signed a statement by you said you signed a statement by cartwright king, no questions asked. at this stage, had you had any training or understanding about the duties that relate to the obtaining of statements and how important it was that they were accurate? that comes with _ was that they were accurate? that comes with the _ was that they were accurate? “mat comes with the training, i had been taking statements from a number of years and they had never been any issues. he years and they had never been any issues. ., ., . issues. he said that i balanced the cash and stock _ issues. he said that i balanced the cash and stock on _ issues. he said that i balanced the cash and stock on a _ issues. he said that i balanced the cash and stock on a weekly - issues. he said that i balanced the cash and stock on a weekly basis l issues. he said that i balanced the i cash and stock on a weekly basis and produced a branch trading statement at the end of the balancing periods. the weekly balancing and trading statements were mainly done by my son—in—law... i think his evidence was that his son—in—law mainly did the work, but it was unable to produce... if he was unable to produce... if he was unable to produce these into myself or my son would go to the post office to do

the balance. during my time as interim sub—postmaster, i did not have any balances that caused me any concern, and when the branch trading statement was produced, i cannot recall making good any shortages above £20. first of all, are we to read into that that he did have some shortfalls... the read into that that he did have some shortfalis- - -— shortfalls... the way, what he said, he would have _ shortfalls... the way, what he said, he would have been _ shortfalls... the way, what he said, he would have been asked - shortfalls... the way, what he said, he would have been asked whetherl shortfalls... the way, what he said, i he would have been asked whether he had any surpluses or shortages and he has come up with the figure of £20, he could not recall any shortage that was above the £20 mark. t shortage that was above the £20 mark. ., ., ., , ., mark. i wee to read anything into the words i _ mark. i wee to read anything into the words i cannot _ mark. i wee to read anything into the words i cannot recall? - mark. i wee to read anything into the words i cannot recall? why i the words i cannot recall? why didn't he say i didn't have any shortages? iis didn't he say i didn't have any shortages?— didn't he say i didn't have any shortages? didn't he say i didn't have any shortaues? , , , . ., shortages? is public the way i wrote it. its not verbatim, _ shortages? is public the way i wrote it. its not verbatim, do _ shortages? is public the way i wrote it. its not verbatim, do you - shortages? is public the way i wrote it. its not verbatim, do you think- it. its not verbatim, do you think those words _

it. its not verbatim, do you think those words were _ it. its not verbatim, do you think those words were yours - it. its not verbatim, do you think those words were yours or - it. its not verbatim, do you think those words were yours or his? i it. its not verbatim, do you think. those words were yours or his? his, because he — those words were yours or his? his, because he would _ those words were yours or his? h 3 because he would have been asked, i may be said do you recall any shortages? and that is how i have written it. it is not verbatim, what he is saying there, as you said, that he has had shortages within the accounts, howeverthat that he has had shortages within the accounts, however that has not caused him any concern because it is up caused him any concern because it is up to about £20. ihe caused him any concern because it is up to about £20-— caused him any concern because it is up to about £20-— up to about £20. he carries on... i employed — up to about £20. he carries on... i employed two _ up to about £20. he carries on... i employed two members _ up to about £20. he carries on... i employed two members of - up to about £20. he carries on... i employed two members of staff i up to about £20. he carries on... i employed two members of staff to work behind the counter, while i was the interim sub—postmaster, the horizon system remained the same, i have never requested any piece of the horizon kit to be replaced. why is that it in capitals? i have never requested any piece of the horizon kit to be replaced. it is requested any piece of the horizon kit to be replaced.— kit to be replaced. it is not really caitals, kit to be replaced. it is not really capitals. it _ kit to be replaced. it is not really capitals. it is _ kit to be replaced. it is not really capitals, it isjust _ kit to be replaced. it is not really capitals, it is just the _ kit to be replaced. it is not really capitals, it is just the way - kit to be replaced. it is not really capitals, it isjust the way i - kit to be replaced. it is not really

capitals, it isjust the way i have | capitals, it is just the way i have written it. it capitals, it is “ust the way i have written it. , ' capitals, it is “ust the way i have written it.— written it. it is different to the rest of the _ written it. it is different to the rest of the writing. _ written it. it is different to the rest of the writing. it - written it. it is different to the rest of the writing. it is - written it. it is different to the rest of the writing. it is just i written it. it is different to the l rest of the writing. it isjust how rest of the writing. it is “ust how i wrote rest of the writing. it is “ust how r wrote at, i rest of the writing. it is “ust how i wrote it, the t rest of the writing. it is “ust how i wrote it, the line _ rest of the writing. it isjust how i wrote it, the line above - rest of the writing. it isjust how i wrote it, the line above it, - rest of the writing. it isjust how i wrote it, the line above it, it i rest of the writing. it isjust how i wrote it, the line above it, it isi i wrote it, the line above it, it is just the way i wrote the statements. there is nothing untoward, it is just the way the statement was written. , , ., just the way the statement was written. , ,, , just the way the statement was written. , _, , .,, ., written. did you see it as an important — written. did you see it as an important part _ written. did you see it as an important part of— written. did you see it as an important part of the - written. did you see it as an - important part of the evidence? not at all, it isjust important part of the evidence? not at all, it is just the way important part of the evidence? not at all, it isjust the way i important part of the evidence? not at all, it is just the way i wrote the statement, sometimes it is in capitals, sometimes it is the way of short notes. i5 capitals, sometimes it is the way of short notes-— short notes. is this the sum of evidence _ short notes. is this the sum of evidence from _ short notes. is this the sum of evidence from the _ short notes. is this the sum of evidence from the subsequent i evidence from the subsequent sub—postmaster? i evidence from the subsequent sub-postmaster?— evidence from the subsequent sub-postmaster? evidence from the subsequent sub-tostmaster? . , ., ., evidence from the subsequent sub- tostmaster? . , ., ., . sub-postmaster? i was asked to get a statement and — sub-postmaster? i was asked to get a statement and see _ sub-postmaster? i was asked to get a statement and see if— sub-postmaster? i was asked to get a statement and see if he _ sub-postmaster? i was asked to get a statement and see if he had _ sub-postmaster? i was asked to get a statement and see if he had any - statement and see if he had any issues with the system in the post office. ~ ., issues with the system in the post office. . . ., office. we read their were two sub- postmaster _ office. we read their were two sub-postmaster is, _ office. we read their were two sub-postmaster is, i— office. we read their were two sub-postmaster is, i think - office. we read their were two | sub-postmaster is, i think that sub—postmaster is, i think that statement was taken from him as well. did it say similar things? statement was taken from him as well. did it say similarthings? i think so, without seeing it... weight is this the sum of this

statement? in fact the author of the statement? in fact the author of the statement didn't generally do the weekly balance. ihe statement didn't generally do the weekly balance.— weekly balance. he can't recall makint weekly balance. he can't recall making good — weekly balance. he can't recall making good any _ weekly balance. he can't recall making good any shortages - weekly balance. he can't recall i making good any shortages above relatively small ones. and that he hasn't requested any part of the physical kit to be replaced. there was no subsequent evidence to this for example, an investigation, somebody looking at the data... during this particular time to see if it was accurate or not. we during this particular time to see if it was accurate or not.- if it was accurate or not. we had no reason to disbelieve _ if it was accurate or not. we had no reason to disbelieve that _ if it was accurate or not. we had no reason to disbelieve that mr - if it was accurate or not. we had no reason to disbelieve that mr patel. reason to disbelieve that mr patel hadn't checked their work within the post office. flan hadn't checked their work within the tost office. ., hadn't checked their work within the tost office. . ., .. ~' hadn't checked their work within the tost office. . . , post office. can we look at this next document. _ post office. can we look at this next document. this _ post office. can we look at this next document. this is - post office. can we look at this next document. this is a - post office. can we look at this next document. this is a letter post office. can we look at this i next document. this is a letter to cartwright king, february 2013, this is within a matter of days from the

correspondence that we have just seen. it says as follows... we enclose in duplicate copies of a notice in additional evidence, the statement of stephen bradshaw and mr patel, there is no further disclosure to be made in this case. it seems that it was only your statement and the statement that we have just seen that was served on mr ishaq. have just seen that was served on mr ishat. .. have just seen that was served on mr ishat. ., , . , ishaq. the other statement might be served earlier. _ ishaq. the other statement might be served earlier, i _ ishaq. the other statement might be served earlier, i do _ ishaq. the other statement might be served earlier, i do recall— ishaq. the other statement might be served earlier, i do recall that - served earlier, i do recall that name. ~ .. served earlier, i do recall that name. ~ ., . name. we will look for that additional _ name. we will look for that additional statement. - name. we will look for that additional statement. it. name. we will look for that i additional statement. it then says... we note that your client has said that the post office horizon system had in the past on numerous occasions malfunctioned causing difficulties in reconciling stock figures and sales receipts, please let us have particulars of the numerous malfunctions your client has referred. do you think that was

a sufficient response to the various issues that mr ishaq had raised? they are the lawyers, they will respond in their way. that wasn't the question- _ respond in their way. that wasn't the question. they _ respond in their way. that wasn't the question. they are _ respond in their way. that wasn't the question. they are the - respond in their way. that wasn't i the question. they are the lawyers, i can't control— the question. they are the lawyers, i can't control how _ the question. they are the lawyers, i can't control how they _ the question. they are the lawyers, i can't control how they reply - the question. they are the lawyers, i can't control how they reply to i i can't control how they reply to anybody. in this case ijust read it as they are asking for the particular issues, malfunctions. fits particular issues, malfunctions. as somebody who was the investigating officer, the disclosure officer who had been reminded of their duties under the criminal procedures act, do you think that was a sufficient response in the particular case to the serious allegations about the horizon system? that the serious allegations about the horizon system?— the serious allegations about the horizon system? that is the lawyers answerint horizon system? that is the lawyers answering that. _ horizon system? that is the lawyers answering that, not _ horizon system? that is the lawyers answering that, not me. _ horizon system? that is the lawyers answering that, not me. i _ horizon system? that is the lawyers answering that, not me. i don't i horizon system? that is the lawyers| answering that, not me. i don't have any control over what they say. you can have a — any control over what they say. you can have a view _ any control over what they say. you can have a view on _ any control over what they say. you can have a view on what they say, what is your view? i can have a view on what they say, what is your view?—

what is your view? i don't see an hint what is your view? i don't see anything wrong _ what is your view? i don't see anything wrong with - what is your view? i don't see anything wrong with it, - what is your view? i don't see anything wrong with it, they l what is your view? i don't see i anything wrong with it, they are just asking what the malfunction was. br; just asking what the malfunction was. �* , ii' :: just asking what the malfunction was. �*y if ii . just asking what the malfunction was. �*y ::':: . , was. by 2010, we have established ou are was. by 2010, we have established you are aware _ was. by 2010, we have established you are aware of _ was. by 2010, we have established you are aware of those _ was. by 2010, we have established you are aware of those computer i you are aware of those computer articles, you were aware of growing body of allegations about the horizon system. you work aware of seema misra, a whole host of things, do you think the response in this letter was sufficient? it do you think the response in this letter was sufficient?— letter was sufficient? it seemed sufficient because _ letter was sufficient? it seemed sufficient because they - letter was sufficient? it seemed sufficient because they are - letter was sufficient? it seemed i sufficient because they are asking what the malfunction was. they are asking what went wrong on a particular occasion, that is how i read that letter. particular occasion, that is howl read that letter.— particular occasion, that is howl read that letter. could we keep this letter, read that letter. could we keep this letter. please _ read that letter. could we keep this letter, please and _ read that letter. could we keep this letter, please and can _ read that letter. could we keep this letter, please and can be _ read that letter. could we keep this letter, please and can be look- read that letter. could we keep this letter, please and can be look at i letter, please and can be look at its side by side with this one. this is the letter you received questioning about whether further inquiries were made and if a full audit had been undertaken since mr

ishaq had finished at the post office. if we could scroll down... do you think that letter was sufficiently addressed in this response? i sufficiently addressed in this response?— sufficiently addressed in this resonse? . . , response? i am a small cog in this as the investigation _ response? i am a small cog in this as the investigation officer, i response? i am a small cog in this as the investigation officer, the i as the investigation officer, the lawyers would deal directly with the defence lawyers. is it up to me to sort of say? i don't see anything wrong with the reply in the letters. if we could keep the one on the right—hand side, on the left can we put up the next document. it is page four of that. paragraph 11, if we scroll down. these were the paragraphs i took you to about material to the knowledge of the prosecution that reasonably supports

the contention that horizon software system has proved to be unreliable. full results of any internal investigations, etc. in looking at that request, do you think that answer on the right—hand side is sufficient? fits answer on the right-hand side is sufficient?— answer on the right-hand side is sufficient? a , . ., ., , sufficient? as explained on numerous occasions, sufficient? as explained on numerous occasions. i— sufficient? as explained on numerous occasions, iwill_ sufficient? as explained on numerous occasions, i will react _ sufficient? as explained on numerous occasions, i will react on _ sufficient? as explained on numerous occasions, i will react on any - occasions, i will react on any instructions from the solicitors. this is the 15th of february on the right—hand side, shortly before the trial, the trial was ten days later. do you think that final sentence, please let us have particulars of the numerous malfunctions, placing the numerous malfunctions, placing the burden on mr ishaq to identify the burden on mr ishaq to identify the malfunctions, do you think that was an appropriate approach to take so close to the trial? fits was an appropriate approach to take so close to the trial?— so close to the trial? as you are well aware. _ so close to the trial? as you are well aware, things _ so close to the trial? as you are well aware, things go _ so close to the trial? as you are well aware, things go straight i so close to the trial? as you are | well aware, things go straight on so close to the trial? as you are i well aware, things go straight on up till the trial date, as i say, i have left on any instructions from

the solicitors. cartwright king are asking for any malfunctions, whether. .. asking for any malfunctions, whether... i don't see anything wrong in that paragraph. you whether... i don't see anything wrong in that paragraph. you are the disclosure officer, _ wrong in that paragraph. you are the disclosure officer, you _ wrong in that paragraph. you are the disclosure officer, you have - disclosure officer, you have received a defence statement requesting quite a lot of material create the map relating the horizon system. shortly before the trial the answers you are not getting anything else, let us know what you say. you see a problem that? that else, let us know what you say. you see a problem that?— see a problem that? that was from the lawyers. _ see a problem that? that was from the lawyers. i _ see a problem that? that was from the lawyers, i would _ see a problem that? that was from the lawyers, i would disclose i see a problem that? that was from the lawyers, i would disclose all i the lawyers, i would disclose all information i have, cartwright king information i have, cartwright king in this case are the ones who deal directly with the defence solicitors. and if any information is required, i will assist cartwright king on obtaining the information. tithe cartwright king on obtaining the information.— information. one think that you haven't passed _ information. one think that you haven't passed is _ information. one think that you haven't passed is wider - information. one think that you i haven't passed is wider knowledge of horizon systems, pass to you over many years, 13 years by that stage.

as far as i was aware, the criminal law team were well aware of this. as you're shown in previous documents. can we look at the next document? this was an addendum defence statement that was filed in the case of mr ishaq, if we scroll down, he sets out, he responds to the letter. he has set out their problems that the horizon online system would crash and freeze, would give inaccurate total figures at the end of trading. as a result of these problems the defendant called the horizon help desk in the region of eight to ten times a month. that gives the telephone number. those calls were made of a period of about 12 months. he then gives a series of

references if we scroll down... to the bottom of the second page. it says were balance or trading report showed a shortage of cash, the system would give the defendant an option to make good the discrepancy. on occasions, the defendant did not accept that he had made an error and requested the issue be dealt with centrally by the post office, he received letters from chesterfield, approximate you twice defendant called chesterfield to discuss discrepancies and to explain the problems he was encountering the system. no references were provided by chesterfield staff but he was assured the matter would be investigated. and then he gives further details. could we please

turn to the next document. this is an e—mailfrom martin smith to yourself. he says please find attached a letter which we have received from mr ishaq enclosing a defence case statement. the document we have just been looking at. i note that the addendum defence case statement sets out the reference number of numerous reports that the defendant apparently made. it is the last working day before the trial and i am somewhat suspicious that the information was not disclosed at an earlier stage. steve, the information was not disclosed at an earlierstage. steve, could the information was not disclosed at an earlier stage. steve, could you go through the addendum statement and make such inquiries as you are able to today. just pausing there, we saw the letter which asked for further information, the addendum defence case statement seems to have been submitted in response to that letter. where you suspicious about the detail that was provided in that defence statement?—

the detail that was provided in that defence statement? sorry, can you clari ? defence statement? sorry, can you clarify? we — defence statement? sorry, can you clarify? we have — defence statement? sorry, can you clarify? we have seen _ defence statement? sorry, can you clarify? we have seen an _ defence statement? sorry, can youl clarify? we have seen an additional defendant statement _ clarify? we have seen an additional defendant statement giving - clarify? we have seen an additional defendant statement giving more l defendant statement giving more detail. where you suspicious of the production of that defence statement? in production of that defence statement?— production of that defence statement? ., statement? in the addendum, there was the horizon _ statement? in the addendum, there was the horizon reference _ statement? in the addendum, there was the horizon reference numbers, so that possibly indicates that the horizon call logs were obtained from fujitsu. that is why you have the reference numbers and what have you. sorry, we will get to the investigation into the information... investigation into the information. . .- investigation into the information... ., . information... from that statement, a t ain that information... from that statement, again that is — information... from that statement, again that is an _ information... from that statement, again that is an instruction _ information... from that statement, again that is an instruction and i i again that is an instruction and i am dealing with whatever he wishes me to go on. and again, that is a decision he has made as to... i can't say what kind of conversation went on with mr smith, regarding if

he should or shouldn't tell. did went on with mr smith, regarding if he should or shouldn't tell.- he should or shouldn't tell. did you have any suspicions _ he should or shouldn't tell. did you have any suspicions about - he should or shouldn't tell. did you have any suspicions about the i have any suspicions about the information provided? ltla. have any suspicions about the information provided?- have any suspicions about the information provided? no. iwould look at the — information provided? no. iwould look at the information _ information provided? no. iwould look at the information that i information provided? no. iwould look at the information that is i look at the information that is received. hf look at the information that is received. , . ., look at the information that is received. ,. ., .. received. if we scroll down, he sa s, i received. if we scroll down, he says. i have — received. if we scroll down, he says, i have no _ received. if we scroll down, he says, i have no intention i received. if we scroll down, he says, i have no intention of. says, i have no intention of providing details of previous cases in which there has been an unsuccessful challenge to horizon, that information does not undermine the case or assist the defence. your evidence was that she relied on cartwright king and here you are being told by cartwright king that they are not can be providing that information. did you have concerns about the approach they were taking? at the time, probably not. i can't really answer because i don't know what type of conversation went on at that time with cartwright king. [30 that time with cartwright king. do ou that time with cartwright king. do you recall any conversation in which that was challenged? it you recall any conversation in which that was challenged?— that was challenged? it was more than ten years — that was challenged? it was more than ten years ago. _

that was challenged? it was more than ten years ago. do _ that was challenged? it was more than ten years ago. do you i that was challenged? it was more than ten years ago. do you thinkl than ten years ago. do you think you did have a conversation _ than ten years ago. do you think you did have a conversation with - did have a conversation with cartwright king? i did have a conversation with cartwright king?— did have a conversation with cartwright king? i had numerous conversations _ cartwright king? i had numerous conversations over _ cartwright king? i had numerous conversations over the _ cartwright king? i had numerous conversations over the years, i conversations over the years, whether that was part of one of them... it is ten years, i can't say yes i spoke to them about mr ishaq or i spoke to them about this. unfortunately that's just the passing of time without one. so your evidence is you _ passing of time without one. so your evidence is you can't _ passing of time without one. so your evidence is you can't remember? i passing of time without one. so your i evidence is you can't remember? yes, in this case — evidence is you can't remember? yes, in this case i— evidence is you can't remember? yes, in this case i can't _ evidence is you can't remember? re: in this case i can't remember any conversation about that, i not saying it didn't but i can't say it did. , .. ~ saying it didn't but i can't say it did. i. ~ , saying it didn't but i can't say it did. ~ , ~ , did. do you think it is likely if ou did. do you think it is likely if you receive — did. do you think it is likely if you receive this _ did. do you think it is likely if you receive this and - did. do you think it is likely if you receive this and had i you receive this and had an objection to this you might have written it down? objection to this you might have written it down ?_ objection to this you might have written it down? ,, ., . , written it down? something may well have been said. _ written it down? something may well have been said. do _ written it down? something may well have been said. do you _ written it down? something may well have been said. do you think- written it down? something may well have been said. do you think it i written it down? something may well have been said. do you think it was? | have been said. do you think it was? as i said, have been said. do you think it was? as i said. i— have been said. do you think it was? as i said. i can't— have been said. do you think it was? as i said, i can't categorically - have been said. do you think it was? as i said, i can't categorically say - as i said, i can't categorically say it did or didn't. it is likely to have taken place, if you have an unsuccessful challenge and passing of the conversation would be why not. they are making the choices as

the lawyers. did not. they are making the choices as the lawn-— not. they are making the choices as the lawyers-— the lawyers. did you not see as disclosure _ the lawyers. did you not see as disclosure officer _ the lawyers. did you not see as disclosure officer the _ the lawyers. did you not see as disclosure officer the duty - the lawyers. did you not see as disclosure officer the duty for l the lawyers. did you not see as i disclosure officer the duty for you to... i disclose everything that i have from the post office side of the post office, everything else is done by cartwright king to the defence. could be please look at the next document. here we have you chasing up some of the references. the we can look at page three. these are chasing up some of those references that are in the defence statement of mr ishaq. the bottom e—mail is from you. it says... is at the final page? i think there is one

more page. please see below from steve bradshaw, forwarding your e—mail, which is to advise that a request for the call logs for the branch need to go via the security team into theirs. to the needs to be a conversation between yourselves and pete thomas and andy dunks. would it be possible for you to progress this and have the logs sent to steve bradshaw? we have an e—mail from you that says as follows... i have been speaking tojulie who tells me that the call logs with the letter h and fujitsu call logs begin with the letter a. sorry to be a pain but can you identify the following reference numbers and what problems they relate to? if we go to the first page... we see there an

e—mailfrom the post the first page... we see there an e—mail from the post office service desk saying that they have checked, they have had problems locating particular references and e—mail continues... the only remaining alternative is to all incidents logged in each month for the date ranges in the hope that they are listed somewhere. i have been protesting your request since two o'clock, this is timed at four .14. and have yet to extract a successful monthly report due to the volume of calls. there is obviously a high number of calls made in this period. without further clarification of branch code or correct dates, this request becomes considerably more complex. it seems as though the post

office themselves are not having much luck in finding these calls, is that a fair much luck in finding these calls, is thata fairsummary? much luck in finding these calls, is that a fair summary? it much luck in finding these calls, is that a fair summary?— that a fair summary? it indicates i have done — that a fair summary? it indicates i have done what _ that a fair summary? it indicates i have done what the _ that a fair summary? it indicates i have done what the defence - have done what the defence requested, what martin smith has instructed me to do. and they are struggling because the numbers aren't correct. find struggling because the numbers aren't correct.— aren't correct. and that further work is complex, _ aren't correct. and that further work is complex, as _ aren't correct. and that further work is complex, as they - aren't correct. and that further - work is complex, as they describe. what work is complex, as they describe. wha- ., work is complex, as they describe. wha | ., ., , work is complex, as they describe. wha i ., ., , , ., what that would be trying to associate the _ what that would be trying to associate the numbers, - what that would be trying to associate the numbers, if i what that would be trying to | associate the numbers, if the numbers are incorrect they try to balance the numbers with the dates when it went into the call centre. do you remember any conversation you had with the help desk team? normally everything for horizon went through the security team. the casework team. we were not called directly. casework team. we were not called directl . ., ., ., ., directly. could we have a look at the next document? _ directly. could we have a look at the next document? this -

directly. could we have a look at the next document? this is - directly. could we have a look at the next document? this is the l the next document? this is the same day as comments received from mr jenkins on the addendum defence statement. do you recall the involvement of mrjenkins? i statement. do you recall the involvement of mrjenkins? i know of him. you involvement of mrjenkins? i know of him- you have _ involvement of mrjenkins? i know of him. you have any _ involvement of mrjenkins? i know of him. you have any direct _ involvement of mrjenkins? i know of him. you have any direct contact? i l him. you have any direct contact? i met him on — him. you have any direct contact? i met him on a _ him. you have any direct contact? i met him on a few _ him. you have any direct contact? i met him on a few occasions - him. you have any direct contact? i met him on a few occasions and - him. you have any direct contact? i met him on a few occasions and i i met him on a few occasions and i think that is on the occasions in bradford crown court where he was for witness. the most i have met him is about once or twice, not any real telephone conversations with him. he says that i have been asked to comment on the addendum statement in the case of mr ishaq, if we scroll down we can see his comments... there is a section there of the horizon online system and this is in the defence statement, it says the system would often crash and freeze and would give inaccurate total figures. he says, i am aware that there were some issues in the early

days of horizon online, but i don't believe these impacted the overall counting at the end of the period. recovery was carried out correctly. providing recovery was carried out correctly, it shouldn't have impacted on the figures. he says that the migration date was well into the full roll—out and the branch was not operating horizon online during the pilot. if we scroll over the page, he then addresses those reports and he says as follows, just below... if we scroll down slightly. he says i have no easy visibility of these reports, it is possible to retrieve them from the system and examine them but i am not aware of them being provided in evidence. i have certainly not been asked to examine them but i'm happy

to do so. if the details of the reports are not ten imprisoned provided then there is a process to ask for them to be provided by fujitsu. he says i am checking to see if these reports have been got hold of, but as the period of calls has little overlap with period where detailed transaction logs have been obtained, it is likely that there is not a lot that can be done to tie them together without getting more information. can we now turn to the next document? we have an e—mail from garethjenkins to the legal team. he says, thanks for the update on another case and he says i have added some comments to the addendum,

thatis added some comments to the addendum, that is the comment i have just seen. he says i now have confirmation that fujitsu do not have any details regarding this branch so there is nothing i can easily do to address any specifics. the suggestion there is that the call logs from fujitsu had not been obtained. call logs from fu'itsu had not been obtained. . , . call logs from fu'itsu had not been obtained. ., , ., , , call logs from fu'itsu had not been obtained. ., , , , obtained. that is a possibility but i have never— obtained. that is a possibility but i have never seen _ obtained. that is a possibility but i have never seen that _ obtained. that is a possibility but i have never seen that e-mail. i l obtained. that is a possibility but i i have never seen that e-mail. i am i have never seen that e—mail. i am not on it. i have never seen that e-mail. i am not on it. ., �* ., ., , not on it. you didn't have any contact fujitsu? _ not on it. you didn't have any contact fujitsu? no. - not on it. you didn't have any contact fujitsu? no. you - not on it. you didn't have any| contact fujitsu? no. you have not on it. you didn't have any - contact fujitsu? no. you have been contact fu'itsu? no. you have been watchin: contact fujitsu? firm you have been watching special coverage of the post office public inquiry. the inquiry is due to break in a few minutes but we will be back when the inquiry resumes at 2pm. we have been listening to testimony by stephen bradshaw, he has been giving evidence to the inquiry. remember,

none of this is new, the public inquiry began in february 2021, and a recent itv drama has brought the scandal into the spotlight. hundreds of people were wrongly convicted and their convictions could be overturned later this year. it was all because of a faulty horizon it system that showed money was missing. this stage of the inquiry will determine how that happened. key watching routine use. it is the weather next. we will see more clout around then what we have had in the last few days, properly the best of the sunshine reserved for the western areas. an area of high pressure bring this cloud to northern areas which will drift further south and will turn grey and gloomy. properly the best in sunshine in the south of england, some glimmers for northern ireland, probably the best of the sunshine

across scotland throughout the afternoon. temperatures range from around five — seven or 8 degrees. we hold on to the cloud over night, where we have cloud it is not quite as cold as where we see clear skies, across scotland and northern ireland where we see dense fog patches and some freezing fog patches as it will be a frost in scotland, temperature down to minus eight celsius. less cold where we have the cloud. friday will be rather grey, we could see some breaks appearing. the best of the sunshine scotland and northern ireland after that very cold start, tempt is only rising to two or three celsius. six or eight celsius in england and wales. most places dry. change as we head into the weekend that high—pressure retreats allowing a northerly airflow to develop with arctic air sinking southwards and these weather fronts bringing increasing chance of snow showers to

northern scotland. on saturday, variable amounts of cloud, again it is going to be mostly dry, just a few showers of rain pushing to northern scotland, the breeze picking up, temperatures six or 8 degrees. changes on sunday as that weather front to sink southwards, it brings showery rain in central areas, it will fizzle out and behind the air turns much colder, frequent snow showers developing even down to lower levels and accumulating in places. low single digits. we hold onto the snow showers and the cold northerly winds into the start of next week, we need to keep an eye on this feature as it bumps into the cold air, we could see a risk of snow across the south which could be destructive. stay tuned to the forecast as details continue to change.

today at one — the public inquiry into the post office scandal hears evidence from an investigator whose work led to the prosecution of some of the subpostmasters who were wrongly accused. i swear by almighty god... stephen bradshaw denied that he and other investigators behaved like the mafia. he was also asked if he regretted his orginal witness statement.

but it hasn't caused you any moment of reflection? of course it causes moments of reflection because you look at it and go, "that's completely wrong," because somebody's told me to put a statement through like that. most key nhs targets have been missed for at least seven years in hospitals across the uk. claims at the international court ofjustice in the hague that israel's military offensive in gaza amounts to genocide. i, ross... take thee, emily. take thee, rachel... and up for sale — the script from this famous episode of the tv sitcom friends, which was rescued from a rubbish bin in london. coming up on bbc news the former england boss sven—goran eriksson says he has a year to live after

being diagnosed with