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 experience of what it was like to be investigated by them. for example, we have heard from a woman who has talked about threatening calls from him and who has in fact been at the inquiry today listening to the man who interrogated her. she was not one of the people to be convicted, but she was accused of... forced to pay back a shortfall of thousands of pounds. that had a devastating effect on her life. it's not just been it's notjust been about the horizon it system, it's also been about his behaviour, his behaviour in the investigating team.— behaviour, his behaviour in the investigating team. among the sub- postmaster _ investigating team. among the sub- postmaster is _ investigating team. among the sub-postmaster is wrongly - investigating team. among the - sub-postmaster is wrongly prosecuted sub—postmaster is wrongly prosecuted is hasmur shingadia, his post office was used by the princess of wales

when she was growing up nearby and even got an invite to her wedding but his life was torn apart when he was prosecuted. spend any time in hasmur shingadia's shop and like hundreds of other former postmaster is up and down the uk, you understand why they are called a pillar of the community. in common with those hundreds, he was also accused of theft and hounded by the post office after accounting failure is with the malfunctioning horizon computer system. they were dark days. it horizon computer system. they were dark da s. . , ., , ., horizon computer system. they were dark da s. . , . , ., ., dark days. it was really hard, i had dark days. it was really hard, i had dark da s dark days. it was really hard, i had dark days and _ dark days. it was really hard, i had dark days and i _ dark days. it was really hard, i had dark days and i had _ dark days. it was really hard, i had dark days and i had suicidal- dark days and i had suicidal thoughts. what kept me fighting was to prove myself right at some point and for the sake of my family. i couldn't let them down. it wasn't their fault so why should i do something which would hurt them

further? . , , ., something which would hurt them further? . ,, ., , further? the princess of wales was brou . ht further? the princess of wales was brou:ht u- further? the princess of wales was brought up here. _ further? the princess of wales was brought up here. hasmukh - further? the princess of wales was brought up here. hasmukh and - further? the princess of wales was brought up here. hasmukh and his| brought up here. hasmukh and his wife were invited to the wedding. the family were among those who supported him, others turned their backs. hat supported him, others turned their backs. ., ., , _, , supported him, others turned their backs. ., ., , , , backs. not only the community, but also members _ backs. not only the community, but also members of _ backs. not only the community, but also members of my _ backs. not only the community, but also members of my own _ backs. not only the community, but also members of my own family. i also members of my own family. luckily there were other people who stood by me, including a good friend of mine who went around to get petitions assigned which was presented to the court at the time of my conviction —— petitions signed. thejudge was impressed, he said he had ever seen it before. he said he had ever seen it before. he said it would be a crime to send me to prison. said it would be a crime to send me to rison. .,, ~ said it would be a crime to send me to rison. ., ~ ., , ., to prison. hasmukh had been a magistrate _ to prison. hasmukh had been a magistrate but _ to prison. hasmukh had been a magistrate but was _ to prison. hasmukh had been a magistrate but was in - to prison. hasmukh had been a magistrate but was in the - to prison. hasmukh had been a magistrate but was in the dock| magistrate but was in the dock himself, accused of stealing money from the post office. he was given a suspended sentence and almost 200 hours of community service. that conviction was overturned nine years later. i conviction was overturned nine years later. . ., , conviction was overturned nine years later. . . , u, , , conviction was overturned nine years later. . . , , , later. i declared my cash, my stock, i've done it — later. i declared my cash, my stock, i've done it three _

later. i declared my cash, my stock, i've done it three times _ later. i declared my cash, my stock, i've done it three times and - later. i declared my cash, my stock, i've done it three times and i - later. i declared my cash, my stock, i've done it three times and i still i i've done it three times and i still can't _ i've done it three times and i still can't get — i've done it three times and i still can't get into balance.— i've done it three times and i still can't get into balance. now, thanks to the phenomenal _ can't get into balance. now, thanks to the phenomenal success - can't get into balance. now, thanks to the phenomenal success of- can't get into balance. now, thanks to the phenomenal success of itv'si to the phenomenal success of itv�*s drama about the scandal, he welcomes the prime minister's pledge. contemporaneous complaints made by some postmasters. can we look at the next poll? page 52. this is a letter to yourself that was ultimately exhibited in a county court case.

mrzaid hasa mr zaid has a record of investigation —— provided a record of investigation. it is essentially a complaint from him. if we scroll down further, we see he says the document investigation is a document of a history of events and a chain of a history of events and a chain of activities carried out and conducted by the investigators known as mr steve bradshaw, he doesn't know the name of the person from royal mail, and miss diane, presumably diane matthews. he says, this document is based on unpleasant experience, inappropriate exercise and improper conduct and practice, victimisation and bullying faced by mr zaid

victimisation and bullying faced by mrzaid during the victimisation and bullying faced by mr zaid during the undue suspension process. can we turn to page 57? he says, i entered into the house, mr bradshaw and miss diane were waiting for me. mr bradshaw showed me his identity, he pulled out some forms from a file he had and asked me to sign the forms. they were not ordinary, they were legal forms, consent to search my house. mr bradshaw told me they had come to search my house, whether i had stashed money, post office paperwork or documents. i was reluctant. mr bradshaw threatened to call the police if i did not consent, i

entered the house and mr bradshaw with his colleague... i was confused, lost and disappointed. mr bradshaw called his third colleague, waiting outside in the car. i let them carry out the search, my house was fully searched. even in the areas where i did not want them to. nothing was found, some financial details of my bank accounts were noted. because the discrepancy would noted. because the discrepancy would not exist physically, no cash was over or short so both were left unresolved, transferred into...

the process to clear the discrepancy was arranged. after detailed analysis, details prepared by steve, the discrepancy was found quite unrealistic and absolutely unnatural. during the interview, mr bradshaw shouted and try to put words into my mouth that i stole the money. it was very offensive and unacceptable but i replied and rejected his attempts to make me answer. on page 64, he said, "as i've said repeatedly, from day one of the problem raised, the discrepancy shortage is a genuine paperwork

mistake. computer error or human error by staff." moving on to another letter, this is a letter sent in 2009 from katie noblet. she was subpostmaster in lancashire. "i am writing to complete about the behaviour of two of your employees, caroline richards and steve bradshaw. the post office i work for is under investigation, we are no working all hours there. i received a phone call from steve bradshaw asking me to make a statement. he wanted my mobile phone number but i

do not use it for work. he asked if i had any free time during working hours which i replied, no, i'm working. i asked hours which i replied, no, i'm working. iasked if hours which i replied, no, i'm working. i asked if giving the statement was something i had to do. he said no, but it could get me in the clear. he phoned again the same day wanting to know if you could meet me to get a statement. i told him i need to think about it and i hadn't sought legal advice. the following day, mr bradshaw and miss richards came to my place of work and asked if i wanted to make a statement. he did not introduce himself. i told statement. he did not introduce himself. itold him i did not statement. he did not introduce himself. i told him i did not know because i had not had a chance to see legal advice —— seek legal advice. ifound steve very confrontational. i told steve i would not make a statement without legal representation. he told me i wasn't allowed one which is a complete lie. after a confrontational five minutes and after he didn't get what he wanted,

steve told caroline to close the post office which is not his authority to do. as i understand, stephen caroline left the store." these aren't case studies, we haven't looked into them but can you assist us with why it is that your name seems to crop up again and again? i name seems to crop up again and auain? u, �* name seems to crop up again and auain? �* ,., , , again? i can't understand because the are again? i can't understand because they are not _ again? i can't understand because they are not accurate. _ again? i can't understand because they are not accurate. concerning | again? i can't understand because i they are not accurate. concerning mr zaid, he would have been informed, the forms would have been explained to him and we would have arranged to meet him. the business at the time was for the voluntary search, it was always a requirement of three people to do a search if possible. where possible, there were always three people. possible, there were always three --eole. ,, , , . ., people. simply reflecting on the evidence that _ people. simply reflecting on the evidence that we've _ people. simply reflecting on the evidence that we've been - people. simply reflecting on the l evidence that we've been through today, from the interviews we've looked at, looking at these letters,

do you think that you might not have been as professional as you think? no, my stance is taken out of context. �* ., ., ., ., ., ., context. i'm going to move on to a few miscellaneous _ context. i'm going to move on to a few miscellaneous topics, - context. i'm going to move on to a few miscellaneous topics, some i context. i'm going to move on to a few miscellaneous topics, some of which have been raised... the first is contact with gareth jenkins. which have been raised... the first is contact with garethjenkins. can we please look at the document? page seven. at the bottom, we have an e—mailfrom seven. at the bottom, we have an e—mail from yourself to gareth jenkins. you say, "gareth, can you please see the attached report and our criminal law team ask you to consider the report and for your initial views and comments on the disclosure." if we scroll up, we

have his response, he says, "i'm not a whit of this case but when i spoke to charles mclachlan —— i'm not aware of this case, but i mentioned last week he was involved in a case in cumbria." we then have an e—mail on the previous page from penny thomas which seems to be a bit of a telling off from penny thomas to you. she says," steve, your request to gareth jenkins and his response to you have been copied to me, please be aware that it been copied to me, please be aware thatitis been copied to me, please be aware that it is against process for investigators to reproach fujitsu employees directly for assistance with litigation issues —— approach fujitsu employees." in terms of

garethjenkins, i think in your witness statement, you didn't really recall any... witness statement, you didn't really recall any- - -_ recall any... that's maybe once, twice maximum, _ recall any... that's maybe once, twice maximum, there - recall any... that's maybe once, twice maximum, there is - recall any... that's maybe once, | twice maximum, there is another e—mailfrom penny thomas twice maximum, there is another e—mail from penny thomas who explains why i contacted gareth jenkins directly. it was on the request of the criminal law team. normally everything would be done by the team in salford. there is an e—mailfrom penny thomas the team in salford. there is an e—mail from penny thomas that explains why i done it. e-mail from penny thomas that explains why i done it.— e-mail from penny thomas that explains why i done it. what was our explains why i done it. what was your assessment _ explains why i done it. what was your assessment of _ explains why i done it. what was your assessment of penny - explains why i done it. what was - your assessment of penny thomas's? something to do with the prosecution part of fujitsu, i only spoke to her a few times. part of fujitsu, i only spoke to her a few times-— part of fujitsu, i only spoke to her a few times. ~ . , ., , ., a few times. what did you understand the problem — a few times. what did you understand the problem to _ a few times. what did you understand the problem to be _ a few times. what did you understand the problem to be with _ a few times. what did you understand the problem to be with investigators l the problem to be with investigators contacting jenkins directly? thea;r contacting jenkins directly? they ut a contacting jenkins directly? they put a process — contacting jenkins directly? they put a process and _ contacting jenkins directly? tia: put a process and where contacting jenkins directly? tie: put a process and where we contacting jenkins directly? ti21 put a process and where we were to go via the in team who had the engagement with fujitsu, probably to

stop every investigator bombarding them with what is required. [30 stop every investigator bombarding them with what is required.- them with what is required. do you think you had _ them with what is required. do you think you had enough _ them with what is required. do you think you had enough contact - them with what is required. do you think you had enough contact with | think you had enough contact with fujitsu? it think you had enough contact with fu'itsu? ., , think you had enough contact with fu'itsu? . , . , ., fujitsu? it was always via the casework _ fujitsu? it was always via the casework team. _ fujitsu? it was always via the casework team. anything - fujitsu? it was always via the | casework team. anything that was required would go via the casework team. ., ., required would go via the casework team. ., ~ ,, ., ., team. thank you. if we go to the next document. _ team. thank you. if we go to the next document. we _ team. thank you. if we go to the next document. we have - team. thank you. if we go to the next document. we have there l team. thank you. if we go to the i next document. we have there are some comments that mrjenkins made. he says, "i've been asked to comment on the witness report produced by charles mclachlan. " can we bring on to screen your statement?

page five, paragraph ten. you say as relation, it relates to gareth jenkins, "i did not know he was expected to be an expert witness. my understanding of an expert witness is someone who has greater knowledge in their particular field than the ordinary person. i may have spoken with him at the same court but i do not recall having any discussions with him regarding his role." i received any training in relation to the role of an expert? i received any training in relation to the role of an expert?— the role of an expert? i can't recall any — the role of an expert? i can't recall any training _ the role of an expert? i can't recall any training for - the role of an expert? i can't recall any training for the - the role of an expert? i can't . recall any training for the expert witness. i think mrjenkins was considered by the business to be an expert witness. all requests went

via the casework team for anything from fujitsu. via the casework team for anything from fuiitsu-_ from fujitsu. you said your understanding _ from fujitsu. you said your understanding of _ from fujitsu. you said your understanding of an - from fujitsu. you said your understanding of an expert from fujitsu. you said your - understanding of an expert witness is someone who has greater knowledge. is someone who has greater knowledge-— is someone who has greater knowledue. ., ., is someone who has greater knowledue. , ., ., ., knowledge. somebody who had more knowledue knowledge. somebody who had more knowledge of— knowledge. somebody who had more knowledge of a _ knowledge. somebody who had more knowledge of a particular _ knowledge. somebody who had more knowledge of a particular field - knowledge. somebody who had more knowledge of a particular field than i knowledge of a particular field than someone else would be considered an expert. someone else would be considered an exert. ., . , someone else would be considered an exert. ., ., , , someone else would be considered an exert. ., . , , ,, expert. you are still employed by the post office _ expert. you are still employed by the post office in _ expert. you are still employed by the post office in the _ expert. you are still employed by the post office in the security - the post office in the security team. you have had a career that spans all of the issues that we have discussed including the bates litigation, including the hamilton appeals. do you think it's surprising you don't have a greater understanding of the role of an expert in proceedings? mrjenkins has the business... _ expert in proceedings? mrjenkins has the business... my _ expert in proceedings? mrjenkins - has the business... my understanding is it's someone who knows more than that particular field than the ordinary man.— that particular field than the ordina man. ., ., ~' ordinary man. you not think given everything — ordinary man. you not think given everything that — ordinary man. you not think given everything that has _ ordinary man. you not think given everything that has happened - ordinary man. you not think given everything that has happened at l ordinary man. you not think given i everything that has happened at the post office, you should perhaps familiarise yourself a bit better

with what the role of an expert witnesses?— with what the role of an expert witnesses? ., , , ., ., witnesses? considering investigation -wise, we haven't _ witnesses? considering investigation -wise, we haven't done _ witnesses? considering investigation -wise, we haven't done anything - witnesses? considering investigation -wise, we haven't done anything for| —wise, we haven't done anything for ten years. last time i did any investigation through to prosecution was probably sometime between january orjuly 2014. d0 was probably sometime between january orjuly 2014.— was probably sometime between january orjuly 2014. do you think it's unfortunate _ january orjuly 2014. do you think it's unfortunate that _ january orjuly 2014. do you think it's unfortunate that at _ january orjuly 2014. do you think it's unfortunate that at that - january orjuly 2014. do you think it's unfortunate that at that time | it's unfortunate that at that time you were not aware of what the role involved? with hindsight, of course. there is always a learning process. let's look at the next poll, please. this is an e—mailfrom andrew let's look at the next poll, please. this is an e—mail from andrew bolc himself in relation to chris branwell�*s case. if we look at the final paragraph, he says, "with regards to your statement which is being treated as an expert report, in effect, about horizon, thejudge

has directed your truly is with mr jenner, the author of the defence report, in the usual way between experts to identify the issues of disagreement between you." you had written a statement on this particular case that was effectively being treated as an expert's report. it depends which statement it is. i recall reading a statement which said, "i am not an expert". i would need to see this statement or they have taken the statement when i explained what we explained earlier about the machine, the screen etc, and if it's working correctly, what happens with transactions from start to finish. if they have taken that as being an expert, i'm not, i have as being an expert, i'm not, i have a working knowledge of horizon but i'm not an expert. d0 a working knowledge of horizon but i'm not an expert.— i'm not an expert. do you think it is a little odd _

i'm not an expert. do you think it is a little odd you _ i'm not an expert. do you think it is a little odd you are _ i'm not an expert. do you think it is a little odd you are being - is a little odd you are being treated as effectively an expert? and you haven't had any kind of discussion with anybody as to the role of an expert? in discussion with anybody as to the role of an expert?— role of an expert? in one of the statements. — role of an expert? in one of the statements, the _ role of an expert? in one of the statements, the beginning - role of an expert? in one of the statements, the beginning says role of an expert? in one of the l statements, the beginning says i role of an expert? in one of the - statements, the beginning says i am not an expert. did statements, the beginning says i am not an expert-_ not an expert. did you have any qualifications, _ not an expert. did you have any qualifications, whether - not an expert. did you have any qualifications, whether it - not an expert. did you have any| qualifications, whether it relates to giving expert evidence or if it relates to... to giving expert evidence or if it relates to- - -_ to giving expert evidence or if it relates to... certainly not expert evidence- _ relates to... certainly not expert evidence. white _ relates to... certainly not expert evidence. white how _ relates to... certainly not expert evidence. white how about - relates to... certainly not expert i evidence. white how about carrying out investigations? i've done the advanced courses with thames valley police and the metropolitan police, i've attended those kind of courses and cartwright king used to have sessions where they would go through whatever is there. we sessions where they would go through whatever is there.— whatever is there. we heard about our whatever is there. we heard about your progression _ whatever is there. we heard about your progression from _ whatever is there. we heard about your progression from telegraph l your progression from telegraph office, television inquiry officer, up office, television inquiry officer, up to the security team. do you

think you are provided with sufficient training? at think you are provided with sufficient training?- think you are provided with sufficient training? at the time, for each role, _ sufficient training? at the time, for each role, the _ sufficient training? at the time, for each role, the training, - sufficient training? at the time, | for each role, the training, where they took the role as the security and investigation manager, it was done by royal mail group traders. d0 done by royal mail group traders. do you think it was sufficient? i had - you think it was sufficient? i had no reason _ you think it was sufficient? i had no reason to _ you think it was sufficient? i had no reason to think _ you think it was sufficient? i had no reason to think it _ you think it was sufficient? i had no reason to think it wasn't - no reason to think it wasn't sufficient at the time. what about now? i've always _ sufficient at the time. what about now? i've always said, _ sufficient at the time. what about now? i've always said, there - sufficient at the time. what about l now? i've always said, there always opportunities _ now? i've always said, there always opportunities to _ now? i've always said, there always opportunities to learn _ now? i've always said, there always opportunities to learn more - now? i've always said, there always opportunities to learn more so - now? i've always said, there always opportunities to learn more so if. opportunities to learn more so if that was not considered sufficient, maybe it will be a three—week or a four—week course extra added on. hagar four-week course extra added on. how many weeks — four-week course extra added on. how many weeks do — four—week course extra added on. how many weeks do you think you have been trained on things like disclosure?— been trained on things like disclosure? ., , disclosure? there has always been the odd day _ disclosure? there has always been the odd day or _ disclosure? there has always been the odd day or two _ disclosure? there has always been the odd day or two days, _ disclosure? there has always been the odd day or two days, seminarsj the odd day or two days, seminars you've gone through. you

the odd day or two days, seminars you've gone through.— you've gone through. you had a cenerous you've gone through. you had a generous 15 _ you've gone through. you had a generous 15 minutes _ you've gone through. you had a generous 15 minutes and - you've gone through. you had a . generous 15 minutes and compared you've gone through. you had a - generous 15 minutes and compared to those _ generous 15 minutes and compared to those following year, unless it's something critical, i think we can hand _ something critical, i think we can hand over— something critical, i think we can hand over to the cps now. i�*m hand over to the cps now. i'm certainly _ hand over to the cps now. i'm certainly happy- _ hand over to the cps now. i'm certainly happy. i— hand over to the cps now. i'm certainly happy. i will- hand over to the cps now. i'm certainly happy. i will be - hand over to the cps now. i'm certainly happy. i will be the l certainly happy. i will be the arbiter of— certainly happy. i will be the arbiter of what _ certainly happy. i will be the arbiter of what is _ certainly happy. i will be the arbiter of what is critical - certainly happy. i will be the arbiter of what is critical or i certainly happy. i will be the i arbiter of what is critical or not. i arbiter of what is critical or not. i say— arbiter of what is critical or not. i say you — arbiter of what is critical or not. i say you stop and someone starts. mr henry. _ i say you stop and someone starts. mr henry. mr i say you stop and someone starts. mrhen . ~ m , . i say you stop and someone starts. mrhen . ~ , ., ., mr henry. mr bradshaw, contrary to what ou mr henry. mr bradshaw, contrary to what you say. _ mr henry. mr bradshaw, contrary to what you say. you — mr henry. mr bradshaw, contrary to what you say, you and _ mr henry. mr bradshaw, contrary to what you say, you and your- what you say, you and your department, the security department, were drenched in information that horizon wasn't working from the very beginning. horizon wasn't working from the very beaainnin. ., ., ., _, ., beginning. information come through, es. and beginning. information come through, yes- and that — beginning. information come through, yes. and that information _ beginning. information come through, yes. and that information came i beginning. information come through, yes. and that information came from | yes. and that information came from scores and scores _ yes. and that information came from scores and scores and _ yes. and that information came from scores and scores and ultimately i scores and scores and ultimately hundreds and hundreds of innocent sub—postmaster is who were suffering an epidemic of shortfalls. yes. it

came from _ an epidemic of shortfalls. yes. it came from what _ an epidemic of shortfalls. yes. it came from what they _ an epidemic of shortfalls. 123 it came from what they told you, but even before that, it came from the thousands of calls they are made to the help desk of the national business support centre and you would have been a weight of those calls, wouldn't you? hot would have been a weight of those calls, wouldn't you?— calls, wouldn't you? not all of them, it depends _ calls, wouldn't you? not all of them, it depends which i calls, wouldn't you? not all of. them, it depends which inquiry. which one are we talking about at the moment? i’m which one are we talking about at the moment?— which one are we talking about at the moment? i'm talking about the thousands upon _ the moment? i'm talking about the thousands upon thousands - the moment? i'm talking about the thousands upon thousands of i the moment? i'm talking about the thousands upon thousands of calls, anguished and perplexed calls, made by sub—postmaster as that they could not balance, that the system didn't balance. and your department would obviously have to have been communicating with the nbs see and also the horizon help desk —— nbsc.

you have to communicate with that department because integral to your duties in the security department was the enforcement of the contractual duties of sub—postmasters. contractual duties of sub-postmasters. contractual duties of sub-ostmasters. ., , contractual duties of sub-ostmasters. ., sub-postmasters. the call logs would have been requested _ sub-postmasters. the call logs would have been requested and _ sub-postmasters. the call logs would have been requested and there i sub-postmasters. the call logs would have been requested and there is i have been requested and there is nothing on the call logs to indicate there was any issues with horizon. i would not be creating with the nbsc team all the time, that's their role. �* , ., team all the time, that's their role. �* ., ., team all the time, that's their role. ., ., , , role. but you would have surely obtained as _ role. but you would have surely obtained as part _ role. but you would have surely obtained as part of _ role. but you would have surely obtained as part of your- obtained as part of your investigations the call logs? that's riaht investigations the call logs? that's ri . ht and investigations the call logs? that's right and the _ investigations the call logs? that's right and the call— investigations the call logs? that's right and the call logs _ investigations the call logs? that's right and the call logs would i investigations the call logs? that's right and the call logs would have l right and the call logs would have been interrogated to see what issues were there and a lot of the time you would see call logs... anything that would see call logs... anything that would relate to horizon would be

further interrogated. you would relate to horizon would be further interrogated.— would relate to horizon would be further interrogated. you and your department. _ further interrogated. you and your department. i— further interrogated. you and your department, i suggest, _ further interrogated. you and your department, i suggest, on - further interrogated. you and your department, i suggest, on the i department, i suggest, on the contrary, ignored anything that didn't fit the narrative that horizon was working. that's your suggestion- _ horizon was working. that's your suggestion. time _ horizon was working. that's your suggestion. time and _ horizon was working. that's your suggestion. time and time i horizon was working. that's your| suggestion. time and time again, when somebody _ suggestion. time and time again, when somebody ended _ suggestion. time and time again, when somebody ended up - suggestion. time and time again, when somebody ended up under. suggestion. time and time again, i when somebody ended up under your gaze, each solitary, often terrified sub—postmaster sitting across an interview desk from you or one of your team would have been told that they were the only ones with the problem. isn't that right?- problem. isn't that right? that's not correct _ problem. isn't that right? that's not correct at _ problem. isn't that right? that's not correct at all, _ problem. isn't that right? that's not correct at all, as _ problem. isn't that right? that's not correct at all, as i _ problem. isn't that right? that's not correct at all, as i explained | not correct at all, as i explained earlier, depending on the branch, if the person was the only one in that branch that had issues. i've never said that to anybody i've interviewed, that you are the only one that has this issue. i've never said that and i will stick to that. what i'm going to suggest as well as

you claim you are not getting the messaging from the top —— you were not getting the messaging from the top that you are not getting any information fed to you about unreliability with horizon from the top but that isn't right either. that's correct, i was not aware of any errors, bugs or defects. nobody said anything. second sight was put in on the message was that once they put a subject matter expert on, everything would be back to normal, that came from the top down, bottom—up. . b1:r that came from the top down, bottom-up- -_ that came from the top down, bottom-up. . that came from the top down, bottom-u.. j i:' ., bottom-up. . by 2012, when you are aaivin are bottom-up. . by 2012, when you are giving are prepared _ bottom-up. . by 2012, when you are giving are prepared to _ bottom-up. . by 2012, when you are giving are prepared to give - bottom-up. . by 2012, when you are giving are prepared to give expert i giving are prepared to give expert evidence, the problems with horizon were obvious, weren't they? 1 am evidence, the problems with horizon were obvious, weren't they? i am not an exert were obvious, weren't they? i am not an expert on — were obvious, weren't they? i am not an expert on horizon _ were obvious, weren't they? i am not an expert on horizon system. - were obvious, weren't they? i am not an expert on horizon system. the i an expert on horizon system. the la ers an expert on horizon system. the lawyers may _ an expert on horizon system. the lawyers may have written your statement but you signed it. that

was one statement _ statement but you signed it. “trust was one statement about the horizon issue that came from the business. you would have been aware of the pressure building up from the 2009 computer weekly article by rebecca thompson. 1 computer weekly article by rebecca thom son. .. computer weekly article by rebecca thomson. .. . . computer weekly article by rebecca thomson. ., , , ., , thompson. i had seen sight of it but i didn't thompson. i had seen sight of it but i didn't follow— thompson. i had seen sight of it but i didn't follow computer _ thompson. i had seen sight of it but i didn't follow computer weekly. i thompson. i had seen sight of it but. i didn't follow computer weekly. mps then became — i didn't follow computer weekly. mps then became involved, inquiring about their sub—postmaster constituents in parliamentary questions. mounting pressure. you would have been aware of all of that by the time you signed that statement.— by the time you signed that statement. ., , ., .., by the time you signed that statement. ., , ., .. ., statement. that statement came from the business- — statement. that statement came from the business. you _ statement. that statement came from the business. you would _ statement. that statement came from the business. you would have - statement. that statement came from the business. you would have been i the business. you would have been aware by that _ the business. you would have been aware by that time _ the business. you would have been aware by that time of _ the business. you would have been aware by that time of second i the business. you would have been| aware by that time of second sight. i ask you to reflect very carefully on this because i don't want to have to put to you something which i haven't put to any other witness before in this inquiry, but it is obvious that you would have received briefings from those above you. whether they still exist or not remains to be seen, but you would have received briefings from those

above you, that it was going to be business as usual, keep prosecuting, don't admit anything.— don't admit anything. prosecutions sto ed don't admit anything. prosecutions stopped and _ don't admit anything. prosecutions stopped and they _ don't admit anything. prosecutions stopped and they were _ don't admit anything. prosecutions stopped and they were relying i don't admit anything. prosecutions stopped and they were relying on | don't admit anything. prosecutionsj stopped and they were relying on a subject matter expert to come down and they said once the expert had done his part, they expected it to go back to normal. but that never materialised.— materialised. janet skinner, who sits behind _ materialised. janet skinner, who sits behind me, _ materialised. janet skinner, who sits behind me, whom _ materialised. janet skinner, who sits behind me, whom you i materialised. janet skinner, who i sits behind me, whom you interview together with your colleague diane matthews, made 116 calls to the nbsc about horizon. you heard that when mr blake was questioning you today. i said to mr blake, i had limited input into that. i was there on the day of the interview when miss matthews would have had the preinterview. i was there on the day. anything to do with cause would

have been done with dell back by miss matthews. —— would have been done by miss matthews. the miss matthews. -- would have been done by miss matthews.— miss matthews. -- would have been done by miss matthews. the court of a- eals done by miss matthews. the court of appeals criminal— done by miss matthews. the court of appeals criminal division _ done by miss matthews. the court of appeals criminal division announced l appeals criminal division announced when clearing mrs skinner of any wrongdoing that there had been an extraordinary failure to investigate the 116 calls she made to the nbsc in a relatively short space of time. you didn't look, did you? i personally didn't because you didn't look, did you? t personally didn't because the inquiry was miss matthews. i was there on the day of the interview. mrs skinner was persuaded by her lawyer to plead guilty to false accounting in return for the theft charges being dropped and was advised that she wouldn't go to prison as she pleaded to false accounting but was jailed for nine

months immediate custody. you have had the catalogue of failures that mr blake put to you. the woman that sits behind me —— beside me goes to prison for nine months. you have anything say to her? miss matthews was one who — anything say to her? miss matthews was one who dealt _ anything say to her? miss matthews was one who dealt with _ anything say to her? miss matthews was one who dealt with that. if i anything say to her? miss matthews was one who dealt with that. if mrs | was one who dealt with that. if mrs skinner has been dealt with wrong, that completely wrong but i had very little input into the case. diane matthews. _ little input into the case. diane matthews, your _ little input into the case. diane matthews, your colleague, i little input into the case. diane l matthews, your colleague, didn't think there was a case of theft. she would have discussed that with you? not necessarily. she would have discussed that with you? not necessarily.— not necessarily. she didn't think that janet skinner _ not necessarily. she didn't think that janet skinner had _ not necessarily. she didn't think that janet skinner had stolen i that janet skinner had stolen anything at all and there was no evidence of theft. are you saying she would not have discussed that with you? she would not have discussed that with ou? ., , ., ., with you? know, she would have re orted with you? know, she would have reported that — with you? know, she would have reported that the _ with you? know, she would have reported that the their _ with you? know, she would have reported that the their criminal l with you? know, she would have i reported that the their criminal law team. it was miss matthew's inquiry.

i had little input into that