WITN0O9480100
WITNO09480100
Witness Name: Gregory Booth
Statement No.: WITN09480100
Dated: 19 June 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF GREGORY BOOTH
I, Gregory Booth, will say as follows...
INTRODUCTION
1. This witness statement is made in response to Rule 9 Request no.1 regarding
Marine Drive Post Office and the Lee Castleton Litigation dated 5 May 2023
(the “Request’).
BACKGROUND
2. From 1965 to December 1970 I was an Articled Clerk to a firm of Chartered
Accountants in Bristol. Then from January 1970 to 1976 I worked in audit for
Coopers & Lybrand, an international firm, now part of Price Waterhouse
Coopers. From then until 1998 I worked as an Accountant in industry, holding
various positions including Group Financial Accountant, Finance Manager,
and Company Secretary.
3. In 1998 my wife and I purchased a sub-post office (Edgehill) in Scarborough
and ran that until it was closed under the Network Re-invention Programme. I
was then asked by Post Office Limited (“POL”) to take over a larger office
Page 1 of 114
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
(South Cliff PO in Scarborough) of which the sub-postmaster had been
suspended. I ran this office from September 2003 to February 2004, when a
new permanent sub-postmaster was appointed. I next ran Marine Drive Post
Office in Bridlington from 21st April to 28th May 2004, again at the request of
POL. After that I ran various offices around the area as a relief postmaster,
and lastly Newby Post Office in Scarborough as manager until 2008 when I
retired.
EXPERIENCE OF MARINE DRIVE POST OFFICE AND INVOLVEMENT IN
LITIGATION AGAINST LEE CASTLETON
4.
In answering the questions below, I have considered the following documents:
my first Witness Statement dated 7 October 2006 [POL00074091]; my second
Witness Statement dated 8 November 2006 [POL00081446]; the first Witness
Statement of Catherine Oglesby dated 21 January 2006 [POL00083031]; the
Second Witness Statement of Catherine Oglesby dated 10 October 2006
[POL00071592]; and the first Witness Statement of Christine Train dated 29
November 2006 [POL00083641].
I was asked to take over Marine Drive Post Office by Catherine Oglesby, a
Sales Account Manager of POL, as the sub-postmaster, Lee Castleton had
been suspended due to losses not made good, and the acting temporary sub-
postmaster was no longer available.
I was told briefly the reasons for Lee Castleton's suspension, but not in great
detail, as far as I can remember.
I have been asked to describe my experience of running the Marine Drive
Post Office between 21° April 2004 and 28" May 2004. I didn't have any
particular problems with the weekly balancing. Catherine Oglesby requested
Page 2 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
that I add £100 to the Suspense Account, then print off a balance listing to
check that the system did what was intended, and then reverse the
transaction and re-check. The results were exactly what were expected. It is a
normal thing to do to test any system to enter a dummy item and the reverse
it.
8. I have been asked about my working relationship with the other staff in the
Marine Drive Post Office. To start with, there were no other current staff in the
post office as both the sub-postmaster and his assistant, who he relied upon
to do much of the work, had been suspended. The previous temp had run the
office on her own, but I realised another member of staff was needed, as
queues could become long when customers came in with large piles of
packages to process. I therefore employed an assistant, which was at my
expense.
9. Interactions with most customers were satisfactory, given the difficult
circumstances of the suspension, but there could be problems dealing with
large piles of packages when I didn't have an assistant. The custom had been
for a customer to leave the packages for the staff to process later and be
trusted to return to the office later to pay. I was not prepared to take that risk,
as it could have resulted in me losing money if they had not returned. !
therefore processed all the items with the customer present.
10.1 did not have any problems with the Horizon hardware or software as far as I
can remember.
11.Since I did not have any problems there was nothing to investigate relating to
Horizon during my time there.
Page 3 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
12. It is clear from correspondence dated September 2004 [POL00082577] that
Mr. Castleton wanted Christine Train (his former assistant) to take over as
sub-postmaster and was determined to make it unattractive to anyone else to
do so, including the statement to me that the rent for the office would have to
be high. I doubt if he would have charged the figures quoted to Mrs. Train. He
also implied that my car might be damaged whilst parked there. I therefore
declined to accept the position, and presumably as a result, the office closed.
13.Whilst I was running the office, it was obviously a difficult time for Mr.
Castleton, but I didn't have any problem with him personally, or his wife. Often
after the office closed in the evening, we would spend time discussing the
problems, and possible causes. He told me that via the internet (at that time a
new phenomenon) he had discovered that other sub-postmasters had
experienced similar problems.
14. After my period there had finished, I would occasionally see (unplanned) Lee,
Lisa, or her father, and they would update me on how things were
progressing.
15.The Inquiry has provided me with various documents relevant to the litigation
for me to consider. Please find my comments on these documents below:
a. POL00083319_036: This document is self-explanatory.
b. POL00071025: again this is self-explanatory. As regards the possibility
of Car Auction banking being mixed up with PO money, Lee Castleton
did not think this had happened. “Leave to financial difficulties" should
read "lead".
c. POL00081700_221: The draft statement is not shown with this letter.
d. POL00081700_180: The draft statement is not shown with this letter.
Page 4 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
e. POL00081700_150: The draft statement is not shown with this letter.
f. POL00081700_069: This letter is not significant.
g. POL00069418: This is with regards to the "System freeze" at Newby
Post Office where I was currently working. I had not known this to
happen before and felt it could be relevant to the ongoing system
enquiries, which is why I felt it was necessary to notify Mr. Dilley about
the lost transaction. In itself, I would not have considered £1.27 to be
significant.
h. POL00069845: At the time of the instance, I would not have been
aware of the remedy subsequently given by Fujitsu to Stephen Dilley,
which he then passed to me by letter.
i. POL00069824: I have nothing to add to this Attendance Note.
j. POL00069922: With regards to the first paragraph, I don't believe I
alienated customers, except insofar as queues could build up. See
paragraph 8 above. Regarding paragraph 2 - I can't remember.
16.I have been asked to describe the circumstances in which I first had contact
with Stephen Dilley of Bond Pearce LLP and were introduced to the Lee
Casiteton case. I can't remember, but it was probably Stephen Dilley’s letter of
22nd August 2006 [POL00083319_036].
17.At the time, my understanding of the case against Mr. Castleton was simply
that Mr. Castleton's Horizon records showed a considerable cash deficiency,
which had been asked to make good, which he was not able or willing to do
because he believed the losses were created by the Horizon system and were
not true losses.
Page 5 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
18.1 have been asked to describe the nature of any discussions I had with
counsel and representatives about my role as a witness in the case. I can't
remember any particular discussion but understood that my role was merely
to state my experience of the system whilst I was running the office.
19. From my initial interview with Mr. Dilley, I have been asked why I thought that
potentially the car auction deposit funds may have been mixed with the cash
in the Post Office which may have caused a discrepancy. This was simply
because there did not appear to be any other transactions of a size which
could result in the apparent losses, plus the fact that I considered the way the
cash was handled was unsatisfactory and could lead to errors.
20.1 also thought that Mr. Castleton was inexperienced and didn’t get sufficient
help because Mr. Castleton had only been appointed a few months before,
but also much of the work was done by Christine Train rather than himself. As
to the amount of help he received, I can only go by what he told me.
21.1 have been asked why these points (at paragraphs 19 and 20 above) were
not included in my witness statements for the Lee Castleton Case
[POL00074901] and [POL00081446]. It is probably because I was not asked
to do so.
22.I have been asked how each of my witness statements were prepared and
their content agreed. I can't remember- it was too long ago.
23.1 can't remember how I found the process of preparing my witness
statements, again it was too long ago.
24.1 have been asked what I thought about being asked questions on Christine
Train’s witness statement [POL00069922]. See above at paragraph 15(j).
Christine Train was no longer employed in the Post Office, and her views on
Page 6 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
my efficiency are not relevant to the cash differences, or to the possibility of
Horizon computer errors. She was understandably bitter that she was no
longer allowed to work in the Post Office.
25.As far as I can remember, I was not shown or asked to comment on any other
witness statements before the trial.
26.1 can't remember what I understood the purpose of my supplementary witness
statement to be.
27.1 don't remember whether the information from Fujitsu affected what was said
in my second witness statement [POL00069845]. It was too long ago.
28.1 have been asked to consider [POL00081700_193] and
[POL00081700_ 160]. I have not previously seen Either of these documents. I
am too out-of-touch with the Horizon system now, and can't follow the two
questions, or the response to them.
29.1 was not aware of this conversation between POL and their legal team
regarding the test transaction in the suspense account.
MR. CASTLETON'S TRIAL
30.1 have been asked to consider [POL00069279] and [POL00069286]. Lee
Castleton claimed the cash account was altered electronically. In
POL00069286 "Scorby Road" should read "Scalby Road", and “John Train"
should read "Joan Train".
31.1 was not made aware of the content of Mr. Castleton’s Defence and
Counterclaim, except verbally by Mr. Castleton.
32.POL and Fujitsu took the view that the Horizon system was infallible, and that
any errors must have been made by staff. In the days of manual systems this
Page 7 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
would have been a valid approach, and it was assumed that it was also true
for Horizon.
33. I don't think I have any additional relevant observations or views on the
litigation that I’ve not set out above.
34. I have been asked to set out my views on the approved Judgment in the case
[POL00004325]. I don't feel any need to comment on paragraph 24. However,
the Judge said that the burden of proof lay on Mr. Castleton to show that the
computer was wrong (paragraph 1), but presumably Mr. Castleton had neither
the skill nor the opportunity to examine the Horizon system, himself or by an
agent, so his chance to prove the system wrong was incomplete.
35.1 was not provided with a copy of the judgment (until now), or informed of the
outcome of the case, except verbally by Mr. Castleton.
REFLECTIONS
36. Since the trial I have not experienced any issues with the Horizon IT system,
but I have been retired for 15 years.
37.1 have seen Mr. Castleton, his wife, and her father on several chance
occasions since, and they would tell me how things were progressing with
their claim.
38.1 now believe, with what has been publicised, that it is likely Mr. Castleton was
unfairly treated. The Post Office took the attitude, as they always have, that
they and their systems are infallible. In the days of manual accounting this
may have been justified, but at the time of Mr. Castleton's problems, this
attitude to the Horizon system had not been seriously questioned or
examined.
Page 8 of 11
WITN0O9480100
WITNO09480100
OTHER MATTERS
39.1 don't think there are any other matters not referred to above that I wish to
bring to the attention of the Chair. I do think, however, that views on my own
performance are not relevant to the inquiry into the Horizon system.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: jack furs Road
Page 9 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
Index to First Witness Statement of Gregory Booth
No.
URN
Document Description
Control Number
POL00074091
First Witness Statement of
Gregory Booth dated 7 October
2006
POL-0071464
POL00081446
Second Witness Statement of
Gregory Booth dated 8
November 2006
POL-0078009
POL00083031
First Witness Statement of
Catherine Oglesby dated 21
January 2006
POL-0079594
POL00071592
Second Witness Statement of
Catherine Oglesby dated 10
October 2006
POL-0068155
POL00083641
First Witness Statement of
Christine Train dated 29
November 2006
POL-0080204
POL00082577
Letter from Mr. Castleton to Mr.
Mellow-Facer dated 22
September 2004
POL-0079140
POL00083319_036
Introductory letter from Stephen
Dilley of Bond Pearce LLP to you!
dated 22 August 2006
POL-0079882_036
POL00071025
Attendance Note of Interview
with Stephen Dilley on 30
August 2006.
POL-0067588
POL00071025
Attendance Note of Interview
with Stephen Dilley on 30
August 2006.
POL-0067588
10
POL00081700_221
Letter from Stephen Dilley to you
enclosing the first draft of your
Witness Statement dated 4
September 2006.
POL-0078263_221
11
POL00081700_180
Letter from Stephen Dilley to you
enclosing amended Witness
Statement to sign, dated 27
September 2006.
POL-0078263_180
Page 10 of 11
WITNO09480100
WITNO09480100
12
POL00081700_150
Letter from Stephen Dilley to you
enclosing further amended
Witness Statement to sign, dated
3 October 2006
POL-0078263_150
13
POL00081700_069
Letter from Stephen Dilley to you
regarding hearing availability,
dated 25 October 2006.
POL-0078263_069
14
POL00069418
Attendance Note of your call to
Stephen Dilley on 27 October
2006
regarding the £1.27 lost
transaction.
POL-0065981
15
POLO0069845
Letter from Stephen Dilley to you
regarding the £1.27 lost
transaction
dated 3 November 2006.
POL-0066408
16
POLO0069824
Attendance Note of call between
yourself and Stephen Dilley to go}
over your amended Witness
Statement on 7 November 2006.
POL-0066387
17
POLOO069922
Letter from Stephen Dilley to you
regarding Christine Train’s
Witness
Statement, dated 30 November
2006.
POL-0066485
18
POL00081700_193
Email from Stephen Dilley to
Tony Kane of POL on 27
September
2006
POL-0078263_193
19
POL00081700_160
Attendance Note of call
between Stephen Dilley and
Tony Kane
POL-0078263_160
20
POL00069279
Transcript of Lee Castleton’s
evidence during trial on 8
December 2006
POL-0065842
21
POLO0069286
Transcript of your evidence
during Lee Castleton’s trial
on 8 December 2006
POL-0065849
22
POL00004325
approved Judgment in Post
Office Limited v Lee
Castleton
VIS00005393
Page 11 of 14