owe i’ over the ever the page, i limited. " if we go over the page, i am going to read some of that statement. he says, "i've been asked to provide a statement in the case of grant allen. i understand the integrity of the system has been questioned and this report provides some general information. i know that in the summary of facts, it is stated that during the period of relocation in march 2010, mr allen believed that a £3000 discrepancy was due to horizon not sending out data. non—polling. i've been shown extracts from the horizon non—polled reports from the eighth to the 17th of march which show that the winsford branch was included in the report for 12 days up to and including the 17th of march. this in itself is unusual, as if a branch appears on the non—polled report for more than a few days, an attempt is made to retrieve the data by other

means before day ten. i have no knowledge as to whether this occurred in this case or not. this confirms that there were indeed communications issues between horizon and the data centre at this time. however, it should have had no impact on data recorded locally within the branch, provided all operational processes are followed correctly. all historical data should have been sent back to the branch from the data centre as normal. i have not had the opportunity to examine the detailed logs from the period to see whether there were any issues or any justification in the claim that this resulted in a apparent system losses of £3000, as claimed. those final words in that final sentence, "i have not had the opportunity to examine the detailed logs," do you consider that to be a fair and accurate summary of the position we have seen in those e—mails? it

accurate summary of the position we have seen in those e-mails?- have seen in those e-mails? it looks that wa , have seen in those e-mails? it looks that way. that _ have seen in those e-mails? it looks that way, that goes _ have seen in those e-mails? it looks that way, that goes by _ have seen in those e-mails? it looks that way, that goes by the _ have seen in those e-mails? it looks that way, that goes by the previous i that way, that goes by the previous document you have shown, whoever made the decision has come through, asked mrjenkins not to look at it. my asked mrjenkins not to look at it. my stance still stays the same that if money is required, sort something out so it is paid. [30 if money is required, sort something out so it is paid.— out so it is paid. do you think it is important — out so it is paid. do you think it is important to _ out so it is paid. do you think it is important to have _ out so it is paid. do you think it is important to have a - out so it is paid. do you think it is important to have a fair - out so it is paid. do you think it is important to have a fair and l is important to have a fair and accurate witness statement in criminal proceedings? of course it is. is criminal proceedings? of course it is.- criminal proceedings? of course it is. criminal proceedings? ofcourseitis. , ~ of course it is. is it your view mr jennings. _ of course it is. is it your view mr jennings, jenkins _ of course it is. is it your view mr jennings, jenkins did _ of course it is. is it your view mr jennings, jenkins did that - of course it is. is it your view mr jennings, jenkins did that have l of course it is. is it your view mr l jennings, jenkins did that have the jennings, jenkins did that have the opportunity to examine the logs, do you think that is a fair description?— you think that is a fair description? you think that is a fair descri tion? �* . , ., , description? based on the first e-mail from — description? based on the first e-mail from mr _ description? based on the first e-mail from mr bolc, - description? based on the first e-mail from mr bolc, yes. - description? based on the first e-mail from mr bolc, yes. it . description? based on the first e-mailfrom mr bolc, yes. it is description? based on the first i e-mail from mr bolc, yes. it is a fair description? _ e-mail from mr bolc, yes. it is a fair description? no, _ e-mail from mr bolc, yes. it is a fair description? no, sorry, - e-mail from mr bolc, yes. it is a fair description? no, sorry, he i fair description? no, sorry, he should have _ fair description? no, sorry, he should have been _ fair description? no, sorry, he should have been given - fair description? no, sorry, he should have been given the i should have been given the opportunity to examine the data. there was the opportunity present, but it was not taken up.— but it was not taken up. based on the e-mail. _ but it was not taken up. based on the e-mail. you _ but it was not taken up. based on the e-mail, you are _ but it was not taken up. based on the e-mail, you are correct, - but it was not taken up. based on the e-mail, you are correct, yes. | the e—mail, you are correct, yes. can we look at the final page of this witness statement?

he ends the statement by saying, "i have been involved personally in a number of challenges to the integrity of the original horizon system and produced witness statements for a number of cases where the integrity has been challenged. i'm not aware of any cases where the integrity of horizon online has been successfully challenged in court. just pausing that, that is very similar to the wording of your statement that we looked at the very beginning of today in terms of not being aware of any successful in court. where you or anybody in your team involved in the drafting of this witness statement?— the drafting of this witness - statement?_ the the drafting of this witness statement? ., ., . ., the main statement? no, not at all. the main challenaes statement? no, not at all. the main challenges in — statement? no, not at all. the main challenges in the _ statement? no, not at all. the main challenges in the cases _ statement? no, not at all. the main challenges in the cases where - statement? no, not at all. the main challenges in the cases where i - statement? no, not at all. the main challenges in the cases where i have been involved were presented as hypothetical issues, and my previous statements went through these hypotheses and show that was no evidence for any of them in the data: evidence presented. in summary, i would say horizon would

fully and accurately record all the data submitted to it. however, i cannot compensate for any data that is incorrectly input into it as a result of human error, lack of training orfraud, and nor can any other system. can we please turn 20008965, please? this is your post—conviction report. i think you drafted this. it is what's known as the final report. it tries to summarise fully what had happened in the court. thank you. if we scroll down, it explains that mr allen had previously indicated that he would be willing to plead guilty on the basis that he cannot account for the loss, but admits covering it up, and says that was considered to be an acceptable plea. we then scroll down

to the bottom, and it says no cost of compensation was ordered as the defendant was due to declare himself bankrupt. there is the loss of £11,705 to post office limited, and the civil route should be considered to recover the outstanding amount. having not considered the underlying data in this particular case, how could you be satisfied that there was an actual loss of £11,705? again, without going through all that data, at the time, that's what. .. that data, at the time, that's what... and that last sort of paragraph, normally thejudge what... and that last sort of paragraph, normally the judge when summing up, when you are asked for cost, would normally say any outstanding claims to be done via the civil route. so mr allen admitted there was a shortfall, but the parting question is where did the parting question is where did the loss come from? he admitted it

because he told the auditors right at the beginning they were going to be £10,000 out, and that is where that has come from. fin be £10,000 out, and that is where that has come from.— be £10,000 out, and that is where that has come from. on the basis of his lea, that has come from. on the basis of his plea. as — that has come from. on the basis of his plea. as we _ that has come from. on the basis of his plea, as we just _ that has come from. on the basis of his plea, as we just saw, _ that has come from. on the basis of his plea, as we just saw, is - that has come from. on the basis of his plea, as we just saw, is that - that has come from. on the basis of his plea, as we just saw, is that he l his plea, as we just saw, is that he could not account for the last but admits covering it up. so his admission was, "i covered it up, i don't know how it happened". how could you be satisfied that that money had in fact been lost and it wasn'tjust simply a money had in fact been lost and it wasn't just simply a paper loss? at the time, you were told, as you have said on numerous occasions, while he was... for the horizon, we are told, as mrjenkins said in his statement, you know, that the system is ok. 100%, you couldn't, based on certainly what is known now, and we see today it was a paper loss. but whatever cash was in the post office would still always be there. i will move onto the case of noel

thomas, which can be found at 0017328. we will look at paragraphs 149—155. i'm afraid i don't have the page number. i think ithink mr i think mr thomas's case, i think you are sister diane matthews in that investigation.— you are sister diane matthews in that investigation.- -- i you are sister diane matthews in. that investigation.- -- you that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane _ that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane matthews. - that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane matthews. i - that investigation. correct. -- you assisted diane matthews. i will. that investigation. correct. -- you l assisted diane matthews. i will read from that judgment. _ assisted diane matthews. i will read from thatjudgment. " _ assisted diane matthews. i will read from thatjudgment. " mr— assisted diane matthews. i will read from thatjudgment. " mr thomas . from thatjudgment. " mr thomas worked as a postman between 1985-1992. he worked as a postman between 1985—1992. he became a sub—postmaster in 1994. in september the 29th, 2006 he pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting. mr

thomas's written basis of plea stated that no plane was attached to horizon, and that he accepted there was a shortage which he was contractually obliged to make good, but he did not know how it had come about. the post office accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case and that evidence from horizon was essential to mr thomas's case. mr thomas has stated he was having problems with horizon, in particular his online banking report showed several transactions with a nail amount. these were occasions when he paid money to a customer, but the system did not record the value of that transaction. this led to losses, so he altered the cash on hand figures to balance the accounts. in his interview on percussion, mrthomas accounts. in his interview on percussion, mr thomas of the alleged loss was due to mistakes in horizon and that he did not understand the system. he had made 13 calls to the

horizon help desk. it says although some ar 0, that is due to order data, was obtained, it was a dip sample and there was no evidence of zero transactions. it was not check for bugs or evidence of that. the prosecution produced a witness statement from mrjenkins explaining the horizon system and producing some arq data. mrjenksjenkins produced three schedules from that data to prove that they were normal occurrences. the next paragraph... they say, these factors are sufficient for the court to quash mr thomas's conviction on both grounds one and two. we were, however, presented with further information which bolsters our conclusion that mr thomas's prosecution should not have been brought, and which forms the basis of the post office's concession underground two. an attendance note, written by a post

office prosecution lawyer on the 0ffice prosecution lawyer on the case, recorded a conversation with an external solicitor. the notice dated 25th of september 2006, four days before mr thomas entered his plea at the crown court on the basis that horizon was not to blame for the shortage it records: "we discussed whether he should plead guilty to false accounting. i mentioned instructions that we would proceed with false accounting provided the defendant that the horizon system was working perfectly. further instructions are that some money should be repaid, and could inform jack that some agreements should be reached, taking into account the above instructions. i. as into account the above instructions. " as the post office accepts, there was no justification for imposing such a condition before accepting this to thomas's plea. then it continues and paragraph 455: "in our judgment, these additional factors are in themselves bound to bring the

justice system into disrepute, providing further strong reasons to allow the appeal underground two. " was it in your experience unusual for the post office to offer a plea on the basis that the defendant had to accept that the horizon system was working perfectly? i believe it has happened, in this case as well, but normally the prosecution and defence barristers speak. normally, when you might have the two charges, theft and false accounting, you may get the answer, you are willing to please to false accounting, but not to theft, and instructions will be taken from the post office solicitors, and it is accepted, but i think that is the angle they went down round about that time with the issues regarding horizon. in down round about that time with the issues regarding horizon.— issues regarding horizon. in your experience. _ issues regarding horizon. in your experience, where _ issues regarding horizon. in your experience, where their - experience, where their circumstances where the post office, in order to accept a plea, said that the defendant had to accept that the

horizon system was working? this the defendant had to accept that the horizon system was working? ben horizon system was working? as i said, i believe _ horizon system was working? as i said, i believe it _ horizon system was working? es 1 said, i believe it has horizon system was working? is i said, i believe it has happened. horizon system was working? as i | said, i believe it has happened. as it happened in a case you were involved in? i it happened in a case you were involved in?— involved in? i can't say for definite — involved in? i can't say for definite that _ involved in? i can't say for definite that it _ involved in? i can't say for definite that it has, - involved in? i can't say for definite that it has, sort . involved in? i can't say for| definite that it has, sort of involved in? i can't say for- definite that it has, sort of thing. but in mr thomas's interview, he did say he didn't like the horizon system, because he kept getting error notices, which indicated he was actually making the error, rather than it being the system, and that could be a reason why they may have gone down that line. flan that could be a reason why they may have gone down that line.— have gone down that line. can we lease have gone down that line. can we please look _ have gone down that line. can we please look at — have gone down that line. can we please look at 00,017,903? - please look at 00,017,903? this is a different case, the case of catherine jane mchugh. were you the officer in that case?— the officer in that case? correct. you were _ the officer in that case? correct. you were named _ the officer in that case? correct. you were named as _ the officer in that case? correct. you were named as disclosure i the officer in that case? correct. - you were named as disclosure officer and i think the interviewing officer in that case as well. yes. i in that case as well. yes. ., ., , .,

yes. i will read from this memo. it has our yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name _ yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at _ yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the _ yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the top. - yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the top. sent - yes. i will read from this memo. it has your name at the top. sent to | has your name at the top. sent to you by the principal lawyer. says: "the above case was heard in carlisle crown court when it was listed for trial. prior to the case being brought on, there was discussion between all parties with a view to establishing whether or not the pleas offered by defence would be acceptable. an indication was given that a plea to fraud might be acceptable as long as the defendant stipulated in her basis of plea that there was nothing wrong with horizon and she was responsible for the loss and recognise that confiscation would be sought should the loss not be repaid. in the afternoon, the matter was caught on in the indictment was put again, and the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of fraud, excepting there was nothing wrong with horizon and she was responsible for the loss. " just posing there, there was nothing there suggesting it came from the defence. it seems clear, doesn't it,

from this memo that it was... it looks that way, but again, the defence and prosecution would be talking. it is one part of... not the full story, so to say, of what has happened in court. [30 the full story, so to say, of what has happened in court.— the full story, so to say, of what has happened in court. do you think it is appropriate _ has happened in court. do you think it is appropriate for _ has happened in court. do you think it is appropriate for the _ has happened in court. do you think it is appropriate for the post - it is appropriate for the post office to say to a defendant that we might accept the second count on the indictment as long as the defendant indictment as long as the defendant in their basis of plea recognises that there is nothing wrong with horizon? it that there is nothing wrong with horizon? , ., ~ horizon? it might well be taken, because whatever _ horizon? it might well be taken, because whatever was _ horizon? it might well be taken, because whatever was said - horizon? it might well be taken, l because whatever was said during horizon? it might well be taken, - because whatever was said during the interview, and... just because whatever was said during the interview, and...— interview, and... just answer the question- — interview, and... just answer the question- i _ interview, and... just answer the question- i am — interview, and... just answer the question. i am trying _ interview, and... just answer the question. i am trying to - interview, and... just answer the question. i am trying to come - question. i am trying to come williams- _ williams. but it's a simple question. is it appropriate for someone representing the post _ appropriate for someone representing the post office to say, we will accept — the post office to say, we will accept your plea, but only if you don't _ accept your plea, but only if you don't flame horizon? probably not.- don't flame horizon? probably not. thank you.

and this _ probably not. thank you. and this is _ probably not. thank you. and this is the _ probably not. thank you. and this is the case - probably not. thank you. | and this is the case where probably not. thank you. - and this is the case where you probably not. thank you. _ and this is the case where you were the investigator in the case? as i was trying to explain, there was also a defence expert, and that would have been part of the discussion within the court as well, whatever the defence expert said. it might be something that was accepted, but i think your evidence you accept it would not be appropriate for the post office to make that condition in the first place. certainly with today's knowledge, no. �* . certainly with today's knowledge, no, i ., ., , ., certainly with today's knowledge, no. �* ., ., ~ ., i. no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that — no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was _ no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. _ no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. as _ no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. as | - no. but what about the knowledge you had then? that was 2011. as i said - had then? that was 2011. as i said there, had then? that was 2011. as i said there. that — had then? that was 2011. as i said there. that is _ had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the _ had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way _ had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way some - had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way some of- had then? that was 2011. as i said there, that is the way some of the j there, that is the way some of the cases were going, because of... whether the instructions come from the solicitors, because that's two. who's idea was it? we have seen it now in two cases. we have it in no thomas's case and missmchugh's case.

i had no dealing with that case, that was done with the other officer, and this is what was done with our solicitors.— officer, and this is what was done with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions _ with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from _ with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from their _ with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from their clients - with our solicitors. lawyers obtain instructions from their clients on i instructions from their clients on the whole. was the post office providing instructions to the lawyers in this respect given a where was this coming from? has lawyers in this respect given a where was this coming from? ben where was this coming from? as i have explained, _ where was this coming from? isi have explained, the investigation would put all the papers together and send it off to the lawyers. lawyers made the bulk of every decision. that would sort of come back to us. we wouldn't say, oh, yeah, we will have to claim as long as they see this or say that. that would be decided at a higher level than me, and its comes from, whether it is mr singh in charge of any of the other lawyers. can we look at the next, please?

this is mchugh's interview, and at this stage, you are the main officer? the inquiry was assigned to me, yes. if we scroll down, she did not have a lawyer present, but i think she had a friend from the captain on the national federation had a friend from the captain on the nationalfederation of national federation of sub—postmaster is. can we go over the page, please? it says, mrs mchugh was asked to explain... " sorry, i have lost it. "was asked to explain further the losses at the branch. she had only been inflating the cash to cover the losses since august 2008. mrs mchugh said she had losses at the time, but did not know what was causing the losses. " it says, "i haven't taken it as far as i am concerned. i don't think the staff had. mrs mchugh had kept the losses tear self and not on form star. she thought they were errors and would come back. if we

scroll down, it says, mrs mccue said she had not felt 100% with the horizon system. you were aware at the time that central to her defence was the horizon system, issues with the horizon system, issues with the horizon system?— horizon system, issues with the horizon system? yes. and does that... horizon system? yes. and does that- -- did _ horizon system? yes. and does that... did that _ horizon system? jezs and does that... did that impact in horizon system? 1ezs and does that... did that impact in any way horizon system? 1a:s and does that... did that impact in any way i knew were thinking about whether it was appropriate or not to ensure that any player was on a basis that the horizon system was working perfectly? of course it does, and as i say, a basis that the horizon system was working perfectly? of course it does, and as i say, i reported the facts of the interview and any inquiries made to the criminal law team. could be look at 001441225, please? —— could we

could we scroll down to page five, please? if we could scroll down to the bottom e—mail, we have an e—mail from andrew daly to a number of people, including yourself. if we keep on scrolling down, is related to duplication of transaction records in the fujitsu audits, arq returns. can you see there there is an e—mail about concerns that there may be duplication of transaction records on certain arq returns? and if we scroll down, over the page, we have the ring field post office, which is mrs mchugh's post office. the year before the plea was accepted on the basis that there was nothing wrong with horizon. do you

recall being informed that there might be issues with the transaction i am sure that the ar 0 data was obtained. and the issue is that where it is obtained, there may be a problem with the actual data itself. the data would _ with the actual data itself. the data would have _ with the actual data itself. tue: data would have been looked with the actual data itself. tue data would have been looked at to see whether there was duplicate data in there, because the transaction which showed the same, you would have two perfectly... sort of cash withdrawal with the same number and the same number at the same time. and knowing... this is 2010, so quite a bit of time before that plea was accepted. knowing these kinds of issues can arise with even audit data, in her case in the no thomas's case, do you think it was appropriate for the post office to be insisting on conditional pleas on the basis that there was nothing wrong with the system?

probably not, no. i have about 15 minutes, i would say, of questions before we move on to questions from court participants. we know we have an afternoon break at around this time. yes. and can i get some idea of the participation— yes. and can i get some idea of the participation of the core participants, if i can put it in that— participants, if i can put it in that way? _ participants, if i can put it in that way? are you going to ask some questions _ that way? are you going to ask some questions you a i need probably ten minutes _ questions you a i need probably ten minutes. that is fine. the pillar is intervening — intervening. mr- intervening. mr henry, paul... ? 15_ mr henry, paul... ? 15 minutes.- mr henry, paul... ? 15 minutes. ~ ., , 15 minutes. ok. well, anyone else, i should say? — should say? so. - should say? so, and my calculation, that is should say? — so, and my calculation, that is 35 minutes — minutes. yes.- minutes. yes. and what is the time now? it is now

yes. and what is the time now? it is now at _ yes. and what is the time now? it is now at pm. _ it is now at pm. so _ it is now at pm. so we - it is now at pm. so we will- it is now at pm. so we will have| it is now at pm. i so we will have a it is now at pm. - so we will have a three it is now at pm. _ so we will have a three —— a ten minute — so we will have a three —— a ten minute break, then i will hold each of you _ minute break, then i will hold each of you to _ minute break, then i will hold each of you to your time estimates. so you first. — of you to your time estimates. so you first. 151 _ of you to your time estimates. so you first, 15, then ten with mr jacobs. — you first, 15, then ten with mr jacobs, ten for you and 15 for mr henry. _ jacobs, ten for you and 15 for mr henry. and _ jacobs, ten for you and 15 for mr henry, and that will be it. | jacobs, ten for you and 15 for mr henry, and that will be it. i agreed that i henry, and that will be it. i agreed that i would _ henry, and that will be it. i agreed that i would go _ henry, and that will be it. i agreed that i would go first _ henry, and that will be it. i agreed that i would go first on _ henry, and that will be it. i agreed that i would go first on this - that i would go first on this occasion _ that i would go first on this occasion-— that i would go first on this occasion. ., ., ,., ., ., occasion. even more reason to hold ou to 15, occasion. even more reason to hold you to 15. then! _ you t015, then! jolly— you to 15, then! jolly good. i will see you in ten minutes — minutes. studio: the post office minutes. — studio: the post office inquiry there in central london, taking a short break. we have been hearing evidence all day, in fact, from stephen bradshaw, a former post office investigator. let's talk to our correspondence very conway, down at the inquiry, who has been listening to all of that evidence. just some up for us what we have been hearing over the past few hours. a very large part of this afternoon has focused on the cases of angela

sefton and anne nield. they were post office clerks in liverpool and they were convicted of false accounting and given custodial prison sentences, suspended. now, the reason why they were focusing on these cases is because stephen bradshaw was the investigator of these two women's involvement in what was alleged to be false accounting. they were convicted of false accounting. and their convictions were overturned in 2021. and at the court of appeal, the post office accepted that the prosecution of these two women had been unfair and an affront to justice, and the post office admitted that they had failed to carry out a proper investigation, and that evidence

from the horizon it system was essential to their defence. why am i giving you that background? because what stephen bradshaw has been asked this afternoon is, why is it that when angela sefton and anne nield's lawyers requested access to horizon because they wanted a forensic accountant to examine the it system to see whether the horizon system was to blame for the missing funds that they were accused of stealing, they were denied that access. as i say, at the court of appeal, the post office admitted that was wrong. what stephen bradshaw was asked this afternoon was, why was that access denied? he essentially kept saying it wasn't his decision is the investigator. that as far as he was concerned, the horizon system was not relevant in their case, and that decision was made by the higher up

ooh, if you like, the lawyers for the post office. it was their decision not to request that information. but as i say, as i have explained to you, this failure to give this evidence resulted in two women being given suspended custodial sentences. so really, this afternoon, when they have been trying to do is get to the bottom of how these investigations have been run, why stephen bradshaw didn't do more to find out possible bugs or floors within the horizon system. —— bugs or flaws. they were prosecuted for the giro deposit slips are not going on. hand deposit slips are not going on. and if ou deposit slips are not going on. and if you were — deposit slips are not going on. and if you were sure _ deposit slips are not going on. and if you were sure the underlying problem — if you were sure the underlying problem was a bug or discrepancy in the horizon — problem was a bug or discrepancy in the horizon system that caused that, would _ the horizon system that caused that, would you _ the horizon system that caused that, would you have prosecuted them still recovering _ would you have prosecuted them still recovering at up to a wrecker that is not _ recovering at up to a wrecker that is not my— recovering at up to a wrecker that is not my decision. that recovering at up to a wrecker that is not my decision.— recovering at up to a wrecker that is not my decision. that would have been made — is not my decision. that would have been made by _ is not my decision. that would have been made by the _ is not my decision. that would have been made by the criminal- is not my decision. that would have been made by the criminal law - is not my decision. that would have| been made by the criminal law team cartwright _ been made by the criminal law team cartwright king~ _ been made by the criminal law team cartwright king. do _ been made by the criminal law team

cartwright king. do not _ been made by the criminal law team cartwright king. do not think- been made by the criminal law team cartwright king. do not think it - cartwright king. do not think it would — cartwright king. do not think it would have _ cartwright king. do not think it would have been— cartwright king. do not think it would have been worth - cartwright king. do not think it - would have been worth investigating this inquiry? — would have been worth investigating this inquiry? this _ would have been worth investigating this inquiry? this inquiry— would have been worth investigating this inquiry? this inquiry was - this inquiry? this inquiry was solely— this inquiry? this inquiry was solely about _ this inquiry? this inquiry was solely about the _ this inquiry? this inquiry was solely about the non—credit i this inquiry? this inquiry wasl solely about the non—credit of people's— solely about the non—credit of people's money— solely about the non—credit of people's money being - solely about the non—credit of people's money being paid . solely about the non—credit of. people's money being paid into solely about the non—credit of - people's money being paid into their account. _ people's money being paid into their account. which— people's money being paid into their account, which ultimately— people's money being paid into their account, which ultimately caused - people's money being paid into their| account, which ultimately caused the charity— account, which ultimately caused the charity to _ account, which ultimately caused the charity to have — account, which ultimately caused the charity to have difficulty _ account, which ultimately caused the charity to have difficulty with - charity to have difficulty with their — charity to have difficulty with their cash _ charity to have difficulty with their cash flow _ charity to have difficulty with their cash flow problems. i charity to have difficulty with i their cash flow problems. that charity to have difficulty with - their cash flow problems. that is their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry— their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i _ their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked _ their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at. _ their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at. did - their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at.— their cash flow problems. that is the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about — the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about looking _ the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about looking into _ the inquiry i looked at. did you not think about looking into the - the inquiry i looked at. did you not. think about looking into the reasons for that— think about looking into the reasons for that discrepancy in a the discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came in _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came in to _ discrepancy was quite simple. when the customer came in to deposit money. — the customer came in to deposit money. they— the customer came in to deposit money. they did _ the customer came in to deposit money, they did not _ the customer came in to deposit money, they did not deposit - the customer came in to deposit money, they did not deposit the j money, they did not deposit the money — money, they did not deposit the money that _ money, they did not deposit the money. that was _ money, they did not deposit the money. that was the _ money, they did not deposit the money. that was the inquiry. i money. that was the inquiry. whatever— money. that was the inquiry. whatever happened - money. that was the inquiry. whatever happened before, i money. that was the inquiry. i whatever happened before, as i money. that was the inquiry. - whatever happened before, as i say, to use _ whatever happened before, as i say, to use the _ whatever happened before, as i say, to use the word — whatever happened before, as i say, to use the word mitigation, - whatever happened before, as i say, to use the word mitigation, they- to use the word mitigation, they haven't— to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought _ to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up _ to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up to _ to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up to say, - to use the word mitigation, they haven't brought up to say, this i to use the word mitigation, they. haven't brought up to say, this and this happened _ haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. they— haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. theyjust_ haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. theyjust said - haven't brought up to say, this and this happened. theyjust said theyl this happened. theyjust said they were covering _ this happened. theyjust said they were covering up— this happened. theyjust said they were covering up losses, - this happened. theyjust said they were covering up losses, but - this happened. theyjust said they were covering up losses, but no . were covering up losses, but no substantiation— were covering up losses, but no substantiation with _ were covering up losses, but no substantiation with it. _ were covering up losses, but no substantiation with it. the - were covering up losses, but no i substantiation with it. the inquiry was purely— substantiation with it. the inquiry was purely about— substantiation with it. the inquiry was purely about non—crediting . substantiation with it. the inquiryj was purely about non—crediting of people's— was purely about non—crediting of people's money _ was purely about non—crediting of people's money. you _ was purely about non-crediting of people's money-— was purely about non-crediting of people's money. you were aware that an important — people's money. you were aware that an important part _ people's money. you were aware that an important part of _ people's money. you were aware that an important part of their _ people's money. you were aware that an important part of their case - people's money. you were aware that an important part of their case in - an important part of their case in criminal— an important part of their case in criminal proceedings was that the underlying discrepancy was caused by bugs. _ underlying discrepancy was caused by bugs, errors or defects in horizon? as i say. _

bugs, errors or defects in horizon? as i say. not — bugs, errors or defects in horizon? as i say, not in this case. this case _ as i say, not in this case. this case was _ as i say, not in this case. this case was purely— as i say, not in this case. this case was purely that - as i say, not in this case. this case was purely that they - as i say, not in this case. this. case was purely that they didn't credit— case was purely that they didn't credit someone's_ case was purely that they didn't credit someone's deposit. - case was purely that they didn't credit someone's deposit. you i case was purely that they didn't i credit someone's deposit. you as case was purely that they didn't - credit someone's deposit. you as an individual. _ credit someone's deposit. you as an individual. me— credit someone's deposit. you as an individual. me as _ credit someone's deposit. you as an individual, me as a _ credit someone's deposit. you as an individual, me as a business - credit someone's deposit. you as an individual, me as a business or- individual, me as a business or somebody— individual, me as a business or somebody else _ individual, me as a business or somebody else as _ individual, me as a business or somebody else as a _ individual, me as a business or somebody else as a treasurer. | individual, me as a business or- somebody else as a treasurer. they have made — somebody else as a treasurer. they have made the _ somebody else as a treasurer. they have made the complaint— somebody else as a treasurer. they have made the complaint of- somebody else as a treasurer. theyj have made the complaint of saying, somebody else as a treasurer. they. have made the complaint of saying, i have made the complaint of saying, i have paid _ have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money— have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to _ have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to the _ have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to the post - have made the complaint of saying, i have paid money to the post office . have paid money to the post office and it _ have paid money to the post office and it is— have paid money to the post office and it is not — have paid money to the post office and it is not in— have paid money to the post office and it is not in my— have paid money to the post office and it is not in my account. - have paid money to the post office and it is not in my account. that. have paid money to the post office and it is not in my account. that is| and it is not in my account. that is what _ and it is not in my account. that is what was — and it is not in my account. that is what was locked _ and it is not in my account. that is what was locked into _ and it is not in my account. that is what was locked into on _ and it is not in my account. that is what was locked into on this - what was locked into on this occasion _ occasion. but - occasion. butjusti occasion. i butjust to occasion. - butjust to help occasion. _ but just to help you to make sense butjust to help you to make sense of that clip we have just heard from stephen bradshaw at the inquiry, what he is essentially saying is that in his opinion, the missing funds that angela sefton and anne nield were suspected of stealing, that it wasn't relevant to look at the horizon it system. that's what he kept saying again and again, and that's what he was saying in that clip. this is money, by the way, that was reported missing by a charity. their convictions, as i said, were overturned at the court of appeal to my career but what we have really been hearing throughout the afternoon, throughout the day, really, from stephen bradshaw, was

that he didn't know about the bugs, the faults within the horizon it system, that the higher ups at the post office, it was theirjob, he says to tell him if there were any issues. as far as he was concerned, there weren't any issues that he should be pursuing with these cases, and again and again, the councilfor the inquiry kept questioning him on this. but surely you must have known there were concerns? there were reports as far back as 2010 in publications like computer weekly that were shared with you by your colleagues. but again and again, he would say, i am not technically minded. this was not my decision, it was a decision for my bosses at the post office. just remind us how many people have been caught up in all of this and how long it has been going on for. well, the horizon it system was introduced in 1999, so this has been

going on for more than two decades. 900 people were convicted, but actually, this entire scandal, if you like, involved thousands of people, because not everyone was convicted. you have cases of people who say they lost their homes because they were forced to pay back money to the post office that they were accused of stealing, but they weren't necessarily convicted of a criminal offence. but the effect of their lives was still extremely serious. people talking about lost homes, talking about their family members having to bail them out. and some very traumatic stories that have been relayed to this inquiry. the particular phase we are in is all about how these cases have been prosecuted by the post office, how these investigators like stephen bradshaw, and i should reiterate that he is just one of several investigators, this was not all on

him, several investigators were involved, but that is the stage of the inquiry. it has already had some heart wrenching, gut wrenching testimony from the sub—postmaster is, the supposed mistresses who were accused of fraud, theft and false accounting. —— the sub—post mistresses. the witness statements that have been quoted today have been extremely difficult at times to hear. it should also be said that one of the other thing is that the investigator stephen bradshaw, who has worked for the post office since the late 1970s and still works for them, one thing that has been put to him is that his behaviour and that of other investigators has at times been bullying, threatening and unprofessional, and he has refuted those accusations, but we have heard from the branch managers of those post offices that he was pursuing

about their