other and then sent to jail. what other stories can you tell us to describe exactly what real impact this has had on people's lives and the mental health? the inquiry is broken up into stages. we have already had one whole section of the inquiry which was all about the human impact on the sub—postmaster is of this entire process. the testimony is in place is harrowing. you're talking about people losing their homes, their livelihoods, their pensions. frankly, their reason for getting up in the morning. we have heard evidence of families where it is alleged that people have taken their own lives in relation to this scandal. so it is hard to overstate the impact that this has had on people. that has come out very forcefully in this inquiry so far. as i say, some of those people will

be there in the inquiry room, listening to this investigator. we should reiterate, he isjust one of several investigators, stephen bradshaw, but he is being called a significant witness by this inquiry. in terms of what else we are going to be hearing about, there is going to be hearing about, there is going to be hearing about, there is going to be a very important week next week when we hear from fujitsu. to be a very important week next week when we hearfrom fujitsu. that is the company that was responsible for designing and implementing this horizon it system. there will be executives giving evidence. that will be incredibly important because, clearly, there has been a lot of questioning aboutjust how accountable is this company now for what has been going on? is there possibly... some people have been calling for financial sanctions against the company. and there have been, you know, a lot of questions about what fujitsu knew about the system. frankly, just how open, how honest some people are questioning,

about what they knew about the bugs, the flaws in the horizon system. next week, at the inquiry it is going to be incredibly important in terms of helping us to get a better understanding of who knew what and why this has dragged on for more than two decades. you mentioned fu'itsu than two decades. you mentioned fuiitsu there- _ than two decades. you mentioned fujitsu there. the _ than two decades. you mentioned fujitsu there. the government - than two decades. you mentioned| fujitsu there. the government has been pressed about contracts with this company in light of what has happened in this scandal. what is their response been? are they taking any action to review their relationship with fujitsu? figs any action to review their relationship with fujitsu? relationship with fu'itsu? as you sa , relationship with fu'itsu? as you say. there h relationship with fu'itsu? as you say. there _ relationship with fujitsu? as you say, there are contracts - relationship with fujitsu? as you say, there are contracts that - relationship with fujitsu? as you | say, there are contracts that have been given out across whitehall to fujitsu. the government is under a huge amount of pressure to look at reviewing the contracts going forward. i think that we are going to be hearing over the next few

days, particularly in the light of this evidence from fujitsu, about exactly what the government proposes to do. but we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds worth of contracts in several government departments. fujitsu has a very big footprint when it comes to public service delivery. just to remind you, the horizon system was first given the go—ahead under tony blair's government back in 1999. that is how long this has been going on for. but we will be hearing a lot more about that next week. lets focus now _ more about that next week. lets focus now on _ more about that next week. lets focus now on the _ more about that next week. lets focus now on the public inquiry today. let's listen n.— focus now on the public inquiry today. let's listen n. evidence from mr bradshaw _ today. let's listen n. evidence from mr bradshaw today, _ today. let's listen n. evidence from mr bradshaw today, evidence - today. let's listen n. evidence from mr bradshaw today, evidence from | today. let's listen n. evidence from| mr bradshaw today, evidence from a number of employees and ex—employees of fujitsu next week, and then following that we will look at one or two back of the cases in other parts of the united kingdom, namely

northern ireland and scotland. then we will hear oral submissions from some of the four parties, no doubt, and receive written submissions from others. there will then be a bit of a break. that, iam afraid, is inevitable because in between phases my extremely hard—working inquiry team need to be prepared for the commencement of each phase, as of course do all the core participants. i wish i could tell you today precisely how long that break will be, but i cannot do that, not least in part because it is dependent upon the disclosure issues carrying on smoothly. as everyone will know, from time to time, we have hiccups about that. i should remind everyone that, in the phases to come, it is notjust that, in the phases to come, it is not just the that, in the phases to come, it is notjust the post office who will

have an important obligation in relation to disclosure because we will be delving in the phases to come into the activities of government departments and civil servants and senior people of that kind. so there will be important disclosure to be made by government, as well as post office. so that is why i cannot be precise about the length of the break before the start of phases five, six and seven. but you will have seen on our website that we intend that those species should be in the spring and summer of this year. that is my hope. my wife was extremely alarmed to hear a news report yesterday that suggested that faves six would not start until the spring of next year. i was under severe pressure over that, i can assure you. it is certainly my

intention that that phase starts long before the spring of next year. i am pleased to report that the inquiry has appointed an expert witness to deal with the governance issues. in fact, there are two. it issues. in fact, there are two. it is dame sandra dawson and doctor katie stewart. they will be advising the inquiry, in much the same way as mr atkinson kc debt over criminal and prosecution matters, and mr sippy only did about some of the technical aspects relating to horizon. they are now busily engaged in looking at all the relevant documents and preparing their evidence. so we are doing our best to comply with the... i will not see a promise, but hope that i have always expressed that we would

proceed diligently and expeditiously and as quickly as reasonably practicable. but i have proved to be very bad at predicting these things, as you will all realise. but there it is, we have to do a thorough job. in the end, doing a thoroughjob and hopefully getting it right is more important than a few months here or there. so, thank you very much for listening to those opening remarks, and i now invite mr bradshaw to be sworn and mr blake to ask him questions. sworn and mr blake to ask him questions-— sworn and mr blake to ask him questions. sworn and mr blake to ask him cuestions. ., , ., , ., ., questions. can you repeat after me? i swear by almighty _ questions. can you repeat after me? i swear by almighty guard... - questions. can you repeat after me? i swear by almighty guard. .. i - questions. can you repeat after me? i swear by almighty guard... i swear| i swear by almighty guard... i swear by almighty — i swear by almighty guard... i swear by almighty god _ i swear by almighty guard... i swear by almighty god will _ i swear by almighty guard... i swear by almighty god will stop _ i swear by almighty guard... i swear by almighty god will stop that - i swear by almighty guard... i swear by almighty god will stop that the i by almighty god will stop that the evidence i give _ by almighty god will stop that the evidence i give it _ by almighty god will stop that the evidence i give it shall _ by almighty god will stop that the evidence i give it shall be - by almighty god will stop that the evidence i give it shall be the - evidence i give it shall be the truth, — evidence i give it shall be the truth, the _ evidence i give it shall be the truth, the whole _ evidence i give it shall be the truth, the whole truth - evidence i give it shall be the truth, the whole truth and i evidence i give it shall be the - truth, the whole truth and nothing but the _ truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth _ mr blake, i think before you ask mr

bradshaw questions, he is in a category of witness where it is appropriate for me to give what is called the self incriminating warning, is that correct? that is correct. warning, is that correct? that is correct- can _ warning, is that correct? that is correct- can i — warning, is that correct? that is correct. can i ask— warning, is that correct? that is correct. can i ask you _ warning, is that correct? that is correct. can i ask you first - warning, is that correct? that is correct. can i ask you first of. warning, is that correct? that is| correct. can i ask you first of all, ou are correct. can i ask you first of all, you are legally — correct. can i ask you first of all, you are legally represented - correct. can i ask you first of all, i you are legally represented today? yes, i am. 50 you are legally represented today? yes, i am. you are legally represented today? yes,iam. ,,,,_ you are legally represented today? yes,iam. , , ~ ., ., yes, i am. so you probably know that under our law. _ yes, i am. so you probably know that under our law. a _ yes, i am. so you probably know that under our law, a witness _ yes, i am. so you probably know that under our law, a witness at _ yes, i am. so you probably know that under our law, a witness at a - yes, i am. so you probably know that under our law, a witness at a public. under our law, a witness at a public inquiry has the right to decline to answer a question put to him, either by counsel to the inquiry or by any legal representative, orfor by counsel to the inquiry or by any legal representative, or for that matter by me, if there is a risk that the answer to that question would incriminate the witness. this legal principle is known in shorthand form as a privilege against self—incrimination. mr bradshaw, i have decided that it is appropriate that i remind you of

that principle before you begin your evidence. however, it is for you to make clear to me in respect of any question put to you that it is your wish to reply, to rely upon the privilege and not for me to keep interrupting, if you understand. if therefore any questions i put to you, by any of the lawyers who ask you, by any of the lawyers who ask you questions, or as i have said by me, which you do not wish to answer on the ground that your answer might incriminate you, you must tell me immediately so that i can consider your objection and then after rule upon whether your objection should be upheld. you havejust upon whether your objection should be upheld. you have just told upon whether your objection should be upheld. you havejust told me that you are represented here today by a lawyer or lawyers. so if the issue relating to self—incrimination arises, i will permit those lawyers to assist you. if at any stage

during the questioning you wish to consult your lawyers, then you must tell me, and then i will consider how it is appropriate to proceed, all right? you understand all that? i understand, thank you. can all right? you understand all that? i understand, thank you.— i understand, thank you. can you live our i understand, thank you. can you give your full— i understand, thank you. can you give your full name _ i understand, thank you. can you give your full name please? - i understand, thank you. can you - give your full name please? stephen bradshaw. give your full name please? stephen izeradshaw- can _ give your full name please? stephen bradshaw. can i— give your full name please? stephen bradshaw. can i ask _ give your full name please? stephen bradshaw. can i ask you _ give your full name please? stephen bradshaw. can i ask you to - give your full name please? stephen bradshaw. can i ask you to come - bradshaw. can i ask you to come sliehtl bradshaw. can i ask you to come slightly forward _ bradshaw. can i ask you to come slightly forward towards - bradshaw. can i ask you to come slightly forward towards the - slightly forward towards the microphone. a stenographer is also taking notes, so if you could sleep as slowly and carefully as possible —— speak slowly and carefully. the first witness statement we have, w itn 04450100, that should be behind the first of those tabs, do you have that in front of you? i the first of those tabs, do you have that in front of you?— the first of those tabs, do you have that in front of you? i do. is that the 26th of _ that in front of you? i do. is that the 26th ofjune, _ that in front of you? i do. is that the 26th of june, 2023? - that in front of you? i do. is that the 26th ofjune, 2023? that's l the 26th ofjune, 2023? that's correct. the 26th ofjune, 2023? that's correct- can — the 26th ofjune, 2023? that's correct. can you _ the 26th ofjune, 2023? that's correct. can you turn - the 26th ofjune, 2023? that's correct. can you turn to - the 26th ofjune, 2023? that's correct. can you turn to page i the 26th ofjune, 2023? that'sl correct. can you turn to page 14 the 26th of june, 2023? that's - correct. can you turn to page 14 of that statement, _ correct. can you turn to page 14 of that statement, please? - correct. can you turn to page 14 of that statement, please? yes. - correct. can you turn to page 14 of that statement, please? yes. do. correct. can you turn to page 14 of. that statement, please? yes. do you

see our that statement, please? yes. do you see your signature? i _ that statement, please? yes. do you see your signature? i do. _ that statement, please? yes. do you see your signature? i do. can - that statement, please? yes. do you see your signature? i do. can you - see your signature? i do. can you confirm that _ see your signature? i do. can you confirm that that _ see your signature? i do. can you confirm that that statement is true? that is my signature, yes. brute confirm that that statement is true? that is my signature, yes. we a second statement, _ that is my signature, yes. we a second statement, the - that is my signature, yes. we a second statement, the unique l second statement, the unique reference number is w itn 04450200. that should be in a tablet behind that statement. that is dated the 16th of october, 2023, is that correct? it 16th of october, 2023, is that correct? . 16th of october, 2023, is that correct? , _, . 16th of october, 2023, is that correct?_ if - 16th of october, 2023, is that correct?_ if you . 16th of october, 2023, is that - correct?_ if you could correct? it is correct. if you could turn to page _ correct? it is correct. if you could turn to page eight. _ correct? it is correct. if you could turn to page eight. do _ correct? it is correct. if you could turn to page eight. do you - correct? it is correct. if you could turn to page eight. do you see i correct? it is correct. if you could l turn to page eight. do you see your signature there? i turn to page eight. do you see your signature there?— turn to page eight. do you see your signature there? i do. can you confirm that _ signature there? i do. can you confirm that statement - signature there? i do. can you confirm that statement is - signature there? i do. can you confirm that statement is true to the best of your knowledge? it is. the best of your knowledge? it is, that is my signature. _ the best of your knowledge? it is, that is my signature. thank- the best of your knowledge? it is, that is my signature. thank you i the best of your knowledge? it is, i that is my signature. thank you very much. that is my signature. thank you very much- those — that is my signature. thank you very much. those statements _ that is my signature. thank you very much. those statements will - that is my signature. thank you very much. those statements will be - much. those statements will be published on the inquiry�*s website and they are now in evidence. i want to begin atjust by asking you a little bit about your background at the post office. you have been employed by the post office since 1978, is that correct? that employed by the post office since 1978, is that correct?_ 1978, is that correct? that is correct. 1978, is that correct? that is correct- we _ 1978, is that correct? that is correct. we have _ 1978, is that correct? that is correct. we have held - 1978, is that correct? that is correct. we have held a - 1978, is that correct? that isj correct. we have held a wide 1978, is that correct? that is - correct. we have held a wide range of roles. correct. we have held a wide range of roles- we _ correct. we have held a wide range of roles. we have _ correct. we have held a wide range of roles. we have seen _ correct. we have held a wide range of roles. we have seen something | of roles. we have seen something called a telegraph office, an

account clerk in the 1970s and 19805, account clerk in the 1970s and 1980s, is that right?— account clerk in the 1970s and - 1980s, is that right?- you 1980s, is that right? correct. you are something — 1980s, is that right? correct. you are something called _ 1980s, is that right? correct. you are something called a _ 1980s, is that right? correct. you are something called a television | are something called a television inquiry officer in the mid to late 19805. ., , _, . inquiry officer in the mid to late 1980s-_ he - inquiry officer in the mid to late 19805._ he held| 19805. that is correct. he held vafious 19805. that is correct. he held various roles _ 19805. that is correct. he held various roles in _ 19805. that is correct. he held various roles in the _ 19805. that is correct. he held various roles in the royal- 19805. that is correct. he held various roles in the royal mail| various roles in the royal mail transport section.— various roles in the royal mail transport section.- in | various roles in the royal mail- transport section.- in 2000, transport section. correct. in 2000, around the _ transport section. correct. in 2000, around the time _ transport section. correct. in 2000, around the time of _ transport section. correct. in 2000, around the time of the _ transport section. correct. in 2000, around the time of the roll-out - transport section. correct. in 2000, around the time of the roll-out of i around the time of the roll—out of horizon, you became part of the post office investigations team. that horizon, you became part of the post office investigations team.— office investigations team. that is correct. office investigations team. that is correct- you _ office investigations team. that is correct. you see _ office investigations team. that is correct. you see your— office investigations team. that is correct. you see your role - office investigations team. that is| correct. you see your role variously described as _ correct. you see your role variously described as a _ correct. you see your role variously described as a fraud _ correct. you see your role variously described as a fraud investigator i described as a fraud investigator and a security manager, can you please assist us with which of those you were at a particular time? from the beginning. _ you were at a particular time? from the beginning. in — you were at a particular time? from the beginning, in 2000, _ you were at a particular time? from the beginning, in 2000, the - you were at a particular time? from the beginning, in 2000, the role was always— the beginning, in 2000, the role was always there as an investigation manager, — always there as an investigation manager, fraud adviser, remain the same. _ manager, fraud adviser, remain the same. but _ manager, fraud adviser, remain the same, but the job title change. towards — same, but the job title change. towards the present day, it has been changed _ towards the present day, it has been changed to _ towards the present day, it has been changed to security manager.- changed to security manager. you're currently employed _ changed to security manager. you're currently employed by _ changed to security manager. you're currently employed by the _ changed to security manager. you're currently employed by the post - currently employed by the post office as a security manager, having been... having held a number of

roles in the investigations team, i think it was first called a fraud investigator.— think it was first called a fraud investiuator. ., , . ., . ~ investigator. that is correct. like have spent _ investigator. that is correct. like have spent over _ investigator. that is correct. like have spent over 45 _ investigator. that is correct. like have spent over 45 years - investigator. that is correct. like have spent over 45 years at - investigator. that is correct. like have spent over 45 years at the l investigator. that is correct. like . have spent over 45 years at the post office _ have spent over 45 years at the post office i_ have spent over 45 years at the post office. i have. we have spent over 45 years at the post office- i have-— office. i have. we are going to deal in due course _ office. i have. we are going to deal in due course with _ office. i have. we are going to deal in due course with what _ office. i have. we are going to deal in due course with what you - office. i have. we are going to deal in due course with what you knew i office. i have. we are going to deal| in due course with what you knew at any particular time. just in terms of your career, is it right to say that you have been at the post office from the beginning of complaints about the horizon system, through to thejustice complaints about the horizon system, through to the justice for supposed masters campaign, the group litigation, court of appeal, overturning of convictions, and up to and including this inquiry itself? . to and including this inquiry itself? , ., , ., itself? yes, i was at the post office limited. _ itself? yes, i was at the post office limited. would - itself? yes, i was at the post office limited. would like . itself? yes, i was at the post office limited. would like to| itself? yes, i was at the post - office limited. would like to bring on to screen _ office limited. would like to bring on to screen your _ office limited. would like to bring on to screen your first _ office limited. would like to bring on to screen your first witness - on to screen your first witness statement. that is w itn 04450100. can we please turn to page 15 of that statement?

we see from page 15, if perhaps we could scroll over the page, over and over, we see all the documents were provided with an order to produce that statement. i think there are over 200 documents in total. do you recall? i over 200 documents in total. do you recall? . . over 200 documents in total. do you recall? ., , , recall? i have seen the documents and i recall? i have seen the documents and i have — recall? i have seen the documents and i have done _ recall? i have seen the documents and i have done my _ recall? i have seen the documents and i have done my best _ recall? i have seen the documents and i have done my best to - recall? i have seen the documents and i have done my best to put - recall? i have seen the documents i and i have done my best to put them fully on— and i have done my best to put them fully on each — and i have done my best to put them fully on each one. if and i have done my best to put them fully on each one.— fully on each one. if we look at aaet fully on each one. if we look at page 14. _ fully on each one. if we look at page 14. it _ fully on each one. if we look at page 14. it stops _ fully on each one. if we look at page 14, it stops at _ fully on each one. if we look at page 14, it stops at 14, - fully on each one. if we look at page 14, it stops at 14, so - fully on each one. if we look at | page 14, it stops at 14, so there are 14 pages of evidence in that statement. the statement itself addresses various case studies, case studies that we are going to be looking at today. can we just turn to page seven, please? at the bottom of page seven, we begin with a case study, the case of janet skinner. if we go over the page, page eight, paragraph 21 and

22. 21 says, there were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times. 22, i do not have any other reflections about this matter. page nine, overthe reflections about this matter. page nine, over the page. we have hughie thomas. again, paragraph 25, there are no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times. 26, i have no other reflections about this matter. next, scroll down the page. if we scroll over the page... the same form of words. 28 and 29, there were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times, i have no other reflections about this matter. further down that page, we get to

the case of lisa brennan. paragraph 33. there were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times. over the page, please. professional manner at all times. overthe page, please. i professional manner at all times. over the page, please. i have no other reflections about this matter. lynette hutchings, another case study. paragraph 37, i can see no concerns about the conduct of this case. i have no other reflections about this matter. scrolling down to john bailey. paragraph 40, there were no concerns, the investigation was conducted in a professional manner at all times. scroll down. was conducted in a professional mannerat all times. scroll down. i have no other reflections about this matter. the case of angela sefton. paragraph 43, no concerns. paragraph 44, no other reflections. scrolling

down, the case of an kneeled. if we keep on going down. paragraph 46, no concerns. paragraph 47, no reflections. susan mcknight, paragraph 49, no concerns. paragraph 50, no reflections. can we go over the page, please, to page 14. ? paragraph 54 — i do not know what technical issues were investigated by the post office. paragraph 50 6— i cannot recall if any what information i received concerning bugs, errors or defects in the horizon system. paragraph 57, i do not have any reflections on this matter or other matters relevant to the terms of reference. do you think that you have given enough thought over the past 20 years as to whether you may have been involved in what has been described as one of the largest miscarriages ofjustice in

british history? it largest miscarriages of 'ustice in british history?h british history? it would appear that through — british history? it would appear that through not _ british history? it would appear that through not being - british history? it would appear that through not being given i british history? it would appearl that through not being given any knowledge from the top downwards, if any bugs, _ knowledge from the top downwards, if any bugs, errors or defects were there. _ any bugs, errors or defects were there. it — any bugs, errors or defects were there, it has not been cascaded down from fujitsu, — there, it has not been cascaded down from fujitsu, the post office board, down _ from fujitsu, the post office board, down to— from fujitsu, the post office board, down to the — from fujitsu, the post office board, down to the investigations level. it is down to the investigations level. is your down to the investigations level. it is your evidence that because you did not receive any information about bugs, errors and defects from somebody higher above you in the post office you don't have any reflections on that? the horizon s stem, reflections on that? the horizon system. i _ reflections on that? the horizon system. i have _ reflections on that? the horizon system, i have no _ reflections on that? the horizon system, i have no reason i reflections on that? the horizon system, i have no reason to i reflections on that? the horizon i system, i have no reason to suspect at the _ system, i have no reason to suspect at the time _ system, i have no reason to suspect at the time that there was anything wrong _ at the time that there was anything wrong with the horizon system because — wrong with the horizon system because we had not been told. that's over the time — because we had not been told. that's over the time of _ because we had not been told. that's over the time of your _ because we had not been told. that's over the time of your entire - because we had not been told. that's over the time of your entire career i over the time of your entire career at the post office, up to the date when you drafted this witness statement and perhaps even up to today's date?— statement and perhaps even up to today's date?_ do i statement and perhaps even up to | today's date?_ do you today's date? correct, yes. do you think that today's date? correct, yes. do you thinkthat the — today's date? correct, yes. do you think that the approach _ today's date? correct, yes. do you think that the approach you i today's date? correct, yes. do you think that the approach you have i think that the approach you have taken to providing information to the inquiry, what looks like giving the inquiry, what looks like giving the bare minimum, was quite similar to the way that you approached your

investigations? idot to the way that you approached your investigations?— investigations? not at all. i tried m best investigations? not at all. i tried my best with _ investigations? not at all. i tried my best with this _ investigations? not at all. i tried my best with this statement. i i my best with this statement. i cannot— my best with this statement. i cannot put something down. if i was not told _ cannot put something down. if i was not told about any issues with the horizon _ not told about any issues with the horizon system, i cannot put that down _ horizon system, i cannot put that down the — horizon system, i cannot put that down. the investigations were done correctly _ down. the investigations were done correctl . . . down. the investigations were done correctl. ., , , , down. the investigations were done correctl. ., ,, , correctly. that is because you were not told anything _ correctly. that is because you were not told anything about _ correctly. that is because you were not told anything about problems i not told anything about problems with the horizon system? son michael at the time, no problems were indicated by anybody that there were issues with the horizon system. can we look at 00325402, please? this is an e—mail of february 2010 from customer night —— christopher knight, a lawyer, to yourself, entitled her horizon challenges. that is 15 years ago now. could we scroll down that page, please? you

forward to you a list of articles. talking retail, bbc, the tarot now, thatis talking retail, bbc, the tarot now, that is the report on thomas's case, an article from the grocer, the article that is well known to this inquiry, the computer weekly article written in 2009. you were of course aware in 2010... mr written in 2009. you were of course aware in 2010. . ._ aware in 2010. .. mr knight, and investigation _ aware in 2010. .. mr knight, and investigation manager _ aware in 2010. .. mr knight, and investigation manager at i aware in 2010. .. mr knight, and investigation manager at the i aware in 2010. .. mr knight, and i investigation manager at the time, i had seen _ investigation manager at the time, i had seen them and sent them on for information— had seen them and sent them on for information to people. so had seen them and sent them on for information to people.— information to people. so you are aware in 2010 _ information to people. so you are aware in 2010 of— information to people. so you are aware in 2010 of a _ information to people. so you are aware in 2010 of a body _ information to people. so you are aware in 2010 of a body of- information to people. so you are i aware in 2010 of a body of reporting in the public domain about problems with the horizon system. that in the public domain about problems with the horizon system.— with the horizon system. that is correct. with the horizon system. that is correct- that — with the horizon system. that is correct. that did _ with the horizon system. that is correct. that did not _ with the horizon system. that is correct. that did not cause i with the horizon system. that is correct. that did not cause you i with the horizon system. that is. correct. that did not cause you to reflect a little _ correct. that did not cause you to reflect a little bit _ correct. that did not cause you to reflect a little bit more? - correct. that did not cause you to reflect a little bit more? the i correct. that did not cause you to reflect a little bit more? the onlyj reflect a little bit more? the only reflection is _ reflect a little bit more? the only reflection is that _ reflect a little bit more? the only reflection is that during _ reflect a little bit more? the only reflection is that during the i reflection is that during the investigation, the issue of horizon, it would _ investigation, the issue of horizon, it would have been explored with the person _ it would have been explored with the

person con— it would have been explored with the erson. . it would have been explored with the person. ., it would have been explored with the erson. ., ., , it would have been explored with the aerson. ., ., , i it 3 ' person. can we look at fud 00154879, lease? person. can we look at fud 00154879, please? and — person. can we look at fud 00154879, please? and can _ person. can we look at fud 00154879, please? and can we _ person. can we look at fud 00154879, please? and can we look _ person. can we look at fud 00154879, please? and can we look at _ person. can we look at fud 00154879, please? and can we look at page i please? and can we look at page five, begin on page five? is this is the 9th of february, 2010. page five. the same year as those reports were forwarded to you. we have an e—mailfrom were forwarded to you. we have an e—mail from yourself to somebody called valerie lipscomb. who is she, do you remember? i am called valerie lipscomb. who is she, do you remember?— do you remember? i am not sure whether she _ do you remember? i am not sure whether she is _ do you remember? i am not sure whether she is part _ do you remember? i am not sure whether she is part of _ do you remember? i am not sure whether she is part of the - do you remember? i am not sure| whether she is part of the horizon co-op _ whether she is part of the horizon co—op centre will be you would get anym _ co—op centre will be you would get anym call— co—op centre will be you would get anym call is— co—op centre will be you would get any... call is made into the business. _ any... call is made into the business, you would have the business _ business, you would have the business side, and then horizon had their own _ business side, and then horizon had their own call centre. you needed two types — their own call centre. you needed two types of the calls to see whether— two types of the calls to see whether anybody was called. you see there, whether anybody was called. you see there. valerie. _ whether anybody was called. you see there, valerie, thanks _ whether anybody was called. you see there, valerie, thanks for _ whether anybody was called. you see there, valerie, thanks for the - whether anybody was called. you see there, valerie, thanks for the logs, i there, valerie, thanks for the logs, i was wondering if you could help me further. i require logs of all calls

in relation to horizon problems. am i right in thinking the attached log is due to a transactional query? if we go to page three of the same e—mail chain, at the bottom of page three. we have an e—mail there from mark dinsdale, security programme manager at the post office. can we scroll up slightly? penny thomas, at fujitsu, do you recall penny thomas? yes. ., u. , fujitsu, do you recall penny thomas? yes. ., _, , ., fujitsu, do you recall penny thomas? yes. ., _,, ., ., fujitsu, do you recall penny thomas? yes. ., _, , ., ., ., yes. your copied into that e-mail. he sa 5, yes. your copied into that e-mail. he says. penny. — yes. your copied into that e-mail. he says, penny, can _ yes. your copied into that e-mail. he says, penny, can we _ yes. your copied into that e-mail. he says, penny, can we set i yes. your copied into that e-mail. he says, penny, can we set up i yes. your copied into that e-mail. he says, penny, can we set up a i he says, penny, can we set up a process for these requests because we are getting more and more of them? would you be able to provide them? would you be able to provide the information steve has requested? that is about the previous case. in 2010 and 2011, you were certainly aware of a body of cases relating to the horizon system that were building up, were you not? from that information. — building up, were you not? from that information, yes. _ building up, were you not? from that information, yes. as _ building up, were you not? from that information, yes. as i _ building up, were you not? from that

information, yes. as i said, _ building up, were you not? from that information, yes. as i said, if- building up, were you not? from that information, yes. as i said, if it- information, yes. as i said, if it has _ information, yes. as i said, if it has come — information, yes. as i said, if it has come up _ information, yes. as i said, if it has come up within the interview, i took the _ has come up within the interview, i took the action is to try to find out what — took the action is to try to find out what the issue with the horizon wasr _ out what the issue with the horizon was. hence — out what the issue with the horizon was, hence the logs. in this case, mr dinsdale — was, hence the logs. in this case, mr dinsdale had set up all contact with fujitsu to be done by the? team — with fujitsu to be done by the? team in— with fu'itsu to be done by the? team. ii' :: with fu'itsu to be done by the? team. ::' :: i. ., . team. in 2010, you had received those articles _ team. in 2010, you had received those articles relating _ team. in 2010, you had received those articles relating to - team. in 2010, you had received i those articles relating to problems with horizon full stop you're away from this communication there was a body of cases relating to concerns about the horizon system. that not because you pause for thought? the hause for because you pause for thought? the pause for thought is that when... when _ pause for thought is that when... when you — pause for thought is that when... when you would speak to the person being _ when you would speak to the person being interviewed, you will take that into — being interviewed, you will take that into account. if you are in for there _ that into account. if you are in for there was— that into account. if you are in for there was an _ that into account. if you are in for there was an issue with horizon, you would _ there was an issue with horizon, you would do _ there was an issue with horizon, you would do your best to find out what the issue _ would do your best to find out what the issue was.— would do your best to find out what the issue was. budgie began today by 5a in: that the issue was. budgie began today by saying that nobody _ the issue was. budgie began today by saying that nobody from _ the issue was. budgie began today by saying that nobody from above i the issue was. budgie began today by saying that nobody from above had i saying that nobody from above had been telling you about bugs, errors or defects. i been telling you about bugs, errors

or defects. ., ., _, ~ or defects. i do not count mr knight as somebody _ or defects. i do not count mr knight as somebody from _ or defects. i do not count mr knight as somebody from above. - or defects. i do not count mr knight as somebody from above. had i or defects. i do not count mr knight| as somebody from above. had been told by your— as somebody from above. had been told by your equal — as somebody from above. had been told by your equal is _ as somebody from above. had been told by your equal is that _ as somebody from above. had been told by your equal is that there i told by your equal is that there were newspaper articles, you have been told by your equal is that there is a growing body of cases, but that in itself was not sufficient for you to question the reliability of the horizon system? i am not technically minded with that. i am not technically minded with that. i would _ am not technically minded with that. i would expect that to come from the people _ i would expect that to come from the people above. if there was an issue, i people above. if there was an issue, i would _ people above. if there was an issue, i would expect fujitsu to inform the post office, and the post office to let us _ post office, and the post office to let us know what the issues are. these _ let us know what the issues are. these documents from 2010, we are going to go through a number of different case studies in due course, how early would you say you were aware of horizon being raised as an issue? it were aware of horizon being raised as an issue?— as an issue? it was raised during these... as an issue? it was raised during these- -- as _ as an issue? it was raised during these... as you _ as an issue? it was raised during these... as you say, _ as an issue? it was raised during these... as you say, from i as an issue? it was raised during these... as you say, from 2010. | these... as you say, from 2010. people — these... as you say, from 2010. people were _ these... as you say, from 2010. people were raising it between then and over— people were raising it between then and over the next few years.- and over the next few years. would ou sa and over the next few years. would you say 2010 _ and over the next few years. would you say 2010 is _ and over the next few years. would you say 2010 is the _ and over the next few years. would you say 2010 is the starting - and over the next few years. would you say 2010 is the starting point i you say 2010 is the starting point or is there an earlier... ?- you say 2010 is the starting point or is there an earlier... ? some may have mentioned _ or is there an earlier... ? some may have mentioned it _ or is there an earlier... ? some may have mentioned it earlier. _ or is there an earlier... ? some may have mentioned it earlier. can i or is there an earlier... ? some may

have mentioned it earlier. can we i have mentioned it earlier. can we look at 001 _ have mentioned it earlier. can we look at 001 2073, _ have mentioned it earlier. can we look at 001 2073, please? i this is the case of kim wiley. this is not a case study we are going to be looking at. but this is a document of february 2013. that is three years after you received those articles from computer weekly, etc. it has a letter from cartwright king to miss wylie's solicitors. it says, please find enclosed a notice of additional evidence, which includes two statements from stephen bradshaw, dated 20th of november, 2012, a 19th of february, 2013, as well as an exhibit, which is an extract from the supposed masters' contract. at the bottom of the page,

it says, the crown's position on the integrity of the horizon system is set out in steep gradual�*s statement dated 20th of november, 2012. there is no further disclosure in relation to this matter. you havejust said that you're not very technically minded. do you think that the submission of a witness statement from you purporting to go to the integrity of the horizon system, do you think that was appropriate? know, because it depends on which statement — know, because it depends on which statement it is. there was a statement it is. there was a statement put through explaining the basics _ statement put through explaining the basics of— statement put through explaining the basics of horizon, that it was a keyboard. _ basics of horizon, that it was a keyboard, a scanner, a printer, the basic— keyboard, a scanner, a printer, the basic workings of horizon is that you scan _ basic workings of horizon is that you scan... you have a document with a bar— you scan... you have a document with a bar code. _ you scan... you have a document with a bar code. you— you scan... you have a document with a bar code, you would scan the bar coder _ a bar code, you would scan the bar code. the — a bar code, you would scan the bar code, the transaction would go through — code, the transaction would go through. that is all that is explained in the statement i gave. usually— explained in the statement i gave. usually give a statement about the hardware... a computer plugged into a keyboard, but you do not address the reliability of the horizon

system. the reliability of the horizon s stem. ., . . . the reliability of the horizon s stem. ., ., ., , . system. not at all, 'ust the basic workinas, system. not at all, 'ust the basic workings. ash system. not at all, 'ust the basic workings, as most i system. not at all, just the basic workings, as most people i system. not at all, just the basic workings, as most people have i system. not at all, just the basic- workings, as most people have used the system. — workings, as most people have used the system, they would record the transaction, money due to customer, money— transaction, money due to customer, money due _ transaction, money due to customer, money due from customer, just the basic— money due from customer, just the basic knowledge work of the thing, not the _ basic knowledge work of the thing, not the technicalities of the system _ not the technicalities of the s stem. . . not the technicalities of the sstem. ., ,,, ., system. that is because you did not have the technical _ system. that is because you did not have the technical knowledge i system. that is because you did not have the technical knowledge to i system. that is because you did not i have the technical knowledge to know whether there were bugs, errors or defects in the system, you do not feel confident to address those kinds of things. hot feel confident to address those kinds of things.— feel confident to address those kinds of things._ can | feel confident to address those i kinds of things._ can we kinds of things. not at all. can we scroll over— kinds of things. not at all. can we scroll over a _ kinds of things. not at all. can we scroll over a couple _ kinds of things. not at all. can we scroll over a couple of _ kinds of things. not at all. can we scroll over a couple of pages i kinds of things. not at all. can we scroll over a couple of pages to i scroll over a couple of pages to page five? this is the witness statement you submitted. we have your name at the top there. it says as follows, "after a number of meetings between the post office management and members of parliament in relation to the court cases, it was agreed that the post office would undertake an external review of the cases which had been raised by members constituents. as the post

office continues to have absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of its horizon system and its branch accounting processes, it has no hesitation in agreeing to an external review of these few individual cases." "in order to provide assurance to the interested parties, it was proposed that the review be undertaken by independent auditors." the you have their set any witness statement that the post office continues to have absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of its horizon system. having given the evidence that you have just given about your lack of knowledge of the system, your lack of knowledge of technical matters, do you think it was appropriate for you to write that in a witness statement, that the post office has absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of the horizon system? i robustness and integrity of the horizon system?— robustness and integrity of the horizon system? i was given that statement by _ horizon system? i was given that statement by cartwright - horizon system? i was given that statement by cartwright king - horizon system? i was given that statement by cartwright king and

told to _ statement by cartwright king and told to put that statement through. in hindsight, that probably should have been another line stating that these _ have been another line stating that these are _ have been another line stating that these are not my words, but the statement — these are not my words, but the statement produced as a business statement. i did not write that statement, we were told by cartwright king to put that in. who told ou to cartwright king to put that in. who told you to put _ cartwright king to put that in. who told you to put it _ cartwright king to put that in. wufr told you to put it in? cartwright king to put that in. who told you to put it in? it _ cartwright king to put that in. who told you to put it in? it would - cartwright king to put that in. who told you to put it in? it would be . told you to put it in? it would be one of the _ told you to put it in? it would be one of the three _ told you to put it in? it would be one of the three members - told you to put it in? it would be one of the three members of. one of the three members of cartwright king, mark smith, andrew rod surem _ cartwright king, mark smith, andrew rod sure... it would have come from one of— rod sure... it would have come from one of them — rod sure... it would have come from one of them-— one of them. they drafted the statement _ one of them. they drafted the statement and _ one of them. they drafted the statement and sent _ one of them. they drafted the statement and sent it - one of them. they drafted the statement and sent it to - one of them. they drafted the statement and sent it to you? j one of them. they drafted the - statement and sent it to you? that is correct. you _ statement and sent it to you? that is correct. you did _ statement and sent it to you? that is correct. you did not _ statement and sent it to you? that is correct. you did not question - statement and sent it to you? that is correct. you did not question it, | is correct. you did not question it, ou 'ust is correct. you did not question it, you just signed — is correct. you did not question it, you just signed it _ is correct. you did not question it, you just signed it all. _ is correct. you did not question it, you just signed it all. whether- is correct. you did not question it, you just signed it all. whether it i you just signed it all. whether it was questioned _ you just signed it all. whether it was questioned at _ you just signed it all. whether it was questioned at the _ you just signed it all. whether it was questioned at the time, - you just signed it all. whether it was questioned at the time, i i you just signed it all. whether it - was questioned at the time, i would have been— was questioned at the time, i would have been concerned. but we were given _ have been concerned. but we were given the _ have been concerned. but we were given the assurance that everything was fine _ given the assurance that everything was fine to— given the assurance that everything was fine to put that through. they wanted _ was fine to put that through. they wanted us — was fine to put that through. they wanted us to put it through. nowadays, i would not have put it through— nowadays, i would not have put it through at— nowadays, i would not have put it through at all, with what is known. we began 20 minutes ago, 30 minutes

ago are looking at your witness statement for this inquiry and what appears to be a lack of reflection in that statement. my having produced something like this have caused you to reflect on your involvement? it caused you to reflect on your involvement?— caused you to reflect on your involvement? . , ., ., ., involvement? it may have done at the time but it is — involvement? it may have done at the time but it is some _ involvement? it may have done at the time but it is some 11 _ involvement? it may have done at the time but it is some 11 or— involvement? it may have done at the time but it is some 11 or 12 _ involvement? it may have done at the time but it is some 11 or 12 years - time but it is some 11 or 12 years ago _ time but it is some 11 or 12 years auo. �* ~' time but it is some 11 or 12 years auo. �* 4' ., time but it is some 11 or 12 years auo. �* ~ ., y ., , ago. he didn't think to yourself, i roduced ago. he didn't think to yourself, i produced a _ ago. he didn't think to yourself, i produced a witness _ ago. he didn't think to yourself, i produced a witness statement. ago. he didn't think to yourself, i produced a witness statement in | produced a witness statement in criminal proceedings that could cause somebody to go to prison and i signed off the robustness of the horizon system, that wasn't something i thought you should reflect on? this something i thought you should reflect on?— something i thought you should reflect on? a , ., reflect on? as i said, the statement was civen reflect on? as i said, the statement was given to — reflect on? as i said, the statement was given to me _ reflect on? as i said, the statement was given to me by _ reflect on? as i said, the statement was given to me by cartwright - reflect on? as i said, the statement was given to me by cartwright king | was given to me by cartwright king and we _ was given to me by cartwright king and we were told to put the statement true. on reflection, yes, as i say. _ statement true. on reflection, yes, as i say. it — statement true. on reflection, yes, as i say, it has some 11 years ago. a number— as i say, it has some 11 years ago. a number of— as i say, it has some 11 years ago. a number of statements have been produced _ a number of statements have been produced since. you a number of statements have been produced since.— a number of statements have been produced since. you were at the post office in a significant _

produced since. you were at the post office in a significant role _ produced since. you were at the post office in a significant role during -