a re are looking at your witness 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? $5 something i thought you should reflect on?— something i thought you should reflect on? a , ., reflect on? as i said, the statement was liven 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 - office in a significant role during the group litigation, during the court of appeal proceedings. throughout this inquiry. and you didn't think back and perhaps regret having submitted a witness statement such as those in criminal proceedings? figs such as those in criminal proceedings?— such as those in criminal proceedings? as i say, with hindsight — proceedings? as i say, with hindsight it _ proceedings? as i say, with hindsight it is _ proceedings? as i say, with hindsight it is regrettable . proceedings? as i say, with i hindsight it is regrettable the statement went through like that separates my words which is not correct — separates my words which is not correct. �* ., , �* separates my words which is not correct. �* �* , correct. but it hasn't caused you any moment _ correct. but it hasn't caused you any moment of— correct. but it hasn't caused you any moment of reflection. - correct. but it hasn't caused you any moment of reflection. of i correct. but it hasn't caused you - any moment of reflection. of course it is because — any moment of reflection. of course it is because moment _ any moment of reflection. of course it is because moment of— any moment of reflection. of course it is because moment of reflection i it is because moment of reflection is because — it is because moment of reflection is because you look at it and go that is— is because you look at it and go that is completely wrong because somebody has told me to put a statement through like that. do you know how many _ statement through like that. do you know how many times _ statement through like that. do you know how many times you - statement through like that. do you | know how many times you submitted statements like that? i know how many times you submitted statements like that?— statements like that? i couldn't sa , that statements like that? i couldn't say, that statement _ statements like that? i couldn't say, that statement could - statements like that? i couldn't say, that statement could have | statements like that? i couldn't - say, that statement could have gone in from _ say, that statement could have gone in from everybody within the security _ in from everybody within the security team to just about whatever case inquiry— security team to just about whatever case inquiry was ongoing at the time _ case inquiry was ongoing at the time. �* , ., case inquiry was ongoing at the time. �* ,, case inquiry was ongoing at the time. �* ., case inquiry was ongoing at the time. ., , ., time. are you saying a statement in this form was _

time. are you saying a statement in this form was probably _ time. are you saying a statement in this form was probably made - time. are you saying a statement in this form was probably made by - time. are you saying a statement in l this form was probably made by other members of the security team in other cases and on each occasion it was a statement drafted for them by a firm of solicitors and theyjust put them into it? a firm of solicitors and they 'ust put them into mi a firm of solicitors and they 'ust put them into it? sort of commerce, but what it would _ put them into it? sort of commerce, but what it would be, _ put them into it? sort of commerce, but what it would be, when - put them into it? sort of commerce, but what it would be, when these i but what it would be, when these cases _ but what it would be, when these cases have — but what it would be, when these cases have gone to the criminal law team _ cases have gone to the criminal law team or— cases have gone to the criminal law team or cartwright king in this case they were _ team or cartwright king in this case they were given the statement as to they were given the statement as to the integrity of the horizon statement that come from the lawyers — statement that come from the la ers. ., , . ., statement that come from the la ers. ., ,. ., ., ., lawyers. could we scroll down on the .ae. lawyers. could we scroll down on the page please. — lawyers. could we scroll down on the page please. i— lawyers. could we scroll down on the page please. ijust — lawyers. could we scroll down on the page please, ijust read _ lawyers. could we scroll down on the page please, ijust read another - page please, ijust read another paragraph. it says at the bottom all of the above is accepted based on the terms of review being carried out but this is in no way an acknowledgement by the post office that there is an issue with horizon. over the past ten years many millions of branch reconciliations have been carried out with transactions and balances accurately

recorded by more than 25,000 different sub—postmasters and the horizon system continues to work properly in post offices across the length and breadth of the uk. when the system has been challenged in the system has been challenged in the criminal courts it has been successfully defended. and that's a 2013 witness statement. thank you, that can come down. mr bradshaw, in a request that was sent to you for a witness statement there were a series of general questions and you have them in the bundle in front of you but i can read them out. for example to what extent if any did you consider a challenge to the integrity of the horizon in one case to be relevant to other ongoing or future cases? to what extent the penny do you consider the investigation into bugs, errors or defects were sufficiently carried out by the post office? please attach your reasons and detail. to what extent of any do you consider

information concerning bugs, errors were sufficiently passed to the post office by the jitsu, were sufficiently passed to the post office by thejitsu, please attach your reasons. to what extent a penny do you consider you had sufficient information regarding bugs, errors, defects in horizon, who provided you with information and if not who should have? do you have any reflections on these matters or any other matters relevant to the inquiry terms of reference? are there any other matter she wished to bring to the attention of the inquiry chair? can i ask you your first statement, could that be brought back on screen please? page ia police of that first statement. if we could slow down slightly, these are your answers to the

general section, we've been over them already this morning, i don't know the technical issues were investigated, i can recall what information if any are received regarding bugs, errors or defects. someone who wrote a witness statement in criminal proceedings in such a strong and confident terms might it have been sensible to attempted to answer those questions i havejust attempted to answer those questions i have just gone through in a bit more detail? if i i have just gone through in a bit more detail?— i have just gone through in a bit more detail? ifi could remember full that more detail? ifi could remember fully that statement, _ more detail? ifi could remember fully that statement, now - more detail? ifi could remember fully that statement, now i've - more detail? ifi could remember. fully that statement, now i've seen the statement, cartwright king, gave us that— the statement, cartwright king, gave us that statement to produce, for them _ us that statement to produce, for them sort — us that statement to produce, for them sort of questions, it'sjust completely, it's a statement, that's one of— completely, it's a statement, that's one of the _ completely, it's a statement, that's one of the few times i would say i don't _ one of the few times i would say i don't recall— one of the few times i would say i don't recall that statement. 30 one of the few times i would say i don't recall that statement. so when ou came don't recall that statement. so when you came to — don't recall that statement. so when you came to draft — don't recall that statement. so when you came to draft your _ don't recall that statement. so when you came to draft your statement. you came to draft your statement does 200 documents provided to you by the inquiry, that statement, you

didn't think, i've submitted some statements in criminal proceedings that may have cost some day to go to prison? i signed off horizon? figs that may have cost some day to go to prison? i signed off horizon? $5 i prison? i signed off horizon? as i said, i prison? i signed off horizon? as i said. i went _ prison? i signed off horizon? as i said, i went through as many documents, there was an awful lot of documents _ documents, there was an awful lot of documents to try and put together with the _ documents to try and put together with the statement. that documents to try and put together with the statement.— documents to try and put together with the statement. that can come down. with the statement. that can come down- you — with the statement. that can come down. you said _ with the statement. that can come down. you said that _ with the statement. that can come down. you said that statement - with the statement. that can come i down. you said that statement came from kodric king who asked you to sign it. do you know how that statement came to be drafted? it was drafted by cartwright _ statement came to be drafted? it was drafted by cartwright king _ statement came to be drafted? it was drafted by cartwright king and the post office. and the post office? security— post office. and the post office? security operates, i'm not sure. thank you. let's turn to the final page of this document. we have a proposed form of words from mr

singh, the post office lawyer responsible for criminal matters. he was the post office law responsible for criminal matters, wasn't he? do you call someone called hugh lymington?— you call someone called hugh l lymington?_ a you call someone called hugh - lymington?_ a form lymington? don't recall him. a form of words has — lymington? don't recall him. a form of words has been _ lymington? don't recall him. a form of words has been sent _ lymington? don't recall him. a form of words has been sent and - lymington? don't recall him. a form of words has been sent and if- lymington? don't recall him. a form of words has been sent and if we - of words has been sent and if we scroll up we see an e—mail from someone called simon baker, about that, thank you, do you recall him? i do not know. he says, please can help us crop the message around the second review, we need to combat the assertion that the review is acknowledgement that there is a problem with horizon. mr singh has drafted some words below, do they strike the right tone? scrolling up, we have an e—mailfrom ronan kelleher, the head of pr and media

at the post office at the time. do you remember when lyons whisk up again? the company secretary. susan crichton? i remember _ again? the company secretary. susan crichton? i remember susan. - again? the company secretary. susan crichton? i remember susan. the - crichton? i remember susan. the general— crichton? i remember susan. the general counsel. mr crichton? i remember susan. the general counsel.— crichton? i remember susan. the general counsel. mr clement and i believe is a — general counsel. mr clement and i believe is a lawyer, _ general counsel. mr clement and i believe is a lawyer, but _ general counsel. mr clement and i believe is a lawyer, but you - general counsel. mr clement and i believe is a lawyer, but you do - general counsel. mr clement and i believe is a lawyer, but you do notj believe is a lawyer, but you do not recall him? and ronan kelleher says as follows, as this message will most probably find its way into the media we need to get the message across from the start that we continue to have full confidence in the robustness of the horizon system and then reinforce it so i suggest the following tweaking the proposed wording from mr singh. i will go through this form of words and highlight the additional words that were added by the head of pr at the post office. it says 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 the members constituents. it's the next sentence that has been added by ronan kelleher, is the post office continues to have absolute confidence in the robustness and integrity of the horizon system and its branch accounting processes it has had no hesitation in agreeing to an external review of these few individual cases. next paragraph, in orderto individual cases. next paragraph, in order to provide assurance to the interested parties it was proposed that the review be undertaken by independent auditors second sight, the review will specifically restricted to the cases raised by the members of parliament as well as reviewing the accounting procedures, processes and reconciliations

undertaken in relation to the cases in question. before formal instructions are given to the independent auditors agreements will be sought from all interested parties namely the members of parliament and justice for sub—postmasters. the sub—postmasters have requested forensic accounting of the choice be appointed to oversee the cases being reviewed by second site. under the page. although bob is accepted based on the terms of your being carried out but this is in no way an acknowledgement by the post office that there is an issue with horizon. and now we get another sentence added by the head of pr. 0ver and now we get another sentence added by the head of pr. over the past ten years many millions of branch reconciliations have been carried out with transactions and balances accurately recorded by more than 25,000 different sub—postmasters on the horizon system continues to work properly and post offices across the length and post offices across the length and breadth of the uk. in the system has been challenged in criminal court it has been successfully

defended, i think the last sentence was that by mr singh but the one before it was added in this chain of e—mails. were you aware that the contents of your witness statement that we've seen reflected was drafted by a man of the people the head of pr at the post office? blot head of pr at the post office? not at all, all head of pr at the post office? not at all. all i — head of pr at the post office? not at all, all i saw _ head of pr at the post office? not at all, all i saw was the final version _ at all, all i saw was the final version from cartwright king. do you think it was — version from cartwright king. do you think it was appropriate _ version from cartwright king. do you think it was appropriate for - version from cartwright king. do you think it was appropriate for your - think it was appropriate for your witness statement to have been drafted in the way it was? not really, no. drafted in the way it was? not really. no-_ drafted in the way it was? not reall , no. , ., . , h really, no. yes it not really. it's not my words. _ really, no. yes it not really. it's not my words, a _ really, no. yes it not really. it's not my words, a statement - really, no. yes it not really. it's not my words, a statement is i not my words, a statement is normally— not my words, a statement is normally what you say to me and i would _ normally what you say to me and i would write — normally what you say to me and i would write that down rather than, this appears to be a business statement drafted by pr and approved by the _ statement drafted by pr and approved by the lawyers. did statement drafted by pr and approved by the lawyers-— by the lawyers. did you have any conversations _ by the lawyers. did you have any conversations with _ by the lawyers. did you have any conversations with the _ by the lawyers. did you have any conversations with the lawyer . by the lawyers. did you have any. conversations with the lawyer said cartwright king or mr singh about the contents of the witness statement you are signing? if i did, i cannot remember— statement you are signing? if i did, i cannot remember what _ statement you are signing? if i did,

i cannot remember what was - statement you are signing? if i did, i cannot remember what was said, | statement you are signing? if i did, i i cannot remember what was said, as i cannot remember what was said, as isaid, _ i cannot remember what was said, as isaid, it— i cannot remember what was said, as isaid, it was— i cannot remember what was said, as i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i brought— i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i brought up— i said, it was 11 years ago, whether i brought up why are you putting this on— i brought up why are you putting this on or— i brought up why are you putting this on or whatever but we were given— this on or whatever but we were given assurances everything had been approved _ given assurances everything had been approved and was ok. you given assurances everything had been approved and was ok.— approved and was ok. you gave no doubt other— approved and was ok. you gave no doubt other witness _ approved and was ok. you gave no doubt other witness statements i doubt other witness statements throughout the lifetime of your career at the post office. was it your usual practice to sign a statement drafted for you by others? i cannot recall any that had been drafted — i cannot recall any that had been drafted by others, there may have been _ drafted by others, there may have been one — drafted by others, there may have been one or two but i would have produced — been one or two but i would have produced my own witness statement or it would _ produced my own witness statement or it would have been taken by a third party _ it would have been taken by a third party in _ it would have been taken by a third -a . .,, it would have been taken by a third party. in those circumstances did not stand out _ party. in those circumstances did not stand out to _ party. in those circumstances did not stand out to you _ party. in those circumstances did not stand out to you as _ party. in those circumstances did| not stand out to you as somewhat unusual? figs not stand out to you as somewhat unusual? �* , ,, ., , unusual? as i say, if it was queried. — unusual? as i say, if it was queried, assurance - unusual? as i say, if it was queried, assurance was - unusual? as i say, if it was queried, assurance was it i unusual? as i say, if it was i queried, assurance was it has unusual? as i say, if it was - queried, assurance was it has come from _ queried, assurance was it has come from the _ queried, assurance was it has come from the lawyers and everything is fine with— from the lawyers and everything is fine with it — from the lawyers and everything is fine with it. do from the lawyers and everything is fine with it— fine with it. do you remember the mac remember— fine with it. do you remember the mac remember any _ fine with it. do you remember the mac remember any conversation i fine with it. do you remember the i mac remember any conversation you had querying it? i mac remember any conversation you had querying it?—

had querying it? i cannot at all. movin: had querying it? i cannot at all. moving on _ had querying it? i cannot at all. moving on to — had querying it? i cannot at all. moving on to some _ had querying it? i cannot at all. moving on to some case - had querying it? i cannot at all. i moving on to some case studies, beginning by looking at the case of lisa brennan. a case for the court of appeal quashed the conviction and i will start by looking at what the court of appeal had to say and that zero is 113278. thank you. the court of appealjudgement injo hamilton and others. can we please look at page 59? addressing the case of lisa brennan. the bottom of page 59. lisa brennan. the bottom of page 59. lisa brennan who had been a post office counter clerk when she was 16 years old was convicted on 27 counts of theft, representing a shortfall of £3a82 and a0 p. pausing at there. was it usual to have so many counts of theft representing for there is a

relatively small shortfall? the difference _ relatively small shortfall? the difference with _ relatively small shortfall? the difference with this one it is a pension— difference with this one it is a pension and allowance docket or voucher. — pension and allowance docket or voucher. in— pension and allowance docket or voucher, in this case, the vouchers were _ voucher, in this case, the vouchers were overstated, there's a number of different— were overstated, there's a number of different types of fraud that took place _ different types of fraud that took place concerning vouchers and this is an— place concerning vouchers and this is an overstated voucher, the value had been _ is an overstated voucher, the value had been increased and it was first found _ had been increased and it was first found and — had been increased and it was first found and detected during a routine check— found and detected during a routine check by— found and detected during a routine check by the dwp in their branch. what _ check by the dwp in their branch. what you — check by the dwp in their branch. what you are saying, 27 vouchers, total value of £3000. correct, yes. the court of appeal says on the 6th of september 2003 she was sentenced to six months in prison suspended for two years and as a result of the proceeding she was forced to file for bankruptcy. the post office decided to pursue criminal charges

against lisa brennan in relation to events in 2001 close to the time of the rollout of horizon which we know rolled out from 2000 onwards. according to the limited available documentation the prosecution case where she paid out cash for allowance and benefit vouchers, she would make more cash than was permitted by the voucher and kept the difference yourself stop the evidence of that depended on the difference between the amount horizon showed and had been entered onto the system and the lesser amount of the voucher. lisa brennan admitted the discrepancies, she said they were errors on her part because of problems at home and pressures at work, she denied theft and said she did not know what had happened to the money. the post office except this was an unexplained shortfall case and that the evidence from horizon was essential to the case, her explanation was she must admit keystroke errors when entering

voucher amounts onto horizon. the prosecution did not consider whether a bug, error or defect could have affected the process. there is nothing to indicate any they account data, that is forjitsu audit data, you recall that? i do. was obtained at the time the proceedings and no evidence to corroborate horizon evidence to corroborate horizon evidence on the issue of the trial was dishonesty but there was insufficient proof of an appropriation on the post office concedes only that the prosecution was unfair but we are bound to conclude her prosecution was in addition an affront to justice. could we look at 00a7322. this is the record of interview and scrolling down slightly. yet where the interviewing officer in the case of lisa brennan alongside somebody

called anthony or tony gardner, correct? was he a similar role to you in the investigation? he correct? was he a similar role to you in the investigation?- you in the investigation? he had been art you in the investigation? he had been part of _ you in the investigation? he had been part of the _ you in the investigation? he had been part of the old _ you in the investigation? he had been part of the old post - you in the investigation? he had been part of the old post office | been part of the old post office investigation department for about 20 years _ investigation department for about 20 ears. ., ., investigation department for about 20 ears. ., ~ , , 20 years. thank you. it begins, addressing _ 20 years. thank you. it begins, addressing introductions - 20 years. thank you. it begins, j addressing introductions made, caution issued, caution was explained to lisa brennan, legal rights explained in the presence of legal representation declined. it seems as though she turned down legal representation but she had a union representative within that interview, is that correct? correct. kindl to interview, is that correct? correct. kindly to page _ interview, is that correct? correct. kindly to page it — interview, is that correct? correct. kindly to page 11 please? - interview, is that correct? correct. kindly to page 11 please? i - interview, is that correct? correct. kindly to page 11 please? i am - kindly to page 11 please? i am sorry, page ten. we'll from page ten. i'm going to read to you some extracts from this interview. we

have a g, that is anthony gardner says we got a choice of two things, happened to me, either you are totally incompetent and are costing the post office through a £a00 a week and therefore we cannot afford to keep you and she says do not sack me. what you are peddling the pension deliberately in your pocketing the money? i haven't got it, i haven't got it, i happened and he says someone has got it and she says i have not got it and if you scroll down the page you become involved in the interview. and you say, it equates to about £5,000. no i do not think its carelessness, i do not think tony thinks it's carelessness and she says i have not got it and summarised miss brennan explained her personal circumstances and you say as follows. so actually earn a bit more than £180, 0k, and you say as follows. so actually earn a bit more than £180, ok, if we go off this, not that you're saying these are all mistakes, callousness, as it a bit strange that they are

just happening in the pensions and not on your other work and she says like in what? you see your gyros have not been proved to be wrong, your savings bank not wrong, it's only pensions one by 100 or £200 at a time? she says i don't know. and then you say, and mr gordon says, i think it's a question of not whether you have done it but what you have done it and she says i have not done it and he says i think you have done it and he says i think you have done it deliberately and she says i have not done it, i hope had pressures, the work we're doing and then he says, no one else is making like you. and she says, they don't work as fast as me. i've been working dead fast. can we go back to your witness statement, w itn 00aa50100.

page six paragraph 19 a. you are addressing a different case study in this paragraph, page six, thank you. you are addressing the case of macdonald in this paragraph but you say, i can categorically state i have never said to any person i have interviewed and definitely not to jackie mcdonald that she was the only one in opposition. she had take that statement to mean that i, stephen bradshaw never said to anybody that they were the only one in that position but the person sitting next to me may well have? i position but the person sitting next to me may well have?— to me may well have? i wouldn't exect to me may well have? i wouldn't expect anybody _ to me may well have? i wouldn't expect anybody to _ to me may well have? i wouldn't expect anybody to sit _ to me may well have? i wouldn't expect anybody to sit next - to me may well have? i wouldn't expect anybody to sit next to - to me may well have? i wouldn'tj expect anybody to sit next to me to me may well have? i wouldn't i expect anybody to sit next to me to seek you _ expect anybody to sit next to me to seek you are the only one in the position— seek you are the only one in the position that this has happened to you, position that this has happened to you. i_ position that this has happened to you. i have — position that this has happened to you, i have never heard that be said _ you, i have never heard that be said. ., , , you, i have never heard that be said. . ,, . ~ ., said. perhaps we will return back to the interview. _

said. perhaps we will return back to the interview, paul— said. perhaps we will return back to the interview, paul 00 _ said. perhaps we will return back to the interview, paul 00 47322. - said. perhaps we will return back to the interview, paul 00 47322. just. the interview, paul 00 47322. just to clari , the interview, paul 00 47322. just to clarify. i — the interview, paul 00 47322. just to clarify. i know— the interview, paul 00 47322. just to clarify, i know what you are going — to clarify, i know what you are going back to, saying you're the only one — going back to, saying you're the only one in _ going back to, saying you're the only one in opposition, that would be fair— only one in opposition, that would be fair in — only one in opposition, that would be fair in that particular branch, no one — be fair in that particular branch, no one else _ be fair in that particular branch, no one else is having the same issues — no one else is having the same issues. �* , ., ., ~' no one else is having the same issues. �* , ., ., ~ ., no one else is having the same issues. �*, ., " no one else is having the same issues. �*, . ” ., issues. let's look at page 11 of the interview. — issues. let's look at page 11 of the interview. if— issues. let's look at page 11 of the interview, if we _ issues. let's look at page 11 of the interview, if we can, _ issues. let's look at page 11 of the interview, if we can, please? - issues. let's look at page 11 of the interview, if we can, please? and| issues. let's look at page 11 of the i interview, if we can, please? and it is halfway down. mrgardner mr gardner said, mrgardnersaid, no one mr gardner said, no one else is making mistakes like you. you were in that interview, sitting next to him, did you correct him? did you say that is not an appropriate thing to say? say that is not an appropriate thing to sa ? ., .. say that is not an appropriate thing to sa ? . ~ . ., to say? taken in the right context, in this case — to say? taken in the right context, in this case for— to say? taken in the right context, in this case for pension _ to say? taken in the right context, in this case for pension and - in this case for pension and allowances everybody's pension and allowances everybody's pension and allowances submissions on the bench was checked and the only submissions was checked and the only submissions was the _ was checked and the only submissions was the stock unit that lisa brennan had, was the stock unit that lisa brennan had. she _ was the stock unit that lisa brennan had, she was the only one in the

post— had, she was the only one in the post office — had, she was the only one in the post office that had the issue for pensions — post office that had the issue for pensions and allotments, no other work— pensions and allotments, no other work was — pensions and allotments, no other work was affected. and after you have _ work was affected. and after you have cashed the pension and allowance vouchers you get a printout _ allowance vouchers you get a printout and either miss brennan or another— printout and either miss brennan or another member of staff will check the number of vouchers against the printout— the number of vouchers against the printout and that is when you would identify— printout and that is when you would identify any error.— identify any error. quite a number of --eole identify any error. quite a number of people have — identify any error. quite a number of people have given _ identify any error. quite a number of people have given evidence - identify any error. quite a number of people have given evidence to i of people have given evidence to this inquiry saying they were told they were the only ones this was happening to. a fair reading of that is surely that she has been told that no one is making mistakes on the horizon system? fits that no one is making mistakes on the horizon system? $5 i that no one is making mistakes on the horizon system?— that no one is making mistakes on the horizon system? as i say, it has to be taken — the horizon system? as i say, it has to be taken in _ the horizon system? as i say, it has to be taken in the _ the horizon system? as i say, it has to be taken in the right _ the horizon system? as i say, it has to be taken in the right context - to be taken in the right context within— to be taken in the right context within that branch but she was the only one _ within that branch but she was the only one having issues with the pension— only one having issues with the pension and allowance submissions. don't _ pension and allowance submissions. don't you _ pension and allowance submissions. don't you think therefore that was an appropriate thing to say to her, that nobody else making mistakes? in

that nobody else making mistakes? in that branch, no one else was having those _ that branch, no one else was having those mistakes. you that branch, no one else was having those mistakes.— that branch, no one else was having those mistakes. you have no concern about the form _ those mistakes. you have no concern about the form of— those mistakes. you have no concern about the form of words _ those mistakes. you have no concern about the form of words being - those mistakes. you have no concern about the form of words being used? j about the form of words being used? no because pension and allowances were checked and it was found on her submissions — were checked and it was found on her submissions showed issues with vouchers? — submissions showed issues with vouchers? ., ., ., submissions showed issues with vouchers? ., ., , submissions showed issues with vouchers? ., ., ., . vouchers? you have no concerns about mr gardnerjust _ vouchers? you have no concerns about mr gardnerjust his _ vouchers? you have no concerns about mr gardnerjust his approach _ vouchers? you have no concerns about mr gardnerjust his approach to - mr gardnerjust his approach to asking questions in interview? it was an interview in accordance with pace standards and the questions are difficult. _ pace standards and the questions are difficult. do pace standards and the questions are difficult. , ., ~' pace standards and the questions are difficult. , ., ~ ., ., difficult. do you think of a professional _ difficult. do you think of a professional during - difficult. do you think of a professional during the i difficult. do you think of a - professional during the course of the interview she carried out? i do. the interview she carried out? i do, es. do the interview she carried out? i do, yes- do you — the interview she carried out? i do, yes- do you think — the interview she carried out? i do, yes. do you think mr— the interview she carried out? i do, yes. do you think mr gardner- the interview she carried out? i do, yes. do you think mr gardner was i yes. do you think mr gardner was professional? _ yes. do you think mr gardner was professional? yes. _ yes. do you think mr gardner was professional? yes. i— yes. do you think mr gardner was professional? yes. i would - yes. do you think mr gardner was professional? yes. i would like i yes. do you think mr gardner was professional? yes. i would like to move on to _ professional? yes. i would like to move on to the _ professional? yes. i would like to move on to the case _ professional? yes. i would like to move on to the case ofjanet move on to the case of janet skinner, 00113 278. janet skinner was another appellant in thejoe

hamilton court of appeal case, she had her conviction quashed. could we look at page a5, please, detailing what the court of appeal said. about janet skinner? they say on the 5th of january 2007 janet skinner pleaded guilty to one count of also counting. we understand the alleged shortfall was £59,000. 0n the 2nd of february she was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. paragraph 191 says during a post office audit missus skinner volunteered that there will be a £a0,000 shortage of cash, in her interview under caution she stayed the losses had begun in january 2006, she believed that she did not declare them, she could not afford to put it right, she believed one of her members of staff had

stolen the money, a belief in part predicated on the belief that such a large amount of moneyjust could not go missing. the prosecution relied on the evidence of three of the four other members of staff but were not persuaded that evidence was capable of materially advancing the prosecution case. between the 1st of january 200a on the 31st of january 2005 missus skinner made 116 cores to the national business support centre. some of those calls concerned horizon balancing on the next up about half way through it says it appears there was no evidence to corroborate the horizon evidence. no proof of an actual loss as opposed to a horizon generated shortage, no investigation into the various helpline calls made by missus skinner. we are struck by the fact the post office failed to take the steps despite the long service of missus skinner to the post office

and her professional progress, doubtless reflection the mac reflecting her trustworthiness from counter clerk to permit sub—postmistress. it's says the post office conceded it wasn't there but we are bound to conclude the prosecution was an affront to justice. i would like to look at the transcript of interview in her case, 00112971, please. thank you, and turning to page three. yet what the interviewing officer in this case alongside a colleague diane matthews, correct?- alongside a colleague diane matthews, correct? ~ , , , alongside a colleague diane matthews, correct? ~ ,, , matthews, correct? miss matthews was the lead investigator. _ matthews, correct? miss matthews was the lead investigator. can _ matthews, correct? miss matthews was the lead investigator. can we _ matthews, correct? miss matthews was the lead investigator. can we start - the lead investigator. can we start b lookin: the lead investigator. can we start by looking at _ the lead investigator. can we start by looking at page _ the lead investigator. can we start by looking at page six _ the lead investigator. can we start by looking at page six and - the lead investigator. can we start by looking at page six and i - the lead investigator. can we start by looking at page six and i will i by looking at page six and i will take you through some parts of the

transcript. about halfway down that page, to the bottom, there is her explanation. so she says it's just been going up and up the past five months. she's asked by your comic do you want to give us an account of why the rest of the 59,000 short in your account? why the rest of the 59,000 short in youraccount? she why the rest of the 59,000 short in your account? she says if i had the answer i will give you it. but i happened, it started 7500 and it's basically gone up, to be honest i just thought whoever was taking it would be putting it back. i mean, i can prove to you. i am here because i want to prove i am innocent. if you want to search my house you can, my bank, you can, i have nothing to hide whatsoever. i am a thief. there is another interview. going over to page 18, please.

sorry, could we actually go to page ten? and about halfway down. there is a question from in which you say, do you know it's a criminal offence to falsify your accounts? and she says, yes, like i said, it sounds really daft, it's a large amount of money and i hope it gets found. i can be investigated in any way and i have nothing to hide. a second interview and we see that on page 18. again, conducted by miss matthews and yourself. looking at page 25, please. about halfway down, to the bottom of page 25. this is a conversation about a member of

staff. it was paying money back to miss skinner from a discrepancy that she had identified. and yes say who is this sub—postmistress, who is responsible for making the monster slightly above, by your own admission you have not met your shortages good, £1a00, has been outstanding since november 200a. she says, but it wasn't my outstanding shortage and you say sorry, who is the sub—postmistress, who is responsible for making a loss and she says, that is the only thing i'm bothered about, you can investigate me as much as she wants, i don't care i have nothing to hide. you can search my house, rip it apart, do the same with my bank account for the same with my bank account for the past five years, i had nothing to hide whatsoever to stop the only thing that bothers me someone will be held responsible for that and that somebody is me and she is asked

why is it going to be here? she says because it should have been my responsibility and a should have been something i dealt with at the beginning and i know that and that goes through my head every day and if i could answer for that sort of money i would answer. i know i can prove i have not stolen any money. i end a thief. —— i am not a thief and you ask how do we know you haven't stolen it and she says i know, i can sleep at night knowing i haven't and you say, we have got 59,000 point shortage in your account. you offer no explanation for that money has gone, you've got a 1a00 point loss, everything is hunky—dory for 12 months and she says, no it isn't hunky—dory. i can force government to take the money that she did not have, could not force the money from the woman, she did not have it because that is all it is, i could

not force her, she did not have