WITN09470100
WITNO09470100
Witness Name: Christine Thirsk
Statement No.: WITN09470100
Dated: 21 June 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRSTINE THIRSK
I, Christine Thirsk, will say as follows...
Introduction
1.
I am a former employee of Marine Drive Post Office and held the position of
Counter Clerk. At the relevant time my name was Christine Train. It is now
Christine Thirsk.
. 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 06 June 2023 (the
“Request’).
To assist me in preparing this witness statement, I have reviewed various
documents provided to me by the Inquiry. These were POL00083641;
POL00074092; POL00074091; POL00083031; POL00071592; POL00072786;
POL00069282; POL00069279; LCAS0000607_004 and POL00071236.
Experience at Marine Drive Post Office
4.
I have been asked to set out a summary of my career at Marine Drive Post Office.
I started working at this branch in January 1986 under the YTS scheme at the time.
Page 1 of 12
WITN09470100
WITNO09470100
After 2 years, I became a permanent member of staff. By this time, I was working
more hours in the Post Office than the sub-postmistress. When the premises were
sold, I trained the next incoming Sub-postmaster (“SPM”) and another new
member of staff. When Mr. Castleton took over, I also trained him and
subsequently more new staff.
. In respect of my experience of the Horizon system prior to Mr. Castleton being
appointed SPM, I can confirm we experienced no issues with the Horizon IT
system.
. In respect of my experience of working with Mr. Castleton from June 2003, I can
confirm that he learnt the role extremely quickly and worked hard at getting to know
the customers that we had and their needs.
. In respect of my working relationship with Mr. Castleton, he was by far the best
SPM I had worked for. We got on extremely well from the start and worked together
very well to make a good team.
. In respect of the working relationship between Catherine Oglesby and Mr.
Castleton, it was polite / professional but always of a feeling that she didn't really
like him for no apparent reason. Apparently, at Mr. Castleton’s initial interview for
SPM, Catherine Oglesby hadn't appeared impressed that he attended on his own.
Mrs. Castleton did not go with him as planned due to her mother being in a car
accident the day before. As a retail line manager, she had the power to close an
office and had already ‘threatened’ the previous owners with that if they hadn't
tidied up the appearance of the office. It was as if she wanted to exert her authority
from day 1 over Mr. Castleton.
Page 2 of 12
9.
WITN09470100
WITNO09470100
In respect of the events of the Week 42 balancing, everything was ok until the final
balance showed the first shortfall. As standard practice, we went through all the
cash and stock again and any relevant documentation in the office. It was unusual
that nothing turned up. We declared the balance but checked everything again
over the next few days but to no avail. We contacted the usual partners with a view
to receiving an error notice that something had inadvertently been sent off without
being accounted for but again, nothing.
10.In respect of Catherine Oglesby’s visits to the branch from 16 January 2004
11.
12.
onwards, throughout this whole episode she insisted that someone was taking the
money, which was categorically denied by us all. We requested that she involve
the Fraud Dept and Police if that is what she believed but nothing happened. We
were already double-checking figures before they left the office as standard
working practices anyway, so we were given no new guidance or information.
In respect of the weeks before Mr. Castleton’s suspension, to encounter continuing
shortfalls was devastating and frustrating to say the least, especially after we were
making daily calls to all the relevant parties that we should have done and getting
no new answers as to what might have been happening. I myself was going to the
Post Office at 7am and staying until 7pm going over the same figures and
paperwork just to find nothing new.
In respect of the shortfalls, we knew no one had taken the money and all
transactions had been carried out correctly. As the shortfalls began happening on
such a regular basis it could only be the Horizon system in our opinion.
Page 3 of 12
WITN09470100
WITN09470100
13. In respect of the subsequent visits made to the branch by Catherine Oglesby after
16 January 2004, her only suggestion was to start working with split stock so we
each had our own stock to work with. I can’t recall why it didn't happen, but I
requested for us to work manually for a short period and not use the Horizon
system at all. Catherine agreed to this but later denied it under oath. Instead, she
called the auditors in the same week. We requested to work manually to take the
Horizon system out of the equation to prove we could get an accurate balance and
no more shortages. I asked Catherine Oglesby if that was an option and she
agreed. At Mr. Castleton’s trial, she denied it.
14. In respect of calls made to the Horizon Helpline, there were many. Daily calls were
made regarding the shortfalls, but no real help given other than to tell us to do what
we were already doing as normal practice (checking everything before it left the
office or came in i.e. stock and cash). Both Mr. Castleton and I made all the calls
to the Helpline.
15. In respect of my working relationship with Catherine Oglesby during this time, it
was strained as you would expect due to her insistence that we were taking
the money constantly.
Investigation and Audit
16. In respect of the audit on 25 March 2004, it was performed as any other would be
as far as I can remember.
17. In respect of the information / documentation the auditor considered, I believe it to
have been the reports produced during the working week just the same as we
would have checked.
Page 4 of 12
WITN09470100
WITN09470100
18. In respect of the auditor and the apparent shortfalls, we reiterated again that we
thought the Horizon system was at fault. We now know that this was the truth and
Fujitsu and the Post Office knew it.
19. In respect of Mr. Castleton’s suspension, it was heartbreaking that it had come to
that as we felt we had had no support whatsoever and were continuously branded
as thieves.
20. In respect of Mr. Castleton's suspension, I was also removed from the office by
Catherine Oglesby as on several occasions she voiced her opinion that the staff
must have taken the money. When Dorothy Day began as the temporary SPM two
months later, Catherine Oglesby was suddenly very keen to have me working back
in the office. I don't believe Catherine Oglesby ever gave Dorothy Day a reason
why she was so keen to have me back working in the post office. She asked if
she would be prepared to have me working alongside her in the post office. It was
a sudden turnaround of attitude as for months Catherine Oglesby had been
adamant that the staff were taking the money.
Subsequent SPMs
21. In respect of an initial meeting with Ruth Simpson, I can't recall anything significant
other than the usual introductions.
22. In respect of the working relationship between Catherine Oglesby and Ruth
Simpson, it was very clear that they were extremely friendly. Their whole
demeanor and body language gave that impression. We suspect Ruth Simpson
was selected specifically by Catherine Oglesby to run the post office as should
Page 5 of 12
WITN09470100
WITN09470100
anything occur that was to be ‘covered up’ then she was friendly enough with her
to do it. That was the impression from how they interacted that we all got.
23. In respect of any issues experienced between 23% March and 21° April 2004, as
I was not allowed to work in the Post Office at that time I wouldn't have known if
there was any unless Ruth Simpson said there was. We all felt that had there been
an issue then it would have been ‘covered up' anyway. As it was, she did not use
the Horizon system until at least lunchtime on her first day, and no reason was
given. We strongly suspected that an upgrade to the system occurred during that
time. I don't recall an instance of the system requiring a reboot / screen freezing
but that was a regular occurrence along with keyboard issues. If the Horizon
system really had no issues as we were being told, then why did Ruth Simpson
not use it straight away? If the staff were the cause of the shortages, then she
should have had every confidence to use it to start a new working week. That just
did not add up to any of us.
24. In respect of an initial meeting with Mr. Greg Booth, I can't recall anything
significant other than the usual introductions.
25. In respect of any issues with the Horizon system between 21* April and 28" May
2004, as I was not allowed to work in the Post Office at that time I wouldn't know
if there were any.
Mr. Castleton’s Suspension Interview
26. In respect of the interview on 10th May 2004, this was a long time ago but was an
extremely frustrating time and disappointing outcome, having felt we had had no
constructive help from Catherine Oglesby, Post Office or Fujitsu looking into
Page 6 of 12
WITN09470100
WITNO09470100
anything we had said. The more shortages appeared on our weekly balance, the
more certain we were. We knew neither myself nor Mr. Castleton had taken the
money and we knew our working practices were good. We had had no issues for
the 6 months previous even when Mr. Castleton was new in post. By the time the
court case was over, more of the same scenarios and stories were hitting the news
of the exact same events happening to other PM's.
Marine Drive Post Office after Mr. Castleton’s Termination
27.
28.
In respect of working with Dorothy Day, she immediately listened to what had
happened and began to agree with myself and Mr. Castleton. For some
unexplained reason, Catherine Oglesby requested that I work with her in the Post
Office. There was no reason for me to no longer be kept out of it. She supported
us from day one and did everything to help get the business back on track that had
been lost due to the previous two temporary SPMs. Dorothy immediately found
that a double final balance had been undertaken previously which was meant to
be impossible to do? Dorothy had had some unexplained outcomes of balances
at the office she used to own. Nothing on the scale that we suffered but still
balances showing a gain that never had a reason. When Dorothy Day began
looking at the paperwork produced by Ruth Simpson, she found final balances
done twice that should not have been possible to action by a SPM.
In respect of visits by Catherine Oglesby during Dorothy's time in the Post Office,
I can't recall there being that many.
The Civil Proceedings brought against Mr. Castleton by the Post Office (Post
Office Limited v Lee Castleton)
Page 7 of 12
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
WITN09470100
WITNO09470100
In respect of the Post Office bringing civil proceedings against Mr. Castleton, I
believe he would have been the one to make me aware.
In respect of the case against Mr. Castleton, I understood it to be contractual.
In respect of Mr. Castleton’s Defense and Counterclaim, I was aware of both and
agreed with Mr. Castleton that the Horizon system was at fault as has now been
proved. The Counterclaim could not be anything other than contractual as no fraud
or theft had taken place and no evidence of it.
In respect of the letter from Stephen Dilley to me dated 22 August 2006
[POL00083319_038], after 19 years it is hard to recall that I received that, but I
probably did. I would not have acted as a witness for the Post Office under the
circumstances.
In respect of a final version of this letter, I do not remember receiving one, but a
lot of years have passed and there was a lot to deal with at the time.
In respect of discussions with the legal representatives for the Post Office, I don't
recall being contacted by anyone.
In respect of being a witness for Mr. Castleton, as a member of his staff working
in the Post Office throughout the shortages there was no doubt that I would be a
witness for him.
In respect of contact with Rowe Cohen, I did attend a meeting with them and Mr.
Castleton in respect of our evidence / statements as you would expect to.
Page 8 of 12
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
WITN09470100
WITNO09470100
In respect of why Mr. Castleton stopped using Rowe Cohen, he could not afford
the fees once his insurance cover had reached the limit of costs. He had no choice
but to defend himself.
In respect of my witness statement, I wrote the truth of what happened.
In respect of seeing other witness statements before the trial, I don't recall having
access to them.
In respect of the attendance note of my call with Stephen Dilley [POL00072682], I
don't recall it or what was discussed.
In respect of the approach by the Post Office in relation to these proceedings, it
was nothing more than bully boy tactics and to make Mr. Castleton an example to
any other SPMs claiming the Horizon system was at fault also.
In respect of the Approved Judgment in Post Office Limited v Lee Castleton
[POL00004325], it was no surprise considering how much money the Post Office
was prepared to spend on a top legal team.
In respect of the outcome of the case I don't recall being provided with a copy,
but Mr. Castleton did inform me. The outcome was no surprise considering how
many of the Post Office witnesses blatantly lied under oath knowing what we
know now.
Other Matters
44.
In respect of any issues with the Horizon IT system after the trial, I believe there
was a system upgrade or intervention from the first day of Ruth Simpson being in
Page 9 of 12
WITNO09470100
WITNO9470100
Marine Drive. The Horizon system was not used until lunchtime on her first day,
for no reason other than ‘she chose not to use it’? From the time.t was able to
*
start working in the office again until the Post Office closed the branch making
me redundant, there were no significant issues.
45. In respect of any interactions with anyone involved with the trial, until the day of
closure I still worked with Mrs. Dorothy Day, the otheg staff and also Mr.
Castleton,
46. In respect of the trial, it was brought to court with the intention of making an
example to other SPMs of what would happen. It was never about the money to
the Post Office, it was all about proving they couldn't be beaten.
47. In respect of any other matters I wish to draw to the attention of the Chair, as
everyone now knows the hundreds of SPM's in this position were right with what
we were saying and to constantly hear da the news how much was covered up
by the Post Office and Fujitsu is frankly an insult and disgusting. It has been
extremely hard to revisit this period of my life and I am certain anyone that has
been requested to provide a witness statertent will feel the same. I don't doubt
that any of the people in certain positions will ever be accountable for the lies
they told under oath in court, but justice needs to be done for all involved.
Statement of Truth.
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 21 June 2023
Page 10 of 12
Index to First Witness Statement of Christine Thirsk
No.
URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00083641
First Witness Statement of
Christine Train in POL v
Lee Castleton Claim No:
HQ05X02706
POL-0080204
POL00074092
First Witness Statement of
Lee Castleton in POL v
Lee Castleton
POL-0070655
POL00074091
First Witness Statement of
Gregory John Booth in
POL v Lee Castleton
POL-0070654
POL00083031
First Witness Statement of
Catherine Oglesby in POL
v Lee Castleton
POL-0079594
POL00071592
Second Witness
Statement of Catherine
Oglesby in POL v Lee
Castleton
POL-0068155
POL00072786
First Witness Statement of
Ruth Simpson in POL v
Lee Castleton
POL-0070654
POL00069282
Telephone attendance
note by Stephen Dilley for
Royal Mail Group PLC
Sub Postmaster Litigation
Re Mr. Lee Castleton
(Peter Sewell attending)
POL-0065845
POL00069279
First Witness Statement of
Dorothy Day in Post Office
Limited V Lee Castleton
POL-0065845
Page 11 of 12
WITN09470100
WITN09470100
LCAS0000607_004
Audit of Post Office
Marine Drive branch, FAD
213337, from Helen
Hollingworth to Cath
Oglesby
VIS00010847_004
10
POL00071236
Termination letter from
Cath Oglesby re: Mr. Lee
Castleton (Subpostmaster
for Post Office Marine
Drive branch) with
interview notes dated 10
May 2004 and handwritten
letter appealing
termination from Lee
Castleton dated 23 May
2004
POL-0068155
11
POL00083319_038
Letter from Stephen Dilley
to Christine Train re Post
Office Limited v Mr. Lee
Castleton
POL-0079882_038
12
POL00072682
Telephone attendance
note by Stephen Dilley for
Royal Mail Group PLC
Sub Postmaster Litigation
Re Mr. Lee Castleton
(Peter Sewell attending)
POL-0070654
13
POL00004325
Approved Judgment of
Post Office Limited v Lee
Castleton
VIS00005393
Page 12 of 12
WITN09470100
WITN09470100