l'mu no’it this morning. those words, i'm not technically minded, _ this morning. those words, i'm not technically minded, those - this morning. those words, i'm not technically minded, those were - technically minded, those were pretty important in this phase, that evidence he was giving. that is exactly what the inquiry�*s council pounced on, he said if you want technically minded then why did you sign these witness statements that said the post office had absolute confidence in the robustness of the horizon it system? how did stephen bradshaw respond to that? that horizon it system? how did stephen bradshaw respond to that?— bradshaw respond to that? that is incredibly important _ bradshaw respond to that? that is incredibly important point - bradshaw respond to that? that is i incredibly important point because some of the documents that were produced this morning showed witness statements signed by steve bradshaw, one of the statements was to do with a review called second sight commissioned by the post office, a so—called independent review that was looking into if there was an issue with the horizon system. as

one of the investigators, he signed a witness statement expressing full confidence in the horizon system. he was asked why did you write that? and he said because it was written for me by lawyers and i signed it. and he was asked how he felt about that, that he had signed that statement and he said it was wrong, looking at it now, it was wrong. he was pushed on that point. what was put to him by the council was that those statements led to people being put in prison. there were sub—postmaster is sent to prison on the basis of statements expressing full confidence in the horizon system. the other thing he was questioned about this morning was his conduct in those interviews that

he held with sub—postmasters who he was investigating. because those sub—postmaster is over the years have been claiming, alleging, that they were subject to intimidating, threatening and at times cruel interrogation by these sub—postmasters. .. interrogation by these sub—postmasters... by these sub—postmasters. .. by these investigators sub—postmasters... by these investigators who were operating separately from the police and the cps. so it was put to him that his behaviour in some of these interrogations was unprofessional. one particular case was talked about, janet skinner. she spent three months of a nine month custodial sentence in prison. she was convicted of false accounting due to a £59,000 shortfall and she has talked about prison being just

horrendous in recent interviews. he was one of the people investigating her. he was asked about a comment he made in one of those interviews when he asked her, should you have got out of bed earlier? it was put to him that was completely inappropriate in a police style interview, why was he questioning her about her lifestyle? and his answer was, well, this is about a business, this is about the post office, this is about being professional and the reason i was asking her that question was this was about the post office was being run properly and her getting out of bed properly was relevant to this investigation. so, really, a big part of this evidence session today with steve bradshaw is notjust about the horizon it system, i think

it is also about how he and other investigators treated these sub—postmasters during these investigations. just sub-postmasters during these investigations.— sub-postmasters during these investigations. just want a quick cuestion, investigations. just want a quick question. the — investigations. just want a quick question, the inquiry _ investigations. just want a quick question, the inquiry hasn't- investigations. just want a quick - question, the inquiry hasn't resumed and you have to run back in there to report from the room. the chairman issued a warning to mr bradshaw, what he called a self incriminating warning, even though this is just a public inquiry, what level of risk is there when mr bradshaw is giving evidence like this? we is there when mr bradshaw is giving evidence like this?— evidence like this? we are told that steve bradshaw _ evidence like this? we are told that steve bradshaw has _ evidence like this? we are told that steve bradshaw has a _ evidence like this? we are told that steve bradshaw has a lawyer - evidence like this? we are told that steve bradshaw has a lawyer in - evidence like this? we are told that steve bradshaw has a lawyer in the | steve bradshaw has a lawyer in the room with him, and he is clearly concerned about not incriminating himself because there has been talk about whether there will be criminal prosecutions against post office employees. he still works for the post office, he has worked for them for more than a0 years. it might go

some way to explain why for example his witness statement in the words of the inquiry counsel was the bare minimum of what he could have offered to the inquiry in terms of what he knew about the horizon it system. what he knew about the horizon it s stem. . ~ what he knew about the horizon it s stem. ., ~ ,, ., system. thank you, we will leave it there so you _ system. thank you, we will leave it there so you can — system. thank you, we will leave it there so you can run _ system. thank you, we will leave it there so you can run back - system. thank you, we will leave it there so you can run back into - system. thank you, we will leave it there so you can run back into the i there so you can run back into the room and make sure you were there from the start. we will go back to her throughout the day and as this inquiry progresses. as a reminder, she is going back because she and her colleague at the bbc are both reporting from the courtroom and giving us updates regularly on our news website. they are actually surrounded by sub—postmasters and sub—mistresses. one out live page they have been describing how these

people have been shaking their heads as they were listening to the evidence. you can see that live page on the screen, again, we are giving you updates as they come. as a reminder, this phase of the inquiry is trying to understand what went wrong with the horizon it system and how this could have possibly happened. how so many hundreds of convictions could have happened, convictions could have happened, convictions that could now be overturned by the end of the year. as our correspondent mentioned earlier, this isn'tjust about hundreds, this is about thousands who are affected by this scandal. many have had to deal with severe psychological impacts on their health, some have described being suicidal, one victim even being convicted and sent to prison as she

was pregnant. so the stakes here are very high. a reminder that none of this is new, this inquiry began in february 2021, this has been going on for years and it is the itv drama on for years and it is the itv drama on the scandal that has led to a public outcry and led to the government announcing new measures to ensure it can overturn so many convictions. i also want to give you a bit of a reminder as what mr bradshaw has said in this phase of the inquiry. she was asked by the inquiry counsel, julian blake, about what he knew and when he knew it. and it was an uncomfortable exchange to watch becausejulian blake has been absolutely forensic in the way he is questioning the investigator.

each time he asks a question, he asks for response and then he had as the receipts. we saw earlier with mr bradshaw saying he did not know for some time about the issues with horizon it, julian blake then pulled out e—mails from 2010 showing the issue had been flagged. what stephen bradshaw is insisting upon is that he is relying on what his higher—ups have been telling him and they hadn't flagged the issue to him. he is also explained that he is not technically minded enough to understand this. that led to another uncomfortable exchange because julian blake then showed him witness statements in which, i will read to you... statement signed by stephen

bradshaw himself saying that the post office has absolute confidence in the robustness and the integrity of the horizon it system. it was put to him that if he wasn't technically minded, how can he sign a statement with such words? he argued that this was put together by a team of solicitors, julian blake then reminded him and asked him if he knew it was also put together by the chief of the post office's pr department. that was one phase, establishing what he knew and when, there was also a question of the language he used in some of the interrogations, language that i can't repeat, those are the allegations made. and i believe we have the inquiry starting again, so i will take you there so we can hear this next phase as stephen bradshaw resumes giving evidence to the

public inquiry. resumes giving evidence to the public inquiry-— resumes giving evidence to the ublicinuui . , ., public inquiry. there may be a few late comers _ public inquiry. there may be a few late comers but _ public inquiry. there may be a few late comers but we _ public inquiry. there may be a few late comers but we won't - public inquiry. there may be a few late comers but we won't wait - public inquiry. there may be a few late comers but we won't wait for| late comers but we won't wait for them _ late comers but we won't wait for them i_ late comers but we won't wait for them. ., late comers but we won't wait for them. . ., ., ., ., ., them. i am going to move on to the next case study... _ them. i am going to move on to the next case study... and _ them. i am going to move on to the next case study... and it _ them. i am going to move on to the next case study... and it is - next case study... and it is page a9. this is a another case with the court of appeal quashed the conviction. i may write to say that you were the lead investigator? yes. i will read some _ you were the lead investigator? yes. i will read some of— you were the lead investigator? yes. i will read some of the _ you were the lead investigator? yes i will read some of the judgments. they say that on the 7th of march, he changed his plea to guilty to the theft of £17,000, he was sentenced to sa weeks imprisonment. the defence challenged that the horizon system, it was clear from early

stage, that he had informed the post office of the issue and of the intention to call an expert onjuly. a statement onjuly 2012 repeated the statement and made repeated issues with the horizon. he denied theft but admitted changing amounts due to the system malfunctioning. the defence repeatedly sought disclosure with horizon and asked a accountancy expert to analyse the accounts. the post office met eat evidence to them straight the integrity of horizon and made use of mrjenkins who contributed to a joint expert report. in a witness statement, mrjenkins supported the integrity of the horizon system. on

the fifth of every 2013, the defence made a formal application for further disclosure on horizon and the application was refused. the defence served an addendum statement that alleged horizon malfunction and set out reports of technical faults which the supposed master had made to the help desk. it also made reports about shortfalls and discrepancies. the post office admitted that this was important to the case, the fujitsu data was provided to defence in 2012, it is unclear what if any analysis was performed. there was no examination of that data for bugs, errors or defects or evidence of theft. it appears there was no evidence to corroborate the horizon evidence.

the fact that mrjenkins provided witness statements suggest that the post office did not disclose the full position regarding the reliability of horizon. there was no proof of actual loss as opposed to horizon generated shortage. the post office concedes that the persecution was unfair, but we are bound to conclude that the prosecution was an affront to justice. can we return to your witness statement... page nine. if we look at page nine, that is where you address the case of ishaq. and we can see at the bottom...

there we have footnote three, a large number of documents were provided in relation to the case, do you recall that?— provided in relation to the case, do you recall that? yes. if we school down we have — you recall that? yes. if we school down we have the _ you recall that? yes. if we school down we have the rest _ you recall that? yes if we school down we have the rest of you recall that? ies if we school down we have the rest of your evidence. can we please look at paul 00a please. this is the investigation report. thank you. is this the document that you drafted? correct. that is dated — document that you drafted? correct. that is dated may _ document that you drafted? correct. that is dated may 2011 _ document that you drafted? correct. that is dated may 2011 and _ document that you drafted? correct. that is dated may 2011 and it - document that you drafted? correct. that is dated may 2011 and it is - that is dated may 2011 and it is your investigation report. i would like to begin on page six, please. thank you. if we scroll down, there

is a section on business and procedural weaknesses. and you say there, due to the circumstances given in explanation of the shortage, at this moment in time i can see no failures in security supervision, procedures or product integrity that should be brought to the attention of the contract manager. is it possible to bring on screen side by side your witness statement that we will take you to. page 1a of that statement please. thank you. on the left—hand side, if we go page 1a. you recall that that is the page that addresses the general questions that were put to you in your request for evidence to the inquiry. and you say there, for

example, i don't know what