and was not equipped to know if there were bugs in the computer system. stephen bradshaw was part of the team whose work led to criminal proceedings against some sub—postmasters. let us listen back to some of the evidence given back by stephen bradshaw. he was asked by inquiry counseljulian blake when he knew that there may have been issues with the horizon it system. in that there may have been issues with the horizon it system.— the horizon it system. in 2010 and 2011, ou the horizon it system. in 2010 and 2011. you were _ the horizon it system. in 2010 and 2011, you were certainly _ the horizon it system. in 2010 and 2011, you were certainly aware - the horizon it system. in 2010 and 2011, you were certainly aware of l the horizon it system. in 2010 and 2011, you were certainly aware of a body of cases relating to the horizon system that were building up, were you not? horizon system that were building up: were you not?— horizon system that were building up. were you not?— up, were you not? from that information, _ up, were you not? from that information, yes, _ up, were you not? from that information, yes, and - up, were you not? from that information, yes, and as - up, were you not? from that information, yes, and as i i up, were you not? from that i information, yes, and as i have said, _ information, yes, and as i have said, whenever it has come up in the interview. _ said, whenever it has come up in the interview. i_ said, whenever it has come up in the interview, i took the action is to try and — interview, i took the action is to try and find _ interview, i took the action is to try and find out what the issue with horizon _ try and find out what the issue with horizon was, hence the logs, and on

this occasion. — horizon was, hence the logs, and on this occasion, mr dinsdale had set ”p this occasion, mr dinsdale had set up that— this occasion, mr dinsdale had set up that all— this occasion, mr dinsdale had set up that all contact with fujitsu would — up that all contact with fujitsu would be _ up that all contact with fujitsu would be done by the casework team. yes, would be done by the casework team. yes. but _ would be done by the casework team. yes. but in _ would be done by the casework team. yes, but in 2010, you had received those articles relating to problems with horizon and were aware from this communication that there was a body of cases relating to concerns about the horizon system. didn't that cause you pause for thought? the pause for thought is that when you to _ the pause for thought is that when you to the — the pause for thought is that when you to the person being interviewed, you to the person being interviewed, you would _ you to the person being interviewed, you would take into account. so if you would take into account. so if you were — you would take into account. so if you were informed that there was an issue _ you were informed that there was an issue within — you were informed that there was an issue within horizon, you would do your best — issue within horizon, you would do your best to— issue within horizon, you would do your best to find out what the issue was _ your best to find out what the issue was. �* , ., your best to find out what the issue was. �* y ., , . your best to find out what the issue was. �* , ., ., _ your best to find out what the issue was. , ., ., _ was. but you began today by saying that nobody — was. but you began today by saying that nobody from _ was. but you began today by saying that nobody from above _ was. but you began today by saying that nobody from above had - was. but you began today by saying that nobody from above had been i that nobody from above had been telling you about bugs and errors. i don't count mr night as someone from _ i don't count mr night as someone from above — i don't count mr night as someone from above-— from above. you had been told by our from above. you had been told by your equal— from above. you had been told by your equal is _ from above. you had been told by your equal is that _ from above. you had been told by your equal is that there _ from above. you had been told by your equal is that there had - from above. you had been told by your equal is that there had been | your equal is that there had been newspaper articles and the growing body of cases, but that in itself

was not sufficient for you to question the reliability of the horizon system?— question the reliability of the horizon system? question the reliability of the horizon s stem? �* , ., ., horizon system? because i am not technically minded. _ horizon system? because i am not technically minded. i— horizon system? because i am not technically minded. i would - horizon system? because i am not technically minded. i would have l technically minded. i would have expected — technically minded. i would have expected that to come from the people — expected that to come from the people above. if there was an issue, i people above. if there was an issue, i would _ people above. if there was an issue, i would expect fujitsu to inform the post office — i would expect fujitsu to inform the post office and the post office to let us _ post office and the post office to let us know what the issues are. these _ let us know what the issues are. these documents are from 2010. we will go through a number of different case studies in due course. how soon were you aware of horizon being raised as an issue? from 2010, as i say, people were raising — from 2010, as i say, people were raising it. _ from 2010, as i say, people were raising it, and overthe from 2010, as i say, people were raising it, and over the next few years _ years. when you say years. — when you say 2010 as years — when you say 2010 as the yrs — when you say 2010 as the starting point, or is there an earlier... ? i think some may have even mentioned it earlier~ _ it earlier. we - it earlier. we will go back live now it earlier. — we will go back live now to the hearing, where evidence continues to be given. we have a problem which should be solved in a few minutes with the transcripts, and my colleagues and i will sit here rather than go in and

help, but feel free to have a quiet chat amongst yourselves until we start again. studio: apologies, it looks like there is an issue there at the proceedings. just a reminder that we are waiting to hear more evidence from stephen bradshaw, former post office investigator. we heard from him a short time ago and he gave evidence earlier today. he is talking about his role in the

investigations. he says he heard reports of problems with horizon software that was not technically minded. that isjust software that was not technically minded. that is just here a software that was not technically minded. that isjust here a bit software that was not technically minded. that is just here a bit of what was said earlier today. buy your own admission, you have not made your shortage is good, £1400 having been outstanding since november 2004. having been outstanding since november2004. she having been outstanding since november 2004. she says, having been outstanding since november2004. she says, but having been outstanding since november 2004. she says, but it wasn't my outstanding shortage. when you say, sorry, who is the sub postmistress? who is responsible for making losses good? and she says, that is the only thing i'm bothered about. you can investigate me as much as you want. i don't care. i've got nothing to hide. you can search my house, you can rip it apart, you can do the same with my bank account for the past five years. i've got nothing to hide whatsoever. the only thing that bothers me is the fact that somebody�*s going to be held responsible for that, and that somebody is me. and she is asked, why is it going to be you? when she says, because it should have been my

responsibility, and it should have been something i dealt with in 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 can prove that i have not stolen any money. i ain't a thief. and then you ask, how do you know we haven't stolen that money? and she says, i know i haven't. i can sleep at night knowing i haven't. and you say, we have got £50,000 shortage in your accounts will stop you offer no expiration nations where that money has gone... welcome the inquiry has resumed. let's go back to it. different case, of russia allen and others. could we please look at paragraph 23? —— russell allen. it is on the fourth page. if we scroll down, we can see the

cases of angela sefton and ann neald. paragraph 23. thank you very much. i will again raid briefly from the transcript —— an accurate read briefly from the transcript to refresh our memory in this case. one april 11, 2013, the crown court at liverpool, angela sefton and ann neald each pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting, with which they were jointly charged. the allegation against them was ensured that between the 1st of january, 2006 and the 6th of january 2012, they had falsified gyro deposit entries on horizon in relation to the receipt of £34,000 in donations made to the charity animals in need. on the 13th of may, ms sefton was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. ms neald was sentenced to five months in prison which was also suspended for 12 months. if we

scroll down to paragraph 27 and 28, please... the post office understood the branch on the 6th of january 2012. during the audit, 40 gyro deposit slips on a number of envelopes were recovered from a cupboard which showed suppressed deposits in the sum of £34,000. ms ?sefyt —— sefton and ms neald said they had tried to repay the funds using their own credit cards and holiday money. they eventually ran out of funds. as a result, they began to delay the processing of business deposits to santander and one of the bank. they could not explain the shortages. they had reached breaking point in their lives, and health had been deeply affected. on january the 20th, 2012, miss sefton and ms neald were interviewed. they said they had

never withheld payments, though they had delayed them. if we scroll over the page... it says she and ms neald did not repeat the losses because they were too terrified. it appears ms neald gave a broadly similar account. she said she did not know whether shortages were coming from. both submitted defence statements which questioned whether the losses were genuine or horizon generated. they requested relevant disclosure and access to horizon for the purpose of examination by a forensic accountant. solicitors on behalf of the post office asserted that material relating to horizon was not disclosable because the case turned on the deposit slips which want no part of horizon. ms neald repeated the disclosure request with the result that the post office agreed on a defence expert should be allowed to attend the branch to analyse the data. the post office serve their witness statement by garethjenkins in which he maintained that there was no problem with horizon. call logs show some

difficulties with horizon had been sporadically reported to the post office between 2005—2011. other records show numerous difficulties with horizon in 2009. the post office accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case, and that evidence from horizon was essential to the prosecution of both ms sefton and ms neald. the post office failed to carry out a proper investigation into horizon issues and failed to disclose failed colourful call logs and other records indicating there had been problems with horizon at the branch. in addition, mrjenkins had informed the post office solicitors that he had no information regarding complaints and investigations into horizon, and it has already been established that it's not possible to examine the original horizon system, because it has not been operational since 2010. similarly, i have not been presented with any audit data related to these cases to examine. these defects in

mrjenkins' evidence were not disclosed, or were two earlier relevant reports disclosed. in those circumstances, the post office accepted that there prosecution was unfair and an affront to justice. can we please look at 002,783? this is the audit report into their branch, the fazakerley branch, and it says as follows. faza kerley is it says as follows. fazakerley is a busy branch in the suburbs of liverpool. we have visited this branch more than any other branch during the last four years and always find it to be well—run and welcoming. on the 6th of january, well—run and welcoming. on the 6th ofjanuary, 2012, accompanied by my colleague richard cross, i conducted an audit of the above—named branch.

also present were steve bradshaw and kevin ryan from the security team. i am just pausing there. we have two auditors, two investigators arriving at the branch on the 6th of january 2012. why was it necessary for four people to attend that branch? the auditors people to attend that branch? tie: auditors arrived before that, and we attended because of the audit to be put on, me and mr ryan. because miss sefton previously telephoned me to say that she wanted to speak to me, and that's why we attended. it is normal for the auditors to attend to audit the branch well we looked into this customer complaint from the animals in need charity. 50 is this customer complaint from the animals in need charity.- animals in need charity. so is it normalfor— animals in need charity. so is it normal for four— animals in need charity. so is it normal for four individuals - animals in need charity. so is it normal for four individuals to i normal for four individuals to attend what is a relatively small branch? no, two were there to do the audit, we were there for the inquiry regarding the non—dot—macro sort of the cash deposit slips that were not

being credited to the customer's account. 50 being credited to the customer's account. , ., , ., being credited to the customer's account. , ., ,, . ., account. so this was a special re . uest account. so this was a special request audit _ account. so this was a special request audit by _ account. so this was a special request audit by the - account. so this was a special request audit by the securityl account. so this was a special- request audit by the security team, whose purpose was to verify financial assets due to the post office. the audit revealed a surplus in the branch, etc. if we go over the page. it says, we arrived at the branch at 8:15am and introduced ourselves to a member of staff on the shop counter. she referred us to the post office counter, where a member of staff was sat in the dark behind the counter. i knew this was one of the members of staff i had previously met, but she was not her normal welcoming self. the other members of staff arrived at 8:45am, and she was slightly upset. as i had very little information of why we were completing an audit so soon after a similar audit, completing an audit so soon after a similaraudit, i completing an audit so soon after a similar audit, i told them that and advised that we were there to perform an audit on behalf of the post office. they tell me that they knew why the audit was happening,

and that they were sorry for causing us problems and sorry for misleading us problems and sorry for misleading us at previous audits... in brackets, there were tears. you remember them being in tears when you were there? this. remember them being in tears when you were there?— you were there? no, i don't recall them being _ you were there? no, i don't recall them being in _ you were there? no, i don't recall them being in tears _ you were there? no, i don't recall them being in tears at _ you were there? no, i don't recall them being in tears at all. - you were there? no, i don't recall them being in tears at all. do - you were there? no, i don't recall them being in tears at all. do you| them being in tears at all. do you remember _ them being in tears at all. do you remember them _ them being in tears at all. do you remember them being _ them being in tears at all. do you remember them being upset? - remember them being upset? i would say that they didn't seem particularly upset. they had contacted me... even on the day of the audit, miss sefton phoned me to inform me the auditors were there and i said i was coming down to the branch shortly. did and i said i was coming down to the branch shortly-— branch shortly. did you have any reason to doubt _ branch shortly. did you have any reason to doubt what _ branch shortly. did you have any reason to doubt what the - branch shortly. did you have any. reason to doubt what the auditors said yeah and no, i had no reason. at 11am, steve bradshaw asked us to check around the branch as the staff had said they had concealed some paperwork in the cupboards. we spent about ten minutes looking, but could not find anything. one staff member was led through the secure area and immediately located in the paperwork, which she handed to steve bradshaw. staff agreed to leave with the security team, and before they

left, they were allowed to collect any personal items from behind the counter. again, they apologised and said sorry for all they had done and that they felt terrible. was that your recollection as well, that they were apologising and felt terrible? yes, miss sefton and miss neald apologised all the way through. it was mr ryan who went with miss neald to recover the deposit slips, and they brought them back. he counted them up and there was 40 that was, give or take a bit, £35,000. was this again a case where you were the lead investigator? yes. can we look at paul 008734, please? the second e—mail on the pages from your self to andrew bolts. he was a lawyer at cartright king. you say as follows. on another point

regarding the case of branwell, has the court decided anything regarding the court decided anything regarding the trial dates? also, in light of the trial dates? also, in light of the post office instructing independent experts at the horizon system, would this have any bearing on the case? the reason i ask is that one of the witnesses would like to put some leave, and the date in question is the 13th of august. this is an e—mail in the context of the case of miss sefton and miss neald, but you are referring to another case, that of branwell, and raising theissue case, that of branwell, and raising the issue of independent experts having been appointed. there is that second site? it having been appointed. there is that second site?— second site? it probably would have been at the — second site? it probably would have been at the time. _ second site? it probably would have been at the time. the _ second site? it probably would have been at the time. the branwell- second site? it probably would have been at the time. the branwell one | been at the time. the branwell one was a case that was signed to a team, who had mostly left, and i was assigned to their team. i was not involved in the investigation of those ones. i had to liaise with the solicitors in the courts to follow due process. but solicitors in the courts to follow due process-— solicitors in the courts to follow due process. but as at june 2012, ou were due process. but as at june 2012, you were aware — due process. but as at june 2012, you were aware post _

due process. but as at june 2012, you were aware post office - due process. but as at june 2012, you were aware post office had i you were aware post office had advised independent experts to look at horizon? . advised independent experts to look at horizon? , ,, ,, advised independent experts to look at horizon?_ and l advised independent experts to lookj at horizon?_ and if at horizon? yes, second site. and if we scroll up — at horizon? yes, second site. and if we scroll up to _ at horizon? yes, second site. and if we scroll up to the _ at horizon? yes, second site. and if we scroll up to the response - at horizon? yes, second site. and if we scroll up to the response from i at horizon? yes, second site. and if| we scroll up to the response from mr bolts... he says, in the context of this particular case, john is aware that he has certain days to avoid etc. my he has certain days to avoid etc. my understanding is that the post office line remains that the system is a robust one. the defence could presumably raise the issue, but have not done so yet. we know when the review is going to conclude, as this could affect the judge's decision to adjourn for this reason. mr bolts as they're saying this is the post office's line. that is not particularly reassuring, is it? no, i thought he would be more likely to know when the review would conclude rather than myself. but in terms of the reference to the post office line in an e—mail to yourself, did that cause you any concern that it seemed to be a line coming from the post office rather

than in fact the correct position? yes, as i say, that has come from them. i wasjust yes, as i say, that has come from them. i was just at the very end of them. i was just at the very end of the branwell case, the one underneath london road, sunnydale. i was sort of a liaison for these. i would go in, and, as you say, yes, it shows that mr bolts knew about theissues it shows that mr bolts knew about the issues and should have taken it up the issues and should have taken it up accordingly if he felt. but the issues and should have taken it up accordingly if he felt.— up accordingly if he felt. but it also shows _ up accordingly if he felt. but it also shows that _ up accordingly if he felt. but it also shows that you _ up accordingly if he felt. but it also shows that you were - up accordingly if he felt. but it | also shows that you were aware up accordingly if he felt. but it - also shows that you were aware of a court position of a particular line being taken. he court position of a particular line being taken-— court position of a particular line beinr taken. .,, ., ., , being taken. he has informally come of it as i being taken. he has informally come of it as i say. — being taken. he has informally come of it as i say, these _ being taken. he has informally come of it as i say, these were _ being taken. he has informally come of it as i say, these were all- being taken. he has informally come of it as i say, these were all cases i of it as i say, these were all cases that were well ongoing, and i was just a liaison man to sort out at the very end. if that team hadn't changed, then e—mails never would have even been on there. you changed, then e-mails never would have even been on there.— have even been on there. you were not a have even been on there. you were rrot a liaison — have even been on there. you were not a liaison man, _ have even been on there. you were not a liaison man, you _ have even been on there. you were not a liaison man, you were - have even been on there. you were not a liaison man, you were the - not a liaison man, you were the investigator charged with investigating theft in the neald

case. . investigating theft in the neald case, , ., .. investigating theft in the neald case. , ,, ., ., ., so investigating theft in the neald case. . ,, ., ., ., soat case. yes, sefton and neald. so at that time. — case. yes, sefton and neald. so at that time. you _ case. yes, sefton and neald. so at that time, you are _ case. yes, sefton and neald. so at that time, you are investigating - case. yes, sefton and neald. so at that time, you are investigating a l that time, you are investigating a particular case in relation to discrepancies in horizon, and you were aware that there was a post office line that is that the system is a robust one. in office line that is that the system is a robust one.— is a robust one. in there, but as i said before _ is a robust one. in there, but as i said before about _ is a robust one. in there, but as i said before about taking - is a robust one. in there, but as i said before about taking it - is a robust one. in there, but as i said before about taking it in - said before about taking it in context, the context of this one was to do with people's... whether it be a private individual, a business, the treasury, a charity, this resulted in with cash deposits not being credited to that person's account. that's the inquiry i was looking into. it weren't you also looking into the fact that these people were complaining, concern, in tears, etc, that they had discrepancies they could not account for? rays t that they had discrepancies they could not account for? as i said, there were _ could not account for? as i said, there were no _ could not account for? as i said, there were no tears. _ there were no tears. miss sefton handed me a note on the morning explaining fully what they had done, how they had withheld the gyro slips. they had withheld them once because i think they were the last business where they use deposit

slips. my inquiry to look into was the non—credit of people's cash deposits. we have an audit report saying it has always been a well run and welcoming branch, and you have the sub post postmistress' assistant and concerned about the discrepancy. you had second site carrying out their investigation at this time. didn't you think to yourself, maybe i should think about wider problems with the horizon system? if should think about wider problems with the horizon system?- with the horizon system? if that is certain that _ with the horizon system? if that is certain that all _ with the horizon system? if that is certain that all paperwork- with the horizon system? if that is certain that all paperwork is - certain that all paperwork is correct like there, the balance is correct, like they show it is £559, but in reality, it should have been £34,000 short if them deposits had gone through. if it's not reported, its very difficult to try and find it's very difficult to try and find something that isn't there. but the 're something that isn't there. but they're very — something that isn't there. but they're very case was that we have these discrepancies, we don't know how they are arising. —— their case.

we are going to have to delay them by covering these other payments. that's what they said in their mitigation... that's what they said in their mitigation. . ._ that's what they said in their mitiration. .. v ., ., ., mitigation... it's not mitigation, thou~h, mitigation... it's not mitigation, though. it's _ mitigation... it's not mitigation, though, it's actually... - mitigation... it's not mitigation, though, it's actually... it - mitigation... it's not mitigation, though, it's actually... it is. - though, it's actually... it is. there account. _ though, it's actually... it is. there account. that - though, it's actually... it is. there account. that inquiry| though, it's actually... it is. - there account. that inquiry was about the _ there account. that inquiry was about the withholding - there account. that inquiry was about the withholding of - there account. that inquiry was | about the withholding of deposit slips. that's what it was about. any losses, we couldn't tell that it was i lost money this time and i lost money that time, they didn't ring up an interview, it was something to do with a £4000 last and it was something to do with them in the postmaster, so five years earlier. —— a postmaster, so five years earlier. -- a £4000 postmaster, so five years earlier. —— a £4000 loss. if postmaster, so five years earlier. -- a £4000 loss.— postmaster, so five years earlier. -- a £4000 loss. if you were told as at 2012 that — -- a £4000 loss. if you were told as at 2012 that there _ -- a £4000 loss. if you were told as at 2012 that there was _ -- a £4000 loss. if you were told as at 2012 that there was a _ -- a £4000 loss. if you were told as at 2012 that there was a software - at 2012 that there was a software bug that caused a significant discrepancy in their account and you have been told by them that they have been told by them that they have been told by them that they have been trying to cover that up, would you still have prosecuted them? , , .,, . ., them? they were prosecuted for the . ro them? they were prosecuted for the gyro deposit — them? they were prosecuted for the gyro deposit slips — them? they were prosecuted for the gyro deposit slips not _ them? they were prosecuted for the gyro deposit slips not going - them? they were prosecuted for the gyro deposit slips not going on. - them? they were prosecuted for the gyro deposit slips not going on. and | gyro deposit slips not going on. and if ou were gyro deposit slips not going on. and if you were sure that the underlying problem was a bug, error or defect

in the horizon system that caused that discrepancy, would you still have prosecuted them for covering that up? have prosecuted them for covering that u - ? ., �* . have prosecuted them for covering that u? ., �*, ., , have prosecuted them for covering thatu? ., �*, ., , .,., that up? that's not my decision. that decision _ that up? that's not my decision. that decision would _ that up? that's not my decision. that decision would be - that up? that's not my decision. that decision would be made - that up? that's not my decision. that decision would be made by| that up? that's not my decision. . that decision would be made by the criminal law team cartright king. did you not think that was something worth investigating? hat did you not think that was something worth investigating?— worth investigating? not in this inrui . worth investigating? not in this inquiry- this — worth investigating? not in this inquiry. this inquiry _ worth investigating? not in this inquiry. this inquiry was - worth investigating? not in this inquiry. this inquiry was solely | inquiry. this inquiry was solely about the nonreceipt... sorry, the non—credit of people's money being paid into their account, which ultimately caused the charity to have difficulty with their cash flow problems. that's the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about looking into the reasons for that discrepancy? the discrepancy was quite simple. they did not when the customer came in to deposit money, they did not deposit the money. that was the inquiry. whatever happened before, as i say, to use the web mitigation, they haven't brought up and said, this happened at this thing, they just said they were covering up losses but no substantiation with it. the inquiry was solely about

non—credit of people's money. you were aware that an important part of their case in the criminal proceedings was that the underlying discrepancy was caused by bugs, errors or defects in horizon. rays t errors or defects in horizon. as i said, errors or defects in horizon. as i said. not — errors or defects in horizon. as i said. riot in _ errors or defects in horizon. as i said, not in this _ errors or defects in horizon. as i said, not in this case. _ errors or defects in horizon. " i said, not in this case. this case must earlier that they did not credit somebody�*s deposit. you as an individual, me as a business or somebody else is a treasure i have made a complaint saying, i am paying money to a post office and it is not in my account. that is what was being investigated on this occasion. can we look at 440036, plays? irate can we look at 440036, plays? we have can we look at 440036, plays? - have seen defence statements in other cases, and this is the defence statement in the— statement in the seftons' case, her defence in the _ statement in the seftons' case, her defence in the criminal— statement in the seftons' case, herj defence in the criminal proceedings brought against her. can we please look at paragraph five in the first page, the bottom of that page, please? the 18th ofjuly, 2012. she says as follows: the defendant

asserts that significant losses had been a common experience in the past. losses started to occur from 2005. the defendant had to make good a great deal of those losses out of her own pocket, but as the losses increased ,, the defendant could not afford to pay them from her own resources. over the page, afford to pay them from her own resources. overthe page, please, if we could scroll down to paragraph 11. the defendant also praise in aid ii. the defendant also praise in aid of her defence the fact that the post office's computer system, known as horizon, installed sometime in 2005, has been the subject of criticism in the press. a firm of solicitors in the midlands, shoesmith's, are acting on behalf of 100 sub—postmasters who in the past have wrongly been accused of fraud and false accounting and have been compelled by the post office to repay significant sums of money orface criminal office to repay significant sums of money or face criminal prosecution, presumably. at the heart of their complaint is the fact that the horizon computer system is to blame for these apparent losses due to

some form of technical malfunction. they continue: down the page at the bottom... they seek details of any complaints made to the post office regarding the operation of the horizon computer system from 2005 onwards, and details of the steps taken to deal with those complaints. over the page, please. paragraph four. it is believed that certain members of parliament have become involved in behalf of their constituents and possibly on behalf of complaining sub—postmasters generally in connection with the apparent problems arising out of the horizon computer system. therefore, disclosure is sought of a list of those mps. this would be of great assistance in enabling the defendant through her solicitor to contact them and obtain further information as to the present state of play in the investigation of those complaints by senior officials in the post office. i will take you now to 0044042, miss

neald's defence statement. at the bottom of this first page, miss neald says as follows: the defendant accepts that the losses were shown on the horizon computer from 2005. the defendant does not know how the losses were incurred. the defendant now believes that such losses may have shown as a result of failures in the horizon system. if we scroll over the page, and there is a request for disclosure. the defendant requests disclosure of the following, and see details of complaints and investigations into the horizon computer system. could we please turn 2000, 58300.

page eight, i would like to look at, please. is itfairto is it fair to say that from the statements we have seen, the reliability of the horizon system was front and centre of their defence?— was front and centre of their defence? ., �* , ., , ., defence? that's what they are indicating. _ defence? that's what they are indicating, but _ defence? that's what they are indicating, but however, - defence? that's what they are indicating, but however, they| indicating, but however, they weren't having permanent shortages, because the audit showed a surplus, and as i have explained, this inquiry concerned the non—credit of deposit slips. that's the initial inquiry that we were looking at. so you didn't think it was necessary to look beyond your case and look at their defence and look at the allegations they had made about the horizon system and provide them with disclosure as to issues with the horizon? i disclosure as to issues with the horizon? .., �* disclosure as to issues with the horizon? .. �* , ., disclosure as to issues with the horizon? �* , ., ., , horizon? i can't explain it in any other way- _ horizon? i can't explain it in any other way. the _ horizon? i can't explain it in any other way. the inquiry - horizon? i can't explain it in any other way. the inquiry was - horizon? i can't explain it in any| other way. the inquiry was about horizon? i can't explain it in any - other way. the inquiry was about the non—credit of people's cash deposits. the other is a second issue, on why they had committed

that offence. bud issue, on why they had committed that offence-— that offence. and for you that didn't matter? _ that offence. and for you that didn't matter? i'm _ that offence. and for you that didn't matter? i'm there - that offence. and for you that didn't matter? i'm there to i that offence. and for you that i didn't matter? i'm there to gather the evidence _ didn't matter? i'm there to gather the evidence and _ didn't matter? i'm there to gather the evidence and pass _ didn't matter? i'm there to gather the evidence and pass it _ didn't matter? i'm there to gather the evidence and pass it to - didn't matter? i'm there to gather the evidence and pass it to the i the evidence and pass it to the solicitors. they had still committed the offence. miss sefton gave me a note explaining fully what they had done, why they had done it. did you consider it necessary _ done, why they had done it. did you consider it necessary to _ done, why they had done it. did you consider it necessary to pursue i consider it necessary to pursue reasonable lines of inquiry in respect of a defence case that somebody had raised? the inquiry concerned the _ somebody had raised? the inquiry concerned the non-crediting, i somebody had raised? the inquiry concerned the non-crediting, and| concerned the non—crediting, and every line of inquiry was done regarding somebody not being credited with the cash that should have been deposited some weeks or months earlier. bud have been deposited some weeks or months earlier.— months earlier. and no lines of in . ui months earlier. and no lines of inquiry went — months earlier. and no lines of inquiry went to _ months earlier. and no lines of inquiry went to the _ months earlier. and no lines of inquiry went to the reliability . months earlier. and no lines of| inquiry went to the reliability of the horizon system for wreck of the horizon system was another issue. well, is the central issue in their defence statement, that is why i am asking. but defence statement, that is why i am askinr. �* ., ., , ., defence statement, that is why i am askinr. �* ., ., asking. but again, they are saying the have asking. but again, they are saying they have had _ asking. but again, they are saying they have had that, _ asking. but again, they are saying they have had that, but _ asking. but again, they are saying they have had that, but they i asking. but again, they are saying they have had that, but they still| they have had that, but they still committed that offence of not crediting... gyros. bud committed that offence of not crediting... gyros.— committed that offence of not crediting... gyros. and for you, the reasons for — crediting... gyros. and for you, the reasons for the _ crediting... gyros. and for you, the reasons for the discrepancy - crediting... gyros. and for you, the reasons for the discrepancy were i reasons for the discrepancy were simply relevant? hat reasons for the discrepancy were simply relevant?—

reasons for the discrepancy were simply relevant? not at all. they sa if simply relevant? not at all. they say if there _ simply relevant? not at all. they say if there is _ simply relevant? not at all. they say if there is losses, _ simply relevant? not at all. they say if there is losses, but - simply relevant? not at all. they say if there is losses, but it's i say if there is losses, but it's very difficult to try and find the losses if they make the accounts and paperwork that correct, as shown by the audits on the day, that was £550 surplus. the audits on the day, that was £550 surlus. ., ., , , . , ., ., surplus. one of the aspects, one of the thin . s surplus. one of the aspects, one of the things people — surplus. one of the aspects, one of the things people think— surplus. one of the aspects, one of the things people think about i surplus. one of the aspects, one of the things people think about when j the things people think about when they are deciding whether to charge somebody with a criminal offence, is the public interest in pursuing that charge. do you think the reliability of the underlying system that causes a discrepancy of a significant value, do you think that is important for considering the public interest in pursuing a criminal allegation? {lit interest in pursuing a criminal allegation?— interest in pursuing a criminal alleration? , , . , allegation? of the public interest in this case _ allegation? of the public interest in this case was _ allegation? of the public interest in this case was a _ allegation? of the public interest in this case was a charity - allegation? of the public interest in this case was a charity did i allegation? of the public interest in this case was a charity did not| in this case was a charity did not get credited with nearly £35,000 of people's money that they had donated to it. �* , ., people's money that they had donated to it. �* people's money that they had donated toit.�* . i, to it. and you can close your eyes entirely to — to it. and you can close your eyes entirely to the _ to it. and you can close your eyes entirely to the reason _ to it. and you can close your eyes entirely to the reason for - to it. and you can close your eyes entirely to the reason for that? i entirely to the reason for that? that's their rationale, but it doesn't affect that inquiry of the charity not being credited with £35,000 over a period of time. did ou see £35,000 over a period of time. did you see any burden on yourself as the investigator to pursue those

lines that had been raised by the defence in that case? rays t lines that had been raised by the defence in that case?— defence in that case? as i said, that's mitigation. _ defence in that case? as i said, that's mitigation. they - defence in that case? as i said, that's mitigation. they have i defence in that case? as i said, | that's mitigation. they have said they committed that offence because they committed that offence because they were having losses, but they never said, they were having losses, but they neversaid, i had a they were having losses, but they never said, i had a loss of this day and this, because they are making the paperwork correct. if and this, because they are making the paperwork correct.— and this, because they are making the paperwork correct. if they were makinr the paperwork correct. if they were making the — the paperwork correct. if they were making the paper— the paperwork correct. if they were making the paper were _ the paperwork correct. if they were making the paper were correct i making the paper were correct because a significant discrepancy had been caused by the horizon system that the post office had put into their offices, would you still have pursued a criminal prosecution? that's on the advice of cartright king. the inquiry was done based on giro deposits from people, members of the public, donating to a charity, not being credited to that charity. that's the line cartright king have taken. you charity. that's the line cartright king have taken.— king have taken. you were the investigator — king have taken. you were the investigator in _ king have taken. you were the investigator in the _ king have taken. you were the investigator in the case. i king have taken. you were the investigator in the case. you i king have taken. you were the i investigator in the case. you must have had a view. did you have a view of the if, for example, it could be shown that there was a significant

discrepancy in that branch caused by the horizon system, could you not have offered a view as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute that case? i is in the public interest to prosecute that case? i have explained. _ prosecute that case? i have explained. in _ prosecute that case? i have explained, in this _ prosecute that case? i have explained, in this case, i prosecute that case? i have explained, in this case, the| prosecute that case? i have i explained, in this case, the public interest is the people not getting their funds, interest is the people not getting theirfunds, what interest is the people not getting their funds, what they have given to their funds, what they have given to the charity, credited to the charity. i can't say anything further. that is another... that's their mitigation, as i keep using that they were having losses, but i am unable to try and find what the losses were. they couldn't tell us, i had a lot on this or that day. so the cause of a discrepancy would not feature in the assessment as to the public interest in prosecuting a case? rays public interest in prosecuting a case? �* . public interest in prosecuting a case? r ., public interest in prosecuting a case? ., , ., _ case? as i have previously explained to ou, case? as i have previously explained to you. everything — case? as i have previously explained to you, everything needs _ case? as i have previously explained to you, everything needs to - case? as i have previously explained to you, everything needs to be i case? as i have previously explained| to you, everything needs to be taken into context. ca n into context. can we look at page eight, please? a it is a letter from cartright king. to the solicitor of miss nield. if

we scroll down...