Witness Name: Colin Lenton-Smith
Statement No.: WITN08590100
Dated: 2274 May 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF COLIN LENTON-SMITH
I, COLIN LENTON-SMITH will say as follows:-
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a former employee of Fujitsu Services Ltd and held the position of
Commercial and Finance Director, ICL Pathway Ltd, later Post Office
Account.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(the “Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the Rule 9 Request dated 18" April
2022 (the “Request”).
BACKGROUND
3. I qualified as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accounts in England Wales
and worked in industry from 1979 and predominantly in the IT industry from
1985. I joined International Computers Ltd (ICL) in 1990 as a Commercial
Manager within the International Division; I then worked for ICL Pathway Ltd
Page 1 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
and Fujitsu Services in various Commercial Management roles until I retired in
September 2018 (ICL was taken over by Fujitsu in 2002).
. I joined ICL Pathway in March 2001, which later became Post Office
Account (Fujitsu), as the Commercial and Finance Director until October
2007. My role involved managing an autonomous finance team and a small
commercial team to contract manage the Horizon contract with Post Office
and execute contract changes for additional functionality releases, notably
Network Banking. When Fujitsu separated the Commercial and Finance
functions in 2003/4, I relinquished management of the finance team to a
Financial Controller in the Finance function. My role then, within Fujitsu's
Commercial function, was to continue to contract manage the existing
contract but also to carry out the financial modelling and manage the
commercial negotiations of the contract for Horizon Next Generation (HNG)
signed in September 2006.
. Regarding Post Office Ltd (POL) legal action against SPMs, as part of the
service for Horizon, Fujitsu provided support to POL as and when required
in the form of audit data, witness statements and if required appearances
in court. Outside of the standard service POL may request Fujitsu to provide
special assistance.
Page 2 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
6. If POL decided to make a case a commercial matter, then I would receive formal
notification by letter from Keith Baines, POL Commercial Manager. I kept a
separate email folder for the correspondence on a particular case and as far as
I remember, there were very few cases dealt with between Keith Baines and
myself - less than 5, over the period March 2001 to October 2007. I cannot recall
the names of the cases involved.
Post Office Limited v Mrs J Wolstenholme (Cleveleys Post Office)
7. My recollection, prompted by the listed documents, is as set out in the
specific points below.
8. I would say that I became aware that POL had an issue that required assistance
from Fujitsu in August 2003. I am not able to pinpoint a date exactly before the
date of the email to me from Jan Holmes dated 20/8/2003 (FUJ00121482).
POL Legal Services were looking for information to support the POL litigation
against Mrs Wolstenholme, SPM of Cleveleys Post Office. I can’t be specific
about the details of the request as I don't have site of the papers faxed over
from POL as Jan Holmes noted in his email to me dated 20/08/2023 but can
only refer to Jan Holmes’ response, reviewed by me on 21/08/2023, and
included in Jan Holmes’ email to Jim Cruise POL — Subject — Cleveleys —
Horizon Equipment dated 21/8/2023 (WITN04600202).
9. I have been asked to consider the following documents:-
Page 3 of 17
10.
abi
i) A letter from Keith Baines to me dated 5 February 2004 (POL00095375),
ii) An email from Jan Homes to me dated 18 February 2004
(FUJ00121485), and enclosed draft response to POL (FUJ00121486),
iii) My email to Jan Holmes in reply dated 18 February 2004
(FUJ00121489) and his reply to me on the same date (FUJ00121490),
iv) My email to Jan Holmes dated 20 February 2004 (FUJ00121502 and
his email to me of the same date (FUJ00121507 and v) The report I sent
to Keith Baines at POL on 20 February 2004 (FUJ00121511 and
FUJ00121512).
I refer to Keith Baines letter to me of 05/02/2004 (POL00095375) which
states that Mrs Wolstenholme had made a counter claim against POL as
a result of deficiencies in the Horizon systems, the HSH service. Mrs
Wolstenholme claimed that the Horizon system itself caused losses in the
sub post office accounts. As a result, she wanted the computer equipment
to be examined by an expert witness before agreeing to release it to
Fujitsu. This is why the County Court instructed the parties to commission
a report from an expert approved by the Court, which I understand was
produced by Jason Coyne.
My understanding is that the role of the expert was to have knowledge
and experience of IT and knowledge and understanding of the Horizon
system so as be able to provide a factually correct, unambiguous, neutral,
independent statement for the benefit of the Court.
Page 4 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
12.
13.
14.
15.
I expressed Fujitsu's view of the expert report in the Response to Expert's
Opinion attached as an Appendix to my letter to Keith Baines dated
20/02/2004 Section “Conclusion” (FUJ00121512). It was concerning that as
the sole expert opinion, the report reflected that the expert did not have a
detailed understanding of how the Horizon system works and in relation to
the expert's point “Worrying Discrepancies” the report inferred that system
errors may be responsible but there was no evidence available to
substantiate this inference.
I have been asked what was the “data/response that we/POL have used
before which countered the PM system problem allegation” referred to in
FUJ001214889. It is my recollection that there had not been any earlier POL
legal actions that had been raised by Keith Baines to me as a commercial
issue. This question posed in my email was simply to check with Jan Holmes
that if he had been involved in providing litigation support at an operational
level had this provided data/or response in respect of an allegation by a Post
Master (PM) (i.e. SPM) to system problems.
I am not able to say whether POL Investigations provided Fujitsu with any
data or information to assist with this case other than to keep alignment and
monitor progress through ongoing email correspondence, telephone calls
and a case management conference.
Based on the email from Jim Cruise dated 03/03/2004 (FUJ00121534) POL’s
concerns about the experts report from Best Practice were that the expert
Page 5 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
had not revised his report in the light of Fujitsu’s Response to Expert's
Opinion (FUJ00121512).
16. As to why Jim Cruise was concerned about the case, I can only rely on the
direct information from Jim Cruise’s email to Keith Baines and me dated
04/03/2004 (FUJ00121534) in respect of the initial report of Jason Coyne
of Best Practice Group, where he stated that the expert report “cannot be
accepted by POL and that an application needs to be made to the court for
Fujitsu to give evidence about the Horizon system and its working in view
of the stance taken by the expert witness”.
17.1 have been asked if the problems reported by Mrs Wolstenholme (in
particular, blue screens, system freezes and screen lock issues) were
common problems being encountered by the Horizon users in early
2000s.This is a technical question which I am not able to answer.
18. In regard to Fujitsu's response to the expert report as communicated by POL,
in the letter from Keith Baines to me dated 05/02/2004 (POL0095375), he
requested Fujitsu Service's view of the main points in the expert report, and if
Fujitsu did not agree with them to suggest what information or advice Fujitsu
can provide to the expert that might lead him to change his finding. Fujitsu's
detailed response is set out in the Appendix “Response to Expert's Opinion”
in my letter to Keith Baines dated 20/02/2004 (FUJ00121512).
Page 6 of 17
af,
18.
19.
20.
In terms of what data was available to Fujitsu which compiling their
response, this is a technical question which I am not able to answer.
I have been asked to consider the following documents:-
i) An email from Jim Cruise to me and others dated 4 March 2004
(FUJ00121533) and the attachments (FUJ00121534, FUJ00121535 and
FUJ00121536), ii) My email to Jan Holmes dated 4 March 2004
(FUJ00121541), iii) An email from Jan Holmes to me dated 4 March 2004
(FUJ00121549) and attachment (FUJ00121550), iv) An email from Jan
Homes to me dated 11 March 2004 (FUJ00121557) and attachment
(FUJ00121558), v) An email from Jan Holmes to me dated 12 March 2004
(FUJ00121561) and attachment (FUJ00121562), vi) An email from Jan
Holmes to Jim Cruise, copied to me dated 12 March 2004 (FUJ00121567)
and attachment (FUJ00121568); vii) An email from Jan Holmes to me dated
6 April 2004 (FUJ00121602) and viii) An email from Jan Holmes to me dated
7 June 2004 (FUJ00121637).
I found the response from the expert to the points made by POL/Fujitsu to
be disappointing, as per my email to Jan Holmes dated 04/03/2004
(FUJ00121541).
At the request of Jim Cruise in his email to Keith Baines and myself dated
04/03/2004 (FUJ00121534) he welcomed any further points on the expert's
position set out in Jason Croyne’s email to Weightman Vizards dated
Page 7 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
21.
22.
02/03/2004 (FUJ00121535) attached to Jim Cruise’s email. Fujitsu’s response
was to provide POL with a response to the Expert's Reply to Fujitsu Services
Submission (FUJ00121568) with the email to Jim Cruise from Jan Holmes
dated 12/03/2004 (FUJ00121567). This also included an invitation via POL for
Fujitsu to offer to host Jason Coyne, the expert, at any of Fujitsu's Post Office
Account locations, arrange interviews and provide access to data and records
he required. I am aware from the Report on Cleveleys Post Office
(FUJ00121747) that POL did not pass onto the expert, Jason Coyne, either
Fujitsu's response to the initial expert report or the invitation to the host him at
a Fujitsu Post Office Account location.
Additionally, a draft witness statement from Jan Holmes was written
providing a description of the support services provided by Fujitsu to POL
in respect of the Horizon system and its users (FUJ00121707).
Fujitsu also provided a Report on the Cleveleys Post Office dated 01/09/2004
(FUJ00121747) which describes the involvement of Fujitsu Post Office
Account with Post Office Security Investigations in the matter of Cleveleys Post
Office and the dispute between POL and the Postmaster (SPM). This
document includes at section 5.0 a copy of Jan Holmes’ Witness Statement,
referred to above, which appears to have been lodged with Blackpool County
Court, dated August 2004, Claim No. CR101947 between Post Office
Counters Limited and Mrs Julie Wolstenholme.
Page 8 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
23.
24.
25.
26.
QT.
My understanding of why POL wanted to keep the expert report out of the
public domain, I refer to the letter from Keith Baines to me dated 05/02/2004
(POL00095375) he states that POL was concerned of the findings in the
expert's report because of any precedent that this might set and used by
SPMs to support claims that the Horizon Systems caused errors in their
branch accounts.
I have been asked if Fujitsu had any concerns about the approach of trying
to settle cases, this was a matter for POL to decide how to conduct their
legal actions against SPMs.
I have been asked about my views on the strategic approach being
suggested by POL, if by a strategic approach the point is referring to
mediation or settlement in the documents at paragraph 18 above, then it
was my view that it was a matter for POL to decide how to conduct their
legal action.
I have been asked to consider an email from Jan Homes to lan Lamb dated
30/07/2004 (FUJ00121668). It is my view that in the email Jan Holmes is
conveying a conversation he had with Keith Baines about a conversation
Keith had with Dave Smith (POL) in that it was Dave Smith's opinion that
POL shouldn't have settled the case.
I have been asked to consider the following documents:-
Page 9 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
28.
29.
30.
31.
i) An email from Jan Holmes to Keith Banes, copied to me amongst others
dated 3 August 2004 (FUJ00121686), ii) An email from Jam Holmes to David
Barker, copied to me dated 10 August 2004 (FUJ00121702), iii) Email from Jan
Holmes to me dated 11 August 2004 (FUJ00121704) with attachments
(FUJ00121705, FUJ00121706, FUJ00121707) and iv) An email from Jan
Holmes to me and William Mitchell dated 20 August 2004 (FUJ00212724).
My view on the outcome of the Cleveleys case was that the outcome was
a matter for POL.
I have been asked if it could be constructed from the documents listed at
paragraph 27 above that POL bought off Mrs Wolstenholme rather than
defend their system, no and the way that POL decided to conduct and
settle the case was a matter for POL.
I have been asked to consider and email to me dated 2 September 2004
seeking approval of the Fujitsu report on Cleveleys Post Office
(FUJ00121746) with attachment (FUJ00121747).
The retention period for TMS transaction data in 2000 was 18 months
after which the data was deleted as per the then terms of the Horizon
contract with POL. TMS transaction data was no longer deleted after 18
months for data archived after 18'" May 2002 which then made data
available for audit purposes. This is described in the Report on Cleveleys
Post Office section 3.2 POA Involvement (FUJ00121747).
Page 10 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
32.
33.
The absence of transaction data from 2000 meant that it could not be
demonstrated that the system was operating normally during the disputed
time period of the Cleveleys case.
I have been asked to consider the following documents:-
i) Email from Forrest Hilary to me dated 30 March 2004 (FUJ00121584) and
attached draft minutes (FUJ00121585), ii) email to Pam Purewal dated 31
March 2004 (FUJ00121590) and attachment (FUJ00121591), iii) Email from
Forrest Hilary to Pam Purewal and me (FUJ00121620) and attachment
(FUJ00121621) and iv) email from Pam Purewal to me amongst others dated
5 May 2004 (FUJ211632 and the enclosed final minutes (FUJ00121636).
I have been asked what was meant by the note in the original draft minutes at
page 5 “did Colin take an action to arrange a discussion with Keith to see how
we can avoid Julie Wolstenhomes in the future? — I have it noted as a non
urgent action” and why this note was modified in later version of the draft
minutes and the final minutes. Minutes of the Commercial Forum were taken
by John Cole (POL) and issued to Pam Purewal (Fujitsu) as a draft for Fujitsu's
comment and revisions to reach a version of the Minutes agreed by POL and
Fujitsu. Closed actions and old notes were greyed out to assist readers of the
minutes to focus on current matters. The Fujitsu attendees would take notes
of the Commercial Forum to have a collective view of any amendments
needed to be made to the draft minutes received from POL. In the email
(FUJ00121584) dated 30/03/2004, Hilary Forrest forwarded to me an updated
Page 11 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
draft version of Commercial Forum No 15, draft minutes including her notes,
comments and Fujitsu internal questions shown in square brackets as a
prompt for my consideration (FUJ00121585). Section 15.05 has several
such comments and notes in square brackets; one being a prompt
regarding the Julie Wolstenholme’s case that was discussed in the
Commercial Forum No. 15 but omitted from the POL draft minutes. The
revised version of the draft minutes sent back to POL includes my revisions
and includes below item 15.06 a Noted section which conveys a minute of
the comments made by Keith Baines (POL) at the Commercial Forum
(FUJ00121591), namely:
“KB advised that PO were trying to negotiate a settlement with regards to
the Julie Wolstenholme case.
KB further suggested that a discussion should be held between both parties
at some future date to understand how the situation regarding the “Expert”
could be avoided in the future.”
Fujitsu's Noted wording was accepted by POL as it included without change
in the draft minutes of Commercial Forum Minutes No. 16 (Draft 1)
(FUJ00121621) and in Minutes No.16 (Final) (FUJ00121686).
Other Civil and Criminal Cases
35. I have been asked of my recollection of a list of criminal case studies that the
Inquiry is investigating. I don’t have any recollection of the criminal cases listed.
As I mentioned in paragraph 4 above there was correspondence between
Page 12 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
Keith Baines (POL) and myself for a few cases, but I cannot recall the
details, nor do I have any documentation to refer to.
36.1 have been asked if there are any prosecutions (including but not limited
to the above) that I had a role in that I consider are relevant to the matters
being investigated by the inquiry (in particular bugs, error and defects in
the Horizon system), I am not able to comment further.
37.1 have been asked if I have any concerns about any criminal cases which
I were involved in, I am not able to comment further.
38.1 have been asked of my recollection of a list of civil case studies that the
Inquiry is investigating. I don’t have any recollection of the civil cases listed.
As I mentioned in paragraph 4 above there was correspondence between
Keith Baines (POL) and myself in a few cases, but I cannot recall the details,
nor do I have any documentation to refer to.
39.1 have been asked if there are any civil action (including but not limited to
the above) that I had a role in that I consider are relevant to the matters
being investigated by the inquiry (in particular, bugs, error and defects in
the Horizon system. I am not able to comment further.
Page 13 of 17
WITN08590100
WITNO08590100
WITN08590100
40. I have been asked if I have any concerns about the civil cases I were involved,
I am not able to comment further.
Knowledge of bugs, errors and defects in the Horizon system
41.1 was not aware of any concerns regarding the robustness of the Horizon system
having been raised to me internally within Fujitsu or as a commercial issue by
POL.
Other Matters
42.1 don't have any other matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the Chair of
GRO
Dated: 22 May 2023
Page 14 of 17
Index to First Witness Statement of Colin Lenton-Smith
No. I URN Document Description Control Number
4 I FUJ00121482 I Email from Colin Lenton-Smith to] POINQ0127696F
Jan Holmes dated 20/08/2003
2 I WITN04600202} Email from Jan Holmes to Jim I WITNO4600202
Cruise dated 21/08/2003
3 I POL00095375 I Letter from Keith Baines to Colin} POL-0094958
Lenton-Smith dated 05/02/2004
4 I FUJ00121485 I Email from Jan Holmes to Colin I POINQ0127699F
Lenton-Smith dated 18/02/2004
5 I FUJ00121486 IPost Office Account 0 FAD:
153405 Cleveleys — Review of POINQ01 27700F
Expert Witness Report
6 I FUJ00121489 I Email from Colin Lenton-Smith to) POINQ0127703F
Jan Holmes dated 18/02/2004
7 I FUJ00121490 I Email from Jan Holmes to Colin I POINQ0127704F
Lenton-Smith dated 18/02/2004
8 I FUJ00121502 I Email from Colin Lenton-Smith to
Jan Holmes dated 20/02/2004 POINQ01 2771 6F
9 I FUJ00121507 I Email from Jan Holmes to Colin I POINQ0127721F
Lenton-Smith dated 20/02/2004
10 I FUJ00121511 I Email from Colin Lenton-Smith to} POINQ0127725F
Keith Baines dated 20/02/2004
11 I FUJ00121512 I Letter with Appendix, Response I POINQ0127726F
to Experts Opinion from Colin
Lenton-Smith to Keith Baines
dated 20/02/04
12 I FUJ00121533 I Email from Jim Cruise to Colin POINQ0127747F
Lenton-Smith & others dated
04/03/2004
13 I FUJ00121534 I Email from Kathy Hopkins to Jim I POINQ0127748F
Cruise dated 03/03/2004
14 I FUJ00121535 ILetter from Jason Coyne to) POINQ0127749F
Weightman Vizard dated
27/02/2004
15 I FUJ00121536 I Letter from Susanna Helliwell to I POINQ0127750F
Jim Cruise dated 03/03/2004
16 I FUJ00121541 I Email from Colin Lenton-Smith to) POINQ0127750F
Jan Holmes dated 4/3/2004
17 I FUJ00121549 I Email from Jan Holmes to Colin I POINQ0127763F
Lenton-Smith dated 04/03/2004
18 I FUJ00121550 I Fujitsu Services Post Office I POINQ0127764F
Account — Response to J Coyne
Email dated 03/03/2004
Page 15 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
19
FUJ00121557
Email from Jan Homes to Colin
Lenton-Smith dated 11/03/2004
POINQ0127771F
20
FUJ00121558
Fujitsu Services Post Office
Account — response to the
Experts Reply to Fujitsu ServicesI
Submission
POINQ0127772F
21
FUJ00121561
Email from Jan Holmes to Colin
Lenton-Smith dated 12/03/2004
POINQ0127775F
22
FUJ00121562
Fujitsu Services Post Office
Account Response to the Experts
Reply to Fujitsu Services
Submission
POINQ0127776F
23
FUJ00121567
Email from Jan Holmes to Jim
Cruise dated 12/03/04
POINQ0127781F
24
FUJ00121568
Fujitsu's response to the Expert's
reply to Fujitsu Services’
submission
POINQ0127782F
25
FUJ00121602
Email from Jan Holmes to Colin
Lenton-Smith dated 06/04/2004
POINQ0127816F
26
FUJ00121637
Email from Jan Holmes to Colin
Lenton-Smith dated 07/06/2004
POINQ0127851F
27
FUJ00121747
Fujitsu’s Report on Cleveleys
Post Office dated 01/09/2004
POINQ0127961 F
28
FUJ00121707
Jan Holmes’ draft Witness
Statement
POINQ0127921F
29
FUJ00121668
Email from Jan Holmes to Colin
Lenton-Smith and lan Lamb
dated 30/7/04
POINQ0127882F
30
FUJ00121686
Email from Jan Holmes to Keith
Baines, Colin Lenton-Smith &
other dated 03/08/2004
POINQ0127900F
31
FUJ00121702
Email from Jan Holmes to David
Barker and Colin-Lenton-Smith
dated 10/08/2004
POINQ0127916F
FUJ00121704
Email from Jan Holmes to Colin
Lenton-Smith dated 11/08/2004
POINQ0127918F
FUJ00121705
Notes to go with Jan’s statement
POINQ0127919F
FUJ00121706
Notes to go with Jan’s statement
POINQ0127920F
FUJ00121724
Email from Jan Holmes to Colin
Lenton-Smith and William
Mitchell dated 20/08/2004
POINQ0127938F
37
FUJ00121746
Email from to Colin Lenton-Smith
dated 02/09/2004
POINQ0127960F
39
FUJ00121584
Email from Hilary Forrest to Colin’
Lenton-Smith dated 30/03/04
POINQ01 27798F
40
FUJ00121585
Horizon Commercial Forum
Minutes No.15 (Draft) dated
POINQ0127799F
Page 16 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
41 IFUJ00121590 [Email from Colin Lenton-Smith to I POINQ0127804F
Pam Purewal dated 31/03/2004
42 IFUJ00121591 [Horizon Commercial ForumI POINQ0127805F
Minutes No.15 (Draft) 1 (with
Fujitsu amendments)
43 IFUJ00121620 [Emails Forrest Hilaryto Pam] POINQ0127834F
Purewal and Colin Lenton-Smith
dated 30/04/2004
44 IFUJ00121621 Horizon Commercial ForumI POINQ0127835F
Minutes No. 16 (Draft1)
45 IFUJ00121632 {Email from Pam Purewal to Colin I POINQ0127846F
lLenton-Smith & others dated
(05/05/2004
46 IFUJ00121636 Horizon Commercial ForumI POINQ0127850F
Minutes No.16 (Final)
Page 17 of 17
WITN08590100
WITN08590100
WITN08590100