WITNO9680100
WITNO9680100 _
Witness Name: Martin John Smith
Statement No: WITN09680100
Dated: 21st November 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARTIN JOHN SMITH
1, Martin John Smith, will say as follows:
Introduction
1. 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 24" October 2023
(the Request).
Background
2. 1am a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales. I graduated in 1993
with an LL.B (Hons) degree in Law. I was admitted as a Solicitor on 4st November
1996. I subsequently became a Criminal Defence Duty Solicitor and was later
awarded the Higher Courts (Criminal) Qualification in or around October 2007.
3. I was employed by Messrs Cartwright King Solicitors (Cartwright King) from 2006
until 2016. During my employment I was promoted to the position of Senior
Associate Solicitor and developed an interest in Road Transport Law.
Page 1 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
. I left the employment of Cartwright King and together with Simon Clarke and
Harry Bowyer, in-house Counsel at Cartwright King, established the firm of
Clarke Tinkler LLP in 2016, which traded as Smith Bowyer Clarke. It specialised
in the provision of legal advice and representation in Road Transport Law. The
new firm also continued to provide advice, on a consultancy basis, through
Cartwright King for a period. I held the positions of COLP (Compliance Officer for
Legal Practice) and COFA (Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration)
at Smith Bowyer Clarke.
. I left Smith Bowyer Clarke at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020.
I subsequently accepted employment with Vienna Kang Advocates Ltd, which
specialises in Criminal Defence and now has several offices in various locations
throughout England. I am a senior member of the Management Team at Vienna
Kang Advocates Ltd.
. Ido not have any access to the files and records held by Cartwright King relating
to the work which I undertook for Post Office Ltd. It follows that this statement
has been prepared having regard to the documents provided with the Request
for a Rule 9 Witness Statement and from my memory. I have attempted to
recollect events and the content of this statement represents the best of my
recollection as at the date of this statement.
. It is my recollection that Cartwright King were first instructed to advise in
connection with some of the cases being investigated and considered for
Prosecution in advance of the date upon which Post Office Ltd became
independent of the Royal Mail Group, which I believe was 1% April 2012.
. Itis my understanding that Mr. Andrew (Andy) Cash, the Solicitor responsible for
the supervision of the Derby Office of Cartwright King, had previously been used
Page 2 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO9680100 _
as a local agent by the Criminal Law Team of the Royal Mail Group to prosecute
cases in Derbyshire.
9. I believe that prior to 1S* April 2012, the case files upon which advice was being
sought would have been submitted by the Criminal Law Team of the Royal Mail
Group. The files were simply delivered without any form of handover or
discussion. I cannot recall the precise arrangements for the submission of case
files by Post Office Ltd thereafter. I believe, however, that any advice prepared
by Cartwright King, along with any draft charges, would have been considered
by Mr. Rob Wilson, Head of Criminal Law, prior to 1** April 2012 and Mr. Jarnail
Singh, Head of Criminal Law, thereafter. I understand that after Post Office Ltd
became independent of the Royal Mail Group, similar arrangements were put in
place with firms of Solicitors in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish firm
was called BTO Solicitors. I am unable to recall the name of the firm in Northern
Ireland.
10.1 was based at the Derby office of Cartwright King. Work on case files submitted
by Post Office Ltd was also undertaken at offices in Nottingham and Leicester.
41.Whilst I was working on Post Office Ltd case files, I became aware that
independent auditors by the name of Second Sight had been appointed to report
on the reliability of Horizon Online at the request of Members of Parliament. It
was my understanding that Post Office Ltd had agreed to the appointment to
confirm the robustness and integrity of Horizon Online and the associated branch
accounting processes.
12.A draft Interim Report by Second Sight became available in July 2013 and a
moratorium on prosecutions was imposed. Post Office Ltd continued to
investigate suspected offending for a period of time.
Page 3 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
Reviewing & Drafting Policies Concerning Criminal Investigations &
Prosecutions
13.It is my recollection that Cartwright King were asked on occasions to provide
input or comment in relation to policies and procedures relating to criminal
investigations and prosecutions.
14. The email from Rob King to Andy Hayward dated 25" June 2013 (POL00122529)
and the email from Dave Posnett to Helen Dickinson of the same date
(POL00122531) both refer to a recent meeting at which I had been in attendance.
It would appear that the meeting had taken place on 10* June 2013, but} cannot
recall it due to the length of time which has since elapsed. It does, however,
appear that one of the points discussed was the accurate recording of significant
statements made to auditors relating to potential shortfalls. Another related to the
gathering of documentary exhibits.
15. The email of Andrew Wise of 20‘ September 2013 (POLO00122860) addressed
to numerous recipients including Jarnail Singh and myself contained the subject
line “Conduct of Criminal Investigations Meeting — 25/9/13”. Due to the length of
time which has since elapsed I cannot recall whether the meeting took place. I
am also unable to recall whether I provided any advice with regard to any of the
attachments to the email or in relation to any specific questions.
16.The email of 21% October 2013 from Rob King to Helen Dickinson
(POL00123006) appears to be in response to Helen Dickinson's email of the
same date in which she asked for confirmation as to who, outside of the Security
Operations Team, might be invited to attend a meeting. It was noted by Helen
Dickinson that I had previously been invited to a meeting. The subject of the
Page 4 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
email was ‘Re: Post Office Secops Team Meeting — The Way Forward —
Discussing the Conduct of Criminal Investigation Policy.’
17.1 have seen an email between Rob King and John Scott of 13 November 2013
(POL00123099) which contains suggested opening notes for the SECOPS
Workshop on 20" November 2013. I cannot recall this Workshop and as I have
previously indicated, I do not have access to any of the notes or records held by
Cartwright King.
18. My email to Jarnail Singh of 16"" October 2013 (POL00125113) enclosed a copy
of the Draft Prosecution Policy produced by Simon Clarke. I believe this was
produced at the request of Mrs. Susan Crichton who was General Counsel to
Post Office Ltd at the time.
19.On 27" February 2014 Mr. Andy Hayward of the Post Office Ltd Security Team
forwarded to Craig Tuthill and myself an email (POL00123190) along with a
document entitled ‘Raising Cases for Investigation’ (POL00123191). I do not
recall providing any advice in relation to this. I note, however, that in paragraph
two it was noted that the Audit Team had placed a £20,000 threshold on
‘anomalies for potential audit’ and that Contract Advisors would ‘not now
precautionary suspend as a matter of course.’
20.The email from Jarnail Singh to John Scott, Laura Irvine of BTO Solicitors and
myself on 29t August 2013 (POL00139868) set out a suggested process for
Scottish cases. It was proposed that prior to any file being submitted to the Crown
Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for consideration of prosecution, it should
first be submitted to Cartwright King for a search to take place of the central
record of the weekly Horizon conference call. The document entitled ‘Scottish
Prosecution Process’ (POL00125068) indicates that this became an ‘agreed
Page 5 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
process’. I cannot however recall whether any case files were actually submitted
to Cartwright King in accordance with this process.
21. Following the release of the draft Second Sight Interim Report, Simon Clarke had
advised that Post Office Ltd should hold a weekly conference call so that a central
record could be compiled capturing all Horizon related information in one place.
The information collated by the call would enable Post Office Ltd to satisfy its
duties of disclosure.
The_ Provision of Training in Respect of Criminal Investigations and
Prosecutions
22. After Post Office Ltd became independent of the Royal Mail Group, Jarnail Singh
asked Cartwright King to provide training on a periodical basis to members of the
Investigation Team. Although I was the main point of contact, Simon Clarke and
Harry Bowyer were also involved with the provision of training.
23.Whilst there may have been requests for training on particular topics, other topics
may have been suggested as a result of issues which had come to light in case
files. By way of example, Cartwright King had advised against proceeding with
one particular case as an auditor had actively questioned the Sub-Postmaster
about how a shortage in the branch had arisen — i.e. an extensive interview had
taken place but not under caution.
24.1 believe that I delivered training in relation to the interview process, interview
techniques and styles of questioning. The general objective of this training was
to help ensure that interviews were conducted properly and fairly with a view to
ensuring that the best evidence would be obtained.
25.The email of 15 February 2013 between Dave Posnett and Helen Dickinson
(POL00129303), into which Jarnail Singh and I were copied, referred to the
Page 6 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
possibility of training being provided by Cartwright King in relation to ‘awkward
interviewees, significant statements, points to prove, interviewing techniques
etc’. Mr. Posnett sent an email on 22"4 March 2013 (POL00129310) to myself,
Jarnail Singh and members of the Security Team noting that the proposed topics
would include, in addition to those listed above, a number of other topics
including ‘pre-interviewing/caution’. It would appear that this training day was
scheduled to take place at the Birmingham Office of Cartwright King.
26.The email from Dave Posnett of 3 June 2013 addressed to myself and Mr.
Jarnail Singh (POL00122518) made reference to a proposed training day to be
held at the Birmingham Office of Cartwright King on 11" June 2013 and also a
Mock Trial Day on 18" September 2013 which, it was proposed, would take place
at the Galleries of Justice in Nottingham.
Contact with Fujitsu
27.Post Office Ltd relied upon Mr. Gareth Jenkins, an employee of Fujitsu Services
Ltd (Fujitsu), to provide expert evidence in a number of cases which it
prosecuted. This was not regarded as ideal given that Mr. Jenkins was not
independent.
28.1n his email to Andy Cash of 12!" September 2012 (POL00020489) Jarnail Singh
commented that he had “in the past instructed Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu in the
case of Misra which incidental was the only challenge on Horizon... Perhaps we
need to reconsider whether to instruct him as he may be viewed too close to the
system but instruct Somebody entirely independent? Your thoughts please also
whether you or Harry have anybody in mind.”
29.Harry Bowyer responded:
Page 7 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
“Jarnail,
I would have preferred someone entirely independent but this is such a
specialist area that we would be hard pushed to get a report in the timescale that
we require — we may open our expert up to allegations of partiality but his
expertise will be unlikely to be challenged.
We need to get this report off the skids as soon as possible as we have PCMH’s
and trials galloping up on us.
You should have had my advice of July but should you want further input as to
the general content please get in touch,
Harry”
30. I have been shown a copy of a short email chain which consists of an email from
Jarnail Singh to Gareth Jenkins of 1** October 2012 and Mr. Jenkins’ response
of the same date (FUJ00226331). I was copied into both emails. It is evident from
Jarnail Singh’s email that he sought an expert’s report with a view to confirming
that the Horizon System was robust. It would appear that he had attached a
spreadsheet in which Post Office Ltd had sought to collate information
concerning previous challenges to the Horizon System. He also noted that none
of the challenges had been successfully argued and asked that Mr Jenkins
consider the spreadsheet.
3
=
.Mr Jenkins replied later the same day attaching two existing reports which it
would appear were entitled “Horizon Data Integrity’ (FUJ00226333) and “Horizon
Online Data Integrity for Post Office Ltd” (FUJ00226332). He alluded to a
conversation with Jarnail Singh in which he had mentioned these reports and
indicated that he would prepare a further report within the next few days.
Page 8 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
32. In his email of 4” October 2012 to Gareth Jenkins (FUJ00153812), into which I
was also copied, Jarnail Singh appears to have enclosed a draft statement for
Gareth Jenkins consideration and requested the documents referred to in
paragraph 3.
33.It is my belief that an updated version of the draft statement would have
subsequently been sent to me by email given that I wrote to Gareth Jenkins and
Jarnail Singh by email on 5'" October 2012 (FUJ00156655). According to the
email I had amended Mr. Jenkins’ statement so as to exhibit the documents
referred to in Section 3. It would appear to be the case that Sharron Jennings, a
Post Office Investigator, produced the witness statement and asked Mr. Jenkins
to check it carefully before signing it, to ensure that he was “happy” with it. The
email chain reveals that later the same day I informed Mr. Jenkins that I had
served his statement in a particular case.
34.1 do not believe that I was present during any of the conversations which Jarnail
Singh may have had with Gareth Jenkins in relation to the preparation of his draft
witness statement nor with regard to his role as an expert witness. As Mr. Jenkins
had previously been used as an expert witness by Post Office Ltd, I anticipated
that he would have been aware of the existence and nature of the duty owed by
an expert witness to the Court.
35.1 was of the opinion that the use of Gareth Jenkins was not ideal because, as
Harry Bowyer had pointed out, he was employed by and not independent of
Fujitsu. There was clearly a risk of a conflict of interest. It was my understanding,
however, that Mr. Jenkins had provided expert evidence in court previously. He
had also said, taking his statement of 15" January 2013 (FUJ00124229) as an
Page 9 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
example, that “my role is to assist the court rather than represent the views of my
employers or Post Office Ltd.”
36.1 also noted that the statement which Mr. Jenkins had signed contained the
declaration, “This statement (consisting of 11 pages each signed by me) is true
to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered
in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything
which I know to be false or do not believe true.”
37. It is in these circumstances that I did not anticipate that Mr. Jenkins’ lack of
independence would become an issue.
38. In addition to having contact with Mr. Jenkins regarding to the preparation of this
statement, I had contact with him on other occasions too. I was often copied into
emails sent by my colleagues, Andrew Bolc and Rachel Panter. Andrew Bolc
was a Solicitor who worked in the Cartwright King office in Leicester and Rachel
Panter mainly worked in the office in Nottingham. I believe that Rachel Panter
held a paralegal role within Cartwright King and that she would liaise with and
forward documents to Post Office Ltd, Gareth Jenkins and Counsel in respect of
individual case files.
39.Penny Thomas of Fujitsu was sometimes copied into emails passing between
Cartwright King and Fujitsu, but I cannot recall her role. I can recall speaking to
someone at Fujitsu with regard to the possibility of another report being prepared.
I cannot, however, recall the name of the person with whom I spoke, nor the
name of the person to whom the case related.
40.1 have been shown an email chain (POL00141471) which commences on 26"
November 2012 at 15:06 and ends on 27" November 2012 at 14:09. This chain
related to a case which I believe was being dealt with by Harry Bowyer. Rachel
Page 10 of 42
41.
42.
43.
44.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
Panter had been liaising with Gareth Jenkins on his behalf. I do not recall having
any involvement with regard to the proposed amendment of Mr. Jenkins’
statement.
The Prosecution of Lynette Hutchings
One of the investigation case files which I was asked to consider and advise
upon related to Mrs Lynette Hutchings.
I have been given access to numerous documents which include the Audit Report
dated 31% March 2011 (POLO0056292), the Records of Taped Interview
conducted on 20% April 2011 (POLO0056532, POL00044505 and
POL00046625), the Investigation Report dated 5'" May 2011 (POL00056478), a
memo from Jarnail Singh of 17 June 2011 (POL00046626) and the memo of
Graham Brander to Jarnail Singh of 9" December 2011 (POL00046628). I have
also seen copies of a number of witness statements.
It is evident from the documents which accompanied the Request, that the
Security Team submitted the case file to the Criminal Law Team at Post Office
Ltd for advice prior to it becoming independent of the Royal Mail Group. Advice
was later sought from Cartwright King and it was in those circumstances that I
first became involved in the case of Mrs. Hutchings. I cannot recall any ‘handover’
process or ‘briefing’ from the Criminal Law Team. I have not had sight of the
case file held by Cartwright King and due to the passage of time could not list
with accuracy the material which would have been on the file submitted by Post
Office Ltd.
The Audit Report (POL00056292) in this case revealed a shortage in branch.
Mrs Hutchings was interviewed on 20 April 2011. At the commencement of the
first interview under caution (POL00056532), a prepared statement was read out
Page 11 of 42
45.
46.
47.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
on behalf of Mrs. Hutchings. In her prepared statement Mrs. Hutchings indicated
that her branch had migrated to Horizon Online in or around the May or June of
2010. She explained that at the point of migration, all accounts balanced. She
also asserted that since the migration, the balances had been wrong and gave
examples of the difficulties which she suggested she had experienced with
Horizon Online. Mrs. Hutchings accepted that she had altered cash declarations,
but not with a view to making a gain for herself or causing a loss to another. She
denied stealing any money but explained that she had altered the cash
declarations in order to continue to operate the branch.
When the file was submitted to the Criminal Law Team, the report of the
Investigating Officer, Mr. Graham Brander, of 5 May 2011 (POL00056478)
summarised the investigation which had taken place. He had analysed the
Overnight Cash Holdings Data and had concluded that false declarations had
been made in respect of the total value of the £50 notes held in the branch from
13' January 2010. This date was prior to the migration of the Rowlands Castle
Sub Post Office Branch to Horizon Online, which was given as 5" July 2010.
Jamail Singh of the Criminal Law Team advised in his Memo of 17" June 2011
(POL00046626) that further information should be obtained. It would appear to
be the case that Mr. Brander returned the file along with a memo dated 9
December 2011 (POL00046628).
The statement of Mr. Nigel Allen (POL00057026) confirmed that Mrs. Hutchings
contract as Postmaster at the Rowlands Castle Sub-Post Office Branch had been
summarily terminated. He exhibited copies of a number of sections of the
contract and confirmed that the branch had migrated to Horizon online in July
2010.
Page 12 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
48. In his statement of 20% September 2011 (POLO0056955) Mr. Adam Shaw
explained that he had attended the Rowlands Castle Post Office with his
colleague Sarah Juliff in order to conduct an Audit on 30 March 2011. He also
explained that each Post Office branch should produce a monthly Branch
Trading Statement. Each Branch Trading Period consists of either four or five
weeks, with each week running from the start of business on the Thursday to the
close of business the following Wednesday. Mr. Shaw explained that at the end
of each branch Trading Period, a Trading Statement should be printed and
signed by the Postmaster — It should be a true reflection of all cash and stock on
hand and represent all transactions conducted in that period.
49. In her statement of 24% November 2011 (POL00057245 and POL00044534)
Louise Sheridan exhibited a log of the 33 calls to the National Business Support
Centre between 1* June 2010 and 5" April 2011 (POL00054806) and noted that
only 2 related to losses or gains. One related to a Co-Op cash deposit accepted
incorrectly at the branch as an Alliance and Leicester deposit. The other related
to the branch remitting in stock from a previous trading period. It was noted that
none of the remaining calls on the log appeared to be in relation to the reporting
of a cash shortage in the accounts or anything that would immediately appear to
indirectly cause a large cash shortage in the accounts.
50. Mr. Andrew Dunks in his statement of 12% July 2011 (POL00056659) stated that
he had been employed by Fujitsu Services since 11 March 2002 as an
Information Technology Security Analyst. He explained that the Horizon Service
Desk (HSD) was a service run by Fujitsu Services for the Post Office and that in
the event of a Sub-Postmaster or Counter Clerk experiencing a problem or
malfunction with the Horizon system, or advice or guidance was required, a call
Page 13 of 42
51.
52.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
could be placed to the HSD. He went onto provide details of 4 calls which had
been logged by the HSD and produced exhibit APD01 (POL00046047). It was
his opinion that none of the calls related to faults which would have affected the
integrity of the information held on the system as none of the calls raised
problems that fell outside the normal operating parameters of the Horizon
System.
Mr. David Dixon in his statement of 22.4 September 2011 (POLO0057001)
explained how the Post Office used a computer system known as SapADS to
calculate and forecast the cash requirements for each branch. This analysis
could result in cash being sent out to a branch or a request for a branch to return
cash. He was able to identify branches which had returned less cash than
requested. Mr. Dixon noted that he had requested the return of £30,000 by the
Rowlands Castle Sub Post Office Branch on 7 March 2011. Only £14,000 was
returned on 8" March. It would appear that he therefore triggered an audit at the
branch on 9" March 2011.
Mr. Graham Brander prepared a detailed statement on 25'" November 2011
(POL00044535) in which he explained that he had analysed Overnight Cash
Holding (ONCH) Data going back as far as 27" December 2009. He concluded
that there appeared to be a pattern in that the total value of the cash being held
(usually the £50 notes) was being inflated and falsely declared by the Rowlands
Castle Sub Post Office Branch at the end of each Trading Period before reducing
again the following day. He noted that the amounts entered against ‘unusable
notes’ on 1%, 2" and 5" July 2010 (the day upon which the branch was migrated
to Horizon Online) appeared to have ‘jumped up’ before dropping down and then
up again. Mr. Brander also noted that he had requested, from Fujitsu, Horizon
Page 14 of 42
53.
54.
55.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
Data in the form of Audit Record Queries (ARQ’s) which he had analysed. He
exhibited a summary he had produced of Cash Declarations, Variances and
Declared Discrepancies.
On 4" January 2012 I considered the material in the case file, advised upon it
and also drafted a charge for an alleged offence of fraud (POLO0057362). The
rationale for my decision was that there appeared to be strong evidence which
rebutted the suggestion put forwards by Mrs. Hutchings in her prepared
statement i.e. that she had declared incorrect figures only after the branch had
migrated. It was evident that the true cash position had been incorrectly declared
for a much longer period of time and that, at the point of migration, an incorrect
figure in respect of the unusable notes held in the branch had been declared. I
felt that the evidence was inconsistent with Mrs. Hutchings’ account, undermined
her credibility and gave weight to the inference that she had been covering her
tracks. Furthermore, the investigating officer had not suggested that any of the
difficulties to which Mrs. Hutchings had referred in her interview had any
relevance.
I believe that the file which Post Office Ltd had submitted to Cartwright King
would have been returned to the Criminal Law Team with a copy of my Advice,
for further consideration to be given as to the merits of a prosecution in
accordance with any applicable Investigation and Prosecution Policies in place
at the time and for a charging decision to be made by Post Office Ltd.
Proceedings were commenced by Post Office Ltd and I wrote to the Clerk to the
Justices at Portsmouth Magistrates Court on 14!" March 2012 (POLO00057515)
enclosing copies of the bundle of evidence for the first hearing. It would appear
Page 15 of 42
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
that the first hearing of the case took place on 10' April 2012 and that Mr. Robert
Booker, a local agent previously used by the Royal Mail Group, attended court.
From the email which I received from Robert Booker on 10 April 2012
(POL00057607), it would appear that Mrs. Hutchings gave ‘no indication’ of her
plea and that her committal date was set for 6"" June 2012. I appear to have sent
copies of the committal papers to Mrs. Hutchings’ Solicitors on 22"4 May 2012
(POL00057796).
Robert Booker provided confirmation by email on 6 June 2012 (POL00057990)
that Mrs. Hutchings case had been committed to the Crown Court at Portsmouth,
her solicitor accepting that there was a case to answer. The Plea and Case
Management Hearing was scheduled to take place on 30" July 2012.
It would appear that Will Martin, Counsel of 9-12 Bell Yard, London, was
instructed to represent Post Office Ltd and from the email which I received from
Rachel Panter on 30'" July 2012 (POL00058142), that he had informed her by
telephone that a second count of False Accounting had been added to the
indictment in respect of which Mrs. Hutchings had entered a Guilty Plea.
In Mr. Will Martin's Attendance Note of 30" July 2012 (POL00058132) he made
reference to the conversation which had taken place with Miss Whittle-Martin,
Counsel for the Defendant, who had offered a guilty plea to the offence of false
accounting. Whilst he referred to having had a consultation with ‘those
instructing’, without sight of the Cartwright King file I am unable to comment
further.
It is evident, however, that Mr. Martin had drafted a further count for the
indictment (POL00046095). He had also noted that a copy of the Basis of Plea
(POL00046096) put forwards by Mrs. Hutchings had been placed on the brief.
Page 16 of 42
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
The Basis of Plea stated that Mrs. Hutchings had pleaded guilty to false
accounting on the basis that she made the books balance in order to ‘put off the
evil day of having to sort out the muddle’ and not on the basis that she took or
intended to take any money.
Mr Will Martin informed me by email on 24' August 2012 (POL00058240) that
Mrs Hutchings had been sentenced to a 12-month Community Order with 120
hours of unpaid work. No orders were made with regards to costs or
compensation.
Post Office Ltd was obliged to act and behave in an ethical and responsible
manner as a prosecutor in accordance with the duties and obligations imposed
upon it. This duty included the disclosure of relevant documents or information
which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the
Prosecution against Mrs. Hutchings or of assisting with her case.
I am not able to recall whether Mrs. Hutchings served a Defence Statement or
whether the decision to prosecute or the counts on the Indictment were reviewed
by myself or anyone else prior to the hearing on 30" July 2012.
I have considered the Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Josephine Hamilton
& Others v Post Office Ltd (2021) EWCA Crim 577 (POL00113278) and in
particular paragraphs 267 to 272.
I was very concerned to read that there had been in the region of 30 bugs, errors
and defects in the Horizon System and its successor, Horizon Online.
The investigation in this case and the subsequent prosecution had proceeded on
the basis that the data produced by the Horizon system was reliable. I had not
been made aware that it was not reliable. It is highly likely that this information
Page 17 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
would have affected my advice and at the very least, have prompted me to ask
further questions or that further investigations to be carried out.
67. I would wish to apologise to Mrs. Hutchings for the distress that she would
undoubtedly have suffered. I am pleased that her conviction has been quashed.
The Prosecution of Khayyam Ishaq
68.1 was instructed to advise upon the criminal investigation concerning Mr.
Khayyam Ishaq. He had been the Sub Postmaster of the Birkinshaw Post Office
Branch. I have been provided with access to a number of documents which
include the Investigation Report of 13" May 2011 (POL00046224), Records of
Taped Interviews conducted on 7 April 2011 (POLO0046349 and
POL00045133), Memos of Rob Wilson, Head of Criminal Law, of 18" May 2011
(POL00046228) and 5'* July 2011 (POLO0056600 and POLO0056596). I have
also seen a Record of Taped Interview of 27"" September 2011 (POL00057985),
a further Investigation Report of 3 October 2011 (POL00057078) and Memo of
Rob Wilson of 11" October 2011 (POL00046235).
69. It is evident that a case file was submitted by the Security Operations Team to
the Criminal Law Team at Post Office Ltd prior to it becoming independent of the
Royal Mail Group. Advice was later sought from Cartwright King and that is when
I first became involved in the case concerning Mr. Ishaq. I cannot recall any
‘handover’ process or ‘briefing’ from the Criminal Law Team. I have not had sight
of the case file held by Cartwright King and due to the passage of time could not
list with accuracy the material which would have been on the file submitted by
Post Office Ltd.
Page 18 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
70. The Investigation Report of 13 May 2011 (POL00046224) explained the
circumstances in which a full audit of the branch had been conducted on 8"
February 2011.
71. Mr. Ishaq was interviewed under caution on 7 April 2011 (POL00046349 and
POL00045133). During his first interview on that date Mr. Ishaq denied stealing
any money belonging to Post Office Ltd and also denied inflating his cash on
hand to cover discrepancies in the accounts. Mr. Ishaq stated that he had not
contacted the NBSC helpline but had contacted ‘Chesterfield’ in relation to every
loss which he had incurred in the branch.
72. In Mr. Ishaq’s second interview on 7" April 2011 Mr. Ishaq was informed that
‘Chesterfield’ had had been informed of discrepancies of £1065 and £479 but
had no record of the discrepancies of £4211 and £3658. Mr Ishaq explained that
he had problems with his recollection. He had, however, remembered that
another member of staff had forgotten to count cash to the value of £4000.
Accordingly, this had not been included but the money had been used to make
good the loss. Mr. Ishaq also thought the same thing had happened in relation to
the other loss.
73. In his Memo of 18'* May 2011 (POL0046228), Rob Wilson noted that Mr. Ishaq
had made reference to an assistant who was in training but nevertheless took
some responsibility for balancing. He asked that a witness statement be taken
from this individual.
74. In one Memo of 5" July 2011 (POL00056600) Rob Wilson asked that Mr. Ishaq
be re-interviewed on the basis of the witness statement which had been obtained
from his assistant. In his other Memo of 5 July 2011 (POL00056596) Rob
Wilson referred to a draft charge on a schedule (although a copy of the draft
Page 19 of 42
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
charge has not been provided) and advised that a: number of further statements
should be obtained.
Mr. Ishaq was further interviewed on 27 September 2011 (POL00057985). It
was put to Mr. Ishaq that his assistant, whom he had previously referred to, had
stated that he had never been informed of any discrepancies and that he had
never been told that he had forgotten to count cash. The Investigation Report
submitted to the Criminal Law Team on 3% October 2011 also made reference
to discrepancies in Mr. Ishaq’s account.
Mr. Wilson responded to this Investigation Report in a Memo of 11" October
2011 (POL00046235) and requested that Horizon Data be obtained to
investigate reversals of sales of stamps.
On 23" March 2012 I considered the evidence, advised upon it and drafted a
charge for an alleged offence of theft (POL00057543). I noted in my advice that
Horizon Data for the period 2"? November 2010 to 315 January 2011 had been
obtained and that a summary of stock sales and reversals had been prepared. I
also advised that a number of further statements should be taken.
On the basis of the available information, I concluded that there appeared to be
strong evidence against Mr. Ishaq. There were inconsistencies in his account
and the witness to whom Mr. Ishaq had referred during the interview process had
not corroborated his account. I was of the opinion that this undermined Mr.
Ishaq’s credibility and strengthened the case against him. Furthermore, the
Horizon Data had been checked and had revealed reversals of sales of large
quantities of stamps.
I believe that the file which Post Office Ltd had submitted would have been
returned to the Criminal Law Team with a copy of my Advice for further
Page 20 of 42
80.
81.
82.
83.
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
consideration to be given as to the merits of a prosecution in accordance with
any applicable Investigation and Prosecution Policies in place at the time and for
a charging decision to be made by Post Office Ltd.
It would appear to be the case from my email of 3% May 2012 to Steve Bradshaw
(POL00119429) that I put together the bundle of case papers for the first hearing
before the Bradford Magistrates’ Court on 30 May 2012.
I have not been provided with a copy of my Attendance Note of 30! May 2012.
It is evident, however, from my email of 318 May 2012 (POL00119452) that I
reported to Steve Bradshaw that Mr. Ishaq’s Solicitor had informed me his client
denied any wrongdoing.
According to this email Mr. Ishaq had given ‘no indication’ of his plea and the
Court decided that his case was not suitable for summary trial. The case had
been adjourned until 25" July 2012 to enable the committal papers to be
prepared.
I have not been provided with a copy of my Attendance Note of 25 July 2012.
However, in my email of 26" July 2012 to Rachel Panter and Andy Cash
(UKGI00001432), I noted that Mr. Ishaq’s case had been committed to the Crown
Court at Bradford and the Plea and Case Management Hearing had been
scheduled for 4'" September 2012. I also stated in my email that “the Defendant's
Solicitor made it clear that the functionality of the Horizon System would be an
issue. The Defendant has instructed them that the correct amount of money will
be there in the accounts somewhere and that there is an error with Horizon...”
. I went on to say, “This is going to be another of those cases where we will have
to anticipate and deal with the Horizon issue and consider our approach.”
Page 21 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
85.Andy Cash responded to my email asking that I advise Jarnail Singh when
reporting that ‘we had another one’ i.e. another case in which Horizon-related
arguments were to be anticipated. I prepared a Brief for in-house Counsel
(UKGI00018903) noting that Mr. Ishaq’s solicitor had said that the case would be
contested and that ‘everyone had heard about the problems with the Horizon
system.’
86.1 subsequently received a letter of 29'" August 2012 from Messrs Musa Patels
Solicitors (POL00046244) which enclosed a copy of a Defence Statement.
87.Although I have not been provided with access to a copy of the Defence
Statement whilst preparing this statement, it would appear from the ‘Comments
on Ishaq DCS’ (POL00059602) prepared by Gareth Jenkins, that Mr. Ishaq’s
Solicitors had requested:
i) The full file of papers relating to this investigation (as the paginated papers
served upon the defence to support the prosecution are clearly a small extract of
the full file of papers relating to this case);
ii) All material to the knowledge of the prosecution in existence (whether in the
hands of the prosecution or third parties) that reasonably supports (or is
reasonably capable of supporting) the contention that the Post Office Horizon
software/hardware system has proved to be unreliable and/or inaccurate and/or
unusable and/or susceptible to malfunction and/or otherwise prone to the
production of erroneous results;
iii) The outcome of all enquiries in relation to other Post Office Staff and/or
contractors who have been the subject of investigation by the Post Office or any
other investigative body in relation to allegations of dishonesty related to the use
of Post Office Horizon hardware/software;
Page 22 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
iv) The full results (whether provisional or final) of all internal and/or external
investigations and/or enquiries and/or reviews (whether investigated by the Post
Office or any other body) into the correct functioning of the Post Office Horizon
hardware/software system;
v) Any internal memoranda and/or guidance notes and/or other material dealing
with the correct or incorrect functioning of the Post Office Horizon
hardware/software system;
vi) All Horizon system data for the period 2"4 November 2011 to 31% January 2012
used to produce exhibit SB/21;
vii) An indication of the actual Horizon system data as would have been visible to
the Defendant showing sales of stamps on dates referred to in Stephen
Bradshaw's statement (Pages 17 to 21) and subsequent reversals referred to
therein.
viii) I The original signed statement of Umair Liaqat
88.1 forwarded copies of the letter and Defence Case Statement by email to Steve
Bradshaw and Sarah Porter, in-house Counsel at Cartwright King on 3°
September 2012 (POL00046242). I commented that the Defence were clearly
aware of the current Horizon issues i.e. the allegations being made to the effect
that the system was not reliable. I also made reference to ‘a fishing expedition’
as I considered some of the requests in the Defence Statement to be too wide or
for information which was either not disclosable or not relevant.
89.1 forwarded a copy of Sarah Porters’ Attendance Note of 4" September 2012 to
Steve Bradshaw and Jamail Singh by email on 5" September 2012
(POL00046243). In her Attendance Note, which I had set out below my email,
Miss Porter reported that she had, “made it clear that our stance is that Horizon
Page 23 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
works and is irrelevant in this case because he now accepts making the reversals
and we say in doing this he was acting dishonestly to cover his tracks. Any
particular problems with the system must be fully particularised before any further
disclosure made.”
90.Miss Porter also advised in her Attendance Note that “only such material as
undermines our case or assists the def in light of the DS should be served.” She
also noted that Post Office Ltd was compiling a database and asked that
progress be checked.
9
=
-In my email I observed that it would remain to be seen whether any allegations
of malfunction were particularised. I also sought to check the progress being
made with regards to the compilation of the database and indicated that I
proposed to speak to Mr. Bradshaw, the Investigating Officer to discuss the
Specific Requests in the Defence Statement later that week. I also asked that a
disc containing the Horizon Data for the period 14 September 2010 to 9t
February 2011 be provided so that I could forwarded it to Mr. Ishaq’s Solicitor
and that call logs be obtained.
92.Post Office Ltd was under a duty disclose relevant documents or information
which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the
Prosecution against Mr. Ishaq or of assisting with his case. I liaised with Mr.
Bradshaw on a number of occasions during this case to ascertain whether there
was information or material for disclosure to the Defence.
93.Rachel Panter prepared an undated Advice on Evidence (POL00045134). She
requested that enquiries be made to establish whether Mr. Ishaq had made any
calls to the NBSC or HSD helplines. She also requested a further statement
Page 24 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
dealing with the shortage discovered in the branch and details of training
received by Mr. Ishaq.
94.On 7" January 2013 Rachel Panter sent an email to Mr. Jenkins (FUJ00153919)
asking that he prepare a report in relation to this case. She attached a copy of
the Defence Statement, Summary of Facts and the Indictment. She explained in
her email that the Defence were asserting that Mr. Ishaq was not dishonest — he
had to make reversals in order to balance as there had been a malfunction of the
system.
95.It is evident from my email to Steve Bradshaw of 15! January 2013
(POL00127677) that I had received a letter from Mr. Ishaq’s Solicitor and that I
had attached a copy to the email. I asked Mr. Bradshaw to forward copies of the
interview tapes and indicated that we would discuss the other points raised.
Without sight of the Cartwright King file, I am unable to comment further.
96.1 wrote to Mr. Ishaq’s Solicitor on 23 January 2013 (POL00059517) noting that
the alleged problems with the Horizon system to which Mr. Ishaq had referred in
his defence statement had still not been fully particularised. My view was that if
Mr. Ishaq could provide more detailed information, it would enable a directed and
targeted investigation to take place.
97.In her email of 31%* January 2013 (POL00089427) Rachel Panter asked Mr
Jenkins to comment on the Defence Case Statement served by Mr. Ishaq’s
Solicitors. He did so on 1st February 2013 by adding his comments to a copy of
the Defence Statement (POL00059602). He did not consider that there was
anything which could be added to his existing statement.
98. Mr. Jenkins also indicated that if the Defence could supply some examples of the
malfunctions which had allegedly occurred, he would be happy to investigate
Page 25 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
them. He also commented that “...the system doesn’t malfunction without leaving
some trail to indicate what has happened. Without examining the logs it is difficult
to be any more specific.” He went on to state that he thought there were three
possibilities. Firstly, the Defendant might not have understood the way the
system operated and that difficulties in reconciliation had been due to his lack of
understanding. Secondly, the Defendant had stolen the money and thirdly, there
was a fault with the system. He went on to state that “There is no evidence of a
fault in the system (and the fact that the system operates without issue in 12,000
other branches supports this fact)...”
99.1 received an email on 1%t February 2013 (POL00119432) from Mr. Ishaq’s
solicitors which enclosed a letter. I have not been provided with access to a copy
of that letter. I note, however, that the email referred to an imminent hearing of
the case for Mention and that I forwarded a copy of the letter by email to Steve
Bradshaw and Mark Ford of Counsel on 4" February 2013 (POL00119431).
100. On 4" February 2013 I prepared a Notice of Additional Evidence and sent a
copy to Mark Ford of Counsel (UKGI00018011). The documents enclosed with
the Notice included copies of statements of Stephen Bradshaw of 27' January
2013 and 31% January 2013.
101. In his statement of 27" January 2013 (POL00046264) Mr. Bradshaw provided
a more detailed explanation with regard to his summary of stock sold and
reversed out of the Horizon System between November 2011 and January 2011.
102. Mr Bradshaw, in his statement of 31S January 2013 (POL00059592), produced
as exhibit SB/24 (UKGI0001801 1) the call logs for the period 8" July 2010 to 11"
February 2011 which had been obtained from the National Business Support
Centre (NBSC). Mr Bradshaw observed that no calls had been made to the
Page 26 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
NBSC by Mr. Ishaq regarding any problems with’ the Horizon system. He also
observed that there had been no calls relating to cash discrepancies or problems
with balancing the office accounts for the Birkinshaw Post Office Branch. The call
log revealed that the migration process had been problematic.
103. It is my recollection that I checked the position with regard to disclosure with
Steve Bradshaw prior to the hearing which took place before the Crown Court at
Bradford on 5'" February 2013. I was informed that there was no material for
disclosure to the Defence. I relayed this to Counsel who in turn informed the
Court of the position.
104. In my email of 6 February 2013 to Steve Bradshaw and Mark Ford
(POL00059652) I referred to the Mention Hearing the previous day. Mr. Ford
had confirmed that there was no further material to be disclosed and Mr. Ishaq’s
case remained listed for trial on Monday 25'" February 2013. I reported that the
Defence had been unable to persuade the Judge to order any further disclosure.
I had not regarded the spreadsheet which had been put together within the
Security Team of previous unfounded allegations to be disclosable.
105. Mr. Bradshaw provided a statement on 11% February 2013 (POL00059686) in
which he explained that “Post Office Ltd continued to have absolute confidence
in the robustness and integrity of its Horizon system and its branch accounting
processes.” At the time it was consistent with my understanding of the position,
the observations and comments being made by Mr. Bradshaw, the instructions
provided by Jarnail Singh and it was also the stated position of Post Office Ltd,
which I understood to have been confirmed by General Counsel Susan Crichton.
106. It is my recollection that Mr. Bradshaw would positively assert that the Horizon
system was reliable. He described it as a ‘posh calculator and that if, for
Page 27 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
example, stamps were sold, the number of stamps in stock would decrease by
the number sold and the amount of cash required to balance would increase by
the value of the stamps sold.
107. An Addendum Defence Statement dated 20 February 2013 (POL00046278)
was received by Cartwright King and forwarded to both Gareth Jenkins and
Steven Bradshaw for their consideration. I do not recall receiving any comment
in relation to the Addendum Defence Statement from Mr. Bradshaw until the day
of trial i.e. Monday 25" February 2013.
108. Mr. Jenkins added a number of comments to a copy of the Addendum Defence
Statement (POL00059874) during the afternoon of Friday 22" February 2013.
109.In response to the suggestion made by Mr. Ishaq that the Horizon Online
system would crash and freeze and would give inaccurate total figures at the end
of trading and/or balance periods, Mr. Jenkins commented that he was aware
that, “there were some issues in the early days of Horizon Online. However I
don’t believe that these impacted the overall accounting at the end of the periods
provided recovery was carried out correctly. The migration date (10" July 2010)
for the Birkinshaw Branch was well into the full rollout and the Branch was not
operating Horizon Online during the pilot between January and June.”
110.1 attended the Crown Court at Bradford on Monday 25" February 2013. It is my
recollection that Mr Bradshaw commented to the effect that he had spent a
significant amount of time towards the end of the previous week working through
the Addendum Defence Statement and the calls referred to. He informed me that
he had not discovered anything which could assist the Defence.
Page 28 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
111. It is also my recollection that Mr. Jenkins commented to the effect that the
Birkinshaw Sub Post Office Branch had not been affected by a bug. He did not
make me aware of the existence of any other bugs.
112.1 did not regard the comments made by Mr. Jenkins in respect of Mr. Ishaq’s
suggestion that the Horizon Online system would crash and freeze as
inconsistent with his statement of 15 January 2013 (FUJ00124229). It was
apparent that this was not an issue that fell outside the operating parameters of
the Horizon system given Mr. Jenkins’ belief that accounting would not have been
affected provided that the recovery measures built into the system had been
carried out correctly. Accordingly, I did not regard Mr. Jenkins’ comments as
disclosable.
113.At the request of Mark Ford I forwarded two emails to Mr. Jenkins
(FUJ00156747 and FUJ00154002) attaching the Defence Report and the
Opening Note in order that Mr. Jenkins could work through them.
114.1 understand that Mr. Jenkins produced a document “Comments on Defence
Expert’s Report” (FUJ00124337) and that he was subsequently involved in the
preparation of a Joint Statement of Beverley Ibbotson and Gareth Jenkins
(POL00059927).
115.1 do not recall being present at Court on 26'" February 2012 although is evident
from the Report of Mr Bradshaw (POL00046249) that Counsel for the Defence
became ill on 26" February 2013 and so the case was adjourned until 6 March
2013. It would appear that Mr. Ishaq pleaded guilty to theft on 7 March 2013.
116. Without sight of the Cartwright King file I am unable to comment on the
circumstances which resulted in the production of Mr. Jenkins statement of 6
March 2013 (POL000601 13).
Page 29 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
117. Mr. Ishaq was sentenced to a term of imprisonment on Monday 22 April 2013.
Simon Clarke of Cartwright King appeared for the Prosecution on that occasion,
Mr. Ford having been unable to attend.
118.1 have seen a copy of Mr. Ford's email of the same date (POL00060315) in
which he asked about the outcome and my response which contained the
phrase, “OIC etc very happy...”. The message which I had intended to convey
was that an unnecessary adjournment had been avoided by Mr Clarke being able
to stand in at the last minute for Mr Ford and that, so far as Post Office Ltd was
concerned, an appropriate sentence had been imposed.
119. Without sight of the file held by Cartwright King I cannot say whether the
prosecution or the counts on the indictment were reviewed.
120. Upon reading a draft copy of the Second Sight Interim Report I became aware
of the existence of bugs which had affected Horizon Online. I brought Mr. Ishaq’s
case to the attention of Simon Clarke. I had been unaware of the existence of
the bugs referred to and these would clearly have been disclosable in Mr. Ishaq’s
case. I also brought to the attention of Simon Clarke another statement which
Mr. Jenkins had made to the effect that there were sophisticated bug detection
systems and that several years previously there had been a bug in the previous
version of the Horizon system which had affected a single branch.
121.1 have read the Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Josephine Hamilton and
Others -v- Post Office Limited (2021) EWCA Crim 577 (POL00113278) and in
particular paragraphs 214 to 220.
122. It is evident that the investigation of Mr. Ishaq and the subsequent prosecution
had proceeded on the basis that the data generated by the Horizon system was
reliable. I had not been made aware that the Horizon data was not reliable.
Page 30 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
123.1 was very concerned to read that there had been in the region of 30 bugs,
errors and defects in the Horizon System and its successor, Horizon Online. It is
highly likely that this information would have affected my advice and at the very
least, have prompted me to ask further questions or that further investigations be
carried out.
124. I find it distressing that Mr. Ishaq served a term of imprisonment and would wish
to apologise to Mr. Ishaq for the distress that he has suffered. I am pleased that
his conviction has been quashed.
The Prosecutions of Grant Allen, Angela Sefton and Anne Nield
125.1 do not believe that I was involved in the prosecutions of Grant Allen, Angela
Sefton or Anne Nield.
General Information
126.1 have been asked to consider the email chain (POL00124770) and to explain
what I understood Rachel Panter to be discussing when she referred to ‘amnesty
articles’ in her email of 19" February 2013. I have no recollection of this
conversation and so am unable to comment further.
127.1 have been asked to consider the email which I received from Jarnail Singh of
10th December 2012 (POL00141478) and explain whether it was common, in my
experience, for the Post Office to refer to the ‘business or public interest’. I do
not recall the case to which this email relates. I note from the first sentence,
however, that John Scott appeared to have agreed with Counsel’s advice that it
was neither in the business interest or public interest to proceed with the
prosecution.
Page 31 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
128.1 have been asked to consider the email chain (POL00145149). I note that it
was first sent to Simon Clarke and myself during the evening of 34 July 2013 and
referred to a conference which had taken place earlier that day. This conference
had taken place at the offices of Post Office Ltd in London and a draft copy of
the Second Sight Interim Report had been discussed. I took notes of the advice
provided by Simon Clarke at the meeting but have not been provided with access
to them.
129. It would appear from the email chain that during the conference, Simon Clarke
advised regarding the disclosure of information relating to the B14 bug. It is also
evident from the email chain that, on 4 July 2013, Simon Clarke indicated he
would further consider the position once he had seen the information which we
expected to be forwarded to myself. Due to the passage of time, I am unable to
recall the nature of the information which we had expected to receive or, indeed,
whether we received it. If I did provide any advice, I anticipate that it would have
been provided only after I had first discussed the position with Simon Clarke.
130. It was during the meeting on 3% July 2013 that Simon Clarke advised Post
Office Ltd to hold a weekly conference call so as to establish a single central hub
into which all information relating to defects and bugs within the Horizon system
should be reported, thereby creating a single source of information which could
be reviewed for disclosure purposes.
131. During the first weekly conference call it was explained that although a central
record would be kept, minutes would not be circulated by email. A civil lawyer on
the call explained the rationale for this — he was concerned, on the basis of past
experience, that any emails would in turn be forwarded onto others whom, it may
be thought, might be able to provide some form of answer or opinion. Whilst such
Page 32 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
actions would be likely to be well intentioned, there was a substantial risk that
inaccurate information could be generated ‘and without the visibility of the
conference call, further disseminated to others. He was concerned that this, in
itself, would be unhelpful and be likely to lead to information, whether accurate
or otherwise, being retained within departments and not fed back to the weekly
call.
132. I considered the position in terms of the disclosure obligations placed on Post
Office Ltd as a prosecutor. Simon Clarke had advised Post Office Ltd to create a
single hub to record all Horizon-related information. An approach which
increased the risk that inaccurate information could be collated or which could
result in information being retained within departments without being fed back to
the conference call was undesirable. It was therefore essential in my view that,
as Simon Clarke had advised, a single central record should be established and
maintained with a view to making any disclosure exercise as straightforward as
possible.
133. Although I have not been provided with access to my notes and records, I
believe that it became apparent during the third weekly conference call that Post
Office Ltd was contemplating a change of approach. I was concerned that Post
Office Ltd would be in breach of its duty to record and retain information and I
pointed out during the call that a central record had to be kept.
134. I believe that it was around this time that I was informed by Jarnail Singh that
John Scott had voiced an intention to ‘shred’ the minutes which had been
prepared of the weekly conference calls. Jarnail Singh also informed me of his
concern that Post Office Ltd might suggest that Cartwright King had advised this
course of action. I brought this to the attention of Simon Clarke whilst also voicing
Page 33 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
my concerns that Post Office Ltd now appeared reluctant to properly document
the weekly Horizon conference calls. I understand that he prepared an urgent
written advice for Post Office Ltd.
Statement of Truth
I believe the contents of this statement to be true.
Dated: 21st November 2023
Page 34 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
Index to First Witness Statement of Martin Smith
No URN Document Description : Control Number
1. I POLO0122529 I Email from Rob King to Andy POL-0128766
Hayward of 25th June 2013
2. I POLO0122531 Email from Dave Posnett to Helen I POL-0128768
Dickinson of 25t June 2013
3. I POL00122860 Email of Andrew Wise of 20% POL-0129089
September 2013
4. I POLO0123006 Email of Rob King to Helen POL-0129230
Dickinson of 21% October 2013
5. I POLO0123099 I Email from Rob King to John Scott I POL-0129309
of 13!" November 2013
6. I POL00125113 I Email from Martin Smith to Jarnail
Singh of 16" October 2013 POL-0131107
7. I POLO0123190 I Email of Andy Hayward of 27" i
February 2014 POL-0129395
8. I POL00123191 ‘Raising Cases for Investigation’ POL-0129396
9. I POLO0139868 I Email of Jarnail Singh of 29" POL-0141044
August 2013
10.I POL00125068 I ‘Scottish Prosecution Process’ POL-0131074
11.] POL00129303 I Email of Dave Posnett of 15"
February 2013 POL-0135199
12.I POLO00129310 I Email of Dave Posnett of 22"¢ POL-0135204
March 2013
Page 35 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
13.I POLO0122518 I Email of Dave Posnett of 3% June
2013 POL-0128756
14.) POL00020489 I Email chain commencing 21% POL-0013681
August 2012
15.I FUJ00226331 Email chain commencing 1% POINQ0232448F
October 2012
16.I FUJ00226333 ‘Horizon Data Integrity’ ~~ I POINQ0232450F
17.I FUJ00226332 I ‘Horizon Online Data Integrity for I POINQ0232449F
Post Office Ltd’
18.I FUJ00153812 I Email of 4" October 2012 from I POINQ0160007F
Jarnail Singh to Gareth Jenkins
19.I FUJ00156655 Email chain commencing 5" POINQ0162849F
October 2012
20.I FUJ00124229 Statement of Gareth Jenkins of POINQ0130443F
15% January 2013
21.I POL00141471 I Email chain commencing 26" POL-0142856
November 2012
22.I POL00056292 I Audit Report dated 31° March POL-0052771
2011
23.I POLO0056532 I Record of Taped Interview POL-0053011
conducted on 20" April 2011
24.IPOL00044505 I Record of Taped Interview POL-0040984
conducted on 20 April 2011
25.I POLO00046625 I Record of Taped Interview POL-0043104
conducted on 20¢ April 2011
Page 36 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
26.I POL00056478 I Investigation Report dated 5 May I POL-0052957
2011
27.I POL00046626 I Memo of Jarnail Singh of 17 June I POL-0043105 I
2011
28.I POLO0046628 I Memo of Graham Brander to POL-0043107
Jarnail Singh of 9'" December
2011
29.I POL00057026 I Statement of Mr. Nigel Allen of POL-0053505
224 September 2011
30.I POLO0056955 I Statement of Mr. Adam Shaw of POL-0053434
20" September 2011
31.I POL00057245 =I Statement of 24" November 2011 I POL-0053724
of Louise Sheridan
32./ POL00044534 I Witness Statement - Louise
Sheridan POL-0041013
33.I POLO0054806 I Exhibit LS/1 Log of calls between
4st June 2010 and 5" April 2011 POL-0051285
34.I POL00056659 I Statement of Mr. Andrew Dunks of I POL-0053138
12% July 2011
35.I POL00046047 I Exhibit APD01 Summary of calls to
Horizon service Desk POL-0042526
36.I POLO0057001 Statement of David Dixon of 22"4 POL-0053480
September 2011
37.I POL00044535 =I Statement of Graham Brander of POL-0041014
25th November 2011
(Page 1 Missing)
Page 37 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
38.I POL00057362 I Advice of Martin Smith of 4 POL-0053841
January 2012 and draft charge for
an alleged offence of fraud
39.I POLO0057515 I Letter to the Clerk to the Justices POL-0053994
at Portsmouth Magistrates Court of
14% March 2012
40.I POLO0057607 =I Email chain commencing 10" April I POL-0054086
2012
41.I POL00057796 I Letter to Messrs. Coomber Rich
Solicitors of 22"4 May 2012 POL-0054275
42.I POLO0057990 I Email of Robert Booker of 6" June I POL-0054469
2012
43.I POL00058142 I Email of Rachel Panter of 30 July I POL-0054621
2012
44.I POL00058132 I Attendance Note of Will Martin of POL-0054611
Counsel of 30 July 2012
45.I POLO0046095 I Further count drafted by Will Martin I POL-0042574
of Counsel.
46.I POLO0046096 I Basis of Plea signed by Mrs. POL-0042575
Hutchings
47.I POLO0058240 I Email of Will Martin of 24" August I POL-0054719
2012
48.I POL00113278 I Judgement of the Court of Appeal
in Josephine Hamilton & Others v
POL-0110657
Page 38 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
Post Office Ltd (2021 EWCA Crim
577)
49.} POL00046224 I Investigation Report of 13 May POL-0042703
2011
50.I POL00046349 I Record of Taped Interview
conducted on 7* April 2011 POL-0042828
51.I POL00045133 =I Record of Taped Interview
conducted on 7* April 2011 POL-0041612
52.I POL00046228 I Memo of Rob Wilson of 18" May POL-0042707
2011
53.I POLO0056600 I Memo of Rob Wilson of 5 July POL-0053079
2011
54.I POLO0056596 I Memo of Rob Wilson of 5" July POL-0053075
2011
55.I POLO0057985 I Record of Taped Interview of 27"
September 2011 POL-0054464
56.I POL00057078 _I Investigation Report of 3% October I POL-0053557
2011
57.) POL00046235 I Memo of Rob Wilson of 11"* POL-0042714
October 2011
58.I POL00057543 ~_I Advice of Martin Smith and Draft
Charge of 23 March 2012 POL-0054022
59.I POL00119429 I Email of Martin Smith of 3¢ May I POL-0119348
2012 to Steve Bradshaw
Page 39 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
60.I POL00119452 Email of Martin Smith of 31*May I POL-01 19371
2012 to Steve Bradshaw
61.I UKGI00001432 I Email chain commencing 26" July I UKGI012246-001
2012
62.I UKGI00018903 I Brief for the Prosecution VIS00012302
63./ POL00046244 I Letter of 29" August 2012 from POL-0042723
Messrs Musa Patels Solicitors
64.I POL00059602 I ‘Comments on IshaqDCS’
POL-0056081
65.I POL00046242 I Email of Martin Smith of 3% POL-0042721
September 2012
66.I POL00046243 I Email of Martin Smith of 5% -POL-0042722
September 2012
67.I POL00045134 I Undated Advice on Evidence of POL-0041613
Rachel Panter
68.I FUJ00153919 Email of Rachel Panter of 7" POINQ0160114F
January 2013
69.I POL00127677 Email from Martin Smith to Steve POL-0134106
Bradshaw of 15" January 2013
70.I POLO0059517 =I Letter of 234 January 2023 to
Musa Patels Solicitors POL-0055996
71.I POL00089427 I Email chain commencing 31°
January 2013
POL-0086402
Page 40 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
72.; POLO0119432 I Email of 1 February 2013 from POL-0119351
Arfaq Nabi to Martin Smith
73.I POLO0119431 Email of Martin Smith of 4"
February 2013 POL-0119350
74.I UKGI00018011 I Letter from Cartwright King to Mr UKGI028018-001
Mark Ford re PO Ltd v Khayyam
Ishaq Bradford Crown Court
enclosing witness statements and
exhibits, dated 4 February 2013
75.I POLO0046264 I Statement of Stephen Bradshaw of
27" January 2013 POL-0042743
76.I POLO0059592 I Statement of Stephen Bradshaw of
31S January 2013 POL-0056071
77.I POLOO059652 =I Email of Martin Smith of 6” POL-0056131
February 2013
78.I POLO0059686 I Statement of Stephen Bradshaw of I POL-0056165
411" February 2013
79.I POLO0046278 I Addendum Defence Case POL-0042757
Statement dated 20" February
2013
80.I POL00059874 I ‘Comments on Ishaq DCS POL-0056353
Addendum’
81.I FUJ00156747 =I Email from Martin Smith to Gareth I POINQ0162941F
Jenkins of 25" February 2013
Page 41 of 42
WITNO9680100
WITNO09680100
82.I FUJ00154002 Email from Martin Smith to Gareth I POINQ0160197F
Jenkins of 25" February 2013
83.I FUJ00124337 ‘Comments on Defence Expert's POINQ0130551F
Report’
84.I POLO0059927 I Joint Statement of Beverley POL-0056406
Ibbotson and Gareth Jenkins of
26' February 2013
85.I POL00046249 Report of Mr Bradshaw of 21* April
2013 POL-0042728
86.I POL00060113 I Mr. Jenkins statement of 6" March I POL-0056592
2013
87.I POL00060315 I Email of Mark Ford of 22™ April
2013 POL-0056794
88.I POL00124770 I Email chain commencing 31* POL-0131604
January 2013
~89.I POL00141478 I Email of Jarnail Singh of 10% POL-0142863 I
December 2012
90.I POL00145149 =I Email chain commencing 1* July
2013
POL-BSFF-
0004276
Page 42 of 42