WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
Witness Name: Mandy Talbot
Statement No: WITN08500100
Dated: 31 of May 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MANDY TALBOT
I, MANDY TALBOT, will say as follows;
1. I have been asked to provide a Rule 9 Witness Statement addressing the
questions set out in the Annex to the Rule 9 Request sent to me on the 14" of
April 2023.
2. I have been assisted by DAC Beachcroft LLP in the preparation and drafting
of my statement.
Background
3. I have a BCS Econ in Law and Politics 2;1 from Aberystwyth University and a
Masters in Commercial Law from Bristol University. After working at Cameron
McKenna’s and Wilde Sapte I joined the Post Office Solicitors Office as a
Legal Assistant in January of 1990 in the Civil Litigation Department.
Page 1 of 42
4.
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
I left Royal Mail Legal Services in January of 2011 to join the Regulation
Team in Royal Mail Group Ltd. This team was formed to facilitate the Initial
Public Offering of Royal Mail Group Ltd. I took voluntary redundancy in
September of 2014.
I do not now recall the date that the Post Office Solicitors Office became
Royal Mail Legal Services (Legal Services).
At the beginning of my career working for Legal Services all litigators
conducted a broad spectrum of cases including personal injury, employment
disputes, debt collection, landlord and tenant cases, disputes under the
provision of the Postal Services Act, contract and commercial disputes.
Prosecution was the exception as this was always a distinct specialism. I have
never been a prosecutor. Legal Services provided litigation services to all the
businesses that now make up Royal Mail Group and some which have now
ceased to exist.
Gradually teams were created to specialise in the aforementioned areas of
civil law. By 2004 I was the Team Leader of the Postal Litigation team within
the Civil Litigation Department. At no time did the team work predominantly for
the Post Office Ltd (POL) or on cases involving Sub Post Masters, that was a
small proportion of the work. Eventually the Postal Litigation team ceased to
exist and was absorbed into the Dispute Resolution Department which was
the new name of the Civil Litigation Department. There was no formal
structure for upward report within the Department although my line managers
Page 2 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
operated an open-door policy. We were never provided with guidance on what
issues should be reported. My first line manager in the Civil Litigation
Department was Joe Ashton followed by Clare Wardle, Biddy Wyles and
Rebekah Mantle. I cannot remember the exact dates when they changed.
8. Jim Cruise had been a solicitor working in the Prosecution Team but he took
the opportunity to retrain as a solicitor in the Civil Litigation Department. I
cannot now recall when he joined the Postal Litigation Team.
9. Royal Mail Group offered voluntary redundancy to almost the entire Legal
Services Department in 2004. It was for this reason that Jim Cruise left Legal
Services. Civil Litigation and the other Teams had begun the process of
outsourcing case work to external law firms prior to the redundancy offer.
However, as a result of the sheer number of lawyers who “took up” the offer of
redundancy it became necessary to outsource the majority of litigation work to
a number of regional law firms including Bond Pearce, Weightmans, Hugh
James etc (the agents).
10.I have asked the Inquiry Team for access to the full civil litigation files referred
to in the Annex to the Request, to answer the questions fully but have been
advised that they are not available. I have only been provided with a limited
number of documents, rather than full case files. As such I can only answer in
so far as I can remember based on the limited documentation provided and
the period of time that has elapsed since the events I am being asked about.
Page 3 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
This also means that my responses cannot be seen in the context of the
litigation as cases developed.
Cleveleys Post Office (Julie Wolstenholme)
11. Jim Cruise was dealing with the case of Julie Wolstenholme of Cleveleys Post
Office within the Postal Litigation Team. I had no real involvement in the case
until Jim decided to take redundancy in 2004. I am sure that he would have
discussed the case with me and his concerns about it but after this period of
time, I am not able to recall the details necessary to answer the question fully.
12. It appears from the Email dated 7" of June 2004 from Jan Holmes to Colin
Lenton -Smith, (FUJ00121637) and paragraph 28 of the Second Witness
Statement of David Smith (WITN05290200) that a joint report had been
commissioned from an Expert. I cannot recall the content of the report or even
why an expert had been appointed, save that it is recorded at paragraph 10 of
the Second Witness Statement of Jan Robert Holmes (WITN04600200) that
both I and Jim Cruise were concerned. I do not have a copy of the report and
without the litigation file I am unable to recall anything further about these
concerns. I believe that the case had been outsourced to Weightmans
solicitors, as our agents, directly by POL. As it appears that it was too near to
the trial date to obtain and submit witness evidence from the Post Office or
Fujitsu to explain or clarify the conclusions reached by the Expert and no audit
trail was available due to the age of the discrepancies, the best legal course
was to advise POL that a settlement of the case should be attempted.
Page 4 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
13.I do not recall the conversation with David Smith but have no reason to
believe that it did not occur as recorded in his statement at paragraph 28
(WITN05290200).
14.1 do not recall the conversation with Jan Holmes former audit manager
referred to at paragraph 10 of the Second Witness Statement of Jan Roberts
Homes (WITN04600200). I do not know what access to systems or reports
the Expert (or any expert involved in cases concerning Horizon) was given
and whether they had access to the Horizon terminal at the Post Office or the
data which Fujitsu was capable of creating. It would have been necessary for
some access to have been provided to enable him to create a report but I am
not aware of what access was provided to inform the Expert’s opinion having
not been able to access the litigation file and the time that has now passed. If
the Expert had come to an erroneous conclusion and would not be swayed
from this position despite additional materials from Fujitsu, which they firmly
believed explained the position, then it would not have been beneficial for
POL to disclose such a report to the Court.
15.I cannot recall who created the report, their qualifications, or the contents of
the report.
16.I cannot recall why the decision was taken to appoint a joint expert or who
was involved in this decision without access to the complete legal file. I do not
recall whether the Court ordered that a Joint Report be commissioned. The
Page 5 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
duty of any Expert is to assist the Court on matters within their field of
expertise, if the report is relied on by the parties in Court.
17.1 am not aware of any issues with regards to the retention of the report
amongst POL records. On the conclusion of the case, I assume that it would
have been retained in accordance with the retention protocols in place at the
time and disposed of thereafter. I was not party to any discussions as to its
retention or distribution to the best of my recollection.
18.Fujitsu’s response to requests for assistance were technical with a view to
demonstrating that Horizon was robust. The responses from Fujitsu are at
pages FUJ00121690 — Email from Jan Homes to Keith Baines re Cleveleys,
FUJ00121691 — Analysis of calls made to Horizon System by Jan Holmes,
FU00121692 — Glossary of Fujitsu POL terminology and how technical
support is provided, FUJ00121696 — Email from Jan Holmes to Keith Baines
re Cleveleys, FU00121697 — Cleanstart Migration confirmation of the date on
which Horizon went live at Cleveleys and FU00121700 — Email Jan Holmes to
Mandy Talbot re Cleveleys. These documents consisted of a detailed analysis
of the call logs from Cleveleys contrasted with other Sub Post Offices, why
they considered that the number of calls was not abnormal, a glossary
containing an explanation of the abbreviations used by Fujitsu and an
explanation of the multi layered system used by Fujitsu and POL to receive,
investigate and resolve problems raised by Sub-Postmasters. Lastly a
document confirming the date that the Sub Post Office went live and the Sub
Post Office was migrated into the Horizon system. I would have been involved
Page 6 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
in asking Fujitsu to assist the legal agents but I cannot recall after this period
of time what evidence Fujitsu was asked for on behalf of the agents and
therefore whether the responses from Fujitsu were adequate.
19. Given the lack of documentation provided by the Inquiry and the period of
time that has elapsed I am not able to recall any further information that would
be of assistance to the Inquiry on the matter of Cleveleys Post Office.
Post Office v Lee Castleton
20. The case of Lee Castleton (Castleton) of Marine Drive Sub Post Office had
been sent out by POL directly to our agents Bond Pearce as was the
procedure at that time. In retrospect this was a structural weakness as our
oversight in Civil Litigation was usually limited to keeping an eye on costs and
advising on who to consult in POL for information. The case of Castleton was
unusual in the extent of my involvement. This was because judgment had
been entered in default for potentially a very large sum of money on a
counterclaim which would have materially affected the business. POL would
take the decision as to which cases they wished to pursue by way of civil
action. I cannot recall after this period of time the identify of anyone within
POL that would have taken this decision or the team or teams that would have
been involved. I was not aware of any clear policy why certain cases were
referred for civil debt recovery. I was not aware of the case until notified by
Stephen Dilley of Bond Pearce that due to an oversight, judgment in default
had been entered against POL on a counterclaim which the Defendant had
entered against the business for a very large sum of money. Initially I was not
Page 7 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
too concerned as long as Bond Pearce paid the costs of having the matter set
aside as mistakes can happen when there is a turnover of staff and or annual
leave intervenes as appears to have been the case here. However, when I
learned of the size of the judgement in default and that there was a hearing to
assess damages shortly thereafter, I was much more concerned. (Email Bob
Heckford to Richard Challands (Bond Pearce) re Lee Castleton
POL00073855). However, in my opinion Bond Pearce as soon as they were
aware of the issue, dealt with the application to set aside and for permission
to file a Defence to the Counterclaim appropriately and with dispatch. (Email
Stephen Dilley to Tom Beezer senior partners in Bond Pearce re Lee
Castleton POL00070496).
- Horizon was implemented in 2000 and I left Royal Mail Legal Services in
January 2011. During this time POL sent cases out to the agents when they
considered that it was appropriate under the terms of the original outsourcing
agreement to seek to recover outstanding monies. I cannot estimate or
remember how many litigation cases were issued to agents as they were sent
out directly to legal agents by POL. To the best of my recollection Civil
Litigation was not asked to keep a centralised record of the number of such
cases being issued in house or by agents. There was no instruction from
senior management at POL or Legal Services as to how these cases should
be dealt with or litigated. I considered that it would be more efficient if all the
regional firms were sent instructions containing the same basic types of
evidence in support of the cases for debt recovery. Further if defences were
received containing allegations seen in other cases then the solicitors knew
Page 8 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
who to contact within POL to obtain further evidence and statements. It was
for this reason that I wished to see consistency in the way that the agents
dealt with the Horizon cases that came their way. As an example I asked
Bond Pearce to liaise with Hugh James, a firm of solicitors based in Cardiff,
as appropriate. I am sure that I participated in an attempt to establish
consistency of approach but cannot recall if it was me solely who attempted to
instigate such an approach or indeed whether it really got off the ground. I
asked that no cases involving Horizon be issued by Bond Pearce in future
without discussion with me, as in this case there had been initial concerns
about some missing documents prior to issue of proceedings. I cannot recall
whether my request was implemented.
22.To the best of my recollection and without sight of the paperwork, my
concerns relating to the impact of the Castleton case was that it would be very
expensive in terms of time and money to prove a negative. This was because
Castleton's allegation was that he was not responsible for any of the losses at
the branch, alleging that substantially all loss was created by Horizon. Asa
result POL and Fujitsu would be in a position of proving that there was nothing
wrong with the Horizon system to counter his argument. The original claim
was for somewhere in the region of twenty-seven thousand pounds including
interest but the costs of fully defending the full action would have far exceed
this sum. Castleton had alleged that all the debt at his branch was as a result
of the Horizon system despite having signed cash accounts confirming that
the cash at the branch matched what was recorded. To fully prove a negative
potentially the entire history of transactions at the Sub Post Office would have
Page 9 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
had to be examined and reported on. In addition, a host of statements would
have needed to be obtained from Fujitsu and POL to refute his allegations.
23.IIt was essential to defend the counterclaim because otherwise there could
have been a judgment in place for a substantial sum of money which
supported Castleton’s claim that Horizon was a defective computer system.
24.At that time I believed Fujitsu’s assurances that Horizon was infallible and by
this time it had been rolled out to all the Crown Post Offices and Sub Post
Offices in the United Kingdom. I had heard but cannot recall where from that
Fujitsu were allegedly so satisfied with their product that there was talk of its
sale to other companies. I had also heard from Hugh James, although after
this period of time I cannot recall exactly who from, that some Sub
Postmasters were considering a class action alleging that Horizon was
defective. It was therefore essential for the reputation of Horizon that the case
be fully defended and if possible, won as this would likely dissuade a class
action. (Telephone Attendance Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re Lee
Castleton POL00072669).
25.Castleton had pleaded a large unsupported claim for damages by way of a
counterclaim. I had authorised the issue of a Part 18 Request for more
Particulars of his Claim to assess the likely actual value prior to an offer of
mediation. The Courts required mediation, at the time, so as to try to get the
parties to litigation to resolve issues that were not in contention and so narrow
the issues in dispute. Indeed, in some cases Mediation led to settlement. By
Page 10 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
March of 2006 POL had already expended a large sum of money by way of
legal costs and business time on this case. (Telephone Attendance Stephen
Dilley to Mandy Talbot re Lee Castleton POLO0072669). My concern about
the impact of the Castleton case was its potential impact on the reputation of
Horizon and POL should we not be successful in defending the Counterclaim
and proving the original debt. Should the civil action for the debt and the
counterclaim not be successful then it was likely that it would encourage other
Sub Postmasters to defend cases and bring counterclaims against POL. The
difficulty in the case involved proving a negative by obtaining numerous
witness statements to interpret the data from POL and Fujitsu, accessing
paper documents in support of the existence of a contact between POL and
Castleton, the full suite of transaction corrections, Cash accounts etc and to
locate witness who could explain the same. It was for all of the above reasons
that I believe that it was necessary for a “firm line” to be taken with this case
(POL00072691 - Telephone Attendance between Stephen Dilley and myself).
26.1 did not believe at this time that Horizon was capable of being “changed after
the event.” I was aware that if a Sub Postmaster had an issue with a
Transaction, he could ring Post Office Customer Services and on following
their guidance that he could take steps to rectify a problem on his Horizon
terminal. Further if Customer Services could not assist that the call could be
escalated through a sequence to obtain more advanced POL and then Fujitsu
assistance. I had previously been informed, although after this period of time I
cannot recall who from or the context of this exchange, that Horizon was a
closed system and by this, I mean that nobody bar the Sub Postmaster could
Page 11 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
add or subtract anything from the system at the terminal or elsewhere in the
system. I can no longer recall what Tom Beezer on page 5 of the personal
attendance note (Conference with Counsel — attendance note — re Lee
Castleton POL00069622) was referring to by “changed after the event”. It was
seen as a test case because; to the best of my recollection, it was one of the
few POL cases involving Horizon that was being fully litigated at that time in
the civil courts. If such allegations were being made in the criminal courts, I
was not made aware of this defence or what if any response POL and Fujitsu
had to such an allegation.
27.1 did not understand why there was a reluctance on the part of Post Office
staff to provide a statement confirming the amount of loss arising at a
particular Sub Post Office if all the documentation in support were present and
all Transaction Corrections both in favour and against the branch had been
received and could be added into the final figure. I was aware that there was
some missing documentation in this case and possibly that was the reason for
the reluctance on the part of the Auditor Helen Rose. (Email Stephen Dilley to
Carol King re Castleton POL00069527). To the best of my recollection Mr
Castleton had alleged that one of the POL staff had removed some
documentation on a visit to his Sub Post Office. This was strenuously denied
by POL and I believe statements were obtained covering all losses. On this
basis I do not remember being too concerned with these allegations.
28.1 was the in-house solicitor giving instruction to Bond Pearce in the case of
Castleton on behalf of the POL in this case. This would have involved liaising
Page 12 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
with them to provide them with the information they required. Ordinarily this
would have been done directly by POL to the regional law firms. All civil
litigation cases where substantial costs have been incurred involve an
element of brinkmanship. This is because an awful lot of the costs of a case
can be incurred in actually going to Court rather than in the preparation of the
case for it. Bond Pearce would have been required to serve a schedule of
costs on Castleton’s Solicitors as part of the preparation for the trial. It is
common to attempt final negotiations at this time to see if the cost of an actual
trial can be saved. I had general discretion from Legal Service to reach
settlements in debt recovery cases. However, I felt the need to seek the
approval of POL before making an offer to Castleton’s solicitors due to the
size of the potential counterclaim and costs incurred. (E-mail from Stephen
Dilley to Richard Morgan re Castleton POL00069450).
29.Greg Booth, a witness who was going to be called for the defence, had
experienced an issue at his Sub Post Office in October of 2006 according to
the Email from Stephen Dilley to Brian Pinder re Castleton (POL00069404).
Stephen Dilley sought a report directly from Fujitsu on the issue for Mr Booth
to comment on in a revised statement. I did not recall this incident until I was
shown a copy of the correspondence and cannot now recall my response to it.
30.1 believe that BDO was the expert used in the Castleton case but I cannot
recall what the reference to £3,500 was about. As the expert report by BDO
was commissioned by POL then it was up to POL to decide if it was going to
Page 13 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
rely on it in Court. (Telephone Attendance Stephen Dilley to Richard Morgan
re Castleton POL00069871).
31. It is difficult for me to assess the level of co-operation between the POL and
Fujitsu in 2006. The reason that I have difficulty in responding to this question
is because the relationship was directly between POL and Fujitsu. Castleton
was a case where the agents, Bond Pearce, were able to obtain witness
statements from Fujitsu employees. To the best of my recollection Bond
Pearce did not experience any constraints in this case in obtaining witness
statements but this would need to be confirmed by Bond Pearce as to
whether they experienced the same constraints as Civil Litigation did in
getting witness statements in other cases. It was also possible to obtain
information from them on other cases at short notice. (Email from Stephen
Dilley to Andrew Dunks FUJ00122333 and Witness Statement of Andrew Paul
Dunks FUJ000122334 and Exhibit ADI to the statement of Andrew Paul
Dunks FUJ00122335). Stephen Dilley of Bond Pearce in his email to me
(POL00069599) at paragraph 3 believed that he had vigorously queried
Fujitsu IT on the reply to the Part 20 Request. I believe that this level of
attention by Fujitsu was exceptional due no doubt to the value of the
Counterclaim and the risk to the reputation of Fujitsu.
32.1 do not think that Fujitsu were particularly co-operative in the provision of
evidence, witness statement and attendance at Court in other civil cases.
They would do so when absolutely required but cost and time were often
mentioned when more wide-ranging reports were requested to investigate
Page 14 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
allegations (Email from myself to Vicky Harrison POL00073598). I recall
Fujitsu were defensive for the most part of any allegation that there were any
substantive issues with the Horizon system but without access to the Civil
Litigation files and after this passage of time I cannot provide any specific
examples. Civil Litigation did not challenge Fujitsu or POL about this but tried
to work within the limits of the information that they did provide, as the number
of civil debt collection cases was modest.
33.Cases such as Bajaj or Brown/Callendar Square were relevant to this case
only in so far as they, in the case of Brown, diverted resources very close to
the trial date. So instead of preparing for trial based on the pleaded case I and
the agent had to try to investigate whether the type of problems that had been
experienced at Callendar Square were present in the Castleton case.
Castleton’ solicitors advised that they would be calling Mr Brown to give
evidence.
34.1 knew of the case of Bajaj but had no real involvement in it to the best of my
recollection, as it was a prosecution case. I knew that despite the different
levels of evidence required in prosecution and civil cases that solicitors acting
for Bajaj were interested in the outcome of the Castleton Case. I was not
made aware of the precise details of the case of Mr Bajaj merely that
Castleton was likely to refer to it. I was also aware as the result of a
conversation with Hugh James that the case was in abeyance awaiting the
result in Castleton. (Telephone Attendance Thomas Bourne to Mandy Talbot
POL00069431).
Page 15 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
35. Allegations were made about alleged faults in the Horizon system at
Grangemouth PO in Falkirk in Scotland and I sought to investigate to
ascertain whether there was any relevance to the issues in the upcoming trial.
(Email from Mandy Talbot to Lesley Joyce re Grangemouth POL00070172
and (Email Thomas Bourne to Stephen Dilley re Ferryhill POLO0070175).
These allegations by Castleton were made shortly prior to the date of the
Castleton trial, so it was always open to debate whether any of the
allegations, evidence or witness statements would be admitted by the Judge
at Trial. I collected what limited evidence could be obtained from POL and
Fujitsu as detailed in an Email from me to Stephen Dilley containing print outs
in respect of Ferryside Post Office. (Email Mandy Talbot to Stephen Dilley re
Ferryhill POLO0070176). Further information was sent by me to Stephen
Dilley in an Email relating to Callendar Square (Email Mandy Talbot to
Stephen Dilley re Callendar Square re Mr Brown POL00081928). It transpired
that there was a problem at Callendar Square as detailed in the Emails from
Brian Trotter to Sandra MacKay (Email Mandy Talbot to Stephen Dilley re
Callendar Square re Mr Brown POL00081928), but that it had been
anticipated the issue would be resolved by the release of a S90 fix from
Fujitsu. This was an error that occurred where there were multiple stock units
in use at a Post Office. Multiple stock units were not used in Castleton’s Sub
Post Office. Anne Chambers advised that the footprint of the Callendar
Square problem was something checked for by Fujitsu and it had been not
present at Castleton’s Post Office and hence not relevant to the issues in the
Page 16 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
Trial. (Email from Mandy Talbot to Stephen Dilley re Callendar Square
POL00070135).
36. Allegations were also made about problems at the Carshalton Branch as
detailed in my email to Stephen Dilley (Email from Mandy Talbot to Stephen
Dilley re Carshalton POL00070160), but the details provided by Castleton
were very sparce. It appeared that Carshalton Post Office may also have
been known as West End and if so that the only information which could be
located of an issue had been resolved by advice given as detailed by Dorothy
Kiernan at page 4 and 5 of POL00070160.
37.In respect of the documents at POL00070126, telephone attendance Thomas
Bourne, SDJ3, Richard Morgan and Mandy Talbot, and POL00070133, email
from Mandy Talbot to S Parker at Fujitsu copied to Stephen Dilley re
Callendar Square, these evidence the ongoing attempts that were made in
investigate allegations up to the date of trial. The investigations took up time
but did not affect the strategy of POL.
38.Castleton’s solicitors proposed a settlement as set out in document
POL00113909, Email from Paul Dann to Martyn Mitchell re offer of settlement.
The documents Email from Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re draft Tomlin
Order (POL00069775) , Email from Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re
Confidentiality, (POLO0069737), Email from Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re
settlement counter proposal (POL00069779), Email Stephen Dilley to
Castleton’s Solicitor re wording of the Tomlin Order (POL00069767), Email
Page 17 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re Tomlin Order (POL00069763), Email from
Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re settlement (POL00069722), Email from
Stephen Dilley to concerned parties re failure of settlement (POL00069741),
Telephone Attendance Note between Stephen Dilley and Mandy Talbot re
Castleton’s decision to dismiss his solicitor (POL00069678), Email Stephen
Dilley to Bob Heckford re continuation of trial (POLO0069695) all contain
details of the negotiations towards the proposed settlement. I have based my
reply on their contents as I do not have access to any other documentation
and my recollection of the negotiations has faded with time.
39.1 believe that the proposed settlement as contained in the draft Tomlin Order
which I do not have access to, would have been beneficial to both parties.
The case would have been recorded as settled on any search of Court
records and the details of the settlement would remain private between the
parties. This would have facilitated Castleton’s intention to seek employment
in Financial Services. The costs would have been settled on a relatively
modest level without the costs of experts and of trial. Castleton would have
confirmation that the Post Office had never alleged he was dishonest and he
would have withdrawn his allegations against Horizon. By dismissing his
solicitors and proceeding to trial he incurred substantial further costs and a
judgement was entered against him. POL would also have benefited by
saving costs and time plus it could make reference to the terms of the Tomlin
Order which exonerated Horizon if required to, in the appropriate
circumstances. The contents of the proposed Tomlin Order would not have
been an unusual way of settling a civil litigation case. I believed that it would
Page 18 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
have been in the best interest of POL. The judgment to the best of my
recollection was merely for a sum of money, dismissing the counterclaim, but
did not make any reference to the Horizon system. I do not have access to a
copy of the final Judgment in this case.
40.To the best of my recollection, the proposal that Castleton did not repeat his
4
allegations against the Horizon system was important to POL so much so that
Keith Baines, Senior Contracts and Services Manager at POL, amended the
proposed wording to make it more robust. See POL00069775, Email Stephen
Dilley to Mandy Talbot re Draft Tomlin Order, page 2 email from Keith Baines
to Mandy Talbot.
-Aconfidentiality clause meant that the terms of the proposed settlement would
be kept private between the parties unless disclosure was needed for
implementation or by order of the Court. I believe that POL was of the opinion
that a settlement would reduce the number of allegations made by Sub Post
master’s about the Horizon system. This would have been a standard
requirement for litigation of this nature.
42. The Post Office had already incurred a disproportionate amount of legal costs
by September of 2006 given the size of the initial claim. It wished to avoid
incurring more costs by seeking agreement with Castleton’s solicitors to
disclose their experts report on a without prejudice basis. As a formal Part 30
offer had been made to Castleton earlier in the case; that was unlikely in our
opinion to be bettered at trial, he was at risk in respect of costs. The tactic of
Page 19 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
POL was to draw the costs position to the attention of Mr Castleton (see
Telephone attendance Stephen Dilley and Mandy Talbot POL00069603) then
to overwhelm Castleton with evidence and preserve the trial date of early
December. I refer to the telephone attendance note between Stephen Dilley
and myself re costs and tactics POL00069470. These would have been
standard tactics in high value litigation cases. I would have obtained
confirmation from POL based on the legal advice from our agents and
Counsel but I cannot confirm exact details of who accepted this advice without
access to the "in house" Civil Litigation papers on this case. This tactic was
partially successful in that Castleton’s solicitors reduced the size of the
counter claim and offered a settlement the following month. In the telephone
note between Stephen Dilley and myself (Telephone Attendance re pleadings
and tactics POL00069672) the tactic of refusing to consent to Castleton’s late
amendment of pleadings and disclosure of evidence was discussed and the
decision taken to press on with the Trial. These are all legitimate tactics on the
part of a claimant to reach a settlement or trial of the case for the least
amount of costs and to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible.
43. The Email from Stephen Dilley to myself (Email from Stephen Dilley to Mandy
Talbot re reason for delay POL00069766) explained that Castleton was unwell
and that his own solicitors were experiencing difficulty in obtaining instructions
from him in relation to the proposed Tomlin Order. The Email from Stephen
Dilley to myself (Email Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re Castleton’s health
POL00069756) explained that although he was medically fit to give
instructions, that he did not want to sign the Tomlin Order or authorise his
Page 20 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
solicitors to do so. It was the opinion of Stephen Dilley that Castleton was
unwell. A Defendant's wellbeing was not considered by POL as relevant to the
manner in which litigation was conducted unless or until the Defendant or
those acting on his behalf made a relevant application to the Court assuming
that litigation had already commenced. Clearly if such an application had been
made then Civil Litigation would have had to consider POL’s position in
pursuing the claim or possibly staying the litigation until the defendant was
able to provide meaningful instructions.
44. In general the physical or mental wellbeing of a Sub Postmaster may well
have been considered a relevant factor prior to the decision to refer a matter
out to agents but that was a matter for POL. I would not have been aware of
any decisions taken in this respect and do not know if this was considered in
this case Civil Litigation were never asked to the best of my knowledge, to
advise on this matter.
45. The draft List of Documents contained in the Fax from Stephen Dilley to me
(POL00069657) is proportionate to the pleaded case as it appeared in May
2006. In so far as other documents came into creation, they were attached to
the supplemental List of Documents created in November of 2006. See Email
Stephen Dilley to Thomas Bourne re Supplemental Disclosure,
POL00069701. A sequence of allegations were made by Castleton late in the
case and close to the date of trial. Some of the witnesses that were already
briefed for trial were prepared to deal with these points if the Court had
Page 21 of 42
46.
47
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
permitted the evidence to be entered. It may have been necessary to create a
Further Supplemental List of Documents, beyond what was created in
November, if the case had progressed in that way dealing with the allegation
that Horizon Faults at Callendar Square, Carshalton etc were not relevant and
comparable to events that had occurred at Marine Drive. Civil Litigation was
prepared to disclose documentation relating to the Challoner Square problem
with witness evidence refuting that a similar event had occurred at Marine
Drive. As such I was content that disclosure was appropriate.
Judgment had been entered against Castleton in the civil court and POL had
expended a large sum of money on legal costs. Castleton had rejected a
number of attempts at compromise and as such was liable for a substantial
proportion of the costs incurred by POL in addition to his own. Although
Castleton had agreed to POL’s costs as set out in the Email from Stephen
Dilley to me, (POL00070302) describing the necessary next steps, he had
refused to sign a consent order to that effect. As he had refused to enter into
any dialogue about making good the judgment and costs, this led POL to incur
further costs to obtain a court order. As Castleton took no steps to comply
Bankruptcy, was the natural next step. Sometimes the threat of bankruptcy
will lead to the offer of a repayment programmes.
. The document at POL00072146, Email to Stephen Dilley from Mandy Talbot
re bankruptcy/potential claim by Day, of May 2008 acknowledges his report
noting the failure by Castleton to progress with the sale of the property at
Marine Drive. The final document on the case is an email from myself to
Page 22 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
Stephen Dilley re conclusion of the case (POL00072206) in which I
acknowledged the final report concerning the bankruptcy and the failure of
POL to recover its costs. These steps would be standard practice in any debt
recovery litigation.
48. Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu provided evidence in the form of Witness
Statements to our agents in this case. (Email from Brian Pinder to Gareth
Jenkins re Castleton FUJ00122279). Gareth Jenkins described himself in the
draft Witness Statement (FUJ00122280, Draft witness statement of Gareth
Jenkins) as a Distinguished Engineer and described himself as having a
working knowledge of the Horizon computer system. I did not participate in
the creation of his Witness Statement. I do not know anything about the length
or the scope of his experience working with Fujitsu or his knowledge of the
bugs, errors or defects that were known about by Fujitsu at this time. The draft
Witness Statement and presumably the final Witness Statement demonstrate
a broad knowledge of the manner on which the Fujitsu system worked.
49. The Prosecution solicitor’s team were to the best of my recollection entitled to
ask Fujitsu for a total of 100 free reports per year to assist with the
investigation and potential prosecution of cases. Civil Litigation solicitors
were only able to ask for reports if the entitlement to free reports had not been
used up by Prosecution. As a result of this situation civil litigation, could not
ask for additional reports without expense that POL would have to agree to
absorb. Further Civil Litigation was never offered Horizon training at the point-
of-sale terminal or at the various Administrative Centres. As such solicitors in
Page 23 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
effect learned about the system on a case-by-case basis relying on
information supplied to us by POL and Fujitsu.
50.Anne Chambers of Fujitsu provided a witness statement for Stephen Dilley in
September of 2006 in response to his email (Email from Stephen Dilley to
Anne Chambers FUJ00122321). The call logs (Call logs for a variety of dates
in Jan, Feb, March 2004 FUJ00122322) are from Marine Drive and were the
basis of her analysis of the issues complained of by Castleton. In her witness
statement (FUJ00122323 Draft Witness Statement of Anne Chambers) she
describes herself as a Systems Specialist tasked with the role of investigating
problems with the Horizon system. I contacted her directly later on in the case
and recorded her comments in my email to Stephen Dilley (Email from Mandy
Talbot to Stephen Dilley 6 December 2006 re Castleton POLO0070135). This
approach by me was made to try to investigate allegations made by Castleton
about the Sub Post Office known as Callendar Square. To the best of my
recollection, she presented as calm and knowledgeable about the Horizon
system. She was a witness not an Expert and both I and external solicitors
relied on her. As she was not an expert, I had no duty to test her ability to
answer the issues being raised. She was the person being put forward as a
witness by POL as having the necessary knowledge of the Horizon system to
deal with Mr Castleton's’ allegations. As Castleton was the first fully litigated
case in the civil courts involving Horizon, I had no ability to challenge the
information provided by Anne Chambers about the system. I received no
training on the Horizon system before or after it was rolled out. Even if I had
Page 24 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
been supplied with the complete download of data, I had no knowledge about
the system to challenge her information and subsequent statements.
51.After this period of time, I cannot recall Penny Thomas and as such I do not
know whether she worked for POL or Fujitsu.
52. The solicitors working for civil litigation did not receive any training in how to
use the Horizon system or how to analyse reports created using it or to
interrogate the system
Post Office v Seema Misra.
53.Seema Misra was prosecuted by the Criminal Law Team within Legal
Services. Within Legal Services they were usually referred to as the
Prosecution Team. The Advice from Counsel Mr Warwick Tatford was created
for the Prosecution Team and I am not sure that I have ever seen it before
(Advice from Counsel Mr Warwick Tatford POL00044557). According to the
Advice I was asked to search for any papers relating to Mrs Nixon and a
witness statement describing the manner in which the layout of the terminal
screen could create a problem. Further Counsel asked me to access some
civil litigation files and explain them to him. A request such as this from
Prosecuting Counsel, was an unusual occurrence. I cannot now recall either
of these events.
54. Speaking to or communicating with Counsel in a criminal prosecution case
was a very rare event. Usually, the civil litigation solicitors would have no
Page 25 of 42
55.
56.
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
interest or involvement in a criminal case until it had been concluded and civil
litigation was asked to conduct debt recovery. In October 2010 Mr Jarnail
Singh, Senior Lawyer in the Criminal Law Division sent an email to me (Email
Jackie Whitham to Zoe Topham re outcome of Misra Case POL00044997)
and a large number of other parties communicating the result of the trial in
Guildford Crown Court. I have no idea why I was addressed first as my only
involvement was to provide information on civil cases to Counsel. The other
parties copied in included a selection of solicitors within Legal Services,
including Mr Doug Evans the Head of Legal Services at that time, prosecution
solicitors, commercial solicitors, my secretary, and a variety of POL
employees.
Mr Jarnail Singh in his Email (Email Jackie Whitham to Zoe Topham re
outcome of Misra Case POL00044997) reporting on the case of Misra,
referred to an unprecedented attack on the Horizon system. Counsel's Advice
refers to multiple Requests for Information and for access to a
disproportionate amount of data from Fujitsu. Apart from supplying some
information to Counsel I had no participation in the prosecution and so cannot
answer the question from the Inquiry.
I am not able to provide any other information about the case of Seema Misra.
I left the Dispute Resolution Team in Royal Mail Legal Services in the January
of 2011.
Civil and Criminal Cases.
Page 26 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
57.Civil and Criminal Cases within Legal Services were dealt with by entirely
different teams. Where the Prosecution team had successfully prosecuted a
Sub Postmaster but no award was made for compensation or the prosecution
team was not pursing a proceeds of crime application in the criminal Courts
then the case would sometimes be referred to civil litigation for debt recovery.
58.1 have been asked for my recollections (if any) of the criminal cases for
several named individuals. I have asked for access to the case paper for the
all the cases referred to but have been advised that none are available. I
cannot recall any involvement in any of the criminal cases asked about or in
any other prosecution case.
59.As mentioned above I am not a prosecuting solicitor.
60.I have been asked for my recollections (if any) of the civil cases for several
named individuals. As explained earlier many civil cases were sent out
directly by POL to our legal agents. Without access to my case files, I cannot
recall my involvement in any of the cases referred.
61.1 cannot recall the names of any cases in addition to those asked about.
62. Looking back, I obviously have concerns about the cases I was involved in
knowing now that there were problems with the Horizon system but that is
with hindsight and the knowledge that has come into the public domain. At the
Page 27 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
time when civil litigation was instructed to obtain repayment of money by POL
via legal agents, we genuinely believed the position adopted by Fujitsu.
General
63.I have read the documents at POL000104593 (Emails from myself to various
re change of accounting. Plus, extracts from undated counsels’ advice on
criminal case, very early advice on civil and criminal cases and undated
advice from Civil Litigation), which consist of an exchange of emails between
myself and POL and the response of Jennifer Robson, a Debt Recovery
Section Manager POL in September of 2004. This was a summary of a
meeting attended by Clare Wardle, my line manager, on my behalf. The email
from Jennifer Robson contained an amended version of my email where
Karen Hillsden subsequently added her response to points and inserted them
into my original document, in a contrasting colour. In addition, there are
extracts from a number of Reports from unidentified parties that appear to be
Counsel's advice in a Prosecution case, an Advice commenting on challenges
in both civil and criminal cases and an email from I assume civil litigation to an
unknown party all of which are undated. I am not sure of the period of time
between the meeting and my email but it demonstrates that civil litigation was
not entirely up to date with the activities within POL despite its best
endeavours. There was no obligation upon POL to keep Civil Litigation up to
date with changes in its processes for dealing with Sub Postmasters but it
would have been beneficial.
Page 28 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
64. Prior to the implementation of the Horizon system bringing civil proceedings
against a Sub Postmaster to recover outstanding monies under the Sub
Postmaster’s contract was dependent upon POL locating sufficient
documentary evidence to prove the debt. This could take the form of multiple
different documents all of which had different retention periods. The content of
the undated email from Civil Litigation (POL000104593) summarised the
problems that it experienced in bringing cases against Sub Postmasters prior
to the full implantation of Horizon or in the early days of its implementation.
65. Under the contract the Sub Postmaster was responsible for all losses
including those incurred by his staff. To the best of my recollection prior to late
2004 Sub Postmasters could elect whether they would make good a
deficiency that arose by using one of three methods; if they believed that a
correcting Transaction Correction would come through to rectify a loss in a
few weeks they could ask the permission from POL to put the loss into a local
suspense account to await resolution, make good the loss themselves from
their own cash or raise the issue with POL as a disputed transaction. By the
end of 2004 POL removed the ability of Sub Postmasters to put disputed
transactions into a local suspense account. Thereafter a Sub Postmaster
could only settle locally where he would make good the debt immediately or
settle centrally, both methods accepted that the Sub Postmaster accepted the
debt but with the latter was asking for it to be investigated by POL. If on
investigation POL found that a third party had made an error e.g. DWP then it
would issue a Transaction Correction and the debt was erased. If no
explanation could be found upon investigation, then the debt would remain the
Page 29 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
responsibility of the Sub Postmaster and could be paid by debit card or
deducted from remuneration.
66. The email POL00104593 of the 30th of September 2004 refers to the
proposal to require that Sub Postmaster’s print out a monthly Branch Trading
Statement and sign and retain them for auditors to inspect so as to enhance
the volume and status of paper evidence available to support civil recovery
cases. Civil Litigation had been advised that more robust processes were
being put in place to record the amount of Cash (Remittance) sent to and
received from a Sub Post Office. Civil Litigation was not aware at the time of
this exchange of emails that POL had already begun to offer Sub Postmasters
the option to pay outstanding errors by way of deduction from remuneration.
67. Civil Litigation was trying to agree processes with POL that would enable it to
acquire more documentary evidence in support of potential civil litigation
cases e.g. more documentary evidence supporting the monthly trading in the
Sub Post Offices. The ability of a Sub Postmaster to put an error into a local
suspense account had apparently been removed between the date of the
meeting referred to and the exchange of emails. This would have placed
responsibility for investigation of an error firmly within the remit of POL/Fujitsu.
It would also make it more difficult for a Sub Postmaster to ignore a loss by
just moving it into a local suspense account. It compelled a Sub Postmaster to
admit responsibility for a debt narrowing his choices to settling it locally or
centrally. I can no longer recall whether there was a formal change of contract
Page 30 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
permitting deduction from remuneration or whether it was dealt with by
amending policy and incorporating it into the contract by way of reference.
68.1 do not recognise the term IMPACT programme and as such I cannot
comment on whether I was involved in the same.
69.POL00104618 is an email chain from Phil Ashley of POL branch IT to myself
and Biddy Wyles, my line manager at the time. The handwriting on the
exchange is not mine and it may have been dealt with in my absence. It
sought assistance on the drafting of a response to Sub Post Offices where the
effect of a bug may have impacted on errors. If proceedings were issued by
legal agents on behalf of the business, they would have sought assurance
from the business that the reports obtained from POL and Fujitsu were
accurate at the time. Usually when a bug within the Horizon system was
detected the “footprint” of the error was identified and a Fujitsu employee
would look for it when investigating other cases.
70. Although Civil Litigation was aware by 2008 of issues with the Horizon system
e.g. Callendar Square I was still convinced by the assurances given by POL
and particularly Fujitsu that the system was substantially sound and that bugs
when they arose were unusual, confined and were resolved by the application
of fixes. As such civil litigation cases were pleaded on the basis of the facts
pertaining to the individual case and disclosure was limited to the documents
and reports created for that case. Disclosure in a particular case did not
include information about bugs that had been located in what POL and Fujitsu
Page 31 of 42
7
=
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
assured us were a limited number of other cases and in unique
circumstances. This is because civil litigation did not consider they had
relevance to a case being litigated at that time on a separate set of facts.
. The document at POL00053778 was an email from me to Counsel Warwick
Tatford. Mr Tatford was dealing with a prosecution case in which a statement
had been disclosed by the Defence from a Mrs Nixon or Dixon of Highcliffe.
He had contacted a Legal Executive in the Prosecution Team Phil Taylor and
he had asked me for assistance with locating any information within the
business on the individual concerned. I requested that searches be made
within the Chairman’s Office team and the relevant Branch Managers,
National Managers and at Storage. I believe that Mrs Nixon's statement said
that the icons were so close together on the Horizon Terminal it was easy to
press the wrong one.
72. There was no culture of trying to withhold documentation within POL at the
time to the best of my knowledge. When POL were asked to locate
information, they did their best to comply with the request. There had been a
number of cases by 2010 where the Horizon system had been tested before
the criminal Courts. Although not a prosecutor I was aware that the
prosecutions had been successful. I think that there was a feeling of
frustration within POL because it was being assured by Fujitsu that the system
was sound. To the best of my knowledge, it appeared to be working well for
thousands of Sub Post Offices and Crown Offices. Yet, when the decision was
taken to issue proceedings to recover an outstanding debt often the same
Page 32 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
general defence was being made, usually with little specific detail but seeking
to blame the Horizon system. In retrospect my comments about “usual list of
suspects” was erroneous and not appropriate given what I now know about
the history of problems with the Horizon system and the history of bugs and
defects from its inception and roll out. In retrospect my expressed opinion of
the former Sub Postmasters that Horizon was the” cause of all evil” was
probably closer to the truth than my belief at the time. I do not believe that I
was alone in holding or expressing my belief in the summer of 2010 but it was
genuinely held and based on what I believed were solid assurances from
Fujitsu and evidence supplied by them. After this period of time I cannot recall
details of the parties who gave these assurances.
73.By February 2010 Sue Lowther of POL Information Security wished to
conduct an exercise on the Horizon system. I cannot now recall whether I was
present at the meeting summarised by Andy Hayward. As he summarised the
meeting initially on the 26" of February there was a desire to conduct a full
investigation into integrity issues. He was minded to seek external expert
opinion to give gravitas to the findings. Criminal Litigation had not been invited
to the meeting of the 26" of February. Once Rob Wilson, Head of Criminal
Law became aware of the suggested investigation, he made clear its possible
consequences. His email was copied into the Head of Legal Services at the
time Mr Doug Evans. As Civil Litigation had always been assured of the
integrity of the system by POL and Fujitsu this request came from out of the
blue as far as I was concerned. However, as its subsequent declared aim was
to improve the quality of messaging within the Horizon system and therefore
Page 33 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
witness evidence, I was supportive. (Email from Rob Wilson to Dave Posnett
Fraud Risk Manager re challenges to Horizon POL00106867). There is
reference to a request for me to provide information about civil and criminal
cases to the Information Team. I am sure that I would have sent information
about civil cases to them and referred the request for information about
criminal cases to the Prosecution Team. I cannot recall whether I ever saw the
output of the Information Security exercise or indeed whether it ever
progressed.
73. Within Civil Litigation the challenge with Horizon cases was to locate
documentary evidence from POL or the Sub Post Office branches, obtaining
adequate print outs from POL Customer Services, comprehensive reports
from Fujitsu and persuading staff to give Witness Statements and appear in
Court. It was exacerbated by the high turnover of staff in the teams dealing
with Sub Postmasters and the consequent loss of knowledge about the
Horizon system.
Other Matters
74. Dealing with Sub Postmaster debt cases was a small part of my role in Civil
Litigation although from time to time as in the case of Castleton it did become
a priority. There was never any formal guidance issued within the general Civil
Litigation department on what cases should be reported upwards, in what
circumstances and to what level of seniority in the Legal Services
Department. As such solicitors worked in silos reporting to our line managers
on an ad hoc basis. The exception to this were personal injury cases but this
Page 34 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
was dictated by the requirements of external Insurers. There were never
sufficient Sub Postmaster cases in Civil Litigation or subsequently out with
Legal Agents for me to adopt any formal system of upward reporting.
75. Further there were never any demands from POL for regular reports on Sub
Postmaster’s cases that in retrospect might have enabled Civil Litigation to
detect a trend. POL was able to send cases directly out to legal agents with
Civil Litigation providing assistance and monitoring costs. In retrospect this
ability by POL would have made tracking any patterns still more challenging.
76. If there had been a formal process in place for upward reporting within Civil
Litigation, to the Head of Legal and beyond then it is possible that the
increasing number of Horizon cases could have been identified earlier.
77.When I was asked for information by Counsel Mr Tatford on the number of
civil litigation cases it was for the purpose of dealing with a Prosecution. To
the best of my recollection the first time I was asked for information about civil
cases, for any other purpose other than to assist with a prosecution by POL,
was for Sue Lowther.
78. There was never any suggestion that Solicitors should look for and report on
trends with cases either within civil litigation or across Legal Services and
send the data across to POL or the other business. The management of the
cases referred by the business out to agents would have made this
Page 35 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8S00100
challenging in any event. As such, I was not aware of the developing scale of
the problem
79. The Head of Legal Services Mr Doug Evans was aware of the concerns of
Rob Wilson expressed in his email of the 3 of March 2010. (POL00106867)
My Line Managers sequentially Joe Ashton, Clare Wardle, Biddy Vwyles,
Rebekah Mantle would all have been aware of action taken by civil litigation
against Sub Postmasters. However, without a formal process in place for
upward reporting and evaluation for financial and reputational risk, the
Horizon cases were not assessed.
80. Civil Litigation was aware that the agreement between POL and Fujitsu was
very prescriptive. Solicitors in civil litigation were reliant upon colleagues in
POL for locating documentation, downloading reports, and creating witness
statements upon them. Fujitsu dealt with the more technical requests for
information and witness statements explaining the same. As solicitors within
Civil Litigation were not trained on the Horizon system and were not able to
demand reports from Fujitsu to investigate cases, without agreement as to
cost, it would have been almost impossible for solicitors to challenge the
information they received and push back against the experts.
I believe that the facts contained in this my witness statement are true.
Page 36 of 42
WITN08500100
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
Date__3 ! Has Lon 3
index to the First Witness Statement of Mandy Talbot
‘No [Control no’ URN ~ Document Description ~~
4 Powaorzres FUJ00121637 Email from Jan Holmes to Colin Lent
Smith re Cleveleys
2 witNosza0z00 I WITNO5290200-
Smith
3 Second Witness Statement of Jan
Robert Holmes
4 po naoi27904I FUJ00121690 Email from Jan Holmes to Keith Baines __
re Cleveleys
5 inal naotz7e0s I FUJ00121691 Analysis of calls made to Horizon
System Helpdesk by Jan Holmes.
6 pol Na0127906 I FUJ00121692 Glossary of Fujitsu POL terminology
and how technical support is provided
I 7 pol nao127910) FUJ00121696 Email from Jan Holmes to Keith Baines
re Cleveleys
8 or nao127911I FUJ00121697 Cleanstart Migration confirmation of the
I date on which Horizon went live at
I I
Cleveleys
9 pornarare%s ‘FUJ00121700 “Email Jan Holmes to Mandy Talbot re
/ Cleveleys
“0 Pov soveata POLO0073855 “Email Bob Heckford to Richards
Challands (Bond Pearce) re Lee
Castleton
I ana
Page 37 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
a
POL- 0067027
POl00070464
Email Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re
Lee Castleton
12 POL-0067341 I POLO0070778 Email Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbot re
Lee Castleton
13 POL-0067059 I POLO0070496 Email Stephen Dilley to Tom Beezer,
senior partner in Bond Pearce, re Lee
Castleton
14 IPOL-0069232 I POLO0072669 Telephone attendance Stephen Dilley to
Mandy Talbot re Lee Castleton
15 IPOL-0066185 I POLO0069622 Conference with Counsel -attendance
note- re Lee Castleton
16 IPoL-oos6090 I POLO0069527 Email Stephen Dilley to Carol King re
Castleton
17 POL-0066013 I POLO0069450 Email from Stephen Dilley to Richard
Morgan re Castleton
18 — IPoL-0065967 I POLO0069404 Email from Stephen Dilley to Brian
Pinder re Castleton
19 POL-0066434 I POLO0069871 Telephone Attendance Stephen Dilley to
Richard Morgan re Castleton
20 ‘IPoinao1285 I FUJ00122333 Email from Stephen Dilley to Andrew
Nr Dunks re Castleton
21 IPOINQ012854I FUJ00122334 Witness Statement of Andrew Paul
Pn Dunks re Castleton
22 POINQo1285 I FUJ00122335 Exhibit ADI to the statement of Andrew
“ Paul Dunks re Castleton
23 POL-0066162I POLOOO69599 Email from Stephen Dilley to Mandy
Talbot re Castleton
Page 38 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
24 POL-0070161 I POL00073598 Email Mandy Talbot to Vicky Harrison re
Castleton
25 ‘IPoL-0065994 I POL00069431 Telephone Attendance Thomas Bourne
to Mandy Talbot
26 POL-0066735 I POLO0070172 Email from Mandy Talbot to Lesley
Joyce re Grangemouth
27 —_‘IPoL-0066738 I POLO0070175 Email Thomas Bourne to Stephen Dilley
re Ferryhill
28 — IPOL-0066739 I POLO0070176 Email Mandy Talbot to Stephen Dilley re
Ferryhill
29 ‘IPoL-0078491 I POL00081928 Email Mandy Talbot to Stephen Dilley re
Callendar Square re Mr Brown
30 POL-0066698 I POLO0070135 Email from Mandy Talbot to Stephen
Dilley re Callendar Square
31 POL-0066723 I POLO00070160 Email from Mandy Talbot to Stephen
Dilley re Carshalton
32 POL-0066689 I POLO0070126 Telephone attendance Thomas Bourne,
SDJ3, Richard Morgan and Mandy
Talbot
33 PoL-oose696 I POLO0070133 Email from Mandy Talbot to S Parker at
Fujitsu copied to Stephen Dilley
34 ~~ [pot-o011301 I POLO0113909 Email from Paul Dann to Martyn
’ Mitchell re offer of settlement
35 POL-0066338 I POLO0069775 Email Stephen Dilley to myself re draft
Tomlin Order
36 POL-0066300 I POLO0069737 Email Mandy Talbot to Stephen Dilley re
Confidentiality
Page 39 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
37 POL-0066342 I POLO0069779 Email from Stephen Lilley to Mandy
Talbot re proposed counter settlement
38 PoL-0066330 I POLO0069767 Email Stephen Dilley to Castleton’s
Solicitors
39 POL-0066326 I POLO0069763 Email Stephen Dilley to Mandy Talbotre
draft Tomlin Order
40 POL-0066285 I POL00069722 Email from Mandy Talbot to Stephen
Dilley re delay
441 POL-0066304 I POLO0069741 Email from Stephen Dilley to concerned
parties re failure of settlement
42 POL-0066241 I POLOO069678 Telephone Attendance Stephen Dilley
and Mandy Talbot re Castleton acting in
person
43 POL-0066258 I POLOO069695 Email Stephen Dilley to Bob Heckford
re continuation of trial
44 POL-0066166 I POLOO069603 Telephone attendance Stephen Dilley
and Mandy Talbot re costs
45 POL-0066033 I POLO0069470 Telephone Attendance Stephen Dilley
and myself re costs and tactics
46 POL-0066235 I POLO0069672 Telephone Attendance re pleadings and
tactics
47 POL-0066329 I POLO0069766 Email from Stephen Dilley to myself re
reason for delay
48 POL-0066319 I POLO0069756 Email Stephen Dilley to myself re
Castleton’s health
49 POL-0066220 I POLOO069657 Fax from Stephen Dilley to Myself re
disclosure
Page 40 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
50 —_IPoL-0066264 I POLO0069701 Stephen Dilley to myself re
supplemental disclosure
51 POL-oo6e86s I POLO0070302 Email from Stephen Dilley to Mandy
Talbot re bankruptcy
52 POL-0068709) POL00072146 Email to Stephen Dilley from Mandy
Talbot re bankruptcy /potential claim by
Day
53 POL-0068769 I POLO0072206 Email from Mandy Talbot to Stephen
Dilley re conclusion of the case
54 POINQ01284 I FUJ00122279 Email from Brian Pinder to Gareth
“ Jenkins re Castleton
55 PoINao1284 I FUJ00122280 Draft witness statement of Gareth
er Jenkins
56 powaorzess FUJ00122321 Email from Stephen Dilley to Anne
Chambers
57 Ipoinaot285 I FUJ000122322 Call logs for a variety of dates in Jan,
pr Feb, March 2004
58 — IPoINao1285 I FUJ00122323 Draft Witness Statement of Anne
“ Chambers
59 POL-oo66698 I POLO0070135, Email from Mandy Talbot to Stephen
Dilley 6" December 2006 re Castleton
60 —_IPoL-0041036 I POLO00044557 Advice from Counsel Warwick Tatford
61 POL-0041476 I POL00044997 Email Jackie Whitham to Zoe Topham
re outcome of Misra Case
62 POL00104593} POL00104593 Email from Mandy Talbot to various re
change of accounting. Plus, extracts
from undated counsels’ advice on
Page 41 of 42
WITNO08500100
WITNO8500100
WITNO8500100
criminal case, very early advice on civil
and criminal cases and undated advice
from civil litigation
63
POL-0104201
POL00104618
Email from Phil Ashley POL IT seeking
advice on drafting
64
IPOL-0050257
POL00053778
Email from Mandy Talbot to Warwick
Tatford plus various other emails to POL
staff.
65
IPOL-0105550
POL00107242
Emails from Mandy Talbot and a
colleague to various POL staff seeking
evidence on a civil action.
66
POL-015175
POL00106867
Email from Rob Wilson to Dave Posnett
Fraud Risk Manager re challenges to
Horizon
Page 42 of 42