WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
Witness Name: Peter James Sewell
Statement No.: WITN09710100
Dated: 8 September 2023
POST OFFICE HORIZON IT INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF PETER JAMES SEWELL
I, MR PETER JAMES SEWELL, will say as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a former employee of Fujitsu Services Limited (“Fujitsu”), having left
the company in November 2009.
2. This witness statement is made to assist the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(the “Inquiry”) with the matters put to me in a Rule 9 Request dated 26 July
2023 (the “Request’), to the extent I have or had direct knowledge of such
matters.
3. The topics covered by the Request concern events that occurred over 13
years ago and relate to audit data from the Horizon IT system (“Horizon”)
and audit queries (also known as audit retrieval queries or “ARQs’”). I have
tried to remember these matters to assist the Inquiry as much as possible,
however, due to the time that has passed, my recollection is limited. For this
reason, the content of my witness statement focuses largely on the
Page 1 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
documents that the Inquiry has referred me to in the Request, which I have
referenced below using the Inquiry’s Unique Reference Numbers.
4. ! was assisted in preparing this statement by Morrison Foerster, the
recognised legal representatives for Fujitsu in the Inquiry.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
5. I joined ICL in 1990. In late 1997, I first joined ICL’s Post Office Account team
(‘POA’) as a Project Manager working on various tasks. These included
managing a development team who wrote the code for auto configuration
whereby a counter PC was switched on and introduced to the estate,
managing a third-party supplier who developed the roll out program, and
managing a development team to provide a training facility on the counter. I
would also interview staff applying for jobs on the Horizon project. My
manager at the time was Dick Long.
6. In 2002, I joined the POA security team in a similar capacity as a Project
Manager. My work in this role included writing an anti-virus implementation
procedure via a change proposal to make it ready to introduce to the live
estate. I was also responsible for sample testing the pin pads prior to release
to the outlets and maintaining a record of units tested and the test results. I
provided support to the security manager, Bill Mitchell, who was later
replaced by Brian Pinder.
7. During 2007, the security team was split into policy and operations teams,
both reporting to a new security manager, Howard Pritchard. At this point I
had the role of Operations Team Manager. My responsibilities were
Page 2 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
managerial in nature, namely business as usual tasks and supporting Mr
Pritchard.
8. A summary of my professional background, including a summary of my
qualifications and career (prior to joining Fujitsu) is set out below.
Organisation Qualification or Role(s) Period
Southend Municipal College I O Levels 1970
Carreras Rothmans Computer Operator 1970-1978
Computer Programmer
Ford Motor Company Computer Programmer 1978-1980
Southend Borough Council I Senior Programmer 1980-1990
Development Manager
BACKGROUND
9. The Inquiry has asked me to set out the role I had in relation to each of the
following matters in connection with Horizon, both in its first iteration (known
as “Legacy Horizon’) and the second iteration (known as “HNGx’):
a. Post Office Limited (“POL”) disciplinary matters;
b. matters relating to those accused of criminal offences;
c. matters relating to criminal or civil proceedings;
d. witness evidence in any proceedings; or
e. the extraction of audit data.
10. In responding to this question and setting out my role, the Inquiry has
referred me to the following documents,
Page 3 of 18
which
have reviewed:
11.
12.
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
FUJ00122130, FUJ00122131, FUJ00122134, FUJ00122151,
FUJ00122152, FUJ00122153, FUJ00122154, FUJ00122189,
FUJ00122190, FUJ00122197, FUJ00122198, FUJ00122203,
FUJ00122204, FUJ00122217 and FUJ00122218.
I did not have a role in relation to the matters listed in subparagraphs 9(a)-
(d) above. In relation to subparagraph 9(e), in 2007, I became the Operations
Team Manager within the security team (as noted above), overseeing
Penelope (Penny) Thomas, Andy Dunks and Neneh Lowther. My
responsibilities were managerial only. Ms Thomas was a specialist in ARQs
and reported to me, which included providing weekly updates regarding
outstanding ARQs and court dates. However, I did not have a personal role
in relation to the extraction of audit data (i.e., I did not perform ARQs myself).
The Inquiry has also asked me to set out the nature of my working
relationship with Gareth Jenkins, Penny Thomas and Anne Chambers and
to detail what I understood to be their roles in respect of matters relating to
the provision of evidence in court proceedings. I have set this out below.
a. Gareth Jenkins was an “Applications TDA (Technical Design Authority)”;
he provided the security team (mainly Ms Thomas) with technical advice
and guidance and provided evidence in court.
b. Penny Thomas was in litigation support, providing POL with ARQ data.
Ms Thomas was an ARQ specialist and a member of the security team.
c. Anne Chambers was a technical designer who worked in the Software
Support Centre (“SSC”). Mrs Chambers provided the security team
Page 4 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
(mainly Ms Thomas) with technical support advice and guidance and
provided evidence in court.
RELATIONSHIP WITH POL
13. The Inquiry has asked me to describe any circumstances in which I would
have contact with POL in relation to issues concerning Horizon, including the
relevant contacts and the nature of my relationship.
14. I had contact with Sue Lowther, the POL Security Manager. I had detailed
knowledge of the Horizon project, including the relevant people, their roles,
and where to find information, and so would attend security meetings
between managers, Bill Mitchell (later, Brian Pinder) in the POA security
team and the POL security team on a monthly basis to provide support.
15. I liaised with Alan Simpson at POL to review incident management, mainly
of counter down time. I worked directly with the POA customer service team
and so could provide Mr Simpson with information on the counters.
16. I was also in contact with Graham Ward at POL, and his manager Dave
Posnett. Mr Ward was the Casework Manager who requested ARQs and Mr
Posnett was the Fraud and Risk Manager. Mr Ward liaised directly with Ms
Thomas on ARQ matters, and he regularly visited ICL’s Feltham and then
Bracknell offices to meet with Ms Thomas. When I became the Operations
Team Manager in the security team, I wanted to meet the POL team and I
believe Ms Thomas and I had at least two meetings with Mr Ward and Mr
Posnett. I do not recall discussing the specifics of ARQ data with Mr Ward or
Mr Posnett; while I was Operations Team Manager, Mr Ward continued to
liaise with Ms Thomas in relation to this.
Page 5 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
ARQ DATA FROM HORIZON AND THE PROSECUTION SUPPORT SERVICE
17. I The Inquiry has asked me to set out my recollection as to the process for
providing audit data to POL and explain the structure and function of Fujitsu’s
Prosecution Support Service and my role in relation to the service. The
Inquiry has also referred me to FUJ00155212, FUJ00155214 and
FUJ00155413, which I have reviewed.
18. I recall that Fujitsu had contractual requirements with respect to the provision
of audit data, which included:
a. the retrieval and analysis of archived Riposte message store data,
including event logs, and calls to the Horizon Helpdesk;
b. responding to ARQ requests from POL for Horizon branch transaction
data and the retrieval of event logs and Horizon Helpdesk calls; and
c. providing witness statements and attending court when requested to
support the ARQ data supplied.
19. I did not have a direct role in relation to the provision of ARQ data to POL,
however, as noted above at paragraph 11, I was Ms Thomas’ line manager
in 2007. Ms Thomas was the security team member primarily responsible for
the provision of ARQ data to POL.
20. I do not know if the processes described above varied in relation to Legacy
Horizon and HNGx.
21. — In relation to the structure and function of the Prosecution Support Service,
there was one security team member who primarily provided this service with
Page 6 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
another team member to provide back-up support when needed. These two
security team members would respond to ARQ requests from the POL
Casework Manager and carry out data extractions from audit files. This data
was then sent securely to POL via a CD-ROM.
22. The technical support for this role was primarily Gareth Jenkins, with the help
of various technical support staff within the Horizon technical teams,
including the SSC.
ARQ PROCESS ISSUES
The incident at Craigpark and the “ARQ Service Issue”
23. The Inquiry has asked me for a detailed account of (i) an incident that
occurred at the Craigpark Post Office branch (FAD code 141832)
(‘Craigpark”) and how it related to the ARQ process and the reliability of
data, (ii) the approach to witness evidence that followed the issue at
Craigpark, and (iii) a certain issue or issues regarding ARQ data variously
referred to as an “ARQ Service Problem”, “ARQ Service Issue”, “Prosecution
Support Urgent Issue” and a “Security Incident” in the 2008/early 2009 period
(‘ARQ Service Issue”). In responding to these questions, I have reviewed
the following documents as referenced in the Request: FUJ00154823,
FUJ00154824, FUJ00154841, FUJ00154842, FUJ00155455,
FUJ00155448, FUJ00155474, FUJ00155476, FUJ00155478,
FUJ00155492, FUJ00155498, FUJ00155456, FUJ00155231,
FUJ00155232, FUJ00155263, FUJ00155271, FUJ00155272,
FUJ00155274, FUJ00155276, FUJ00154828, FUJ00155278,
FUJ00155397, FUJ00155367, FUJ00155402, FUJ00155371,
FUJ00155373, FUJ00155257, FUJ00155265, FUJ00155268,
Page 7 of 18
24.
25.
26.
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
FUJ00155270, FUJ00155409, FUJ00155412, FUJ00155421,
FUJ00155422, FUJ00154833, FUJ00154835, FUJ00155241,
FUJ00155242, FUJ00155371, FUJ00155378, FUJ00155385,
FUJ00155386, FUJ00155387, FUJ00155388, FUJ00155389,
FUJ00155391, FUJ00155392, FUJ00155390, FUJ00155394,
FUJ00155399, FUJ00155400 and FUJ00122604.
The ARQ Service Issue was related to the incident at Craigpark. The incident
at Craigpark concerned an event log issue that highlighted errors with the
End of Day (“EOD”) process which caused some transactions to freeze and
create an event error. The issue identified at Craigpark raised questions
regarding the integrity of data supplied to POL as part of the ARQ service.
Having reviewed contemporaneous records regarding the incident at
Craigpark (for example, FUJ00155397), I recall that the issue was identified
following a detailed technical investigation by Fujitsu technical staff, who
found out that transactions running during the EOD process had caused a
lock in processing and a Riposte error event was written to the event log. It
was identified that this problem had been caused by a previous bug fix, which
was introduced into Legacy Horizon’s live estate in May 2007. Whilst this
investigation was running, a manual exercise was carried out to examine the
event log data from ARQ data associated within the dates of May 2007 and
November 2008.
I became aware of the issue when error events were discovered whilst
examining event data during an ARQ extraction for Craigpark. There were
several meetings and discussions between Mr Jenkins, Mrs Chambers and
Page 8 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
Ms Thomas, and other managers and support staff. I was usually invited to
these meetings; however, my input was very limited as I did not always
understand the technical details in relation to the ARQ extraction. As
manager, my objective was to find out what went wrong and identify the
appropriate individuals to resolve the issue. The task of resolving any issues
were left to the technical staff, including those I have named above. There
were many meetings that took place to find a resolution to the problem; these
were mainly between the technical staff. I cannot recall who attended these
meetings, but I believe some of the meetings were documented.
When the error was identified, it raised questions regarding the integrity of
ARQ data previously supplied to POL. Previous ARQ data was analysed and
events stripped out to check other event errors. A change proposal was then
raised by Alan Holmes to incorporate this manual process of performing
additional counter event checks into the ARQ service to enable analysis of
counter event messages (as shown in FUJ00155272) and check for any
other event errors. As the change proposal concerned the security team’s
function, it required a sponsor/owner from the security team, and I was made
sponsor for this particular change proposal. As sponsor of the change
proposal, I was invited to meetings to discuss the wording of the change
proposal, but again my input was very limited as I lacked the technical
knowledge. The meetings were run by Mr Holmes, and individuals like Ms
Thomas and possibly Mr Jenkins would have been present. The change
proposal was enhanced to incorporate the manual process into the ARQ
application and remove manual intervention in the ARQ process for the
HNGx solution. Once the analysis of the problem was completed, Fujitsu’s
Page 9 of 18
28.
29.
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
senior manager of the POA customer service team, Steve Denham, was
given a presentation of the change proposal and why it was being raised.
Once the change proposal was approved, the work on implementing the
changes could begin and changes to the HNGx ARQ application could be
introduced. I do not recall any discussions regarding POL’s likely reaction to
the proposed changes.
Following the discovery of the additional event error (noted above at
paragraph 25), there was discussion over amending the wording of the
witness statements provided by Fujitsu to POL to include the additional
checks. There were several meetings (some of which I was present at), and
emails exchanged on how to make these changes. From reviewing the
documents provided to me by the Inquiry, it looks like no substantial changes
were made to the witness statement to reflect the changes to the ARQ
service. There may have been smaller revisions made to the witness
statement, but I do not have any recollection of this.
I! believe POL were informed of the ARQ Service Issue and the change
proposal once the full impact of the potential problem was established. In
relation to POL’s involvement in investigations relating to the issue, there
were emails exchanged between Fujitsu and POL discussing the problem.
The problem was recognised as sensitive as the event errors raised
questions regarding the integrity of ARQs. I believe the POL legal team were
also consulted and they reviewed the situation with the POL management
team to provide their input. There was a change in the approach taken to
reviewing event errors related to cases being pursued by POL when this
Page 10 of 18
30.
31.
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
issue arose, and the manual process was introduced and continued to be
run to check event logs for potential problems. POL requested that Fujitsu
process the outstanding cases and complete the event analysis as soon as
possible. Both POL and Fujitsu staff worked together to agree on a workable
solution due to the sensitive nature of the problem.
Senior management from Fujitsu and POL were involved and kept up to date
with progress. Fujitsu senior management communicated with POL senior
management on the matter, and both were constructive to agree a solution.
I believe Fujitsu and POL senior management were concerned with ensuring
that the necessary checks were carried out on the ARQ data retrospectively
once the issue had been identified. In turn, they were concerned with getting
the change proposal approved so that the new changes could be
incorporated into HNGx code.
In relation to the resolution of the issue, the fix for the software issue relating
to the EOD process was delivered to the live estate in October 2008. The
issue of manually analysing event logs was replaced by introducing this
automatically into the application for the HNGx solution once the change
proposal was approved and the additional filtering was introduced in the
retrieval application. The tactical solution would have to continue during the
lifetime of the Legacy Horizon audit system. As can be seen from
FUJ00155476, the change proposal was finalised and approved on 31
March 2009.
Page 11 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
My handover
32. The Inquiry has asked me to set out any handover or discussions of ongoing
work I recall having with Andy Dunks or others following my move to another
role. In doing so, I have reviewed FUJ00155498 and FUJ00155507 as
referenced in the Request. I recall speaking with Mr Dunks about him
continuing the meetings with Mr Simpson regarding incident management.
These meeting were mainly based on reviewing lost time on the counters.
There were no other handovers made and I retired after this in November
2009.
GENERAL
33. I There are no other matters that I would like to draw to the attention of the
Chair of the Inquiry.
Statement of Truth
I believe the content of this statement to be true.
Dated: 8 September 2023
Page 12 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
INDEX TO THE FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF PETER JAMES SEWELL
Exhibit
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
Email from Penny Thomas to Gareth
Jenkins and Neneh Lowther with
subject ‘CS Witness Statement
Amendment’, dated 24 November
2005.
FUJ00122130
POINQ0128344F
Witness statement of Gareth Jenkins
dated 3 October 2005.
FUJ00122131
POINQ0128345F
Email from Gareth Jenkins to Penny
Thomas, Neneh Lowther with subject
‘Re: CS Witness Statement’, dated
28 November 2005.
FUJ00122134
POINQ0128348F
Email from Penny Thomas to Peter
Sewell and Gareth Jenkins with
subject ‘Re: Witness Statement
Review’ dated 7 December 2005.
FUJ00122151
POINQ0128365F
Undated witness statement of
Penelope Anne Thomas
FUJ00122152
POINQ0128366F
Email from Penny Thomas to Peter
Sewell and Gareth Jenkins with
subject ‘Re: Witness Statement
Review’, dated 7 December 2005.
FUJ00122153
POINQ0128367F
Undated witness statement of
Penelope Anne Thomas
FUJ00122154
POINQ0128368F
Email from Brian Pinder to Andy
Dunks and Peter Sewell with subject
‘Gaerwen Witness Statement’, dated
22 March 2006.
FUJ00122189
POINQ0128403F
Witness Statement of William Leslie
Mitchell, dated 22 March 2006.
FUJ00122190
POINQ0128404F
10.
Email chain last dated 23 March
2006 between Neneh Lowther,
Gareth Jenkins, Penny Thomas,
Graham Ward and Brian Pinder with
subject ‘Re: Gaerwen’.
FUJ00122197
POINQ0128411F
11.
Witness Statement of Gareth Jenkins
dated 23 March 2006.
FUJ00122198
POINQ0128412F
12.
Email from Gareth Jenkins to Neneh
Lowther and Brian Pinder with
subject ‘Re: Gaerwen’ dated 23
March 2006.
FUJ00122203
POINQ0128417F
13.
Witness statement of Gareth Jenkins
dated 23 March 2006.
FUJ00122204
POINQ0128418F
14.
Email from Gareth Jenkins to
Graham Ward and Neneh Lowther
FUJ00122217
POINQ0128431F
Page 13 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
Exhibit
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
with subject ‘Re: Gaerwen’ dated 28
March 2006.
15.
Witness statement of Gareth Jenkins
dated 24 March 2006.
FUJ00122218
POINQ0128432F
16.
Email dated 22 January 2008 from
RMGA Document Management to
multiple individuals with subject
‘Horizon Document for Review:
RS/PRO/049 — V0.2 — Horizon Event
Logging Process for Operational
Security’.
FUJ00155212
POINQ0161406F
17.
Horizon Event Logging Process for
Operational Security - RS/PRO/049 -
version 0.2 dated 22 January 2008.
FUJ00155214
POINQ0161408F
18.
Horizon Event Logging Process for
Operational Security - RS/PRO/049 -
version 0.3, dated 3 February 2009.
FUJ00155413
POINQ0161607F
19.
Email chain last dated 14 August
2008 between Penny Thomas,
Gareth Jenkins, Alan Holmes and
others with subject ‘Branch 141832
Craigpark’.
FUJ00154823
POINQ0161018F
20.
Record of meeting dated 13 August
2008.
FUJ00154824
POINQ0161019F
21.
HNG-X Change Proposal No. 4867
dated 26 February 2009.
FUJ00154841
POINQ0161036F
22.
Email chain last dated 20 April 2009
between Gerald Barnes, Gareth
Jenkins, Anne Chambers and Penny
Thomas with subject ‘ARQ 023
241007 LPD 6 May 09 (and possible
filter change)’.
FUJ00154842
POINQ0161037F
23.
Excel document with filename ‘HNG-
X CP Impact Web Dump 0336.
FUJ00155455
POINQ0161649F
24.
Email from Diane Tribe to the RMGA
Change Management mailbox with
subject ‘HNG-X CP0336 (PVCS
4867) - Impact Web Dump’, dated 24
March 2009.
FUJ00155448
POINQ0161642F
25.
HNG-X Change Proposal - HNG-X
No. 4867 dated 26 February 2009.
FUJ00155474
POINQ0161668F
26.
Royal Mail Group Account Change
Management Change Control Board,
Meeting Number 530 dated 31 March
2009.
FUJ00155476
POINQ0161670F
Page 14 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
Exhibit
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
27.
HNG-X Change Proposal No. 4867-
dated 26 February 2009.
FUJ00155478
POINQ0161672F
28.
Email from David Hinde to George
Zolkiewka copying Graham Allen and
others with subject ‘Urgent - FOR
IMPACT - HNG-X CP0336 (Release:
HNG-X) - Enable analysis of Counter
event messages within the HNG-X
Audit solution’, dated 26 August
2009.
FUJ00155492
POINQ0161686F
29.
Email from George Zolkiewka to
RMGA Change Management and
David Hinde with subject ‘HNG-X
CP0336 (Release: HNG-X) - Enable
analysis of Counter event messages
within the HNG-X Audit solution’,
dated 13 October 2009.
FUJ00155498
POINQ0161692F
30.
Email from David Hinde to RMGA
Change Management, Peter Sewell
and Penny Thomas with subject
‘CP0336 - Enable analysis of
Counter event messages within the
HNG-X Audit solution’, dated 24
March 2009.
FUJ00155456
POINQ0161650F
31.
Email chain last dated 12 August
2008 between Penny Thomas, Alan
Holmes, Peter Sewell and others with
subject ‘Branch 141832 Craigpark’.
FUJ00155231
POINQ0161425F
32.
Email chain last dated 12 August
2008 from Peter Sewell to Gareth
Jenkins with subject ‘Branch 141832
Craigpark’.
FUJ00155232
POINQ0161426F
33.
Email from Anne Chambers to Penny
Thomas dated 16 September 2008
with subject ‘Riposte Timeout waiting
for lock events’.
FUJ00155263
POINQ0161457F
34.
Email from Alan Holmes to Peter
Sewell, Roy Birkinshaw and Gareth
Jenkins with subject ‘Counter Audit
CP’, dated 13 October 2008.
FUJ00155271
POINQ0161465F
35.
HNG-X Change Proposal dated 13
October 2008.
FUJ00155272
POINQ0161466F
36.
Email chain last dated 15 October
2008 between Gareth Jenkins,
Penny Thomas and others with
subject ‘Counter Audit CP’.
FUJ00155274
POINQ0161468F
Page 15 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
Exhibit
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
37.
Email from Alan Holmes to Steve
Evans, Penny Thomas, Gareth
Jenkins and others withy subject ‘RE:
AUDIT - CP update’, dated 20
October 2008.
FUJ00155276
POINQ0161470F
38.
HNG-X Change Proposal dated 20
October 2008.
FUJ00154828
POINQ0161023F
39.
Meeting invite scheduled for 24
October 2008 with subject ‘Updated:
Audit CP — Words’.
FUJ00155278
POINQ0161472F
40.
Email chain last dated 23 December
2008 between Graham Allen, Steve
Evans, Peter Sewell, Alan Holmes,
Penny Thomas, Gareth Jenkins with
subject ‘Audit and PC0152376’.
FUJ00155397
POINQ0161591F
a.
Email chain last dated 12 November
2008 between Steve Evans, Penny
Thomas, Peter Sewell and others
with subject ‘RE: Audit Strengthening
CP - Words for Review’.
FUJ00155367
POINQ0161561F
42.
Email from Steve Evans to Gerald
Barnes with subject ‘Audit Issue’,
dated 8 January 2009.
FUJ00155402
POINQ0161596F
43.
Meeting invitation scheduled for 26
November 2008 with subject
‘Updated: Audit Strengthening CP
Review/Refresh’.
FUJ00155371
POINQ0161565F
44,
Email from Penny Thomas to Peter
Sewell with subject ‘ARQ Service’,
dated 1 December 2008.
FUJ00155373
POINQ0161567F
45.
Email from Roy Birkinshaw to Penny
Thomas, Peter Sewell, Alan Holmes
and others dated 5 September 2008
with subject ‘Recent Exercise to
review Audit in Horizon’.
FUJ00155257
POINQ0161451F
46.
Email from Penny Thomas to Peter
Sewell dated 18 September 2008
with subject ‘whether to check event
errors for cases outside of advice’.
FUJ00155265
POINQ0161459F
47.
Email from Gareth Jenkins to Peter
Sewell and Penny Thomas with
subject ‘Checking ARQ Events’,
dated 8 October 2008.
FUJ00155268
POINQ0161462F
48.
Email from Penny Thomas to Peter
Sewell with subject ‘Checking ARQ
events’ dated 13 October 2008.
FUJ00155270
POINQ0161464F
Page 16 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
Exhibit
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
49.
Email from Penny Thomas to Steve
Denham, Howard Pritchard, Peter
Sewell with subject ‘Outlet Checking
List - Audit Issue’, dated 27 January
2009.
FUJ00155409
POINQ0161603F
50.
Email chain last dated 3 February
2009 between Anne Chambers,
Penny Thomas and others with
subject ‘Outlet Checking List - Audit
Issue’.
FUJ00155412
POINQ0161606F
51.
Email from Penny Thomas to Steve
Denham, Peter Sewell with subject
‘Security Incident’, dated 4 February
2009.
FUJ00155421
POINQ0161615F
52.
Email from Penny Thomas to Steve
Denham with subject ‘Outlet
Checking List - Audit Issue’, dated 4
February 2009.
FUJ00155422
POINQ0161616F
53.
Email chain last dated 15 December
2008 from Penny Thomas to Graham
Allen, David Hinde, Adam Cousins
and others with subject ‘Proposed
Slides for ARQ Service Issue’.
FUJ00154833
POINQ0161028F
54.
PowerPoint presentation titled
‘Prosecution Support Urgent Issue’
FUJ00154835
POINQ0161030F
55.
Email chain last dated 28 August
2008 between Gareth Jenkins, Roy
Birkinshaw and David Johns with
subject ‘Potential Audit Issue.doc’.
FUJ00155241
POINQ0161435F
56.
Document titled ‘Potential Audit Issue
— Horizon’.
FUJ00155242
POINQ0161436F
57.
Email chain last dated 4 December
2008 between Penny Thomas,
Howard Pritchard and Peter Sewell
with subject ‘ARQ Service problem’.
FUJ00155378
POINQ0161572F
58.
Email from Penny Thomas to David
Hinde, Graham Allen and others with
subject ‘Proposed Slides for ARQ
Service Issue’, dated 11 December
2008.
FUJ00155385
POINQ0161579F
59.
PowerPoint presentation titled
‘Prosecution Support - Urgent Issue’.
FUJ00155386
POINQ0161580F
60.
Email from Penny Thomas to
Graham Allen, David Hinde and
others with subject ‘Proposed Slides
for ARQ Service Issues’.
FUJ00155387
POINQ0161581F
Page 17 of 18
WITNO9710100
WITNO9710100
Exhibit
No.
Document Description
URN
Control Number
61.
PowerPoint presentation titled
‘Prosecution Support Urgent Issue
slide presentation’.
FUJ00155388
POINQ0161582F
62.
Email from Penny Thomas to
Graham Allen, Adam Cousins, Steve
Evans and others with subject ‘New
Witness Statement Request
Support’, dated 16 December 2008.
FUJ00155389
POINQ0161583F
63.
Email from Penny Thomas to Steve
Evans, Graham Allen and others with
subject ‘New Witness Statement
Request Support’, dated 16
December 2008.
FUJ00155391
POINQ0161585F
64.
Email from Steve Denham to
Graham Allen, Adam Cousins, Steve
Evans and others ‘Re: Updated: ARQ
Service issue - Meeting invite’, dated
17 December 2008.
FUJ00155392
POINQ0161586F
65.
Excel document with filename ‘New
Witness Statement Request Support
11122008No3’
FUJ00155390
POINQ0161584F
66.
Email from Peter Sewell to David
Hinde, Penny Thomas, Adam
Cousins, Graham Allen, Steve
Evans, Alan Holmes, Howard
Pritchard, Steve Denham with
subject ‘Proposed slides for ARQ
service Issue’ dated 19 December
2008.
FUJ00155394
POINQ0161588F
67.
Email from Penny Thomas to Dave
Posnett with subject ‘Security
Incident’, dated 7 January 2009.
FUJ00155399
POINQ0161593F
68.
Email from Penny Thomas to Howard
Pritchard, Wendy Warham and Steve
Denham with subject ‘Security
Incident’, dated 8 January 2009.
FUJ00155400
POINQ0161594F
69.
Draft witness statement dated 2008.
FUJ00122604
POINQ0128818F
70.
Email from Andy Dunks to Peter
Sewell with subject ‘Transfer of
information’, dated 23 November
2009.
FUJ00155507
POINQ0161701F
Page 18 of 18