work performed, nor opine on its adequacy,
® Linklaters ‘Preliminary note on the future of the Mediation Scheme’ dated 31 March 2014
(POL00022117); and Presentation ‘initial Complaint and Mediation Scheme: The Way Forward’
(POL00022109)
® Email from Rodric Williams to Gareth James dated 2 April 2014 at 17.57 (POL0011751 9)
53.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
sufficiency or conclusions”, which I understood would amount to an audit of the
audit processes used, rather than a review of the assurance work itself. The
same applies to Deloitte not being required to comment on ‘the integrity of the
Horizon HNG-X processing environment (nor the legacy Horizon system)”,
which I understood was initially out of scope so that Deloitte’s preliminary
review could start with the assurance environment before turning to its actual
operation.
107. There was an impetus to proceed quickly, and I recall that, as well as Chris
Aujard and Belinda Crowe, Lesley Sewell was involved in signing off the
Deloitte engagement letter.® My role in this as a POL in-house lawyer included
recording in the engagement letter the legal context in which the instruction was
happening, so as to support any future claim of legal professional privilege that
could be made over Deloitte's work. As I mentioned at paragraph [105], Deloitte
were instructed at the recommendation of Linklaters to inform Linklaters’ advice
on the legal claims and potential financial exposures raised by the PMRs'’ claims
made under the Scheme, also bearing in mind that PMRs might sue POL over
their allegations if mediation failed.
My involvement with Deloitte’s Project Zebra reports
108. Deloitte were independent experts®' so my role in supporting their work was
narrow. I helped them access the material they required, but otherwise left them
% Email from Gareth James to Rodric Williams and others dated 4 April 2014 at 16.20 (POL00108395),
Email from Rodric Williams to Gareth James dated 4 April 2014 at 11.17 (POL00125760); and Email
from Belinda Crowe to Rodric Williams and others dated 4 April 2014 at 08.31 (POL00117551)
S' Deloitte ‘Project Zebra - Phase 1 Report (Draft — For validation in advance of Board discussion on
Wednesday 30th April)’ (POL00105635) makes clear at paragraph 2 that they understood their brief to
be independently producing reports.
54
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
to get on with their work. Chris Aujard was I believe leading on the delivery of
this work, with my responsibilities being to ensure Deloitte were on track, that
any important issues were promptly identified and that their output, in particular
the executive summaries, were clear and digestible for the target audience. Two
email chains, dated 22-23 April 2014°? provided to me by the Inquiry reflect the
type of support I provided. Although I did not understand the technical matters
being discussed, I was still able to facilitate the work of those who did.
109. The Inquiry has also asked me to comment on an email exchange I had with
Mark Westbrook at Deloitte on 20 May 2014, which I explore in more detail in
the section of my statement dealing with remote access at paragraph [145].
110. The Inquiry has asked me to consider a number of draft Deloitte Project Zebra
reports and draft Board updates. My recollection of Deloitte's ‘Project Zebra
+ Phase 1 Report: Draft’ was that it provide an overview of the work Deloitte
had done so far and suggested some next steps. It prompted the Board to raise
some specific questions with Deloitte in a Board meeting on 30 April 2014
(which I did not attend, but was sent brief minutes of), including seeking
assurance over how Horizon recorded and maintained transaction logs, both
pre- and post-2010.%°
° Email from Rodric Williams to Mark Westbrook dated 22 April 2014 at 10.35 (POL00108443); and
Email from Rodric Williams to Mark Westbrook dated 23 April 2014 at 14.32 (POL00108453)
83 Email from Mark Westbrook to Rodric Williams dated 20 May 2014 at 12.44 (POL00029728)
%4 Deloitte ‘Project Zebra — Phase 1 Report (Draft ~ For validation in advance of Board discussion on
Wednesday 30th April)’ (POL00105635); Deloitte ‘'HNG-X: Review of Assurance Sources — Discussion
Areas re: Phase 2 (Draft - For Discussion only)’ (POL00031384); Deloitte ‘'HNG-X: Review of Assurance
Sources — Phase 1 ~ Board Update at 13/5/14’ (POL00031391); and Deloitte ‘HNG-X: Review of
Assurance Sources - Board Update - As at 16/05/2014 (Draft)’ (POL00029726)
%5 Deloitte ‘Project Zebra — Phase 1 Report (Draft — For validation in advance of Board discussion on
Wednesday 30th April)’ (POL00105635)
°5 Email from Rodric Williams to Larissa Wilson dated 7 May 2014 at 14.37 (POL00304303)
55
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
-_ "Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
: Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None .
Date: 11 March 2024
111. I assisted in defining the scope of instruction for the second phase of Deloitte’s
work. This was not easy as I had not attended the Board meeting which
instructed this, but the scope was discussed on a call held early on 7 May 2014
which I. attended with Lesley Sewell, Gareth James and others. I followed this
call up with a “‘starter-for-ten’ which aims to capture the essence of our call”,
which I emailed to POL and Deloitte colleagues shortly before a further call at
4.30pm the same afternoon. I appear to have sent a further draft following that
call for Gareth’s review before a final position was agreed on 9 May 2014.7
This second phase of work was reflected in a Change Order,°8 reflecting the
extension of Deloitte’s work to demonstrating Horizon was operating with
integrity and that the transition from the original Horizon Legacy to the current
HNG-X had been properly managed. Deloitte then proceeded to draft a “HNG-
X: Review of Assurance Sources Board Update”,®9 which I received and
commented on 18 May 2014, and then discussed with Gareth James at POL’s
office on 19 May 2014. The final report, “Desktop Review of Assurance Sources
and Key Control Features — Draft for Discussion” dated 23 May 2014 (the “May
2014 Deloitte Report’), was released to POL on 26 May 2014.100
112. Once POL had received Deloitte’s report, it was shared with Linklaters, who
discussed it with Chris Aujard at a meeting I did not attend, before Chris Aujard
emailed me to say the report may require “a substantial re-write”. After speaking
to Chris (I think by telephone), I relayed this to Deloitte and a proposed structure
97 Email from Rodric Williams to Lesléy Sewell and others dated 9 May 2014 at 14.12 (POL00138314)
%8 Deloitte ‘Change Order Number 1, v 2’ dated 6 May 2014 (POL00117612)
9 Deloitte ‘HNG-X: Review of Assurance Sources - Board Update - As at 16/05/2014 (Draft)’
(POL00029726)
100 Deloitte ‘Horizon: Desktop Review of Assurance Sources and Key Control Features - Draft for
Discussion’ dated 23 May 2014 (the “May 2014 Deloitte Report”) (POL00028062)
56
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
suggested by Linklaters for a “repackaged” report was sent to Deloitte on 29
May 2014.10"
113. My role in relation to this further report is reflected in two email chains provided
to me by the Inquiry.'°? There was frustration within POL about the speed and
form of delivery of Deloitte’s work, which I believe Chris reflected in his email to
Paula Vennells.'°3 Essentially, there seemed to be a disconnect between POL
and Deloitte over the how best to present their work. This I believe led to Chris
asking Deloitte to synthesise from their work and findings a shortened “Board
Briefing” focused on Horizon’s Core Audit Process. I was asked by Chris
Aujard to keep working with Deloitte on this, which involved a number of
discussions (by telephone and most likely also in person) and exchanges of
drafts with Deloitte. This sometimes involved the exchange of whole draft
documents. At other times we might exchange specific extracts being
discussed (I believe POL00031408 is an example of this, whereby specific text
would be cut and pasted into an email which could be considered in email
format while being discussed).
114. I did not attend the Board meeting or meetings which considered Deloitte's
reports, and do not recall any specific actions arising out of them. Having
reviewed my emails, I appear to have attended a call with Deloitte and POL IT
and Internal Audit colleagues on 2 July 2014 to discuss next steps, with my
101 Email Rodric Williams to Gareth James and others dated 29 May 2014 at 10:15 (POL00204927)
102 Email from Chris Aujard on 29 May 2014 (POL00031400) and Email exchange between Gareth
James and Chris Aujard on 29 May 2014 (POL00031401)
103 Email from Chris Aujard to Paula Vennells and others dated 29 May 2014 at 18.35 (POL00031400);
and Email from Gareth James to Chris Aujard dated 29 May 2014 at 19.28 (POL00031401)
104 Which became Deloitte ‘Board Briefing: Document, further to our report “Horizon: Desktop review of
assurance sources and key control features” dated 4 June 2014 (POL00028069)
57
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
~ - Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
primary concern being the “balancing transactions" process identified by
Deloitte (discussed further below). I do not know whether any aspect of this
work was taken forward by other parts of the business, but I sought to get
Deloitte's permission to release the report to WBD and Cartwright King so that
they could consider them as part of the support they were providing for POL.
The Mediation Scheme in mid-2014
Second Sight’s Thematic Review and Briefing Report Part 1
115. lam aware that Second Sight produced two overarching reports in connection
with the Scheme, although I do not recall the specific sequence of events that
led to them. The first was the ‘Thematic Review and Briefing Report Part 1°
(sometimes called the “Part One” report) which set out various background
matters concerning Post Office operations likely to arise from applications to
the Scheme. These matters would not have been familiar to those without prior
experience of the operation of Post Office branches (for example, someone
providing professional advice to a Scheme applicant). I do not recall having any
material input into the production of these documents, although I will have seen
them around this time.
116. I! would not have sufficiently interrogated the detail of either the “Thematic
Issues Report” or “Briefing Report — Part One” to assess points raised in Andy
Parsons’ emails and mark-ups, but because they were being raised directly with
58
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the POL Scheme team I would have no reason to think they would not be taken
forward as appropriate. 15
Changes to the Scheme
117. As I explained at paragraph [96] above, the Scheme was administered by a
Working Group, chaired by Sir Anthony Hooper and composed of
representatives from Second Sight, PMRs and POL. I was not a member of the
Working Group and my involvement with its meetings was early on when the
Scheme was being established, and I only recall attending one in-person
Working Group meeting once the Scheme was up-and-running. I am therefore
not well placed to comment on changes to the Scheme or what led to them.
The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email from David Oliver circulating
a briefing note for POL about the Working Group on 1 May 2014, which copied
me and Andy Parsons of WBD.1°° I do not know why I was copied into this email
and cannot recall reading the briefing note.
Reviewing the issue of criminal convictions within the Scheme
118. The documents provided to me by the Inquiry show that POL had received
advice from Brian Altman KC in 2013 about whether cases involving criminal
prosecutions were suitable for mediation. This advice was given in the context
195 Email from Andy Parsons to David Oliver and others dated 31 March 2014 at 20.53 (POL00006552);
Marked-up version of Second Sight ‘Draft - Thematic Issues Report’ (POL00006553); Email from Andy
Parsons to David Oliver and others dated 29 April 2014 at 15.09 (POL00006554); Second Sight
‘Briefing Report- Part One’ dated 25 July 2014 (POL00004438); and Marked-up version of Second
Sight ‘Branch Operating Procedures’ dated 29 April 2014 (POL00006555).
106 Email from David Oliver to Chris Aujard and others dated 1 May 2014 at 06.52 (POL000401 53); and
‘Post Office Briefing Note: Working Group’ dated 1 May 2014 (POL00040154)
59
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
of the Scheme being launched and various other issues relating to prosecutions
that POL was looking into at the time.1°7
119. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email of 16 July 2014 to
Chris Aujard, summarising advice that POL received in a further call with Brian
Altman KC specifically in relation to the Scheme.1°8 I believe this call arose
because the Working Group was looking into whether applications involving
criminal convictions should be mediated under the Scheme. It seems from my
emails that Cartwright King had provided some advice that the POL Scheme
team wanted to test, which I suggested be done with Brian Altman KC." I do
not now recall who else attended the call, but I sent my summary of it to Chris
Aujard shortly afterwards on 16 July 2014. He was not able to attend the call
but I believe would have wanted to know the outcome of it for his dealings with
the Working Group.
120. Based on the call with Brian Altman KC, I understood his advice to POL to be
that (bearing in mind Scheme cases were already being reviewed by criminal
lawyers (see paragraphs [88] above)) there was a risk that things said or done
at a mediation (e.g., an offer of compensation or even expression of regret)
could in and of themselves be used to support an appeal against conviction.
This would be “new” evidence in that it would not have been available at the
107 Bond Dickinson ‘Notes of Conference with Brian Altman KC’ dated 9 September 2013
(POL00006485)
108 Email from Rodric Williams to Chris Aujard dated 16 July 2014 at 21.44 (POL00061549); and Brian
Altman KC ‘Post Office Ltd: Advice on Suggested Approach to Criminal Case Mediation’ dated 5
September 2014 (POL00006368)
1° Email from David Oliver to Andy Parsons and others dated 15 July 2014 at 10.11 (POL00148709)
60
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
sone Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
time of the original prosecution, having only been created through a mediation
taking place several years after that prosecution.
121. Brian Altman KC was later asked for written advice on this issue, and I can see
from his note dated 5 September 20141 that he spoke with me and
Gavin Matthews of WBD on 31 July 2014 about a proposal put forward by the
Working Group Chair for dealing with Scheme applicants with a criminal
conviction or caution. I presume this arose from a Working Group meeting
which discussed the issue but which I do not believe I attended. My recollection
is that the advice was in essence that the proposal did not mitigate the identified
risks of mediating with Scheme applicants with convictions. The broad
approach adopted by POL in light of this was to take three steps in relation to
these PMRs: (a) provide them with the POIR for their case; (b) provide them
with the Second Sight report for their case; and (c) confirm to them that POL
would not be mediating with them.
Emerging concerns about the Scheme
122. While I was not close to the operation of the Scheme or Working Group
dynamics, I do recall gathering from colleagues attending Working Group
meetings that the Scheme was not functioning as well as hoped, seemingly due
to a significant misalignment of expectations between some PMRs and POL
regarding culpability for the events that had been raised and investigated, and
what might be financially recoverable as a consequence. A wide range of
monetary amounts were being sought (some very low and others very high),
Brian Altman KC ‘Post Office Ltd: Advice on Suggested Approach to Criminal Case Mediation’ dated
5 September 2014 (POL00006368)
61
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
some of the concerns were not clear, and POL was operating on an
interpretation of its rights and responsibilities underpinned by Linklaters’ advice.
123. This led I believe to PMRs becoming increasingly unwilling to engage with
POL's position in the Working Group, and there were real concerns amongst
the POL project team about the pace and consistency of the reviews being done
by Second Sight.
PART 5: SECOND SIGHT’S PART 2 REPORT AND MEDIATION SCHEME
THEREAFTER
The draft Second Sight Part 2 Mediation Briefing Report
124. The draft ‘Second Sight Part 2 Mediation Briefing Report’ (sometimes called the
“Part Two” report) dated 30 July 2014 was a report produced by Second Sight
to expand on common themes raised by PMR applicants to the Scheme now
that a number of individual cases had been reviewed. I recall that the reaction
to the draft from the POL Scheme team was that it raised matters that seemed
to go beyond Second Sight's remit in the Scheme, and raised matters on which
they did not agree and wanted to comment.""! One area of perceived overreach
was Second Sight’s commentary on the standard postmaster contract. I was
asked to forward the draft Part Two report to Linklaters for their support in
responding to this issue on 1 August 2014.11? I do not recall why Linklaters (as
opposed to, say, WBD) was asked for support.
111 Second Sight ‘Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme - Mediation Briefing Report: Part
Two (Draft v 2) dated 30 July 2014 (POL00022150) . .
"2 Email Rodric Williams to Jonathan Swil dated 1 August 2014 at 16.16 (POL00022145) I
62
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
125. Iwas on annual leave between 4 and 12 August 2014. The documents provided
to me by-the Inquiry show that Linklaters gave their advice on 6 August 2014
and Belinda Crowe instructed WBD the same day to draft a letter to Second
Sight regarding the draft Second Sight Part Two report, incorporating Linklaters’
views as appropriate. I believe the letter was drafted on the basis that Chris
Aujard would be the sender,‘'? but he was away on his own annual leave by
the time it was ready on 14 August 2014, so the final letter was sent in my name
with a covering email noting that I was dealing with matters while he was
away.''4 I was content to put my name to the final letter, having read a clean
copy and satisfied myself of its content, as I knew it was the product of work
between the POL team and supported by both Linklaters and WBD.
126. Second Sight proceeded to issue the final Part Two report to the Working Group
on or about 21 August 2014. The POL Scheme team then raised their concerns
_ about the Part Two report with the Working Group. I can see from documents I
have reviewed that on 22 August 2014, the Chair of the Working Group decided
that the Part Two report should be released to Scheme applicants “as drafted”,
with all parties, including POL, being able to write to applicants setting out their
position on the report.
113 WBD draft letter to Second Sight ‘Post Office Response to Draft Part 2 Report’ (POL00040209). I
do not know the date of this draft.
4 Letter from Rodric Williams to Second Sight ‘Second Sight’s Draft Part Two Mediation Briefing
Report’ dated 14 August 2014 (POL00022216); and Email from Belinda Crowe to Ron Warmington and
others dated 14 August 2014 at 17.40 (POL00207439)
63
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Sharing the Second Sight Part Two report
127. The Second Sight Part Two Report was shared with Fujitsu upon receipt. The
Inquiry has drawn my attention to the fact that three weeks later, on 15
September 2014, I shared it with Fujitsu again, along with POL’s draft
response.''5 It was POL’s usual practice to share a report like this with the
potentially affected stakeholders, and POL needed Fujitsu to answer questions
about the technical functioning of Horizon raised by the Part Two report which
POL could not answer internally. I asked Fujitsu to look specifically at these
technical areas. Fujitsu shared its response with POL on 16 September 2014.16
Its key concern was around the lack of evidence set out by Second Sight to
back up the concerns they had raised. I shared the Fujitsu response with Andy
Pheasant of WBD to get his views, but I cannot recall what the next steps were
in relation to this.
128. The Inquiry has also asked me to comment generally on the relationship
between POL and Fujitsu. I was aware that POL had a very substantial and
commercially important relationship with POL, which extended beyond the
PMR challenges about Horizon with which I was involved. Fujitsu seemed to
have great confidence in Horizon, in particular its Core Audit Process, and
seemed willing to provide to POL the information and support it asked for, and
which POL needed given it did not have the internal expertise to provide. It is
clear following the Horizon Issues trial that of some of that information did not
"18 Email from Rodric Williams to Michael Harvey dated 15 September 2014 at 15.39 (POL00021810)
“16 Fujitsu document ‘Fujitsu’s comments on Second Sight Briefing Report — Part Two’ dated 15
September 2014 (FUJ00087174)
64
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100.
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
withstand the scrutiny of the Group Litigation (an example being that concerning
the Known Error Log discussed further at paragraphs [222] to [223] below).
Information requested by Second Sight about suspense accounts
129. It appears that around the time that Second Sight were publishing their draft
Part Two report they made a request to POL concerning suspense accounts. I
understood the basic issue to be that Second Sight wanted to understand
whether POL may have taken branch shortfalls into its suspense accounts, but
I do not recall where or how this issue came to be raised, or being substantively
involved in POL’s response to it.
130. The Inquiry has showed me an email chain dealing with Second Sight’s request
for suspense data.''” I was uneasy about providing the requested information
because it seemed to concern POL’s relationships with its commercial partners
rather than branch accounts. I therefore suggested a way in which the data
might be summarised to help inform how the matter could be taken forward.
From 4 to 12 August 2014 I was on holiday, and I then appear to have been
dropped from the thread and do not believe I participated further in the
discussion around this issue.
131. I have also been referred to another email chain from early 2015 on the issue,
which I am not copied into.8 It appears from reading it that the “Rod” referred
"7 Email from Belinda Crowe to Charles Colquhoun and others dated 6 August 2014 at 17.16
(POL00021762)
"8 Email from Andy Parsons to Chris Aujard and others dated 27 January 2015 at 13.19
(POL00022297)
65
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
to is Rod Ismay, as I do not recall “spending the day” with Alisdair Cameron at
or around this time.
132. In the course of preparing this statement, I have revisited the Post Office
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme report of 2015 (sometimes called the
“End of Term Report’).""9 This was prepared at the conclusion of the Scheme
to capture in one place POL’s overall review of the Scheme in a form which
could be shared with applicants. Paragraphs 54 and 55 of the End of Term
Report indicate that POL was “able to answer Second Sight's questions [about
suspense accounts] when a shared understanding of the nature of the enquiry
had been reached” and “Second Sight agreed that it needed no further
information on the Suspense Account”.
Communications and public affairs strategy during the Scheme
133. POL's Communications and Public Affairs (“Comms”) team was responsible for
engaging with MPs both generally and with respect to the Scheme. I would
provide support to that team as and when it was required, usually by providing
specific information or ensuring consistency with previous communications.
134. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email from Mark Davies sent on
23 January 2015.12° This email appears to reflect his personal views on the
Second Sight Investigation and Horizon issues generally, and is responded to
119 Post Office Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme (“End of Term Report”) (POL00040935); and
Email of Rodric Williams to Tom Wechsler and others dated 6 March 2015 at 15.32 (POL00040927)
120 Email from Melanie Corfield to Mark Davies and others dated 23 January 2015 at 21.56
(POL00102062)
66
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
by a member of his Comms team. I am unable to comment on how widely these
views were shared within POL.
Advice from Tom Weisselberg KC
135. The Inquiry has drawn my attention to an email from Patrick Bourke
summarising a conference with Tom Weisselberg KC in November 2014.'?' The
POL Scheme team had instructed Tom Weisselberg KC to advise on the
amenability to judicial review of any decision POL took with respect to the
Scheme, and in particular the prospects of a successful judicial review if it
decided to close the Scheme. I do not believe I was party to the decision to take
advice from Tom Weisselberg KC, so do not know what specifically triggered
this. A conference with Tom Weisselberg KC was scheduled for 24 November
2014. I was sent the instructions prepared, I believe by Patrick Bourke, on 20
November 2014. I recall attending the conference and agree that it is fairly
summarised by Patrick.
The termination of Second Sight
136. I have been asked to comment on an email from Patrick Bourke sent on
5 February 2015, seeking advice from WBD on the implementation, and
consequences, of any decision by POL to terminate Second Sight’s
engagement"?, and some related documents"2%, I can see that Patrick Bourke
‘21 Email from Patrick Bourke to Chris Aujard and others dated 24 November 2014 at 18.49
(POL00116814)
‘22 Email from Patrick Bourke to Andy Parsons dated 5 February 2015 at 14.01 (POL00022352)
23 WBD document ‘Termination of Second Sight' dated 6 February 2015 (POL00006364); End of Term
Report (POL00040935); Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams dated 5 March 2015 at 18.03
(POL00040925); Letter from Jane MacLeod on behalf of POL to Second Sight ‘Notice to cease
providing services’ dated 10 March 2015 (POL00000216); Letter from Jane MacLeod on behalf of POL
to Sir Anthony Hooper ‘Initial Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme’ dated 10 March 2015
67
137.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
stated that a discussion would be taking place at a “senior level” on 6 February
2015, but I do not recall being involved in those discussions or the preparations
for them. The outcome of that work was, in essence, to close the Working
Group, have Second Sight complete its (revised) Part Two report and its case
review reports for all the remaining applicants to the Scheme (POL having
completed all of its investigation reports by this time). POL would then offer
mediation in all cases except those the subject of a final court determination.
This position was reflected in the suite of correspondence emailed to me by
Andy Parsons on 5 March 2015,'*4 which I (among others) reviewed and
commented on. Although this outcome involved the termination on notice of
Second Sight's existing engagement with POL, they were at the same time
being instructed to continue to have a role in the Scheme, involving completing
their case review reports directly for each Scheme applicant.'22 A new
engagement letter was signed between POL and Second Sight on 15 April
2015. I believe therefore that this reflects a change to the structure within which
Second Sight would complete the same work, rather than the cancellation of
that work.
Second Sight and Disclosure
138.
The Inquiry has asked me to comment on a 2006 ‘Post Office Ltd Confidential:
Investigation, Legal’ report, included in an exchange of communications with
(POL00022456); and Letter from Jane MacLeod on behalf of POL to Second Sight ‘Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation Scheme: Work Plan’ dated 10 March 2015 (POL00000219)
124 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams dated 5 March 2015 at 18.03 (POL00040925)
*85 Letter from Jane MacLeod on behalf of POL to Second Sight ‘Initial Complaint Review and Mediation
Scheme: Work Plan’ dated 10 March 2015 (POL00000219)
68
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Second Sight about it in June 2015.'26 I do not recall who precisely asked me
to look into this issue, but it will have come from the POL Scheme team. The
exchange begins with a letter from me to Second Sight, in which I asked Second
Sight a number of questions about its handling of the report, over which POL
was asserting legal professional privilege. Second Sight had referred to the
letter in a Case Review Report prepared in the context of the Scheme. The
basis on which POL was asserting privilege was that the 2006 document
appears to have been prepared for the Corporate Security Criminal Law Team,
with the penultimate paragraph of the report expressly reading “These papers
are now forwarded to you for sight and advice on the sufficiency of evidence as
to whether criminal charges are brought against Mrs Hamilton”.
139. As noted at paragraph [25] above, I have no experience or expertise in criminal
matters, so am not able to determine whether there was anything in the report
capable of casting doubt on the safety of Jo Hamilton’s conviction. However, as
noted at paragraph [88] and [97] above Cartwright King were reviewing cases
in the Scheme for that purpose and had reviewed this specific case.
PART _6: KNOWLEDGE OF REMOTE ACCESS PRIOR TO THE GROUP
LITIGATION
140. I have been asked a number of questions that relate to POL’s knowledge of
what has generally been described as “remote access”, that is, the ability of
those at Fujitsu or POL to alter transactions recorded by a PMR through Horizon
¥26 POL Investigation, Legal report regarding Josephine Hamilton dated 17 May 2006 (POL00044389);
Letter from Rodric Williams on behalf of POL to Second Sight ‘MO35 — Josephine Hamilton’ dated 2
June 2015 (POL00025188); and Email from Second Sight to Rodric Williams dated 3 June 2015 at
14.15 (POL00065542)
69
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement-Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
without that PMR being aware. I am not an IT specialist and this was a highly
technical matter, however, to assist the Inquiry I set out at this juncture what I
recollect my knowledge to be of the issue at different stages prior to the
commencement of the Group Litigation.
2013 Allegations of Remote Access
141.
As I mention at paragraph [53] I first became aware of remote access
allegations in mid-2013 in the context of the Spot Reviews where a PMR had
alleged that Fujitsu could remotely alter transaction records. As I explain at
paragraph [54], I instructed WBD to obtain a witness statement for Second
Sight in response to this.
Remote Access in Spring 2014
142.
In April 2014 in the context of the Scheme, the issue of remote access ‘came to
my attention again. I again discussed this with WBD, who advised what
information should be sought from Fujitsu. I wrote to James Davidson of Fujitsu
on 17 April 2014 and asked whether POL or Fujitsu could change branch
transaction data without a PMR being aware of the change. He confirmed that
POL could not change branch transaction data without a PMR being aware of
the change. He stated in his summary that there was “no ability to delete or
change records a branch creates in either old Horizon or Horizon on line.
Transactions in both systems are created in a secure and auditable way to
assure integrity’.'2” Fujitsu explained that it was possible for additional
transactions to be inserted by Fujitsu (and not POL) in the event of error and
7 Email from James Davidson to Rodric Williams dated 17 April 2014 at 16.27 (FUJ00087119)
70
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
summarised the security process for doing so (known as ‘balancing
transactions’). They had only identified this occurring once since the migration
to Horizon Online, in March 2010, and stated that this was covered by “an
auditable log”.
143. I believe, but cannot be certain, that the information that Fujitsu provided in April
2014 was shared with Second Sight. I explain this and some of the follow up
work at paragraph [101]. Around the same time, POL had instructed Deloitte to
undertake its desktop review of the Horizon system. The explanation that
Fujitsu had given in April 2014 about the possibility of balancing transactions
was also shared with Deloitte.128
144. In May 2014 documents were being prepared by Deloitte for POL's Board. The
May 2014 Deloitte Report states in a table at Appendix 2 that there were
database access privileges that “would enable a person to delete a digitally
signed basket’ and that such privileges were restricted to authorised
administrators at Fujitsu. It also mentioned that there were database access
privileges that would theoretically “enable a person to create or amend a basket
and re-sign it with a ‘fake’ key”, again such privileges were restricted to
authorised administrators at Fujitsu.'2° The version of the Board Briefing shared
with me by the Inquiry states that it was possible for “Fujitsu staff with suitably
authorised privileged access to delete data from the Audit Store”. I do not
believe that anyone within POL (and certainly I did not) properly focused on or
8 As can be seen from Sean Hodgkinson’s follow-up questions in FUJ00087119.
129 The May 2014 Deloitte Report (POL00028062)
val
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
understood this until they were highlighted in the context of a later internal
review carried out by Sir Jonathan Swift (see below at [150]-[151]).
145. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email exchange I had with Mark
Westbrook at Deloitte on 20 May 2014 in relation to a version of Deloitte’s draft
update to the board.'5° The reason for the exchange was that I had gathered
that Deloitte had identified that a specific control on the audit store was not as
secure as understood by POL, and I wanted to know a bit more about it in case
it raised a “red flag” which required escalation. Mark’s reply was that it a
theoretical possibility for which there were other controls, that Deloitte was
looking into it further and continuing to ask questions of Fujitsu and that Deloitte
would address it in their final report. As with other Horizon related technical
information, the detail of this audit store issue was outside my area of expertise,
and in light of Mark’s response I do not recall giving this further consideration.
Balancing transactions and Second Sight in Autumn 2014
146. I am referred by the Inquiry to correspondence from Fujitsu forwarded to me
and others on 23 October 2014 by Belinda Crowe.'3' The context for this was
that the issue of access to Horizon data had arisen again in relation to two
cases in the Scheme on which Second Sight had completed a report, and
Belinda Crowe sought to form a common understanding of what was and was
not possible with “remotely accessing” Horizon in order to appropriately
respond to these allegations.'®? It was intended that a meeting be held with
180 Email from Mark Westbrook to Rodric Williams on 20 May 2014 at 12.44 (POL00029728)
*1 Email from Belinda Crowe to Patrick Bourke and others dated 23 October 2014 at 07.29
(POL00091397)
132 Email from Belinda Crowe to Angela van den Bogerd and others dated 21 October 2014 at 16.34
(POL00307607)
72
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
~ . Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Fujitsu, but this was cancelled and James Davidson instead sent through a note
explaining how integrity in Horizon was “assured” through the Core Audit
Process. In this note he stated that “Transactions as keyed in at the branch,
once “committed” cannot be altered... any changes required centrally to
committed Transactions can only be done via the creation of additional
transactions” .‘° I believe in this email James Davidson was trying to emphasise
the importance of Horizon’s audit store as the best record of branch
transactions, rather than documents derived from it which (as I believe the
Helen Rose Report discussed) could present a misleading picture. It was in the
context of this email from Fujitsu that I forwarded to Belinda Crowe the Spot
Review Bible on 31 October 2014 and drew attention to Spot Review 5
regarding Mr Rudkin, referred to above at [53], so that his allegation of remote
access could be seen at the same time.'34
147. The information that Fujitsu had provided to Deloitte about balancing
transactions was provided to Andy Parsons in November 2014,'5 and I
understand he had a call with Fujitsu to discuss the remote access point. He
summarised the current understanding of remote access and balancing
transactions into a note that was then shared with Fujitsu to approve the
content.'56 The note would then be used as part of POL’s response to Second
‘83 Email from Belinda Crowe to Patrick Bourke and others dated 23 October 2014 at 07.29
(POL00091397)
134 Email from Rodric Williams to Belinda Crowe dated 31 October 2014 at 13.45 (POL00062162)
+88 Email from Mark Westbrook to Rodric Williams and others dated 10 November 2014 at 14.02
(POL00149466)
136 Email from Andy Parsons to Belinda Crowe and others dated 10 November 2014 at 16.44
(POL00212048) and Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams on 17 December 2014 at 15.35
(POL00308936)
73
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Sight when enquiries about remote access were made.*?? I was not directly
involved in this process, but was copied into emails.138
Cartwright King and Brian Altman KC advice on balancing transactions
148.
As noted above, POL also provided the Deloitte Project Zebra report to
Cartwright King, initially as part of the work they were doing to locate another
expert on Horizon in February 2015.9 Cartwright King asked further questions
in response to this, which needed to be looked at closely, and which Andy
Parsons and I ran down with Fujitsu.14° This culminated in a report being
provided by Fujitsu on balancing transactions in July 2015. Further advice was
also sought from Cartwright King and Brian Altman KC on how to address
balancing transactions in light of the further information provided by Fujitsu.
This is reflected in the advice chronology at POL00021799. I have located an
email of 27 August 2015 that Andy Parsons wrote to Brian Altman KC reflecting
his understanding of Brian’s advice in respect of disclosure of information about
balancing transactions to PMRs who had been prosecuted, which was
confirmed with Brian Altman KC.
137 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams on 17 December 2014 at 15.35 (POL00308936)
188 Email from Patrick Bourke to Andy Parsons and others dated 26 November 2014 at 13.29
(POL00149675)
139 Email from Mark Westbrook to Rodric Williams and others dated 26 February 2015 at 12.24
(POL00222757)
140 WBD document ‘Advice on Balancing Transactions’ (POL00021799)
74
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- - Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Second Sight Part 2 Report
149. In April 2015 Second Sight published their revised Part Two report, which
included a new section 14 on the balancing transactions process.'*1 That was
then sent to POL’s external criminal lawyers, and POL worked up its reply
document which it shared with Second Sight on 16 April 2015.
Swift Review and Remote Access
150. As mentioned above, the issue of remote access came up again in the context
of the review carried out by Sir Jonathan Swift." I believe it was apparent by
January 2016 that a focus area of that review would be balancing transactions,
which is why I believe I forwarded to Mark Underwood"*3 (Head of Portfolio:
Legal, Risk & Governance) some of the advice POL had previously received on
the issue. ‘4 It also appears that, by mid-January 2016, Sir Jonathan Swift had
provided to POL an advanced draft of the his report (the “Swift Review’), and
that Mark Underwood had summarised its recommendations into a "grid. As
can be seen in the “Proposal” column of that grid, POL agreed to send to Sir
Jonathan Swift the advice received with respect to balancing transactions
(which I presume is why I asked WBD to collate this for me into one place in
the POL00021798 and POL00021799 documents).
‘41 Email from Patrick Bourke to lan Henderson and others dated 9 April 2015 at 10.27 (POL00029836);
and Extract from Second Sight ‘14. Transactions not entered by the Subpostmaster or their staff’
(POL00021846)
4 Sir Jonathan Swift was Jonathan Swift QC at the time of his appointment to lead the review. From
here on in he is referred to in this statement as Sir Jonathan Swift.
‘43 Mark Underwood was a non-lawyer who had been on POL's Scheme team and was continuing to
work on Horizon issues.
144 Email from Rodric Williams to Mark Underwood dated 13 January 2016 at 10.57 (POL00065929)
75
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
151. Sir Jonathan Swift had spoken with Second Sight, Fujitsu and Deloitte in the
course of this process and reviewed information from Fujitsu. The final version
of the Swift Review pointed out to POL that a Deloitte report from 2014 had
flagged the theoretical possibility of Fujitsu ‘superusers’ making remote
amendments to branch accounts, which had not been focused on before,
meaning that what Fujitsu and POL had previously said about remote access
was wrong. Sir Jonathan Swift therefore recommended further advice be taken
on balancing transactions and Fujitsu’s ability to amend and delete data in the
audit store, which POL proceeded to take (see further paragraph [183] below).
PART 7: POL WORK IN RESPECT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS 2014-2016
Supply of Documents from Fujitsu
152. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on two documents, a draft memorandum
and a note on securing data for future prosecutions, both from around July
2014.5 Beyond being aware of the general need for POL to preserve data in
support of its prosecution activities (e.g. as part of any IT transformation
project), I do not recall having a specific role in relation to these documents,
which were being managed by POL's criminal lawyers. I was aware that POL's
contract with Fujitsu contained provisions concerning the court case support
that Fujitsu should provide to POL, because I considered these provisions with
POL's external solicitors CMS Cameron McKenna in around 2013 when the
contract was updated. I did not at this time, between 2014 and 2016, know
whether or not those provisions could apply to the Known Error Log (“KEL”),
145 Simon Clarke ‘Proposed Memorandum of Understanding POL and Fujitsu’ dated 4 February 2014
(POL00113136) and Simon Clarke ‘Securing Data for Future Prosecutions’ dated 2 duly 2014
(POL00113135)
76
153.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
PinlCLs and PEAKs (an individual incident recorded on the KEL) which Fujitsu
maintained in relation to Horizon, and did not need to turn my mind to this
because Fujitsu were generally responsive to POL’s requests for information
without POL needing to raise contractual rights.
My understanding of how POL’s contractual rights with Fujitsu could relate to
KEL however grew in the course of the Group Litigation, with POL's position
being summarised in the ‘Post Office Submissions in relation to the Fujitsu
Contract’ specifically addressing this issue,‘4° which were filed on or about 31
July 2019.
January and February 2015 Engagement with the CCRC
154.
On 14 January 2015, the CCRC sent a letter to POL along with a notice under
s.17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (a “s.17 Notice”), seeking disclosure of
Brian Altman KC's advice (which had been referred to in correspondence POL
exchanged with the CCRC in July 2014) and “the preservation of any materials
associated with the affected cases’. I believe this was the first time the CCRC
had formally exercised its statutory powers, so a short letter was sent to the
CCRC by Chris Aujard on 20 January 2015, acknowledging receipt of the
CCRC’s letter.47 POL then sought advice from its external lawyers on the
CCRC’s statutory powers and how best to respond to the CCRC’s letter. POL
understood the importance of the CCRC and wanted to cooperate with it, but
needed to understand the legal foundation and context given the very broad
requests for information the CCRC had made.
46 Post Office submissions in relation to the Fujitsu contract dated 31 July 2019 (POL00042858)
‘47 Email from Rodric Williams to Martin Smith dated 21 January 2015 at 16.46 (POL00150845)
7
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
155. After considering the advice received, POL sent a more substantive response
to the CCRC on 11 February 2015. This was drafted with the assistance of
external lawyers and sought clarification of the CCRC’s functions, while
expressing POL’s commitment to working with the CCRC.148.The CCRC
provided the requested clarification on 12 February 2015, after which a further
letter was sent to the CCRC by the new POL General Counsel, Jane MacLeod,
on 27 February 2015. "4° This enclosed Brian Altman KC’s report and confirmed
that all materials reviewed as part of the Sift Reviews and the Scheme would
be preserved. It also asked for clarification of which of Brian Altman KC's
findings or recommendations were being sought. I was involved in completing
a first draft of this letter with Gavin Matthews of WBD, which was then reviewed
by Brian Altman KC and Jane MacLeod before being sent.1®°
Simon Clarke’s Response to the Deloitte Report
156. I have been asked to consider the 27 March 2015 note of advice from Simon
Clarke in response to the Deloitte report of 23 May 2014.'5' In February 2015,
POL was again engaging with the CCRC, following their letter of 14 January
2015 referred to above at paragraph [154]. Although I cannot recall for sure, I
suspect that this contact from the CCRC is what prompted POL to seek advice
from Simon Clarke about whether disclosure of the Deloitte report needed to
be made in respect of past prosecutions. The Inquiry has asked me specifically
148 Email. from Rodric Williams to Martin Smith and others dated 9 February 2015 at 14.20
(POL00311931)
149 Email from Rodric Williams to Georgia Baker dated 27 February 2015 at 11.42 (POL00312540) and
Letter from Jane MacLeod to CCRC dated 27 February 2015 (POL00223161)
150 Email from Gavin Matthews to Rodric Williams dated 26 February 2015 at 15.20 (POL00151297);
and Email from Georgia Barker to Rodric Williams dated 3 March 2015 at 10.02 (POL00223160)
151 Simon Clarke ‘Note: Deloitte Report - Questions for POL’ dated 27 March 2015 (POL00029843)
78
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
about paragraph 6 of Simon Clarke’s note of advice, which records a summary
of a telephone conference I attended with him and Andy Parsons. While I do
not recall this conversation specifically, I have no reason to believe that it has
not been fairly recorded. My involvement in these matters related to providing
instructions and information to Cartwright King, and this paragraph is consistent
with me acting in that role.
157. POL had done work on remote access and balancing transactions in the context
of Second Sight's work, and obtained the information summarised at paragraph
6 of Simon Clarke's note in that context. At this point in time, the focus was on
whether the May 2014 Deloitte Report needed to be disclosed in past criminal
cases (i.e. as had been done with the Interim Report and Helen Rose Report in
the Sift Review).
Meeting with the CCRC in May 2015
158. POL started receiving s.17 Notices in relation to specific cases in March 2015.
These were forwarded to Cartwright King, with instructions to start collating and
preserving responsive documents given that they would know from their
experience of working with POL on prosecutions the type of information that
would need to be provide to the CCRC and where that would be located. WBD
were also instructed to help POL manage the responses overall, as it was
quickly apparent that responding to the s.17 Notices would be a significant
exercise.
159. Inits 12 and 27 February 2015 letters, POL had offered to discuss the best way
to progress matters with the CCRC. On receipt of the first tranche of s.17
79
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Notices, Jane MacLeod suggested that this be expedited, which led to a
meeting being arranged with the CCRC on 8 May 2015.‘ I exchanged emails
with the CCRC to determine the matters that could usefully be discussed, with
the focus being on how POL could best facilitate the CCRC’s reviews." I also
prepared a ‘speaking note’, which collated information that might be relevant in
the meeting, and which I hoped would serve as a general primer to help bring
Jane MacLeod up to speed on the background, bearing in mind that she had
only recently started as POL’s new General Counsel. "54
160. I recall that the meeting was held at POL’s head office and was constructive
and cordial (as was the case with all my interactions with the CCRC). One of
the main actions taken away was Jane MacLeod’s suggestion that POL set up
a file sharing platform to facilitate transfers of data to the CCRC and to help
manage the volume of material which would be provided. Following the
meeting, POL worked with the CCRC to set up the “Millnet” electronic document
review platform, and continued to collate responsive material, including
relatively substantial volumes of electronic data. WBD were instructed to assist
POL in tracking and disclosing the materials to the CCRC over the Milinet
platform as I did not have the capacity to address the requests directly myself.
161. On 10 and 18 September 2015, I wrote to the CCRC updating them on
progress, and again inviting tiem to discuss with POL how best to progress the
disclosure process. The CCRC responded on 1 October 2015, inviting POL up
182 Draft speaking note for Post Office meeting with CCRC dated 8 May 2015 (POL00110243); and
Speaking note for Post Office meeting with CCRC dated 8 May 2015 (POL00125758)
+83 Email from Rodric Williams to Gregg Cooke and others dated 15 April 2015 at 17.47 (POL00314595)
154 Jane Macleod joined POL around the time of Second Sight’s termination.
80
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
to their offices in Birmingham “to take stock”, and a meeting was ultimately held
there on 6 November 2015.
Meeting with the CCRC in November 2015
162. The Inquiry has asked me to consider two documents relating to that meeting,
on 6 November 2015. These are the ‘speaking note’ for the meeting, 5 which
adopted a similar format to the speaking note for the May 2015 meeting, and
an updated version of the document containing a note of the meeting. 5° Both
documents were prepared by WBD at my request.
163. I recall the meeting focussing on disclosure, including electronic document
management and the provision of both specific documents and broader
categories of material. The CCRC’s investigation was still at an early stage, it
was for example continuing to receive new applications, so my memory is that
we only. discussed “concerns” about disclosure in the sense of needing to
identify the documents which would be most helpful to the CCRC amongst what
was likely to be an extremely large body of material. Although the note of the
meeting shows that we discussed the material that Fujitsu might hold, I do not
recall any discussion about BEDs, KELs, PintCLs or PEAKs.
164. Following the 6 November 2015 meeting with the CCRC, I recall that POL
began collating the material discussed at the meeting as well as continuing to
respond to further s.17 Notices as these were received. I emailed the CCRC on
4 December 2015 and 5 January 2016 to update them on progress, before
188 Speaking note for Post Office meeting with CCRC dated 6 November 2015 (POL00065670)
156 Annotated Speaking note for Post Office meeting with CCRC dated 6 November 2015
(POL00065671)
81
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
sending a substantive reply on 13 January 2016.'5” Following that reply, the
CCRC and I continued to exchange emails in which the CCRC identified, and
POL sought to provide, a variety of information relevant to its investigations both
in terms of documents and also through responding to written questions.
2016 Engagement with the CCRC
165. I continued to liaise with the CCRC throughout 2016, with the support of
Cartwright King and WBD.'*8 WBD would source and collate responses to
CCRC requests into draft emails, which they were well placed to do given their
involvement in POL’s responses to the PMRs’ Horizon complaints. I would then
review the draft emails before sending final responses to the CCRC. In doing
this, I was relying on WBD for the accuracy of the material being provided and
had confidence in that given their work with POL generally. I always tried to
conclude emails to the CCRC with an offer to provide anything further they may
require, to underscore POL’s ongoing commitment to providing to the CCRC
any information that would assist their process. Once sent, I forwarded to WBD °
the final emails sent to the CCRC for their records.
166. The inquiry has asked me to comment on an email I sent to WBD on 25 April
2016.'59 I do not recall the conversation referred to in that email, but it is likely
to have concerned the requests POL was receiving from the CCRC.'© In my
157Email from Rodric Williams to Amanda Pearce dated 13 January 2016 at 15.12 (POL00242986)
158 See Email from Rodric Williams to Amanda Pearce dated 14 March 2016 at 16.45 (POL00103156);
Email from Gavin Matthews to Rodric Williams dated 2 August 2016 at 13.48 (POL00103238); Email
from Rodric Williams to Amanda Pearce dated 13 November 2016 at 23.16 (POL00103263); and Email
from Rodric Williams to Amanda Pearce dated 21 December 2016 at 18.44 (POL00103278)
189 Email from Rodric Williams to Gavin Matthews and others dated 25 April 2016 at 11.40
(POL00137142)
160 For context, at this same time POL was also starting to respond to the claim form issued in the Group
Litigation as well as taking forward the recommendations of the Swift Review.
82
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
email, I asked WBD whether advice received from Cartwright King in December
2015 in relation to disclosure in past prosecutions should be revisited with Brian
Altman KC, with a view to POL taking a more pro-active approach to disclosure.
I believe I raised this because I wanted to be sure POL was complying with its
disclosure duties.
PART 8: POL COMMUNICATIONS WITH EXTERNAL ACTORS 2014-2016
Engagement with Baroness Neville-Rolfe of Autumn 2015
167. As stated above, POL’s Comms team was responsible for engaging with
parliamentarians. The Inquiry has referred me to email correspondence relating
to a meeting between Baroness Neville-Rolfe (the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Intellectual Property) and Lord Arbuthnot, including an
email summary of that meeting circulated by Patrick Bourke on 17 September
2015.16" I do not believe I attended the meeting, so my email on 18 September
2015 only responded to the content of Patrick Bourke’s summary. In particular,
I provided my observations on the suggestion that POL should interview POL
or Royal Mail personnel who had been involved in Jo Hamilton’s prosecution
many years earlier. My email refers to a “red folder’. This was a ring binder
(which happened to be red) containing hard copies of some contemporaneous
documents from Jo Hamilton’s prosecution files, which I had collated around
the time of the Panorama broadcast (discussed further below at [171]-[174]).
On their face these documents showed liaison between POL/Royal Mail
investigators and legal advisers, over a period of time, about the evidence in
161 Email from Mark Underwood to Patrick Bourke dated 18 September 2015 at 13.24 (POL00065602)
83
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the Jo Hamilton case, and the charges that could be brought based on that
evidence.
168. The Inquiry has asked me specifically about my comment at point 18 of my
email of 18 September 2015 that: “perhaps most importantly, any interview will
be covered by the CCRC’s s.17 Notice for Jo Hamilton and therefore would
have to be disclosed to the CCRC”. My view, as expressed in (a) to (c) of point
18, was essentially that I did not see the benefit of conducting interviews in
2015 given the amount of time since the events in question and the uncertainty
around what was being asked, such that any interview would be inherently
unreliable and the type of ‘new material’ which POL had been advised against
creating in the context of the Scheme (see paragraph [120] above), but would
be disclosable to the CCRC regardless of how accurate it was. Nevertheless,
had this proposal been pursued further, I am most likely to have suggested that
further formal advice be taken from POL’s criminal law advisers as to its risks.
Engagement with the Media
169. Generally, POL’s Comms team was responsible for POL’s engagement with the
media. I was typically the contact for Comms within POL's in-house legal team
if they felt they needed legal support, which could range from ad hoc reviews
of statements they were proposing to make, to legal advice in respect of
proposed broadcasts. I would arrange external legal support where that was
required, usually from CMS Cameron McKenna (“CMS”) whom I had been
introduced to shortly after joining POL. As I have set out above at [17], my role
as an in-house lawyer was one of legal risk manager, and this was my focus in
POL’s engagement with the media.
84
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
170. I have been asked to consider selected correspondence with the BBC,
Nick Wallis and internally within POL from December 2014 to January 2015. 162
My recollection of this time was that Comms team was concerned that the BBC.
was proposing to broadcast a piece on the One Show about PMR Horizon
complaints, which would be damaging to POL. I was therefore asked to support
the Comms team in its exchanges with the BBC, for which I obtained external
support from CMS. I believe the legal input into POL’s exchanges with the BBC.
is reflected in the documents shown to me by the Inquiry. I am not aware of
POL threatening to issue proceedings against the BBC, and I was not asked to
consider issuing proceedings as a consequence of the correspondence or the
broadcast.
171. The Inquiry has raised a number of questions about POL’s approach to the
planned broadcast of an episode of Panorama, “Trouble at the Post Office”,
about POL and Horizon on 17 August 2015.'®? My recollection of this time is
12 Email from Belinda Crowe to Mark Davies and others dated 5 December 2014 at 18.42
(POL00101659); Letter from Rodric Williams to Nick Wallis dated 5 December 2014 (POL00101660);
Email from Mark Davies to Belinda Crowe and others dated 7 December 2014 at 22.52 (POL00101665);
Email from Patrick Bourke to Mark Davies and others dated 8 December 2014 (POL00101668); Email
from Tom Weschler to Melanie Corfield and others dated 8 December 2014 at 09.51 (POL00101670);
Email from Rodric Williams to Belinda Crowe and others dated 8 December 2014 at 10.16
(POL00101671); Letter from CMS to BBC Programme Legal Advice dated 9 December 2014
(POL00101715); Email from Rodric Williams dated 9 December 2014 at 10.45 (POL00101741);
Email from Rodric Williams to Mark Davies dated 9 December 2014 at 12.28 (POL00101745); Email
from Angela van den Bogerd to Rodric Williams and others dated 14 December 2014 at 12.34
(POL00101858); Letter from CMS to BBC Programme Legal Advice dated 16 December 2014
(POL00101915), Email from Rodric Williams to Mark Davies and others dated 16 December 2014 at
14.16 (POL00101899); Email from Melanie Corfield to Tom Wechsler dated 16 December 2014 at 14.27
(POL00101902); Email from Melanie Corfield to Mark Davies and others dated 16 December 2014 at
14.39 (POL00101906); Draft letter from CMS to BBC Programme Legal Advice dated January 2015
(POL00101980); Email from Belinda Crowe to Rodric Williams and others dated 8 January 2015 at
18.10 (POL00101968); and Email from Susan Barty to Ruth Barker and others dated 19 January 2015
at 10.41 (POL00105883)
‘68 Email from Rodric Williams to Melanie Corfield and others dated 16 June 2015 at 09.51
(POL00117416); Email from Mark Davies to Rodric Williams dated 22 June 2015 at 17.41
(POL00065410); Email from Mark Davies to Rodric Williams dated 23 June 2015 at 10.51
(POL00065416); Email from Tom Reid to Rodric Williams and others dated 23 June 2015 at 11.22
(POL00065419), Email from Patrick Bourke to Rodric Williams dated 26 June 2015 at 10.22
(POL00065429); Email from Tom Reid to Rodric Williams dated 5 August 2015 at 15.04
85
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
that POL wanted to know what Panorama was planning to say in the broadcast,
so it could provide an informed response for the BBC to consider before it aired.
This was initially explored through exchanges between Comms (with legal
support) and the Panorama editorial team. As the broadcast came nearer, and
POL felt that its position would not be fairly portrayed, a formal letter from CMS.
was then drafted and sent on 10 August 2015 so POL’s position was understood
and reflected as the broadcast was being edited.
172. The statement “It is not possible for Post Office or Fujitsu to remotely edit
transactions as they were recorded by branches” essentially repeated POL’s
statement made to the BBC on 4 August 2015 and focused on balancing
transactions.’ It is however incorrect, as it was theoretically possible for
administrators at Fujitsu with the appropriate level of privilege to alter
transactions. The statement should therefore have reflected that possibility of
“superuser access”, which Deloitte had identified in their 2014 reports.'® It is
regrettable that it did not, but this was not deliberate; I did not intend to mislead
the BBC. As noted above at [144], this was not something I believe that anyone
within POL registered at the time.
(POL00065499); Letter from CMS to BBC Programme Legal Advice dated 10 August 2015
(POL00065519); Email from Susan Barty to Mark Davies and others dated 15 September 2015 at 15.04
(POL00105862); Email from Tom Reid to Rodric Williams dated 11 January 2016 at 18.16
(POL00105866); and Email from Rodric Williams to Mark Davies and others dated 3 March 2016 at
13.23 (POL00106920)
164 This stated “Neither Post Office nor Fujitsu can edit the transactions as recorded by branches. Post
Office can correct errors in and/or update a branch's accounts by inputting a new transaction (not editing
or removing any previous transactions). However, this is shown transparently in the branch transaction
records, There is no evidence that any branch transaction data was inappropriately accessed from a
remote access point.” (Email from Rodric Williams to Tom Reid dated 10 August 2015 at 16.13
(POL00152834), attaching POL ‘Statement for Panorama’ dated 4 August 2015 (POL00152835)
165 As noted in the May 2014 Deloitte Report (POL00028062) (discussed above at paragraph [145])
86
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
173. Insofar as Richard Roll's contribution to the Panorama broadcast was
concerned, I did not know, and do not believe anyone within POL knew, who he
was before the broadcast of the Panorama episode. After seeing his
contribution, I did note that he had not worked for Fujitsu or in the IT industry
for a lengthy period of time, and so would not be commenting on the Horizon
system as it was currently operating. I am aware that some enquiries were
made by POL to Fujitsu about Richard Roll’s employment with them shortly after
the broadcast.’ Richard Roll’s allegations were subsequently looked into as
part of the Swift Review.'6” Following the broadcast, POL reviewed its
engagement with the editorial team and at the direction of the Comms team
pursued a formal complaint against the BBC about the broadcast. This
complaint was not upheld.
174. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email chain involving discussions
about the Panorama programme with the Shareholder Executive (which
managed the government's investment in POL at that time).1° Mark
Underwood has asked me in that email whether I was happy with the lines he
had drafted, but those lines do not appear to be reflected in the email chain at
POLO00102517 and I cannot now recall what they were. My discussion with Mark
166 Email from Michael Harvey to Rodric Williams dated 21 December 2015 at 14.14 (POL00131623
187 The allegations made by Richard Roll were described in the Swift Review as the “only genuinely
new information" seen in the broadcast (paragraph 87 at POL00006355) and of potential significance,
In respect of the allegation that “financial records were sometimes changed remotely without the
postmaster knowing” the Swift Review states that “[t]he specific comments in the Panorama programme
are, however, ambiguous and unclear as to precisely what is being suggested was done. It is difficult
to deal with or respond to those comments as a result” (paragraph 136 at POL00006355) confirms that
POL did not see the detail of Mr Roll's suggestions (paragraph 148 at POL00006355)
168 Email: from Mark Underwood to Rodric Williams and others dated 25 August 2015 at 13.23
(POL00102517)
87
175.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
appears to have taken place outside of the email chain and I cannot recall the
contents of it.
My understanding of POL’s general attitude and strategy at that time towards
the media, and its aims in dealing with them, was that the media could and
would report on POL: It was therefore important to maintain an open dialogue
with journalists so as to get an insight into what they might say and try to ensure
they reflected POL’s position, with matters only being escalated to formal legal
intervention if it was felt essential to ensure a balanced presentation of POL's
position in the finished publication.
PART 9: THE SWIFT REVIEW AND FOLLOW UP ACTIONS
The Swift Review
176.
In October 2015 Tim Parker became the Chairman of POL (the “Chairman’). I
was not a party to the discussions which led to this, but on taking office the
Chairman was asked by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness
Neville-Rolfe, to determine whether any further action was necessary to
address PMR’s Horizon complaints, as formally made in a letter dated
10 September 2015.'® In order to do this, the Chairman asked POL’s General
Counsel to identify a suitable barrister who could provide independent advice
to him, and following that to provide the barrister with any information they
required. This independent advice would inform the Chairman’s response to
Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and I (with others) helped the General Counsel to
facilitate this.
169 Letter from Baroness Neville-Rolfe to Tim Parker dated 10 September 2015 (POL00102551)
88
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
177. [helped to identify a number of (then) Queen's Counsel as potential candidates
to provide the independent advice sought, based on my own experience and
recommendations from WBD. A draft email was prepared by Patrick Bourke
and Mark Underwood to send to the Chairman proposing two possible
candidates on 1 October 2015. That email also suggested some text to describe
very generally the potential scope of the review, while noting that the appointed
QC would ultimately advise on this. I do not know how or why the Chairman
chose Sir Jonathan Swift. He was appointed with a junior barrister to assist him,
Christopher Knight. As a result, the independent review carried out on behalf of
Chairman became known as the “Chairman's review”. I refer to final report as
the “Swift Review’.
178. Following their appointment, I drafted instructions to Sir Jonathan Swift and
Christopher Knight, which repeated the general text on scope sent to the
Chairman on or about 1 October 2015. These instructions recorded that the
Chairman required Sir Jonathan Swift's advice on the actual scope of the review
and how it was to be framed, the process by which the review should be
conducted, and the nature of the final report.1” It was hoped that the final report
would be completed by Christmas 2015. In the draft instructions, I also set out
some background information and identified some potentially relevant
documents to help Sir Jonathan Swift read into the matter ahead of an initial
conference with him on 8 October 2015. Following this conference Sir Jonathan
Swift proposed ‘Terms of Reference’ for discussion with the Chairman.17"
7 Instructions to Sir Jonathan Swift dated 6 October 2015 (POL00114270)
‘71 Email from Sir Jonathan Swift to Jane MacLeod and Rodric Williams dated 9 October 2015 at 07.50
(POL00233682)
89
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
179. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email from Jane MacLeod to
Sir Jonathan Swift on 22 October 2015, summarising the outcome of a meeting
held between the Chairman and Sir Jonathan Swift to discuss the review
process.‘72 I do not recall attending that meeting.
180. Following the meeting between the Chairman and Sir Jonathan Swift on 22
October 2015, I was asked to support Sir Jonathan Swift and Christopher
Knight by providing to them whatever information they required. We were
working to a fairly tight deadline to provide documents, particularly given the
time of year, but POL was committed doing this. The sources of the information
provided to Sir Jonathan Swift would most likely be self-evident, enabling him
to investigate further as he thought appropriate. POL’s approach to the
provision of documents is reflected at paragraph 3 of the Swift Review: 173
“The legal department of POL has been the source of most of the
information provided to us, but we have determined what information
should be provided. No information we have requested has been
withheld from us and we are grateful for the assistance we have received
from both POL”.
181. Although I do not recall precisely when I first saw it, I would have been sent a
copy of the Swift Review very shortly after it was completed. I do not recall how
widely the Swift Review was circulated or whether or not it went to the Board.
The recommendations in the Swift Review were consolidated into an action
grid, prepared I believe by my colleague Mark Underwood.'”4 Advice was
sought from Brian Altman KC in respect of recommendations (1), (2) and (6);
Deloitte were instructed to undertake the analysis and reviews recommended
172 Email from Jane MacLeod to Sir Jonathan Swift dated 22 October 2015 at 17.03 (POL00102617)
13 See The Swift Review (POL00006355)
174 The Swift Review Action Grid (POL00103106)
90
182.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
at (3), (4), (5) and (8); and WBD were instructed to carry out recommendation
(7), in coordination with Sir Jonathan Swift.
On 18 April 2016, POL received a draft claim form in what would become the
Group Litigation (covered in detail in Part 8 of this statement, below). I
discussed this development with WBD and Anthony de Garr Robinson KC, who
by this time had been instructed as leading counsel for POL in the Group
Litigation, and also with Sir Jonathan Swift. Given the overlap between
Sir Jonathan Swift's recommendations and the issues to be litigated in the
Group Litigation, Sir Jonathan Swift was content for his recommendations
(which remained his recommendations notwithstanding that litigation) to be
taken forward through the Group Litigation.175
Deloitte's Project Bramble
183.
184.
I believe that some of Sir Jonathan Swift's recommendations led to the initial
instruction of Deloitte in respect of what became known as ‘Project Bramble’. I
do not recall having direct engagement with Project Bramble, where I believe
the engagement with Deloitte was largely managed by others within POL,
supported by WBD. Those closer to the work would raise any issues that might
arise from them, for example as in POL00029990.
I do not know how widely the Project Bramble reports were circulated within
POL, but it is unlikely to have been wider than those working on the Group
Litigation. Because Deloitte’s Project Bramble work was developing ‘work in
progress’ which would inform POL’s position in the Group Litigation, I do not
75 Email from Sir Jonathan Swift to Rodric Williams dated 26 July 2016 at 15.06 (POL00022747)
91
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
think the reports were disclosed to the CCRC. The CCRC at this time was
however being updated on progress of the litigation and supplied with
documents raised in it, including the expert reports prepared for the Horizon
Issues Trial. I also note Brian Altman KC’s advice of 26 July 2016 was that until
the full reviews recommended by the Swift Review were completed (which
included those being sought as part of Project Bramble) he could not advise on
the extent that disclosure to defendants in criminal prosecutions brought by
POL was necessary. 176
PART 10: THE GROUP LITIGATION
Qutline of my role in the Group Litigation
185. The majority of matters covered in this statement involved me acting in the
manner described under the heading “My role as an in-house lawyer at POL”
at paragraphs [17]-[18]. I did however play a more active role in the Group
Litigation because of the scale of the litigation and my familiarity with the
litigation process. For example, I recommended that a steering group be
created comprising senior representatives from across different parts of the
business, to ensure there was a ‘client’ from whom substantive instructions
could be taken (the “Steering Group”, described further at paragraph [190]
below), and I helped POL structure its interactions with third parties during the
Group Litigation in a way that would help assert any applicable privilege over
documents relating to the legal proceedings.
‘76 See paragraph 16 of the advice of Brian Altman KC of 26 July 2016 (POL00112884).
92
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
186. In other respects, my role remained consistent with what I have said earlier. For
example, I was the principle contact between POL and the external legal team
conducting the Group Litigation at WBD. I would be a sounding board and
source of information for them, monitored matters as they arose for escalation
to the Steering Group, and sought updates from them on matters when required
for internal management purposes or to keep track of the general “direction of
travel”. I do not, however, recall personally directing or undertaking substantive
work myself or setting the overarching strategy, for which POL’s instructions
would come from the Steering Group or (as became the case more often as the
Group Litigation progressed) POL’s Group Executive or Board.
187. My role within POL did change as a result of the Group Litigation. Whereas the
other matters covered in this statement were only ever one of many things I
was doing at a given time (albeit significant ones), by mid-2018 the intensity of
the Group Litigation meant I needed to focus on it full-time, so that any other
matters were handled by backfilled secondee resource.
188. My main role in the Group Litigation was therefore to. maintain a general
overview of the constant developments as the case evolved and make sure it
kept progressing towards resolution, for example by monitoring progress
against deadlines, and helping to ensure the right people were linked up to
deliver certain outputs. Particular examples of my role are discussed in the rest
of this statement in response to specific matters raised with me by the Inquiry.
189. Reflecting on it, the Group Litigation was the critical event in my dealings with
the PMR Horizon complaints, given that it enabled the concerns raised by
PMRs and POL’s positions on them to be consolidated, clearly articulated,
93
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
forensically tested, and ultimately determined, thereby providing the best
opportunity for resolution.
POL decision making in respect of the Group Litigation
190. I have been asked to comment on how POL made decisions in respect of the
Group Litigation. The breadth of issues raised in the original Claim Form in the
Group Litigation made clear to me that, in order to respond to the claims in an
informed and timely manner, POL’s lawyers would need to consult and take
instructions from a central group of representatives from across the business.
In around April 2016, I therefore suggested to POL’s General Counsel that a
Steering Group be set up for that purpose. It was initially thought that the
Steering Group could meet fortnightly to work through a standard agenda,
although it was always recognised that this would need to be flexible to meet
the demands of the litigation. An email showing the proposed format was sent
on 23 May 2016," and its first meeting was held on 7 June 2016. The idea, as
the Steering Group’s Terms of Reference sought to reflect, was for the Steering
Group to provide the necessary instructions to conduct the litigation to POL’s
external lawyers, considering both standard agenda items and specific matters
for which papers would be prepared, and to escalate matters within POL as
appropriate.178
191. As far as I can recall, this remained the management structure for most of the
Group Litigation. In or around January 2018 the Board also decided to set up
7 Email from Rodric Williams to Tom Wechsler and others dated 23 May 2016 at 17.57
(POL00110434)
7% Email from Rodric Williams to Thomas Moran and others dated 20 June 2016 at 18.08
(POL00163037)
94
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
a sub-committee dedicated to the Group Litigation. I was not party to the
decision to set up that Board sub-committee, but I recall that it was intended to
afford a smaller group of Board members sufficient time to consider the litigation
(which was nearing the first, Common Issues trial) where full Board meetings
did not allow enough time given all the other matters on the Board’s agenda.
The Board sub-committee therefore met separately shortly before each Board
meeting and I sought to align those meetings with the litigation timetable. I do
not recall routinely attending Group Executive, Board or Board sub-committee
meetings in the earlier stages of the Group Litigation, but I did on occasion (for
example when POL's leading counsel attended). I did however start to attend
these meetings more regularly following the handing down of the Common
Issues Judgment in March 2019.
The early stages of the Group Litigation
192.
I view the early stages of the Group Litigation as beginning when we received
the Claim Form in April 2016. That set out brief details of the claim, and we
were told by Freeths LLP, the solicitors representing the claimants, that these
would be more fully set out in a Letter of Claim which would shortly follow. WBD
were immediately instructed and asked to identify potential leading counsel to
act for POL. The Inquiry has shown me an action list sent to me by Andy
Parsons, the lead partner on the Group Litigation, following a meeting we had
on or about 20 April 2016.'7° While I do not recall the details of this specific
meeting, I believe the matters set out in the 20 April 2016 action list were the
sort of preliminary issues that POL might need to address following receipt of
179 Email from Rodric Williams to Mark Underwood dated 21 April 2016 at 12.51 (POL00041136)
95
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the Claim Form and hence were likely to have been discussed shortly after its
receipt.
193. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an action point in that list, referencing
document preservation. Document preservation is a key aspect of all litigation,
and around this time I recall sending emails to several distribution lists within
POL notifying them of the litigation and the requirement to secure and preserve
documents they held.'®° A WBD associate worked to follow this up and identify
the potential sources of documents so that they would be available for
disclosure, which eventually led to a pool of many millions of documents being
corralled for potential use in the litigation. This was not a straightforward task
given the broad allegations made, the absence of particulars of claim and POL’s
document management, but I note that the vast majority of documents used in
the litigation were disclosed by POL and enabled the claimants successfully to
prove their claims.
194. POL was also aware that some documents were held by third parties outside
the scope of its control, such as Royal Mail and Fujitsu. At this point there was
a lack of particularisation to the pleadings, so the scope of disclosure and
documents required from these third parties was unclear.
Legal professional privilege
195. The Inquiry has asked me whether POL sought to maintain confidentiality
and/or legal professional privilege over information relevant to the discovery
and rectification of BEDs, or over remote access, or over POL’s preparation for
‘80 For example, Email from Rodric Williams to Alwen Lyons and others dated 20 April 2016 at 21.53
(POL00255859)
96
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the Group Litigation. I believe it was always understood that legal professional
privilege does not apply to facts, so the facts about BEDs and remote access
would not attract privilege. It is, however, possible (and indeed usual practice)
to claim legal professional privilege over communications between a lawyer and
their client for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice. The same applies
to communications between a lawyer and their client or a third party for the
purpose of obtaining advice or information in connection with existing or
reasonably contemplated litigation. In both cases, this applies to
communications that contain or are informed by factual information. I consider
it to be professionally essential to seek to safeguard and maintain a client's
legal professional privilege as far as possible in the context of litigation, and I
do not recall any instruction from POL to waive privilege over documents
qualifying for it.
196. I was consulted on or informed of certain decisions about privileged documents,
but my recollection is that this was infrequent. In the Group Litigation, the
disclosure process, which included review of documents for legal professional
privilege, was (as it had to be given its scale) managed by the external legal
team seeking to follow the court ordered disclosure process.
197. As noted at paragraph [185] above, I helped POL manage its interactions with
third parties during the Group Litigation, and sought to do so in a way that would
maintain legal professional privilege over documents. In particular, after the
claim was filed POL sought advice in May-June 2016 on the implications of the
Group Litigation for POL’s ongoing work in response to the Swift Review given
97
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
its apparent overlap with the Group Litigation claims. The Inquiry has shown
me two documents that relate to this advice. 181
198. As described at paragraph [181] above, the Swift Review made a number of
recommendations on which POL had begun work in February 2016. When
Antony de Garr Robinson KC was instructed, he was asked to advise on this,
and expressed the firm view that this work should be taken forward through the
Group Litigation. I do not now recall the full details of the conference, but the
WBD letter is a fair summary. I thought the advice was sensible for two reasons.
lt would strengthen POL’s claim to legal professional privilege over
communications in the Group Litigation on matters which had also been raised
by the Swift Review, and it would also enable POL to consolidate work which
would otherwise have had to proceed in parallel (and likely duplicative)
processes. However, given that following Antony de Garr Robinson KC's advice
would affect POL’s response to the Swift Review, I asked WBD to record his
advice in a letter'®* which could be shared with Sir Jonathan Swift to see if he
was comfortable with the approach POL was now proposing to take. In reply,
Sir Jonathan Swift confirmed that he was comfortable with POL dealing with his
recommendations as part of the Group Litigation rather than separately. 1°
199. The Inquiry has asked me who gave advice to the Chairman or others on
whether to provide the Swift Review to the Board, UKGI (which manages the
Government's investment in POL) and/or HMG. The Swift Review was
181 Email from Rodric Williams to Gavin Matthews dated 17 June 2016 at 11.12 (POL00041242); and
Letter from WBD to POL ‘Bates & others v Post Office Limited’ dated 21 June 2016 (POL00006601)
182 Letter from WBD to POL ‘Bates & others v Post Office Limited’ dated 21 June 2016 (POL00006601)
183 Email from Rodric Williams to Sir Jonathan Swift dated 26 July 2016 at 10.35 (POL00006600 ),
attaching letter from WBD (POL00006601); and Email from Sir Jonathan Swift to Rodric Williams dated
26 July 2016 at 14.06 (POL00022747)
98
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
independent legal advice to the Chairman. I do not know who else the Swift
Review was shared with as I did not have any direct contact with the Chairman
over it. My focus at this time was instead on taking forward its
recommendations.
200. As noted at paragraph [181] above, one of the recommendations in the Swift
Review was that POL seek independent criminal law advice as to whether the
decision to charge a PMR with theft and false accounting could undermine the
safety of any conviction for false accounting where (a) the conviction was based
on a guilty plea, following which/or in return for which the theft charge was
dropped, and (b) there had not been a sufficient evidential basis to bring the
theft charge." Brian Altman KC was therefore consulted on this, and the scope
of his review exercise was then discussed with Sir Jonathan Swift. Once the
scope was confirmed, Brian Altman KC undertook the review and provided his
written advice to WBD on 26 July 2016,"®5 who forwarded it to myself and others
at POL." POL’s focus by that'time was on the Group Litigation, and in
particular on responding to the claimants’ Letter of Claim for which a Letter of
Response was being drafted. WBD noted when circulating the outcome of the
review that Brian Altman KC had also confirmed it was consistent with the
relevant parts of the Letter of Response, and that consequently they did not
believe any further action was required.
201. I have been. asked to comment on an extract from paragraph 208 of Brian
Altman KC’s review. I note that he proceeded to address the matters raised in
164 Recommendation (1) of the Swift Review (POL00006355)
185 Brian Altman KC advice ‘Review of Post Office Limited Criminal Prosecutions’ dated 26 July 2016
(POL00112884)
186 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams and others dated 26 July 2016 at 12.55 (POL00022754)
99
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
that paragraph in the subsequent and final paragraphs of his review. Given that
POL’s focus was at the time on progressing the Group Litigation, I do not believe
any further action was taken in connection with the review.
PART 10.1: POL’S OVERALL STRATEGY DURING THE GROUP LITIGATION
202. At paragraphs [190] to [191] above, I outlined the role of the Steering Group
and mentioned that papers would be prepared for that body on specific issues
where instructions or oversight were required. The Inquiry has asked me to
comment on two papers of this kind prepared by WBD for the Steering Group
meeting on 11 September 2017.18? The purpose of documents like these was
to inform and stimulate discussion within the Steering Group, with a view to
confirming the approach POL would take. The context for these two papers was
that by this time, POL had carried out the initial phase of work required to
respond to the Letter of Claim, and had sent its Letter of Response on 28 July
2016," following which there was one further exchange between the parties
in October and November 2016. All of this was done with a view to obtaining
constructively an understanding of the claimants’ case and the issues POL
would have to address, so as to determine the best way to manage the Group
Litigation to resolution. By the time of the first Case Management Conference
(‘CMC’) in the Group Litigation in October 2017, POL was much better informed
about the case so needed to take a step back and make decisions about the
‘87 WBD Decision Papers for Steering Group meeting dated 11 September 2017 (POL00006380); and
WBD Paper for Steering Group meeting ‘Litigation Strategy Options’ dated 11 September 2017
(POL00006379)
188 Final version of draft Letter of Response (POL00041260)
100
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
“general direction of travel”, i.e. the approach to take to the litigation as a whole,
which would then also inform POL's position at the first CMC specifically.
203. I believe the two Steering Group papers reflected the ‘blue sky thinking’ that
was done on the possible approaches which could be taken to the Group
Litigation, so that POL could consider a variety of options. I do not believe the
options presented were necessarily mutually exclusive, nor do I believe were
they ‘set in stone’, such that (as the document notes) POL’s position was able
to develop (as it would need to) as the litigation progressed. That said, some of
the options were unlikely to be given serious consideration: in particular “Settle
now” (although it was always contemplated and indeed expected that the
litigation would ultimately be resolved through settlement), and “Attrition” (which
I do not recall being seriously considered or pursued at any stage of the
litigation).
204. Ultimately, it became clear that in order to resolve the Group Litigation, the
parties would need to focus on two fundamental areas that were common to
most of the claimants’ claims, but on which the parties were diametrically
opposed such that the court's intervention on them would be necessary. These
were the nature of the legal relationship between POL and PMRs, and the
reliability of Horizon, both of which were discussed in the options paper. I
believe the determination of these issues through the Common Issues and
Horizon Issues trials was essential to POL’s goal of resolving the litigation and
the PMR's Horizon complaints, as it represented the means to test
independently and resolve with certainty the claims and POL’s position on them
104
WITNO08420100
WITNO08420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
which, as the matters discussed elsewhere in my statement show, it had thus
far failed to do.
205. The documents also reflect that this was a large-scale High Court civil law claim
focused on issues like the construction of commercial contracts and IT system
performance. The claim was brought by a respected commercial law firm
backed by substantial litigation funding. It was not about matters of criminal law,
which were the domain of other courts. I therefore believe it was appropriate
that one factor being considered when assessing how POL should respond to
the claims was the costs implications the litigation would have, including for the
claimants’ funders. This was not however the only consideration.
Letter from Freeths of 16 October 2017
206. The Inquiry has asked me to consider a letter from Freeths to WBD and an
email commenting on that letter from Andy Parsons, both dated 16 October
2017. These relate to the Fourth Witness Statement of Andy Parsons,
submitted ahead of the first CMC."® At that time in October 2017, I was heavily
involved in an unrelated piece of urgent litigation concerning an important
business objective, so I was not as engaged in the Group Litigation as I was at
other times. I do not specifically recall this letter from Freeths or the related
email, but I do not believe POL or WBD ever adopted or pursued a strategy of
wasting time on side issues, nor do I believe allegations of professional
misconduct were made to obtain an advantage in the litigation.
169 Letter from Freeths to WBD ‘Fourth Witness Statement of Mr Parsons’ dated 16 October 2017
(POL00041510); Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams dated 16 October 2017 at 09.46
(POL00041509); and Fourth Witness Statement of Andy Parsons dated 9 October 2017
(POL00000444)
102
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
os - Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
207. The litigation proceeded in accordance with a very tight timetable, which
generated substantial amounts of inter-parties correspondence. Some of this
would be shared with me either for my input or so I could get a sense of the
direction of travel for how matters were progressing. Given the scale of the
litigation and the pace at which it was required to move, I believe it was
inevitable that some of the correspondence would be intemperate, but my
general recollection of the letters I saw was that they enabled the litigation to
advance.
Judgments of 10 November 2017 and 17 October 2018
208. I have been asked to consider the judgment of Bates & Others v. Post Office
Limited [2017] EWHC 2844 (QB), which was sent out in draft to the parties on
8 November 2017 and handed down on 10 November 2017, after the first CMC.
On reading the judgment, I identified the criticisms that the trial judge had made
in it about the parties’ behaviour to the General Counsel and a small group of
colleagues. While these criticisms were expressly levelled at the parties “more
or less equally’, I considered that the main message was that the parties would
need to co-operate more if they were to meet the tight timetable, failing which
“draconian costs orders” could result. I do not believe this led to any change in
the strategy for the litigation because, as noted above and in my email at the
time, I believe POL had been trying to cooperate with the claimants for the
expeditious resolution of the litigation. I nevertheless added (with WBD copied)
that POL not only needed to cooperate but also be seen to be cooperating. 19°
180 Email from Rodric Williams to Jane MacLeod and others dated 9 November 2017 at 09:47
(POL00041527)
103
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric: David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
209. The Inquiry has also asked me to consider the judgment in Bates & Others v.
Post Office Limited [2018] EWHC 2698 (QB), which the parties received on
15 October 2018," shortly before the start of the first, Common Issues trial on
5 November 2018. As I noted in the email I sent shortly after receipt of the
judgment,'® I was disappointed to read the further criticisms that the trial judge
had made of the parties’ conduct of the litigation, because as far as I was
concerned, POL had been trying to progress the case properly. I believe POL
was doing so. Indeed, both trials remained on track to start within the tight
timetable ordered and costs budget by the court and no sanction had been
sought or ordered. My contemporaneous emails show that an update on the
judgment was provided to UKGI on 16 October 2018, and that a briefing was
held with UKGI on 17 October 2018, which seemed (insofar as the Group
Litigation was concerned) to focus on potential outcomes and contingency
planning. I do not recall any challenge concerning the conduct of the litigation
arising from these events.
PART 10.2: INFORMATION SHARING
210. As I mentioned in paragraph [195] above, POL had a general (and I believe
understandable) concern about maintaining confidentiality and, where relevant,
legal professional privilege, over the materials being created in connection with
the PMRs’ Horizon complaints and its conduct of the Group Litigation. I believe
this was reasonable given the third party scrutiny being given to POL’s
181 Prior to it being handed down on 17 October 2018.
182 Email from Rodric Williams to Andy Parsons and others dated 16 October 2018 at 02.04
(POL00258011)
104
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: W!TN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
approach, and the potential for the conduct of its defence to be undermined if
that confidentiality was not maintained.
211. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email chain concerning sharing
information about the Group Litigation with UKGI.'%3 I recall that, in mid-2016,
an official from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (as it then
was) approached POL with a request for a discussion with a member of the
Department's legal team about the Group Litigation. That meeting took place
on 4 August 2016, which I attended as far as I recall with Patrick Bourke and
Andy Parsons. At the meeting we gave an overview of the litigation as we saw
it at that time, and essentially asked that POL be permitted to conduct the
litigation without external influence. I do not recall taking any specific actions
away from this meeting.
212. I do not know what prompted UKGI to seek a more structed information flow
about the Group Litigation in February 2018, as referred to in the first email in
the chain I have been asked to consider. In response to that request, I was
asked by POL’s General Counsel to try to formalise information sharing
arrangements in a manner which could, so far as possible, protect any
applicable legal professional privilege in the information that would need to be
shared. As can be seen from the email chain there was some toing and froing
between UKGI and POL over the form this should take, before the information
sharing protocol was agreed in or around June 2018.1%
183 Email from Patrick Bourke to Rodric Williams dated 14 May 2018 at 12.02 (POL00041770); and
UKGI/ Post Office Limited Information Sharing Protocol dated 11 June 2018 (BEIS0000079)
184 Which is the version at BEIS0000079.
105
213.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
The Inquiry has asked me to explain my comment, in an email of 11 May 2018,
that:
“The distinction between confidential. and privileged information is
artificial. There is no basis for it in law (privilege is founded on
confidentiality), and I see no reason why UKGI should not treat
everything they receive from us on the Group Lit as confidential (surely
the need for that is obvious?).”
This was a comment in an internal email to Patrick Bourke, Jane MacLeod and
Andy Parsons, copied to Mark Underwood. With hindsight, it should perhaps
have read “the distinction between confidential and privileged information that
UKGI is drawing in its comments on the draft protocol is artificial...”. Iappreciate
that legal professional privilege will not apply to all confidential documents. I am
also aware that confidentiality is a cornerstone for maintaining privilege, such
that privilege will be lost if privileged material is not kept confidential. I was
concerned that the changes UKGI wanted to make to the draft information
sharing protocol would narrow its protections to only cover privileged material
provided by POL. This was concerning because, particularly in litigation, the
existence of legal professional privilege over a document may not be obvious
(especially to someone outside of POL unaware of the document'’s context). I
was aware that Government provides robust protection in relation to the
handling of confidential information, and I wanted that protection to apply to any
documents shared by POL concerning the conduct of litigation, irrespective of
whether they might also be legally privileged. This was sensible in
circumstances where the presumption should be that all material being
provided would be confidential and deserving of those protections given the
195 Email from Patrick Bourke to Rodric Williams dated 11 May 2018 at 12.02 (POL00041770)
106
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
sensitive matters to which it related (namely the “Postmaster Complaints” as
defined). Reviewing this exchange now, it seems that this issue was swiftly
resolved by applying the information sharing protocol’s protections to
“Privileged and Confidential Information”, defined as including both legally
privileged and other confidential material.
214. Once the information sharing protocol was agreed, I provided updates to UKGI
and the Department in accordance with it and I do not ever recall being
challenged on POL’s compliance with it.
PART 10.3: EARLY WORK IN THE GROUP LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS
215. I outlined the early stages of the Group Litigation at paragraphs [192] to [193]
above. The Inquiry has also asked me some specific questions, which I address
below. During this time, as mentioned above at [17], I was promoted in 2017
to a more senior position within POL, from “Litigation Lawyer” to “Head of Legal
- Dispute Resolution & Brand”.
BEDs and remote access in the Letter of Response
216. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on a set of documents relating to BEDs
and remote access in the earliest phase of the Group Litigation. 19°
196 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams and others dated 13 July 2016 at 11.02
(POL00024988), Decision Papers for Postmaster Group Action (POL00024989), Email from Andy
Parsons to Mark Davies and others dated 21 July 2016 at 17.56 (POL00029998), Email from Mark
Davies to Jane MacLeod dated 22 July 2016 at 10.49 (POL00030002), Email from Jane MacLeod to
Paula Vennells dated 25 July 2016 at 06.27 (POL00041258), Email from Jane MacLeod to Andy
Parsons dated 26 July 2016 at 20.37 (POL00110482), Email from Amy Prime to Mark Underwood and
others dated 27 July 2016 at 13.44 (POL00022659), Rider: Remote Access (POL00022660), Email
from Andy Parsons to Jane MacLeod and others dated 27 July 2016 at 19.50 (POL00041259) and Final
version of draft Letter of Response (POL00041260)
107
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
217. In July 2016, WBD were working with POL’s counsel on POL’s response to the
claimants’ Letter of Claim. They were preparing a draft Letter of Response from
material to which they had access, or that I or others within POL could provide,
which would then be circulated to POL for consideration and comment. The
draft Letter of Response raised a number of specific issues on which WBD
wanted the Steering Group's instructions, and (in line with the Steering Group's
operating practices outlined in paragraph [190] above) these were distilled into
separate papers. This can be seen from the email chain dated 13 July 2016 to
which I have been referred by the Inquiry.” In the example paper given to me
to comment on, WBD’s recommendation was to confront the issue of BEDs
head-on by identifying the three BEDs that had been noted by Second Sight,
but that POL should also recognise that this would not be an exhaustive list of
BEDs in case more emerged later. This position was ultimately reflected in the
Letter of Response, at paragraph 3.10.1(a) and Schedule 6.198 I do not recall
any specific disagreement about this (or indeed on any of the other decision
papers) within the Steering Group, whose working practice was to discuss and
give views on an issue before reaching a consensus on it.
218. Shortly before the Steering Group meeting at which the Letter of Response
Papers were discussed, WBD raised an issue with remote access having been
identified through a combination of responding to the Letter of Claim and the
further work Deloitte was doing (referred to in paragraph [183] to [184]
above).'%° At paragraphs [141] to [149] above, I explained that POL’s position
197 Email from Andy Parsons to Rodric Williams and others dated 13 July 2016 at 11.02 (POL00024988)
and Decision Papers for Postmaster Group Action (POL00024989)
18 Email from Andy Parsons to Jane MacLeod and others dated 27 July 2016 at 19.50 (POL00041259)
and Final version of draft Letter of Response (POL00041260)
199 Email from Andy Parsons to Jane MacLeod and others dated 13 July 2016 at 15.40 (POL00029990)
108
219.
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
on remote access up to the point of receiving the Swift Review had focused on
‘balancing transactions’, and not the ‘superuser access’ issue (first discussed
at paragraph [144] above) which had been missed when POL was responded
to Panorama (see paragraph [172] above), and on which the Swift Review had
recommended further investigation (see paragraphs [181] and [183] above).
The focus was initially on correctly expressing the position in the Letter of
Response, but there followed a discussion about managing the impact of this
change of position.2°° The fact POL had not previously commented on Fujitsu
‘superusers’, and that this possibility was inconsistent with past statements,
was escalated to Paula Vennells by Jane MacLeod, and may have been
escalated to the Board if thought appropriate."
The final Letter of Response was very lengthy at some 99 pages including
schedules, and addressed a large number of issues. I was aware of the process
that WBD and counsel followed to prepare this letter, namely using existing
materials and seeking specific input from subject matter experts to prepare a
draft, which, when sufficiently advanced, was circulated to me and others for
comment.? I then reviewed (as did others) advanced drafts of the Letter of
Response and provided comments on it based on my own understanding of the
issues it traversed. I have no reason to believe this process did not ensure the
letter accurately reflected POL’s understanding of, and positions on, the various
issues as at that time.
200 Email from Mark Davies to Jane MacLeod dated 22 July 2016 at 10.49 (POL00030002)
201 Email of Jane MacLeod to Paula Vennells dated 25 July 2016 at 06.27 (POL00041258)
202 Email from Andy Parsons to Thomas Moran and others dated 16 July 2016 at 14.09 (POL00243250)
109
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
~o Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
" Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Generic Defence and Counterclaim
220. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on a number of paragraphs of POL’s
Generic Defence and Counterclaim.”°? As with the Letter of Response,
discussed in paragraphs [202] above, I was not involved in the substantive
drafting, but did review advanced drafts of the document.2%* As noted at
paragraph [185] to [186] above, my role as in-house lawyer in processes like
this was mainly to track the work of the external legal team against deadlines,
ensure it was broadly in line with POL’s expectations (or address issues that
were not), and to escalate when challenges arose (such as not finding
information, people being unresponsive etc.). I believe the process for
preparing the Generic Defence and Counterclaim was essentially the same as
that for the Letter of Response, and again I will have provided questions and
comments on this document to the external team to based on my own
understanding of the issue being traversed. I have also located emails from
WBD to Fujitsu and Deloitte asking them to review, comment on and identify
any inaccuracies in extracts from the claimants’ draft Generic Particulars of
Claim and POL’s Generic Defence (including as referenced in the Inquiry’s
question 116).2°5 Again as with the Letter of Response, I have no reason to
293 Letter from WBD to Freeths dated 18 July 2017 enclosing POL’s Generic Defence and Counterclaim
(POL00003340)
204 Email from Rodric Williams to Andy Parsons dated 8 July 2017 at 06.54 (POL00249676)
206 Email from Andy Parsons to Fujitsu Legal Defence (Chris Jay) dated 4 July 2017 at 21.38
(FUJ00085337), attaching Horizon sections of Draft Generic Defence (FUJ00085337); Email from Andy
Parsons to Mark Westbrook dated 4 July 2017 at 21.40 (POL00249612); and Email from Chris Jay to
Andy Parsons dated 5 July 2017 at 14.50 (POL00249635)
110
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
believe that this process did not ensure the Generic Defence and Counterclaim
accurately reflected POL’s understanding of matters at the time it was made.
PART 10.4: DISCLOSURE
Disclosure of investigations quidelines (October 2016)
221.
The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an email from WBD to me on 5
October 2016 relating to the disclosure of investigations guidelines.2°* I do not
recall this email; at this time, I was dealing with the unrelated piece of urgent
litigation concerning an important business objective referred to in paragraph
[206] above and, as the email was marked “not urgent but ... to consider ...
when you get a chance”, I may not have paid particular attention to it. I have
searched for a response but been unable to locate one, nor any emails
afterwards that shed light on the issue. I do not know whether, or, if so, when
the investigation guidelines referred to in the emails were disclosed, but I do
not believe POL sought to “suppress” disclosure during the litigation. I note the
email was sent relatively early in the litigation and before orders for disclosure
were made, and my recollection of POL’s approach to disclosure was to provide
to the claimants’ the disclosure they required so far as that was reasonably
possible. This to me was because, as referred to at [204] above, I believe it was
POL's ultimate aim in the Group Litigation to reach a conclusive outcome to the
PMR Horizon complaints, and this would not be possible if the outcomes could
be undermined (whether through the courts or other avenues) on grounds of
inadequate disclosure. As POL sought to explain in its Closing Submissions to
298 Email from Amy Prime to Rodric Williams dated 5 October 2016 at 11.01 (POL00038852)
111
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the Horizon Issues trial,?°” giving disclosure to the claimants was not always
straightforward given some of the wide-ranging requests and at times absence
of particulars of claim to inform the parameters of disclosure. However, as
already noted at [193] above, POL did provide substantial disclosure to the
claimants, which they did not take issue with through any applications to the
court, and which enabled them to prove their case.
Disclosure of KELs and PEAKs
222. I do not now recall any direct conversations with WBD, Fujitsu or others in POL
concerning the KEL log or access to it, although it is clear that I was copied in
to email correspondence about it.?°* My overarching recollection about the KEL
is that it was something which Fujitsu created, used and stored, to which neither
POL nor anyone else outside Fujitsu had access. POL was therefore dependent
on Fujitsu for information about and access to the KEL. The same applied to
PEAKs, which I do not recall being aware of prior to the Group Litigation and
whose function only became apparent to me as the litigation progressed.
223. In preparing this statement, I have considered the ‘Post Office Submissions in
relation to the Fujitsu Contract’ filed in the Group Litigation on 31 July 2019.22
This fairly summarises my understanding of the position with respect to the
KEL. It explains that POL felt disclosure of the KEL (which would not be
Straightforward given the technical means by which it was held) should be
addressed as part of Group Litigation disclosure generally. Nevertheless, in
207 Closing submissions on behalf of Post Office Ltd to the Horizon Issues trial (see paragraphs 1113-
1118) (POL00277546)
208 For example, Email of Andy Parsons to Pete Newsome dated 19 September 2017 at 09.56
(POL00041479)
29° Post Office submissions in relation to the Fujitsu contract dated 31 July 2019 (POL00042858)
112
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
September 2017 POL offered the claimants’ IT expert Jason Coyne inspection
of the KEL at Fujitsu's premises. I believe this offer was consistent with the
approach to disclosure discussed in paragraph [221] above, and is referred to
in paragraph 39 of the Fourth Witness Statement of Andy Parsons.?"° I recall
that in order for this inspection to take place Fujitsu required Jason Coyne to
sign a non-disclosure agreement, and that I was a party to communications
around this. Following Jason Coyne’s inspection of the KEL at Fujitsu’s
premises in November 2017, it was agreed that the KEL should be disclosed,
as it was in May 2018 once a technical solution had been created to enable
this.
224. I therefore do not believe POL had any sustained objection to disclosing the
KEL, and as paragraph 27 of the ‘Post Office Submissions in relation to the
Fujitsu Contract’ note, the KEL was not the subject of any contention by the
time the Horizon Issues trial was ordered. I note that when, after the Horizon
Issues trial had concluded but before judgment had been given, Fujitsu
revealed to POL that a large number of versions of the KEL previously thought
to have been destroyed were in fact available, the claimants and the court were
promptly notified of this so that the claimants could inspect them if required.
225. The documents relating to KEL disclosure to which the Inquiry has drawn my
attention show that WBD were in dialogue with Fujitsu about the KEL disclosure
in September 2017.2" I do not remember playing a role in the drafting of WBD's
letters to Freeths or Andy Parsons’ witness statement addressing the KEL, but
210 Fourth Witness statement of Andy Parsons dated 9 October 2017 (POL00000444)
211 Freeths’ letter to Andy Parsons dated 13 September 2017 (POL00003414) and Email from Andy
Parsons to Pete Newsome and others dated 19 September 2017 at 09.56 (POL00041479)
113
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
reading them now the contents fit with my memory of what Fujitsu was saying
about the KEL at that time.2"? The Inquiry has asked me to comment on a noting
paper for a Steering Group meeting on 16 October 2017, relating to this
issue.?"? This was prepared by WBD to give an overview of where matters were
in the litigation, and was designed to stimulate discussion so POL could give
instructions for the conduct of the first CMC. I note this says that POL would
continue to ‘push back’ on the KEL, which I take to mean that POL would
maintain its position as set out in the Fourth Witness Statement of Andy
Parsons, namely to offer inspection of the KEL notwithstanding POL’s then
pleaded case that it was not relevant.
Disclosure to the CCRC
Generic Defence and Counterclaim and its queries on KELs
226. Although the Group Litigation was not concerned with criminal law matters, as
noted at paragraph [205] above, POL understood that it would give rise to
information which might be relevant to them and to the CCRC’s investigations.
Accordingly, in addition to the specific requests for information received from
the CCRC, POL sought to keep it updated on the litigation as it progressed. We
also sought to keep Cartwright King engaged so that they were aware of the
progress of the Group Litigation and could advise POL accordingly.
212 Email from Andy Parsons to Pete Newsome and others dated 20 September 2017 at 17.31
(POL00041480), Draft letter from WBD to Freeths dated 20 September 2017 regarding preservation of
Horizon data (POL00041481), Draft letter from WBD to Freeths regarding KEL (POL00041482), Letter
from WBD to Freeths dated 22 September 2017 regarding KEL (POL00003480) and paragraphs 33 to
41 of Fourth Witness statement of Andy Parsons dated 9 October 2017 (POL00000444)
243 Noting paper: Update on Litigation Strategy for meeting on 16 October 2017 (POL00006431)
114
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
~ Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
227. The Inquiry has drawn my attention to two email chains relating to this from
January and July 2017.2"4 The first of these illustrates how I liaised with external
lawyers to support the CCRC’s work during the Group Litigation. I sent POL's
Generic Defence and Counterclaim to the CCRC in response to their request
for it, and also provided the Generic Particulars of Claim for ease of
reference.?"§ I believe I flagged paragraph 50(4) to them to ask whether this
dealt with the questions they had separately raised in relation to the KEL
because this represented the most recent statement of POL’s position on the
issue. The email chain shows that I continued my practice of liaising with WBD
(Paul Loraine) as POL's external legal support for responding to the CCRC
given my own lack of capacity, which in this case also involved WBD drafting
questions Fujitsu would need to answer. The July 2017 email chain shows
POL's continued engagement with the CCRC over the further questions it was
raising, consistent with the understanding described at paragraph [222] above.
I facilitated a visit by the CCRC to Fujitsu in Bracknell to view the ‘live’ KEL in
March 2018 and POL remained open to taking forward any further questions
the CCRC might have on the KEL.
Correspondence regarding PEAKs in late 2018
228. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an exchange of letters between WBD
and Freeths on 2 October and 28 November 2018, relating to the disclosure of
PEAKs.?"6 in between the dates of the two letters I note that POL'’s strike-out
214 Email from Paul Loraine to Rodric Williams and others dated 9 January 2017 at 10:56
(POL00025358) and Email from Paul Loraine to Rodric Williams dated 14 August 2017 at 12.36
(POL00041458)
215 Email from Rodric Williams to Miles Trent dated 26 July 2017 at 16.31 (POL00041458)
216 Letter from Freeths to WBD dated 2 October 2018 regarding PEAK disclosure (POL.00003386) and
Letter from WBD to Freeths dated 28 November 2018 regarding expert reports (POL00003363)
415
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
application in the Group Litigation was heard and determined (on 10 and 17
October 2018 respectively) and the Common Issues trial commenced (on 7
November 2018). This was therefore a very busy time. I now understand that
PEAKs were an internal log of the fixes applied to known Horizon errors which
was kept by Fujitsu. I do not recall these specific letters and, as I note below at
[237], I was less involved in the Horizon Issues trial preparation given its subject
matter and other demands. In light of that, and the issue appearing to be an
interlocutory one being progressed by the external legal team, it may not have
required or been given my attention. Reviewing the position now, it seems the
existence of PEAKs had been confirmed to Freeths in December 2017 and,
following a request to access them on 4 June 2018 from the claimants’ expert,
Jason Coyne, POL made arrangements for both parties’ experts to have access
at Fujitsu's premises on 15 June 2018. In September 2018, once technical
issues with extracting them from the Fujitsu database had been resolved, the
PEAKs were disclosed without affecting the trial timetable.
PART 10.5: PREPARATION FOR THE COMMON ISSUES TRIAL
My involvement in preparation for the Common Issues trial
229. As I explained at paragraph [204] above, I believe POL wanted the Group
Litigation to resolve the PMRs’ Horizon complaints. Determining the Common
Issues and confirming the legal relationship between POL and the PMRs was
an essential step towards this, given that it would bridge the gap between the
parties’ often diametrically opposed positions on them. WBD and the counsel
team were responsible for preparing the case for the Common Issues trial. My
role was as described at paragraphs [185] to [188] above.
116
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Disclosure and redactions
230. Disclosure and the redaction of documents were dealt with by WBD, which
employed what I consider to be a standard team structure for large scale
disclosure exercises, where responsive documents are stored in an electronic
document review platform and identified through the use of search terms. The
majority of responsive documents are then reviewed by paralegals in the first
instance, escalating matters through increasingly more qualified lawyers as the
document under review may require. Disclosure in this case was a very
substantial undertaking, with approximately 18 million documents being
considered for review and over 500,000 disclosed within a tight time frame,
enabling the Common Issues and Horizon Issues trials to proceed as directed.
Of the disclosed documents, my understanding is that fewer than 500 had
redactions, on grounds of either privilege or confidentiality.
231. The Inquiry has specifically highlighted the redactions to the ‘Zebra Action
Summary’ in the trial bundle.2"7 I was typically not involved in day-to-day
decisions on disclosure and redactions. However, I received an email from
WBD on 26 July 2018 raising a number of questions about privilege in this
document.?%® I do not now recall this specific issue, but having reviewed my
emails from this time, I believe I discussed it with WBD the next day by
telephone, which I presume addressed the issues raised and enabled the
appropriate disclosure to be made.
27 Zebra Action Summary (redacted) (POL00002356) and Zebra Action Summary (unredacted)
(POL00027054)
218 Email from Amy Prime to Rodric Williams dated 26 July 2018 at 19.14 (POL00255949)
117
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Case on the “settle centrally” button
232. The Inquiry has asked me how POL’s case on the ‘settle centrally” button was
prepared. I refer to my comments at paragraphs [217] and [220] above on the
process adopted to prepare POL’s Letter of Response and Generic Defence
and Counterclaim. As the factual basis POL’s case on “settle centrally” was an
operational matter, it was not something I could comment on meaningfully and
do not therefore think I will have made any material contribution to it. The Inquiry
has also raised cross-examination of the claimants, which was largely a trial
conduct matter determined by counsel. I do recall one discussion during the
Horizon Issues trial about whether, in cross-examination, POL's counsel should
put to a PMR witness that evidence they had given might amount to false
accounting. Although this was not actively pursued I thought it appropriate to
pose the question given it was I recall part of POL’s case that false cash
declarations would make it impossible to determine when and how a branch
shortfall arose.2"9
Angela van den Bogerd’s witness statement
233. Preparation of witness evidence for the Common Issues trial was dealt with
directly between WBD and the relevant witnesses. I did however read and
comment on the draft witness statements in much the same way I did the drafts
of POL’s Letter of Response and Generic Defence, namely to understand the
gist of the evidence being given and make comments from my own knowledge
where appropriate.
219 See 13 and 184 of the Generic Defence and Counterclaim (POL00003340)
118
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
234. Angela van den Bogerd was the lead corporate witness for POL in the Common
Issues trial, so I looked at her statement a little more closely than others. On 20
August 2018 I was copied into emails between Andy Parsons of WBD and
Angela van den Bogerd over the preparation of her witness statement, and
comments were marked for my attention.22° Angela van den Bogerd gave
evidence on a number of matters reflecting POL's corporate position, for which
there was no readily identifiable individual witness, so some of her evidence will
have been based on information drawn from across POL’s business. For
example, her statement included information to contextualise various POL
processes which had changed over time. My role was to address any
comments specifically raised for me or point things out based on the knowledge
I had developed of POL’s business. My response on 23 August 2018 is an
example of me flagging to Andy Parsons some information within my personal
knowledge about work I knew had been done within POL (e.g. relating to ATMs
and MoneyGram), in case it was helpful or relevant to include in what was
essentially a corporate statement.
235. The Inquiry has asked me why I included in my email to Andy Parsons the
following ‘overarching point’:227
“One overarching point on the witness statements: please make sure
you are giving the witnesses the “health warning’ on signing a statement
of truth, i.e. they need to be confident that what they are saying is true
to the best of their knowledge and belief, and that they don’t accept
something just because it's been through the lawyers.”
220 Email from Angela van den Bogerd to Andy Parsons and others dated 20 August 2018 at 22.55
(POL00041955) and Draft witness statement of Angela van den Bogerd (POL00041956)
221 Email from Rodric Williams to Andy Parsons dated 23 August 208 at 23.26 (POL00041 986)
119
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
I sent this at the time I had been reviewing and commenting on all of the POL
witness statements for the Common Issues trial (of which Angela van den
Bogerd’s was one of, if not the, last), so the comment was of general application
to all of POL’s witnesses. Throughout my career it has been my practice to
make this point explicitly to witnesses, even when they are experienced
professionals, so that there is a clear understanding of the significance of what
they are doing, and a paper trail recording that. I had no reason to believe that
any of POL’s witnesses would not be giving truthful evidence, but I did want
them to be sure of what they were saying, and not, for example, feel they could
rely on assumption or received wisdom.
236. I cannot comment on Mr Justice Fraser’s findings at paragraph 544 of his
Common Issues Judgment.?”2 I do however believe, based on my experience
of working with her, that Angela van den Bogerd would have been diligent and
given evidence to the best of her knowledge and belief.
PART 10.6: PREPARATION FOR HORIZON ISSUES TRIAL
My involvement in preparation for the Horizon Issues trial
237. As was the case in the Common Issues trial, POL’s preparation for the Horizon
Issues trial was led by its external legal team at WBD and counsel. I had less
involvement in POL’s preparation for the Horizon Issues trial than I had done
for the Common Issues trial. This was partly because I was engaged in the
Common Issues trial and attended court for significant periods of that
preparation, and partly because the Horizon Issues trial was not about the legal
222 Bates v Post Office (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB)
120
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
relationship between POL and PMRs, but about factual or expert technical
evidence about Horizon on which I had less to contribute. As noted above,
much of POL’s case on Horizon (including key issues such as BEDs and remote
access) had already been set out in documents exchanged between the
parties. As that had been derived from Fujitsu subject matter experts, much of
the evidence similarly needed to come from Fujitsu employees. The
contribution that I could therefore make was small, and I do not recall having
any material input on the preparation of POL’s witness evidence for the Horizon
Issues trial, or material insight into the extent of the involvement of Fujitsu
personnel in that process.
Witnesses and evidence
Robert Worden
238. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on a Steering Group ‘Noting paper:
Expert Report of Robert Worden’.?? I believe this was intended to update the
Steering Group as to the progress and overall conclusions of POL's expert
witness Robert Worden, whose work as POL’s appointed IT expert was of
significant interest to POL. Paragraph 3.1 of the Steering Group document sets
out the discussion POL’s legal team was having with Robert Worden as to how
to convey his opinions. I was aware that Robert Worden wanted to present his
evidence in a quantitative way, using statistical analysis to demonstrate his
conclusions, whereas POL had pleaded its case on a qualitative basis, so the
external legal team asked him whether he could present the evidence in that
223 Briefing note on the report of Robert Worden for Steering Group meeting on 28 November 2018
(POL00006471)
121
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
mo - Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
. Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 14 March 2024
way. I do not recall having any direct input into Robert Worden’s evidence or
these debates specifically, although I may have attended some meetings with
him to get an understanding of his work given its importance to POL’s case.
239. I cannot recall the detail of any discussions on this, but do recall the main
concern within POL’s legal team was that the quantitative analysis did not
coherently convey Robert Worden’s findings, which were generally positive
about Horizon and supportive of POL’s case on it. The feedback I had from
POL's external legal team was that Robert Worden was very much his own man
(as evidenced by his later volunteering of a third report to the court (see
paragraph [246] below)). I was not therefore surprised that he maintained his
quantitative analysis, but was pleased he also accepted the team’s suggestion
to present his findings in a more qualitative manner, with I believe both analyses
ultimately being included in his report.
Gareth Jenkins
240. A conference was held in September 2018 to discuss whether to rely on
Gareth Jenkins as a witness at the Horizon Issues trial. I attended that
conference, along with counsel for the Horizon Issues trial, Anthony de Garr
Robinson QC and Simon Henderson of counsel, Simon Clarke and Martin
Smith of Cartwright King and Andy Parsons of WBD. As can be seen from the
email Andy Parsons had written, which I forwarded to Cartwright King ahead of
the conference,?*4 there was a concern about using Gareth Jenkins as a
witness in the Horizon Issues trial given his previous role as a prosecution
224 Email from Rodric Williams to Simon Clarke and others dated 7 September 2018 at 13.12
(POL00042015)
122
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100.
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
witness, and Simon Clarke’s advice to POL of July 2013 that his credibility as
an expert witness had been ‘fatally undermined”. A briefing paper to the
Steering Group in December 2016 had also noted that Gareth’s Jenkins’
credibility had been damaged such that he could not give evidence in future.225
My recollection of the September 2018 conference was that a firm view was
formed that Gareth Jenkins should not be called as a witness because of his
previous involvement as a witness in POL prosecutions, which were not the
subject of the Horizon Issues trial. An alternative Fujitsu witness was therefore
sought to present Fujitsu's current understanding of the problems Horizon had
experienced, which ended up being Torstein Godeseth.
Robustness of the Horizon system
241. I do not recall the first expert reports of Jason Coyne and Robert Worden
causing POL concerns about the reliability of Horizon because they were, from
recollection, largely positive about Horizon and indeed gave POL confidence in
its case. Robert Worden’s evidence remained consistently positive, but Jason
Coyne’s supplementary report served on 1 February 2019 recast his case to
focus on some 22 bugs identified following his review of PEAKS. I was not close
enough to the technical or factual detail to have firm views of my own on the
overall implications of this. It was of course ultimately a matter for Mr Justice
Fraser to make findings based on the evidence, including that of the experts
who were producing their own reports. I do recall that my main concern with the
Horizon Issues trial was about the potential impact a negative judgment about
25 Email from Mark Underwood to Jane MacLeod and others dated 5 December 2016 at 18.54
(POL00246340) attaching Steering Group Meeting Discussion Paper: Approach to Fujitsu
(POL00246342)
123
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
the Horizon system as operating in 2019 might have, given the loss of
confidence that could lead to in a business-critical system being used in
thousands of branches to process millions of transactions each day. In terms of
any concerns about reliability of Horizon as impacting on convictions of PMRs,
my comments about the different roles of the High Court and the CCRC at
paragraph [205] above apply equally here.
Remote access in the Horizon Issues trial
242. As described at paragraph [218] above, the position on remote access changed
over time as the Group Litigation unfolded. During the Horizon Issues trial itself
the evidence of two Fujitsu witnesses, Stephen Parker and Torstein Godeseth,
changed through successive witness statements and in cross-examination,
with Mr Justice Fraser himself observing, in paragraphs 545 and 549 of his
judgment,”6 that it was only through the trial process and the evidence of
Richard Roll that the true position on remote access became known, namely
that transaction data can be edited by Fujitsu without the knowledge of
PMRs.27
Briefing to the Board subcommittee on the Horizon Issues trial
243. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on the minutes of the Board
subcommittee from 21 February 2019,??8 at which Anthony de Garr Robinson
KC briefed Board members about the upcoming Horizon Issues trial. At this
point, the Common Issues trial had been held but we were still awaiting
226 Bates v Post Office Ltd (No.6: Horizon Issues) [2019] EWHC 3408 (QB)
227 At 528 and 549.
226 Minutes of the meeting of the GLO Subcommittee of POL on 21 February 2019 (POL00006753)
124
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
judgment. It was unusual for me to attend the Board subcommittee but I was
present and I recall Anthony de Garr Robinson KC going through his speaking
note, of which I had been sent a copy in working draft.22° I have no specific
recollection of any questions asked by the subcommittee in response to the
briefing. The minutes for the meeting were taken by the assistant company
secretary Veronica Branton and appear to reflect it fairly so far as I can recall.
{ am not sure why the phrase ‘critically robust” was used in the minutes, but
recall that the question of whether Horizon was robust or not (and therefore
unlikely to have been the cause of losses in the claimants’ branches) was the
critical issue in the Horizon Issues trial.
244. As the note reflects, POL had set itself a high bar to meet at trial. This inevitably
gave rise to concerns about the prospects of success, particularly when
meeting that high bar in large part depended on witnesses coming up to proof
and Mr Justice Fraser preferring POL’s evidence to that of the claimants. I
believe Anthony de Garr Robinson KC’s advice was that all litigation carries risk
and it was possible the court would prefer Jason Coyne’s evidence, which had
improved through his supplementary report on 1 February 2018. Nevertheless,
there was still significant confidence in POL's case. I do not know whether
Deloitte reports were provided to the subcommittee, but Deloitte’s work is
mentioned in the minutes.
245. As far as I recall, POL’s main commercial concern going into the Horizon Issues
trial was the operational impact of a negative judgment on the Horizon system
as it operated in 2019, as described at paragraph [241] above. As I have
229 Document “Privileged Bates & others v Post Office Board Sub-Committee: 21 February 2019
Speaking Note” (POL00028051)
125
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
‘Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
explained, it was not the role of the Common Issues and Horizon Issues trials
to determine the safety of convictions. That was a matter for the CCRC and the
criminal appeal courts which would consider any cases the CCRC might refer.
I continued to provide Group Litigation materials to the CCRC, including the
experts’ reports and the Horizon Issues Judgment. Following the Horizon
Issues Judgment POL also sought advice on its implications for its criminal law
obligations from Brian Altman KC and Peters & Peters LLP.
Robert Worden's third report
246. In May 2019, the Horizon Issues trial was ongoing but Robert Worden had not
yet been cross-examined. Following the conclusion of POL’s factual evidence
at the beginning of April 2019, Robert Worden indicated that he had come up
with a different way of looking at the issues, and felt it was his duty as an
independent expert to volunteer a third report to the court. This was not
something that had been requested by either POL or its legal team, and I do
not believe any application was made for permission to file the third report.
However, Robert Worden felt he needed to provide it to the court directly himself
and I do not believe it would have been for POL to dissuade him from acting in
line with what he felt to be his duty. Robert Worden did provide his report directly
to the court and my understanding is that the claimants’ counsel and expert also
received it.°° I do not know if Robert Worden was encouraged to send the
report directly to Mr Justice Fraser's clerk, but I do not believe it was done on
instructions from POL.231
230 Email from Robert Worden to Andy Parsons dated 22 May 2019 at 20.20 (POL00112279)
231 Minutes of Group Litigation Contingency Planning Governance group meeting dated 13 May 2019
(POL00128821)
126
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
PART 10.7: RECUSAL APPLICATION
247. POL received the draft Common Issues Judgment on 8 March 2019. The
judgment came as a shock given the extent to which POL lost the case and the
criticisms levelled against it. However, as the draft was delivered the Friday
before the Horizon Issues trial started, I was in court for that trial and not part
of the team which took the recusal application forward. Although I was aware
that the application was being considered by POL senior management, WBD
and counsel, I was not party to the discussions held or decisions made on it.
PART 10.8: ENGAGEMENT WITH CCRC DURING GROUP LITIGATION
248. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on an agenda for a meeting with Fujitsu
on 28 February 2017.2% I recall this meeting was arranged shortly after the
Group Litigation Order was made, which required the parties to plead their
cases through the spring and summer of 2017. As POL would require significant
support from Fujitsu to do this, the meeting was held to ensure that Fujitsu
would provide the agile, timely and accurate support POL required, and that it
was aware of the consequences if it did not. From the agenda, I can see that
the objective was to secure Fujitsu's commitment to supporting all necessary
investigations, whether in connection with the Group Litigation or the CCRC.
249. As referred to in paragraph [165], when Fujitsu’s input was needed to respond
to the CCRC I would generally ask WBD to prepare questions for me to send
to Fujitsu, and I would then relay the answers back to the CCRC, usually stating
that the responses had come from Fujitsu. I do not think Fujitsu were in direct
282 Agenda for meeting with Fujitsu dated 28 February 2017 (POL00023458)
127
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
a Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
dialogue with the CCRC, at least until the CCRC asked to view the KEL when I
facilitated the visit described at paragraph [227] above.
Advice regarding CCRC review
250. The Inquiry has also shown me a briefing note from WBD regarding the CCRC
review in April 2017.23 Unfortunately, with the passage of time, I am unsure of
the context in which this was prepared, or the intended audience. Brian Altman
KC's advice, mentioned at 5.6 of the briefing note, was disclosed to the CCRC
in my email to Miles Trent of 7 February 2018.2%4 As I understand it, Brian
Altman KC’s reason for proposing that it not be disclosed to the CCRC was that
it was just his opinion, and the CCRC would reach its own conclusions. As such,
it was not given to the CCRC until it was provided following the provision of the
Swift Review and subsequent request for related material.
Disclosure of PEAKs, KELs and ARQ data
251.
As explained at paragraphs [222] to [226] above, the KEL was initially
understood to be a live and evolving database which was technically difficult to
disclose. POL nevertheless facilitated the CCRC’s viewing of the ‘live’ KEL at
Fujitsu's offices. This was offered on 15 November 2017 in my email to Miles
Trent, and taken up by the CCRC in January 2018.25 I understand that the visit
took place in March 2018, but I do not believe I attended it.25° Later Fujitsu
found a way to extract the KEL, so that it could be disclosed. ARQ data was
233 Briefing note on CCRC prepared by WBD dated April 2017 (POL.00006390)
234 Email from Rodric Williams to Miles Trent dated 7 February 2018 at 11.14 (POL00126086)
238 Email from Rodric Williams to Miles Trent dated 15 November 2017 at 17.02 (POL00110826)
236 Email from Miles Trent to Rodric Williams dated 7 February 2018 at 16.18 (POL00126086)
128
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
provided to the CCRC as requested,”5’ as were the expert reports produced for
the Horizon Issues trial.?°8 I cannot now recall what disclosure of PEAKs data
occurred, but POL’s approach was to provide the CCRC with the materials they
required, so whenever they made requests we did what we could to meet them.
For example, following a meeting on 28 July 2017 we were able, with
assistance from Fujitsu, to put together a detailed response to outstanding
questions Grant Thornton had raised for the CCRC about local suspense
accounts, transaction corrections and discrepancies, which was attached to my
email to the CCRC of 24 September 2017.759 As noted previously, WBD
supported me in preparing correspondence and collating material for the
CCRC, and my role was to try to ensure our responses fulfilled the CCRC’s
request, consider whether anything further could be provided, and conclude
with the offer to provide anything further they may require.
252. The Inquiry has asked me to comment on the issues the CCRC raised
regarding the Misra transaction logs.24° My concern was to ensure that the
CCRC had the documents and information it required to perform its functions.
When the CCRC asked questions about the Misra transaction logs, I believe I
will have followed the usual process of asking WBD to track down the
information and prepare a draft reply, so I could review this and relay the answer
237 See for example Email of Rodric Williams to Miles Trent dated 11 June 2018 at 18.57
(POL00042173)
288 Email from Rodric Williams to Miles Trent dated 8 January 2019 at 17.47 (POL00042204)
239 See “CCRC Investigation Re Horizon Cases POL Responses to Grant Thornton Questions" dated
17 August 2017 (POL00250726), which is attached to Email of Rodric Williams to Miles Trent on 24
September 2017 at 22.27 (POL00126086)
240 Email from Miles Trent to Rodric Williams dated 5 February 2018 at 12.53 (POL00110826)
129
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
- Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
to the CCRC. This appears to have included locating the original files and
creating better, more legible, scans of the transaction logs.?4*
PART 11: FOLLOWING THE GROUP LITIGATION
253. Following the settlement of the Group Litigation, POL needed to deliver the
commitments it made in the Group Litigation Settlement Deed. Most
significantly, this required me to work with Herbert Smith Freehills LLP to
establish for POL the Historic/Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS). I was also
involved in onboarding Peters & Peters LLP to conduct for POL the post-
conviction disclosure exercise (PCDE) required following the Horizon Issues
Judgment and generally support POL with developments concerning PMR
convictions.
254. My recollection is that POL’s Board was directly engaged with POL’s external
lawyers in respect of the HSS, PCDE and other work concerning PMR
convictions. My role was to facilitate that engagement by coordinating with
POL's external lawyers the materials necessary to enable the Board to give the
external lawyers the instructions required to progress matters. This involved
working with the external advisers to identify the key decisions that needed to
be made, provide the information needed to inform and support the decision-
making process, ensure this was delivered in a timely and digestible form, and
then take such further action as the Board might require. This also involved
substantial engagement with those representing POL’s shareholder to secure
the funding POL required to offer compensation to affected PMRs (whether
through the HSS or following an overturned conviction), and to comply with the
241 Email from Rodric Williams to Andy Parsons dated 15 November 2017 at 17.02 (POL00126086)
130
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
conditions upon which funding would be provided. The Board would then make
the necessary decisions and give the required instructions to POL’s external
lawyers. This involved substantial activity and liaison within POL, and with its
shareholder and external advisers, which activity was made more challenging
due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
PART 12: GENERAL
255. I have always thought of my professional role as being dispute resolution. I
regret that the various processes intended to resolve the PMRs’ civil law based
Horizon complaints have not yet achieved that resolution. I hope that will
happen soon. I hope my statement assists the Inquiry in completing its
important work. I am happy to assist further if required.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the contents of this witness statement are true.
RODRIC DAVID ALUN WILLIAMS.
Dated: 11 March 2024
131
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Index to First Witness Statement of Rodric David Alun Williams
No. I URN Document Description I Control Number
1. I POL00041564 Computer Weekly article I POL-0038046
“Bankruptcy, prosecution
and disrupted livelihoods -
Postmasters tell their
story” dated 11 May 2009
2. POL00026572 Report of Rod Ismay I POL-0021837
“Horizon — Response to
Challenges Regarding
Systems Integrity” dated 2
August 2010
3. I POL00030217 Ernst & Young Report I POL-0026699
“Post Office Limited —
Management letter for
year ended 27 March
2011” dated 27 March
2011
4. POL00060374 Signed ‘Raising Concerns I POL-0056853
with Horizon’ (“Raising
Concerns’) document
(undated)
5. POL00296484 Email of Rodric Williams to I POL-BSFF-0134534
Simon Baker dated 12
May 2013 at 23.56
6. I POL00098294 Email from Kay Linnell to I POL-0097877
Ron Warmington and
others dated 14 May 2013
at 10.41
7. I POL00040888 Draft Horizon Spot Review I POL-0037370
SROO1 dated 4 October
2012
8. I POL00107912 Email from Dave Posnett I POL-0106135
to Rodric Williams dated
13 May 2013 at 19.34
9. POL00107919 Email Dave Posnett to I POL-0106139
Rodric Williams dated 22
May 2013 at 09.59
10. I POL00098774 Email from Rodric I POL-0098357
Williams to Paula Vennells
dated 27 June 2013 at
15.02
11. I POL00097917 Email from Simon Baker I POL-0097500
to Gareth Jenkins and
others dated 2 April 2013
at 20.09
12. I POL00086707 Email from Rodric I POL-0083765
Williams to Alison
Bolsover and others dated
20 May 2013 at 14.32
132
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
13.
POL00107854
Email from Sarah Gomes I POL-0106091
to Rodric Williams dated 3
January 2013 at 15.58
14.
POL00114617
Email from Rodric I POL-0113718
Williams to Michelle
Stevens and others dated
17 April 2013 at 18.29
15.
POL00062368
Email from Jarnail Singh I POL-0058847
to Hugh Flemington and
others dated 1 July 2013
at 16.47
16.
POL00060590
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0057069
to Rodric Williams dated 1
July 2013 at 14.49
17.
POL00060591
Bond Pearce document I POL-0057070
‘Horizon is free from
defects’
18.
POL00060592
Bond Pearce Memo ‘Misra I POL-0057071
transcript’ dated October
2011
19.
POL00060593
Bond Pearce document I POL-0057072
‘POL Training Adequate’
20.
POL00060594
Bond Pearce document I POL-0057073
titled ‘POL Helpline
Adequate’
21.
POL00144855
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0003982
Williams to Lesley Sewell
and others dated 27 June
2013 at 18.51
22.
POL00144856
Draft letter to J Mistry ‘Re I POL-BSFF-0003983
Branch Discrepancies’
23.
POL00144857
Draft letter to D Cheape I POL-BSFF-0003984
‘Re Branch Discrepancies
at Dundas Post Office
24.
POL00029622
Email from Rod Ismay to I POL-0026104
Rodric Williams — and
others dated 28 June
2013 at 14.01
25.
POL00029623
Branch Accounting I POL-0026105
Incidents’
26.
POL00141543
Draft letter to J Mistry v2 I POL-0142928
‘Re Branch Discrepancies’
27.
POL00098969
Email from Hugh I POL-0098552
Flemington to Susan
Crichton dated 4 July
2013 at 07.51
28.
POL00144855
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0003982
Williams to Lesley Sewell
and others dated 27 June
2013 at 18.51
29.
POL00144856
Draft letter to J Mistry ‘Re I POL-BSFF-0003983
Branch Discrepancies’
133
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
30.
POL00144857
Draft letter to D Cheape I POL-BSFF-0003984
‘Re Branch Discrepancies
at Dundas Post Office
31.
POL00029622
Email from Rod Ismay to I POL-0026104
Rodric Williams = and
others dated 28 June
2013 at 14.01
32.
POL00029623
Branch Accounting I POL-0026105
Incidents’
33.
POL00006540
Email Simon Clarke to I POL-0017594
Rodric Williams dated 4
July 2013 at 14.14
34.
POL00145130
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0004257
Williams to Martin Smith
and others on 3 July 2013
at 19.50
35.
POL00145145
Email of Simon Clarke to I POL-BSFF-0004272
Rodric Williams dated 4
duly 2013 at 11.03
36.
POL00029648
Email from Susan I POL-0026130
Crichton to Simon Baker
dated 4 July 2013 at 12.49
37.
POL00145142
Email from Hugh I POL-BSFF-0004269
Flemington to Simon
Clarke dated 4 July 2013
at 08.01
38.
POL00296729
Email from Hugh I POL-BSFF-0134779
Flemington to Rodric
Williams dated 27 June
2013 at 18.21
39.
POL00298046
Email from John Scott to I POL-BSFF-0136096
Rodric Williams dated 31
July 2013 at 11.37
40.
POL00060580
Email from Simon Baker I POL-0057059
to Rodric Williams dated 1
duly 2013 at 10.31
41.
POL00099340
Email from Simon Baker I POL-0098923
to Andrew Winn and
others dated 22 July 2013
at 15.33
42.
POL00190358
Email from Andy Pheasant I POL-BSFF-0028421
to Martin Rolfe dated 3
July 2013 at 12.04
43.
POL00022598
Draft report ‘Horizon data I POL-0019077
Lepton SPSO 191320’
(‘Helen Rose report”)
dated 12 June 2013
44.
POL00191994
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0030057
Williams to Susan
Crichton dated 13 July
2013 at 00.48
45.
POL00188312
Email from Dave Posnett I POL-BSFF-0026375
to Rodric Williams dated
14 June 2013 at 09.23
134
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
46.
POL00190324
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0028387
Williams to Andy Parsons
dated 3 July 2013 at 08.53
47.
POL00145108
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0004235
to Rodric William dated 3
July 2013 at 10.43
48.
POL00145261
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0004388
Williams to Martin Smith
and others dated 8 July
2013 at 14.19
49.
POL00115918
Email from Rodric I POL-0116920
Williams to Lesley Sewell
and others dated 2 July
2013 at 14.19
50.
POL00115919
‘Internal Briefing Note to I POL-0116921
Paula Vennells: Second
Sight review into Horizon
- Implications of Interim
Report’ dated 2 July 2013
51.
POL00115958
Email from Paula Vennells I POL-0116960
to Alwen Lyons dated 5
July 2013 at 17.33
52.
POL00115985
Email from Simon Baker I POL-0116987
to Paula Vennells and
others dated 7 July 2013
at 16.30
53.
POL00099063
Second Sight ‘Interim I POL-0098646
Report into alleged
problems with the Horizon
system’ ("Second Sight
interim Report’)
54.
POL00099107
Email from Rodric I POL-0098690
Williams to Paula Vennelis
and others on 8 July 2013
at 01.42
55.
POL00040002
Draft update to the Board I POL-0036484
regarding Horizon Legal
Issues dated 22 July 2013
56.
POL00040001
Email from Susan I POL-0036483
Crichton to Andy Parsons
dated 23 July 2013 at
21.51
57.
POL00297588
Email from Martin Smith to I POL-BSFF-0135638
Rodric Williams dated 10
July 2013 at 14.18
58.
POL00297873
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0135923
to Rodric Williams dated
22 July 2013 at 14.02
59.
POL00040935
Post Office Complaint I POL-0037417
Review and Mediation
Scheme (“End of Term
Report’)
135
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
60.
POL00139690
Email from John Scott to I POL-0141391
Susan Crichton dated 14
August 2013 at 07.39
61.
POL00191968
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0030031
Williams to John Scott
dated 12 July 2013 at
17.34
62.
POL00083932
Note of Regular Call I POL-0080863
regarding Horizon issues
dated 19 July 2013
63.
POL00083933
Note of Regular Call I POL-0080864
regarding Horizon issues
dated 24 July 2013
64.
POL00083934
Note of Regular Call I POL-0080865
regarding Horizon issues
dated 31 July 2013
65.
POL00062162
Email from Rodric I POL-0058641
Williams to Martin Smith
and others dated 5 July
2013 at 11.22
66.
POL00133638
Simon Clarke Case I POL-0138091
Review of R v. Hosi dated
1 May 2014
67.
POL00006365
Simon Clarke _‘General I POL-0017633
Advice’ dated 8 July 2013
68.
POL00066789
Email from Rodric I POL-0063268
Williams to Martin Smith
and others dated 11 July
2013 at 14.19
69.
POL00040000
Simon Clarke ‘Advice on I POL-0036482
the use of expert evidence
relating to the integrity of
the Fujitsu Services Ltd
Horizon System dated 15
July 2013
70.
POL00006800
Simon Clarke I POL-0017592
‘Compensation for
Miscarriages of Justice’
dated 19 July 2013
71.
POL00193605
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0031668
Williams to Susan
Crichton dated 16 August
2013 at 11.38
72.
POL00039994
Letter from Criminal I POL-0036476
Cases Review
Commission (“CCRC”) to
Paula Vennells dated 12
July 2013
73.
POL00039996
Email from Susan I POL-0036478
Crichton to Andy Parson
dated 16 July 2013 at
12.58
74,
POL00040813
Correspondence bundle I POL-0037295
between CCRC and POL
136
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100.
Exhibits: None .
Date: 11 March 2024
dated between 15 July
2013 and 5 June 2014
75.
POL00124350
Letter from Chris Aujard I POL-0127416
on behalf of POL to CCRC
dated 5 June 2014
76.
POL00021980
Email from Gavin I POL-0018459
Matthews to Susan
Crichton and others dated
9 August 2013 at 15.36
77.
POL00021981
Brian Altman KC I POL-0018460
Observations on Terms of
Reference dated 2 August
2013
78.
POL00021982
Draft Terms of Reference I POL-0018461
for the Appointment of
Brian Altman QC
79.
POL00006583
Brian Altman KC ‘interim I POL-0017668
Review of Cartwright
King’s Current Process
dated 2 August 2013
80.
POL00066807
Cartwright King I POL-0063286
‘Response to the Interim
Review of Cartwright
King’s Current Process by
Brian Altman QC’ dated 13
August 2013
81.
POL00006578
Email from Susan I POL-0017603
Crichton to Rodric
Williams dated 16 August
2013 at 09.15
82.
POL00129452
Cartwright King ‘Initial Sift I POL-0134936
Protocol!
83.
POL00006799
Simon Clarke ‘Disclosure: I POL-0017591
The Duty to Record and
Retain Material’ dated 2
August 2013
84.
POL00006485
Bond Dickinson ‘Notes of I POL-0017790
Conference with Brian
Altman KC’ dated 9
September 2013
85.
POL00139866
‘Note of Meeting with I POL-0141042
BAQC’ dated 9 September
2013
86.
POL00006581
Brian Altman KC ‘Post I POL-0017666
Office Ltd: I General
Review’ dated 15 October
2013
87.
POL00040041
Email from Gavin I POL-0036523
Matthews to Hugh
Flemington and others on
15 October 2013 at 17.45
88.
POL00108163
Email from Rodric I POL-0110958
Williams to Martin
137
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Edwards dated 24
October 2013 at 10.30
89.
POL00108161
Email from Martin I POL-0110956
Edwards to Belinda Crowe
dated 28 October 2013 at
15.47
90.
POL00108162
Chief Executive's Report’ I POL-0110957
on Project Sparrow dated
24 October 2013
91.
POL00108163
Email from Rodric I POL-0110958
Williams to Martin
Edwards dated 24
October 2013 at 10.30
92.
POL00112937
Brian Altman KC ‘Post I POL-0110333
Office Ltd: Review of Post
Office Ltd Prosecution
Role’ dated 19 December
2013
93.
POL00038592
Brian Altman KC draft I POL-0027903
‘Post Office Ltd: Review of
Post Office Ltd
Prosecution Role’ dated
21 October 2013
94.
POL00043641
Notes of call of Working I POL-0040144
Group for Initial Complaint
Review and Mediation
Scheme (“Notes of
Working Group call’)
dated 31 October 2013
95.
POL00043623
Notes of Working Group I POL-0040126
call dated 14 November
2013
96.
POL00043624
Notes of Working Group I POL-0040127
call dated 28 November
2013
97.
POL00043625
Notes of Working Group I POL-0040128
call dated 5 December
2013,
98.
POL00026666
Notes of Working Group I POL-0023307
call dated 12 December
2013
99.
POL00074462
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0071025
to Chris Aujard and others
dated 6 March 2014 at
18.19
100.
POL00029707
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0026189
to Belinda Crowe and
others dated 8 April 2014
at 20.42
101,
FUJ00087119
Email from Pete I POINQ0093290F
Newsome to James
Davidson and __ others
dated 19 May 2014 at
18.05
138
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
102.
POL00108424
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0106524
to Belinda Crowe and
others dated 14 April 2014
at 14.00
103.
POL00023432
Email from Andrew Winn I POL-0019911
to Alan Lusher dated 23
October 2008 at 12.46
104.
FUJ00087119
Email from Rodric I POINQ0093290F
Williams to Andy Parsons
dated 22 April 2014 at
12.04
105.
POL00303716
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0141766
to Rodric Williams dated
14 April 2014 at 13.22
106.
POL00304478
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0142528
to Angela van den Bogerd
dated 9 May 2014 at 15.01
107.
POL00212048
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0050111
to Belinda Crowe and
others dated 10
November 2014 at 16.44
108.
POL00107317
Linklaters ‘Report into I POL-0105625
Initial Complaint Review
and Mediation Scheme:
Legal Issues’ dated 20
March 2014
109.
POL00022117
Linklaters ‘Preliminary I POL-0018596
note on the future of the
Mediation Scheme’ dated
31 March 2014
110.
POL00022109
Presentation ‘Initial I POL-0018588
Complaint and Mediation
Scheme: The Way
Forward’
111.
POL00117519
Email from Rodric I POL-0115136
Williams to Gareth James
dated 2 April 2014 at
17.57
112.
POL00108395
Email from Gareth James I POL-0106500
to Rodric Williams and
others dated 4 April 2014
at 16.20
113.
POL00125760
Email from Rodric I POL-0130729
Williams to Gareth James
dated 4 April 2014 at 11.17
414.
POL00117551
Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-0115168
to Rodric Williams and
others dated 4 April 2014
at 08.34
115.
POL00105635
Deloitte ‘Project Zebra — I POL-0104595
Phase 1 Report (Draft -
For validation in advance
of Board discussion on
Wednesday 30th April)
139
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITNO8420100
ibits: None
March 2024
116.
POL00108443
Email from Rodric I POL-0106541
Williams to Mark
Westbrook dated 22 April
2014 at 10.35
117.
POL00108453
Email from Rodric I POL-0106551
Williams to Mark
Westbrook dated 23 April
2014 at 14.32
118.
POL00029728
Email from Mark I POL-0026210
Westbrook to Rodric
Williams dated 20 May
2014 at 12.44
119.
POL00031384
Deloitte ‘HNG-X: Review I POL-0028286
of Assurance Sources —
Discussion Areas re:
Phase 2 (Draft - For
Discussion only)’
120.
POL00031391
Deloitte 'HNG-X: Review I POL-0028293
of Assurance Sources —
Phase 1 — Board Update
at 13/5/14"
121.
POL00029726
Deloitte ‘HNG-X: Review I POL-0026208
of Assurance Sources -
Board Update - As at
16/05/2014 (Draft)
122.
POL00304303
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0142353
Williams to Larissa Wilson
dated 7 May 2014 at 14.37
123.
POL00138314
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0000539
Williams to Lesley Sewell
and others dated 9 May
2014 at 14.12
124.
POL00117612
Deloitte ‘Change Order I POL-0115229
Number 4, v 2’ dated 6
May 2014
125.
POL00028062
Deloitte ‘Horizon: Desktop I POL-0023065
Review of Assurance
Sources and Key Control
Features - Draft for
Discussion’ dated 23 May
2014 (the “May 2014
Deloitte Report")
126.
POL00204927
Email Rodric Williams to I POL-BSFF-0042990
Gareth James and others
dated 29 May 2014 at
10:15
127.
POL00031400
Email from Chris Aujard to I POL-0028302
Paula Vennells and others
dated 29 May 2014 at
18.35
128.
POL00031401
Email from Gareth James I POL-0028303
to Chris Aujard dated 29
May 2014 at 19.28
140
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: .Rodric David Alun Williams.
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 14 March 2024
129.
POL00028069
Deloitte ‘Board Briefing: I POL-0023072
Document, further to our
report “Horizon: Desktop
review of assurance
sources and key control
features” dated 4 June
2014
130.
POL00006552
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0017646
to David Oliver and others
dated 31 March 2014 at
20.53
131.
POL00006553
Marked-up version of I POL-0017647
Second Sight ‘Draft -
Thematic Issues Report’
132.
POL00006554
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0017648
to David Oliver and others
dated 29 April 2014 at
15.09
133.
POL00004439
Second Sight ‘Briefing I VIS00005507
Report- Part One’ dated
25 July 2014
134.
POL00006555
Marked-up version of I POL-0017649
Second Sight ‘Branch
Operating = Procedures’
dated 29 April 2014
135.
POL00040153
Email from David: Oliver to I POL-0036635
Chris Aujard and others
dated 1 May 2014 at 06.52
136.
POL00040154
‘Post Office Briefing Note: I POL-0036636
Working Group’ dated 1
May 2014
137.
POL00006485
Bond Dickinson ‘Notes of I POL-0017790
Conference with Brian
Altman KC’ dated 9
September 2013
138.
POL00061549
Email from Rodric I POL-0058028
Williams to Chris Aujard
dated 16 July 2014 at
21.44
139.
POL00006368
Brian Altman KC ‘Post I POL-0017636
Office Ltd: Advice on
Suggested Approach to
Criminal Case Mediation’
dated 5 September 2014
140.
POL00148709
Email from David Oliver to I POL-BSFF-0007830
Andy Parsons and others
dated 15 July 2014 at
10.11
141.
POL00022150
Second Sight ‘Initial I POL-0018629
Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme —
Mediation Briefing Report:
Part Two (Draft v 2) dated
30 July 2014
144
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100.
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
142.
POL00022145
Email Rodric Williams to I POL-0018624
Jonathan Swil dated 1
August 2014 at 16.16
143.
POL00040209
WBD draft letter to I POL-0036691
Second Sight ‘Post Office
Response to Draft Part 2
Report’
144,
POL00022216
Letter from Rodric I POL-0018695
Williams to. Second Sight
‘Second Sight’s Draft Part
Two Mediation Briefing
Report’ dated 14 August
2014
145.
POL00207439
Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-BSFF-0045502
to Ron Warmington and
others dated 14 August
2014 at 17.40
146.
POL00021810
Email from Rodric I POL-0018289
Williams to — Michael
Harvey dated 15
September 2014 at 15.39
147.
FUJ00087174
Fujitsu document I POINQ0093345F
‘Fujitsu’s comments on
Second Sight Briefing
Report — Part Two’ dated
15 September 2014
148.
POL00021762
Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-0018241
to Charles Colquhoun and
others dated 6 August
2014 at 17.16
149.
POL00022297
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0018776
to Chris Aujard and others
dated 27 January 2015 at
13.19
150.
POL00040935
Post Office Complaint I POL-0037417
Review and Mediation
Scheme (“End of Term
Report’)
151.
POL00040927
Email of Rodric Williams to I POL-0037409
Tom Wechsler and others
dated 6 March 2015 at
15.32
152.
POL00102062
Email from = Melanie I POL-0101645
Corfield to Mark Davies
and others dated 23
January 2015 at 21.56
153.
POL00116814
Email from Patrick Bourke I POL-0114611
to Chris Aujard and others
dated 24 November 2014
at 18.49
154.
POL00022352
Email from Patrick Bourke I POL-0018831
to Andy Parsons dated 5
February 2015 at 14.01
142
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
155.I POL00006364 WBD document I POL-0017632
‘Termination of Second
Sight’ dated 6 February
2015
156.I POL00040925 Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0037407
to Rodric Williams dated 5
March 2015 at 18.03
157.) POL00000216 Letter from Jane MacLeod I ViS00001190
on behalf of POL to
Second Sight ‘Notice to
cease providing services’
dated 10 March 2015
158.I POL00022456 Letter from Jane MacLeod I POL-0018935
on behalf of POL to Sir
Anthony Hooper ‘Initial
Complaint Review and
Mediation Scheme’ dated
10 March 2015
159.I POL00000219 Work Plan’ dated 10} ViIS00001193
March 2015
160.I POL00044389 POL Investigation, Legal I POL-0040868
report regarding
Josephine Hamilton dated
17 May 2006
161.I POL00025188 Letter from Rodric I POL-0021667
Williams on behalf of POL
to Second Sight ‘MO35 —
Josephine Hamilton’
dated 2 June 2015
162.; POL00065542 Email from Second Sight I POL-0062021
to Rodric Williams dated 3
June 2015 at 14.15
163.} FUJ00087119 Email from James I POINQ0093290F
Davidson to — Rodric
Williams dated 17 April
2014 at 16.27
164.I POL00091397 Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-0090419
to Patrick Bourke and
others dated 23 October
2014 at 07.29
165.I POL00307607 Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-BSFF-0145657
to Angela van den Bogerd
and others dated 21
October 2014 at 16.34
166.I POL00091397 Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-0090419
to Patrick Bourke and
others dated 23 October
2014 at 07.29
167.I POL00062162 Email from Rodric I POL-0058641
Williams to Belinda Crowe
dated 31 October 2014 at
13.45
168.); POL00149466 Email from Mark I POL-BSFF-0008586
Westbrook _to__Rodric
143,
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
Williams and others dated
10 November 2014 at
14.02
169.
POL00212048
Email Andy Parsons to I POL-BSFF-0050111
Belinda Crowe and others
dated 10 November 2014
at 16.44
170.
POL00308936
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0146986
to Rodric Williams on 17
December 2014 at 15.35
171.
POL00149675
Email from Patrick Bourke I POL-BSFF-0008793
to Andy Parsons and
others dated 26
November 2014 at 13.29
172.
POL00222757
Email from Mark I POL-BSFF-0060820
Westbrook to Rodric
Williams and others dated
26 February 2015 at 12.24
173.
POL00021799
WBD document ‘Advice I POL-0018278
on Balancing
Transactions’
174,
POL00029836
Email from Patrick Bourke I POL-0026318
to lan Henderson and
others dated 9 April 2015
at 10.27
175.
POL00021846
Extract from Second Sight I POL-0018325
‘14. Transactions not
entered by the
Subpostmaster or their
staff’
176.
POL00065929
Email from Rodric I POL-0062408
Williams to Mark
Underwood dated 13
January 2016 at 10.57
177.
POL00113136
Simon Clarke ‘Proposed I POL-0110520
Memorandum of
Understanding POL and
Fujitsu’ dated 4 February
2014
178.
POL00113135
Simon Clarke ‘Securing I POL-0110519
Data for Future
Prosecutions’ dated 2 July
2014
179.
POL00042858
Post Office submissions in I POL-0039340
relation to the Fujitsu
contract dated 31 July
2019
180.
POL00150845
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0009957
Williams to Martin Smith
dated 21 January 2015 at
16.46
181.
POL00311931
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0149981
Williams to Martin Smith
444
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric-David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
and others dated 9
February 2015 at 14.20
182.I POL00312540 Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0150590
Williams to Georgia Baker
dated 27 February 2015 at
11.42
183.} POL00223161 Letter from Jane MacLeod I POL-BSFF-0061224
to CCRC dated 27
February 2015
184.) POL00151297 Email from Gavin I POL-BSFF-0010409
Matthews to Rodric
Williams dated 26
February 2015 at 15.20
185.I POL00223160 Email from Georgia I POL-BSFF-0061223
Barker to Rodric Williams
dated 3 March 2015 at
10.02
186.I POL00029843 Simon Clarke = ‘Note: I POL-0026325
Deloitte Report -
Questions for POL’ dated
27 March 2015
187.I POL00110243 Draft speaking note for I POL-0108064
Post Office meeting with
CCRC dated 8 May 2015
188.} POL00125758 Speaking note for Post I POL-0131600
Office meeting with CCRC
dated 8 May 2015
189. I POL00314595 Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0152645
Williams to Gregg Cooke
and others dated 15 April
2015 at 17.47
190.) POLO0065670 Speaking note for Post I POL-0062149
Office meeting with CCRC
dated 6 November 2015
191.I POL00065671 Annotated Speaking note I POL-0062150
for Post Office meeting
with CCRC dated 6
November 2015
192.I POL00242986 Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0081049
Williams to Amanda
Pearce dated 13 January
2016 at 15.12
193.I POL00103156 Email from Rodric I POL-0102739
Williams to Amanda
Pearce dated 14 March
2016 at 16.45
194.I POL00103238 Email from Gavin I POL-0102821
Matthews to — Rodric
Williams dated 2 August
2016 at 13.48
195.} POL00103263 Email from Rodric I POL-0102846
Williams to Amanda
Pearce dated 13
November 2016
145
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
196.
POL00103278
Email from Rodric I POL-0102861
Willams to Amanda
Pearce dated 21
December 2016 at 18.44
197.
POL00137142
Email from Rodric I POL-0125518
Williams to Gavin
Matthews and others
dated 25 April 2016 at
11.40
198.
POL00065602
Email from Mark I POL-0062081
Underwood to Patrick
Bourke dated 18
September 2015 at 13.24
199.
POL00101659
Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-0101242
to Mark Davies and others
dated 5 December 2014 at
18.42
200.
POL00101660
Letter from Rodric I POL-0101243
Williams to Nick Wallis
dated 5 December 2014
201.
.POL00101665
Email from Mark Davies to I POL-0101248
Belinda Crowe and others
dated 7 December 2014 at
22.52
202.
POL00101668
Email from Patrick Bourke I POL-0101251
to Mark Davies and others
dated 8 December 2014
203.
POL00101670
Email from Tom Weschler I POL-0101253
to Melanie Corfield and
others dated 8 December
2014 at 09.51
204.
POL00101671
Email from Rodric I POL-0101254
Williams to Belinda Crowe
and others dated 8
December 2014 at 10.16
205.
POL00101715
Letter from CMS to BCC I POL-0101298
Programme Legal Advice
dated 9 December 2014
206.
POL00101741
Email from Rodric I POL-0101324
Williams dated 9
December 2014 at 10.45
207.
POL00101745
Email — from Rodric I POL-0101328
Williams to Mark Davies
dated 9 December 2014 at
12.28
208.
POL00101858
Email from Angela van I POL-0101441
den Bogerd to Rodric
Williams and others dated
14 December 2014 at
12.34
209.
POL00101915
Letter from CMS to BBC I POL-0101498
Programme Legal Advice
dated 16 December 2014
146
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
210.
POL00101899
Email from Rodric I POL-0101482
Williams to Mark Davies
and others dated 16
December 2014 at 14.16
211.
POL00101902
Email from Melanie I POL-0101485
Corfield to Tom Wechsler
dated 16 December 2014
at 14.27
212.
POL00101906
Email from Melanie I POL-0101489
Corfield to Mark Davies
and others dated 16
December 2014 at 14.39
213.
POL00101980
Draft letter from CMS to I POL-0101563
BBC Programme Legal
Advice dated January
2015
214.
POL00101968
Email from Belinda Crowe I POL-0101551
to Rodric Williams and
others dated 8 January
2015 at 18.10
215.
POL00105883
Email from Susan Barty to I POL-0104729
Ruth Barker and others
dated 19 January 2015 at
10.41
216.
POL00117416
Email from Rodric I POL-0114648
Williams to Melanie
Corfield and others dated
16 June 2015 at 09.51
217.
POL00065410
Email from Mark Davies to I POL-0061889
Rodric Williams dated 22
June 2015 at 17.44
218.
POL00065416
Email from Mark Davies to I POL-0061895
Rodric Williams dated 23
June 2015 at 10.51
219.
POL00065419
Email from Tom Reid to I POL-0061898
Rodric Williams — and
others dated 23 June
2015 at 11.22
220.
POL00065429
Email from Patrick Bourke I POL-0061908
to Rodric Williams dated
26 June 2015 at 10.22
221.
POL00065499
Email from Tom Reid to I POL-0061978
Rodric Williams dated 5
August 2015 at 15.04
222.
POL00065519
Letter from CMS to BBC I POL-0061998
Programme Legal Advice
dated 10 August 2015
223.
POL00105862
Email from Susan Barty to I POL-0104708
Mark Davies and others
dated 15 September 2015
at 15.04
147
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
224.I POLO0105866 Email from Tom Reid to I POL-0104712
Rodric Williams dated 11
January 2016 at 18.16
225.I POL00106920 Email from Rodric I POL-0105228
Williams to Mark Davies
and others dated 3 March
2016 at 13.23
226.) POL00152834 Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0011946
Williams to Tom Reid
dated 10 August 2015 at
16.13
227.I POL00152835 POL ‘Statement — for } POL-BSFF-0011947
Panorama’ dated 4 August
2015
228.I POL00131623 Email from = Michael I POL-0121440
Harvey to Rodric Williams
dated 21 December 2015
at 14.14
229.I POL00006355 ‘A Review on Behalf of the I POL-0017623
Chairman of Post Office
Limited’ Swift Review
230.I POL00102517 Email from Mark I POL-0102100
Underwood to Rodric
Williams and others dated
25 August 2015 at 13.23
231.I POL00102551 Letter from Baroness I POL-0102134
Neville-Rolfe to Tim
Parker dated 10
September 2015.
232.I POL00114270 Instructions to Sir
Jonathan Swift dated 6
October 2015
233.I POL00233682 Email from Sir Jonathan I POL-BSFF-0071745
Swift to Jane MacLeod
and Rodric Williams dated
9 October 2015 at 07.50
234.I POL00102617 Email from Jane MacLeod I POL-0102200
to Sir Jonathan Swift
dated 22 October 2015 at
17.03
235.I POL00103106 The Swift Review Action I POL-0102689
Grid
236.I POL00022747 Email from Sir Jonathan I POL-0019226
Swift to Rodric Williams
dated 26 July 2016 at
15.06
237.I POL00110434 Email from Rodric I POL-0111333
Williams to Tom Wechsler
and others dated 23 May
2016 at 17.57
238.) POL00163037 Email — from Rodric I POL-0151383
Williams to Thomas
Moran and others dated
20 June 2016 at 18.08
148
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
239.
POL00041136
Email from Rodric I POL-0037618
Williams to Mark
Underwood dated 21 April
2016 at 12.51
240.
POL00255859
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0093922
Williams to Alwen Lyons
and others dated 20 April
2016 at 21.53
241.
POL00041242
Email from Rodric I POL-0037724
Williams to Gavin
Matthews dated 17 June
2016 at 11.12
242.
POL00006601
Letter from WBD to POL I POL-0017859
‘Bates & others v Post
Office Limited’ dated 21
dune 2016
243.
POL00006600
Email from Rodric I POL-0017858
Williams to Jonathan Swift
dated 26 July 2016 at
10.35
244.
POL00022747
Email from Jonathan Swift I POL-0019226
to Rodric Williams dated
26 July 2016 at 14.06
245.
POL00112884
Brian Altman KC advice I POL-0111598
‘Review of Post Office
Limited Criminal
Prosecutions’ dated 26
duly 2016
246.
POL00022754
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0019233
to Rodric Williams and
others dated 26 July 2016
at 12.55
247,
POL00006380
WBD Decision Papers for I POL-0017685
Steering Group meeting
dated 11 September 2017
248.
POL00006379
WBD Paper for Steering I POL-0017684
Group meeting ‘Litigation
Strategy Options’ dated 11
September 2017
249.
POL00041260
Final version of draft I POL-0037742
Letter of Response
250.
POL00041510
Letter from Freeths to I POL-0037992
WBD ‘Fourth Witness
Statement of Mr Parsons’
dated 16 October 2017
251.
POL00041509
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0037991
to Rodric Williams dated
16 October 2017 at 09.46
252.
POL00000444
Fourth Witness Statement I VIS00001458
of Andy Parsons dated 9
October 2017
253.
POL00041527
Email from Rodric I POL-0038009
Williams to Jane MacLeod
149
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
and others dated 9
November 2017 at 09:47
254.
POL00258011
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0096074
Williams to Andy Parsons
and other dated 16
October 2018 at 02.04
255.
POL00041770
Email from Patrick Bourke I POL-0038252
to Rodric Williams dated
11 May 2018 at 12.02
256.
BE!S0000079
UKGI/ Post Office Limited I BE1S0000059
Information Sharing
Protocol dated 11 June
2018
257.
POL00024988
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0021467
to Rodric Williams and
others dated 13 July 2016
at 11.02
258.
POL00024989
Decision Papers for I POL-0021468
Postmaster Group Action
259.
POL00029998
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0026480
to Mark Davies and others
dated 21 July 2016 at
17.56
260.
POL00030002
Email from Mark Davies to I POL-0026484
Jane MacLeod dated 22
July 2016 at 10.49
261.
POL00041258
Email from Jane MacLeod I POL-0037740
to Paula Vennells dated
25 July 2016 at 06.27
262.
POL00110482
Email from Jane MacLeod I POL-0108217
to Andy Parsons dated 26
July 2016 at 20.37
263.
POL00022659
Email from Amy Prime to I POL-0019138
Mark Underwood — and
others dated 27 July 2016
at 13.44
264.
POL00041259
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0037741
to Jane Macleod and
others dated 27 July 2016
at 19.50
265.
POL00029990
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0026472
to Jane MacLeod and
others dated 13 July 2016
at 15.40
266.
POL00243250
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0081313
to Thomas Moran and
others dated 16 July 2016
at 14.09
267.
POL00003340
Letter from WBD to I VIS00004354
Freeths dated 18 July
2017 enclosing POL's
Generic Defence and
Counterclaim
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
268.
POL00249676
Email from Rodric I POL-BSFF-0087739
Williams to Andy Parsons
dated 8 July 2017 at 06.54
269.
FUJ00085337
Email from Andy Parsons I POINQ0091508F
to Fujitsu Legal Defence
(Chris Jay) dated 4 July
2017 at 21.38
270.
POL00249611
Horizon sections of Draft I POL-BSFF-0087674
Generic Defence
271.
POL00249612
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-BSFF-0087675
to Mark Westbrook dated
4 July 2017 at 21.40
272.
POL00249635
Email from Chris Jay to I POL-BSFF-0087698
Andy Parsons dated 5
July 2017 at 14.50
273.
POL00038852
Email from Amy Prime to I POL-0027587
Rodric Williams dated 5
October 2016 at 11.01
274.
POL00277546
Closing submissions on I POL-BSFF-0115609
behalf of Post Office Ltd to
the Horizon Issues trial
275.
POL00041479
For example, Email of I POL-0037961
Andy Parsons to Pete
Newsome dated 19
September 2017 at 09.56
276.
POL00003414
Freeths’ letter to Andy I VIS00004428
Parsons dated 13
September 2017
277.
POL00041479
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0037961
to Pete Newsome and
others dated 19
September 2017 at 09.56
278.
POL00041480
Email from Andy Parsons I POL-0037962
to Pete Newsome and
others dated 20
September 2017 at 17.31
279.
POL00041481
Draft letter from WBD to I POL-0037963
Freeths dated 20
September 2017
regarding preservation of
Horizon data
280.
POL00041482
Draft letter from WBD to I POL-0037964
Freeths regarding KEL
281.
POL00003480
Letter from WBD to I VISO0004494
Freeths dated 22
September 2017
regarding KEL
282.
POL00006431
Noting paper: Update on I POL-0017736
Litigation Strategy for
meeting on 16 October
2017
283.
POL00025358
Email from Kerry Moodie I POL-0021837
to_Mark Underwood and
151
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
others dated 9 January
2017 at 17.31
284.
POL00041458
Email from Paul Loraine to
Rodric Williams dated 14
August 2017 at 12.36 and
Email from Rodric
Williams to Miles Trent
dated 26 July 2017 at
16.31
POL-0037940
285.
POL00003386
Letter from Freeths to
WBD dated 2 October
2018 regarding PEAK
disclosure
VIS00004400
286.
POL00003363
Letter from WBD to
Freeths dated 28
November 2018 regarding
expert reports
VIS00004377
287.
POL00002356
Zebra Action Summary
(redacted)
VIS00003370
288.
POL00027054
Zebra Action Summary
(unredacted)
POL-0023695
289.
POL00255949
Email from Amy Prime to
Rodric Williams dated 26
July 2018 at 19.14
POL-BSFF-0094012
290.
POL00041955
Email from Angela van
den Bogerd to Andy
Parsons and others dated
20 August 2018 at 22.55
POL-0038437
291.
POL00041956
Draft witness statement of
Angela van den Bogerd
POL-0038438
292.
POL00041986
Email from Rodric
Williams to Andy Parsons
dated 23 August 2018 at
23.26
POL-0038468
293.
Bates v Post Office (No 3)
[2019] EWHC 606 (QB)
294.
POL00006471
Briefing note on the report
of Dr Worden for Steering
Group meeting on 28
November 2018
POL-0017776
295.
POL00042015
Emait from Rodric
Williams to Simon Clarke
and others dated 7
September 2018 at 13.12
POL-0038497
296.
POL00246340
Email from Mark
Underwood to Jane
MacLeod and others
dated 5 December 2016 at
18.54
POL-BSFF-0084403
297.
POL00246342
Steering Group Meeting
Discussion Paper:
Approach to Fujitsu
POL-BSFF-0084405
152
WITNO08420100
WITNO8420100
Witness: Rodric David Alun Williams
Statement Number: WITN08420100
Exhibits: None
Date: 11 March 2024
298.
POL00006753
Minutes of the meeting of I POL-0018011
the GLO Subcommittee of
POL on 21 February 2019
299.
POL00028051
Document “Privileged I POL-0023054
Bates & others v Post
Office Board Sub-
Committee: 21 February
2019 Speaking Note”
300.
POL00112279
Email from Robert Worden I POL-0109811
to Andy Parsons dated 22
May 2019 at 20.20
301.
POL00128821
Minutes of Group I POL-0132176
Litigation Contingency
Planning Governance
group meeting dated 13
May 2019
302.
POL00023458
Agenda for meeting with I POL-0019937
Fujitsu dated 28 February
2017
303.
POL00006390
Briefing note on CCRC I POL-0017695
prepared by WBD dated
April 2017
304.
POL00126086
Email from Rodric I POL-0131493
Williams to Miles Trent
dated 7 February 2018 at
11.14
305.
POL00110826
Email from Rodric I POL-0108468
Williams to Miles Trent
dated 15 November 2017
at 17.02
306.
POL00126086
Email from Miles Trent to I POL-0131493
Rodric Williams dated 7
February 2018 at 16.18
307.
POL00042173
Email from Rodric I POL-0038655
Williams to Miles Trent
dated 11 June 2018 at
18.57
308.
POL00042204
Email from Rodric I POL-0038686
Williams to Miles Trent
dated 8 January 2019 at
17.47
309.
POL00250726
CCRC Investigation Re I POL-BSFF-0088789
Horizon Cases POL
Responses to Grant
Thornton Questions”
dated 17 August 2017
310.
POL00126086
Email of Rodric Williams to I POL-0131493
Miles Trent on 24
September 2017 at 23.27
and Email from Rodric
Williams to Andy Parsons
dated 15 November 2017
at 17.02
153