WITNO08940200
WITN08940200
Witness Name: Robert Daily
Statement No.: WITN08940200
Dated: 27 December 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROBERT DAILY
I, Robert Daily, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. I make this second witness statement to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(the “Inquiry”) with the matters set out in the further Rule 9 Request I have
received, via my solicitors, dated 8 December 2023 (the “Second Request’). I
have received advice and assistance from a lawyer in the preparation of this
statement.
Clarification of matters in my first witness statement
2. I have also reviewed the first witness statement I made dated 7 November 2023
(my "First Witness Statement"), together with the Core Bundle that the Inquiry
sent to me, in preparation for my giving oral testimony to the Inquiry. In doing so
I have reflected further on some of the events that I described, and have spotted
an error in one of the documents exhibited to my statement:
Page 1 of 14
2.1
22
2.3
24
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
Paragraph 6 of my First Witness Statement notes that I was asked to
consider a document (at [POL00105143)), a copy of my CV for the period
2005 to 2008. This is the document at Exhibit B1 of my First Witness
Statement.
When I reviewed this document again, I realised that there was a mistake
with the qualifications listed under the heading "Educational
Achievements". The qualifications listed there are actually my wife's. My
recollection is that when I was asked to prepare this CV, I didn't have a
template or an example to work from, so my wife gave me a copy of a
CV she had written for me to use. What seems to have happened is that
I wrote an account of my knowledge, experience and additional
qualifications, but forgot to amend the list of educational qualifications.
Paragraph 7 of my First Witness Statement notes that I was asked to
consider a document (at [POL00129121]), which I said appeared to be a
statement I made in support if an application for the role of Investigation
Manager. This is the document at Exhibit B2 of my First Witness
Statement.
I said that I thought this document dated from either 2008 or 2014, when
I had to apply for my role as an Investigation Manager during
organisational restructures. Having reflected on this, I now believe that I
wrote this document in connection with the role of Investigation Manager,
which I described having applied for in 2004, at paragraph 5 of my First
Witness Statement. My recollection now is that this document was written
at the end of the initial temporary six month period, before I was
Page 2 of 14
2.5
2.6
27
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
permanently appointed to this role. This would have been in late 2005 or
early 2006.
At paragraph 25 of my First Witness Statement, I said “I believe that from
2006 all reports all non-Police authorities were required to be submitted
to the COPFS [the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service]
electronically”. Firstly, there is a typo in this sentence ("... all reports all
non-Police authorities..." should read "...all reports from non-Police
authorities...). Secondly, I believe the date I gave is likely incorrect. I now
think that it was from 2009 or 2010 (and not 2006) that reports to COPFS
had to be submitted electronically.
Paragraph 112 of my First Witness Statement notes that I was asked if
any Horizon data (and, in particular, ARQ logs) were requested from
Fujitsu in connection with the prosecution of Mr Peter Holmes. Referring
to what I had written in my investigation report (the document at
[POL00050334], Exhibit B42 to my First Witness Statement, which said
that "Horizon data had been requested") I said in my First Witness
Statement that I did not believe I would have said this in my report if it
had not been requested. I also referred to paragraph 229 of the Court of
Appeal's judgment in the Josephine Hamilton & Others v Post Office
Limited case ([POL00113278], Exhibit B54 to my First Witness
Statement) which said that ARQ data had been requested but that it was
not clear if it was disclosed.
I said at paragraph 119 of my First Witness Statement, in connection with
the account I gave of my role in preparing the prosecution case against
Page 3 of 14
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
Mr Holmes, that I would have prepared the committal bundle. It occurs to
me that the committal bundle would have had to have included a form
"CS012 List of Exhibits", which records the details of the disclosure
made. I am unable to recall if the bundle did indeed contain this form,
and I don’t recall seeing it among the documents disclosed to me. What
I have seen are the two schedules of sensitive and non-sensitive unused
material (at [POL00051526] and [POL00051527], Exhibits B8 and B9 to
my First Witness Statement).
2.8 Lastly, at paragraph 117 of my First Witness Statement, I provided an
explanation of my role as the disclosure officer in the prosecution of Mr
Holmes. I said that my role would have been to ensure all appropriate
material, used and unused, was disclosed to the prosecution and
defence. On re-reading and reflecting on that part of my statement again,
I believe that a more accurate account of the role of a disclosure officer
in England is that it entailed ensuring that all appropriate material, used
and unused, was disclosed to the Post Office Ltd ("POL") Criminal Law
team, who would then disclose it to the defence. The position is different
in Scotland, where "productions" (evidence) are submitted to COPFS,
the prosecution authority in Scotland, who is then responsible for
disclosure to the defence.
Training, instructions and guidance to investigators within the Security team
3. Turning to the matters I am asked to consider in the Second Request, paragraph
1 of the Second Request draws my attention to the Investigation Communication
from Chris Card dated 1 November 2010 at [POL00169171], the attachment at
Page 4 of 14
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
[POL00169172] and the Procedures and Standards document “Recovery of
Property Obtained Dishonestly. Compensation, Costs & Final Disposal of Case
Exhibits” at [POL00104846], and I am asked to give an account of the context
surrounding the issue identified in [POL00104846], of any discussions I was a
party to, and why the document placed emphasis on the recovery by Royal Mail
Group Ltd on "the recovery of criminal assets and Business losses".
4. I don’t recall the email or the attachment, but note that I was a recipient of the
email. I do recall that in 2010 POL was part of the Royal Mail Group, and we
would receive updates to changes in their procedures and standards. I note that
section 7 of the document relates to the seizure of property under Scottish Law.
I don’t recall being involved in a case in Scotland where property was seized.
5. Paragraph 2 of the Second Request draws my attention to Investigation Circular
sent by Chris Card on 8.3.11 (email at [POL00167250] and attachment at
[POL00167251]) and I am asked to provide an account of the changes in
interviewing practice in Scotland which were addressed in this communication.
Again, I don’t recall the email or the attachment, but note that I was a recipient of
the email. On reading the circular, I note that it refers to the changes in
interviewing practice which I described at paragraph 138 of my First Witness
Statement (where I said that “Another difference was that prior to 2010, a suspect
didn’t have a right to a solicitor. This changed in 2010 with the Supreme Court
decision in Cadder v HM Advocate. From 2010, anyone being interviewed under
caution had to be offered a solicitor to be present’).
Security team communications about the Horizon system
6. Paragraph 4 of the Second Request draws my attention to an email from Mark
Page 5 of 14
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
Dinsdale dated 12.3.10 at [POL00172808] and the report attached (at document
[POL00172809]) and I am asked how regularly these reports were sent to the
Security Team, when they were introduced, the issues they covered, and the
extent to which the reports provided information to investigators about technical
issues relating to the Horizon system. Having considered the documents, I can
recall these being sent and I believe they were sent every four weeks to the
POL Security Team. I can’t recall when they were introduced, but they generally
covered the topics included within the document at [POL00172809] (for
example, weekly incidents, updates of arrests, sentencing on branch attacks,
prosecutions and programme update). I have considered the fifth bullet point
under the heading "Security programmes for products" (on page 3). I don’t recall
receiving this particular report which contained this item on Horizon Online, but
I accept I would have received it since I am on the distribution list of the email
which enclosed this report.
Prosecution of William Quarm
7. Paragraph 9 of the Second Request asks me to provide a full account of my
involvement in and my recollection of the criminal prosecution of William Quarm,
and I am asked to consider the documents referred to in paragraph 10. The
account I have given here of my involvement in, and recollection of, this case is
informed by the documents which I have reviewed.
8. Paragraph 11 of the Second Request asks me how and when I first become
involved in this case. I recall that I was initially involved as the second officer in
the case, and that Raymond Grant, who was an Investigator/Fraud Advisor at the
time, was the lead officer. In 2008, when this investigation commenced, I recall
that there were only two investigators in Scotland, Raymond Grant and myself.
Page 6 of 14
10.
11.
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
With the case being assigned to Raymond Grant, I would have been called on to
act the second officer. I can’t remember the exact date I became involved. At
some point in 2009, I believe, Raymond Grant left POL and the case file was
transferred to me. I can't remember at exactly which stage of the investigation
this happened.
Paragraph 12 of the Second Request asks me if I was aware of any allegations
made relating to the reliability of the Horizon IT system and, if so, what I thought
the significance of this was. I don’t recall being made aware of any allegations
made during the investigation of this case relating to the reliability of the Horizon
system.
Paragraph 13 of the Second Request asks me about my role in relation to the
audit of the Paible branch undertaken on 23.7.08. Having considered the
document at document at [POL00166616] (the audit report dated 23.7.08), I am
satisfied that I took no part in the audit or the decision to conduct the audit. Having
also considered the documents at [POL00166618] (email chain, dated 8 July
2008) and [POL00166619] (email chains dated 8.7.08 and 14.7.08), I note that
there were communications between the Outlet Intervention Team, the Network
Support Manager, Cash Management and the Compliance Team regarding
excess cash at Paible PO. I therefore assume the decision to conduct the audit
came about as a result of these exchanges.
Paragraph 14 of the Second Request asks me whose decision it was to interview
Mr Quarm. I don't recall playing any role in the decision. I have reviewed the letter
that Mr Quarm sent to Brian Trotter, Contract Advisor, dated 28.7.08 (at
[POL00166620)}) and I suspect this was the catalyst for the interview.
Page 7 of 14
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
Paragraph 15 of the Second Request asks me whose decision it was to suspend
Mr Quarm. I have reviewed the document at [POL00166788] (an email Brian
Trotter sent to Andy Bayfield on 23.7.08) and it appears to me from what he says
that Brian Trotter made the decision to precautionarily suspend Mr Quarm.
Paragraph 16 of the Second Request asks me what investigations were made
into Mr Quarm's finances. Having considered the record of the interview which
took place on 8.8.08 (the documents at [POL00166599] and [POL00166600)), I
note that I obtained some financial details from Mr Quarm in order to complete
the Financial Evaluation form. Having considered the document at
[POL00166621] (a letter Mr Quarm sent to Raymond Grant dated 12.8.08), I can
see that Mr Quarm sent bank statements to Raymond Grant, together with a copy
of his wife's P60. I don’t recall any further investigations Raymond Grant made
into Mr Grant's finances.
Paragraph 17 of the Second Request asks me to explain what further sources of
information I considered during the investigation. Decisions about what further
sources of information would be required in an investigation would have been for
the lead investigator to take. I cannot recall if any further investigations were
required when the case transferred to me.
Paragraph 18 of the Second Request asks if any Horizon data (and in particular
ARQ logs) were requested from Fujitsu in this case. I don't recall that any Horizon
data or ARQ logs were requested.
Paragraph 19 of the Second Request asks if legal advice was obtained at any
stage of the investigation. I am not aware of Raymond Grant obtaining any legal
advice at any stage of the investigation. I personally do not recall obtaining any
Page 8 of 14
17.
18.
19.
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
legal advice at any stage of the investigation when the case was transferred to
me. The only recollection I have about obtaining any legal advice was prompted
by my review of the documents I describe at paragraph 21, but that related to the
recovery of money after Mr Quarm's prosecution.
Paragraph 20 of the Second Request asks what role, if any, I played in the
decision to prosecute. I had no role in the decision to prosecute. The decision to
prosecute in Scotland is made by the COPFS.
Paragraph 21 of the Second Request asks me who was the disclosure officer in
this case and paragraph 22 asks me to explain my role in relation to disclosure.
Having considered the documents at [POL00166755] (the letter from COPFS to
Raymond Grant dated 1.7.09 asking him to lodge the productions for the case)
and [POL00166753] (the list of productions sent to the COPFS on 11.8.09) I can
see that I submitted the productions to the COPFS. As I have stated previously,
the position in Scotland is that the COPFS discloses the productions to the
defence.
Paragraph 23 of the Second Request asks me what role I played in preparing for
the prosecution. Other than what I have said above in relation to submitting the
productions, I cannot recall any other role I played in preparing for the
prosecution. In considering my response to this question I have looked at the
Court Bundle (the document at [COPF0000001]), which has the details of the
charge against Mr Quarm on page 1. It occurred to me that I may I have submitted
the report to the COFPS (via the Specialist Reporting Agency ("SRA") website)
which meant the charge was formulated in that way. The wording of the charge
is similar to the wording used when you submit a charge via the SRA website.
Page 9 of 14
20.
21.
22.
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
But I cannot recall with certainty if this is something I did.
Paragraph 24 of the Second Request asks me to describe the disclosure requests
made by the defence and how these were responded to. I don't recall any
disclosure requests made by the defence.
Paragraph 25 of the Second Request asks me what criminal enforcement
proceedings were taken and my involvement in these proceedings. Having
considered the documents at [POL00166727], [POL00166728], [POL00166729],
[POL00166730], [POL00166731], [POL00166732] and [POL00166733] (the
various letters from French Duncan and other documents regarding the trust
deeds in relation to Mr Quarm) I can see Mr Quarm’s assets were placed in trust.
I have also considered the documents at [POL00166833], [POL00166840] and
[POL00166842] (email correspondence that I had with Mandy Talbot, from the
Dispute Resolution Team in POL Legal Services, and Zoe Topham, from the
Former Agents Debt team, in May and October 2010). I can see from these email
exchanges that we discussed the recovery of money from Mr Quarm. I don’t recall
having exchanged these emails or, indeed, why there was a discussion about
recovery since it was known Mr Quarm had been sequestrated in 2008.
Paragraph 26 of the Second Request asks me to describe any further
involvement I had in this case. Having considered the document at
[POL00166683], I can see that that I obtained the witness statement that Doug
Head, the Field Advisor/Auditor, gave detailing the outcome of the audit on
23.7.08 (the box at the end of the statement advises that I "noted" the statement
on 16.3.09). Having considered the document at [POL00166754] (the letter I
received from COPFS on 26.7.10), I can see that the productions in the case
Page 10 of 14
23.
24.
25.
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
were returned to me. I believe I would have included these in the case file and
sent it to the casework team when the case was closed. Having also considered
the document at [POL00166843], I can also see that I completed and sent the
case closure report. These matters aside, what involvement I can recall having in
this case, prompted by my reviewing the documents that have been disclosed to
me, is as I have already described.
Lastly, paragraph 27 of the Second Request asks me what my reflections are
now on the way the investigation and prosecution was conducted by POL and
the outcome of the case.
Firstly, I have considered the document at [SCTS00000070], the minute dated
22.9.09 in which Mr Quarm raises points about the fairness of the interviews
which took place on 7.8.09. I do not recall having received this minute, and was
unaware that Mr Quarm had made this challenge. The minute states that Mr
Quarm was denied the right to legal representation during the interviews, and
goes on to say argue that this was contrary to Mr Quarm's rights under Article 6
of the European Convention on Human Rights. As I mentioned at paragraph 5,
above, and in my First Witness Statement, the Supreme Court decision in Cadder
v HM Advocate was made in 2010, with the result that anyone being interviewed
under caution had to be offered a solicitor to be present. Mr Quarm's interviews
were conducted in August 2008, so my belief is that the interviews would have
been carried out in accordance with POL's policy and practice as it existed at that
time.
Having reviewed the Case Closure Reporting form [POL00166843] and other
documents, I am reminded that Mr Quarm had initially pleaded not guilty to
Page 11 of 14
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
embezzlement of £40,277.76, but ultimately offered a guilty plea relating to a
lesser sum of £27,000 and he was convicted at the Lochmaddy Sheriff Court on
29.6.10.
26. Ihave also reviewed the document at [SCTS00000112], an affidavit made by Mrs
Anne Quarm on 7.9.23 in the matter of an appeal against Mr Quarm's conviction.
I have considered what she has said about Mr Quarm never having admitted to
taking money and the reference she has made to POL's evidence being "faulty".
In preparing this statement I have also been made aware of reports in the media
about the appeal and a statement made by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review
Commission, and I understand that the appeal for Mr Quarm has been
successful. I do not feel able to comment in any detail or offer any reflections on
the handling of the case based on the limited information I have available to me
at the moment.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Signed:
Robert Daily (Dec 27, 2023, 12:57pm)
27 Dec 2023
Dated:
Page 12 of 14
Index to Second Witness Statement of Robert Daily
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
No. I URN Document Description Control
Number
1. POLO00105143 I Curriculum Vitae — Robert Daily, POL-0080769
undated
2. POL00129121 I "Robert Daily — Investigation POL-0135052
manager — Northern Team
(Glasgow)", undated
3. POL00050334 I Investigation report, 6 October POL-0046813
2008 (Prosecution of Peter Holmes)
4. POL00113278 I Court of Appeal judgment in POL-0110657
Josephine Hamilton & Others v
Post Office Limited [2021] EWCA
Crim 577
5. POL00051526 I R v Peter Holmes, Schedule of POL-0048005
Sensitive Material completed 19
May 2009
6. POL00051527 I R v Peter Holmes, Schedule of POL-0048006
Non-Sensitive Unused Material
completed 19 May 2009
7. I POLO0169171__I Email Chris Card dated 1.11.10 POL-0167578
8. POLO00169172 I "Royal Mail Group Security Group I POL-0167579
Investigation Communication 5-2010",
dated 1.11.10
9. POLO00104846 I"Recovery of Property Obtained I POL-0080478
Dishonestly. Compensation, Costs & Final
Disposal of Case Exhibits’, v.2 dated
November 2010
10. I POLO00167250 I Email Chris Card dated 8.3.11 POL-0162693
11. I POL00167251 I "Royal Mail Group Security Group I POL-0162694
Investigation Communication 2-2011",
dated 7.3.11
12. I POL00172808 I Email Mark Dinsdale dated 123.10 POL-0168468
13. I POLO00172809 I "Security 4 Weekly Report 13/3/2010" POL-0168469
14. I POL0O0166616 I Audit of Post Office Paible branch, dated I POL-0162061
23.7.08
15. I POLO00166618 I Email exchanges 8.7.08 to 11.7.08 POL-0162063
16. I POL00166619 I Email exchanges 11.7.08 to 14.7.08 POL-0162064
17. I POL00166620 I Letter William Quarm to Brian Trotter, I POL-0162065
dated 28.7.08
18. I POL00166788 I Email Brian Trotter to Andy Bayfield, I POL-0162233
dated 23.7.08
19. I POLO0166599 I Record of interview on 8.8.08 — part 1 POL-0162044
20. I POLO0166600_I Record of interview on 8.8.08 — part 2 POL-0162045
21. I POLO00166621 I Letter William Quarm to Raymond Grant I POL-0162066
dated, 12.8.08
22. IPOLO0166755 I Letter COPFS to Raymond Grant, dated I POL-0162200
Page 13 of 14
WITN08940200
WITN08940200
1.7.09
23. I POLO0166753 I List of productions sent to COPFS on I POL-0162198
11.8.09
24. I COPFO000001 I Court bundle — Lochmaddy Sheriff Court — I N/A
Procurator Fiscal against William Quarm
25. IPOLO0166727 I Letter French Duncan to POL, dated I POL-0162172
17.11.08
26. I POLO0166728 I Letter French Duncan, dated 26.9.08 POL-0162173
27. I POLO0166729 I Letter French Duncan, dated 26.9.08 POL-0162174
28. I POLO00166730 I Statement of Potential Trust Deeds, I POL-0162175
undated
29. I POLO0166731 I Notice in Edinburgh Gazette of grant of I POL-0162176
Trust Deed, dated 17.9.08
30. I POL00166732 I Statement of Proposed Scheme of I POL-0162177
Division, undated
31. I POL00166733__I Statement of Affairs as at 5.9.08 POL-0162178
32. I POL00166833 I Email exchanges 14.4.10 to 25.5.10 POL-0162278
33. I POL00166840_I Email exchanges 10.10.10 to 18.10.10 POL-0162285
34. I POL00166842 I Email exchanges 10.10.10 to 19.10.10 POL-0162287
35. I POLO0166683 I Draft Statement of Witness made by I POL-0162128
Douglas Head, undated
36. I POL0O0166754 I Letter COPFS to Robert Daily, dated I POL-0162199
26.7.10
37. I POL00166843 I Case Closure Reporting form, undated POL-0162288
38. I SCTS00000070 I Minute by Willaim Quarm, dated 22.9.09 I N/A
39. I SCTS00000112 I Affidavit of Mrs Anne Quarm, dated 7.9.23 I N/A
Page 14 of 14