1.
WITNO9420100
WITN09420100
Witness Name: Susanne Jane Helliwell
Statement No. WITN 09420100
Dated: I q July 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF SUSANNE JANE HELLIWELL
I, SUSANNE JANE HELLIWELL, will say as follows:
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 19 May 2023.
Background
2.
I have a 2,2 degree from Leeds University. I was admitted as a Solicitor in 1990
and save for a period of approximately 3-4 years when I set up my own business.
outside of the law, I have practised as a Solicitor since 1990.
lam a former employee of Weightmans Solicitors (formerly Weightman Vizards)
where I held the position of Solicitor and then Associate. I was employed by
Weightmans from January 2000 until around July 2005. I then set up my own
business, a ladies’ fashion boutique, which commenced trading in early 2006
and ceased trading in the summer of 2009. I joined Lockett Loveday McMahon
Solicitors in Manchester in or around later summer 2009 where I was employed
until February 2019.
I am currently a self-employed Consultant engaged under a Consultancy
Agreement with Lockett Loveday McMahon.
Page 1 of 10
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
Post Office Limited v Mrs J Wolstenholme
Prior knowledge and involvement
5.
! cannot specifically recall when I first became involved in these proceedings. I
do however note from Trial Bundle A(POL00118218) that the proceedings were
initially issued and dealt with by the Legal Services Department of Consignia
ple. I would therefore have become involved at some point after the issue of
the proceedings in 2001 and prior to the preparation of the Amended Particulars
of Claim in February 2003. Weightmans acted for the Post Office at that time
in respect of employment claims and other areas of litigation. I was in the
employment/commercial litigation department and this case was assigned to
me. Whilst the case was assigned to me which meant that I had the day to day
conduct of it, I would have been acting under the general supervision of the
partner with responsibility for this particular client. I cannot recall which partner
at Weightmans had responsibility for the Post Office at this time.
To the best of my recollection Mrs Wolstenholme’s case was _ the first
proceedings which I was involved in concerning the Horizon IT System.
Previously I had no knowledge of the Horizon IT System.
My recollection of the proceedings
7.
I have been asked to consider various documents which have been provided
to me by the Inquiry. These documents are set out in the Index to my witness
statement.
Within the Rule 9 Request, I am asked to respond to various questions. I am
asked to set out my recollection of this matter and exhibit any relevant
documents.
Whilst as a result of being provided with the documents I identify and exhibit, I
do recall this particular case, my recollection is very limited as my last
involvement was approximately 19 years ago. I recall the proceedings were
Page 2 of 10
10.
11.
12.
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
commenced against Mrs Wolstenholme by the Post Office in the Blackpool
County Court claiming sums due arising from losses claimed by the Post Office
whilst Mrs Wolstenholme was a Subpostmaster at Cleveleys Post Office and
the return of equipment.
I also recall that Mrs Wolstenholme defended the proceedings claiming that
there were issues with the Horizon system which, she claimed were responsible
for incorrectly showing that there were losses on the account. I further recall
that Mrs Wolstenholme pursued a Counterclaim against the Post Office but until
my consideration of POL00118218 did not recall the specific nature of it. Whilst
I recall that the proceedings were settled, I cannot recall the terms agreed and
nor specifically when that agreement was reached. I have considered the
Advice on Evidence and Quantum by S.A. Brochwicz-Lewinski (POL00118229)
and having done so now recall that a payment into Court had been made by
the Post Office, at the time of the Advice in July 2004, the Trial was only one
month away. The Trial Bundle was prepared in preparation for the Trial which
had been listed for three days commencing on 16 August 2004 (P112 of
POL00118218).
I left Weightmans approximately 18 years ago. I have not retained no client
papers whether for this matter or at all from my time at Weightmans and nor
would it have been appropriate for me to do so.
I understand that the Inquiry is seeking a detailed account of my involvement
at all stages in these proceedings. Unfortunately, given the passage of time, I
am unable to provide this. I am however assisted by Trial Bundle A at
POL00118218 and part of Trial Bundle C at POL00118221 which provide some
account of my involvement in the proceedings. I am asked, in particular, to
address particular matters, namely:
(i) The instructions I received from the Post Office before I began working
on this case and any subsequent instructions I received;
(i) I Who my primary contact was at (1) the Post Office and (2) Fujitsu
Services in relation to this case;
Page 3 of 10
13.
(iii)
(iv)
v)
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
Whether I advised on the merits of the case;
Who else from Weightmans was involved in the case and, if so, what
their role was;
Which of the documents set out in the Index to my witness statement I
was involved in drafting and/or editing and in relation to any documents
I drafted, I am asked to identify the sources of information I used.
In response to the numbered points set out paragraph 12 above:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
I cannot recall the instructions I received from the Post Office before I
began working on this case and any subsequent instructions I received.
I can however state that, at all times, I acted in accordance with the
information and instructions received from the Post Office;
I recall that my primary contact at the Post Office on this case was Jim
Cruise and subsequently Mandy Talbot. I do not recall having a primary
contact at Fujitsu as Weightmans were acting on behalf of the Post Office
and not Fujitsu Services. Any contact I had with Fujitsu Services would
have been primarily in relation to witness statements;
Whilst I cannot recall when and what advice I gave, I would have advised
on the merits of the case pm the payment into Court. I would also have
advised that an Advice from Counsel be obtained on evidence and
quantum (POL00118229);
I cannot recall who else from Weightmans was involved in the case save
that, as stated in paragraph 5 above, I would have been acting under the
general supervision of the partner with responsibility for this particular
client and I would have reported to that particular partner from time to
time on the progress of the case and during any file review meetings;
I drafted the emails and correspondence from myself to the various
individuals to whom the emails and correspondence were addressed.
Page 4 of 10
14,
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
To the best of my recollection, I was involved in the drafting of the witness
statements of Keith Baines and Jan Holmes. The sources of information
used for such purposes would have been the written and verbal
comments of the individuals concerned and documents provided by the
Post Office and Fujitsu Services.
I am asked to consider Keith Baines’ witness statement at POL00095374. As
stated above, I believe I was involved in drafting this witness statement. To the
best of my recollection, the process by which I compiled this statement and the
sources of information used were written and verbal comments and material
information provided by Keith Baines. I should also state that in the case of this
statement and indeed all witness statements, Counsel was instructed to review
and advise on any amendments and ultimately approve them.
My relationship with individuals at the Post Office and Fujitsu Services
15.
16.
17.
It must be appreciated that I was not a key individual in the Weightmans/Post
Office relationship. I was a fee-earner assigned to deal with cases, reporting to
a partner at Weightmans. I did not deal with senior individuals at the Post Office.
However as far as I can recall, I can confirm that it was positive with no issues
and a usual solicitor/client relationship. I am also asked what was my view of
their approach to these proceedings. To the best of my recollections their
approach to the proceedings was based on the information available to them at
the time from individuals within the organisation and Fujitsu Services.
Fujitsu Services were not Weightmans’ client. Weightmans were acting on
behalf of the Post Office. To the best of my recollection, my relationship with
Fujitsu Services was limited to dealing with witness statements and I do not
recall any issues with that or having any particular view regarding their conduct
of the proceedings.
In response to the request to set out any additional relevant observations that!
have concerning those involved in the litigation, I cannot recall any
observations I may or may not have had at the time. I do however recall that
Page 5 of 10
18.
19.
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
those involved in the litigation at the Post Office were surprised and concerned
by the Opinion expressed by Jason Coyne of Best Practice Group pic
(Instructed pursuant to a Court Order) in his Report concerning the Horizon
system (WITNO00210101) which prompted Peter Sewell, Implementation Area
Manager at the Post Office (WITN04600201) to ask Fujitsu Services to review
the Report and provide their comments upon it. I cannot specifically recall
which individuals at the Post Office were surprised and concerned by the
Opinion of Jason Coyne and nor can I recall what aspects of it they were
surprised about save to state that they were surprised about Jason Coyne’s
Opinion that the technology installed at Cleveleys Sub-Post Office was
defective.
1am asked what my reaction was to the result of the proceedings at the time.
As previously stated, in paragraph 10 above, I cannot recall the specific terms
of settlement which were agreed. To the best of my recollection, given the
Opinion expressed by Jason Coyne in his Report, whilst Fujitsu Services
provided its comments and response to the Report and Jan Holmes of Fujitsu
Services provided a witness statement to be used in the proceedings
(WITN04600213). Based on the evidence available, it was considered by
myself and Counsel that there were clear risks in proceeding with the claim
against Mrs Wolstenholme and defending the Counterclaim. The risks in
proceeding were acknowledged and accepted by my primary contact at the
Post Office and it was therefore agreed that attempts should be made to agree
a resolution of the proceedings which is ultimately what occurred.
The risks in proceeding with the claim and defence of Mrs Wolstenholme’s
Counterclaim are set out in some detail in the Advice on Quantum and Evidence
(POL00118229). To the best of my recollection, whilst the risk that the Post
Office would be unsuccessful in its claim and the risk that Mrs Wolstenholme
would be successful in her Counterclaim had been identified prior to obtaining
Counsel's Written Advice (POL00118229) and had prompted the payment into
Court, given the fact that the Trial was fast approaching and my concerns
regarding the risk of proceeding to Trial, I advised that a written Advice be
obtained from Counsel on the evidence and quantum.
Page 6 of 10
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
20. In response to the question concerning whether anyone at the Post Office or
Fujitsu expressed any concern about bugs, errors or defects in Horizon, to the
best of my recollection, the first time any issues concerning errors or defects
came to light was in Mr Coyne’s Report.
21. I confirm that I have not had any subsequent involvement.
General — Questions
22. I have been asked whether I was involved in any other challenges to the
Horizon system other than the Wolstenholme litigation. I have no recollection
of being involved in any other challenges to the system.
23. In response to the question as whether there are any other matters which I
consider are of relevance to the Inquiry, I confirm that I am not aware of any
such matters.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Page 7 of 10
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
INDEX TO FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF SUSANNE JANE HELLIWELL
No.
URN
Document Description
Control Number
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
WITN04600201
Email chain the latest of which is
dated 15 August 2003
WITN04600201
FUJ00121515
Email dated 23 February 2004
(attachment below)
POINQ0127729F
FUJ00121512
Letter attached to email dated 23
February 2004
POINQ0127726F
FUJ00121534
Email dated 4 March 2004
(attachments below)
POINQ0127748F
FUJ00121535
Attachment (1) Email to myself from
Jason Coyne dated 2 March 2004;
and
POINQ0127749F
FUJ00121536
Attachment (2) Letter from myself to
Jim Cruise dated 3 March 2004.
POINQ0127750F
FUJ00121690
others dated 5 August 2004
(attachments below)
Email from Jan Holmes to myself and
POINQ0127904F
FUJ00121691
Office Account: Analysis of Calls
made by Vleveley (sic) Post Office to
the Horizon System Helpdesk by
Volume and Type; and
Attachment (1) “Fujitsu Services Post
POINQ0127905F
FUJ00121692
Attachment (2) “A description of what
constitutes Fujitsu Services Post
Office Account 1* to 4" line support”.
POINQ0127906F
10.
FUJ00121696
others dated 5 August 2004
(attachment below)
Email from Jan Holmes to myself and
POINQ0127910F
11.
FUJ00121697
Attachment: “Evidence to show that
the Cleveleys Post Office had a
‘Clean Start’ on 10 February 2000”.
POINQ0127911F
Page 8 of 10
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
12. I FUJ00121700 I Email from Jan Holmes to myself and I POINQ0127914F
others dated 10 August 2004
13. I FUJ00121702 I Email chain dated 10 August 2004 POINQ0127916F
14. I FUJ00121704 I Email Chain dated 11 August 2004 POINQ0127918F
(attachments below)
15, I FUJ00121705 I Attachment (1) “Notes to go with Jan's I POINQ0127919F
statement’;
16. I FUJ00121706 I Attachment (2) “Further notes on POINQ0127920F
Jan's statement”; and
17. I FUJ00121707 I Attachment (3) "A description of the POINQ0127921F
support services provided by Fujitsu”
(draft).
18. I POL00095374 I Unsigned first witness statement of POL-0094957
Keith Baines
19. I POL00088579 I A Post Office Policy Document — POL-0085637
Postmasters’ In Service Debt Policy
20. I WITN00210101 I Letter from Jason Coyne to myself WITNO0210101
enclosing his “brief note” dated 21
January 2004
21, I FUJ00121504 I Adocument headed “Review of Expert I POINQ0127718F
Witness Report”
22. I WITN04600206 I A document headed “Fujitsu Services I WITN04600206
Post Office Account” Response to the
Expert's Reply to Fujitsu Services
Submission
23. I POLO0095376 I A document headed “Fujitsu Services I POL-0094959
— Report on Cleveleys Post Office”
dated 29 March 2004
24. I POL00095379 I A document headed “ Fujitsu Services I POL-0094962
~ Report on Cleveleys Post Office”
dated 3 August 2004
Page 9 of 10
WITNO09420100
WITNO09420100
25. I WITN04600211 I Email from Keith Baines to Mandy I WITN04600211
Talbot dated 4 August 2004
26. I WITN04600213 I Unsigned witness statement of Jan I WITNO4600213
Robert Holmes dated August 2004
27. I FUJ00080715 I A document headed “Fujitsu Services I POINQ0086886F
~ Report on Cleveleys Post Office”
dated 1 September 2004
28. I POLO0095377 I Unsigned second witness statement of I POL-0094960
Keith Baines dated August 2004
29. I POLO0118218 I Trial Bundle A POL-0120138
30. I POLO0118221 I Trial Bundie C POL-0120141
31. I POL00118229 I Advice on Evidence and Quantum by I POL-0120149
S.A Brochwicz-Lewinski
Page 10 of 10